2. Governance theories
2.1. Governance as theory
2.1.1. Governance
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.1.1. Governance
The easiest way to begin to define governance is to look at what scholars agree that it is not. Most scholars agree that “under either conception […] governance is not government.” 16 Howell made a second general remark about the nature of governance17 that governance is, in principle, not different from other political science concepts.
A first attempt to define what governance is can be made with the distinction between a broad or narrow conception18; such conceptions are either to describe and explain a process between society and state or as a set of authority relationships.
Beside the scope of the theory, governance can also, as a second attempt, be classified on the basis of its activities. Keohane and Nye19 suggest three levels and three actors which are involved in governance activities:
Table 1: Activities of governance20
Private Governmental Third Sector
Supranational TNCs IGOs NGOs
National Firms Central Nonprofits
Subnational Local Local Local
This classification proposes governance activities in the private sector, in the government and a third sector, society. Governance is not limited to the national state but also coexists on supranational and subnational levels.
16 Kahler and Lake, "Globalization and Governance", 8, Oran R. Young, Governance in World Affairs (New York: Cornell University Press, 1999).
17 Jude Howell, "Governance Matters: Key Challenges and Emerging Tendencies","Governance in China" (ed.), Howell, (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004a), 1.
18 Kahler and Lake, "Globalization and Governance", 7.
19 Robert. O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, "Introduction","Governance in a Globalizing World" (eds.) Nye and Donahue, Brookings Institution Press, 2000), 13.
20 Ibid., 13.
‧
modern theory of political governance (also known under the „Steuerungstheorie‟)“emerged after World War II, at a time when governments aspired explicitly to steer their nations‟ social and economic development.”22 The first theories were based on a paradigm with policy development and implementation from a legislator‟s or top-down perspective.23 The paradigm shift reflects a continuous development of the first theories. However, the first theories could not explain a number of phenomena in the context of European policy developments. The theories went through five changes:
the bottom-up perspective, including public/private networks, analyzing the effects of European policy, the European level of policy making and political input processes.24 Besides this change, Mayntz observes another occasion where governance theories changed. Different actors believed that the emergence of new forms of self-government meant a loss of steering capacity: “The state appeared weak [and] „semi-sovereign‟.”25 But the results of empirical political science research suggested that it
“is not so much a loss of state control as a change in its form.”26 Recently, Mayntz has observed a paradigm change and the emergence of two new uses of governance since the late 1980s. Mayntz sees on the one side that governance is used to describe a new mode of governing. The new element was “the hierarchical control model, a more co-operative mode where state and non-state actors participate in mixed public/private networks.”27 On the other side governance has, in her opinion, another new meaning from a different, and much more general, viewpoint. “Here governance means the different modes of coordinating individual action, or basic forms of social orders.”28 Contandriopoulos et al.29 have proposed a composite schema that integrates the new paradigm under three problematic facets:
21 Renate Mayntz, "New challenges to governance theory","Governance as Social and Political Communication" (ed.), Bang, Manchester University Press, 2003), 27.
22 Ibid., 28.
29 Damien Contandriopoulos, Jean-Louis Denis, Ann Langley and Annick Valette, "Governance Structures and Political Processes in a Public System: Lessons from Quebec," Public Administration, Vol. 82, No. 3 (2004), 628.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(1) securing agreement on a program of action among a diversity of actors and organizations; (2) redistributing the capacity of actors and organizations to interpret decisions according to their own values; and (3) gaining acceptance among the collective that resultant actions are legitimate.30
The shift away from the original top-down approach resulted in a more diversified conceptualization of governance. Policy outcomes were no longer the sole achievement of a central government. “The center may pass a law but subsequently it interacts with local government, health authorities, the voluntary sector, the private sector and, in turn, they interact with one another.”31 This signifies a shift to a theory of policy development and implementation under a network angle. Most prominent, this idea resulted in the term „new governance‟ which is defined as self-organizing networks.32
In a second step, the focus switches to concepts of governance which describe, in a broader sense, the functional position of governance. It includes some particular definitions, which several scholars have used as theory. As an example of a narrow definition, Kahler and Lake33 mentioned: “Governance can […] be understood more narrowly as that subset of restraints that rests on authority, where authority itself is a social relationship in which A (a person or occupant of an office) wills B to follow A and B voluntarily complies.” Narrow in its conception, governance defined in this way is not very useful for further use. It only refers to two actors where one of them obeys a decision of the other. Other scholars focused more on processes and the order of power distribution. Howell34 defined governance as “the totality of processes and arrangements, both formal and informal, by which power and public authority are distributed and regulated.” This definition is more general and does not specify the direction of power. It studies places where governance is relevant, including: political institutions, the military, judiciary, and informal processes. “It embraces not only the study of states but also the arrangements and processes within political and civil
30 Tim Freeman and Edward Peck, "Performing Governance: a Partnership Board Dramaturgy,"
ibid.Vol. 85, No. 4 (2007), 908.
