10
J. Kooiman and M. Bavinck
‘governability’, provides a conceptual basis for assessing and improving the
governance of societal systems, such as fi sheries. There is a close relationship
between the two terms. An attempt to improve governance inevitably results in the
need to explore and assess governability. Vice versa, the governability of societal
systems can only be understood in/with reference to their basic qualities. Building
upon the earlier Fish for Life volume (Kooiman et al. 2005 ) , this chapter fi rst discusses the main characteristics of the interactive governance approach in the context
of other perspectives on governance. This is followed by an overview and elaboration of the governability concept.
The Range of Governance Theory
Ideas about governance have been around for a long time and few are therefore
entirely unfamiliar with its signi fi cance. Traditionally governance has been related
to governments and what governments do. In more recent social science interpretations, however, governance has acquired a broader meaning. Here, government is
not the only institution acting as governor. Private enterprises, civic organizations,
communities, political parties, universities, the media, and the general public,
among others, are all in one way or another involved in governance.
As is the case with other concepts in the popular vocabulary, the term ‘governance’ has different meanings for those who use it (for overviews see Pierre 2000 ;
Kjær 2004 ; Ezzamel and Reed 2008 ; Lockwood et al. 2010 ; Osborne 2010 ; Tor fi ng
et al. 2012 ) . These differences often revolve around the perceived role of the state,
viewed in a normative or in an analytical sense. In the more normative approaches,
such as those offered by the World Bank ( 1989, 2004 ) and the oft-quoted book,
‘Reinventing Government’ (Osborne and Gaebler 1992 ) , governments are often
seen as failing to live up to the expectations of those whom they govern. This is
shown in particular by analyses of weak, unstable, collapsing or failed states. Where
the state is unable to govern effectively, other actors from market and civil society
move into prominent governing positions. The recent fi nancial crisis may, however,
reverse this trend, as governments have been recognized as playing a crucial role in
maintaining public services and preventing disorder.
Governance theory comes in different versions and schools, all of which share
the view that governance is beyond government. This implies that it is possible to
have more governance but less government, and that the solution to many present
day challenges must involve other sectors of society in some form of a publicprivate partnership arrangement. This state of affairs is caused by societal realities
of diversity, dynamics and complexity, which preclude the state from acting as a
sole governor.
But there are also more analytically based conceptions of governance to which
we add the one developed in this book. Among such approaches are those
who view governance as networks (Rhodes 1997 ; Sørensen and Tor fi ng 2007 ) , and
perspectives that distinguish governance according to the scale-level at which it
J. Kooiman and M. Bavinck
‘governability’, provides a conceptual basis for assessing and improving the
governance of societal systems, such as fi sheries. There is a close relationship
between the two terms. An attempt to improve governance inevitably results in the
need to explore and assess governability. Vice versa, the governability of societal
systems can only be understood in/with reference to their basic qualities. Building
upon the earlier Fish for Life volume (Kooiman et al. 2005 ) , this chapter fi rst discusses the main characteristics of the interactive governance approach in the context
of other perspectives on governance. This is followed by an overview and elaboration of the governability concept.
The Range of Governance Theory
Ideas about governance have been around for a long time and few are therefore
entirely unfamiliar with its signi fi cance. Traditionally governance has been related
to governments and what governments do. In more recent social science interpretations, however, governance has acquired a broader meaning. Here, government is
not the only institution acting as governor. Private enterprises, civic organizations,
communities, political parties, universities, the media, and the general public,
among others, are all in one way or another involved in governance.
As is the case with other concepts in the popular vocabulary, the term ‘governance’ has different meanings for those who use it (for overviews see Pierre 2000 ;
Kjær 2004 ; Ezzamel and Reed 2008 ; Lockwood et al. 2010 ; Osborne 2010 ; Tor fi ng
et al. 2012 ) . These differences often revolve around the perceived role of the state,
viewed in a normative or in an analytical sense. In the more normative approaches,
such as those offered by the World Bank ( 1989, 2004 ) and the oft-quoted book,
‘Reinventing Government’ (Osborne and Gaebler 1992 ) , governments are often
seen as failing to live up to the expectations of those whom they govern. This is
shown in particular by analyses of weak, unstable, collapsing or failed states. Where
the state is unable to govern effectively, other actors from market and civil society
move into prominent governing positions. The recent fi nancial crisis may, however,
reverse this trend, as governments have been recognized as playing a crucial role in
maintaining public services and preventing disorder.
Governance theory comes in different versions and schools, all of which share
the view that governance is beyond government. This implies that it is possible to
have more governance but less government, and that the solution to many present
day challenges must involve other sectors of society in some form of a publicprivate partnership arrangement. This state of affairs is caused by societal realities
of diversity, dynamics and complexity, which preclude the state from acting as a
sole governor.
But there are also more analytically based conceptions of governance to which
we add the one developed in this book. Among such approaches are those
who view governance as networks (Rhodes 1997 ; Sørensen and Tor fi ng 2007 ) , and
perspectives that distinguish governance according to the scale-level at which it