ArticlePDF Available

Bringing Governments Back in: Governance and Governing in Comparative Policy Analysis

Article

Bringing Governments Back in: Governance and Governing in Comparative Policy Analysis

Abstract

In many visions of governance, governments are portrayed as playing a “steering”, rather than “rowing”, role. The widespread use of privatization, deregulation, decentralization and third-party governments are often mentioned as concrete manifestations of the broad transformation which has led to new forms of governance. Examined more closely, however, the large and growing body of literature on governance has done little to clarify what is “new” about “new governance”. Does it indicate a clean break from institutions and processes of the past, or is it merely chronicling an assortment of instrument changes necessary for governments to adapt to changing socio-economic conditions? Do the changes really indicate the emergence of a new system in which the government is merely another player on a par with societal and international counterparts? More fundamentally, is governance a normative framework reflecting the hopes and desires of those who prefer smaller governments, or an empirical description of an existing reality? This article briefly surveys existing studies in the field as an introduction to the articles in this special issue. These articles provide strong arguments in support of the view that governments continue to play a pivotal role in policy-making, and that if this fact is not taken into consideration then the perception is of governance risk being anchored to a merely normative or prescriptive view rather than an empirically robust one. © 2015 The Editor, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fcpa20
Download by: [173.190.228.162] Date: 29 January 2016, At: 09:38
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and
Practice
ISSN: 1387-6988 (Print) 1572-5448 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcpa20
Bringing Governments Back in: Governance and
Governing in Comparative Policy Analysis
Giliberto Capano, Michael Howlett & M Ramesh
To cite this article: Giliberto Capano, Michael Howlett & M Ramesh (2015) Bringing
Governments Back in: Governance and Governing in Comparative Policy Analysis,
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 17:4, 311-321, DOI:
10.1080/13876988.2015.1031977
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1031977
Published online: 10 Aug 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 348
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Bringing Governments Back in: Governance
and Governing in Comparative Policy
Analysis
GILIBERTO CAPANO*, MICHAEL HOWLETT**, & M RAMESH
*Scuola Normale Superiore, Florence and Pisa, Italy, **Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, BC, Canada,
LKY School of Public Policy National, University of Singapore, Singapore
(Received 19 May 2013; accepted 16 November 2014)
ABSTRACT In many visions of governance, governments are portrayed as playing a steering,
rather than rowing, role. The widespread use of privatization, deregulation, decentralization and
third-party governments are often mentioned as concrete manifestations of the broad transformation
which has led to new forms of governance. Examined more closely, however, the large and growing
body of literature on governance has done little to clarify what is newabout new governance.
Does it indicate a clean break from institutions and processes of the past, or is it merely chronicling
an assortment of instrument changes necessary for governments to adapt to changing socio-
economic conditions? Do the changes really indicate the emergence of a new system in which the
government is merely another player on a par with societal and international counterparts? More
fundamentally, is governance a normative framework reecting the hopes and desires of those who
prefer smaller governments, or an empirical description of an existing reality? This article briey
surveys existing studies in the eld as an introduction to the articles in this special issue. These
articles provide strong arguments in support of the view that governments continue to play a pivotal
role in policy-making, and that if this fact is not taken into consideration then the perception is of
governance risk being anchored to a merely normative or prescriptive view rather than an
empirically robust one.
Keywords: government; governance; comparative public policy; meta-governance
Introduction
Traditional public policy and administrative processes are now often said to have given
way to something new, encapsulated in the catchy but elusive term governance.
Under the new rubric, policies are often described as being made and implemented in
markets or in statesociety networks in a form of collaborative governancerather than
by government agencies as envisioned by traditional studies of public policy and admin-
istration. In this new vision, governments are often portrayed as playing a steering,
rather than rowing, role. The widespread use of privatization, deregulation, decentrali-
zation and third-party governments are often mentioned as concrete manifestations of
broad transformations which have led to and informed new forms of governance. While
Correspondence Address: G. Capano, Scuola Normale Superiore, Florence and Pisa, Italy. Email:
giliberto.capano@sns.it
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2015
Vol. 17, No. 4, 311321, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1031977
© 2015 The Editor, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
the details vary depending on the case and jurisdiction examined, this broad narrative is
remarkably similar in most writings in this vein.
Examined more closely, however, this large and growing literature has done little to
clarify what is new about new governance. Does it indicate a clean break from
institutions and processes of the past or is it merely chronicling an assortment of instru-
ment changes necessary for governments to adapt to changing socio-economic conditions
rather than a more fundamental transformation? Do the changes really indicate the
emergence of a new governance system in which the government is merely another player
on a par with its societal and international counterparts? More fundamentally, is govern-
ance a normative framework reecting the hopes and desires of those who prefer smaller
governments or an empirical description of an existing reality?
The large and growing literature on the subject has not convincingly addressed these
questions, much less answered them conclusively. Indeed, recent empirical studies of
privatization and deregulation cast serious doubts on the purported decline of the state
and the emergence of governance without governmentrst postulated by Rhodes
(1996). There is plenty of evidence suggesting that while the role of the state may
indeed have changed to adapt to and accommodate more complex and rapidly changing
environments, the dominant role of government in these new governance arrangements
remains intact. In fact recurrent security and economic crises since the 1990s have
underscored the need for the continued active role of the state, and have arguably taken
it to an unprecedented level (Kennett 2008).
The unanswered questions can only be resolved through a more clearly focused
conceptualization of, and more rigorous empirical research into, current governance
arrangements than presently exists. The purpose of the research should be to shed light
on how to understand the changes that have come about in policy processes without, a
priori, denigrating the possibility of a continuing central, indeed leading, role of the state
in many such arrangements. The fundamental hypotheses of this collective effort to study
this question is that there are many ways to coordinate public policies, that some of these
may have changed in recent years, but that the role of government is still pivotal in any
specic new articulation of governance arrangements.
