17
2 Theorizing Governability – The Interactive Governance Perspective
another. Public bureaucracies seldom have a good reputation, although recently
there is a revived interest in their positive contributions (Olsen 2005 ) . Bureaucracies
are here to stay and certainly deserve a place in our thinking about governability.
This also applies to phenomena such as corruption and non-compliance. These phenomena are not temporary, incidental or limited to speci fi c parts of the world, as was
thought for a long time (Williams 2000 ) . Of course they also occur in fi sheries
(Hauck 2008 ; Hanich and Tsamenyi 2009 ) .
How can we conceptualize the market as part of governing system and assess its
contribution to governability? Answers to this question depend heavily on one’s
disciplinary vantage point. Shipman ( 1999 ) , for example, views the market as productive and ef fi cient in the allocation of resources; it makes full use of capacity as
well as employment, and aims at optimum growth. Lindblom ( 2001 ) , on the other
hand, considers the market to be a system of society-wide coordination with mutual
interactions in the form of transactions. It is not competition that coordinates the
market, but instead a combination of competition and social cooperation. Fligstein
( 2001 ) views markets through the lens of politics. In his opinion, fi rms desire stable
markets; they defend and control their positions not only through exchange transactions but also by using power (also Swedberg 2005 ) . All three perspectives (and
there are many more) emphasize the part played by markets in the governing process. The fi rst highlights markets’ capacity to self-organize competition, the second
stresses the role of competition and cooperation, and the last one draws attention to
competition and power. But markets also have their limitations, as is brought out by
the term ‘market failure’, and the economic crises of the past decade. Market
approaches prevail in contemporary fi sheries management, such in the promotion of
transferable quotas and seafood labelling.
While much debated, civil society is not a very clearly de fi ned entity. Non-pro fi t
organizations such as religious bodies, professional associations, social movements
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are generally considered to make up
its core; academic institutions and the media are boundary cases (Müller 1996 ).
Observers frequently consider civil society to make a positive contribution to
governance and governability, for example by providing a moral foundation (Wolfe
1989 ) . But there is criticism as well (Lewis 2002 ; Lewis and Opoku-Mensah 2006 ) .
Changing normative criteria on effectiveness and even legitimacy, as well as predilections to ‘bring the state back in’, play a role in this re-evaluation. From the
interactive governance viewpoint, civil society’s main contribution to governability
is the channeling of societal activities for governance purposes. However the central
role of user-groups as part of civil society in the governance of fi sheries must also
be critically reviewed (Jentoft and McCay 2003 ; Mikalsen et al. 2007 ) .
The distinction between three realms of governing we have made here is of
course an analytical one. Moreover, it is a simpli fi cation of societal reality. The
boundaries between state, market and civil society are permeable and constantly
changing. For a long time the state has been considered to interpenetrate the other
two realms, but recently the market has regained some of its lost territory. There are
also many so-called hybrid institutions, and their role in governance appears to be
growing (Van Tulder and Van der Zwart 2006 ) .
2 Theorizing Governability – The Interactive Governance Perspective
another. Public bureaucracies seldom have a good reputation, although recently
there is a revived interest in their positive contributions (Olsen 2005 ) . Bureaucracies
are here to stay and certainly deserve a place in our thinking about governability.
This also applies to phenomena such as corruption and non-compliance. These phenomena are not temporary, incidental or limited to speci fi c parts of the world, as was
thought for a long time (Williams 2000 ) . Of course they also occur in fi sheries
(Hauck 2008 ; Hanich and Tsamenyi 2009 ) .
How can we conceptualize the market as part of governing system and assess its
contribution to governability? Answers to this question depend heavily on one’s
disciplinary vantage point. Shipman ( 1999 ) , for example, views the market as productive and ef fi cient in the allocation of resources; it makes full use of capacity as
well as employment, and aims at optimum growth. Lindblom ( 2001 ) , on the other
hand, considers the market to be a system of society-wide coordination with mutual
interactions in the form of transactions. It is not competition that coordinates the
market, but instead a combination of competition and social cooperation. Fligstein
( 2001 ) views markets through the lens of politics. In his opinion, fi rms desire stable
markets; they defend and control their positions not only through exchange transactions but also by using power (also Swedberg 2005 ) . All three perspectives (and
there are many more) emphasize the part played by markets in the governing process. The fi rst highlights markets’ capacity to self-organize competition, the second
stresses the role of competition and cooperation, and the last one draws attention to
competition and power. But markets also have their limitations, as is brought out by
the term ‘market failure’, and the economic crises of the past decade. Market
approaches prevail in contemporary fi sheries management, such in the promotion of
transferable quotas and seafood labelling.
While much debated, civil society is not a very clearly de fi ned entity. Non-pro fi t
organizations such as religious bodies, professional associations, social movements
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are generally considered to make up
its core; academic institutions and the media are boundary cases (Müller 1996 ).
Observers frequently consider civil society to make a positive contribution to
governance and governability, for example by providing a moral foundation (Wolfe
1989 ) . But there is criticism as well (Lewis 2002 ; Lewis and Opoku-Mensah 2006 ) .
Changing normative criteria on effectiveness and even legitimacy, as well as predilections to ‘bring the state back in’, play a role in this re-evaluation. From the
interactive governance viewpoint, civil society’s main contribution to governability
is the channeling of societal activities for governance purposes. However the central
role of user-groups as part of civil society in the governance of fi sheries must also
be critically reviewed (Jentoft and McCay 2003 ; Mikalsen et al. 2007 ) .
The distinction between three realms of governing we have made here is of
course an analytical one. Moreover, it is a simpli fi cation of societal reality. The
boundaries between state, market and civil society are permeable and constantly
changing. For a long time the state has been considered to interpenetrate the other
two realms, but recently the market has regained some of its lost territory. There are
also many so-called hybrid institutions, and their role in governance appears to be
growing (Van Tulder and Van der Zwart 2006 ) .