The Greek mythology of all the gods and goddesses alludes much to the ideas of Polycentric Governance. Each god represented a specific cluster or field that required attention. All the gods formed part of the governance of the known world. In some matter, the god’s had to form alliances to support their fields’ best interest. The gods themselves had their own hierarchy of who had more power than the next. This was closely connected to the ‘public’ they served [the larger the public that supported them the greater their power]. In the highest authority was Zeus the king of the gods, he acted as a control measure to the other Gods.
Traditionally governance was organized from a single point or structure. The traditional argument held that governments should have full control and only it should have the authority to make decisions, the power to enforce them and the means to punish those who do not abide by these decisions. The Hobbesian understanding of the Leviathan and, strong and strict punishment. The authors explain a theory of governance that does not support the monocentric government as an effective means to governance. Governance is seen from a polycentric political system [multiple ‘gods’ for multiple issues]. This argues that a multi-decision-making-systems is needed to provide proper governance to each public system. If the public has a need there should be a special entity that manages the goods and services attached to that need. The theory of polycentric givernace has multiple roots; it uses a lot of the Lego blocks of Hobbes, Marx, Postmodernism and Poststructuralism, the focus on created structures of control, the economics of goods and services, the opportunity and availability of goods and service to communities. The theory adds a new set of Lego blocks to the ‘playing field’. The Theory adds the effects of decision making, the idea that structures of control and decisions are not static but can grow and evolve. The theory assumes that there is not one point of decision making but multiple-points-of-decision-making. The premise of the theory suggests that a multivariate leviathan structure is created. That instead of one sovereign state, the state has sub-divided into smaller entities [leviathans] each comprising of sub-systems. Each mini-leviathan is imbued with one of the Lego blocks, to effectively deal with a problem. These mini-leviathans together form a larger decision-making structure. It must be noted that I am not suggesting a mini-leviathan under the traditional understand but the collective ‘consciousness’ of the people involved in the decision-making structures or agencies, enforce the sovereignty of this mini-leviathan. The agencies still enforce the rules and order through an accepted social contract. As an Individual I have a need, the mini-leviathan provides the services and goods in respects to this need, but to receive these goods and services I assume the sovereignty of the agency and the conditions attached to them. We will collect your garbage but the garbage must be in black backs, in a bin, already on the street. It is interesting to note that although these mini-leviathans control or manage they do not render the specific goods and services themselves. They outsource. Theory of polycentric governance makes multiple assumptions regarding the world in which it functions. The theory makes two assumptions regarding the governance of big cities. First regarding the political field of a metropolis is comprised out clusters of people/groups with each cluster its own needs and required services. These clusters may be divided along racial, social and/or class lines. These clusters do not exist in isolation but coexist with permeable boundaries. It suggests that if a public service is provided in one area (The promenade, Greenpoint) the effects are not limited to the cluster boundary. Second regarding the organization of a big city it is all just chaos. Decision-making and governance of one area are not subjected to a single decision by a single entity but by a ‘collective of decision-makers’. The theory argues that every community, the public, has a need for a service an agency [our mini-leviathan] is created to render the public with goods and services. The concern raised is that when you should goods and services be supplied from the public or private agency. The theory argues three main circumstances that favour public [owned] goods and services. The control of the consequences of decisions and the effects they have on the target community and the surrounding communities (the authors coined externalities). Not all goods and services can be easily packaged, the goods and services place are within clear-cut boundaries. Goods and services arise from a need, the need suggests that a certain status quo has to be maintained, the onus of this level of status quo falls on to the public sector [the mini-leviathan] to maintain. It is important to note that Goods and Services should not be seen as just physical constructs but include moral, social and political constructs. This suggests that if the effects of pubic goods and service in one cluster flow over into another, it is the responsibility of the controlling agency to manage [or limit] the overflow. The argument continues that if a specific pubic goods and services are rendered and it flows over to more than one cluster, the agency controlling the goods and services should expand to manage in both (or multiple) clusters. But this means the Leviathan can grow in power, and that one agency may take higher president above another agency? The construction of these mini-leviathans supports the polycentric governance but then it would still suggest a larger leviathan to control the smaller ones. The governance of this overflow is important because not all of the consequences can be dealt with by a single mini-leviathan. Polycentric governance of a city or business aims at a collective decision-making system that requires each