Th eories of Governance 267
to place boundaries around the concept of governance. Th ese boundaries are not
exclusionary, recognizing the importance of interjurisdictional, third-party, and
public nongovernmental governance.
What is particularly striking about the rapidly developing fi eld of gover-
nance theory is that it is primarily an intellectual project indigenous to public
administration. Aft er decades of colonization by economics, sociology, and other
disciplines, governance theory is still borrowing what it fi nds useful, but is in-
creasingly showing signs of a confi dent originality in its theoretical development.
Currently, it is diffi cult to award governance theory anything but mixed marks as
a theory—the project is simply too immature for sweeping judgments to be made
with any degree of confi dence. Frederickson’s regime theory of governance and
“Compound Sphere of Public Management Collaboration” attempt to resolve the
issue of what fi ts in the framework of governance theory, as does work by Emer-
son, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012) on a theoretical framework for collaborative
governance. But key questions remain unresolved, for example, to what end do
democratic concepts, such as accountability, fi t within the governance theoretical
framework, and to what degree should governance scholars concern themselves
with such questions? Given the increasing fi scal constraints faced by governments
at all levels, and the accompanying volume and complexity of social problems,
the number of actors and networks necessary for successful policy provision will
continue to expand. But can all actors and networks, both public and private, as
well as “hybrid” organizations, be held accountable? Public institutions derive
their power from the public. What, then, should be done about private organiza-
tions that contribute to a public good? What should be done about organizations
in which accountability mechanisms are lacking? Jonathan Koppell’s (2010) work
on global governance organizations, discussed in more depth in Chapter 9, is
instructive on this point. For transnational organizations, or even complex gover-
nance networks, the key is identifying a suffi cient number of actors in order to se-
cure legitimacy and compliance (Johnston et al. 2011). Th e scholarly record that
is emerging on this point indicates mixed results by policy type (Koliba, Mills,
and Zia 2011; Howell-Moroney and Hall 2011; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh
2012; Lee, Lee, and Feiock 2012).
Much in the way of governance theory has been written since the fi rst edition
of this text published over a decade ago. Yet the early signs are encouraging. And
despite all the controversy over the role of governance theory within or over the
fi eld of public administration (see Frederickson 2005 and Meier 2011 for oppos-
ing views), there is some agreement that advancements in governance theory,
perhaps more so than in any other theoretical framework, provide the best op-
portunity for improving public service provision (see Wachhaus 2014, 2012; Em-
erson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012). As a message to young public administration
scholars, governance theory is the wave of the future that by necessity is here to
stay—off ering both a fruitful scholarly exercise and a chance to provide tangible
policy benefi ts by improving the way in which services are provided. To be sure,