|
Glossary of shared terminology (G)
| Innovative practices of networks or horizontal forms of interaction, in which actors, political and non-political, arrive at mutually acceptable decisions by deliberating and negotiating with each other.
|
Continuous political process of setting explicit goals for society and intervening in it in order to achieve these goals.
[Jachtenfuchs/Kohler-Koch (2004) Governance and Institutional Development, in: Wiener/Diez (eds) European Integration Theory, Oxford: OUP, p. 99; earlier draft version - External links]. |
A broad understanding of governance refers to structures of social order, namely (a) hierarchies, (b) markets and (c) communities/clans, associations and networks. While hierarchies coordinate social action by using command and control mechanisms, markets are spontaneous orders that emerge from the self-coordination of autonomous actors. Communities/clans, associations and networks function by non-hierarchical coordination based on the exchange of resources and/or trust.
A narrow definition of governance limits itself to non-hierarchical coordination between public and private actors, on the one hand, and among private actors only, on the other, in the setting and implementation of collectively binding norms and rules for the provision of public goods and services. This narrow definition of governance can also be understood as conceptualization of the notion of ‘new’ modes of governance (3) [Börzel et al. 2005: NEWGOV Working Paper 12 D01].
|
Following Rosenau (1992), Renate Mayntz conceives of governance as a system of rules which shapes the actions of social actors (Mayntz 2004). Different modes of governance are situated on a spectrum that is delineated by the two opposing ideal types of “market” and “hierarchy”. Between these two types, a further set of modes of governance can be identified, like “community”, “associations” and “networks”
[Kenis, Patrick/Volker Schneider, 1991: Policy Networks and Policy Analysis: Scrutinizing a New Analytical Toolbox. In: Bernd Marin/Renate Mayntz (eds.), Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt: Campus, p. 25-59]. |
Beate Kohler-Koch relates governance to the process of policy-making. “In essence, ‘governance’ is about the ways and means in which the divergent preferences of citizens are translated into effective policy choices, about how the plurality of societal interests are transformed into unitary action and the compliance of social actors is achieved.” (Kohler-Koch, 1999: 14). In the European Union, “network governance” is assumed to be the predominant type of governance as distinguished from “statism”, “pluralism” and “corporatism” (Eising/Kohler-Koch, 1999: 5f.). The crucial criterion to distinguish different types of governance is thus the relationship between public and private actors in the process of policy-making. This places the concept in the context of terms like interest intermediation or public-private relations.
[Kohler-Koch (1999) The Evolution and Transformation of European Governance, in: Kohler-Koch/Eising (eds) The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, London: Routledge]
|
| Adrienne Héritier defines governance as “mode of political steering” (Héritier 2002: 185). Hence, governance primarily refers to the policy dimension. From this perspective, modes of governance are characterised by the steering instruments employed by public actors to achieve particular policy goals. Among these instruments are command and control, incentive and supply, information, deliberation and persuasion, as well as all forms of social influence and control [Windhoff-Héritier, Adrienne, 1987: Policy-Analyse: Eine Einführung. Frankfurt: Campus, p. 27-34].
|
Governance without government. Governance is not just limited to actions taken by a government and, although it is embedded in a context of representative democracy, EU Governance does not conform to the norms of democratic rule. This leads to the assumption that when there is no government and no democratic representation, ways and means of governing will be different in the EU.
[Kohler-Koch (1999) The Evolution and Transformation of European Governance, in: Kohler-Koch/Eising (eds) The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, London: Routledge, p. 15]
|
|
 |
