24
J. Kooiman and M. Bavinck
In one of the concluding chapters of the Fish for Life volume, Kooiman and
Chuenpagdee ( 2005 ) postulate an evaluative framework for governability that corresponds gracefully with the four pillars of interactive governance theory. The ‘features’
(diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale), which permeate the system-to-begoverned, governing system and governing interactions, are fi rst of all to be assessed
according to the criterion of representation: “the manner and degree to which the
features of a fi sheries system correspond with those in its governing system” (Kooiman
and Chuenpagdee 2005 , 347–8). The utility of this criterion has been further investigated by Bavinck and Salagrama ( 2008 ). The second pillar, ‘elements’ (images, instruments and action), is gauged by the criterion of rationality: are the elements in tune
with or supportive of each other? For ‘modes’ (hierarchical, co-governance, self-governance) Kooiman and Chuenpagdee suggest using ‘responsiveness’ as a measuring
stick: “does the mix of governing modes respond to the varying governing needs of
[the variety of fi shing] types?” ( 2005 , 347). The fi nal theoretical pillar, orders ( fi rst,
second and meta), is to be evaluated with reference to the norm of ‘performance’.
The framework is not elaborated further in this fi rst writing. The authors do,
however, provide a pointer for how an evaluation exercise of this kind might actually be conducted. The ‘simpli fi ed version’ of an evaluative framework, which they
present, consists of a matrix with different fi shing métiers on the vertical axis and
the four evaluative criteria on the horizontal axis. Each fi shery is given one of three
scores (high, medium and low) for each criterion, after which the scores are totaled
to form a composite quality of governability.
This assessment approach, which is based on the application of evaluative criteria deduced from the theory of interactive governance, is expanded upon in a special
issue for the Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies published in 2008.
After a general introduction to the concept of governability (Kooiman et al. 2008 )
and its application to the realms of fi sheries, aquaculture and coastal zones
(Chuenpagdee et al. 2008 ), the special issue presents two case studies on the governability of fi sheries, one in the Caribbean (Mahon et al. 2008 ) and the other in the
Bay of Bengal (Bavinck and Salagrama 2008 ). Jentoft and Chuenpagdee ( 2009 )
continue in the same vein, replacing the scoring of items in the matrix mentioned
above with the formulation of questions that guide assessment.
The Fish for Life volume also stands at the root of another, more practical, bottom-up approach to assessing governability. Discussing the governability of fi sh
chains and the ubiquity of diversity, complexity and dynamics, Mahon et al. emphasize that “effective fi sheries governance will as fully as possible re fl ect its operating
context” ( 2005 , 353). This formulation, which applies the verb ‘to re fl ect’, comes
close to what Kooiman and Chuenpagdee ( 2005 ) label, ‘representation’. What the
fi rst authors mean by ‘re fl ection’ emerges more clearly in the remainder of the cited
chapter, which deals with the dynamics and uncertainties of the fi sh chain and the
resultant need for governing system to boost its adaptive capacity.
Mahon et al. ( 2005 ) pinpoint mismatches of scale – spatial, temporal and organizational – as an important factor impacting on governability, and voice agreement with
Costanza et al. ( 1998 ), who include the implementation of governance at the appropriate
scale as one of the important ocean governance principles. Echoing Kooiman and
Chuenpagdee’s ( 2005 ) reference to ‘performance’ as a criterion for evaluating
J. Kooiman and M. Bavinck
In one of the concluding chapters of the Fish for Life volume, Kooiman and
Chuenpagdee ( 2005 ) postulate an evaluative framework for governability that corresponds gracefully with the four pillars of interactive governance theory. The ‘features’
(diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale), which permeate the system-to-begoverned, governing system and governing interactions, are fi rst of all to be assessed
according to the criterion of representation: “the manner and degree to which the
features of a fi sheries system correspond with those in its governing system” (Kooiman
and Chuenpagdee 2005 , 347–8). The utility of this criterion has been further investigated by Bavinck and Salagrama ( 2008 ). The second pillar, ‘elements’ (images, instruments and action), is gauged by the criterion of rationality: are the elements in tune
with or supportive of each other? For ‘modes’ (hierarchical, co-governance, self-governance) Kooiman and Chuenpagdee suggest using ‘responsiveness’ as a measuring
stick: “does the mix of governing modes respond to the varying governing needs of
[the variety of fi shing] types?” ( 2005 , 347). The fi nal theoretical pillar, orders ( fi rst,
second and meta), is to be evaluated with reference to the norm of ‘performance’.
The framework is not elaborated further in this fi rst writing. The authors do,
however, provide a pointer for how an evaluation exercise of this kind might actually be conducted. The ‘simpli fi ed version’ of an evaluative framework, which they
present, consists of a matrix with different fi shing métiers on the vertical axis and
the four evaluative criteria on the horizontal axis. Each fi shery is given one of three
scores (high, medium and low) for each criterion, after which the scores are totaled
to form a composite quality of governability.
This assessment approach, which is based on the application of evaluative criteria deduced from the theory of interactive governance, is expanded upon in a special
issue for the Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies published in 2008.
After a general introduction to the concept of governability (Kooiman et al. 2008 )
and its application to the realms of fi sheries, aquaculture and coastal zones
(Chuenpagdee et al. 2008 ), the special issue presents two case studies on the governability of fi sheries, one in the Caribbean (Mahon et al. 2008 ) and the other in the
Bay of Bengal (Bavinck and Salagrama 2008 ). Jentoft and Chuenpagdee ( 2009 )
continue in the same vein, replacing the scoring of items in the matrix mentioned
above with the formulation of questions that guide assessment.
The Fish for Life volume also stands at the root of another, more practical, bottom-up approach to assessing governability. Discussing the governability of fi sh
chains and the ubiquity of diversity, complexity and dynamics, Mahon et al. emphasize that “effective fi sheries governance will as fully as possible re fl ect its operating
context” ( 2005 , 353). This formulation, which applies the verb ‘to re fl ect’, comes
close to what Kooiman and Chuenpagdee ( 2005 ) label, ‘representation’. What the
fi rst authors mean by ‘re fl ection’ emerges more clearly in the remainder of the cited
chapter, which deals with the dynamics and uncertainties of the fi sh chain and the
resultant need for governing system to boost its adaptive capacity.
Mahon et al. ( 2005 ) pinpoint mismatches of scale – spatial, temporal and organizational – as an important factor impacting on governability, and voice agreement with
Costanza et al. ( 1998 ), who include the implementation of governance at the appropriate
scale as one of the important ocean governance principles. Echoing Kooiman and
Chuenpagdee’s ( 2005 ) reference to ‘performance’ as a criterion for evaluating