12
J. Kooiman and M. Bavinck
Interactive governance therefore advocates wide participation in governance from a
normative as well as from a practical point of view.
Rather than being fi xed, interactive governance suggests that values, principles
and goals are simultaneously crafted and expressed as actors engage in social-political
exchange. Goals are then not given but negotiated, and are not stable but vary
according to the relative strength of the participants that come and go. Furthermore,
governance rarely starts from a grand plan. To the extent that such plans do exist,
they are an outcome that is typically arrived at through an incremental process of
interactive, experience-based learning. As a research tool, governance theory insists
that goals are treated as an empirical question rather than assumed. What are the
goals? How do they come about? Whose are they? What do they mean? Similar
questions are asked of the various groups of governors or stakeholders active in the
governance process: Who are they? What exactly is it that they have at stake? Who
de fi nes who they are? How do they come forward and make themselves heard
(Jentoft et al. 2011 ) ?
Governability
Within the interactive governance perspective, governability is de fi ned as “the overall
capacity for governance of any societal entity or system” ( Kooiman et al. 2008 , 3),
whereby a societal system is understood to consist of a combination of human and
natural characteristics. This de fi nition draws attention to governors’ differential
ability to solve societal problems and to create societal opportunities. What these
problems and opportunities actually are depends on societal perceptions and is
therefore subjective. But problems and opportunities can also be determined on the
basis of scienti fi c analysis.
The de fi nition of governability is built on the notion that societies, or parts thereof
termed societal systems, are made up of three related components: a system-to-begoverned, a governing system, and governing interactions (See Fig. 2.1 ). Our approach
suggests that governability depends on qualities of the object of governance (the system-to-be-governed), its subject (the governing system) and the relationship (governing interactions) between the two (Kooiman et al. 2008, 2010 ) . Governors, the
governed, and their interactions all contribute to the available governability.
This perspective has important consequences for an assessment of governing
capacities. Rather than attributing failure to a shortcoming of only the governing
system, it urges for a holistic assessment of the situation at hand. Governability
depends on the ability of a governing system to deliver on the challenges that the
system-to-be-governed raises. The latter, however, may well exceed the governors’
capacities. There are thus limitations to governability ( Jentoft 2007 ) . In other words,
not every situation is equally governable.
Governability also refers less to a state than to a variable process – it is not a
capacity that is given once and for all. Rather, governability changes in response to
internal as well as external conditions. Fisheries, for example, are often regarded as
J. Kooiman and M. Bavinck
Interactive governance therefore advocates wide participation in governance from a
normative as well as from a practical point of view.
Rather than being fi xed, interactive governance suggests that values, principles
and goals are simultaneously crafted and expressed as actors engage in social-political
exchange. Goals are then not given but negotiated, and are not stable but vary
according to the relative strength of the participants that come and go. Furthermore,
governance rarely starts from a grand plan. To the extent that such plans do exist,
they are an outcome that is typically arrived at through an incremental process of
interactive, experience-based learning. As a research tool, governance theory insists
that goals are treated as an empirical question rather than assumed. What are the
goals? How do they come about? Whose are they? What do they mean? Similar
questions are asked of the various groups of governors or stakeholders active in the
governance process: Who are they? What exactly is it that they have at stake? Who
de fi nes who they are? How do they come forward and make themselves heard
(Jentoft et al. 2011 ) ?
Governability
Within the interactive governance perspective, governability is de fi ned as “the overall
capacity for governance of any societal entity or system” ( Kooiman et al. 2008 , 3),
whereby a societal system is understood to consist of a combination of human and
natural characteristics. This de fi nition draws attention to governors’ differential
ability to solve societal problems and to create societal opportunities. What these
problems and opportunities actually are depends on societal perceptions and is
therefore subjective. But problems and opportunities can also be determined on the
basis of scienti fi c analysis.
The de fi nition of governability is built on the notion that societies, or parts thereof
termed societal systems, are made up of three related components: a system-to-begoverned, a governing system, and governing interactions (See Fig. 2.1 ). Our approach
suggests that governability depends on qualities of the object of governance (the system-to-be-governed), its subject (the governing system) and the relationship (governing interactions) between the two (Kooiman et al. 2008, 2010 ) . Governors, the
governed, and their interactions all contribute to the available governability.
This perspective has important consequences for an assessment of governing
capacities. Rather than attributing failure to a shortcoming of only the governing
system, it urges for a holistic assessment of the situation at hand. Governability
depends on the ability of a governing system to deliver on the challenges that the
system-to-be-governed raises. The latter, however, may well exceed the governors’
capacities. There are thus limitations to governability ( Jentoft 2007 ) . In other words,
not every situation is equally governable.
Governability also refers less to a state than to a variable process – it is not a
capacity that is given once and for all. Rather, governability changes in response to
internal as well as external conditions. Fisheries, for example, are often regarded as