60
S. Jentoft
Governability Assessment
Social justice is an issue requiring philosophical and ethical reasoning, as demonstrated by Rawls ( 1971 ) , Sen ( 2009 ) and others referred to in this chapter. However,
social justice can also be made subject to empirical research. How does real life
fi sheries governance live up to universal justice principles and to what extent does
this help improve governability? The assumption is that any governance system
re fl ects, deliberately or not, some perception of what constitutes justice. The perception of justice could be universal, like the human rights principles that pertain to
meta-order governance, or applicable to a particular sphere, like fi sheries governance,
or even to more “local” situations at the level of a fi shery or community. Since, as
Sen ( 2009 ) argues, justice is not just about institutional design but also about social
process, including governing decision-making, justice requires that governance is
interactive and “communicative” in the sense of Habermas ( 1987 ) . That is, it is
transparent and free of dominance of any group. Whether this is also how fi sheries
governance works in practice is an empirical question. The factors that may explain
the proximity or distance of reality from these ideals in particular cases are an
important concern.
Table 4.1 presents a framework that may help phrase such questions as they
relate to the properties of the governing system, the system-to-be governed and the
governing interactions. In line with the interactive governance, emphasis on diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale as common properties of both systems, is the
assumption that these properties will somehow be re fl ected in the justice consideration made by decision-makers and stakeholders. There will presumably exist a
diverse array of justice principles that somehow interact with each other. Some
might be in con fl ict, while others might be mutually supportive and deduced from
principles at higher scales, such as for “ fi rst principles” or the so-called “golden
rule” (i.e. one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself).
As shown in the table, justice principles are thought to inform the operationalization of the governing system, the system-to-be governed and the governing interactions. They are socially and culturally constructed codes for what constitute “justice
as fairness” in social relationships and for the distribution of bene fi ts and burdens.
Like other governance principles, they emerge from deeply held social and moral
values translated into norms that are made obligatory for governance (Kooiman and
Jentoft 2009 ) . One cannot know in advance, however, what these principles are,
how they relate to each other regarding consistency, and how they actually inform
governance decision-making. Each of these should be treated here as issues for
empirical investigation.
The governability assessment framework helps to phrase research questions for
all systems that are assumed to share the same structural properties (diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale). First of all, governance theory hypothesizes that several
justice principles may be active for the same sector or for the same problem, that
there may or may not be consensus with respect to their valuation among governing
actors/institutions and stakeholders, and that they may or may not be compatible or
S. Jentoft
Governability Assessment
Social justice is an issue requiring philosophical and ethical reasoning, as demonstrated by Rawls ( 1971 ) , Sen ( 2009 ) and others referred to in this chapter. However,
social justice can also be made subject to empirical research. How does real life
fi sheries governance live up to universal justice principles and to what extent does
this help improve governability? The assumption is that any governance system
re fl ects, deliberately or not, some perception of what constitutes justice. The perception of justice could be universal, like the human rights principles that pertain to
meta-order governance, or applicable to a particular sphere, like fi sheries governance,
or even to more “local” situations at the level of a fi shery or community. Since, as
Sen ( 2009 ) argues, justice is not just about institutional design but also about social
process, including governing decision-making, justice requires that governance is
interactive and “communicative” in the sense of Habermas ( 1987 ) . That is, it is
transparent and free of dominance of any group. Whether this is also how fi sheries
governance works in practice is an empirical question. The factors that may explain
the proximity or distance of reality from these ideals in particular cases are an
important concern.
Table 4.1 presents a framework that may help phrase such questions as they
relate to the properties of the governing system, the system-to-be governed and the
governing interactions. In line with the interactive governance, emphasis on diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale as common properties of both systems, is the
assumption that these properties will somehow be re fl ected in the justice consideration made by decision-makers and stakeholders. There will presumably exist a
diverse array of justice principles that somehow interact with each other. Some
might be in con fl ict, while others might be mutually supportive and deduced from
principles at higher scales, such as for “ fi rst principles” or the so-called “golden
rule” (i.e. one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself).
As shown in the table, justice principles are thought to inform the operationalization of the governing system, the system-to-be governed and the governing interactions. They are socially and culturally constructed codes for what constitute “justice
as fairness” in social relationships and for the distribution of bene fi ts and burdens.
Like other governance principles, they emerge from deeply held social and moral
values translated into norms that are made obligatory for governance (Kooiman and
Jentoft 2009 ) . One cannot know in advance, however, what these principles are,
how they relate to each other regarding consistency, and how they actually inform
governance decision-making. Each of these should be treated here as issues for
empirical investigation.
The governability assessment framework helps to phrase research questions for
all systems that are assumed to share the same structural properties (diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale). First of all, governance theory hypothesizes that several
justice principles may be active for the same sector or for the same problem, that
there may or may not be consensus with respect to their valuation among governing
actors/institutions and stakeholders, and that they may or may not be compatible or