181
10 South Indian Trawl Fisheries – Assessing Their Governability
Attunement: Sensitivity, Flexibility and Responsiveness
Bavinck and Salagrama ( 2008 ) argue that rather than a mirroring of features, the
important issue is the availability of a “governance induced response” to problems
that occur in the system-to-be-governed (Bavinck and Salagrama 2008 , 7; also see
Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2009 , 112). In this section we are fi rst interested in
exploring the structural factors that facilitate such responsiveness.
Jentoft ( 2007 , 364) argues that if diversity of a system-to-be-governed is high, it
is crucial for governance to take place close to where the particular problem or
opportunity is manifested. Governing a diverse system-to-be-governed requires the
solicitation of expertise and experience from stakeholders; it calls for sensitive and
particularistic governing approaches. Queries related to sensitivity include: are there
institutionalized arrangements for collecting feedback on the effects of governance,
such as regular stakeholder consultation meetings; is there a point of reference that
guides the question of who is incorporated in such meetings?
On the other hand, dynamics in a system-to-be-governed, notably the systems that
face a high incidence of (sometimes unpredictable) change, call for a governing system
that is fl exible. A fl exible governing system is characterized by a continuous willingness to adapt to changing circumstances and a preparedness for sudden change and
discontinuity (Jentoft 2007 ) . Do governors consider interventions to be trial-and-error
operations or fi xed frames to be imposed on the system-to-be-governed? Is there a
proper system of monitoring and evaluation to facilitate learning? Assessing a fi shery
along the criteria of sensitivity and fl exibility provides insight into the availability of
preconditions for attunement – the topic we turn to next.
Q2: To what extent does the available governing system possess qualities of sensitivity and fl exibility required for dealing with diversity and dynamics in the systemto-be-governed?
Attunement denotes an interactive process between the governing system and the
system-to-be-governed, which is intended to address the problems and opportunities that occur in a fi shery. Working in the fi eld of corporate governance, Orlitzky
and Swanson ( 2002 ) argue that, in a fi rm, attunement is basically determined by an
executive’s receptivity and the extent to which he/she uses his/her discretionary
powers to facilitate a response. Translated to the fi eld of resource management, this
suggests that attunement depends on particular qualities of the governing system.
The fi rst of these qualities is receptivity, while the second is the willingness to proactively deal with the information received. As Pitkin ( 1968 ) argues, “There need
not to be a constant activity of responding but there must be a constant condition of
responsive ness , or potential readiness to respond” (Pitkin 1968 , quoted in Kooiman
2003 , 177, italic in original).
Q3: To what extent is the governing system responsive, that means receptive and
proactive, towards the demands present in the system-to-be-governed?
10 South Indian Trawl Fisheries – Assessing Their Governability
Attunement: Sensitivity, Flexibility and Responsiveness
Bavinck and Salagrama ( 2008 ) argue that rather than a mirroring of features, the
important issue is the availability of a “governance induced response” to problems
that occur in the system-to-be-governed (Bavinck and Salagrama 2008 , 7; also see
Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2009 , 112). In this section we are fi rst interested in
exploring the structural factors that facilitate such responsiveness.
Jentoft ( 2007 , 364) argues that if diversity of a system-to-be-governed is high, it
is crucial for governance to take place close to where the particular problem or
opportunity is manifested. Governing a diverse system-to-be-governed requires the
solicitation of expertise and experience from stakeholders; it calls for sensitive and
particularistic governing approaches. Queries related to sensitivity include: are there
institutionalized arrangements for collecting feedback on the effects of governance,
such as regular stakeholder consultation meetings; is there a point of reference that
guides the question of who is incorporated in such meetings?
On the other hand, dynamics in a system-to-be-governed, notably the systems that
face a high incidence of (sometimes unpredictable) change, call for a governing system
that is fl exible. A fl exible governing system is characterized by a continuous willingness to adapt to changing circumstances and a preparedness for sudden change and
discontinuity (Jentoft 2007 ) . Do governors consider interventions to be trial-and-error
operations or fi xed frames to be imposed on the system-to-be-governed? Is there a
proper system of monitoring and evaluation to facilitate learning? Assessing a fi shery
along the criteria of sensitivity and fl exibility provides insight into the availability of
preconditions for attunement – the topic we turn to next.
Q2: To what extent does the available governing system possess qualities of sensitivity and fl exibility required for dealing with diversity and dynamics in the systemto-be-governed?
Attunement denotes an interactive process between the governing system and the
system-to-be-governed, which is intended to address the problems and opportunities that occur in a fi shery. Working in the fi eld of corporate governance, Orlitzky
and Swanson ( 2002 ) argue that, in a fi rm, attunement is basically determined by an
executive’s receptivity and the extent to which he/she uses his/her discretionary
powers to facilitate a response. Translated to the fi eld of resource management, this
suggests that attunement depends on particular qualities of the governing system.
The fi rst of these qualities is receptivity, while the second is the willingness to proactively deal with the information received. As Pitkin ( 1968 ) argues, “There need
not to be a constant activity of responding but there must be a constant condition of
responsive ness , or potential readiness to respond” (Pitkin 1968 , quoted in Kooiman
2003 , 177, italic in original).
Q3: To what extent is the governing system responsive, that means receptive and
proactive, towards the demands present in the system-to-be-governed?