See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]
net/publication/269107473
What is governance.
Chapter · November 2014
CITATIONS READS
0 19,611
3 authors:
Tamyko Ysa Adrià Albareda
ESADE- University Ramon Llull Leiden University
82 PUBLICATIONS 804 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Sarah Forberger
Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS
34 PUBLICATIONS 131 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
governance networks: concepts, impacts and management View project
Policy Evaluation Network (PEN) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sarah Forberger on 05 December 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Governance of addictions in Europe Chapter 2. What is governance
CHAPTER 2. WHAT IS GOVERNANCE
Tamyko Ysa, Adrià Albareda & Sarah Forberger
Summary
Governance has become a popular and widely used concept amongst scholars and
practitioners from different disciplines, such as public administration, economy,
political sciences, management, law, and sociology. The concept alone is quite
ubiquitous and has been embedded in almost every international organization and
democratic government to refer to the way in which interdependent and highly
complex issues are managed. Governance implies different things depending on who
is using the concept and under which context. Taking this into account, the intention
of this chapter is to present and discuss a specific concept of governance and its
application in the field of addictions, devoting special attention to its implications for
final policies.
The chapter is based on a large comparative research conducted by Ysa et al. (2014)
which analyzes the governance structures and processes in the field of addiction. By
looking at how addictions are governed in 28 European countries, the study presents
four different typologies of governance of addictions in the Europe.
What is governance: An introduction
Since the 1980s, and in parallel with the public sector reforms (Bevir, 2009), governance has
become a key concept across social sciences. A huge amount of articles, books, monographs
and issues have been published referring to this concept (Benz, 2010; Bevir, 2009, 2011;
Hale & Held, 2011; Levi-Faur, 2012; Pierre, 2000; Schuppert, 2005). However the concept of
governance is still very ambiguous and varies depending on the discipline, the approach, and
the area taken into account.
It could be argued that governance is not a new concept, it being as old as human
civilization4. The roots of governance can be found in the Greek word kybernan, which
means to steer or to pilot a ship, but the concept was also used during the Roman Empire
under the Latin word gubernare, meaning to direct, rule and guide. Obviously, its meaning
has changed throughout the centuries and, nowadays, governance can be broadly
understood as the interaction between governments, business stakeholders and non-profit
organizations by which and policy decisions implementation are undertaken.
If we narrow this definition down, we first have to state that governments are not the only
actors in this process, and, in some instances, not even the most relevant or powerful ones.
Governments are one actor in the interplay of actors. Thus, governance includes the role of
sub-national and trans-national authorities as well as private organizations (business and
non-profit organizations). In this sense, governance appears in the context of the discussion
4
There is a lively discussion about the “linage” of governance, which depends on how governance is defined and
circumscribed. According to Pierson and Benz, governance is related to the modern state (Benz, 2001; Pierson,
1996) whilst others,. e.g. Risse and Leibfried, argue that governance is older than the European national sates
(Risse and Leibfried, 2001).
8
Governance of addictions in Europe Chapter 2. What is governance
about the role of the State, which can no longer be regarded the center of power and
authority given that it shares the decision and implementation processes with other actors.
The main reason why the state has to rely on other actors and share its power is the growing
complexity of our current societies and the emergence of ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel and
Webber, 1973). These kinds of problems are inherently resistant to a clear and agreed
solution. Following Roberts (2000), these problems engender a high level of conflict among
stakeholders, where there is neither an agreement about the problem itself nor its solution.
Hence, more complex and sophisticated policies are necessary, in which public agencies
engage with private sector entities and citizens in the decision-making and implementation
process. Wicked problems require the establishment of collaborative processes between
public agencies and other public, civil, society and business organizations (Mendoza and
Vernis, 2008: 392). As Lozano et al. (2006: 392) note, “the governance of our complex and
interdependent societies will not be possible unless we turn the sense of responsibility
among their many social actors into one of co-responsibility”.
Taking all this into account, a first characteristic of governance is the shift of power upwards,
downwards and sideways. Because of globalization and the internationalization of problems,
nation-states have transferred some of their competencies to supra-national authorities,
such as the European Union. At the same time, sub-national governments, as well as private
and non-profit organizations, have been empowered due to this new form of governing.
While some authors see this process as a distribution of power (Levi-Faur, 2011), others see
it as the failure of our current States. In this sense, as noted by Rhodes (2007: 6) “the growth
of governance reduced the ability of the core executive to act effectively”, which is related
to the same author’s thesis of the hollowing out of the state.