31 Rhodes, "The New Governance: Governing without Government," 657.
32 Sonja Wälti and Daniel Kubler, ""New Governance" and Associative Pluralism: The Case of Drug Policy in Swiss Cities," Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4 (2003), 500.
33 Kahler and Lake, "Globalization and Governance", 7.
34 Howell, "Governance Matters: Key Challenges and Emerging Tendencies", 2.
‧
similar concept of governance follows Keohane and Nye,36 who proposed governance as “the processes and institutions, both formal and informal, that guide and restrain the collective activities of a group.” The authors underline that besides government, several other players in distinct areas are involved, namely: private firms, associations of firms, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and associations of NGOs.International organizations act as organizations to which the governments delegate authority. Another possibility of how scholars see governance can be found in the discussion on European governance. In this context, governance is a political program with an intent “to introduce territorially unbounded public and private actors, acting outside of their formal jurisdiction, into political institutions‟ decision-making processes.”37 Governance is faced with several new methods of policy-making and implementation, such as non-binding decision-making, informal and unfixed networks of advice, lobbying, and new instruments to measure the processes, like benchmarking.38
A third step to approach the broad concept of governance concentrates on the fundamental questions of governance: “Who has the right to govern? Who has power and who has authority, and how are the two related39?” From this standpoint, governance focuses more on the decision-making process and its behavioral conventions.40 Under this perspective, the idea of networks plays an important role.
Networks are self-organizing and not limited to one organization but rather inter-organizational and a complemental. 41 Rosenau 42 made a distinction between government and governance, whereas governance‟s authority is based on shared
35 Ibid., 2.
36 Keohane and Nye, "Introduction", 12.
37 David J. Bailey, "Governance or the crisis of governmentality? Applying critical state theory at the European level," Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2006), 22.
38 Ibid., 23.
39 Howell, "Governance Matters: Key Challenges and Emerging Tendencies", 8.
40 Goldsmith, "Is Governance Reform a Catalyst for Development?," 165.
41 Rhodes, "The New Governance: Governing without Government," 652.
42 James N. Rosenau, "Governance, order, and change in world politics","Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics" (eds.) Rosenau and Czempiel, Cambridge University Press, 1992), 4, James N. Rosenau, "Approaches to Global Governance Theory", (eds.) Hewson and Sinclair, State University of New York Press, 1999).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
goals.43 This differs from government, which derives its legitimacy from formal authority. Four important differences can be discerned. Firstly, the state is no longer the lynchpin; rather, network systems between public, private and voluntary sectors have gained authority. Secondly, the new networks made it necessary to coordinate resources and communications. Thirdly, the rules shifted to game-like interactions which generated trust and regulations. And fourthly, the networks have a significant degree of autonomy from the state. However, the state is still able to steer the networks, albeit imperfectly and indirectly.44 This point underlines an important characteristic of governance; governance is a (new) governing style, “in which boundaries between and within public and private sectors have become blurred.”45 Within this concept, Czampiel46 formulated his definition of governance distant from of the state-centered concept:
[T]he capacity to get things done without the legal competence to command that they be done […] From this point of view the international system is a system of governance.
43 Rhodes, "The New Governance: Governing without Government," 657.
44 Ibid., 660.
45 Gerry Stoker, "Governance as theory: five propositions," International Social Science Journal, Vol.
50, No. 155 (1998), 17.
46 Ernst-Otto Czempiel, "Governance and democratization","Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics" (eds.) Rosenau and Czempiel, Cambridge University Press, 1992), 250.
‧
Table 2: Government and governance as perspective in political science47 Government Politics Competition between parties for
retaining power and between
Steering and coordination in a complex institutionalized
Distribution public service Communication (in networks and communities),
Table 2 shows the analytical dimension of governance. In contrast to more common approaches state, market and society are not separated. The interactions are characterized by multi-dependency with an emphasis of rules in networks.
Governance is a concept used to understand and explain several problems. Depending on its definition, governance can be used to understand changes in a state‟s government.48 Another example can be found in the fields of economics and political economics: decentralization, integration and federalism. With the factors of externalities, heterogeneity, and economies of scale scholars try “to determine the
47 Arthur Benz, Governance-Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen: eine Einführung VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2004), 21.
48 Rhodes, "The New Governance: Governing without Government," 666.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
most efficient level of governance.”49 In the end, a general definition of governance includes all of the abovementioned aspects. If we define governance “as the traditions and institutions that determine how authority is exercised in a particular country,”50 most of the phenomena mentioned in this chapter will have been taken into account.