38
S. Jentoft and R. Chuenpagdee
way the systems are structured and working. What these limits are and how they can
be in fl uenced is a governance research issue.
When assessing the limitations and opportunities for enhancing governability,
one might expect to encounter the following fi ve hypotheses: (1) the systems-tobe-governed may be too diverse to be handled from top-down mode of governance. (2) Diversity suggests that no ‘one size fi ts all’ situation exists. Problems
are essentially unique and governance solutions can therefore not be generalized.
Instead, solutions must be built on local knowledge and decision making involving
“those who know.” As mentioned, local level management and devolution of authority
and power may not work in all instances, such as in communities with weak
leadership, low capacity and high heterogeneity and fragmentation (Archeson
2006 ) . (3) The more complex the system is, the more governance would need to
emphasize the structures of relationships and the ways in which they may hinder or
facilitate constructive interaction and collective problem solving. Similarly, (4) the
dynamics of the system requires knowledge of the internal interactions within the
natural and social systems-to-be-governed, and the governing system; understanding the ways in which they affect the ability to govern and the overall quality of
governance. Finally, (5) scale issues draw attention to boundary setting in addition
to the spatial and temporal distribution of the system components, especially at the
border or in overlapping areas where the majority of interactions take place.
Diversity, complexity, dynamics and scales are traits that may complicate the
governability of fi sheries and aquaculture, sometimes to the extent that the goals
of governance are hard to achieve. They make systems less controllable and predictable. Their developments are often non-linear and information is never complete, making governance outcomes inherently uncertain (Degnbol and McCay
2007 ) . As a consequence, they require a governance approach that is fl exible and
adaptive rather than one that emphasizes control and stability (Mahon et al.
2008 ) . Con fl icts within and between systems tend to persist over time and are
therefore energy consuming. The same is true when goals are [re]negotiated
among participants in the governing process. Governability assessments must
therefore recognize that goals are not given ex ante , but are themselves governance
outcomes. Under such circumstances, governance is not so much about exercising authority from the top-down as it is about political brokerage, where operating goals are at best imperfect compromises (cf. Jentoft et al. 2011 ).
At a general level, governability is an outcome of the structure that de fi nes and
the processes that occur within and between the governing system and the systemto-be-governed. Interactive governance theory broadens the perspective of governability to something that is not solely an issue and a responsibility of the governing
system, such as a government agency. Rather, governability depends on the ability
of these systems to deliver – individually and in concert – on the challenges and
demands resulting from their diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale. Hence, in
order to enhance governability, a wide range of instruments and mechanisms would
be drawn from and applied within all systems. Since both structural and functional
governability can be in fl uenced by acts of governance, governance is basically about
promoting governability.
S. Jentoft and R. Chuenpagdee
way the systems are structured and working. What these limits are and how they can
be in fl uenced is a governance research issue.
When assessing the limitations and opportunities for enhancing governability,
one might expect to encounter the following fi ve hypotheses: (1) the systems-tobe-governed may be too diverse to be handled from top-down mode of governance. (2) Diversity suggests that no ‘one size fi ts all’ situation exists. Problems
are essentially unique and governance solutions can therefore not be generalized.
Instead, solutions must be built on local knowledge and decision making involving
“those who know.” As mentioned, local level management and devolution of authority
and power may not work in all instances, such as in communities with weak
leadership, low capacity and high heterogeneity and fragmentation (Archeson
2006 ) . (3) The more complex the system is, the more governance would need to
emphasize the structures of relationships and the ways in which they may hinder or
facilitate constructive interaction and collective problem solving. Similarly, (4) the
dynamics of the system requires knowledge of the internal interactions within the
natural and social systems-to-be-governed, and the governing system; understanding the ways in which they affect the ability to govern and the overall quality of
governance. Finally, (5) scale issues draw attention to boundary setting in addition
to the spatial and temporal distribution of the system components, especially at the
border or in overlapping areas where the majority of interactions take place.
Diversity, complexity, dynamics and scales are traits that may complicate the
governability of fi sheries and aquaculture, sometimes to the extent that the goals
of governance are hard to achieve. They make systems less controllable and predictable. Their developments are often non-linear and information is never complete, making governance outcomes inherently uncertain (Degnbol and McCay
2007 ) . As a consequence, they require a governance approach that is fl exible and
adaptive rather than one that emphasizes control and stability (Mahon et al.
2008 ) . Con fl icts within and between systems tend to persist over time and are
therefore energy consuming. The same is true when goals are [re]negotiated
among participants in the governing process. Governability assessments must
therefore recognize that goals are not given ex ante , but are themselves governance
outcomes. Under such circumstances, governance is not so much about exercising authority from the top-down as it is about political brokerage, where operating goals are at best imperfect compromises (cf. Jentoft et al. 2011 ).
At a general level, governability is an outcome of the structure that de fi nes and
the processes that occur within and between the governing system and the systemto-be-governed. Interactive governance theory broadens the perspective of governability to something that is not solely an issue and a responsibility of the governing
system, such as a government agency. Rather, governability depends on the ability
of these systems to deliver – individually and in concert – on the challenges and
demands resulting from their diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale. Hence, in
order to enhance governability, a wide range of instruments and mechanisms would
be drawn from and applied within all systems. Since both structural and functional
governability can be in fl uenced by acts of governance, governance is basically about
promoting governability.