Article

Modes of Governance: A Note Towards Conceptual Clarification

12/2005;
Source: RePEc

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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
124 Views
  • [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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: After initial debates and controversies, from the late 1980s onwards market instruments became fully accepted in environmental governance. However, with their inclusion in transnational and global environmental governance, market institutions seem to be in for a new round of discussions. Transnational carbon markets stand out in these debates, especially since the recent financial crisis made the world aware of the vulnerability of global financial markets. This paper uses a sociology of flows perspective to review current debates on the emerging global carbon markets as new – initially state-created – institutions to mitigate climate change. Do carbon markets aim primarily at climate change mitigation or mainly at financial gains? Who controls the functioning and outcome of these transnational carbon markets? And is there a risk of a global carbon market crisis, not unlike the global financial crisis? The paper concludes that current discussions and decisions on carbon market architectures are conducive for the future role of carbon markets in climate change mitigation. States are just one of the many actors shaping carbon markets and thus managing carbon flows.
    Environmental Development. 01/2012; 1(1):10–24.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Governance is hybrid to the extent that it involves diverse organizational forms, jurisdictional domains, and stakeholders across the public and private sectors. This article analyses the governance of household solid waste management in Sweden from a hybridity perspective, with the City of Helsingborg in North-Western Scania in Sweden as an example. The governance arrangements comprise municipal and company-based organizations, conflicting legislation, and long planning and investment horizons. The latter has resulted in significant innovations over the last 20 years, while changes in organizational forms, tasks, networks and jurisdictions have caused tensions in governance processes and relationships.
    Public Organization Review 13(2).