365
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
Deliberation has gradually become a central concept in thinking about democracy,
where it is seen as a necessary supplement to classical ‘electoral’ forms. Deliberative
democracy is advocated as a means of bridging differences, yielding policies that are
more legitimate, rational and just (Rosenberg 2007 , 335–336). I adhere to a somewhat
narrower interpretation by which deliberation might lead to a better understanding of the
diversity, complexity and dynamics (and other aspects) of governability issues. However,
we also need to keep an open eye for hidden agendas, strategic behaviour, motives other
than to convince, power games and the possibilities of skewed participation and exclusion (see e.g. Bächtiger and Steiner 2005 ) . The higher the expectation of the role of
deliberation in democratic governance, the more one has to be aware of the possibility
of hidden agendas.
Interactive learning is a second important form of governing interaction.
Typically, governance addresses many concerns that are dif fi cult to reconcile and
the capacity to learn is a major part of such processes (Jentoft et al. 2009 ; Mahon
et al. 2005 ) . The question is not only one of substance, i.e. what should be learned,
but also one of process, i.e. how to learn how to learn interactively. There are several
ways to improve learning capacities in governing interactions. For example, there is
what is called social learning, which incorporates strong notions of learning-bydoing (see Armitage et al. 2007 ) , and inter-organizational or network learning
(Carlton and Payne 2003 ) , with a methodology for multi-party learning processes
that stress the interdependence of parties (Bouwen and Tallieu 2004 ) .
Interactive decision-making is the most intensive type of governing interactions.
Without decisions, interactions remain somewhat of a half empty glass; the pudding
has to be eaten to become real. What decisions are, how decisions are made and how
to analyze them has been the subject of much discussion (Parsons 1995 ) . There are
schools that view decisions as rational, ordered and comprehensive. They are formally organized and based on expert knowledge. Others consider decisions to be
incremental, step-by-step and less organized. Here, common sense, practical experience and indigenous knowledge dominate. Questions about (interactive) decision
processes are especially useful (Hogwood and Gunn 1984 , 49 ff). It is important to
ask, for example, whether or not there are time constraints or political overtones;
whether positions among participants have been fi xed; how central the decision is
for those concerned; and, how value-laden the decisionto be taken is.
With interactions central to the interactive governance perspective, it is logical
that members of the Fisheries Governance Network have regarded them as an essential part of their governability studies. For example, when comparing two MPA
cases, one in Canada and the other in Mexico, Chuenpagdee ( 2011 ) gave interactions a central place, analysing them as a ‘new lens’ in their governance. Almost all
chapters in this book pay attention to interactions in some form. Some chapters do
this in a descriptive sense. Chapter 16 , for example, presents a systematic analysis
of interactions as networks. Chapters in part III explore their role in the actual governing of fi sheries, while chapters in part II zero in on interactions as a source for
asking questions about fi sheries.
The actual picture of interactions taking place in fi sheries governance is rather
bleak. The chapters in this book highlight their ad-hoc and haphazard nature, a lack
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
Deliberation has gradually become a central concept in thinking about democracy,
where it is seen as a necessary supplement to classical ‘electoral’ forms. Deliberative
democracy is advocated as a means of bridging differences, yielding policies that are
more legitimate, rational and just (Rosenberg 2007 , 335–336). I adhere to a somewhat
narrower interpretation by which deliberation might lead to a better understanding of the
diversity, complexity and dynamics (and other aspects) of governability issues. However,
we also need to keep an open eye for hidden agendas, strategic behaviour, motives other
than to convince, power games and the possibilities of skewed participation and exclusion (see e.g. Bächtiger and Steiner 2005 ) . The higher the expectation of the role of
deliberation in democratic governance, the more one has to be aware of the possibility
of hidden agendas.
Interactive learning is a second important form of governing interaction.
Typically, governance addresses many concerns that are dif fi cult to reconcile and
the capacity to learn is a major part of such processes (Jentoft et al. 2009 ; Mahon
et al. 2005 ) . The question is not only one of substance, i.e. what should be learned,
but also one of process, i.e. how to learn how to learn interactively. There are several
ways to improve learning capacities in governing interactions. For example, there is
what is called social learning, which incorporates strong notions of learning-bydoing (see Armitage et al. 2007 ) , and inter-organizational or network learning
(Carlton and Payne 2003 ) , with a methodology for multi-party learning processes
that stress the interdependence of parties (Bouwen and Tallieu 2004 ) .
Interactive decision-making is the most intensive type of governing interactions.
Without decisions, interactions remain somewhat of a half empty glass; the pudding
has to be eaten to become real. What decisions are, how decisions are made and how
to analyze them has been the subject of much discussion (Parsons 1995 ) . There are
schools that view decisions as rational, ordered and comprehensive. They are formally organized and based on expert knowledge. Others consider decisions to be
incremental, step-by-step and less organized. Here, common sense, practical experience and indigenous knowledge dominate. Questions about (interactive) decision
processes are especially useful (Hogwood and Gunn 1984 , 49 ff). It is important to
ask, for example, whether or not there are time constraints or political overtones;
whether positions among participants have been fi xed; how central the decision is
for those concerned; and, how value-laden the decisionto be taken is.
With interactions central to the interactive governance perspective, it is logical
that members of the Fisheries Governance Network have regarded them as an essential part of their governability studies. For example, when comparing two MPA
cases, one in Canada and the other in Mexico, Chuenpagdee ( 2011 ) gave interactions a central place, analysing them as a ‘new lens’ in their governance. Almost all
chapters in this book pay attention to interactions in some form. Some chapters do
this in a descriptive sense. Chapter 16 , for example, presents a systematic analysis
of interactions as networks. Chapters in part III explore their role in the actual governing of fi sheries, while chapters in part II zero in on interactions as a source for
asking questions about fi sheries.
The actual picture of interactions taking place in fi sheries governance is rather
bleak. The chapters in this book highlight their ad-hoc and haphazard nature, a lack