23
2 Theorizing Governability – The Interactive Governance Perspective
Co-governing Interactions
Collaborative and cooperative governance interactions are growing in number and
in importance. This raises an important question: why are groups, organizations
and authorities interested in sharing their governance responsibilities and conducting activities together instead of alone? Mutual interdependencies are often
mentioned as the main reason for such interactions (Huxham 1996 ) . In the fi eld
of social-political governing, parties may collaborate, co-operate, co-ordinate and
communicate ‘sideways’ without any one actor playing a central or dominating role.
In earlier publications we made a conceptual distinction between collaboration and
cooperation, collaboration being the day-to-day interaction where actors or entities
work together, and cooperation a more formal attunement of activities. Two forms
of co-governing stand out: networks and co-management (see Kooiman 2003 ) .
One of today’s catchwords is ‘networks’. Its de fi nition varies in meaning from an
overall theory of society (Castells 1996 ) to very detailed, precise and quantitative
analyses of particular types of interactions between people or entities in various
societal domains. Functionalist explanations for societal networks emphasize the
need for resources, combating common environmental uncertainties and strategic
considerations. Interactions are mainly described as being of a horizontal nature,
although minor hierarchical elements can also develop by, for example, linking-pin
organizations. Approaches to networks that explicitly conceptualize them as modes
of governance merit special attention. Some authors in this fi eld even consider
networks almost exclusively in terms of governance (Rhodes 1997 ; Sørensen and
Tor fi ng 2007 ) . See Mahon and McConney (Chap. 15 , this volume) for an application of network analysis to fi sheries.
Co-management differs from networks by identifying speci fi c tasks to be carried
out. Authors in this fi eld expect that by involving stakeholders directly in the governance process, a positive feedback loop will develop. This is because: governing
knowledge becomes more adequate, resulting in more satisfactory governing
measures, which in turn lead to higher management legitimacy and compliance,
“accepting the regulations as appropriate and consistent with […] persisting values
and world views” (Jentoft 1989 , 139; cf. Wilson et al. 2003 ) .
Working with Governability
We noted above that the governability of societal systems is a function of its three
components: system-to-be-governed, governing system and governing interactions.
Each component possesses its own governability aspects, some of which add to overall governability, while others detract from it. In the following pages we discuss
earlier contributions to the discussion, which have highlighted the relationship
between system-to-be-governed and governing system. We call attention here to two
different approaches: one that makes use of criteria, the other emphasizing ‘match’.
2 Theorizing Governability – The Interactive Governance Perspective
Co-governing Interactions
Collaborative and cooperative governance interactions are growing in number and
in importance. This raises an important question: why are groups, organizations
and authorities interested in sharing their governance responsibilities and conducting activities together instead of alone? Mutual interdependencies are often
mentioned as the main reason for such interactions (Huxham 1996 ) . In the fi eld
of social-political governing, parties may collaborate, co-operate, co-ordinate and
communicate ‘sideways’ without any one actor playing a central or dominating role.
In earlier publications we made a conceptual distinction between collaboration and
cooperation, collaboration being the day-to-day interaction where actors or entities
work together, and cooperation a more formal attunement of activities. Two forms
of co-governing stand out: networks and co-management (see Kooiman 2003 ) .
One of today’s catchwords is ‘networks’. Its de fi nition varies in meaning from an
overall theory of society (Castells 1996 ) to very detailed, precise and quantitative
analyses of particular types of interactions between people or entities in various
societal domains. Functionalist explanations for societal networks emphasize the
need for resources, combating common environmental uncertainties and strategic
considerations. Interactions are mainly described as being of a horizontal nature,
although minor hierarchical elements can also develop by, for example, linking-pin
organizations. Approaches to networks that explicitly conceptualize them as modes
of governance merit special attention. Some authors in this fi eld even consider
networks almost exclusively in terms of governance (Rhodes 1997 ; Sørensen and
Tor fi ng 2007 ) . See Mahon and McConney (Chap. 15 , this volume) for an application of network analysis to fi sheries.
Co-management differs from networks by identifying speci fi c tasks to be carried
out. Authors in this fi eld expect that by involving stakeholders directly in the governance process, a positive feedback loop will develop. This is because: governing
knowledge becomes more adequate, resulting in more satisfactory governing
measures, which in turn lead to higher management legitimacy and compliance,
“accepting the regulations as appropriate and consistent with […] persisting values
and world views” (Jentoft 1989 , 139; cf. Wilson et al. 2003 ) .
Working with Governability
We noted above that the governability of societal systems is a function of its three
components: system-to-be-governed, governing system and governing interactions.
Each component possesses its own governability aspects, some of which add to overall governability, while others detract from it. In the following pages we discuss
earlier contributions to the discussion, which have highlighted the relationship
between system-to-be-governed and governing system. We call attention here to two
different approaches: one that makes use of criteria, the other emphasizing ‘match’.