309
16 A Network Perspective on Governing Interactions
Why Take a Network Perspective?
From a reductionist viewpoint, taking a network perspective facilitates addressing a
variety of questions that are important for assessing governability. The fi rst of these
is: “Who are the nodes?” This requires a process of stakeholder identi fi cation that is
fundamental to any governance initiative (Mahon et al. 2005 ) . Asking, “How do
these interactions relate to actors’ characteristics?” requires that the characteristics
of these stakeholders be assessed. Most importantly, a network approach within a
governability perspective facilitates the development of a detailed picture of the
types of interactions among the stakeholders or groups of stakeholders. It can provide a picture that identi fi es which ties represent the transfer of goods and services;
which ones are payments, whether in money or in kind, and which ones are governing. In this way, it can help reveal where the power in the governing system lies and
how it is used.
The ultimate aim is to assess and design interventions that will improve governance. The interactive governance approach to fi sheries (Bavinck et al. 2005 ; Mahon
et al. 2005 ) has suggested fi sheries governance can be improved through:
Promoting inclusivity;
•
Shared principles and values;
•
Enhancing learning systems.
•
The network approach allows for the formal assessment of points at which interventions might be useful and most effective, because, for example:
If stakeholders are weakly engaged, inclusivity is dif fi cult to achieve;
•
If interaction pathways are absent or controlled, sharing will be constrained;
•
If information fl ow/feedback is weak, there will be a low probability of
•
learning.
A simple, small-scale pelagic fi shery on the west coast of Grenada is illustrated
in Fig. 16.6 . It shows the difference between the resource use network and the governing network. It also shows where governing interactions are expected to occur,
but are currently lacking. Depending on the interactions that are considered, these
gaps may, in network terms, be missing links or ‘holes’. In Fig. 16.6 , for example,
although you would expect them to be linked in order to complete the fi sh marketing
chain, retailers are outside the network of governance exchanges. Perhaps they are
excluded because they operate mainly ‘under the radar’ of regulation in the informal
economy. These insights often provide valuable information about the speci fi c target region and the key nodes to be explored in further research or addressed by
interventions. It may not be necessary or desirable to repair these gaps, but it helps
to understand why they exist. This in part because constraints on connectivity may
be due, among other things, to the exercise of power elsewhere in the network. For
example, indebtedness to a speci fi c buyer may prevent fi shers from transacting business with other buyers, thus distorting the local market but also potentially creating
the economies of scale and stability of supply needed for export marketing.
16 A Network Perspective on Governing Interactions
Why Take a Network Perspective?
From a reductionist viewpoint, taking a network perspective facilitates addressing a
variety of questions that are important for assessing governability. The fi rst of these
is: “Who are the nodes?” This requires a process of stakeholder identi fi cation that is
fundamental to any governance initiative (Mahon et al. 2005 ) . Asking, “How do
these interactions relate to actors’ characteristics?” requires that the characteristics
of these stakeholders be assessed. Most importantly, a network approach within a
governability perspective facilitates the development of a detailed picture of the
types of interactions among the stakeholders or groups of stakeholders. It can provide a picture that identi fi es which ties represent the transfer of goods and services;
which ones are payments, whether in money or in kind, and which ones are governing. In this way, it can help reveal where the power in the governing system lies and
how it is used.
The ultimate aim is to assess and design interventions that will improve governance. The interactive governance approach to fi sheries (Bavinck et al. 2005 ; Mahon
et al. 2005 ) has suggested fi sheries governance can be improved through:
Promoting inclusivity;
•
Shared principles and values;
•
Enhancing learning systems.
•
The network approach allows for the formal assessment of points at which interventions might be useful and most effective, because, for example:
If stakeholders are weakly engaged, inclusivity is dif fi cult to achieve;
•
If interaction pathways are absent or controlled, sharing will be constrained;
•
If information fl ow/feedback is weak, there will be a low probability of
•
learning.
A simple, small-scale pelagic fi shery on the west coast of Grenada is illustrated
in Fig. 16.6 . It shows the difference between the resource use network and the governing network. It also shows where governing interactions are expected to occur,
but are currently lacking. Depending on the interactions that are considered, these
gaps may, in network terms, be missing links or ‘holes’. In Fig. 16.6 , for example,
although you would expect them to be linked in order to complete the fi sh marketing
chain, retailers are outside the network of governance exchanges. Perhaps they are
excluded because they operate mainly ‘under the radar’ of regulation in the informal
economy. These insights often provide valuable information about the speci fi c target region and the key nodes to be explored in further research or addressed by
interventions. It may not be necessary or desirable to repair these gaps, but it helps
to understand why they exist. This in part because constraints on connectivity may
be due, among other things, to the exercise of power elsewhere in the network. For
example, indebtedness to a speci fi c buyer may prevent fi shers from transacting business with other buyers, thus distorting the local market but also potentially creating
the economies of scale and stability of supply needed for export marketing.