368
J. Kooiman
The application of these ideas on mixes of governance modes to fi sheries is, in
and of itself, mixed. Much of the existing work has been done by members of
Fisheries Governance Network and refers largely to the co-governance mode of
governance. Less research energy has clearly been spent investigating the two other
modes, at least in a systematic manner.
There are interesting initiatives in some areas of study regarding governance
modes (e.g. Chap. 10 ). In Fish for Life (Kooiman et al. 2005 , 221), we argued that
self-governance often results in some degree of de-stabilization. On the contrary,
self-governance may also have a stabilizing effect in situations of rapid change. We
also mention that co-governance frequently requires a stick based on hierarchical
governance in the background if not for other reasons than to counter free-rider
behaviour. These earlier observations still hold true, and it is certainly worthwhile
to pursue and bring them into a more generalized context.
Fit: The Relation Between Sub-systems
One of the central propositions in our approach to the governability of any societal system is that governability largely depends on the relationship between the
system-to-be-governed, the governing system, and the governing interaction system. For example, one might hypothesize that the more the features of a systemto-be-governed are represented in or matched by a governing system, the more a
system is governable. One might also expect to fi nd that the better an interaction
system represents attributes of a system-to-be-governed and a governing system,
the better it can play its role as ‘in-between’. Several concepts are available to try
to express such relations. Chief among them are terms like representation, fi t, match
and correspondence. But what does it mean for the features of a system-to-be-governed
like a ( fi sh) chain to be represented, corresponding or re fl ected in its governing
system? Is this a case of parallelism, whereby a particular pattern of diversity,
complexity and dynamics in the fi sh chain is, for example, mirrored in the governing
system? Or is it a matter of adjustment, whereby a governing system makes
maximum use of the opportunities that arise?
Members of the Fisheries Governance Network have formulated ideas that tackle
these questions in various studies. In an earlier publication, I phrased a set of propositions on governability using representation as central concept. I posited, for example, that the representation of societal features, in particular diversity, complexity
and dynamics, can be differentiated according to the elements and modes of governance (Kooiman 2003 , 206). Additionally, Mahon et al. ( 2005 ) argue that the
dynamics affecting fi sh chains should be matched by the dynamics of the ‘learning
organization’. Here, dynamics are met with dynamics – a clear instance of mirroring. According to the same authors, the diversity and complexity of fi sh chains
should be matched by ‘partnership’ between governing actors. This is not a matter
of one-to-one re fl ection, but a case of positive attunement (Mahon et al. 2005 ) .
Jentoft argues that the diversity of the system-to-be-governed asks for contextual
J. Kooiman
The application of these ideas on mixes of governance modes to fi sheries is, in
and of itself, mixed. Much of the existing work has been done by members of
Fisheries Governance Network and refers largely to the co-governance mode of
governance. Less research energy has clearly been spent investigating the two other
modes, at least in a systematic manner.
There are interesting initiatives in some areas of study regarding governance
modes (e.g. Chap. 10 ). In Fish for Life (Kooiman et al. 2005 , 221), we argued that
self-governance often results in some degree of de-stabilization. On the contrary,
self-governance may also have a stabilizing effect in situations of rapid change. We
also mention that co-governance frequently requires a stick based on hierarchical
governance in the background if not for other reasons than to counter free-rider
behaviour. These earlier observations still hold true, and it is certainly worthwhile
to pursue and bring them into a more generalized context.
Fit: The Relation Between Sub-systems
One of the central propositions in our approach to the governability of any societal system is that governability largely depends on the relationship between the
system-to-be-governed, the governing system, and the governing interaction system. For example, one might hypothesize that the more the features of a systemto-be-governed are represented in or matched by a governing system, the more a
system is governable. One might also expect to fi nd that the better an interaction
system represents attributes of a system-to-be-governed and a governing system,
the better it can play its role as ‘in-between’. Several concepts are available to try
to express such relations. Chief among them are terms like representation, fi t, match
and correspondence. But what does it mean for the features of a system-to-be-governed
like a ( fi sh) chain to be represented, corresponding or re fl ected in its governing
system? Is this a case of parallelism, whereby a particular pattern of diversity,
complexity and dynamics in the fi sh chain is, for example, mirrored in the governing
system? Or is it a matter of adjustment, whereby a governing system makes
maximum use of the opportunities that arise?
Members of the Fisheries Governance Network have formulated ideas that tackle
these questions in various studies. In an earlier publication, I phrased a set of propositions on governability using representation as central concept. I posited, for example, that the representation of societal features, in particular diversity, complexity
and dynamics, can be differentiated according to the elements and modes of governance (Kooiman 2003 , 206). Additionally, Mahon et al. ( 2005 ) argue that the
dynamics affecting fi sh chains should be matched by the dynamics of the ‘learning
organization’. Here, dynamics are met with dynamics – a clear instance of mirroring. According to the same authors, the diversity and complexity of fi sh chains
should be matched by ‘partnership’ between governing actors. This is not a matter
of one-to-one re fl ection, but a case of positive attunement (Mahon et al. 2005 ) .
Jentoft argues that the diversity of the system-to-be-governed asks for contextual