This special issue brings together a broad group of scholars working on comparative
public policy in order to examine and report on the changing face of governance in a
variety of regions and sectors. The issue is intended not only to enlighten theoretical
issues but also to empirically show how different modes of governance have been
constructed and operate in different sectors and regions. This broad and detailed com-
parative perspective is the best way to understand how governance really works and to
advance theorization on the subject.
From Government to Governance?
Governing is what governments do: controlling the allocation of resources between social
actors; providing a set of rules and operating a set of institutions setting out who gets
what, where, when and howin society; and managing the symbolic resources that are the
basis of legitimacy. Governing thus involves the establishment of a basic set of relation-
ships between governments and their citizens which can vary from highly structured and
controlled by governments (hierarchical modes) to arrangements that are monitored
only loosely and informally, if at all (networkor marketmodes). Thus, in its broadest
312 G. Capano et al.
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
sense, governanceis a term used to describe the mode of government coordination
exercised by state actors in their effort to solve familiar problems of collective action
inherent to government and governing (Kooiman 1993,2000; de Bruijn and ten
Heuvelhof 1995; Rhodes 1996; Majone 1997; Klijn and Koppenjan 2000; Colebatch
2014). That is, governanceis about establishing, promoting and supporting a specic
type of relationship between governmental and non-governmental actors in the governing
process. Thus governance is about actors and their interactions, and the ideas and
instruments through which policy processes are coordinated. In other words, governance
is another way of ordering reality, of explaining how public policies are decided and
implemented, and of indicating those actors with a role in such policy-making, and the
interaction between these policy-makers.
However, the ongoing debate, especially in the eld of political science, has for a long
time focused on the government/governance dichotomy. The basic denition of this
dichotomy was given by Pierre (2000), who distinguished between state-centric old
governanceand society-centric new governance. The former is characterized by a
state-centric perspective (where the focus is on how the political-institutional system
steers society and public policies). The latter, society-centric, perspective places the
focus on the ability of society to govern itself. Other signicant denitions have been
proposed by Peters (1996), Considine and Lewis (1999), Newmann (2001) and Kooiman
(2003); however, the substance of the governance debate lies in Pierresdenition, which
clearly grasps the empirical aspect thereof. The question is: in what way is the new way of
governing societies –“new governance, meaning the development of market and net-
work forms of interactions eclipsing the old governance model? Is government”–
meaning the hierarchical governance framework really losing its central role in the
policy-making process, to be replaced by a more decentralized, self-governance model
(Hill and Lynn 2005; Joardan et al. 2005)?
This important debate has developed over the last couple of decades, in the search for
different formulations of the concept of governance. The most enthusiastic interpretations
have focused on the non-hierarchical potentiality of governance, and have underlined
the belief that governance means a change in the nature of the meaning of government
(Bevir and Rhodes 2003, p. 45), whereby government and governance are perceived as
the two extremities of a continuum of different possible ways of governing and coordinat-
ing the policy-making process. The very extreme case, from this perspective but one that
is considered to be realistic nevertheless is that of governance without government,
meaning the actual coordination of a complex policy-making process without the presence
of any form of hierarchy. Furthermore, there is the belief that the growth of governance
reduced the ability of the core executive to act effectively(Rhodes 2007, p. 1248).
This interpretation, however, is potentially very misleading from the point of view of the
analysis of politics and policies. Any crisis of central government, for example, undoubt-
edly implies the weakening, but not necessarily the disappearance, of governmentscom-
mand and controlapproach to policy-making. Governments (conceived as central political
institutions) may nd themselves overburdened with social demands so that hierarchical
governance”–that is, a policy framework whereby the most important actors are govern-
ments and the state implements policies by ordering and sanctioning may no longer prove
efcient or effective. However, this does not necessarily imply a shift of the locus of power
and authority from governments to non-governmental actors or structures.
Bringing Governments Back in Comparative Policy Analysis 313
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
That is, at some point or other all democratic countries have witnessed a gradual shift
away from the traditional state-centric way of governing society towards other forms of
governing. This process of transition has been characterized by attributes such as the
decentralization of powers, the greater distribution of authority, the blurring of the borders
between public institutions and private organizations, and the inclusion of new stake-
holders, self-governing mechanisms and so on. And political science scholars have had to
try and grasp this changing reality, and these processes of change in the way policies are
created and implemented, and in the way complex political and policy systems are
governed. However, the existence of different modes of governing does not mean that
the role of the governmentfunction has radically changed, as supporters of the
governance hypothesis have suggested: rather, what has changed is above all the way
of governing that is, the strategies and instruments adopted in order to pursue public
goals (and to put order in the political and policy dynamics). Any government/governance
dichotomy therefore could be empirically misleading and thus theoretically inappropriate
and involve the improper stretchingof the concept itself.
In other words, the governmentperspective simply focuses on the way of governing
and coordinating policy-making that may have taken place in the past, where the main
political and administrative actors take centre stage, adopting specic approaches to
creating and implementing public policy (the command/control steering approach).
Changing times have brought about substantial changes in the way that policy-making
is coordinated, and new ways of governing may have emerged but these exist alongside
the more traditional ones and reversion to these earlier models always remains a distinct
possibility.
It is more useful from both the theoretical and empirical points of view to assume that
governance is simply a broader concept than government (Borzel 1998; Benz 2004; Klijn
2008), in that the latter denes the actions taken by those institutional actors ofcially in
charge of the decision-making process, whereas the former concept focuses on the
processin which decisions are formulated and especially implemented through the
interaction of all the actors involved. The contraposition of old governmentand new
governancecould radically divide past from present, and distort any description or
explanation of either period of decision-making and policy-making processes.
