st083.
book Page 239 Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
Governance and social complexity
B. GUY PETERS – JON PIERRE1
ABSTRACT
Governance and social complexity. This article gives a brief overview over the development
of government research. The initial governance research was mainly state-centric, lat-
er to be followed by research departing from societal complexity. These two ap-
proaches are now beginning to gel, producing a research agenda focussed on the
changing role of the state and the role of networks in the process of governing.
Governance as a social science concept has, in a surprisingly short time, been elevat-
ed almost to the same status as institutions. If “institutions” could be found in the tit-
le of almost every other international conference paper during the 1990s, the same
pattern is now true for “governance”. And, as was the case with institutions, govern-
ance is surrounded by much ambiguity, critique, and conceptual fuzziness, and argu-
ably the same conceptual stretching that has enabled it to be used so widely also has
robbed the term of some of its utility.
This article will first quickly review the development of new forms of governance,
why they evolved, and the analytical models which have been employed to under-
stand those changes and contemporary governance. We will then move on to present
what we see as the core meaning of governance. We understand that in presenting
our “take” on the concept we might be stepping on the intellectual toes of some of
our colleagues. There is, however, no criticism intended; given the very wide usage of
the governance concept these days, this is to some extent inevitable. Following that
discussion, we will briefly review the development of governance research and then
position our own current research in that field.
Gove r nan ce r e search: A brief over v i ew
The first “wave” of governance thinking and writing was mainly concerned with the
capacity of the state. This development took place against the backdrop of several
significant changes in government and public administration such as increasing prob-
lems of coordination, loss of policy capacity, agentification, budgetary cutbacks and a
growing interest in many countries in solving problems of public service delivery in
cooperation with societal actors. These developments, accompanied by globalization
and a more noticeable national embeddedness in international organizations such as
1 B. Guy Peters är Maurice Falk Professor of American Government, University of Pittsburgh. Jon Pierre är
professor i statsvetenskap, Göteborgs Universitet.
E-post: bgpeters@[Link] och [Link]@[Link]
Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift 2008, årg 110 nr 3 s 239–248
[Link] Page 240 Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
240
the EU and other regional organizations, the WTO and more ad hoc transnational
agreements like Agenda 21 and the Kyoto protocol, contributed to a gradual redefini-
tion of the relationship between state, society and the global arena. It became clear
that the powers of government were not as absolute and unequivocal as had previ-
ously been the case (or believed to have been the case). The state now bargained with
transnational organizations, as well as with actors within its own society, if it wanted
to be effective.2 It was less eager to increase taxes on private capital because the gen-
eral belief was that such policies would encourage private businesses to relocate to
more favorable countries. The relationship with regional and local government, too,
became more negotiated and contextually defined since central government could no
longer claim monopoly on financial resources, professional staff and organizational
capabilities.
These developments occurred alongside a very clear overarching policy shift
among the advanced western democracies. Starting in the United States and Britain,
under Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher, respectively, and spreading throughout the 1980s,
a neo-liberal “turn” emerged. With some variation, both political leaders emphasized
that the time had now come to redefine radically the role of the state in society. The
basic point of departure, in their analysis, was the free society and the free market,
and political and regulatory impositions on that freedom should be minimized.
“Government”, said once Ronald Reagan, “can’t solve problems because govern-
ment is the problem”. Public bureaucrats, insisted Mrs. Thatcher, are privileged in
terms of work hours and salary and should be “de-privileged” (Hood 1995). True,
much of this was rhetoric, but it nevertheless succeeded in changing the popular
mood in terms of their favoring collective or individual solutions to societal problems
(Savoie 1994).
Taken together, all these significant developments in the preconditions for govern-
ing, public policy, public administration and inter-governmental relationships posed
a major challenge to the state. They also insisted on a shift in focus among the observ-
ers of the state and policy making. The key to understanding these institutions and
processes, it seemed, was not to be found in looking only at those phenomena but
rather at how they interacted and interlocked with society. Governance – the process
of governing – was obviously not a new phenomenon but as a result of the political,
economic and institutional developments during the 1980s it had gradually taken on
a somewhat different form; government was still at the helm and in control but its
role, its functions, in governance had changed. As a result, political scientists were
now challenged to come up with a framework to understand and conceptualize these
changes and what they meant (see e.g. Kjaer 2000; Kooiman 1993; Peters and Savoie
1995, 1998, 2000; Pierre 2000; Pierre and Peters 2000)).
