Governance Under Conditions of Uncertainty
(votes: 1, rating: 5) |
(1 vote) |
D.Sc. (Philosophy), professor, Head of the Chair of Political Governance, Political Science Department, St. Petersburg State University
There are two main factors in the world today that have an impact on state governance: on the one hand, global changes and challenges, and on the other, the demand within a country for stronger responses to citizens’ needs and for a high quality of bureaucratic administration. One may have splendid ideas and goals, but governance failures will block any efforts to achieve them. This is the reason why there is a demand for a type of a system of state governance that meets the requirements of citizens living in a complex, communicative and fast-changing social environment.
There are two main factors in the world today that have an impact on state governance: on the one hand, global changes and challenges, and on the other, the demand within a country for stronger responses to citizens’ needs and for a high quality of bureaucratic administration. No modernization of society is possible without the participation of the state. Conversely, a state that relies on obsolete structures and methods with regards to centralization, bureaucracy and mobilization, will hardly be able to cope with the current torrent of problems and conflicts. One may have splendid ideas and goals, but governance failures will block any efforts to achieve them. This is the reason why there is a demand for a type of a system of state governance that meets the requirements of citizens living in a complex, communicative and fast-changing social environment. How can the level of governance be improved without disrupting at the same time the open space for social interaction? How can governance be structured in the 21st century to respond to new trends in an unstable world?
There evidently is only one answer – the maintenance of an organic connection with this world, rather than an attempt to simplify and control it. And this calls for new thinking, openness in relations with society, an ability to sense citizens’ needs and expectations, the will to communicate, a modern understanding of what efficient leadership is all about coupled with a modern vision of outstanding challenges and threats, and a minimal use of coercion alongside maximum fairness and integrity. State leaders, scientists and society at large are all engaged in a search for ways to govern the unstable world today. Under globalization, a state is responsive to challenges if it is competitive and well-established, if it plays an active role in meeting international changes and leads in societal matters, science, communication and international affairs. The crisis of the nation-state in the late 20th century has been overcome in this century due to terrorism, financial instability and new global threats. But the revival of the state does not mean the revival of the former system of state governance. Governance under uncertainty is based on knowledge, cooperation, interaction with society, leadership and innovation. Its goals, however, apparently remain unaltered: fairness, security and perfection.
The predominant view in the 20th century was that governance represented one of the essential resources for enhancing the efficiency of human activities. John Kennedy once said that the 20th century was the age of governance. On the whole, this corresponded to the main trend of enhancing efficiency through the division of labor and greater professionalism in governance. Hence a lasting interest towards reforms in management and public governance. The core of the ideology of governance was the view that systemic clarity and rhythmic order are inherent to the nature of governance. And the mechanism of governance was structured in such a way as to bring the system into accord with a level of integrity and balance in relation to the wider environment.
However, it became clear by the end of the 20th century that systems are characterized by more complicated parameters and greater uncertainty in their development. This is especially true with regards to social institutions. Synergy registered this new ideology. Under the theory of state administration, this new approach emerged through concepts of network management and control, public values and a new way of administration – governance. The 2008-2010 financial crisis showed that there was a need for state regulation of the economy. The overall meaning of these changes was that the state was re-established as the central public actor, but would probably not develop within either the dirigiste tradition or the tradition of a social-liberal state. At the same time, the modern state throughout its development is bound to reckon with the changes inherited from the previous stage, and, at the same time, with post-industrial, globalist, communicative and cognitive society. The lack of a clear perspective has given rise to research projects aimed at identifying conceptual and methodological analyses of the state’s new role and changes in its policies and instruments of governance.
What are the prospects for pursuing this line of thinking in the area of state governance in the 21st century?
New Challenges to Governance
The current levels of instability and uncertainty are associated with resources and processes decisive for state governance.
First. Although material resources remain the determining factor enabling the state to perform its functions, other intangible factors are becoming increasingly important in this area, such as social capital, knowledge, communication, influence, values and so forth. It is these factors that are responsible for innovation and that bring about spontaneous developments and unpredictability in public affairs. Their immanent recurrence and continuation requires a new type of organization that will hardly conform with such principles of 20th century governance as hierarchy and normative patterns. In this respect, governance itself becomes a significant non-material resource. What is implied here, of course, is the type of governance that can serve as a resource supporting efficiency.