To sum up, we believe that many scholars place excessive emphasis on the idea of
governance as a new theoretical tool. According to this interpretation, scholars have to
single out the individual features of each specic governance arrangement, by focusing
on the number of key actors, the nature of their interaction, the policy strategies adopted,
and so on. This means that so-called old governmentis simply a specic governance
arrangement characterized by the strategic role of central political-administrative insti-
tutions acting directly, and in particular implementing hierarchical, top-down policy
strategies; on the other hand, so-called new governanceis characterized by the
heterarchic or polycentric participation of several actors/stakeholders at different institu-
tional and systemic levels. And this structural conguration of policy-making is
expected to produce very different policy dynamics (based on a mix of soft regulation,
contracts and negotiation, persuasion, etc.). So, from this perspective, governmentis
only one component of any governance arrangement, without recognizing that it is
usually the most important and has the latent power to verticalizeany process, thus
bringing hierarchy back into the equation.
314 G. Capano et al.
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
Certain aspects of governance thinking, however, should not be taken for granted. For
example, the role of the political-institutional centresof the systems (governments) has
to be empirically investigated, since they do not necessarily lose their weight and power
during the shift to a more decentralized system of policy coordination: it may be that
governments role continues to be one of strategic relevance, albeit within a different
environment and through the use of different policy strategies. Public policy goals may
remain the same, while only the way they are pursued is changed by modifying the
governance arrangements and methods within a specic policy eld (Richards and Smith
2002). Governments (or, more generally, public institutions) thus continue to have prime
responsibility for governing society, but they may choose to modify the way they perform
this duty.
Meta-Governance and the Role of the State in Contemporary Policy-Making
There is no one way of governing, and the direct involvement of public institutions is
not strictly necessary. Governments may choose to steer from a distance (Kickert et al.
1997). From this point of view, the hollowing outof the state (Rhodes 1994, 1997)
can be read as a diversication of the way in which public institutions act. The
hollowed-out process suggests a dynamics of extraction which leaves government
with a limited core business, while producing a fragmented environment within which
a great many policy issues remain bereft of their traditional providers.Inthis
fragmented landscape, there is structural pressure to foster collaboration and create
partnerships between public and private policy actors (Skelcher 2000). However, such
collaboration is pursued and enforced under the umbrella either of the governments or of
other political-institutional centres.
The basic assumption concerning the persistence of the major role of governments and
political-institutional centres in governance dynamics behind this collection of article is
conrmed by the growing body of studies focusing on the concept of meta-governance.
The fact that something over and above the normal dynamics of governance is being
searched for also means that those supporting the view of more horizontal, less hierarch-
ical governance modes have problems in explaining how such governance modes and
inter-actor cooperation work. As has been pointed out, there are at least three streams of
literature calling for better understanding of meta-governance arrangements (Sørensen and
Tor ng 2007). Firstly, there is the interdependency approach whereby the need for meta-
governance emerges from at least two different directions. Those involved in network
governance that is, the supporters of the more radical version of the new governance
perspective have to admit that the high cost of actorstransactions and relations involves
a signicant combination of process design and management, or the need to manage
networks (Kickert et al. 1997; Sorensen and Torng 2009; Sørensen et al. 2012). On the
other hand, there is the more governmentalperspective, which assumes that the state
(governments and political-institutional centres of power) not only has the power to
decide which mix of governance modes is to be adopted, but also the latent power to
reintroduce hierarchy into the equation in order to avoid the failure of governance (Jessop
2002; Meuleman 2008,2009).
The second stream of literature is more focused on the problem of governability
(Scharpf 1993,1997; Kooiman 2003; Mayntz 2004). These authors observe how the
tendency to more horizontal governance modes needs to be structured as a gameor set
Bringing Governments Back in Comparative Policy Analysis 315
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
of incentives and disincentives designed to elicit specic types of behaviour from policy
actors and targets (through specic institutional design or positive incentives). Here it is
quite clear that the games involved in non-hierarchical modes of governance are played
under the shadow of hierarchyor the potential reintroduction at any moment of state
primacy and authority.
The third stream of thought is of a more normative nature from March and Olsen
(1995) to Foucault (1991). Here the emphasis is on understanding the hegemonic norms
and ideas about how to govern and be governed(Sørensen et al. 2012, p. 131), which
include considerations of governmentality(Foucault 1991) or the ability of governments
to drive and lead policy discourses and practices. Here, the role of governments and
political-institutional centres is less apparent, but no less real, since the production of
narratives needs to be institutionalized (and hence the role of institutional design by
government is important).
This special issue, supported among other things by the theoretical assumptions of the
meta-governance perspective, follows the premise that government and governance are
not the two poles of a continuum of the various possible ways of governing and
coordinating the policy process, but are rather two different concepts centred upon
substantially different phenomena. Governance refers to the possible ways in which policy
actors, including governments, combine to solve collective problems and thus affect the
ways in which policy processes are steered. Governance modes can be based on different
mixes of coordination principles (hierarchy, market and network), but even in the more
extreme horizontal arrangement they need to be steered that is, they need to be led
towards constructive, positive coordination. Government, on the other hand, is not just
one of the possible actors in systemic governance but the central player, whether it
chooses to play that role or not. Its role in any governance arrangement may vary
considerably, and change, depending on the context. It is a core determinant and element
of governance, rather than something existing in opposition to, or outside of, governance.
Government has the inescapable task of dening what governance is, or can be (Capano
2011), and may choose to allow a higher degree of freedom to other policy actors with
regard to the goals to be pursued and the means to be employed.
In other words, government is an independent variable rather than a constant or a
dependent one (Pierre and Peters 2000) and the role of government is a determinant one
affecting the structure of governance. And, as the articles in this issue show in a variety of
context and governance modes, governments or, more generally, public or state institu-
tions have prime responsibility for governing society, although they may choose to
modify the way they perform this role (Kickert et al. 1997). In this sense, governments
can be thought of as designingthe systemic mode of governance of a policy sector,
through a combination of their pursuit of strategic goals and their choice of the means to
implement such goals.