A second “wave” of governance research has been more society-centered. Al-
though society was believed to become more and more fragmented and heterogene-
ous, societal actors had proven of capable of forming networks and other more or
less informal organizations to promote their interests or solve common problems or
2 This may appear to be anthropomorphizing the state, but the reference is to the collective actions of partici-
pants in the state.
[Link] Page 241 Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
241
to form a united front against government institutions (Marsh & Rhodes 1992;
■
Rhodes 1997). Networks were not only seen as logical responses to the growing com-
B . G U Y P E T E R S – J O N P I E R R E : G O V ER N A N C E
plexities both within the state and in society; it was also often believed that networks,
as governance structures, were in many ways superior to the more traditional, govern-
ment-centric governance (Sörensen & Torfing, 2007). They were instruments of in-
terest representation but also decision makers in the context of a de facto self-gov-
erning policy sector or a neighborhood. They were situated outside the traditional
process of democratic input and accountability and although that caused problems
with their democratic “anchorage” (Sörensen & Torfing, 2005), the advocates of net-
work governance argued that network offered new, and by no means worse, demo-
cratic channels compared to traditional political institutions.
In the current – and rapidly expanding – field of governance research these differ-
ent approaches are beginning to gel. The overarching question in current research is
focused both on societal complexities, on the institutional complexity of the state as
well as on the interface between the political sphere of society and its external envi-
A ND S O C I A L C O M P L EX I TY
ronments (Pierre & Peters 2005). Thus, from what might have appeared to be a less
than perfect focus first on the state and then on society, current governance research
is becoming more and more focused on what would seem to be the most obvious fo-
cus of interest, namely the interface between the two. The notion of a “dual complex-
ity” – an analytical model where a complex state is to govern a complex society – has
become a frequently used point of departure for this research.
At the heart of this debate lie both an empirical and a normative issue. The empiri-
cal discussion has sought to clarify the significance of the recent changes in govern-
ance and their consequences. It appears as if much of the purported novelty of the
“new governance” is overstated. In Japan and most other Asian countries there is a
long experience with territorially defined mobilization of politics, administration and
private businesses towards joint goals. The Scandinavian political milieu has for long
featured corporatist, tri-partite arrangements of interest representation and media-
tion and organized interest commitment to public policy. In many countries in Latin
America, complex webs between the state and political parties have effectively
blurred the distinction between state, civil society and society and created both polit-
ically charged societies and clientilist government. And in the developing world,
state-centric governance has frequently been challenged as a result of low political le-
gitimacy, “soft” institutions, widespread corruption and an unbelievable scarcity of
almost all kinds of resources. As a result, governance in that part of the world has of-
ten seen ad hoc interactions between subnational and national institutions and, occa-
sionally, transnational organizations (Hyden & Bratton 1992). Thus, even a quick
glance around the world is sufficient to question the novelty of less state-centric
models of governance. Indeed, the only part of the world where the “new” govern-
ance really is new is in the Anglo-American democracies.3
The normative debate, on the other hand, addresses the issue of whether these
changes are desirable, what positive and negative changes they entail, and what form
3 Even in these cases, as scholars such as Ted Lowi pointed out, there was close connection between the State
and social actors, but this interaction was conceptualized as subverting the liberal model of democracy.
[Link] Page 242 Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
242
of governance is more appropriate for governing states, regions and cities in the 21st
century. Here, a telling example could be drawn from the Scandinavian countries. A
few years ago, “power studies” were conducted to investigate what significant chang-
es in governance that are taking place. In both countries, the empirical evidence
showed a systematic decline in popular support for traditional democratic institutions
as well as the political parties (Togeby 2003; Österud et al. 2003). Interestingly, how-
ever, these findings were received quite differently in the two countries. In Norway
the general conclusion was that democracy as we know it is in deep crisis and that
powerful measures should be employed to address the situation. In Denmark, on the
other hand, the results were seen as proof of an ongoing change which on the whole
is welcome.
This normative debate about governance has also seen some observers advocating
an associational form of democracy (Hirst 2000) or a growing interest in communi-
tarianism (Bell 1993) as well as reform within the existing institutional model of dem-
ocratic governance. These models would reduce the centrality of representative de-
mocracy in favour of more direct linkages to citizens. Thus, there is no shortage of
ideas of how to organise governance as we enter a globalized world and an increas-
ingly complex and fragmented society.
U n d e r s t a n d i n g g ove r na n c e
Essentially, governance is about the pursuit of collective interests. More precisely,
governance theory helps us understand the exchanges between state and society in
the definition and implementation of such collective objectives and goals. The signif-
icance of these state-society interactions offers an explanation to why governance
gives a more comprehensive view of the process of governing than would theories of
government. What makes governance an object worthy of study (Stoker 1997) is
quite simply that these arrangements are becoming more and important in the proc-
ess of governing.
