Classifying governance

The diversity of definitions and concept outlined in Section 2.2 shows that, although there is some agreement among the scholars about its core referents, governance is a highly

contextual concept that encompasses a variety of processes and practices that vary

considerably given the situation in which they are applied (Mossberger, 2007). Typically, when used in reference to the public sector governance focuses on being ‘a mechanism for resolving public problems’. In contrast, when used in reference to the non-governmental

sector it focuses on ‘representing a variety of stakeholder interests’ (Lee, 2003). Even within these two sectors, the variety of mechanisms, interests, forms, functions and approaches may vary greatly from one organization to the other. Therefore when understanding, defining, classifying and applying concepts of governance, one operates in an area where ‘one size does not fit all’. This section outlines various modes and classifications of governance applicable to the natural resources management sector.

A complete and vital investigation of governance via public private participation (PPPs) is provided by Börzel and Risse (2005). According to them ‘PPPs are said to increase both the effectiveness (problem-solving capacity) and the legitimacy (democratic accountability) of international governance in terms of democratic participation and accountability’ (Börzel and Risse 2005: 195). Figure 2-1 provides a typology of possible combinations of governance arrangements with or without government. A balanced, public-private partnership is located at the centre while increasing private-sector autonomy is located to the left side of continuum (i.e., governance without government) and growing government autonomy to the right side of the continuum (i.e., governance by government) ( Börzel and Risse, 2005; Börzel, 2010). The continuum can also be read as a depiction of the transformation of the state driven by privatization, deregulation and delegation of governance functions (Börzel, 2010: 9).

Figure 2-1.Governance with (out) government: the non-hierarchical involvement of nongovernmental actors (figure inspired by Borzel, 2010; Börzel and Risse, 2005).

According to Newman (2001), governance comprises various, multifaceted strands that involve concurrent upward and downward flows of power. He presents four different models of governance: hierarchical model, rational goal model, open system model and self

governance model and these are briefly outlined below (Lee, 2003:6-7):

 the hierarchical model is characterized by centralization and stability, and emphasizes official power, regularity and responsibility;

 the rational goal model emphasizes decision-making authority, maximization of productivity and economic objectives;

 the open system’s model is characterized by networks, and emphasizes flexibility and adaptation; and

 the self-governance model is characterized by devolution, and emphasizes citizen power, transference and participation.

This classification system provides an important avenue to understand multiple and complex systems of power which can be useful to understand the exercise of citizen power,

devolution, participation and accountability in common pool resources management. Various other nomenclatures associated with the literature on governance can also be found and are elaborated extensively elsewhere. Some of these classification systems are outlined as follows (Lee 2003:7):

 advance form, participatory form, flexible form, and deregulation form (see Peters, 1996);

 administrative form, corporatist form, pro-growth form, and welfare form (Pierre, 1999);

 participatory governance models (Shannon, 2006; Fristch and Newig, 2009; Secco et al., 2011)

 bureaucratic form, business form, promote form, and complex form (Considine and Lewis, 1999);

 Privatization of services, contracting out, and necessary viable tendering (Andrew and Goldsmith, 1998).

Karen Mossberger outlined various forms of governance at local, regional and state level serving variety of purposes (see Table 2-2). In her governance models, the participation of stakeholders outside government is common, but not always a feature of these collaborative arrangements (Mossberger, 2007).

Table 2-1.Various forms of governance

Governance model Purpose Major participants

Collective management Management as networking, collaboration

Inter-jurisdictional, cross-sectoral

Civic capacity Policy networks Cross-sectoral

Administrative, Conjunction

Administrative role in joint service delivery, other cooperation

Inter-jurisdictional, cross-sectoral Rural regimes Governing coalition, village wide

agenda

Cross-sectoral

Hollow state Contracting service delivery Cross-sectoral (private non-profit) New regionalism Voluntary cooperation, policy

issues and service delivery

Inter-jurisdictional, cross-sectoral Other partnerships May influence city agendas,

development

Mixed, intergovernmental influence may be stronger Note: This table is adapted from Mossberger, 2007

Pierre and Peters (2005) present a relatively simple but commonly agreed upon classification of models of governance relevant for the purpose of this thesis. They identify five models of governance based on ‘how a governance system induces and responds to information from society and a systems capacity to respond efficiently to this information’ (Duit and Galaz,

2008: 316-317). The five models are (i) Etatiste, (ii) Liberal-democratic, (iii) State-centric, (iv) Dutch governance school, and (v) Governance without government (see Table 2-1). The five models ‘constitute a continuum ranging from the most dominated by the state (i.e., Etatist) and those in which the state plays the least role and indeed one in which there is argued to be governance without government’ (Pierre and Peters, 2005: 11). The models are briefly summarised in Table 2-1 below:

Table 2-2. State and societal dominated governance models proposed by Pierre and Peters (2005)

State dominated models of governance

Etatiste model  the main actor in governance is government which has the power to take unilateral action and also to decide whether other actors are allowed to exercise power

 state mostly relies on a competent bureaucracy to formulate and implement policies

Liberal-democratic  state plays a pre-eminent role and determines which of actors it wishes to grant governance authority to

 governments frequently have to rely on weaker, less-permanent bureaucracies and prefer to utilise parliamentary institutions as a substitute

State-centric  the state remains the most important governing actor, but also establishes institutionalised associations with different non-state actors such as trade unions

 strong state government sustains power while the institutionally integrated actors often acquire considerable stable organisation

Societal actors dominated models of governance

Dutch governance school  the state relies extensively on non-state actors to rule

 Many actors take part in governance arrangements and the state is not automatically the most influential

 a strong permanent bureaucracy is missing and actors make consensus-based decisions

Governance without government

 non-state actors are most influential and provide more authority than the state itself

 the state simply provides an arena where other actors move collectively to make a decision and implement policies  system of government tends to be weak and lacks systematic

authoritative capabilities

Table adapted from the text by Duit and Galaz (2008), Fazekas and Burns (2012: 25)

Duit and Galaz (2008: 317) point out that ‘state-dominated models’ outlined in the upper

rows in the Table 2-1 are likely to provide ‘relatively poor or potentially biased feedback due to distorted information flows from lower to higher levels’. In contrast, the ‘societal-

dominated models’ are likely to ‘suffer from information deficiency due to lack of incentives to provide information from societal interests’ (Duit and Galaz, 2008: 317). The adaptability

of the former models is considered to be low due to information deficiencies while the adaptability of the latter models is assumed to be high as a result of organisational flexibility (Duit and Galaz, 2008). Berger (2003) sees a noteworthy role for governance within the practice of diversification of the rural economy. Both are interrelated and strengthen each other, predominantly by fostering rural growth. It has been argued that local communities know better than anyone else what their needs are and what has to be altered to secure their needs (Berger, 2003).