352
J. Kooiman
and others in the Fisheries Governance Network and takes some important steps
forward, conceptually as well as empirically. In this chapter, I discuss the major
elements of the governability framework, looking back and looking forward. My
remarks take the form of indicating where progress has been made and where
additional work seems appropriate. First I make some suggestions for a strategy
to study governability. This is followed by a review of the features characteristic
of all societal systems and, thus, a major theme in governability research. Then, I
consider the three subsystems – the system-to-be-governed, the governing system
and the governing interactions – ending with re fl ections and suggestions for future
assessment work.
Research Strategy
The interactive governance perspective suggests that the research approach to governability should not only be multi-focus, but also multi-level. Moreover, these levels and foci should be related. Although other analytical approaches might be
available, I suggest that the classical micro-macro framework serves as a useful
guideline. This framework proposes that macro phenomena constitute the frames of
reference for the actions and interactions of individuals and groups. At the same
time these macro elements are constantly (re)produced, interpreted and modi fi ed by
individuals at the micro level. This is a two-way macro-micro analysis “with neither
direction capable of being grasped without simultaneous reference to the other”
(Alexander et al. 1987 , 381–382).
Does it make sense to introduce an analytical meso-level in between the other
two? Many authors attempt to do just this. The meso-domain approach, designed to
explore social organization as recurring patterns of linked contexts (Hall and
McGinty 2002 ) , is useful but not required. That is, if a two-way macro-micro and
micro-macro analytical approach is systematically applied. The latter is ideal in
theory, but hard to do in practice.
For analysing governability, with all of its features and properties, one needs interdisciplinary insights. Much has been written about the successes and failures,
strengths and weaknesses of the collaborations between academic disciplines (Bruce
et al. 2004 ; Maasen et al. 2006 ) . Multi-disciplinarity is the least demanding form
because the partners, in effect, remain within the realms of their own bodies of
knowledge. Inter-disciplinary work asks for more fi ne-tuning. Theoretical roadblocks
must, at the very least, be partly resolved to be successful. Trans-disciplinary studies,
with their involvement of non-scientists, is even more demanding. For the study of
governability, no single mode has absolute preference. However, as Brewer ( 1999 )
suggests, for real cross-fertilization between disciplines, the risks are high and
rewards may come only in the long run. Therefore, simple forms of cooperation may
currently be more appropriate for grasping what governability is about.
Governability has been de fi ned as the capacity for governance of the system as a
whole. This means that one requires synthesis next to analysis. In the end, whatever
J. Kooiman
and others in the Fisheries Governance Network and takes some important steps
forward, conceptually as well as empirically. In this chapter, I discuss the major
elements of the governability framework, looking back and looking forward. My
remarks take the form of indicating where progress has been made and where
additional work seems appropriate. First I make some suggestions for a strategy
to study governability. This is followed by a review of the features characteristic
of all societal systems and, thus, a major theme in governability research. Then, I
consider the three subsystems – the system-to-be-governed, the governing system
and the governing interactions – ending with re fl ections and suggestions for future
assessment work.
Research Strategy
The interactive governance perspective suggests that the research approach to governability should not only be multi-focus, but also multi-level. Moreover, these levels and foci should be related. Although other analytical approaches might be
available, I suggest that the classical micro-macro framework serves as a useful
guideline. This framework proposes that macro phenomena constitute the frames of
reference for the actions and interactions of individuals and groups. At the same
time these macro elements are constantly (re)produced, interpreted and modi fi ed by
individuals at the micro level. This is a two-way macro-micro analysis “with neither
direction capable of being grasped without simultaneous reference to the other”
(Alexander et al. 1987 , 381–382).
Does it make sense to introduce an analytical meso-level in between the other
two? Many authors attempt to do just this. The meso-domain approach, designed to
explore social organization as recurring patterns of linked contexts (Hall and
McGinty 2002 ) , is useful but not required. That is, if a two-way macro-micro and
micro-macro analytical approach is systematically applied. The latter is ideal in
theory, but hard to do in practice.
For analysing governability, with all of its features and properties, one needs interdisciplinary insights. Much has been written about the successes and failures,
strengths and weaknesses of the collaborations between academic disciplines (Bruce
et al. 2004 ; Maasen et al. 2006 ) . Multi-disciplinarity is the least demanding form
because the partners, in effect, remain within the realms of their own bodies of
knowledge. Inter-disciplinary work asks for more fi ne-tuning. Theoretical roadblocks
must, at the very least, be partly resolved to be successful. Trans-disciplinary studies,
with their involvement of non-scientists, is even more demanding. For the study of
governability, no single mode has absolute preference. However, as Brewer ( 1999 )
suggests, for real cross-fertilization between disciplines, the risks are high and
rewards may come only in the long run. Therefore, simple forms of cooperation may
currently be more appropriate for grasping what governability is about.
Governability has been de fi ned as the capacity for governance of the system as a
whole. This means that one requires synthesis next to analysis. In the end, whatever