367
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
all governing levels played an important role in increasing the governance position
of these women, as well as in contributing to the governability of the resource.
Looking at the discussions in the chapters of this book, however, this is more of a
promise for the future than a governance reality. What many of the authors in this
book show (e.g. in the summary matrices of Part II) are of the types of (research)
questions that should be asked about interactions at actor and structural levels.
Power
Applying in fl uence and bringing power into play in governance are facts of life that
remain dif fi cult to pinpoint and study. In addition to the general literature on the
nature of power (see for a recent overview and discussion Jentoft 2007b ) , all kinds
of useful distinctions between types of power can be found. Numerous typologies
of power are potentially relevant for governance studies: episodic, dispositional,
and facilitative power (Clegg 1989 ) ; relational, dispositional and structural power
(Arts and van Tatenhove 2005 ) ; and, strategic, institutionalized and structural power.
Jentoft ( 2007b ) points to the fact that, within governance, power can be viewed in a
productive sense. It makes governance possible and supports it. It may also be construed as destructive force when, for example, it blocks useful governing efforts. It
is because the interaction system re fl ects the attributes of the system-to-be-governed
and the governing system in many ways that it is a suitable conceptual and empirical
location to study power.
Although the dif fi culties of studying power in a satisfying manner remains one
of the reasons why it is, as Jentoft ( 2007b ) claims, an under-researched subject with
respect to fi sheries and coastal zones, there are good examples of methodologies for
analysing power and in fl uence in decision processes. The six sources of power –
authority, status, information, expertise, solidarity and fi nances – distinguished by
Lasswell and Kaplan ( 1950 ) and others provide a starting point (Kooiman 1970 ) .
These sources can be combined with the types of power distinguished above to form
a framework for analysis in interaction systems that may potentially be expanded to
cover both the governing system and the system-to-be-governed.
Mixes of Governing Modes
Chapter 2 introduced the three modes of self, co- and hierarchical governance.
Although much more can be said about them individually, the most important governability challenge resides in their combination, mix or fi t. This is unchartered
theoretical territory and the scope of this chapter is insuf fi cient to even scout this
fi eld. It is certain that each societal sector has its own mix that re fl ects the particular
relations that exist between the system-to-be-governed and the governing system.
There are sectors where the weight in the balance of the different modes is on the
hierarchical side (police, education), with minor contributions of co- and self- governance. In other sectors and countries where, for example, a (neo) corporatist political culture exists, co-governance modes are well known and of great importance.
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
all governing levels played an important role in increasing the governance position
of these women, as well as in contributing to the governability of the resource.
Looking at the discussions in the chapters of this book, however, this is more of a
promise for the future than a governance reality. What many of the authors in this
book show (e.g. in the summary matrices of Part II) are of the types of (research)
questions that should be asked about interactions at actor and structural levels.
Power
Applying in fl uence and bringing power into play in governance are facts of life that
remain dif fi cult to pinpoint and study. In addition to the general literature on the
nature of power (see for a recent overview and discussion Jentoft 2007b ) , all kinds
of useful distinctions between types of power can be found. Numerous typologies
of power are potentially relevant for governance studies: episodic, dispositional,
and facilitative power (Clegg 1989 ) ; relational, dispositional and structural power
(Arts and van Tatenhove 2005 ) ; and, strategic, institutionalized and structural power.
Jentoft ( 2007b ) points to the fact that, within governance, power can be viewed in a
productive sense. It makes governance possible and supports it. It may also be construed as destructive force when, for example, it blocks useful governing efforts. It
is because the interaction system re fl ects the attributes of the system-to-be-governed
and the governing system in many ways that it is a suitable conceptual and empirical
location to study power.
Although the dif fi culties of studying power in a satisfying manner remains one
of the reasons why it is, as Jentoft ( 2007b ) claims, an under-researched subject with
respect to fi sheries and coastal zones, there are good examples of methodologies for
analysing power and in fl uence in decision processes. The six sources of power –
authority, status, information, expertise, solidarity and fi nances – distinguished by
Lasswell and Kaplan ( 1950 ) and others provide a starting point (Kooiman 1970 ) .
These sources can be combined with the types of power distinguished above to form
a framework for analysis in interaction systems that may potentially be expanded to
cover both the governing system and the system-to-be-governed.
Mixes of Governing Modes
Chapter 2 introduced the three modes of self, co- and hierarchical governance.
Although much more can be said about them individually, the most important governability challenge resides in their combination, mix or fi t. This is unchartered
theoretical territory and the scope of this chapter is insuf fi cient to even scout this
fi eld. It is certain that each societal sector has its own mix that re fl ects the particular
relations that exist between the system-to-be-governed and the governing system.
There are sectors where the weight in the balance of the different modes is on the
hierarchical side (police, education), with minor contributions of co- and self- governance. In other sectors and countries where, for example, a (neo) corporatist political culture exists, co-governance modes are well known and of great importance.