The Content of the Special Issue
The authors of the contributions to this special issue provide us with empirical evidence
of the role of governments and political-institutional centres, in different policy elds
and countries. We have not asked them to adopt any specic theoretical approach to
governance modes, even if some of them have elaborated their own framework and
typologies in the past (see, for example, Howlett et al. 2009;Capano2011). Rather, we
316 G. Capano et al.
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
have simply asked them to identify the role of government; and these studies show that
different policy elds offer highly specic combinations of governance modes and
policy instruments, especially when different elds are compared and different levels
of (micro and macro) analysis are taken into consideration. This common enterprise is
designed to show how governments continue to play signicant roles in all governance
modes,andinvariousdifferentelds.
Two studies are comparative analyses dealing with education and health governance
reforms. Giliberto Capano analyses three decades of governance reforms in education in
three federal countries (Australia, Canada and Germany). The focus on federal political
systems makes this paper particularly interesting, due to the multilevel institutional
arrangements of these countries, and the different distribution of powers and responsi-
bilities between federal government and sub-federal units. What emerges from this
analysis is revealing from the point of view of governance studies. First of all, the
paper clearly shows that in all three countries, governance reforms have involved the
increasing role of both federal and state/provincial governments, albeit as a result of
different federal dynamics which have structurally inuenced the process and the content
of the reforms themselves. In some cases, this increased power is the result of the direct
centralization of the governance mode (greater hierarchy), while in other cases it has been
achieved through the adoption of a softer approach (either steering at a distance or
voluntary cooperation). However, what clearly emerges in all three cases is that govern-
ments hold a strategic, pivotal role in all resulting governance arrangements, and that they
are very careful with regard to the risk of failure of the existing governance modes.
Furthermore, this article shows how governance arrangements in policy-making can be
redesigned, in federal countries, without changing the written constitution but driven by
changes in intergovernmental relations, and how they depend on the capacity of both the
levels of government to design effective strategies through complex and ongoing inter-
governmental interactions.
The same conclusion, albeit in a different policy eld and geopolitical context, is
reached by Ramesh, Wu and Howlett in their essay regarding developments in the
governance of health policy in China, India and Thailand. The authorsempirical
analysis starts from an interesting description of the failures aficting all governance
modes. They then show how, in specic geopolitical contexts, the role of governments
in steering healthcare policy is essential to avoiding the intrinsic weakness of market
and network modes of governance. The different directions taken by Thailand on the
one hand, and by China and India on the other hand, show how hierarchy (be it directly
or indirectly exercised) is necessary to guarantee results in this complex, socially
important policy eld.
Eva Heidbreder further claries the intrinsically hierarchical aspect of policy-making by
analysing cooperative governance dynamics within the EU policy-making sphere; speci-
cally focusing on two empirical cases of the Open Method of Coordination, which is a
governance strategy based on voluntary cooperation, benchmarking, activation and the
large-scale consultation of stakeholders; and the activation of the participation of civil
society in EU policy-making. The article shows how EU strategy has been based on the
attempt to design a series of normative provisions which legitimize a more cooperative
governance mode, which in turn represents a means by which to increase the democratic
legitimization of EU policy-making. The empirical evidence suggests that, lacking a
central government actor, this approach has been ineffective, failing to produce results
Bringing Governments Back in Comparative Policy Analysis 317
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
in terms of either legitimization or policy performance. Our perception of democratic
legitimization cannot be reinforced through the top-down involvement of civil society
(weak narrative compared to the historically rooted narrative of electoral legitimization);
and there is no room for any real improvement in policy performance at EU level without
the clear role of government in a supporting position at the very least.
The similar persistence of governments steering role within the context of the planned
reduction of hierarchical governance, but this time through market-based reforms, also
emerges from the comparative analysis conducted by Zhang of vegetable retailing in two
Chinese cities. In this particular study, the previous, strongly hierarchical system has
undergone substantial changes based on liberalization and privatization. He nds the new
market system, characterized by plurilateral dynamics, to be signicantly inuenced, from
many points of view, by local government steering through that level of governments
continued involvement in shaping the structural features of the new system, and in
maintaining its strict regulation of those urban areas in which the vegetable retail trade
is conducted. What is interesting here is that the failure of the former hierarchical mode of
governance has been used to justify the adoption of the new privatization policy, whilst at
the same time preserving the hierarchical steering of certain aspects of policy-making so
as to avoid the failure of the new approach to governance.
A different government strategy towards transforming existing hierarchical modes is
offered by Sarah Giest in her analysis of the way in which the Swedish government has
deliberately established networks of governance in regard to national energy policy,
through the National Network for Wind Powerproject. In this case, government has
decided to favour the establishment of a network, and to manage that network. That is,
rather than emerge autonomously or spontaneously, current network governance has
emerged as government has used its powers (hierarchy) to establish a non-hierarchical
governance mode (network governance), whilst continuing to support and steer it from a
distance.
Conclusion
Rather than focus on one or two modes of governance, the essays in this issue all attempt
to answer one rather important, yet unresolved question: what roles do governments
actually play in the multiple modes found in contemporary governance? The essays
address questions such as: which governance modes exist, and how do their various
different aspects (principles, strategies, instruments, actors and their interactions) evolve?
When, how and why does government decide to change its mode of governance? How
effective are the new governance modes in coordinating policies? And how do the
changes in governance mode affect the economic and political contexts of governance,
and vice versa?
Many authors have suggested that governance emerged from a distinct historical trajec-
tory that began with the crisis of command and controlin its mid-twentieth century form
characterized by public provision of goods and services and detailed, prescriptive regulation
of markets and ended with network steering (Kooiman 1993,2000; Klijn and Koppenjan
2000). Many assume that a new way of governing society –“new governance”–has
supplanted the old governance model and represents a change in the nature of the meaning
of government(Bevir and Rhodes 2003, p. 4). On the other hand, there are those who
genuinely doubt that government”–meaning a hierarchical framework of government is
318 G. Capano et al.
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
losing its central role in the policy-making process, to be replaced by a more decentralized,
self-governingvariety of governance (Hill and Lynn 2005; Goetz 2008; Héritier and
Lehmkuhl 2008). However, we need to avoid using governance as a catch-all description, or
assuming its superiority over earlier forms a priori, if the concept is to be useful. New forms
of governance are not necessarily better, more effective or efcient, or even more demo-
cratic, than their predecessors.
