19
2 Theorizing Governability – The Interactive Governance Perspective
its solution. The advantage of this model is its simplicity. Its limitation on the other
hand is that one particular characteristic is taken as dominant for problem de fi nition
as well as for the solution offered. In the non-linear alternative, problem-de fi nition
and solution- fi nding are seen as an iterative and dynamic process with scope for
identifying different forces at work. The disadvantage is a perceived lack of clarity
and available stopping rules.
Many efforts have been made to design typologies of problems, such as between
highly, moderate or ill-structured problems; distributive, regulatory and re-distributive
problems; or problems with a few or many dimensions (Kooiman 2003 ) . Jentoft and
Chuenpagdee ( 2009 ) have noted that governance problems are often ‘wicked’,
meaning for instance that the idea of the solution tend to inform the de fi nition of the
problem (Rittel and Webber 1973 ; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ) .
Problem-solving and opportunity-creating activities are embedded in a second
order of institutional settings, which enable governance, sustain it and give it
focus. Although many scholars and policymakers consider governance to be synonymous with institutions (many de fi nitions of governance are in institutional
terms), the systematic care for institutions as a category of governance activities
is neglected. Institutions are considered to consist of relatively enduring sets of
rules stimulating, enabling, regulating or controlling human behaviors. They can
do this in formal or informal ways. They will surely be changed over time,
although the faster they change the less in fl uence they may have. But institutions
are also made up of the organizations that decide, effectuate and monitor the
implementation of rules.
Meta governance is the third order of governance. It is where decisions on the
values and principles of the governing of governance are made (Kooiman 2003 ;
Kooiman and Jentoft 2009 ; Peters 2010 ) . Such principles and values often remain
in the curtains and unvoiced. When they are made explicit and deliberated upon,
however, principles are rarely absolute – they guide rather than prescribe. Applying
them in governance means making choices. Choices that can be dif fi cult because
the normative notions con fi ned in them are often in con fl ict. As governance choices
can be differentiated, so too can governance norms, principles and maybe even
values. Some values, such as those pertaining to human rights, are universal and part
of substantive governance everywhere. Other values are speci fi c to certain situations,
settings, and cultures. The Fish for Life volume (Kooiman et al. 2005 ) sets forth a
series of meta governance principles applicable to the elements, orders and modes
of governance.
Governing Interactions
Governing interactions are mutually in fl uencing relations between two or more
actors or entities in a governance setting. Theoretically, we distinguish between two
levels, an intentional (actor) level and a structural level of governing interactions, as
well as a set of interaction modes. These are discussed below.
2 Theorizing Governability – The Interactive Governance Perspective
its solution. The advantage of this model is its simplicity. Its limitation on the other
hand is that one particular characteristic is taken as dominant for problem de fi nition
as well as for the solution offered. In the non-linear alternative, problem-de fi nition
and solution- fi nding are seen as an iterative and dynamic process with scope for
identifying different forces at work. The disadvantage is a perceived lack of clarity
and available stopping rules.
Many efforts have been made to design typologies of problems, such as between
highly, moderate or ill-structured problems; distributive, regulatory and re-distributive
problems; or problems with a few or many dimensions (Kooiman 2003 ) . Jentoft and
Chuenpagdee ( 2009 ) have noted that governance problems are often ‘wicked’,
meaning for instance that the idea of the solution tend to inform the de fi nition of the
problem (Rittel and Webber 1973 ; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ) .
Problem-solving and opportunity-creating activities are embedded in a second
order of institutional settings, which enable governance, sustain it and give it
focus. Although many scholars and policymakers consider governance to be synonymous with institutions (many de fi nitions of governance are in institutional
terms), the systematic care for institutions as a category of governance activities
is neglected. Institutions are considered to consist of relatively enduring sets of
rules stimulating, enabling, regulating or controlling human behaviors. They can
do this in formal or informal ways. They will surely be changed over time,
although the faster they change the less in fl uence they may have. But institutions
are also made up of the organizations that decide, effectuate and monitor the
implementation of rules.
Meta governance is the third order of governance. It is where decisions on the
values and principles of the governing of governance are made (Kooiman 2003 ;
Kooiman and Jentoft 2009 ; Peters 2010 ) . Such principles and values often remain
in the curtains and unvoiced. When they are made explicit and deliberated upon,
however, principles are rarely absolute – they guide rather than prescribe. Applying
them in governance means making choices. Choices that can be dif fi cult because
the normative notions con fi ned in them are often in con fl ict. As governance choices
can be differentiated, so too can governance norms, principles and maybe even
values. Some values, such as those pertaining to human rights, are universal and part
of substantive governance everywhere. Other values are speci fi c to certain situations,
settings, and cultures. The Fish for Life volume (Kooiman et al. 2005 ) sets forth a
series of meta governance principles applicable to the elements, orders and modes
of governance.
Governing Interactions
Governing interactions are mutually in fl uencing relations between two or more
actors or entities in a governance setting. Theoretically, we distinguish between two
levels, an intentional (actor) level and a structural level of governing interactions, as
well as a set of interaction modes. These are discussed below.