369
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
sensitivity on the part of the governing system, and thus must become structurally
diverse itself ( 2007b ) . The question as to whether the term representation cannot be
better replaced by re fl ection and attunement is further raised in a study of the
fi sheries in the Bay of Bengal (Bavinck and Salagrama 2008 ) . The issue is taken up
again in Chap. 8 , when the concept of compatibility is introduced next to attunement in the study of matching between the sub-systems of India’s Palk Bay.
Compatibility is seen as a match in spatial scale and the answer for mismatches in
structured interactions. Attunement is used for (mis-) matches in diversity and
dynamics, while responses in modes of governance demands are seen as responses
to governing demands formulated in the system-to-be-governed.
Now this might all look as though it is merely a question of terminology, all
‘representing’ in different terms but basically being the same central idea. There is,
however, more to it than that. We have progressed far enough to propose further
steps in the development of this basic idea of representation. Pitkin’s ( 1967 ) distinction between a more factual or descriptive type and a more inde fi nite or symbolic
version of representation might help us further (cf. Cilliers 2005 ) . I suggest that we
can treat the relation between the system-to-be-governed, governing system, and
interaction system, and particularly the idea of the representation of diversity, complexity and dynamics at different scales, in these two ways. The symbolic version is
a two-way interpretation process from the system-to-be-governed to the governing
system in terms of re fl ecting these features, while the factual version encourages us
to think in terms of attuning. Both are researchable processes, but each is of a different character: the fi rst is more synthetic and interpretative, while the second is
more analytic and descriptive. In both of these processes, governing interactions
play a key role.
Conclusion
In this chapter I have gone through some of the major components of the conceptual
framework developed around governability. I have paid attention to both theoretical
issues as well as applications in fi sheries. Anyone who has followed the work of the
Fisheries Governance Network can see that this is only a minor selection of the topics raised around governance in the last few years. Our efforts have made it abundantly clear that governability is not only a rich concept and a source for further
theoretical work, but also that it can be fruitfully applied to societal sectors or systems like fi sheries, aquaculture and coastal zones. Furthermore, there is no reason to
assume that these systems represent the concept’s limits. Governability studies may
be useful for other societal fi elds as well.
As is to be expected when working with a concept like governability, more questions emerge as new insights are gained. Its potential richness has only just been
skimmed. It is my strong belief that it can stand its own in the fi eld of ( fi sheries)
governance studies; hopefully this chapter will have contributed to the credibility of
this statement.
19 Improving Governability – Re fl ections for Future Applications
sensitivity on the part of the governing system, and thus must become structurally
diverse itself ( 2007b ) . The question as to whether the term representation cannot be
better replaced by re fl ection and attunement is further raised in a study of the
fi sheries in the Bay of Bengal (Bavinck and Salagrama 2008 ) . The issue is taken up
again in Chap. 8 , when the concept of compatibility is introduced next to attunement in the study of matching between the sub-systems of India’s Palk Bay.
Compatibility is seen as a match in spatial scale and the answer for mismatches in
structured interactions. Attunement is used for (mis-) matches in diversity and
dynamics, while responses in modes of governance demands are seen as responses
to governing demands formulated in the system-to-be-governed.
Now this might all look as though it is merely a question of terminology, all
‘representing’ in different terms but basically being the same central idea. There is,
however, more to it than that. We have progressed far enough to propose further
steps in the development of this basic idea of representation. Pitkin’s ( 1967 ) distinction between a more factual or descriptive type and a more inde fi nite or symbolic
version of representation might help us further (cf. Cilliers 2005 ) . I suggest that we
can treat the relation between the system-to-be-governed, governing system, and
interaction system, and particularly the idea of the representation of diversity, complexity and dynamics at different scales, in these two ways. The symbolic version is
a two-way interpretation process from the system-to-be-governed to the governing
system in terms of re fl ecting these features, while the factual version encourages us
to think in terms of attuning. Both are researchable processes, but each is of a different character: the fi rst is more synthetic and interpretative, while the second is
more analytic and descriptive. In both of these processes, governing interactions
play a key role.
Conclusion
In this chapter I have gone through some of the major components of the conceptual
framework developed around governability. I have paid attention to both theoretical
issues as well as applications in fi sheries. Anyone who has followed the work of the
Fisheries Governance Network can see that this is only a minor selection of the topics raised around governance in the last few years. Our efforts have made it abundantly clear that governability is not only a rich concept and a source for further
theoretical work, but also that it can be fruitfully applied to societal sectors or systems like fi sheries, aquaculture and coastal zones. Furthermore, there is no reason to
assume that these systems represent the concept’s limits. Governability studies may
be useful for other societal fi elds as well.
As is to be expected when working with a concept like governability, more questions emerge as new insights are gained. Its potential richness has only just been
skimmed. It is my strong belief that it can stand its own in the fi eld of ( fi sheries)
governance studies; hopefully this chapter will have contributed to the credibility of
this statement.