smaller governance agency to make a decision on a matter – but these agencies still ‘report’ to a larger entity. It suggests that polycentric governance is a network approach, the state is comprised of multiple departments, each department built out of multiple agencies, and so on. The state is also comprised of its province and each province is comprised of multiple cluster groups or area that is managed by a council or agency… and so on… The concern If agencies are created to manage and control specific goods and services, there is no limit on the number of agencies created. The theory suggests that not all goods and services are rendered equally, but the area and needs specific. This supports the claim that some agencies may be bigger than others and thus have more power in decision making. But what if an agency services a cluster with multiple socio-economic groups with different available resources and needs… who controls what then? Whose need is greater? Polycentric governance approach argues multiple leviathan agreements to order – the social contract now has more conditions, restrictions, and requirements. The leviathan is no longer a single Hobbesian sovereign but an evolved form that is inclusive of other theories – where needed. Polycentric governance is argued to be a single theory of organisation. In many respects, it is a theory but it can better be explained as a postmodern collective understanding, as it views governance as the sum outcome of the decision-making systems. It does, however, bear the poststructural thought, it views seeks to understand the circumstances that create points of decision-making – by looking at the formal and informal means in which governance is structured, deconstructed and reconstructed in a given community or cluster. Although Polycentric governance offers many new tools and Lego blocks, it does have limitations and areas of concern. In my attempt to allude to these areas I will discuss the major areas; the Good and services Entrepreneurs; the creation and corruption of the mini-leviathans; and illegitimate governance that form part of the polycentric governance. It is undeniable that goods and services must be managed by an agency, to ensure that it is effective and reliable. These agencies are only responsible for effectiveness and reliability – they do not have to render the goods and services themselves. If the agency wishes to attract the support of private entities to render the services, who then regulates the economy and negotiations involved? It can be argued that this opens the space in which both public and private unite in mutual benefit. It also opens the space in which entrepreneurs may seek to monopolise on the agency and its resources. The theory does allow for the creation of an agency [mini-leviathan] to oversee the negotiations to maintain a ‘good’ status. In the end, we see a multitude of mini-leviathans all seeking to control and manage each other – much like the Greek gods. The second concern relates to the creation of the mini-leviathans (the points of decision making). The theory argues that the governance of a cluster must stem from the cluster itself. Much like the system that Lincoln suggested a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The agency is thus constructed through the collective of community leaders, social and moral entrepreneurs, and economic entrepreneurs. In an ideal world, this should pose no concern. Agencies can be influenced by those who have the most resources to do so. The leviathan is not longer the powerful and knowing, it now has limitations and weaknesses. An entrepreneur may wish to promote his own agenda through the establishment of a governance entity. It can also be argued that when the services provided by this agency overflows into another cluster – the agency might grow to manage the services in another cluster as well. The agency was formed by the primary cluster but now governs the secondary cluster with the same decision-making system in place. If the agency does not adapt to the new cluster and incorporates its needs and norms, the cluster will not react favourably. The final point of concern relates to who is allowed to govern. Polycentric governance does not assume one specific point of governance; neither does it limit the scope of governance agencies. The theory argues governance from an inclusive nature of all agencies of control, both formal and informal, both private and public, both legitimate and illegitimate. Within the context of gangs, townships, prison and governances the assumption can be made that gangs form part of this poly-centric, multi-point decision-making system. Knowingly or not. In many communities, illegitimate forms of governances assist the legitimate forms of governance. In correctional centres gangs play a large role in maintaining the ‘good order’. Each gang forms their own decision-making system to provide goods and services to their fellow offenders. Each gang capitalises [in some aspects monopolise] on a specific good or services and negotiates this good or service to other offenders (the public). Gangs have a very militaristic structure and the top ‘management’ collectively make decisions. Each gang thus has its own rules, norms, and social contract to ensure the effective delivery of goods and services. These rules, norms, and social contracts create a mini-leviathan to exert control and ensure co-operation. In legitimate governance agencies, legitimate means are created to oversee, control and sanction actions to ensure that goods and services are rendered. The theory does not distinguish. Thus, those who have more power, have more right to create? Or make decisions? REFERENCE - Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M. & Robert, W., 1961. The Organization in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry. The American Political Science Review, 55(4), pp. 831-842.
0 Comments
|
AuthorArchives
February 2018
CategoriesDisclaimer:
|