180
J. Scholtens and M. Bavinck
Finally, we explore the relationship between governability and governing modes, or
styles. Modes constitute an important component in the edi fi ce of interaction theory,
and are considered to play an important role in determining governability (see Chaps.
1 and 2 of this volume).
Architectural Compatibility: Spatial Correspondence and Linkages
Primary activities like fi shing take place within bounded geographical spaces. These
spaces contain ‘things’ and ‘processes’ of various kinds that operate at different
scale levels. We can thus distinguish ecosystems from social, economic and administrative systems, each of which functions at its own scale level. Mismatches between
these scales are not only common, they can also be extremely problematic. Cumming
et al. ( 2006 , 3) therefore argue, “When the scales of social organization and environmental variation are mismatched, problems inevitably arise in either the social institutions that are responsible for management or the ecological systems that are
being managed.” In a similar vein, interactive governance theory argues that a
match between the scale level of the governing system and that of the systemto-be-governed is crucial for governance systems to function well (Kooiman 2008 ) .
Given the multiplicity of units and activities in each system, each with their own
boundaries, a coincidence of scales is anything but a regular affair. A system-to-begoverned may function at multiple levels of scale at the same time, as ecosystem
boundaries may, for example, not correspond with the boundaries of fi shing in a
particular locality. On the side of the governing system, a particular fi shery is often
subjected to multiple governing systems operating at different levels: e.g. a fi shing
association working at a local level and a fi sheries department operating at national or
regional levels. Although administrative systems are sometimes nested, situations
of legal pluralism are common (Jentoft et al. 2009 ) . The fi rst topic for assessing the
governability of fi shery systems is therefore the matching, or non-matching, of scale
levels within the fi shery.
Given the fact that the scales of a governing system rarely coincide perfectly with
a system-to-be-governed, Fanning et al. ( 2007 ) point out the importance of vertical
and horizontal interactions between governors, who can act to modify discrepancies
of scale. Communication channels between local, national and international governing actors constitute vertical linkages between scale levels, whereas horizontal
linkages are the channels between governing bodies that co-exist at similar levels.
The content of linkages varies from information sharing to full- fl edged cooperation.
Assessing the nature of linkages between different governing agents is important as
they provide insight into the capacity of the governing system to overcome discrepancies of scale.
Q1: To what extent does the scale of the natural system-to-be-governed, socialeconomic system-to-be-governed and governing system coincide, and what is the
nature of the linkages between the different governing system actors?
J. Scholtens and M. Bavinck
Finally, we explore the relationship between governability and governing modes, or
styles. Modes constitute an important component in the edi fi ce of interaction theory,
and are considered to play an important role in determining governability (see Chaps.
1 and 2 of this volume).
Architectural Compatibility: Spatial Correspondence and Linkages
Primary activities like fi shing take place within bounded geographical spaces. These
spaces contain ‘things’ and ‘processes’ of various kinds that operate at different
scale levels. We can thus distinguish ecosystems from social, economic and administrative systems, each of which functions at its own scale level. Mismatches between
these scales are not only common, they can also be extremely problematic. Cumming
et al. ( 2006 , 3) therefore argue, “When the scales of social organization and environmental variation are mismatched, problems inevitably arise in either the social institutions that are responsible for management or the ecological systems that are
being managed.” In a similar vein, interactive governance theory argues that a
match between the scale level of the governing system and that of the systemto-be-governed is crucial for governance systems to function well (Kooiman 2008 ) .
Given the multiplicity of units and activities in each system, each with their own
boundaries, a coincidence of scales is anything but a regular affair. A system-to-begoverned may function at multiple levels of scale at the same time, as ecosystem
boundaries may, for example, not correspond with the boundaries of fi shing in a
particular locality. On the side of the governing system, a particular fi shery is often
subjected to multiple governing systems operating at different levels: e.g. a fi shing
association working at a local level and a fi sheries department operating at national or
regional levels. Although administrative systems are sometimes nested, situations
of legal pluralism are common (Jentoft et al. 2009 ) . The fi rst topic for assessing the
governability of fi shery systems is therefore the matching, or non-matching, of scale
levels within the fi shery.
Given the fact that the scales of a governing system rarely coincide perfectly with
a system-to-be-governed, Fanning et al. ( 2007 ) point out the importance of vertical
and horizontal interactions between governors, who can act to modify discrepancies
of scale. Communication channels between local, national and international governing actors constitute vertical linkages between scale levels, whereas horizontal
linkages are the channels between governing bodies that co-exist at similar levels.
The content of linkages varies from information sharing to full- fl edged cooperation.
Assessing the nature of linkages between different governing agents is important as
they provide insight into the capacity of the governing system to overcome discrepancies of scale.
Q1: To what extent does the scale of the natural system-to-be-governed, socialeconomic system-to-be-governed and governing system coincide, and what is the
nature of the linkages between the different governing system actors?