We mentioned earlier that governance is not a new phenomenon, but during the
past couple of it has taken on new manifestations that problematize the role of gov-
ernment in governance. Governance theory departs from increasing complexity,
both in society and within government. Globalization and an increasing international
embeddedness of the state, coupled with increasing autonomy (real and asserted) by
local and regional political institutions, have redrawn the political map of most states.
Private enterprise, too – at least the larger corporate structures – are today believed to
be less tied to any particular country than was previously the case. All of this means
that the targets of policy are constantly moving, so much so that private businesses
may well choose to relocate if the nature of those policies is considered to significant-
ly impair the competitiveness of the firm. Furthermore, policy problems are less tied
to nation-state jurisdictions than before. Environmental protection and international
terrorism are examples of a changing political context where hierarchical governing
over a jurisdiction defined by national border no longer seems appropriate or effi-
cient.
[Link] Page 243 Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
243
The state is also less capable of steering in the way it did a couple of decades ago.
■
The once attractive strategy of steering with financial incentives or tax cuts is less
B . G U Y P E T E R S – J O N P I E R R E : G O V ER N A N C E
common today as governments try to curb their expenditures. Facing increasing con-
tingencies in its relationship with society, the state finds it neither very efficient nor
possible to exercise political power in a command and control fashion. Central gov-
ernment today finds itself in a situation where parts of its sovereignty, de jure or de
facto, have been moved upwards to transnational institutional systems downwards to
regions and local authorities, and outwards to autonomous agencies (Bache &
Flinders 2004; Pierre & Peters 2000). As a result, there is a pooling and sharing of
both resources and authority in the pursuit of collective goals. Thus, command and
control is more and more replaced by negotiations, bargaining and pooling of re-
sources. The contemporary state has to master these contextually defined relation-
ships with external actors on which it finds itself increasingly dependent, and, while
doing that, provide political leadership and define political goals.
Needless to say, these developments inside and outside the contemporary state
A ND S O C I A L C O M P L EX I TY
raise a series of research questions. What are the key roles of political institutions in
democratic governance, and what alternatives exist to traditional political representa-
tion and accountability? How can the modern state uphold some degree of integrity
and insulation vis-à-vis the targets of its policies? To what extent can the public ad-
ministration engage in networks and partnerships with societal actors without jeop-
ardizing its integrity and indigenous norms of equity and equality, impartiality, legality
and legal security? Can democratic governance be sustained at the subnational and
transnational institutional levels? Is, in the final analysis, political authority something
negotiable, or is it unequivocally tied to institutions and democratic accountability?
These and many other issues at the same overarching level of the state and political
democracy suggest that it is essential not to get lost in details but to constantly assess
observed changes against the benchmark of systemic values. Therefore, the norma-
tive dimension of governance research always lurks in the background of empirical
analysis.
The complexity of contemporary governance points to the need to include social
and organizational learning into models of governance. Rather than thinking about
policy-making in a hierarchical manner, and as being performed once for all, govern-
ance is conceptualized as a continuous process of learning and adjustment. Conven-
tional hierarchical models of governance may rely too heavily on control from the
center and may not be open adequately to the feedback coming from society and
from the actors affected by the actions of the public sector but governance models
does include such an adaptive capacity.
Gove r nance and Compar a tive Analysis
The research questions above also point to the possible utility of governance as a per-
spective for comparative political analysis. By asking basic questions about the way in
which societies choose to govern themselves, including questions about the involve-
ment of social actors in governance processes, comparative politics becomes better
positioned to describe and to understand the policy choices made on behalf of the
[Link] Page 244 Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
244
public, and the relationships among major groups of actors. This approach does not
yet offer strong explanations for the choices, but its generality provides a lens to ex-
plore governing and the role of government.
One of the most important contributions that governance can make to compara-
tive analysis is its generality and its recognition of the need of all societies to supply
some form of collective direction. This approach is essentially functionalist, positing
the need for providing the basic activity of governance then examining the ways
through which that function is organized and provided. Societies may be more or less
successful in providing that collective steering, and there may in fact be different lev-
els of demand for governance, depending upon levels of political development and
the nature of the political culture.4
The distinctive element of the governance approach is that, although it does as-
sume a common need to provide governance, it is totally agnostic about how that
function is performed. Most importantly, governance does not privilege formal gov-
ernment institutions and actors in the activity of governing, but the governance ap-
proach recognizes that there are multiple ways in which this function can actually be
fulfilled.5 Conversely, some of the early network theorists assumed that the more in-
formal network structures would dominate and that formal government would grad-
ually erode because of its rigidity and its excessive bureaucratization (see Rhodes
1997; ‘t Veld et al. 1992).
