363
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
sub-standard and faces severe limitations (Jentoft 2007a ) . It is too easy in this
connection to blame politics for not taking its responsibilities seriously, or to accuse
authorities of inef fi ciency and not being up to their tasks. Entry point is therefore the
idea that expectations of what governance is or can do are simply too high or tasks
are too dif fi cult in relation to governance capacities. This is not a plea to let things
go. Instead, it is an appeal for a better understanding of what might be behind these
limitations. This applies not only to the state as governor, but to the market and civil
society as well. Future work on the governing systems of fi sheries at the micro and
macro level should pay closer attention to the role of the market and civil society.
Capacity of the Governing System
State, market, civil society and hybrid governors use a variety of means to carry out
their governing activities. I call this composite set of variables of the governing
system its governance capacity. One can fi nd several approaches to state capacity
and capacity-building in the literature. One line of work focuses on task attributes
with lists as political, regulatory, administrative, technological, extraction and delegational (Olowu 2002 ) . Cummings and Nørgaard ( 2004 ) develop a model of a
more conceptual nature in which four dimensions for state capacity are elaborated:
ideational, political, technical and implementational. Another conceptual framework aims at assessing capacity gaps where tasks are not listed, but seen as those
de fi ned by necessity, history, or the situation in speci fi c contexts (Grindle 1997 ) .
The capacity of the governing system to govern, or the lack thereof, is probably one
of the most studied in fi sheries research. In Fish for Life , which is essentially a study of
this capacity, we have made our own contribution to the debate. However, this is not to
say that we know enough. In the research strategy proposed at the start of this chapter,
the study of the system-to-be-governed and governing interactions in fi sheries should
in my opinion have higher priority than the study of the governing system itself –
maybe with the exception of the governing role of the market and civil society.
I will not discuss the three elements (images, instruments and action) and the
three orders (problem-solving/opportunity creation, institutional care and meta governance) as attributes of capacity separately. It is clear that each of these contribute
to governing capacity in and of themselves. What is of special importance, however,
is the way in which they are linked. That is, whether they are consistent or fi t with
each other. For example, it might be hypothesized that the dominance of eco-economic policies in fi sheries management in the last few decades can be explained by
the coherence of a set of images matched by a set of top-down instruments as well
as ideology-based political support. To address this imbalance, counter images,
instruments and action potentials should be developed as well. The usage of the
‘rose’ image of fi sheries governance as opposed to the conventional ‘pyramid’
(Jentoft et al. 2010 ) is a good attempt in this direction. Several chapters of this
book, such as the one on MPAs (Chap. 12 ) and another on mariculture (Chap. 11 ),
demonstrate similar tendencies.
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
sub-standard and faces severe limitations (Jentoft 2007a ) . It is too easy in this
connection to blame politics for not taking its responsibilities seriously, or to accuse
authorities of inef fi ciency and not being up to their tasks. Entry point is therefore the
idea that expectations of what governance is or can do are simply too high or tasks
are too dif fi cult in relation to governance capacities. This is not a plea to let things
go. Instead, it is an appeal for a better understanding of what might be behind these
limitations. This applies not only to the state as governor, but to the market and civil
society as well. Future work on the governing systems of fi sheries at the micro and
macro level should pay closer attention to the role of the market and civil society.
Capacity of the Governing System
State, market, civil society and hybrid governors use a variety of means to carry out
their governing activities. I call this composite set of variables of the governing
system its governance capacity. One can fi nd several approaches to state capacity
and capacity-building in the literature. One line of work focuses on task attributes
with lists as political, regulatory, administrative, technological, extraction and delegational (Olowu 2002 ) . Cummings and Nørgaard ( 2004 ) develop a model of a
more conceptual nature in which four dimensions for state capacity are elaborated:
ideational, political, technical and implementational. Another conceptual framework aims at assessing capacity gaps where tasks are not listed, but seen as those
de fi ned by necessity, history, or the situation in speci fi c contexts (Grindle 1997 ) .
The capacity of the governing system to govern, or the lack thereof, is probably one
of the most studied in fi sheries research. In Fish for Life , which is essentially a study of
this capacity, we have made our own contribution to the debate. However, this is not to
say that we know enough. In the research strategy proposed at the start of this chapter,
the study of the system-to-be-governed and governing interactions in fi sheries should
in my opinion have higher priority than the study of the governing system itself –
maybe with the exception of the governing role of the market and civil society.
I will not discuss the three elements (images, instruments and action) and the
three orders (problem-solving/opportunity creation, institutional care and meta governance) as attributes of capacity separately. It is clear that each of these contribute
to governing capacity in and of themselves. What is of special importance, however,
is the way in which they are linked. That is, whether they are consistent or fi t with
each other. For example, it might be hypothesized that the dominance of eco-economic policies in fi sheries management in the last few decades can be explained by
the coherence of a set of images matched by a set of top-down instruments as well
as ideology-based political support. To address this imbalance, counter images,
instruments and action potentials should be developed as well. The usage of the
‘rose’ image of fi sheries governance as opposed to the conventional ‘pyramid’
(Jentoft et al. 2010 ) is a good attempt in this direction. Several chapters of this
book, such as the one on MPAs (Chap. 12 ) and another on mariculture (Chap. 11 ),
demonstrate similar tendencies.