Moreover, as the discussion above and the contents of the works contained in this
special issue suggest, there are other possible historical trajectories besides the hierarchy
to pluriformity one, including arriving at network governance via experiments with
market or regulatory arrangements or failing to shift out of another quadrant at all. A
shift to a network mode of governance thus represents only one alternative to other
possible forms of statesocietal coordination. Many of these alternate trajectories are
clearly visible in many policy sectors over the past two decades where the initial
promotion of market governance accompanied by privatization, deregulation, contracting
out and other activities associated with the new public management(NPM) ethos of the
late twentieth century (Jordana and Levi-Faur 2004), for example, quickly reverted to
other modes of governing (Hira et al. 2005; Ramesh and Howlett 2006; Capano 2014).
The essays in this issue address the governance problemby focusing on the different
governance modes i.e. the ways of coordinating policy-making and the different ways
government goals are pursued and the means adopted in a variety of hierarchical, market
and network contexts. The essays underline how the governance concept, freed of its
ideological connotations and preferences for non-governmental modes of governing is a
powerful conceptual tool which can help to order and analyse the multifaceted ways
through which policies are coordinated (decisions are made and implemented, and
services are delivered) in comparative policy research and analysis.
By submitting important data and evidence concerning the situations found in many
countries and sectors, the essays in this issue, as a whole, nd that governments still
matter, that governance arrangements have not been degovernmentalizedbut continue
to work under the shadow of hierarchy, that many governance modes are multilevel
arrangements which limit some possible alternative arrangements, and that all arrange-
ments are not static, but are dynamic, continuously evolving entities. This empirical
variety emphasizes that we need to be more careful when theorizing new governance
modes, and that theoretical analysis should avoid considering governmentsrole in
coordinating the policy-making process as being irrelevant or less powerful than in past
eras. Governments are still very much in charge, in every governance mode. They may act
directly or indirectly (as suggested by meta-governance studies), but they nevertheless
continue to act signicantly in every mode of governing, from hierarchical to market and
network forms.
References
Benz, A., 2004, Path-dependent institutions and strategic veto players: National parliaments in the European
Union. West European Politics,27, pp. 875900. doi:10.1080/0140238042000283283
Bevir, M. R. and Rhodes, R. A. W., 2003, Interpreting British Government. (London: Routledge).
Borzel, T. A., 1998, Organizing Babylon On the different conceptions of policy networks. Public
Administration,76, pp. 253273. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00100
Capano, G., 2011, Government continues to do its job. A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher
education sector. Public Administration,89, pp. 16221642. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01936.x
Bringing Governments Back in Comparative Policy Analysis 319
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
Capano, G., 2014, The re-regulation of the Italian university system through quality assurance. A mechanistic
perspective. Policy & Society,33(3), pp. 199213.
Colebatch, H., 2014, Making sense of Governance. Policy & Society,33(4), pp. 307316.
Considine, M. and Lewis, J., 1999, Governance at ground level: The frontline bureaucrat in the age of markets
and networks. Public Administration Review,59, pp. 467460. doi:10.2307/3110295
de Bruijn, J. A. and ten Heuvelhof, E. F., 1995, Policy networks and governance, in: D. L. Weimer (Ed)
Institutional Design (Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp. 161179.
Foucault, M., 1991, Governmentality, in: G. Burchell, C. Gordon, P. Miller (Eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in
Governmentality (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf), pp. 87104.
Goetz, K. H., 2008, Governance as a path to government. West European Politics,31, pp. 258279. doi:10.1080/
01402380701835066
Héritier, A. and Lehmkuhl, D., 2008, Introduction: The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance.
Journal of Public Policy,38, pp. 117.
Hill, C. J. and Lynn, L. E., 2005, Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,15(2), pp. 173195. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui011
Hira, A., Huxtable, D., and Leger, A., 2005, Deregulation and participation: An international survey of
participation in electricity regulation. Governance,18, pp. 5388. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2004.00266.x
Howlett, M., Rayner, J., and Tollefson, C., 2009, From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons
from the case of the British Columbia great bear rainforest initiative. Forest Policy and Economics,11, pp.
383391. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.01.003
Jessop, B., 2002, The Future of the Capitalist State. (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., and Zito, A., 2005, The rise of NewPolicy instruments in comparative
perspective: Has governance eclipsed government?. Political Studies,53, pp. 477496. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9248.2005.00540.x
Jordana, J. and Levi-Faur, D. (Eds), 2004, The Politics of Regulation (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Kennett, P., 2008, Governance, Globalization and Public Policy. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Kickert, W. J., Klijn, E., and Koppenjan, G. F. (Eds), 1997, Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the
Public Sector (London: Sage).
Klijn, E.-H., 2008, Governance and governance networks in Europe: An assessment of ten years of research on
the theme. Public Management Review,10, pp. 505525. doi:10.1080/14719030802263954
Klijn, E. H. and Koppenjan, J. F. M., 2000, Public management and policy networks: Foundations of a network
approach to governance. Public Management,2, pp. 135158. doi:10.1080/146166700411201
Kooiman, J., 1993, Governance and governability: Using complexity, dynamics and diversity, in: J. Kooiman
(Ed) Modern Governance (London: Sage), pp. 3550.
Kooiman, J., 2000, Societal governance: Levels, models, and orders of social-political interaction, in: J. Pierre
(Ed) Debating Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 138166.
Kooiman, J., 2003, Governing as Governance (London: Sage).