The lack of any premature closure on the manner in which governance is actually
carried out reflects the contemporary reality of policy-making and policy implemen-
tation. Certainly government can be expected to continue to have some importance,
especially in legitimating public action, and some of the capacity of networks to be-
come engaged in providing governance reflects delegation of powers from those for-
mal structures. That having been said, however, social actors – whether networks,
private firms, not-for-profit organizations, or whatever – involved in governance
have been able to carve out areas of power and influence on their own, and many as-
pects of contemporary governance would be much weaker without the involvement
of non-governmental actors.
The instruments used to govern through the “New Governance” also involve
greater involvement of non-state actors and the use if negotiations than did the more
conventional command and control instruments associated with conventional imple-
mentation (Salamon 2001). The public sector has been increasing its use of “softer”
policy instruments (Morth 2004) that do not set absolute requirements but rather in-
volve benchmarks, voluntary agreements and a variety of other means of linking state
and society at the same time that they implement policies.
In theoretical terms, governance has the additional value that it is actor-centered.
Institutions are certainly significant for understanding how decisions are made an im-
plemented, but the fundamental question that emerges from thinking about govern-
ance is which actors are involved and what do they do? This question then leads di-
4 For example, the United States appears to accept lower levels of control over society and some of the dysfun-
ctions that this pattern of governing may produce.
5 To that extent the governance approach is similar to the structural-functionalist approaches that once domi-
nated comparative analysis. See Almond & Powell (1966).
[Link] Page 245 Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
245
rectly to the comparison of governance systems (e.g. France, Singapore) that are
■
more state centered as opposed to those (e.g. Germany, Sweden) that give a strong
B . G U Y P E T E R S – J O N P I E R R E : G O V ER N A N C E
position to social actors. Then one can also compare the differences between the in-
volvement of social actors through networks or through market-type mechanisms.
Finally, the comparison of the forms of governing naturally leads to the compari-
son of the success or failure of governance (Bovens, ‘t Hart & Peters 2001). One
strand of governance research has focused on “good governance”, meaning primarily
the extent to which governments have been able to create transparency and reduce
corruption. While this measure of good governance is important, it is only a small as-
pect of the more extensive nature of governance (see above). Further, effectiveness
of governance may be enhanced in some cases by reduced transparency (Pierre 2008).
As yet relatively little comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of alternative gov-
ernance arrangements has been conducted, but an emphasis on performance can
provide a useful direction for that research.
The governance approach also allows understanding and linking various levels of
A ND S O C I A L C O M P L EX I TY
governing, and again does not assume that the nation-state is necessarily the central
feature for governing. Governance is not just about the governance at any one level
of government (especially the nation state) but provides a set of general questions
that can be used to understand global governance and local governance. Although
these academic literatures are often kept apart, in reality there is the means of discuss-
ing the issues and problems that cur across the conventional categories.
As well as cutting across a number of conventional categories in the academic liter-
ature, the idea of governance does allow a better conceptualization of governing the
context of increasing complexity. By involving actors from the market and society in
the governance process internalizes the complexity that already exists in the environ-
ment of the governance system. Many other conceptions of governing do not recog-
nize adequately this complexity and hence are not able to include it into their models
of governing directly.
Co n c l u d in g com me n t s
Governance research is driven by the increasing complexity – some might say the
messiness – of contemporary processes of governing. Given the growing reliance and
contingencies of government on societal actors, the multi-layering of political author-
ity and recent administrative reform which actively invites market actors into the
process of public service delivery, sticking to traditional textbook models of govern-
ment and public administration would have been to miss the point in contemporary
governance. While we are uneasy with accounts of these changes and developments
as the preamble to the decline of the state, it is equally clear that in order to under-
stand the preconditions of governing in contemporary society we need to look be-
yond formal institutional arrangements and government decision-making processes.
Governance today is more contextually defined. The cast of actors is more difficult to
predict. Institutional arrangements are not constitutional “givens” but are negotiated
and depend to significant extent on the interests and resources of actors at different
institutional levels.
