182
J. Scholtens and M. Bavinck
Attunement can also be assessed through the modes by which governance takes
place. Interactive governance theory distinguishes between three ideal-typical modes
or styles of governance: self-governance, co-governance and hierarchical governance
(Kooiman 2003 ) . It is argued that each mode possesses particular capacities and
weaknesses, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that different systems-to-begoverned require different (mixes of) governance modes. Before investigating which
governance modes are required in a particular context, we inquire as to whether
some governance modes are naturally more responsive than others. For example, in
instances where governors govern themselves (self-governance), governance
responses to emerging problems may be faster and to the point than in the case of
hierarchical governance, which is typically slow and bureaucratic. This does not,
however, imply that self-governance, from the viewpoint of match, is necessarily
more desirable. Self-governance bodies are typically local and their authority has a
limited spatial scale – as a consequence, they are frequently unable to deal with problems that exceed this scale level. What is more, self- and co-modes of governance
often need a stick in the background, “if not for other reasons then at least for the
well-known free-riders who may threaten cooperative efforts” (Pascual-Fernandez
et al. 2005 , 221). Hence, interactive governance theory argues that many problems
must be addressed by a combination of governance modes, rather than a single one.
Jentoft ( 2007 ) has proposed two ways of investigating the process of optimizing
modes on the basis of the characteristics of a given fi shery. The fi rst approach
inquires into the governing mode that best fi ts the features of the system-to-begoverned. Jentoft ( 2007 ) argues that a high measure of diversity in a system-tobe-governed is best handled in the self-governance mode, which is most sensitive to
variation. Dynamics, on the other hand, requires co-governance, as this tends to be
more inclusive and fl exible. He adds that systems that are particularly vulnerable
may well bene fi t from a more hierarchical style of governance.
The second approach proceeds from the principle of subsidiarity (Jentoft et al.
2011 ) . Subsidiarity suggests that responsibility for governance should be located at
the lowest possible organizational level (Bavinck and Jentoft 2011 ) . Hierarchical
governance is then the fallback alternative if neither self-governance nor co-governance are up to the tasks at hand. When assessing the suitability of the current mix
of governance modes, we should thus also inquire whether there are issues that are
dealt with at an unnecessarily high governance level, and whether a devolution of
authority might yield bene fi ts.
Q4: To what extent is the present mix of governance modes appropriate for dealing
with diversity and dynamics in the system-to-be-governed, and to what extent are
issues in the system-to-be-governed dealt with appropriate levels of governance?
The Palk Bay Trawl Fisheries
The demarcation of the boundaries of the societal system in question is a useful
starting point for a governability assessment. The fi rst boundary to be considered
here is a geographical one. It is designated by the term Palk Bay, a marine space
J. Scholtens and M. Bavinck
Attunement can also be assessed through the modes by which governance takes
place. Interactive governance theory distinguishes between three ideal-typical modes
or styles of governance: self-governance, co-governance and hierarchical governance
(Kooiman 2003 ) . It is argued that each mode possesses particular capacities and
weaknesses, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that different systems-to-begoverned require different (mixes of) governance modes. Before investigating which
governance modes are required in a particular context, we inquire as to whether
some governance modes are naturally more responsive than others. For example, in
instances where governors govern themselves (self-governance), governance
responses to emerging problems may be faster and to the point than in the case of
hierarchical governance, which is typically slow and bureaucratic. This does not,
however, imply that self-governance, from the viewpoint of match, is necessarily
more desirable. Self-governance bodies are typically local and their authority has a
limited spatial scale – as a consequence, they are frequently unable to deal with problems that exceed this scale level. What is more, self- and co-modes of governance
often need a stick in the background, “if not for other reasons then at least for the
well-known free-riders who may threaten cooperative efforts” (Pascual-Fernandez
et al. 2005 , 221). Hence, interactive governance theory argues that many problems
must be addressed by a combination of governance modes, rather than a single one.
Jentoft ( 2007 ) has proposed two ways of investigating the process of optimizing
modes on the basis of the characteristics of a given fi shery. The fi rst approach
inquires into the governing mode that best fi ts the features of the system-to-begoverned. Jentoft ( 2007 ) argues that a high measure of diversity in a system-tobe-governed is best handled in the self-governance mode, which is most sensitive to
variation. Dynamics, on the other hand, requires co-governance, as this tends to be
more inclusive and fl exible. He adds that systems that are particularly vulnerable
may well bene fi t from a more hierarchical style of governance.
The second approach proceeds from the principle of subsidiarity (Jentoft et al.
2011 ) . Subsidiarity suggests that responsibility for governance should be located at
the lowest possible organizational level (Bavinck and Jentoft 2011 ) . Hierarchical
governance is then the fallback alternative if neither self-governance nor co-governance are up to the tasks at hand. When assessing the suitability of the current mix
of governance modes, we should thus also inquire whether there are issues that are
dealt with at an unnecessarily high governance level, and whether a devolution of
authority might yield bene fi ts.
Q4: To what extent is the present mix of governance modes appropriate for dealing
with diversity and dynamics in the system-to-be-governed, and to what extent are
issues in the system-to-be-governed dealt with appropriate levels of governance?
The Palk Bay Trawl Fisheries
The demarcation of the boundaries of the societal system in question is a useful
starting point for a governability assessment. The fi rst boundary to be considered
here is a geographical one. It is designated by the term Palk Bay, a marine space