Majone, G., 1997, From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of
governance. Journal of Public Policy,17, pp. 139167. doi10.1017/S0143814X00003524
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P., 1995, Democratic Governance. (New York: The Free Press).
Mayntz, R., 2004, Governance im modernen Staat, in: A. Benz (Ed.) Governance Regieren in Komplexen
Regelsystemen: Eine Einführung (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften), pp. 6576.
Meuleman, L., 2008, Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: The
Feasibility of Designing and Managing Governance Style Combinations (Dordrecht: Springer).
Meuleman, L., 2009, Metagoverning Governance Styles: Increasing the MetagovernorsToolbox. Paper pre-
sented at the panel Metagoverning Interactive Governance and Policymaking, ECPR general conference 10
12 September 2009, Potsdam.
Newmann, J., 2001, Modernising Governance: New Labour Policy and Society. (London: Sage).
Peters, B. G., 1996, Governing: Four Emerging Models. (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas).
Pierre, J., 2000, Introduction, in: J. Pierre (Ed) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 110.
Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G., 2000, Governance, Politics and the State. (New York: St. Martins Press).
Ramesh, M. and Howlett, M., 2006, Deregulation and Its Discontents: Rewriting the Rules in Asia. (Aldershot:
Edward Elgar).
Rhodes, R. A. W., 1994, The hollowing out of the state. Political Quarterly,65, pp. 138151. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-923X.1994.tb00441.x
320 G. Capano et al.
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
Rhodes, R. A. W., 1996, The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies,44, pp. 652667.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
Rhodes, R. A. W., 2007, Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies,28, pp. 12431264.
doi:10.1177/0170840607076586
Richards, D. and Smith, M., 2002, Governance and Public Policy. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Scharpf, F. W., 1993, Games in Hierarchies and Networks: Analytical and Empirical Approaches to the Study of
Governance Institutions (Frankfurt-am-Main: Campus-Verlag).
Scharpf, F. W., 1997, Games Real Actors Play: Actor-centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. (Boulder,
CO: Westview Press).
Skelcher, C., 2000, Changing images of the state: Overloaded, hollowed-out, congested. Public Policy and
Administration,15, pp. 319. doi:10.1177/095207670001500302
Sorensen, E. and Torng, J., 2009, Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagover-
nance. Public Administration,87, pp. 234258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x
Sørensen, E. and Torng, J., 2007, Theories of Democratic Network Governance. (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan).
Sørensen, E., Torng, J., Peters, B. G., and Pierre, J., 2012, Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Weaver, R. K. and Rockman, B. A., 1993, When and how do institutions matter?, in: Do Institutions Matter?
Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad (Washington, DC: Brookings Institutions), pp. 445463.
Williamson, O. E., 1975, Markets and Hierarchies. (New York: Free Press).
Williamson, O. E., 1985, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting.
(New York: Free Press).
Williamson, O. E., 1996, The Mechanisms of Governance. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Bringing Governments Back in Comparative Policy Analysis 321
Downloaded by [173.190.228.162] at 09:38 29 January 2016
... Finally, the comparison allows us to focus on three countries (Australia, Canada and Germany) where 'federalism' works in very different ways (Colino, 2013;Capano, 2015). Within the federal cases, we can assess the difference the approaches to cooperation can make for the overall picture. ...
... Some commentators would likely observe that regulation does not necessarily mean strong regulation, as it could also include soft regulation. We must emphasize this point, underscoring that both soft and hard regulation still indicate that the state designs the main rules within a specific policy field: hierarchy is always present, and soft regulation always works in the shadow of hierarchy (Héritier & Eckert, 2008;Capano, 2011;Capano et al., 2015). Regarding the two countries where the use of regulation has not increased, the Canadian case in Education applies the 'usual disclaimer' regarding federal dynamics in a policy sector where provincial authority is constitutionally protected. ...
Book
This book assesses how governance has evolved in six nations – England, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands – between 1970 and 2018. More specifically, it examines how the governance approaches and the sets of policy tools used to govern have altered with respect to four public policy sectors that represent core responsibilities of the modern OECD state: education, energy, environment and health. To structure this analytical approach, the book harnesses sociological institutionalism in the area of ‘policy sequencing’ to trace both the motivations and the consequences of policy-makers’ altering governance approaches and the resulting policy tools. Combining a comparative and international focus, this book will appeal to scholars and students of public policy and governance.
... Finally, the comparison allows us to focus on three countries (Australia, Canada and Germany) where 'federalism' works in very different ways (Colino, 2013;Capano, 2015). Within the federal cases, we can assess the difference the approaches to cooperation can make for the overall picture. ...
... Some commentators would likely observe that regulation does not necessarily mean strong regulation, as it could also include soft regulation. We must emphasize this point, underscoring that both soft and hard regulation still indicate that the state designs the main rules within a specific policy field: hierarchy is always present, and soft regulation always works in the shadow of hierarchy (Héritier & Eckert, 2008;Capano, 2011;Capano et al., 2015). Regarding the two countries where the use of regulation has not increased, the Canadian case in Education applies the 'usual disclaimer' regarding federal dynamics in a policy sector where provincial authority is constitutionally protected. ...
... Their ultimate control indicated that schools and third parties were autonomous in none of the networks and shaped the asymmetric power relationship between them and governments (Goodwin and Grix, 2011;Kabir, 2021;Marsh et al., 2003). On this basis, local governments imposed different degrees of control in different networks by making major decisions alone, considering others' situations in decision-making, or merely assisting others' cooperation, forming different degrees of asymmetric power relationships with other actors (Capano et al., 2015;Nederhand et al., 2016). ...
... First, symmetric network governance theory asserts that network actors are autonomous and governments have equal power relationships with other network actors (Rhodes, 1996(Rhodes, , 2007(Rhodes, , 2012; however, this research has demonstrated that local governments retained ultimate authority to control schools and third-party actors in asymmetric power relationships. This echoes Capano et al. (2015) "shadow of hierarchy" argument that government "is a core determinant and element of governance" (p. 316). ...