Besides this shift of power, governance has different dimensions that must be born in mind.
As presented by Levi-Faur (2011), governance can adopt the following forms: governance as
a structure referring to the formal and informal set of institutions involved; governance as a
process referring to the dynamics and leading functions that take place in the process of
policy making; governance as a mechanism referring to the institutional procedures of
decision-making, as well as compliance and control; and governance as a strategy referring
to the manipulation of the institutional and mechanical design with the aim of influencing
choices and preferences.
Because of the ambiguity of the concept of governance and the different perspectives that it
can be used to refer to, it is hard to find an overarching definition (Grande, 2012). The
meaning of governance still varies depending on the approach, research field, discipline, and
the theoretical context (Bevir, 2009). There are also critical voices claiming that governance
still seems to be an “empty signifier” (Offe, 2008). However, following Grande (2012), there
are five key elements which can be identified in governance concepts: (1) new non-
hierarchical structure and mechanisms; (2) governing and the criticism of hierarchy as
steering principle; (3) emergence of new actors, either private or non-profit; (4) increasing
complexity of political actions, and (5) increasing cooperation and collaboration among
stakeholders.
Concepts of governance
Despite the many typologies and perspectives under which governance can be studied an
analyzed, we focus on collaborative governance as an appropriate holistic approach to
analyze the policy structures and processes in the addiction field. Collaborative governance
incorporates parts of the network and multi-level governance and allows the incorporation
9
Governance of addictions in Europe Chapter 2. What is governance
of various actors from different fields, such as states, non-governmental groups, social
actors, lobby groups, and companies.
First of all, it is worth noting that, as a wicked problem, addiction implies complex
interdependencies, involving multi-level and multi-sector actors and various interests that
impede decision-makers in reaching an easy and consensual solution to the problem. Thus,
the governance of addiction challenges the problem-solving capacity of single states
(Bingham, 2010). Hierarchically ordered states often fail in finding feasible solutions for
wicked problems, which cannot be “solved or solved easily by one entity acting alone”
(Bingham 2010: 386). The complex interdependencies arising from wicked problems like
addiction cannot be tackled by traditional approaches, as there is no clear problem
definition encompassing every area and stakeholder.
According to Roberts (2000) there are three strategies to solve wicked problems: (1)
authoritative, (2) competitive and (3) collaborative. Authoritative strategies limit the
problem solving capacity to being held by a reduced number of persons. This reduces the
complexity of the problem because views of different stakeholders are already reduced at
the beginning of the process. However, in interdependent, democratic societies, it would be
difficult to legitimize this kind of power concentration in a small group of people, even if
they were able to solve the problem. Wicked problems can also be solved by competitive
strategies. That means that one competitor has the power to define the problem and to
present the solution. The underlying idea is to keep the power circulating among the
competitors and to prevent an institutionalization of power. However the danger of creating
a deadlock is enormous: Having the power to block a solution but not enough power to
enforce one’s own solution creates a situation of standstill where no real problem solving is
possible.
The last possible strategy Roberts (2000) suggests to solve complex problems is
collaboration. The aim is to engage all stakeholders in order to find the best possible
solution for all. It is assumed that an actor can accomplish much more by joining forces than
independently. Hence, as noted by Roberts (2000: 6), “at the core of the collaboration is a
‘win-win’ view of problem solving”. This approach involves meetings, alliances, partnerships,
joint-ventures and all variations of collaborative work. The main principle is the discussion of
possible solutions in order to find and agree on a common approach.
Following this last approach and according to Emerson et al. (2011), collaborative
governance can be understood as “the processes and structures of public policy making and
management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies,
levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a
public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (Emerson et al., 2011: 2). Thus,
this is conceptually broader than the idea of governance through networks, since it takes
into account both formal and informal interactions of a multiplicity of actors. The concept
includes members from the public spheres, private sector, civil society, local residents,
active local groups, and the community; but it also embeds new forms such as joined up
government, hybrid arrangements or community-based forms of governance. In sum,
collaborative governance is an interactive process with a huge number of actors, each with
various interests, perspectives, and positions, brought together for a discussion “during
which policies are developed” (Bevir 2009: 47).
The underlying idea is that involving an increased number of actors helps to overcome large
institutionalized interests represented by the state-level establishment actors and insider
10
Governance of addictions in Europe Chapter 2. What is governance
interest and lobby groups. An integration of multi-actors at an early stage of the policy-
making process could foster the support and legitimacy of those decisions derived from the
process. The involvement of stakeholders is also supposed to reduce the chances of
underrepresentation of a particular group or issue and to empower citizens. These civil
society stakeholders have an impact on (normative) legitimization of the decision and on the
implementation time, speed and application of a given policy decision. Also, because of the
actors involved, it is argued that there is less chance that one aspect could not be
represented and would be overlooked. It increases transparency, accountability, and trust
because of a more open policy-making process.
In summary, governance can be understood as an interactive phenomenon in which public,
private and non-profit actors interact to establish and implement public policies. Some key
determinants of this form of governing are the emergence and empowerment of different
actors, either public or private, with whom the state has to deal, and the loss of hierarchical
forms of governance in favor of a relatively more equal power distribution (Van den Berg
2012).
The following figure (Fig. 1) attempts to schematically summarize our understanding of
collaborative governance. Collaborative governance arises from the interaction between the
three spheres representing the government, non-profit organizations, and private
companies, but also taking into account how the international context influences each
sphere. In our present interdependent world, the role of international organizations, as well
as ad hoc relations between states, cannot be missed since its influence on national policies
can be a determinant. As a result, we deal with policies that have been “co-produced by a
wide range of actors at state level (e.g. ministries, parliaments, agencies, authorities, and
commissions), society (e.g. businesses, citizens, community groups, global media including
networked social media, foundations) and at supranational level (e.g. the European Union,
the United Nations)” (WHO, 2011).
Figure 1. Collaborative Governance
Source: Own elaboration
11
Governance of addictions in Europe Chapter 2. What is governance
Governance of addictions
As mentioned above, addiction is a recognized as wicked problem that does not follow the
traditional linear model of problem-solving: problem-options-solution-implementation. In
this vein, the governance of addictions is influenced by various factors that intervene in the
policy-making process due to its implications on society and the controversy that it
generates. Policy-making, as well as implementation processes, are influenced by public,
private, and non-profit stakeholders coming from a range of different fields, such as: health,
justice, public order, safety, economy and trade. The wide range of stakeholders and their
interdependencies, as well as interdependencies between the EU and EU member states,
make the governance of addictions highly complex. Therefore, since addiction is a wicked
problem, inherently resistant to clear and agreed solutions, it would seem appropriate to
use collaborative governance as the best way to cope with the multiple dimensions of the
problem.
Governance of addictions: European Union level
As a wicked problem, addictions cannot be properly tackled by the state alone. In this
respect, the role of the EU in this field has increased throughout the last two decades, to the
extent that, nowadays, the EU is a key policy actor determining national agendas in the field
of addictions. However, it is worth remembering that, as a health policy, addiction issues are
under the exclusive competence of the EU member states. More specifically, the article 168
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) states that “the EU shall complement the
Member States' action in reducing drugs-related health damage, including information and
prevention”. This same article notes that “Member States shall, in liaison with the
Commission, coordinate among themselves their policies and programs. The Commission
may, in close contact with the Member States, take any useful initiative to promote such
coordination, in particular initiatives aiming at the establishment of guidelines and
indicators, the organization of exchange of best practice, and the preparation of the
necessary elements for periodic monitoring and evaluation.” (EU 2008: 122). Therefore, the
EU still has limited power to directly influence member states’ policies on drugs and
addictions. However, the recommendations of the EU jointly with a set of directives and
regulations related to alcohol and tobacco are shaping most of the EU national approaches
on how to govern addictions.
Collaborative decision-making at the EU level is done through participatory platforms, multi-
stakeholders forums and public consultations aimed at receiving inputs, comments,
amendments and observations from any relevant stakeholder in the field of addictions and
drugs. Clear examples of this process are the European Civil Society Forum on Drugs and the
Alcohol and Health Forum, where every stakeholder affected is invited to participate and
make their voice and interests more visible to public institutions, hence, embedding the
essence of collaborative governance.
Despite the existence of these forums, both third sector and private companies aim to
influence EU decision-making process even more directly, in a similar way as is done in
member states. The general trend across the third sector is to produce evidence-based
analyses in order to influence the EU policy one way or the other. It is worth mentioning that
the EU itself is promoting evidence-based policies through the funding of research projects
studying addictions and drugs and the translation of evidence into policy (e.g. ALICE-RAP,
AMPHORA, ODHIN, etc.). On the other hand, business lobby pressures are not as
transparent and sometimes are linked to political scandals, such as the dismissal of the EU
Health Commissioner in recent years due to reported links with the tobacco industry, at
12
Governance of addictions in Europe Chapter 2. What is governance
precisely at the point when tobacco regulation directives were about to be revised5.
However, we also can find examples of transparent lobbying, such as the lobbying of the EU
by a number of different tobacco companies in order to approve cooperation agreements
aimed at reducing cigarettes smuggling.
Regardless the EU limitations, its growing relevance obliges us to pay careful attention to
European level governance. From 1990 to 2013 the EU has passed seven action plans, three
strategies and various regulations and directives for alcohol and tobacco. All these clearly
indicate that the EU is becoming more willing and capable of influencing and determining its
member states’ policies in the field of addictions. If we take the EU as a model, in the years
to come we should expect that member states will become much more inclusive, embracing
a broader understanding of governance, more participative and horizontal.
Governance of addictions: EU member states’ structures and processes
Most EU member states’ governments tend to exchange views and plans with relevant
stakeholders in order to obtain inputs and, later on, amend laws, regulations, plans and
strategy proposals. Overall, the way governments and relevant stakeholders deal with
addictions is not significantly different across EU member states. Whereas some differences
may arise between member states, mainly due to their historical, cultural and political
background, we can identify a cross-country model embedding the following characteristics:
a) Decision-making processes are led by the governments with private and non-profit
stakeholders taking an active role acting as interest and lobby groups.
b) Implementation is steered by government with the active involvement of non-profit
organizations.
c) Accountability and evaluation of policies are conducted by the governments with
few inputs from non-profit organizations.
Despite these broad similarities, we can still note different approaches in how EU member
states cope with addictions. The extent to which EU governments decentralize policy-making
and implementation processes, as well as the involvement of stakeholders, either private or
non-profit, has been further studied by Ysa et al. (2014), and proved to be one of the
determinants for establishing different EU models of governance of addictions.
Through an in-depth study of how 28 European countries6 establish their structure and
strategy to tackle addictions, Ysa et al. (2014) differentiate four groups depending on
whether they are more oriented towards health or criminalization policies and whether their
strategies are more inclusive or centralized and hierarchically-based. One of the main
conclusions of this study is that those countries that embrace a more inclusive governance
approach and involve different levels of government as well as private and non-profit
organizations in the policy-making and implementation processes tend to have health-
oriented policies aimed at enhancing societal well-being. Thus, those countries that embrace
a collaborative governance of addictions and tackle the issue as a cross-cutting problem
involving different ministries and levels of government as well as relevant non-governmental
organizations, especially during the implementation process, normally present a strategy
oriented towards well-being. Some examples of this well-being oriented strategy associated
to a collaborative governance approach can be seen in Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal
5
Revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (2014/40/EU):
[Link]
6
The countries taken into account are the 27 EU member states in 2012 plus Norway.
13
Governance of addictions in Europe Chapter 2. What is governance
and Spain. In all these cases, the Ministry of Health is in charge of coordinating addiction
policies. Decriminalization and harm reduction are the pillars of the policy, and health for
society in general has a higher standing than security-related problems arising from
addictions and drugs.
Discussion
Although the EU is using collaborative governance to cope with drugs and addiction issues,
further research needs to be undertaken in order to see whether collaborative governance is
an appropriate way to tackle these problems. Some conflicts may arise when seeking
collaborative arrangements that involve governments, private companies and non-profit
organizations. This is especially true when contrasting companies’ final aim – profit
maximization – with those that governments and many non-profit organizations pursue –the
enhancement of societal well-being.
Nonetheless, addiction is clearly a wicked issue that will not be solved if we are not able to
find feasible settings in which different stakeholders collaborate in order to seek solutions
and promote societal well-being. The greatest advantage of collaborative governance – the
involvement of diverse and various actors – could also be its greatest disadvantage. It has
not yet been proven that collaborative governance is more effective than top-down
approaches. This has to be monitored further. Moreover, following the rational approach,
more actors means an increase in the transaction costs involved. Many more interests have
to balanced out which often proves excessively costly and sometimes impossible (Brevir
2009: 48). One further criticism is that policy solutions represent only the interest of the few
groups who have been involved in the policy-making process. Some interests are too diffuse
to be organized and voiced. It has been argued that the policy-making process favours better
financed and organized groups and excludes and marginalizes weaker social actors
(Bevir2009: 48). In line with this, collaborative governance favours the involvement of
special interest groups rather fostering a common sense of public goods. However, further
research will indicate whether collaborative governance is the right mode of governance for
addiction due to its openness and the possibility of involving different actors at different
levels. Collaborative governance presents the opportunity to encourage democratic
participation while pursuing societal well-being. Throughout this process, the EU has an
opportunity to lead, establish the path, and determine the objectives that every member
state should bear in mind in order to promote societal well-being.
14
Governance of addictions in Europe Chapter 2. What is governance
Take Home Messages
The concept of governance is still ambiguous and varies depending on the discipline,
the approach, and the area taken into account.
Governance refers to the role of national, sub-national (regional and local) and trans-
national authorities, as well as companies and non-profit organizations that come
together to tackle wicked issues in the policy making and implementation process.
The EU has become an important trans-national actor, promoting policies based on
governance mechanisms across member states.
As a wicked problem, addictions are increasingly tackled from the perspective of
governance, to bring solutions from within and from outside governments, either at
the EU or member state level.
Countries that adopt a collaborative governance perspective tend to deal with
addictions policy through a health-oriented and well-being strategy.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors of this chapter have no conflict of interests to declare.
References
Benz, A. (2001). Der moderne Staat. München: Oldenbourg.
Benz, A. (2010). Governance - Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen: Eine Einführung. Berlin:
Springer.
Bevir, M. (2009).Key Concepts in Governance. Los Angeles: Sage.
Bevir, M. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Governance. London: Sage.
Bingham, L.B. (2010). Collaborative Governance. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of
Governance. pp. 386-401. London: Sage.
Blatter, J. (2007). Governance - theoretische Formen und historische Transformationen.
Politische Steuerung und Integration in Metropolregionen der USA (1850-2000). Baden-
Baden: Nomos.
Bogumil, J., Grohs, S., Kuhlmann, S., & Ohm, A.K. (Eds.). (2007). Zehn Jahre Neues
Steuerungsmodell-eine Bilanz kommunaler Verwaltungsmodernisierung. Berlin: Edition
Sigma.
Emerson, K,. Nabatchi., T., Balogh., S., (2011 ). An integrative Framework for collaborative
Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 22: 1-29.
European Union (2008). Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union. Luxemburg: Official Journal of the European Union.
15
Governance of addictions in Europe Chapter 2. What is governance
Grande, E. (2012). Governance-Forschung in der Governance-Falle? - Eine kritische
Bestandsaufnahme. PolitischeVierteljahresschrift. 53(4): 565-592.
Hale, T., & Held, D. (2011). Handbook of Transnational Goverancne. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Levi-Faur, D. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levi-Faur, D. (2011). From big government to big governance?. Jerusalem Paper in
Regulation and Governance. 35.
Lozano, J. M., Albareda, L., Ysa, T., et al. (2006). Governments and Corporate Social
Responsibility: Public Policies Beyond Regulation and Voluntary Compliance. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Mendoza, X., Vernis, A. (2008).The changing role of governments and the emergence of the
relational state. Corporate Governance. 8: 389–396.
Offe, C. (2008). Governance – “Empty signifier” oder sozialwissenschaftliches
Forschungsprogramm. In G. F. Schuppert & M. Zürn (Eds.), Governance in einer sich
wandelnden Welt (pp. 61-76). Wiesbaden: VS VerlagfürSozialwissenschaften.
Pierre, J. (2000). Debating Governance, Authority, Steering, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pierson, C. (1996). The Modern State. London: Routledge.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (2007). Understanding Governance: Ten Years On. Organization and Studies.
28: 1243.
Risse, T.,& Leibfried, S. (2001).Wieviel Staat braucht Governance? Ein kritischer Kommentar.
In M. Beisheim, T. Börzel, P. Genschel& B. Zangl (Eds.), Wozu Staat? Governance in Räumen
begrenzter und konsolidierter Staatlichkeit. (pp. 267-279). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973).Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy
Sciences. 4: 155-169.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences.
4: 155–169.
Roberts, N. C. (2000). Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution. The
International Public Management Review. 1(1): 1-19.
Schuppert, G. F. (2005). Governance-Forschung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Schuppert, G. F. (2011). Alles Governance oder was?. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Ysa, T., Colom, J., Albareda, A., Carrión, M., Ramon, A., & Ramon, A. (2014). Governance of
Addictions: European Public Policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press
16
View publication stats
