Module Sustainability and Governance

Governance: evolution of concepts and meanings Michael Pregernig

Contents

Career of the term governance: buzzword or substantive concept?

3 perspectives on governance: empirical, normative, analytical

Film: “Global Environmental Governance: Quest for Symphony”

Discussion of article by Murphy (2000) on „Global Governance“

Career of a term: „governance“

Source: own calculation (2014)

Frequency of the term “governance” in the title of journal articles included in the ISI Web of Knowledge databases

Just another buzzword?

„Governance is a useful concept not least because it is sufficiently vague and inclusive that it can be brought to embrace a variety of different approaches and theories, some of which are even mutually contradictory. […] When someone say that he or she adopts a governance perspective, this is the beginning, rather than the end, of the discussion.“ (Pierre & Peters 2000: 37)

Governance: is a concept “à la mode” is a multi-faceted concept is used in normative way in political language can be addressed analytically from various theoretical perspectives both realms, politics and science, are far from “definitional closure”

Etymology

Greek verb ‘kubernân’ (to pilot or steer), used by Plato with regard to how to design a system of rule

medieval Latin ‘gubernare’ with same connotation of piloting, rule making or steering

Concise Oxford Dictionary 1991: “the act or manner of governing”, “the office or function of governing”, “sway, control”

term refers to procedural, structural, functional and instrumental aspects of regulating complex social entities

Source: Kjaer (2004)

(after Benz, A. 2005: 15)

(old modes of) government

(new modes of) governance governance

Etymology

Narrower interpretation:

There are differnt interpretations of the term „governance“!

Broader interpretation:

(old modes of) government

(new modes of) governance

Thanks to Mareike Blum, S&G tutor of 2012, for the inspiration for this graphical scheme.

Governance – a „conceptual crowd“

Source: Meuleman (2008: 74)

3 perspectives on governance

1. New “realities” of (environmental) governance - empirical patterns

2. “Good governance” - the normative reading

3. “Theories” of governance - analytical lenses

1) New “realities” of (environmental) governance

– empirical patterns

(cf. Jänicke & Jörgens 2006)

first phase of environmental policy (late 1960s & 70s): traditional dipole of state as originator of

policy and industry as addressee of policy

since mid-1990s: environmental NGOs and the media as new policy actors

more cooperative approaches (eg. voluntary commitments by industry, cooperation between eNGOs and industry)

within the state apparatus: partial shift of environmental policy responsibility from within environmental policy institutions out into other policy areas (policy integration)

Change in actors constellations

Source: Jänicke & Jörgens (2006)

increase in reciprocal influence between policy levels and their respective – state and non-state – actors:

increase in importance of policy levels above the nation state (international institutions, environmental regimes, EU, ASEAN …)

at the same time, growing interdependencies with regional and local levels (e.g. Local Agenda 21)

by no means less influence for nation states but reciprocal interdependencies (multi-level governance) e.g. nation states no longer entirely free in their actions

but indispensable as the source of power and legitimacy for international arrangements

Multi-level coordination

Source: Jänicke & Jörgens (2006)

Enhancement / complement of regulatory instruments with market-oriented instruments (e.g. ecotaxes) information-oriented instruments (e.g. ecolabels) cooperative instruments (e.g. voluntary agreements)

environmental policy deregulation liberalisation of sectors close to the

state and privatisation of state-owned industries withdrawal from direct, command-and-control intervention by the

state and increased reliance on market forces and self-regulation BUT: emergence of cooperative, market-based, informational

governance strategies does not imply decline in ‘traditional’ state activity but only broadening of governance repertoire, aiming to achieve results not so much through specific instruments as through policy mix

New policy instruments

Source: Jänicke & Jörgens (2006)

2) “Good governance”

– the normative reading

1) Good governance in the political realm: is a political term often used by international agencies such as World Bank or OECD in shaping their lending policies; it builds on liberal-democracy principles like: encouraging competition and markets privatizing public enterprise reforming the civil service introducing budgetary discipline decentralizing administration making greater use of non-

governmental organizations etc.

Good governance

2) Corporate Governance: “Good governance” in the private sector relates to efforts to improve the accountability and transparency of the actions of management of business corporations

(e.g. Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR; OECD (non-binding) Principles of Corporate Governance; UN Global Compact etc.)

(cf. Electives “Corporate Governance and Social Entrepreneurship” and “Sustainability Planning and Assessment”)

Good governance

Source: bgara.blacksunplc.com

3) New Public Management: “Good governance” in the public sector refers to introducing private sector management methods to the public sector through (i) corporate management

(e.g. performance measures, managing by results, closeness to the customer)

(ii) marketization (e.g. incentive structures, contracting-out, privatization)

e.g. Osborne & Gaebler (1992): “steering” (policy decision) not “rowing” (service delivery) in the public sector

Good governance

Source: workforall.net

Good Governance Assessments (examples)

World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) International Monetary Fund ODI World Governance Assessment Bertelsmann Transformation Index Environmental Performance Index (EPI) Further initiatives:

UNDP’s Governance Indicators Project (GIP) OECD’s Metagora Project USAID’s Democracy and Governance Assessment Framework Netherland’s Strategic Governance and Corruption Assessment UK/DFIC’s Country Governance Assessments Transparency International’s Global Integrity Index etc.