Article
This study explores network governance in education in China, using the phenomenon of school turnaround as a research window. Drawing on data collected from document analysis, observation, and interviews in Shanghai, this qualitative empirical study examines the complexity of interactions between schools, local governments, and third-party actors in school turnaround through network governance. The findings identify three network governance patterns – government-led, third-party-led, and school-led networks. In different patterns, the tripartite actors play different roles (schools as obedient follower, reserved implementer, or conscious striver; local governments as dominator, accommodator, or facilitator; and third parties as government representative, self-interested leader, or supportive partner) and adopt different coping strategies in their interactions. Based on its analysis of the interactions between the tripartite actors, this article suggests network governance as a differentiated leadership practice. In this practice, network actors can, depending on their configuration, exercise different extents of powers and have different degrees of asymmetric power relations (i.e., unequal power distribution between actors), with different actors exercising leadership as the most powerful or influential actor in different networks.
... Under the new rubric, the government no longer plays an exclusive role. Rather, several actors including the government, the private sector and civil society are involved in managing society's socio-economic affairs (Capano et al., 2015). Almost all major sectors in the governing system have embraced the governance framework to improve the service delivery system. ...
Article
This paper responds to the concern of lack of public governance indicators for Accessible and Inclusive Urban Development (AIUD) despite agreements in the literature and in practice to develop field-specific governance indicators to resolve wicked problems. AIUD is known as a multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral field requiring various sectors' involvement. The resources needed to resolve this issue are scattered across diverse sectors. Furthermore, accessibility for and inclusion of disabled and elderly people is considered a global challenge. International organizations like the United Nations (UN), the Inclusion International (II) and the World Bank (WB) have addressed this concern. The UN prioritized this vital issue in its robust Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (2015-2030). AIUD significantly impacted social inclusion, human welfare and economic development warrants developing governance indicators. This facilitates decision-making, international performance comparisons, benchmarking, assessing governance quality and adopting corrective measures which improve the service delivery system. This study endeavours to develop a set of governance indicators for AIUD in the UAE through a systematic literature review and the inputs gleaned from a group of experts by administering a questionnaire survey.
... Naturalmente, lo dicho no significa que el Estado/gobierno haya sido vaciado (Capano, et al., 2015) o no ocupe ya un lugar central en la gobernanza de la ES, o que las propias instituciones se hallen entregadas exclusivamente a las dinámicas de los mercados. Por el contrario, al ocupar también los mercados, cuasimercados y mecanismos de tipo mercado, los Estado nación/gobiernos ensanchan su capacidad de guiar a distancia a los sistemas y adquieren nuevos instrumentos, a la vez que mantienen sus medios convencionales de comando y control (Capano y Pritoni, 2019a. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
En Brasil, este análisis de la evolución y situación actual de la educación superior muestra que el sector público y privado tienen estrategias muy distintas para garantizar sus recursos y sobrevivir. En el sector público se trata de una estrategia que se presenta en términos académicos, pero que de hecho es especialmente política y burocrática. En el sector privado, en cambio, es una estrategia claramente capitalista, pero muy poco académica, que consiste básicamente en la venta masiva de cursos y credenciales de bajo costo, con el uso intensivo de nuevas tecnologías de administración y transmisión de contenidos. Entre los dos extremos existen partes del sector público, sobre todo en las instituciones con más capacidad de investigación y programas de posgrado, que tienen una actuación más emprendedora, compitiendo por recursos en las agencias de financiación de investigaciones y contratos con empresas públicas y privadas; y un pequeño segmento del sector privado que busca ofrecer una educación superior de calidad combinada con actividades de posgrado, investigación y envolvimiento con la comunidad local. Puede ser que, con la crisis fiscal y económica que se está agravando con la epidemia del 165 covid 19, tanto el sector público cuanto el privado tengan que cambiar sus estrategias y este espacio intermedio crezca de los dos lados, con el avance de un sistema de educación efectivamente diferenciado y con más capacidad de responder a las demandas de capacitación y conocimientos de la sociedad en diferentes niveles, pero este no es, ciertamente, un futuro asegurado.
Article
This article illustrates an analytic eclectic value of structure, institution and agency (SIA) framework in comparative public policy. It engages and utilizes certain structural, institutional and agential perspectives from past literature to specify how elements of their causal properties coexist as part of a more complex argument. It argues that desired or preferred policy and/or institutional outcomes are most likely when multiple structural and institutional complementarities (from structures and institutions to agents) and multiple structural, institutional and agential enabling conditions accompany one another in motivating and empowering actors (from agents to structures and institutions) to engage in purposeful agential actions.
Article
In this paper we analyse how interactions between governing bodies influence Dutch energy regions’ capacity to govern the energy transition. We develop an analytical framework which draws on, and merges, two different theoretical perspectives: multi-level governance and capacities for transformative climate governance. We apply this framework in an exploratory case study of the Dutch energy regions Holland Rijnland and Noordoost Brabant. Results are primarily derived using a set of interviews and desk study. Aided by the framework, we find that, while the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) arrangement is clearly geared towards facilitating orchestration through coordination and exchange of ideas and standpoints, the current governance approach, is hindered by unclear and ambiguous roles and responsibilities, a referral back to and dependence on traditional hierarchical structures, and high transaction costs. These interactions negatively influence capacity development in the regional energy transition by complicating strategic alignment and the creation of opportunity contexts.
Article
Full-text available
This introduction and the special issue are a contribution to comparative intergovernmental studies and public administration. This introduction provides an analytical overview of the intergovernmental relations policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic across ten European countries, focussing on the early waves of the disease. These policy responses are analysed in terms of three types of IGR process: (1) a predominantly multi-layered policy process involving limited conflict, (2) a centralised policy process as the central government attempts to suppress conflict and (3) a conflicted policy process where such attempts are contested and tend to contribute to poor policy outcomes. The conclusion, then, reviews the difficulties and trade-offs involved in attaining a balanced multi-layered, intergovernmental process.
