From Institutions to Governance

Why does this matter?

Because governance is becoming increasingly complex, and provides more

space for self-organization!

Compare with Folke et al (2005)

Global changes in the political landscape

Decentralization

Public Private Partnerships

Non-governmental organizations

International agreements

Centralized decision-making

Central policy-maker (e.g. environmentalministry)

Regional or local state authorities

Local natural resource users

Decision-making

Implementation and monitoring

Behavioral response

Decision-making in complex governance systems

Central policy-maker (e.g. environmental ministry)

Regional or local state authorities

Local natural resource users

Decision-making,implementation,negotiations,partnerships

Implementation, monitoring, negotiations, partnerships

International norms, agreements

Decentralization

Non-state actors

Adaptive Management Adaptive Co-management

Holling (1978): AM, iterated process in the face of uncertainty, experimentation, continuous evaluations

Co-management! Adaptive, learning, sharing of

decision-making btw stakeholders

Fikret Berkes and colleagues

Adaptive Governance

Extension of adaptive co-management:

* not place bound * can include and explore, several place bound attempts of ACM at the same time * polycentric * higher levels of social organization, up to global * explorative framework!

Illustrations of adaptive governance

no consensus!

Making Sense of Complexity in Governance

All systems don’t look the same!

Two approaches i) Governance typologies

ii) Network typologies

Governance typology, example - Urban Governance

Jon Pierre and Guy B. Peters

Participants Objectives

Instruments Outcomes

.....

Urban Governance

1980s, is a Darwinistic perspective on local economic development; cities

that cannot sustain their economic growth should not be artificially supported

by national government. Furthermore, inwelfare states such as the Scandina-

vian countries and theNetherlands, the central state has experienced growing

budget deficits, which has led to cutbacks in local government grants. Sup-

porting declining cities and regions, therefore, is no longer an option.

Table 1 summarizes the fourmodels of urban governance. Patterns of sub-

ordination describe different relationships between urban economic policy

and the market economy. In both positive and negative subordination, urban

policy is responding to, rather than proactively governing, the economy. In

positive subordination, urban policies conform and contribute to the market

economy, whereas negative subordinationmeans that urban economic devel-

opment policy is so constrained by the capitalist economy that it is effectively

unable to make a contribution to the functioning of the economic system.10

Hula (1993, 38) described local government restructuring as a case of posi-

tive subordination; local governments are restructuring in ways “that mobi-

lize types and levels of private resources not normally available to purely

public institutions,” in ways “that shift program goals toward traditional eco-

nomic elites,” and in ways “that may reduce popular control.”

As Table 1 suggests, there are such distinct differences between the four

governance models that conflict within the city administrative apparatus

should only be expected. Cities tend to contain these different institutions by

allowing for a multiorganizational and fragmented structure in which differ-

ent segments of the organization are enabled to develop different models of

governance. It remains clear that the differences in perspective on urban poli-

tics that the models display suggest that urban “ungovernability” is in part

388 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / January 1999

TABLE 1: Models of Urban Governance: Defining Characteristics

Models of Urban Governance

Defining Characteristics Managerial Corporatist Progrowth Welfare

Policy objectives Efficiency Distribution Growth Redistribution

Policy style Pragmatic Ideological Pragmatic Ideological

Nature of political exchange Consensus Conflict Consensus Conflict

Nature of public-private exchange Competitive Concerted Interactive Restrictive

Local state-citizen relationship Exclusive Inclusive Exclusive Inclusive

Primary contingency Professionals Civic leaders Business The state

Key instruments Contracts Deliberations Partnerships Networks

Pattern of subordination Positive Negative Positive Negative

Key evaluative criterion Efficiency Participation Growth Equity

at Stockholms Universitet on November 17, 2010uar.sagepub.comDownloaded from

From Pierre (1999), Urban Affairs Review

ii) Network typologies - polycentric systems

Vincent Ostrom

Polycentric systems - many centers of decision making that are formally independent of each other.

“Many elements are capable of making mutual adjustments for ordering their relationships with one another within a general system of rules where each element acts with independence of other elements.”

ocean acidification

climate changemarine biodiversity

FAOICES

World BankIUCN

UNEP

WorldFish Centre

UNESCOGlobal Forum on Oceans

Coasts and Islands

UN Ocean

PacFaGPA-MarineICRI

FAO WB

World FishUNEP

Galaz et al. 2012, Ecological Economics

What do we want “adaptive governance” to achieve?

“The Problem of Fit”