Second. Globalization, in our opinion, marked the end of that process that exhausted the resources of internationalization, i.e. the process inherent to the past two centuries. It ended with the growth of terrorism, migration and the onset of the financial crisis of 2008-2010. Identity is again becoming attractive and acquiring the status of an underlying principle of existence and development. However, its typical feature today and in the future is not stable self-identity, but, rather, a multitude of definitions that a human uses for self-identification in the heterogeneous world. And that is where governance can no longer be based on pre-determined and pre-formalized methods. Governance actually becomes situational. Yet another related aspect concerns the issue of the nation-state and prospects for its transformation under these new conditions. The problem arising in this respect is the relationship between the emergent global coordinating structures and the nation-states existing today.
Third. Humans have always lived in conditions of danger and have been subject to risks, but risks today have acquired the character of a condition constantly being reckoned with in human activities. Assessment of the probability of danger and success is part of governance technologies. However, securitization (as in the theory and practice of security) produces a controversial effect for state governance today. On the one hand, it represents an essential goal of the state’s activity justifying its very existence. On the other, it creates new threats and limitations on freedom.
Fourth. The system of state governance is expanding in size. Every attempt to regulate this issue in any radical direction has not produced a solution for many reasons. The main reason is that the state becomes not only a protecting, but also a producing institution. The expansion of the state’s industry of services requires not only representation, but also professionalism. This in part is responsible for the fall of the prestige of representative bodies of state power and an increase of the role of executive structures. Management supersedes old-time officialdom. On top of this, a significant role has been ceded to electronic government as a means of providing efficient services.
Fifth. In recent decades, grass-roots self-organization, community governance, and closer relationships between society and the state have become an increasingly significant development. The opinion in this regard is that the state should not row the boat, but rather, should captain it. Under this setup, the function of coordination acquires a decisive role. The involvement of everyone in public duties serves the purposes of a new mobilization for business and civil society. Social responsibility then becomes understandable to both business structures and civil associations.
What are the possible trends in state governance that will be associated with these changes? Can all of the present transformations be regarded as promising? What about chance events that may exert considerable influence on the possible configuration of state governance?
It looks like many processes and mechanisms that today are regarded as new are in fact a mere representation of former trends. We must identify several paradoxes caused by state governance that aims at analyzing transformations in order to respond to new challenges, but resorts to older methods.
In Search of Governability
Characteristics of Successful Public Policy
Governability has again become a topical problem, but it is not always tackled by using appropriate methods. Paradoxically, the growth of information technology at the disposal of systems of state governance has created even more uncertainty. A great many transformed signals get stuck in transit and fail to produce the desired response. The separation of information into primary and secondary classes does not work, since the second class may prove to be decisive. What should the criterion be which forces us not to overlook decisive information? And is the signal form of information enough to serve the purposes of modern state governance?
The decline in the legitimacy of the overall government and the executive branch in particular is a significant feature of the openness of the state governance system. It appears that openness should enhance legitimacy, and yet, this notwithstanding, confidence in government is falling. Legitimacy has ceased to be a decisive asset of the system of power and governance. Openness, therefore, does not further legitimacy.
Political scientist Johan P. Olsen in the middle of the last decade noted the comeback of bureaucracy, that is, of an explicit, norm-based and rational system of governance. The declared objective of the second stage of the administrative reform in Russia (2006-2010) was standardization. Did this help to radically improve the system of governance? In our opinion, the return of bureaucracy has been a rash response by the state governance system to an increasingly uncertain situation. Norms as an instrument of governance also previously led to failures, while today they contradict wider dynamics of public life. The greater the impact of a norm, the more disorder it creates. The question arises: is there anything that can ensure order under the new circumstances?
Increasing presidentialism in the political sphere, prominent over the past two decades, is characterized by an increase in the responsibilities of the top leaders. Moreover, the latter emphasizes not simply their official positions (statuses), but also their powers as well. But the more leadership is called for, the less the opportunity for the efficient application of methods of administration. It is leadership that enhances the efficiency of governance and becomes something in demand. However, what remains unclear is whether personal qualities and learning the art of leadership are enough to develop a modern governance system. And what about the traditional mechanisms of personnel recruiting, and what character will the governance system acquire when stimulated leadership exists?
