Governance, the state and political power

To this point we have been painting a picture of the transformation of the hierarchical and autonomous state that had been the centrepiece of the Westphalian State system in international politics, and also the centre of the mixed-economy, welfare state in domestic politics.

That model of governing was very convenient for those at the centre of the institutional apparatus. They could make decisions and expect them to be executed with minimal direct involvement of other actors. While the implementation literature made it clear to academics that these systems for making and executing policy did not necessarily function as smoothly as the models might have one believe, they did function, and during the post-World War II period helped produce an era of substantial economic growth and growing equality of opportunity, in the Western democracies at least. Although this form of governance was successful for a substantial period of time, overloads of demands and fiscal problems generated significant problems. Society also changed and demanded greater participation. Thus, both on the political right and the political left there were demands for change, and indeed some substantial change. As noted above, some of these changes involved altering forms of service delivery in order to enhance the efficiency of the public sector. Other changes involved debureaucratization and involving social actors in decisions. We could enumerate a number of changes of both sorts, but the fundamental point is that the linear, autonomous conception of governing had been replaced by far more complex arrangements for making and delivering policy.

The complexity that is inherent in contemporary patterns of governance does not, however, imply that governments have lost their power in governing. What it does mean is that the state is exercising that power in different ways.

For example, as partnerships and other means of linking the public and private sectors become more prevalent, the state’s power is exercised through bargaining and linking their resouces with those of the private sector. In many ways these arrangements may actually enhance public power. First, although government may want the resources brought to the table by private sector actors, government may bring a more central resource, namely legitimacy for engaging in action in the name of the public. Governments at time squander that resource, but it remains a major asset.

In addition, the public sector can, if it is coordinated and can pursue coherent policy goals, provide a central direction to more diverse and diffuse actors in the private sector. One of the most important criteria for governance is the need to create a set of common goals for the society, and that goal setting function is most likely to occur in government, as opposed to the numerous and diverse groups pressing their demands on the public sector. Therefore, a common set of goals may be more effective in governing than the more complex and perhaps confused set coming from society. The ‘central mind of government’, in Dror’s (2001) terms, and with that the opportunity to govern strategically, can be a decided advantage in governing.

Following from the above point, conflict resolution is a central activity for government and for governing. There are any number of policy views held by members of society, most of which contain some elements of the public interest as well as the more selective interests of the advocates. The difficulty in governing therefore is selecting among this array of worthy policy proposals. The institutions in the public sector have the mechanisms for doing this, whether through voting in legislative bodies, or more technocratic forms of decision-making in the bureaucracy, or even legal decisionmaking in the courts. Networks do not have such forms of conflict resolution that are agreed ex ante.

Bargaining does provide a means of resolving some conflicts, but generally not those in which there are direct conflicts among groups. Thus, any movement toward ‘governance without government’ complicates conflict resolution, but government may have to come back in the end to cope with fundamental disagreements.

One of the luxuries that the development of networks and the involvement of the private sector in governance affords government is that its own involvement in governance can be selective and instrumental. That is, government can now govern with a lighter hand, and can use those instruments of ‘new governance’ (see Salamon 2002) that may be less obtrusive. So long as the decisions made by networks remain within the bounds acceptable to existing law and the general policy values of the government there may be no reason to squander scarce political capital and intervene. But we should not forget that those instruments still depend upon the power and legitimate authority of the public sector for much of their effectiveness, and that most of the goal-setting will still be done through the public sector.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Hay Colin, Lister Michael, Marsh David (eds.). The State: Theories and Issues. Palgrave,2005. — 336 p.. 2005

Governance, the state and political power

More on the topic Governance, the state and political power: