81
5 Livelihoods in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
throughout the world. Nonetheless, such a rosy ideal is a useful reference point
when thinking about alternative paths to fi sheries governance that give greater
weight to social justice and livelihood concerns. It also helps us to think about
taking further steps towards the implementation of interactive governance systems
responsive to the wicked challenges of fi sheries and aquaculture governability.
As Chuenpagdee and Jentoft ( 2009 ) point out, one entry point to the empirical
operationalization of livelihoods governability in fi sheries is through the governability assessment matrix (Table 5.1 ). The advantage here of the matrix is that it
forces a more precise application of the foregoing theoretical discussion. Each of
the cells in the table not only represent summary points of the discussion from this
and the previous section, they also point to important ways in which that theoretical
discussion can be linked to more speci fi c, research-relevant questions related to
governability for livelihoods and wellbeing.
In contrast to Jentoft’s (Chap. 4 , this volume) fi rst stage operationalization of
social justice, the speci fi cation of broad research questions through the governability assessment matrix here has a different balance. In Table 4.1 , in keeping with the
ethical focus of his chapter, Jentoft’s analysis concentrates on the ideal dimension
of reference principles in his governability assessment. The questions in Table 5.1 ,
in contrast, put signi fi cant weight on material and social relational dimensions as
well, and do so in a way that is consistent with an analytical wellbeing perspective.
They are also guided broadly by the social justice and post-equilibrium principles
articulated in the fi rst part of this section.
In terms of diversity, the governability assessment of livelihoods asks about the
range of material livelihood practices that are present in a given context, the governing bodies tasked with supporting livelihoods, and whether governance interactions
represent the full range of fi sher or aquaculturalist groups and related governing
interests. For complexity, which is concerned with the relationships among those
involved in fi shing and governing fi shing, the matrix tries to identify how social relationships and cultural norms constrain or facilitate opportunities to engage in livelihoods and the governance of those livelihoods. Dynamics looks at the pattern of
change in a given fi shery’s livelihoods arrangement, the institutions responsible for
governing livelihoods, and the ability of those institutions to sustain constructive
Governing Interactions to cope with change. Finally, governability assessment asks
us to consider how livelihoods options are linked across scale, and how those linkages may bene fi t some more than others. Similarly, scale considerations are an
important concern when assessing the capacity of the Governing System to formulate policy and take actions relating to livelihoods. They are also of importance when
assessing which groups may have greater power over the decision-making process.
The general intent of this chapter, and the speci fi c intent of the foregoing table,
to integrate livelihoods and wellbeing into the understanding of governability are
paralleled elsewhere. A paper by authors from the WorldFish Center (Andrew et al. 2007 )
proposes a fi rst sketch of a tool for the ‘assessment and diagnosis’ of small-scale
fi sheries. The tool offers a possible and complementary entry point for thinking
about how to implement a livelihoods sensitive interactive governance approach.
Andrew et al. ( 2007 ) argue that while small-scale fi sheries are highly diverse – they
5 Livelihoods in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
throughout the world. Nonetheless, such a rosy ideal is a useful reference point
when thinking about alternative paths to fi sheries governance that give greater
weight to social justice and livelihood concerns. It also helps us to think about
taking further steps towards the implementation of interactive governance systems
responsive to the wicked challenges of fi sheries and aquaculture governability.
As Chuenpagdee and Jentoft ( 2009 ) point out, one entry point to the empirical
operationalization of livelihoods governability in fi sheries is through the governability assessment matrix (Table 5.1 ). The advantage here of the matrix is that it
forces a more precise application of the foregoing theoretical discussion. Each of
the cells in the table not only represent summary points of the discussion from this
and the previous section, they also point to important ways in which that theoretical
discussion can be linked to more speci fi c, research-relevant questions related to
governability for livelihoods and wellbeing.
In contrast to Jentoft’s (Chap. 4 , this volume) fi rst stage operationalization of
social justice, the speci fi cation of broad research questions through the governability assessment matrix here has a different balance. In Table 4.1 , in keeping with the
ethical focus of his chapter, Jentoft’s analysis concentrates on the ideal dimension
of reference principles in his governability assessment. The questions in Table 5.1 ,
in contrast, put signi fi cant weight on material and social relational dimensions as
well, and do so in a way that is consistent with an analytical wellbeing perspective.
They are also guided broadly by the social justice and post-equilibrium principles
articulated in the fi rst part of this section.
In terms of diversity, the governability assessment of livelihoods asks about the
range of material livelihood practices that are present in a given context, the governing bodies tasked with supporting livelihoods, and whether governance interactions
represent the full range of fi sher or aquaculturalist groups and related governing
interests. For complexity, which is concerned with the relationships among those
involved in fi shing and governing fi shing, the matrix tries to identify how social relationships and cultural norms constrain or facilitate opportunities to engage in livelihoods and the governance of those livelihoods. Dynamics looks at the pattern of
change in a given fi shery’s livelihoods arrangement, the institutions responsible for
governing livelihoods, and the ability of those institutions to sustain constructive
Governing Interactions to cope with change. Finally, governability assessment asks
us to consider how livelihoods options are linked across scale, and how those linkages may bene fi t some more than others. Similarly, scale considerations are an
important concern when assessing the capacity of the Governing System to formulate policy and take actions relating to livelihoods. They are also of importance when
assessing which groups may have greater power over the decision-making process.
The general intent of this chapter, and the speci fi c intent of the foregoing table,
to integrate livelihoods and wellbeing into the understanding of governability are
paralleled elsewhere. A paper by authors from the WorldFish Center (Andrew et al. 2007 )
proposes a fi rst sketch of a tool for the ‘assessment and diagnosis’ of small-scale
fi sheries. The tool offers a possible and complementary entry point for thinking
about how to implement a livelihoods sensitive interactive governance approach.
Andrew et al. ( 2007 ) argue that while small-scale fi sheries are highly diverse – they