355
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
complexity is de fi ned as the number, intensity and spread of interrelations between
its components. This, however, remains rather abstract. Gell-Mann ( 1994 ) takes
an unusual approach by considering the complexity of a system to be identical to
the length of time needed to describe it. One always has to be speci fi c about the
level of detail that such a description entails – if fi ner details are being ignored
(‘coarse graining’), this adds to the subjectivity of its de fi nition ( 1994 , 28–32).
Other authors have made a more rigorous step in the same direction by expressing
that complexity is not essentially a material quality of any system, “but only turns
on questions posed. It is normative to the degree that complexity arises from the
lack of a paradigm” ( Zellmer et al. 2006 , 171).
Dealing with complexity is thus complex in itself. A two-step procedure can help.
First, one decides the level of ‘graining’ required – the coarser, the less complex the
picture of the system. Second, one can use Simon’s ( 1983 ) discovery that the majority
of the systems we deal with are ‘nearly-composable’. Simply put, not all relations
within a system are equally strong in terms of number and intensity. A combination of
decomposition and (re)composition can help reveal the location of the highly related
or more autonomous parts of a system (Kickert 1979 ; Simon 1983 ) .
The complexity of fi sheries as natural and social systems (not to speak of the
linkages between them) has baf fl ed scholars and practitioners alike. In part II of this
book, concerns have been ordered along lines as diverse as food security, social
justice, livelihood and employment, and ecosystem health. It is no surprise that
these concerns are themselves highly complex. Some of the complexities related to
eco-system health (Chap. 7 ) and livelihoods (Chap. 5 ), for example, are summarized in the tables of the respective chapters. Complexity becomes even more apparent when one considers the linkages between such concerns and their mutual
governability consequences. Simon’s ( 1983 ) ideas of dealing with complexity can
be of help here. If one views the concerns in Part II as a fi rst step in the decomposition of fi sheries systems, a next phase might be to recompose them by relating
concerns to one another. If Simon ( 1983 ) is correct, it should be apparent that not all
relations between concerns have an equal impact on each other. By systematically
analyzing these interrelations a ‘holistic’ picture of the complexity of their governability challenges can emerge. It is likely that some of these linkages will be easier
to study, while others may remain hidden their governability consequences.
Another procedure is to take a criterion like interdependency as the starting point
and analyze it from different angles and intensities. Not all linkages in a fi sh chain will
display the same degree of interdependence or intensity between its parts, e.g. in terms
of substitutability. Taking Gell-Mann’s ( 1994 ) advice that graining is up to the analyst
seriously, I suggest that complexity need not always be studied ‘till the last detail’.
Dynamics
Dynamics can be seen as a composition of forces that sometimes create gradual
developments, but often result in non-linear patterns of change. In an overview of
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
complexity is de fi ned as the number, intensity and spread of interrelations between
its components. This, however, remains rather abstract. Gell-Mann ( 1994 ) takes
an unusual approach by considering the complexity of a system to be identical to
the length of time needed to describe it. One always has to be speci fi c about the
level of detail that such a description entails – if fi ner details are being ignored
(‘coarse graining’), this adds to the subjectivity of its de fi nition ( 1994 , 28–32).
Other authors have made a more rigorous step in the same direction by expressing
that complexity is not essentially a material quality of any system, “but only turns
on questions posed. It is normative to the degree that complexity arises from the
lack of a paradigm” ( Zellmer et al. 2006 , 171).
Dealing with complexity is thus complex in itself. A two-step procedure can help.
First, one decides the level of ‘graining’ required – the coarser, the less complex the
picture of the system. Second, one can use Simon’s ( 1983 ) discovery that the majority
of the systems we deal with are ‘nearly-composable’. Simply put, not all relations
within a system are equally strong in terms of number and intensity. A combination of
decomposition and (re)composition can help reveal the location of the highly related
or more autonomous parts of a system (Kickert 1979 ; Simon 1983 ) .
The complexity of fi sheries as natural and social systems (not to speak of the
linkages between them) has baf fl ed scholars and practitioners alike. In part II of this
book, concerns have been ordered along lines as diverse as food security, social
justice, livelihood and employment, and ecosystem health. It is no surprise that
these concerns are themselves highly complex. Some of the complexities related to
eco-system health (Chap. 7 ) and livelihoods (Chap. 5 ), for example, are summarized in the tables of the respective chapters. Complexity becomes even more apparent when one considers the linkages between such concerns and their mutual
governability consequences. Simon’s ( 1983 ) ideas of dealing with complexity can
be of help here. If one views the concerns in Part II as a fi rst step in the decomposition of fi sheries systems, a next phase might be to recompose them by relating
concerns to one another. If Simon ( 1983 ) is correct, it should be apparent that not all
relations between concerns have an equal impact on each other. By systematically
analyzing these interrelations a ‘holistic’ picture of the complexity of their governability challenges can emerge. It is likely that some of these linkages will be easier
to study, while others may remain hidden their governability consequences.
Another procedure is to take a criterion like interdependency as the starting point
and analyze it from different angles and intensities. Not all linkages in a fi sh chain will
display the same degree of interdependence or intensity between its parts, e.g. in terms
of substitutability. Taking Gell-Mann’s ( 1994 ) advice that graining is up to the analyst
seriously, I suggest that complexity need not always be studied ‘till the last detail’.
Dynamics
Dynamics can be seen as a composition of forces that sometimes create gradual
developments, but often result in non-linear patterns of change. In an overview of