357
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
Scale
Scholarly use of scales has been common in the natural sciences for a long time. In the
social sciences, systematic work on the concept is of a more recent date (Gibson et al.
1997 ) . In Chap. 2 of this book we used a simple de fi nition of scale that includes spatial
and time dimensions. This de fi nition skirts another analytical dimension; the fact that
scale can be used both to measure and to study natural or societal phenomena. The
Richter scale, for example, is used to measure the strength of earthquakes, while the
term scale, as applied to the distribution of a disease, refers to the scope of study. Scale
and level are often used in combination, where level is understood as a unit of analysis
located at a position on a scale. The combination of the two meanings can also be seen
in socio-political or geographical scales – i.e., international, national, regional, community, household (Grainger 2005 ) .
In interpretations of scale, different types of scales indicate a variety of relations
(such as absolute, relative and conceptual) between the units. Generalizations based
on theories using scale are, however, not easy to make. Important issues include the
transferring of propositions from one scale to another, or the understanding of the
workings of nested scales within hierarchical systems. This applies to fi sheries as
well. Do we, for example, look at a particular a fi sh farm, a certain type of fi sh farm
or at fi sh farms as part of the aquaculture sector? In a thorough and critical analysis
of the use of the term in small-scale fi sheries, Johnson ( 2006 ) points out that the
contextual meaning of scale is ambiguous, and that the power of its application is of
much broader nature. In his view, ‘small-scale’ is one element in a battle fi eld
between narratives of development, modernization and globalization in fi sheries,
with serious implications for its governance.
The authors of this volume use scale in different ways. Several chapters contain
tables with a column of scale issues in relation to governability. Generally, scale
issues in the system-to-be-governed seem to be taken in a spatial sense. By contrast,
cross-scale or comparable governability issues are frequently highlighted with
respect to governing systems in fi sheries. This is in line with the suggestions proposed by Kooiman and Bavinck (Chap. 2 ), who discuss scale in relation to the
boundaries of the system-to-be-governed, on the one hand, and the concept of nestedness for the governing system in particular, on the other.
Three Sub-systems
I regard governability as an integrated quality of any societal system. For analytical
purposes, I decompose a societal system into three parts or sub-systems, each with
its own speci fi c characteristics. In a synthesis, the three are again combined to create an image of the whole. Many important questions arise around these distinctions, however. One can ask, for example, who or what governs in the end? Is it man
or nature? Then, how is one to distinguish operationally between the three subsystems? Such questions are certainly subjects for future work.
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
Scale
Scholarly use of scales has been common in the natural sciences for a long time. In the
social sciences, systematic work on the concept is of a more recent date (Gibson et al.
1997 ) . In Chap. 2 of this book we used a simple de fi nition of scale that includes spatial
and time dimensions. This de fi nition skirts another analytical dimension; the fact that
scale can be used both to measure and to study natural or societal phenomena. The
Richter scale, for example, is used to measure the strength of earthquakes, while the
term scale, as applied to the distribution of a disease, refers to the scope of study. Scale
and level are often used in combination, where level is understood as a unit of analysis
located at a position on a scale. The combination of the two meanings can also be seen
in socio-political or geographical scales – i.e., international, national, regional, community, household (Grainger 2005 ) .
In interpretations of scale, different types of scales indicate a variety of relations
(such as absolute, relative and conceptual) between the units. Generalizations based
on theories using scale are, however, not easy to make. Important issues include the
transferring of propositions from one scale to another, or the understanding of the
workings of nested scales within hierarchical systems. This applies to fi sheries as
well. Do we, for example, look at a particular a fi sh farm, a certain type of fi sh farm
or at fi sh farms as part of the aquaculture sector? In a thorough and critical analysis
of the use of the term in small-scale fi sheries, Johnson ( 2006 ) points out that the
contextual meaning of scale is ambiguous, and that the power of its application is of
much broader nature. In his view, ‘small-scale’ is one element in a battle fi eld
between narratives of development, modernization and globalization in fi sheries,
with serious implications for its governance.
The authors of this volume use scale in different ways. Several chapters contain
tables with a column of scale issues in relation to governability. Generally, scale
issues in the system-to-be-governed seem to be taken in a spatial sense. By contrast,
cross-scale or comparable governability issues are frequently highlighted with
respect to governing systems in fi sheries. This is in line with the suggestions proposed by Kooiman and Bavinck (Chap. 2 ), who discuss scale in relation to the
boundaries of the system-to-be-governed, on the one hand, and the concept of nestedness for the governing system in particular, on the other.
Three Sub-systems
I regard governability as an integrated quality of any societal system. For analytical
purposes, I decompose a societal system into three parts or sub-systems, each with
its own speci fi c characteristics. In a synthesis, the three are again combined to create an image of the whole. Many important questions arise around these distinctions, however. One can ask, for example, who or what governs in the end? Is it man
or nature? Then, how is one to distinguish operationally between the three subsystems? Such questions are certainly subjects for future work.