18
J. Kooiman and M. Bavinck
Elements of Governing
In order to execute their governing tasks or activities, governors have three resources
available, which we have called governing elements: images, instruments and
action. Images are sets of governing ideas, instruments give these ideas substance,
and action puts these instruments to work.
Anyone involved in governance, in whatever capacity or authority, makes use of
images (see Kooiman 2003 , 29–44; Boulding 1956 ; Jervis 1989 ) . Such images can
consist of visions, knowledge, facts, judgments, presuppositions, wishes, goals,
hypotheses, theories and convictions. The form of an image thereby helps to identify the governance challenges and tasks ahead (Jentoft et al. 2010 ) . In contemporary society, the production and utilization of knowledge for governance is a vast
social process in which scientists, politicians, opinion leaders, and others all play a
role. These processes are of course open to various forms of manipulation, and the
end result may either be enlightenment or confusion.
Governors wishing to move from one state of affairs to another need instruments to do so. A wide array of instruments – or tool boxes (Hood 1983 ) – is
available to public and private governing organizations alike (for an overview
of the tools of fi sheries see Charles 2001 and Degnbol et al. 2006 ) . Traditional
instruments consist of rules and regulations, taxes, fi nes and subsidies,
while more recent ones include covenants and certi fi cation. A worrisome aspect
is the piling of instruments, which sometimes contradict one another. For this
reason, one can notice the law of diminishing returns at work in many areas of
governance.
The action element of governance conveys the fact that without suf fi cient will
or support, images and instruments – however convincing and applicable – remain
up in the air. Governance action and reaction are best seen as chain processes –
one governing entity takes the initiative and is followed by others. The chaotic
nature of societal processes ensures that small incidents can have major consequences (the butter fl y effect), and even non-action may have certain unintended
rami fi cations. Due to the interconnectedness of modern societies, it is more appropriate to speak of complexes of societal action than of collective action (Kooiman
2003 ) . Moreover, the diversity of modern societies means that the action potential
for governance is not only a societal attribute, but a political one as well. The two
are related because in the long run no political action can be taken without societal support; vice versa societal activism cannot fl ourish without some kind of
political expression.
Orders of Governing
In the fi rst order of governance, governing actors try to tackle problems or create
opportunities as a day-to-day exercise. Globally, two perspectives of problemsolving can be distinguished. One takes a linear path and reasons from a problem to
J. Kooiman and M. Bavinck
Elements of Governing
In order to execute their governing tasks or activities, governors have three resources
available, which we have called governing elements: images, instruments and
action. Images are sets of governing ideas, instruments give these ideas substance,
and action puts these instruments to work.
Anyone involved in governance, in whatever capacity or authority, makes use of
images (see Kooiman 2003 , 29–44; Boulding 1956 ; Jervis 1989 ) . Such images can
consist of visions, knowledge, facts, judgments, presuppositions, wishes, goals,
hypotheses, theories and convictions. The form of an image thereby helps to identify the governance challenges and tasks ahead (Jentoft et al. 2010 ) . In contemporary society, the production and utilization of knowledge for governance is a vast
social process in which scientists, politicians, opinion leaders, and others all play a
role. These processes are of course open to various forms of manipulation, and the
end result may either be enlightenment or confusion.
Governors wishing to move from one state of affairs to another need instruments to do so. A wide array of instruments – or tool boxes (Hood 1983 ) – is
available to public and private governing organizations alike (for an overview
of the tools of fi sheries see Charles 2001 and Degnbol et al. 2006 ) . Traditional
instruments consist of rules and regulations, taxes, fi nes and subsidies,
while more recent ones include covenants and certi fi cation. A worrisome aspect
is the piling of instruments, which sometimes contradict one another. For this
reason, one can notice the law of diminishing returns at work in many areas of
governance.
The action element of governance conveys the fact that without suf fi cient will
or support, images and instruments – however convincing and applicable – remain
up in the air. Governance action and reaction are best seen as chain processes –
one governing entity takes the initiative and is followed by others. The chaotic
nature of societal processes ensures that small incidents can have major consequences (the butter fl y effect), and even non-action may have certain unintended
rami fi cations. Due to the interconnectedness of modern societies, it is more appropriate to speak of complexes of societal action than of collective action (Kooiman
2003 ) . Moreover, the diversity of modern societies means that the action potential
for governance is not only a societal attribute, but a political one as well. The two
are related because in the long run no political action can be taken without societal support; vice versa societal activism cannot fl ourish without some kind of
political expression.
Orders of Governing
In the fi rst order of governance, governing actors try to tackle problems or create
opportunities as a day-to-day exercise. Globally, two perspectives of problemsolving can be distinguished. One takes a linear path and reasons from a problem to