343
18 Assessing Governability – What’s Next
On the other hand, a more complex system-to-be-governed would require authority
of a central government to facilitate coordination. The performance of a governing
system is conditioned upon the images of the problems that are faced, and what and
how principles, situated at the meta-order of governance, are established. It also
depends on how institutions are arranged at the second order accordingly, and what
actions are taken at the fi rst order. Governability at this assessment stage is the
outcome of all these considerations. Similar to Step 2, the system-to-be-governed
may also act as a governing system for some analytical purposes. This occurs, for
example, when fi shers set their rules of conduct. The same assessment criteria will
then be applied.
At this stage, the assessment therefore turns to the design of the governing system and evaluates its performance. It examines how goals are developed in the fi rst
place, and how they are achieved in the second. After all, at the end of the day, governability is about the performance of the governing system relative to the (wicked)
problems it tries to address and the speci fi c goals for solving them. More precisely,
it looks at the relationship between governing elements, i.e., images, instruments
and actions (Kooiman et al. 2005 ). Images in this context refer to the dominating
mental models from which the governing system draws its inspiration, direction and
goals. Instruments are the means (steering mechanisms) employed by the governing
system in order to realize the goals that are inspired by these images. Actions pertain
to the choices made with regard to the implementation of the instruments, such as
enforcement, monitoring and surveillance, and the readiness to act on these choices.
The expectation is that governability depends on the consistency between images,
instruments and actions, and how well they address the wicked problems. When
images, instruments, and actions are not clearly de fi ned and formulated, governability is expected to be low. As Chuenpagdee et al. ( 2008 ) argue, the effects of
instruments can be minimal, and even counter-productive in the long-term, unless
the choice of what instruments to employ is based upon images that are accurate and
legitimate. Some examples of low compatibility, and hence low governability, can
be found where alternative livelihoods are introduced to alleviate poverty in fi shing
communities without proper attention for the social and cultural identity of the
people involved (Onyango 2011 ; Onyango and Jentoft, Chap. 9 , this volume).
The assessment in this step also involves the examination of governing modes;
the institutional arrangements for putting goals into action. Interactive governance
theory identi fi es three modes of governance. Hierarchical governance is basically a
top-down, command-and-control system that places governments at the apex of the
pyramid. Co-governance involves stakeholders working in cooperation with civil
society actors and government. The third mode, self-governance, refers to the situation where stakeholders play an autonomous steering role. Here, the expectation is
that the more wicked and complex the problem and goal structure are the more
dif fi cult it is for government to work alone. The government must instead rely
on the involvement of market and civil society. It cannot abstain from assuming
responsibility and taking action in addressing problems either. From a governability
perspective, co-governance is therefore better suited to improving governability in
this context. This is largely due to the broader knowledge base of the multiple
18 Assessing Governability – What’s Next
On the other hand, a more complex system-to-be-governed would require authority
of a central government to facilitate coordination. The performance of a governing
system is conditioned upon the images of the problems that are faced, and what and
how principles, situated at the meta-order of governance, are established. It also
depends on how institutions are arranged at the second order accordingly, and what
actions are taken at the fi rst order. Governability at this assessment stage is the
outcome of all these considerations. Similar to Step 2, the system-to-be-governed
may also act as a governing system for some analytical purposes. This occurs, for
example, when fi shers set their rules of conduct. The same assessment criteria will
then be applied.
At this stage, the assessment therefore turns to the design of the governing system and evaluates its performance. It examines how goals are developed in the fi rst
place, and how they are achieved in the second. After all, at the end of the day, governability is about the performance of the governing system relative to the (wicked)
problems it tries to address and the speci fi c goals for solving them. More precisely,
it looks at the relationship between governing elements, i.e., images, instruments
and actions (Kooiman et al. 2005 ). Images in this context refer to the dominating
mental models from which the governing system draws its inspiration, direction and
goals. Instruments are the means (steering mechanisms) employed by the governing
system in order to realize the goals that are inspired by these images. Actions pertain
to the choices made with regard to the implementation of the instruments, such as
enforcement, monitoring and surveillance, and the readiness to act on these choices.
The expectation is that governability depends on the consistency between images,
instruments and actions, and how well they address the wicked problems. When
images, instruments, and actions are not clearly de fi ned and formulated, governability is expected to be low. As Chuenpagdee et al. ( 2008 ) argue, the effects of
instruments can be minimal, and even counter-productive in the long-term, unless
the choice of what instruments to employ is based upon images that are accurate and
legitimate. Some examples of low compatibility, and hence low governability, can
be found where alternative livelihoods are introduced to alleviate poverty in fi shing
communities without proper attention for the social and cultural identity of the
people involved (Onyango 2011 ; Onyango and Jentoft, Chap. 9 , this volume).
The assessment in this step also involves the examination of governing modes;
the institutional arrangements for putting goals into action. Interactive governance
theory identi fi es three modes of governance. Hierarchical governance is basically a
top-down, command-and-control system that places governments at the apex of the
pyramid. Co-governance involves stakeholders working in cooperation with civil
society actors and government. The third mode, self-governance, refers to the situation where stakeholders play an autonomous steering role. Here, the expectation is
that the more wicked and complex the problem and goal structure are the more
dif fi cult it is for government to work alone. The government must instead rely
on the involvement of market and civil society. It cannot abstain from assuming
responsibility and taking action in addressing problems either. From a governability
perspective, co-governance is therefore better suited to improving governability in
this context. This is largely due to the broader knowledge base of the multiple