How State Governance Can Respond to Challenges
We have identified ten basic trends in the development of the state governance system in the 21st century.
1. The need for state governance. Although new liberalism attempts to defend the idea that state regulation is fading into the background, while what is coming to the fore is the problem of formation of the system of regulation that relies on an inner sense of responsibility (responsibilization), the state will evidently continue to serve as a significant factor for the governance of society. This concerns the economy, business, the social sphere and politics. According to Forbes magazine, second place among the most promising professions in the 21st century belongs to the position of GR manager (specialist in relations with government agencies). Is this not an indication of the increasing role of state governance? It is another matter that after the crisis of the nation-state under globalization, state governance will undergo further transformations.
2. Leadership. The principle of leadership will become decisive in the organization of the system of state governance and civil service. Systems of state governance will probably consolidate more and more around the leading positions of the head of state (government). Bureaucracy as a rational form of dominance and governance will retreat into the background, while it is the need for innovative, creative approaches to civil service that will come to the fore. Mobilization by dutiful performance will give way to mobilization by initiative. The civil servants’ dynamic abilities will be in demand because they alone can serve the purposes of governance under conditions of uncertainty and enhance the state’s competitive ability.
3. Controversial policies. Changes will involve institutional factors that have an impact on policies and governance. Furthermore, the transformations will affect traditional principles of democratic policies, such as the separation of powers, representation and political plurality. As case in point, the function of the principle of separation of powers – a guarantee against the abuse of power – will lose its previous significance. Representation of interest groups and party policies will be superseded by “policies of controversy” – spontaneous action by disgruntled citizens. The Zapatista movement in Mexico in 1994 and anti-WTO action in Seattle (U.S.A.) in 1999 marked the beginning of new mass confrontations in the era of new communication technologies. Attitudes towards this kind of movements today are rather cautious, but the mass actions of the same kind that have taken place in the U.S.A., Germany, the U.K., Spain and Russia are a significant factor of influence on the state’s policies.
4. Knowledge rather than information. The transition to a society based on knowledge and communicative processes gives rise to new problems in the theory of governance, and changes the role and place of these components in governance systems. In the modern theory of governance, whether in relation to management or to public administration, views on the cognitive components of the governance process are changing radically. The cognitive components are being transformed from their role of an instrument of governance, however important in the overall process, into an element of organizational development, of structuring organizational relationships, people’s activities, their links with the environment, etc. This facilitates changes in the system of cognitive factors itself, where it is knowledge and knowing, rather than information, that become most important. In this respect, meaning and ideas, not signals or data, work as the trigger mechanism for public governance.
A new type of leadership, based on moderation,
realism and a sense of strategy, has been
demonstrated, for example, by Chancellor
Angela Merkel of Germany
This aspect of the development of state governance has attracted the attention of leading international alliances. For example, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) back in 2003 carried out research in 20 countries and 132 government bodies (ministries, agencies and departments) to obtain information on the introduction of knowledge management; its conclusion was that this process had good potential. In 2005, UNESCO in its report “Towards Knowledge Societies” emphasized that 21st century states would be able to accept the new age of sustainable development of humanity only when they not only provide access to universal knowledge, but also encourage everyone to become part of the knowledge-based society.
5. Efficiency rather than legitimacy.
Legitimacy based on the legal pillars of power and governance will not be able to justify political and governance systems. “Charismatic dominance” will, to an extent, play a role (i.e. leadership), but it will not be a determining factor. It will no longer be sufficient just to win an election: the electee will have to constantly support his or her claim to leadership and ability to lead and innovate. Efficient performance will be the principle of new leadership. A new type of leadership, based on moderation, realism and a sense of strategy, has been demonstrated, for example, by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. Obviously, governments and governance systems will only win support if they produce positive results and ensure justice, security and perfection.
6. Judgment rather than norms. Although norms will stay put in the organization of power and governance, increasingly greater importance will be placed on substantiated judgments expressed in the process of communication between citizens and the governance entity. The persons responsible for governing will have not simply to inform the citizens about decisions taken, but talk to them in order to convince them that the desired policy or type of governance is needed. Many experts suppose that state governance in the 21st century will be more of a consultative, than a mandatory nature. The function of obligation inherent in norm will become effective not as a result of being an adopted, but as an accepted pattern of behavior.
