25
2 Theorizing Governability – The Interactive Governance Perspective
governance orders, these authors emphasize upward and downward linkages and
the integration of the overall governance system. ‘Match’ and ‘mismatch’ are important descriptors for the relationship between system-to-be-governed and governing
system. Less complex fi sheries chains thus require signi fi cantly different governing
arrangements than do more complex chains. For example, a large commercial
fi shery that uses a few large vessels to exploit a few relatively stable resources with
outputs that are processed and sold in supermarkets may be inherently more governable than a widely dispersed, small-scale fi shery from which products are distributed freshly by a large number of middlemen with little organization of either fi shers
or distributors (Mahon et al. 2005 , 351)
From the contrast drawn between a large-scale and a small-scale fi shery one can
readily imagine that a governing system may be in dif fi culty if it does not adapt itself.
The idea ventured in this quote suggests that, because of their relative simplicity,
large commercial fi sheries are ‘inherently more governable’, is corrected some time
later by another set of authors (Mahon et al. 2008 ) who suggest that fi sheries chains
of different complexities require different ‘governance mixes’. More complex
fi sheries would thus necessitate “a large component of ‘letting go’ of past control
systems to allow space for self-organization” (Mahon et al . 2008 , 110).
Continuing along a similar train of thought, Jentoft ( 2007 ) formulates the requirement of ‘match’ in terms of ‘compatibility’. He argues that the governing system
and the system-to-be-governed should be ‘isomorphic’ and ‘mutually responsive’.
According to this author, compatibility is not a consequence of natural adaptation
but instead of deliberate intervention, planning and institutional design by societal
actors such as legislative bodies, planning agencies and civic organizations. This
can happen alone or, preferably, in concert as governing capacity and interaction is
enhanced through collaboration.
The perspective of assessing and enhancing match is explored further in a special
section of the journal, Fish and Fisheries (volume 11, 2010). This section includes
two research papers on the adjustment process between governing needs and
governing capacities in Malawi and Lake Victoria (Song and Chuenpagdee 2010 ;
Onyango and Jentoft 2010 ), and two applications of the governability concept from
the vantage points of anthropology and economics (Johnson 2010 ; Sumaila 2010 ).
One of the aspects elaborated is the determination of appropriate ‘images’ for governance (also see Jentoft et al. 2010 ) .
The study of match has fi nally resulted in a number of papers on the limitations of
governability and the chance that governability in particular fi sheries situations may be
restricted for reasons beyond immediate control (Jentoft 2007 ; Jentoft et al. 2007 ) . This
perspective highlights governance dilemmas (Jentoft 2007 ) , hard choices (Kooiman
and Jentoft 2009 ) and wicked problems (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ) , and suggests
a precautionary approach on the basis of ‘sensible foolishness’ (Jentoft 2007 ) .
We have noted two approaches to the study of governability in fi sheries in previous writings, based on the application of criteria, and alternatively on the study of
match. These investigations have not resulted, however, in a clear choice for one
approach over the other. Instead, the tendency has been to let a hundred fl owers
blossom. The following chapters build upon these variegated efforts at developing
an assessment framework for governability.
2 Theorizing Governability – The Interactive Governance Perspective
governance orders, these authors emphasize upward and downward linkages and
the integration of the overall governance system. ‘Match’ and ‘mismatch’ are important descriptors for the relationship between system-to-be-governed and governing
system. Less complex fi sheries chains thus require signi fi cantly different governing
arrangements than do more complex chains. For example, a large commercial
fi shery that uses a few large vessels to exploit a few relatively stable resources with
outputs that are processed and sold in supermarkets may be inherently more governable than a widely dispersed, small-scale fi shery from which products are distributed freshly by a large number of middlemen with little organization of either fi shers
or distributors (Mahon et al. 2005 , 351)
From the contrast drawn between a large-scale and a small-scale fi shery one can
readily imagine that a governing system may be in dif fi culty if it does not adapt itself.
The idea ventured in this quote suggests that, because of their relative simplicity,
large commercial fi sheries are ‘inherently more governable’, is corrected some time
later by another set of authors (Mahon et al. 2008 ) who suggest that fi sheries chains
of different complexities require different ‘governance mixes’. More complex
fi sheries would thus necessitate “a large component of ‘letting go’ of past control
systems to allow space for self-organization” (Mahon et al . 2008 , 110).
Continuing along a similar train of thought, Jentoft ( 2007 ) formulates the requirement of ‘match’ in terms of ‘compatibility’. He argues that the governing system
and the system-to-be-governed should be ‘isomorphic’ and ‘mutually responsive’.
According to this author, compatibility is not a consequence of natural adaptation
but instead of deliberate intervention, planning and institutional design by societal
actors such as legislative bodies, planning agencies and civic organizations. This
can happen alone or, preferably, in concert as governing capacity and interaction is
enhanced through collaboration.
The perspective of assessing and enhancing match is explored further in a special
section of the journal, Fish and Fisheries (volume 11, 2010). This section includes
two research papers on the adjustment process between governing needs and
governing capacities in Malawi and Lake Victoria (Song and Chuenpagdee 2010 ;
Onyango and Jentoft 2010 ), and two applications of the governability concept from
the vantage points of anthropology and economics (Johnson 2010 ; Sumaila 2010 ).
One of the aspects elaborated is the determination of appropriate ‘images’ for governance (also see Jentoft et al. 2010 ) .
The study of match has fi nally resulted in a number of papers on the limitations of
governability and the chance that governability in particular fi sheries situations may be
restricted for reasons beyond immediate control (Jentoft 2007 ; Jentoft et al. 2007 ) . This
perspective highlights governance dilemmas (Jentoft 2007 ) , hard choices (Kooiman
and Jentoft 2009 ) and wicked problems (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ) , and suggests
a precautionary approach on the basis of ‘sensible foolishness’ (Jentoft 2007 ) .
We have noted two approaches to the study of governability in fi sheries in previous writings, based on the application of criteria, and alternatively on the study of
match. These investigations have not resulted, however, in a clear choice for one
approach over the other. Instead, the tendency has been to let a hundred fl owers
blossom. The following chapters build upon these variegated efforts at developing
an assessment framework for governability.