[Link] Page 246 Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
246
Where does this complexity in governing leave political science? How do we theo-
rize contextuality? We argued recently that teaching political science and public ad-
ministration is becoming increasingly frustrating because while a few decades ago we
could answer students’ questions fairly clearly and unambiguously, today we often
find ourselves responding “well, that depends” (Peters & Pierre, 2007). Needless to
say, such uncertainty creates problems when developing a more general theory of
governance. As we have argued above, we believe that functionalist models of poli-
tics and policy-making – for decades dismissed as being excessively static – provide
some help in developing governance theory since they focus on tasks while making
no prejudgments about the locus of political authority. Further along that avenue of
thought, it also seems clear to us that a theory of governance needs to depart from a
traditional model of democratic government as an intellectual benchmark. True, gov-
ernment’s capacity to govern is weaker today than a few decades ago but for the most
part government remains the “hub” of governance. In order to understand the
changing role of government in governance we need to depart from a government-
centric model of governance. That is where we came from, and, to paraphrase Alice
in Wonderland, that is the only piece of reliable information we have. Where we are
going – which future directions democratic governance will take – is much less
known.
[Link] Page 247 Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
247
Re f er e nce s
■
B . G U Y P E T E R S – J O N P I E R R E : G O V ER N A N C E
Almond, Gabritel A. & G. Bingham Powell, 1966. Comparative Politics: A Developmental
Approach. Boston: Little, Brown.
Bache, Ian & Matthew Flinders (eds), 2004. Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Bell, Daniel, 1993. Communitarianism and its Critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bovens, Mark A. P., Paul ’t Hart & B. Guy Peters (eds), 2001. Success and Failure in Public Gover-
nance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hirst, Paul, 2000. “Democracy and Governance”, p. 13-35 in Jon Pierre (ed), Debating Gover-
nance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyden, Göran & Michael Bratton (eds), 1992, Governance and Politics in Africa. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner.
Hood, Christopher, 1995. “’Deprivileging’ the UK Civil Service in the 1980s: Dream or
Reality?”, p. 92-117 in Jon Pierre (ed), Bureaucracy in the Modern State. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Kjaer, Anne Mette, 2000. Governance. Cambridge: Policy.
A ND S O C I A L C O M P L EX I TY
Kooiman, Jan (ed), 1993).Modern Governance. London: Sage.
Marsh, David & Rod A. W. Rhodes, 1992. Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mörth, Ulrika (ed), 2004. Soft law in Governance and Regulation: An Interdisciplinary Analysis.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Peters, B. Guy & Jon Pierre, 2007. “Governance and Civil Service Systems: From Easy
Answers to Hard Questions”, p 231-245 in Jos C. N. Raadschelders, Theo A. J. Toonen &
Frits van der Meer (eds), The Civil Service in the 21st Century: Comparative Perspectives. Basings-
toke: Palgrave.
Peters, B. Guy & Donald J. Savoie (eds), [Link] in a Changing Environment. Montreal
and Kingston: McGill/Queens University Press.
Peters, B. Guy & Donald J. Savoie (eds), 1998. Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reform.
Montreal and Kingston: McGill/Queens University Press.
Peters, B. Guy & Donald J. Savoie (eds), 2000. Governance in the 21st Century: Revitalizing the
Public Service. Montreal and Kingston: McGill/Queens University Press.
Pierre, Jon (ed), 2000. Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pierre, Jon & B. Guy Peters, 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Pierre, Jon & B. Guy Peters, 2005. Governing Complex Societies: Trajectories and Scenarios.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Pierre, Jon, 2008. “A Sound Like Someone Trying Not to Make Sound: Why Secrecy Some-
times Makes Good Governance”, paper presented at a workshop on governance theory,
University of Southampton.
Rhodes, Rod A. W., 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and
Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Salamon, Lester M., 2001. “Introduction”, in L. M. Salamon (ed), The Handbook of Policy
Instruments New York: Oxford University Press.
Savoie, Donald, 1994. Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney: In Search of a New Bureaucracy. Pittsburgh,
PA: Pittsburgh University Press.
Stoker, Gerry, 1997. “Governance as Theory: Five Propositions”, International Social Science
Journal 155: 17-27.
[Link] Page 248 Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
248
Sörensen, Eva & Jacob Torfing, 2005. ”Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks”,
Scandinavian Political Studies 28: 195-218.
Sörensen, Eva & Jacob Torfing (eds), 2005. Democratic Network Governance. Basingstoke: Pal-
grave.
Togeby, Lise, 2003. Magt og Demokrati i Denmark: Hovedresultater fra Magtutredningen. Aarhus:
Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
’t Veld, Roeland et al. (eds.), 1992. Autopoiesis and Configuration Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Österud, Östein, F Engelstad & Per Selle, 2003. Makten og Demokratiet: En slutbok fra Makt- og
demokratiutredningen. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
