20
J. Kooiman and M. Bavinck
Governing Interactions at the Actor Level
The minimal condition for governance interactions is the willingness or ability of
actors to participate. The opportunity for participation is not at all obvious, however,
a fact that clearly emerges against the background of empowerment movements –
for the poor and women in some parts of the world, and for consumer empowerment
in other regions. Nor is it dif fi cult to understand that governance also involves the
need for people involved in a system-to-be-governed to pro-act or re-act to activities
by governing institutions – public as well as private – and thus make governing a
process of interaction.
Citizen involvement or public participation has always been part of the theory
and practice of democratic institutions, particularly at local levels (see for an overview Special Issue Public Administration Review 2005, 5). The classical example is
the ‘participation ladder’, where the essence is located in power-sharing (Arnstein
1969 ) . Under the in fl uence of new thinking about direct, participatory and deliberative democratic thinking, as well as the ideas and practices of empowerment and
inclusion, the analysis of participation has been given a new impulse (Parkins and
Mitchell 2005 ; Papadopoulos and Warin 2007 ) , also in fi sheries (Gray 2005 ) .
Scholars generally recognize the advantages of citizens participating in public
affairs. They identify positive effects such as development, education, learning, integration, improvement of results, better understanding and control, legitimacy, and
accountability. But disadvantages are noted as well: participation is thus argued to be
a false notion, inef fi cient, politically naïve, unrealistic, disruptive and dangerous. It
frequently results in excess time consumption, costs, hostility, worse outcomes, loss
of control and complacency (Roberts 2004 ) . A paradox may arise when more participation results in less in fl uence as seems to be the case in European fi sheries governance under the in fl uence of devolution (Suarez de Vivero et al. 2008 )
Governing Interactions at the Structural Level
Interactive governance theory suggests that the central features of system-to-begoverned and governing system are normally re fl ected in governing interactions.
A well-organized and powerful societal sector will thus fi nd these qualities represented in governing interactions. Highly developed connections between state,
market and civil society are mirrored in a multitude of participatory interactions
(Lovan et al. 2004 ) . However, two concepts deserve special attention for their
mediating and structuring contribution: public sphere and social capital.
The idea of the public sphere, as conceptualized by Habermas ( 1989 ) , has become
an important part of social and political theorizing about the nature of modern society. In Habermas’ view, the public sphere is the social realm in which the public
organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion by conferring and communicating in
an unrestricted and rational fashion about matters of general interest. Only a few
scholars in the fi eld of fi sheries have made systematic use of Habermasian thought
J. Kooiman and M. Bavinck
Governing Interactions at the Actor Level
The minimal condition for governance interactions is the willingness or ability of
actors to participate. The opportunity for participation is not at all obvious, however,
a fact that clearly emerges against the background of empowerment movements –
for the poor and women in some parts of the world, and for consumer empowerment
in other regions. Nor is it dif fi cult to understand that governance also involves the
need for people involved in a system-to-be-governed to pro-act or re-act to activities
by governing institutions – public as well as private – and thus make governing a
process of interaction.
Citizen involvement or public participation has always been part of the theory
and practice of democratic institutions, particularly at local levels (see for an overview Special Issue Public Administration Review 2005, 5). The classical example is
the ‘participation ladder’, where the essence is located in power-sharing (Arnstein
1969 ) . Under the in fl uence of new thinking about direct, participatory and deliberative democratic thinking, as well as the ideas and practices of empowerment and
inclusion, the analysis of participation has been given a new impulse (Parkins and
Mitchell 2005 ; Papadopoulos and Warin 2007 ) , also in fi sheries (Gray 2005 ) .
Scholars generally recognize the advantages of citizens participating in public
affairs. They identify positive effects such as development, education, learning, integration, improvement of results, better understanding and control, legitimacy, and
accountability. But disadvantages are noted as well: participation is thus argued to be
a false notion, inef fi cient, politically naïve, unrealistic, disruptive and dangerous. It
frequently results in excess time consumption, costs, hostility, worse outcomes, loss
of control and complacency (Roberts 2004 ) . A paradox may arise when more participation results in less in fl uence as seems to be the case in European fi sheries governance under the in fl uence of devolution (Suarez de Vivero et al. 2008 )
Governing Interactions at the Structural Level
Interactive governance theory suggests that the central features of system-to-begoverned and governing system are normally re fl ected in governing interactions.
A well-organized and powerful societal sector will thus fi nd these qualities represented in governing interactions. Highly developed connections between state,
market and civil society are mirrored in a multitude of participatory interactions
(Lovan et al. 2004 ) . However, two concepts deserve special attention for their
mediating and structuring contribution: public sphere and social capital.
The idea of the public sphere, as conceptualized by Habermas ( 1989 ) , has become
an important part of social and political theorizing about the nature of modern society. In Habermas’ view, the public sphere is the social realm in which the public
organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion by conferring and communicating in
an unrestricted and rational fashion about matters of general interest. Only a few
scholars in the fi eld of fi sheries have made systematic use of Habermasian thought