Modes of Governance: A Note Towards Conceptual Clarification
ABSTRACT Recently, political science has seen an intense debate about the phenomenon of “governance”. The aim of this paper is to clarify the basic concepts that are at the heart of this debate, notably “governance” and “modes of governance”. It argues that most contributions share a common concern for the relationship between state intervention and societal autonomy. But different strands of the literature highlight different facets of this continuum. Existing understandings may be classified according to whether they emphasise the politics, polity or policy dimensions of governance. We use these categories to present a structured overview of different dimensions of modes of governance as they may be found in the literature. In this context, we argue that the classification of modes of governance as “old” or “new” is of little analytical value. Some modes of governance may have been relatively new in some empirical contexts. But the same governing modes may turn out to be long-established practice in other areas. Moving from individual dimensions to systematic classification schemes and typologies of modes of governance, the paper highlights a number of shortcomings of existing schemes and suggests an approach that could avoid these weaknesses. As a first step in this approach, we take a closer look at different policy properties of governance and develop a systematic typology of four modes of governance in the policy dimension: coercion, voluntarism, targeting and framework regulation.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The literature is now exploring the wider implications of the governance 'turn' in the European Union. This article develops this work by looking at the administrative demands associated with the use of 'new' (and principally network-based) instruments of governance. In the past, the main instrument used to integrate environmental concerns into other sectors was regulation. But in the 1990s, the Cardiff Process was established at EU level to promote a newer and more network-based approach to delivering this objective. Drawing upon an analysis of how well national administrative systems have responded to the demands associated with networks, it argues that both the 'old' and the 'new' instruments of governance are reliant on the presence of sufficient administrative capacities. It concludes that decision-makers in the EU have traded the 'old' governance of regulation for the 'new' governance of networks without sufficiently diagnosing the administrative demands associated with either.West European Politics 01/2010; 33(1). · 1.46 Impact Factor
- Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 09/2014; 8(S1):61-89.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Social sciences have discussed the governance of complex systems for a long time. The following paper tackles the issue by means of experimental sociology, in order to investigate the performance of different modes of governance empirically. The simulation framework developed is based on Esser's model of sociological explanation as well as on Kroneberg's model of frame selection. The performance of governance has been measured by means of three macro and two micro indicators. Surprisingly, central control mostly performs better than decentralised coordination. However, results not only depend on the mode of governance, but there is also a relation between performance and the composition of actor populations, which has yet not been investigated sufficiently. Practitioner Summary: Practitioners can gain insights into the functioning of complex systems and learn how to better manage them. Additionally, they are provided with indicators to measure the performance of complex systems.Ergonomics 01/2014; · 1.61 Impact Factor