7. Encouraging rather than enjoining. Over the course of the transition from disciplinary practices of governance to governance by behavior, the importance of encouragement and taking up responsibilities will be increasing. The ethical motivation of behavior will serve as one of the factors of governance central to the organization of cooperative activities. Already today, the role of ethical codes of behavior for civil servants is increasing appreciably. Governance by order and enjoinment will lose its former significance and become mere formal instruments of governance of secondary import.
8. Distance governance. State governance will not be direct. Its functions will include the coordination of public relations, positions and roles, and activities to guide cooperative efforts. Governance through communities, civil associations and public networks will acquire increasing importance. The regulatory function in the market economy will only remain in force if the state proves its ability to support the competitive capacity of market agents. At the same time, business will no longer perceive social responsibility as extra non-productive outlays. In our opinion, the state under present-day conditions is not in a position either to perform its functions in assuming the main burden of social welfare (social state), or to delegate part of these responsibilities to the market (attempts at new state management). The coordinating function of the state is gaining in importance and superseding its other functions. The coordination priority is the result of the fact that although society is ceasing to be overly patronized by state institutions, the state has retained its only immanent function – that of expressing public values. However, while holding dominant positions in this sense, the state is in charge of public coordination, rather than assuming all public cares directly.
Transition from the administrative state to
the state that coordinates. When at the end of
the first decade of this century London and other
cities in the U.K. were engulfed in mass street
riots, David Cameron’s coalition government
reacted by relying on society, not on traditional
mechanisms of regulation (the market or
the state). It initiated reforms under the motto
Great Society.
9. Cooperation between the state and society. Transformative processes in the public sphere impact the mission of the state and the structure, functions and technologies of its policies and governance, on the one hand, and on the content of activities carried on by public associations and structures, on the other. The main hypothesis is that these transformative processes in the public sphere are leading both to a greater role of governmental and non-governmental actors in the formulation and implementation of public policies, and to changes in the system of their relationships with civil associations, aimed to further cooperation. This is combined with a transition from the administrative state to the state that coordinates. Furthermore, the significance of public affairs is increasing in the area of non-governmental activities. When at the end of the first decade of this century London and other cities in the U.K. were engulfed in mass street riots, David Cameron’s coalition government reacted by relying on society, not on traditional mechanisms of regulation (the market or the state). It initiated reforms under the motto Great Society that envisaged the modernization of public governance and public services through public involvement in the processes of control, in the formulation of public policies, assessment of public values, and so forth.
10. Multi-level global governance. Competition among states for global governance has led and will continue to lead to the formation of multi-level global governance, with its overall system combining global, regional and local components. It seems that neither “global hegemony”, nor “cosmopolitan democracy” are destined to materialize. The competitive system of global interactions will be stimulated by the revival of states and their aspiration to become significant participants in using the benefits of globalization and post-globalization. Participation in multi-level global governance is becoming an important asset of state competitiveness. At the same time, the role of global civil society will increase, resulting in ever greater influence that it will have on multi-level global governance. International fora at global (World Social Forum) and regional (European Social Forum) levels will acquire increasing significance.
* * *
In 2008, the West European Politics magazine published an article by Klaus Götz, “Governance as a Path to Government”. This publication symbolized an important turn in science towards the revival of the state, after numerous assertions voiced in the past decades about state crisis in the age of globalization, or reduction of state governance functions in network society. But the question that arises in this connection is what kind of state is about to return?
The answer may apparently be found if we combine several approaches. On the one hand, recent years have seen numerous publications reconstructing the history of the state. The idea set forth in this historical perspective is that the state has managed to survive, but something new is arriving on the scene to supersede its erstwhile types. On the other hand, the historical “dependence path” cannot explain everything. The nature of politics and state governance based on events and developments is expressed in the fact that they are leaving the door open to a variety of possible prospects; consequently it is difficult to produce any definite forecasts. The balance of forces and interests, and relationships of values and ideas will make the situation clear.
(votes: 1, rating: 5) |
(1 vote) |
