364
J. Kooiman
The same kind of reasoning may be used for coherence between the three orders
of governing. In Chap. 4 of this volume, for example, Jentoft develops a coherent
set of ideas that show how the three governance orders can sustain a model for the
role of social justice in the governance and governability of fi sheries. In my opinion, institutions play a key two-way, connecting role between problem-solving/
opportunity creation, on the one hand, and the application of meta principles, on
the other. Research efforts should be directed to the study of the role of the value
base and the promotion of a principle based vision of the governance of fi sheries.
Chapter 15 provides a good example of efforts to this end.
Governing Interaction Systems
I consider governing interaction systems as the whole of all interactions between
governing entities, public as well as private (Kooiman 2003 ) . They do not exist
without their two companion sub-systems, the system-to-be-governed and the governing system, and constitute as it were the embodiment of the traf fi c between
them. In societal interaction systems, interactions have two main directions: one
emanating from the system-to-be-governed to the governing system and the other
in the opposite direction. In a full-scale interaction system, the two directions may
become so intertwined that they assume a circular form. The more an interaction
system is carefully fashioned, the more it will display its own system features.
Horizontal as well as vertical aspects of governing interactions can be distinguished, and the actor and structural dimensions can be spelled out as well.
The Actor Level
As argued in Chap. 2 , many aspects of governing interactions are relevant for governability. However, some have yet to be addressed and deserve attention here. Governance
interactions, in whatever form, can be seen as mixes of cooperation and con fl ict. After
all, societal governance usually deals with highly contentious sociopolitical issues.
Especially long-lasting governance interactions will show more cooperative periods
alternating with more con fl ictive ones. Some interactions can exhibit both phenomena
at the same time; in certain areas there will be cooperation, while in others interests
can clash and interactions may be competitive. Governance interactions can be
arranged on a scale from (highly) con fl ictive to (highly) cooperative with all kinds of
shades in between. The TWINS matrix developed in the fi eld of trans-boundary water
governance is a useful example (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008 ) .
Not all governing interactions have the same intensity, however. Some are deliberative, while others play a role in decision-making. In fact, one could devise a scale
of intensity varying from ‘light’ to ‘heavy’. The following are examples that illustrate points on such a scale.
J. Kooiman
The same kind of reasoning may be used for coherence between the three orders
of governing. In Chap. 4 of this volume, for example, Jentoft develops a coherent
set of ideas that show how the three governance orders can sustain a model for the
role of social justice in the governance and governability of fi sheries. In my opinion, institutions play a key two-way, connecting role between problem-solving/
opportunity creation, on the one hand, and the application of meta principles, on
the other. Research efforts should be directed to the study of the role of the value
base and the promotion of a principle based vision of the governance of fi sheries.
Chapter 15 provides a good example of efforts to this end.
Governing Interaction Systems
I consider governing interaction systems as the whole of all interactions between
governing entities, public as well as private (Kooiman 2003 ) . They do not exist
without their two companion sub-systems, the system-to-be-governed and the governing system, and constitute as it were the embodiment of the traf fi c between
them. In societal interaction systems, interactions have two main directions: one
emanating from the system-to-be-governed to the governing system and the other
in the opposite direction. In a full-scale interaction system, the two directions may
become so intertwined that they assume a circular form. The more an interaction
system is carefully fashioned, the more it will display its own system features.
Horizontal as well as vertical aspects of governing interactions can be distinguished, and the actor and structural dimensions can be spelled out as well.
The Actor Level
As argued in Chap. 2 , many aspects of governing interactions are relevant for governability. However, some have yet to be addressed and deserve attention here. Governance
interactions, in whatever form, can be seen as mixes of cooperation and con fl ict. After
all, societal governance usually deals with highly contentious sociopolitical issues.
Especially long-lasting governance interactions will show more cooperative periods
alternating with more con fl ictive ones. Some interactions can exhibit both phenomena
at the same time; in certain areas there will be cooperation, while in others interests
can clash and interactions may be competitive. Governance interactions can be
arranged on a scale from (highly) con fl ictive to (highly) cooperative with all kinds of
shades in between. The TWINS matrix developed in the fi eld of trans-boundary water
governance is a useful example (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008 ) .
Not all governing interactions have the same intensity, however. Some are deliberative, while others play a role in decision-making. In fact, one could devise a scale
of intensity varying from ‘light’ to ‘heavy’. The following are examples that illustrate points on such a scale.