3) “Theories” of governance

– 7 analytical lenses

(based on: Rhodes 2000, van Kersbergen & van Waarden 2004)

Governance without government I: “hollowing out of the state” relates to the thesis that the authority of nation states is eroded

through the globalization of economic transactions, international organizations, and hegemonic power blocs

analytical focus on multi-national corporations (e.g. Nestlé), evolution and effectiveness of international regimes (e.g. Kyoto Protocol), intergovernmental networks (e.g. G-7/8, G20), increasing number of IGOs & NGOs

(cf. Module “Environmental Policy Analysis”)

Governance “theories”

Source: www.themartianview.com

Governance with/out government

Source: Börzel (2010: 9)

Governance without government II: self-organization refers to bottom-up self-government of societies and communities,

beyond the market and short of the state analytical focus on institutional mechanisms

e.g. of communities to manage common pool resources and prevent their depletion (E. Ostrom 1990)

(cf. Module “Human-Environment Interactions”)

Governance “theories”

Governance as a socio-cybernetic system: highlights the limits to governing by a central actor (cf. Luhmann’s notion of a “centerless society”); in the place of a single sovereign authority there is a great variety of interdependent actors interacting in new ways (e.g., by self- and co-regulation, public-private partnerships, co-operative management, joint ventures)

Governance “theories”

Source: www.internationalfuturesforum.com

Economic governance: markets and their institutions challenges assumptions of classical economics

that markets are spontaneous social orders that flourish best in the absence of any intervention

new institutional economics (Coase, Williamson) rather emphasize that markets have to be created and maintained by institutions (e.g. property rights, contract law, anti-monopoly regulations, freedom of information requirements etc.)

(cf. Module “Economics, Institutions, and the Environment”)

Governance “theories”

Governance by networks I: polycentric governance refers to pluricentric forms of governance in contrast to multicentric

(market) and unicentric or hierarchical forms (state, firm hierarchy) Networks are characterized as:

− informal, autonomous and self-organizing institutions − characterized by interdependence between organizations − relatively stable sets of mainly public and private corporate actors − continuing (game-like) interactions between network members − founded on rules that build trust, communication, reduce uncertainty

and are the basis of non-hierarchic co-ordination Governments cannot command;

they must use new tools and techniques to steer and to guide.

Governance “theories”

Governance by networks II: multi-level governance denies that nation-states are the exclusive

connection between domestic politics and intergovernmental bargaining (esp. in the European Union)

stresses the importance of policy networks that are organized across policy areas and government levels

(cf. Module “Environmental Policy Analysis”)

Governance “theories”

Governance as the New Political Economy (Critical governance) governance as structuring process connected with conditions

of globalization, neo-liberalism, late capitalism etc. lead concepts: “cultural hegemony” (A. Gramsci),

“governmentality” (M. Foucault) key tenets:

governance as disciplining order and one that gives rise to resistance (e.g. critical NGOs, social movements)

state seen as complicit with the governing order of neoliberalism, marketization etc.

'sites of power' seen to shift from the political to the economic sphere

new rationalities and techniques of government (e.g. indirect means of intervention such as standards, codes of conduct, benchmarks, audits)

Governance “theories”

Source: Bäckstrand et al. (2010)

Summary Perspectives on governance

normative (new) expectations

analytical (new) „lenses“ to look at

empirical phenomena (and normative expectations)

empirical (new) ways of how social processes

are regulated

governance - Problem-solving theories - Critical theories

(Cox 1981)

A movie clip by

Discussion

Compare the key messages of GEG‘s „Quest for Symphony“ and Murphy‘s „Global Governance“ (GG) article with regard to:

1. the fundamental assessment of global (environmental) governance

2. the key actors that have a sway on GG arrangements

3. the role of state actors in GG arrangement

4. the origins of GG arrangements

5. the question of whether GG is desirable, necessary, inevitable …?

6. the proposed solutions for GG problems

Cited references

Benz, Arthur (2004): Einleitung: Governance – Modebegriff oder nützliches sozialwissenschaftliches Konzept? In: Benz, Arthur (Hg.) Governance: Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen – eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 11–28.

Cox, Robert W. (1981): Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 10/2, 126-155.

Jessop, Bob (2005): The Governance of Complexity and the Complexity of Governance, Revisited. Lancaster: Manuscript.

Kooiman, Jan (2003): Governing as Governance. London et al.: SAGE. Osborne, David & Gaebler, Ted (1992): Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is

Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA et al.: Addison-Wesley. Ostrom, Elinor (1990): Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.

Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Pierre, Jon & Peters, B. Guy (2000): Governance, Politics and the State. New York: St. Martin's Press. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000): Governance and Public Administration. In: Pierre, Jon (ed.) Debating

Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 54–90. van Kersbergen, Kees & van Waarden, Frans (2004): 'Governance' as a bridge between disciplines:

Cross–disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43/2, 143–171.