342
R. Chuenpagdee and S. Jentoft
volume). At the boundary, relationships and interactions among system components
are fewer and less intense. Governability is an issue of scale because large-scale
systems, whose diversity, complexity and dynamics are assumed to be more pronounced, are less governable in comparison to smaller scale systems. System
boundaries are also a matter of perception and conception (Post et al. 2007 ) , thereby
providing the basis on which governing systems are designed. In other words, a
governing system is devised for dealing with a system-to-be governed whose boundaries must be determined in order to delineate a mandate. In some instances, multiple governing systems operate within the boundaries, causing problems with
coordination and harmonization. This is an issue often referred to as ‘legal pluralism’ (Jentoft et al. 2009 ) . The governability problem would be enhanced if geographical boundaries of the system-to-be governed and the governing system do not
match. This is the case when the jurisdiction of the governing system does not
encompass the entire ecosystem or social system. If several governing systems are
operative within the same boundaries, governability problems are to be expected.
After all, how can overlapping mandates be coordinated? Similarly, what happens
at system boundaries is an interesting research issue for governing interactions that
generates a host of questions. For example, how are mismatches addressed? Do
problems or opportunities fall between the cracks? Boundaries may be more or less
permeable. Interactions and relations may cut across boundaries and link systems at
the same or different scales. The scale at which a problem is addressed may determine the governability of the system as a whole (Mahon and McConney, Chap. 16 ,
this volume).
Step 3: Evaluating the Governing System
The capability and capacity of the governing system, which are con fi ned by their
structural components, play an important role in overall governability (Step 3 in
Table 18.1 ). If, for instance, the governing system is highly capable of dealing with
a problem, no matter how wicked it is, and with the systems-to-be-governed, no
matter how diverse, complex and dynamics they are, the overall governability will
be high. On the other hand, a weak governing system will result in low governability, regardless of the degree of wickedness and irrespective of the system properties.
As illustrated in Table 18.1 and also in Bavinck and Kooiman (Chap. 8 , this
volume), the assessment of the governing system speci fi cally calls attention to three
key features: goodness-of- fi t , responsiveness and performance of the governing
system in addressing challenges. The poorer the institutional fi t between the
system-to-be-governed and governing system, the greater the governability problem
(see for instance Scholtens and Bavinck, Chap. 10 this volume). The appropriateness
of the governing system is further determined by the fi t of actions to the problems and
their images, both of which must be examined (Jentoft et al. 2009 ) . With respect to
responsiveness, a highly diverse system-to-be-governed calls for a less centralized
governing mode and more involved local actors (as in co-management systems).
R. Chuenpagdee and S. Jentoft
volume). At the boundary, relationships and interactions among system components
are fewer and less intense. Governability is an issue of scale because large-scale
systems, whose diversity, complexity and dynamics are assumed to be more pronounced, are less governable in comparison to smaller scale systems. System
boundaries are also a matter of perception and conception (Post et al. 2007 ) , thereby
providing the basis on which governing systems are designed. In other words, a
governing system is devised for dealing with a system-to-be governed whose boundaries must be determined in order to delineate a mandate. In some instances, multiple governing systems operate within the boundaries, causing problems with
coordination and harmonization. This is an issue often referred to as ‘legal pluralism’ (Jentoft et al. 2009 ) . The governability problem would be enhanced if geographical boundaries of the system-to-be governed and the governing system do not
match. This is the case when the jurisdiction of the governing system does not
encompass the entire ecosystem or social system. If several governing systems are
operative within the same boundaries, governability problems are to be expected.
After all, how can overlapping mandates be coordinated? Similarly, what happens
at system boundaries is an interesting research issue for governing interactions that
generates a host of questions. For example, how are mismatches addressed? Do
problems or opportunities fall between the cracks? Boundaries may be more or less
permeable. Interactions and relations may cut across boundaries and link systems at
the same or different scales. The scale at which a problem is addressed may determine the governability of the system as a whole (Mahon and McConney, Chap. 16 ,
this volume).
Step 3: Evaluating the Governing System
The capability and capacity of the governing system, which are con fi ned by their
structural components, play an important role in overall governability (Step 3 in
Table 18.1 ). If, for instance, the governing system is highly capable of dealing with
a problem, no matter how wicked it is, and with the systems-to-be-governed, no
matter how diverse, complex and dynamics they are, the overall governability will
be high. On the other hand, a weak governing system will result in low governability, regardless of the degree of wickedness and irrespective of the system properties.
As illustrated in Table 18.1 and also in Bavinck and Kooiman (Chap. 8 , this
volume), the assessment of the governing system speci fi cally calls attention to three
key features: goodness-of- fi t , responsiveness and performance of the governing
system in addressing challenges. The poorer the institutional fi t between the
system-to-be-governed and governing system, the greater the governability problem
(see for instance Scholtens and Bavinck, Chap. 10 this volume). The appropriateness
of the governing system is further determined by the fi t of actions to the problems and
their images, both of which must be examined (Jentoft et al. 2009 ) . With respect to
responsiveness, a highly diverse system-to-be-governed calls for a less centralized
governing mode and more involved local actors (as in co-management systems).