Article
This paper responds to the concern with the lack of public governance indicators for Accessible and Inclusive Urban Developments (AIUDs) despite agreements in the literature and in practice to develop field-specific governance indicators to resolve intricate problems. AIUD is known as a multi-disciplinary and multi-sectorial field requiring various sectors’ involvement. The resources needed to resolve this issue are scattered across diverse sectors. Furthermore, accessibility for and inclusion of disabled and elderly people is considered a global challenge. International organizations like the United Nations (UN), the Inclusion International (II) and the World Bank (WB) have addressed this concern. The UN prioritized this vital issue in its robust Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (2015-2030). AIUDs significantly impacted social inclusion, human welfare and economic development warrants developing governance indicators. This facilitates decision making, international performance comparisons, benchmarking, assessing governance quality and adopting corrective measures which improve the service delivery system. This study endeavours to develop a set of governance indicators for AIDUs in the UAE through a systematic literature review and the inputs gleaned from a group of experts by administering a questionnaire survey.
Book
What is modern governance? Is it the battle against ‘old-fashioned’ hierarchy, or is it the restoration of key hierarchical values? Is it optimizing network management, or maximizing the benefits of market thinking in the public-sector? This book argues that it is the combination of all this. The next question is: In practice, how do successful public managers design and manage combinations of hierarchical, network and market governance? In other words: what is their rationale to apply metagovernance? Five case-studies show that metagovernance is a public management requisite: it amplifies the variation of actions public managers can take, and it prevents the three ideal-typical governance styles from undermining each other. Similar cases of strategic environmental policy-making in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and the European Commission and one case of community policing in the Netherlands illustrate that successful public-sector managers are dealing with similar metagovernance challenges in different socio-politico-administrative cultures. "The future will not lie with markets, or hierarchies or networks but with all three and the trick will not be to manage contracts or steer networks but to mix the three systems effectively when they conflict with and undermine one another." Davis and Rhodes (2000: 25): From hierarchy to contracts and back again: Reforming the Australian public sector.
Book
Governance, Globalization and Public Policy is concerned with exploring the nature of the policy arena in the context of globalization and the reconstitution of the state. The contributors to this book seek to broaden, extend and integrate theoretical, conceptual and substantive policy debates. The book begins by exploring the concepts and perspectives associated with globalization and governance, the relationship between them and the repercussions for public policy and the state. It also considers developments at the global and regional levels and the implications of the emergence of new regulatory regimes in the context of liberalization and privatization. The focus then turns to a broad range of substantive areas of public policy such as human rights, health and health care, housing markets, poverty, security and counter-terrorism.
Book
'... an extremely interesting collection, full of insights and institutional detail. . . The book definitely deserves the attention of those interested in one of the most debated issues of the last 20 years in economics and political science.' - Herb Thompson, Journal of Contemporary Asia.
Chapter
In this chapter we focus on the management and the restructuring of networks, two themes that have recently attracted interest within the fields of public administration and policy analysis. Network approaches are in part a response to models in which policy making is seen as a more or less rational and sequential process from problem definition through policy intervention to evaluation and feedback. In network approaches, policy is seen as the result of interaction among corporate actors (Marin and Mayntz, 1991). These actors depend on each other for the realization of their aims and for this reason maintain ongoing relations with each other. This mutual dependency is often long-lived, leading to networks of relations that can be viewed as institutions. The policy networks evolve structures consisting of sets of values, norms, and rules. From a network perspective, institutional design can be viewed as efforts to alter these structures to achieve more desired outcomes
Article
Governance has become one of the most commonly used concepts in contemporary political science. It is, however, often used to mean a variety of different things. This book helps to clarify this conceptual muddle by concentrating on one variety of governance - interactive governance. We argue that although the State may remain important for many aspects of governing, interactions between State and society represent an important, and perhaps increasingly important, dimension of governance. These interactions may be with social actors such as networks, with market actors, or with other governments, but all these forms represent means of governing involving mixtures of State action with the actions of other entities. This book explores thoroughly this meaning of governance, and links it to broader questions of governance. In the process of explicating this dimension of governance, we also explore some of the more fundamental question about governance theory. For example, although we talk about governance a great deal political science has done relatively little about how to measure this concept. Likewise, the term multilevel governance has become widely used but we also need to understand that idea more fully and how it functions in the context of interactive forms of governance. We also link governance to some very fundamental questions in political science and the social sciences more broadly. How is power exercised in interactive governance? How democratic is interactive governance, and is democratic governance always advanced through transparency? © Jacob Torfing, B. Guy Peters, Jon Pierre, and Eva Sørensen, 2012. All rights reserved.
Article
Governance is a term which is widely, but not always precisely, used, and this article seeks to clarify what the term is being used to mean. In particular, it is concerned with whether it denotes a particular mode of government, or whether is a broad category encompassing all modes of government. It focuses on the arguments about political practice on which the original claims about governance were based, and the evidence that there has been a change is political practice which demands a new label. It concludes with a discussion of the way that accounts of government are used in the practice of governing, and the incentives that this gives both participants and observers to adopt the warm but fuzzy term ‘governance’.
Article
This paper traces the developments of quality assurance in the Italian university system since the early 1990s. Based on the theoretical assumption that the ‘quality assurance’ label covers a wide range of different mixes of policy tools by means of which governments regulate (substantially at a distance) the systemic dynamics of their university systems, this paper adopts a mechanistic perspective in order to show how the Italian version of quality assurance, and of the respective NPM policy tools, has been significantly affected by the ambiguity of governments’ approaches to the question, and by the basic inability of universities to perform as corporate actors. This has resulted in quality assurance policy becoming yet another set of formal rules to be complied with, and has had the effect of partially re-centralizing the governance of the entire university system.