21
2 Theorizing Governability – The Interactive Governance Perspective
(Van der Schans 2001 ). The notion that there is a public interest in fi sheries that
reaches beyond the role of stakeholders deserves more attention, however (Mahony
et al. 2010 ) .
We lean on Bourdieu ( 1986 ) and Coleman ( 1990 ) in conceptualizing social
capital (see Kooiman 2003 ) . Both authors consider social capital to be a structural
resource that is unevenly distributed and expressed at different levels of societal
aggregation (Foley and Edwards 1999 ) . This perspective enables social capital to
be seen as sets of interactions, which take place within a societal context having
historical antecedents and showing broad strati fi cation patterns (such as societal
sectors or ‘social fi elds’ as Bourdieu calls them). Halpern elaborates it as “societies
not being composed of atomized individuals, but people connected with one another
through the social fabric of intermediate social structures affecting greatly with
whom, and how, we interact and co-operate” ( 2005 , 3). The concept of social capital
is widely applied in fi sheries discourse today for explaining governance outcomes
(Grafton 2005 ; Gutiérrez et al. 2011 ) .
Modes of Governing
In the reality of societal governance an enormous variety of interactions can be
observed. To come to grips with them we distinguish between three types: a selfgoverning mode, a hierarchical mode, and a co-governing mode of interactions.
Self-Governing Interactions
Self-governance refers to the capacity of social entities to govern themselves.
While in modern societies this is seldom true in an absolute sense, it is useful to
realize that without sustaining a certain self-governing capacity, societal governance is an altogether impossible task (as the history of many totalitarian regimes
has shown). Forms of self-governance are found in all societies and to a much
greater extent than is often realized. In fi sheries, self-governance is frequently
described under the labels of ‘customary management’ or ‘sea tenure’ (Ruddle
et al. 1992 ; Bavinck 2005 ) .
But beware, some of what is for example sold as self-regulation is actually a
form of re-regulation, or changing centralized forms of public control into ‘steering at a distance’. Self-organized governance varies from spontaneous types
embodied by social action groups and social movements to institutionalized
types representing interest groups. Such initiatives differ in organizational form,
strategies applied, and styles of interaction between system-to-be-government
and governing system.
What interest groups are is a matter of much debate and although insight into
the phenomenon has grown considerably, there is still little accumulation of knowledge
2 Theorizing Governability – The Interactive Governance Perspective
(Van der Schans 2001 ). The notion that there is a public interest in fi sheries that
reaches beyond the role of stakeholders deserves more attention, however (Mahony
et al. 2010 ) .
We lean on Bourdieu ( 1986 ) and Coleman ( 1990 ) in conceptualizing social
capital (see Kooiman 2003 ) . Both authors consider social capital to be a structural
resource that is unevenly distributed and expressed at different levels of societal
aggregation (Foley and Edwards 1999 ) . This perspective enables social capital to
be seen as sets of interactions, which take place within a societal context having
historical antecedents and showing broad strati fi cation patterns (such as societal
sectors or ‘social fi elds’ as Bourdieu calls them). Halpern elaborates it as “societies
not being composed of atomized individuals, but people connected with one another
through the social fabric of intermediate social structures affecting greatly with
whom, and how, we interact and co-operate” ( 2005 , 3). The concept of social capital
is widely applied in fi sheries discourse today for explaining governance outcomes
(Grafton 2005 ; Gutiérrez et al. 2011 ) .
Modes of Governing
In the reality of societal governance an enormous variety of interactions can be
observed. To come to grips with them we distinguish between three types: a selfgoverning mode, a hierarchical mode, and a co-governing mode of interactions.
Self-Governing Interactions
Self-governance refers to the capacity of social entities to govern themselves.
While in modern societies this is seldom true in an absolute sense, it is useful to
realize that without sustaining a certain self-governing capacity, societal governance is an altogether impossible task (as the history of many totalitarian regimes
has shown). Forms of self-governance are found in all societies and to a much
greater extent than is often realized. In fi sheries, self-governance is frequently
described under the labels of ‘customary management’ or ‘sea tenure’ (Ruddle
et al. 1992 ; Bavinck 2005 ) .
But beware, some of what is for example sold as self-regulation is actually a
form of re-regulation, or changing centralized forms of public control into ‘steering at a distance’. Self-organized governance varies from spontaneous types
embodied by social action groups and social movements to institutionalized
types representing interest groups. Such initiatives differ in organizational form,
strategies applied, and styles of interaction between system-to-be-government
and governing system.
What interest groups are is a matter of much debate and although insight into
the phenomenon has grown considerably, there is still little accumulation of knowledge