The Dictionary of Human Geography

coordination modelled neither on hierarchies
nor on markets but onnetworks, especially
where these are ‘self-organizing’. For Jessop,
governance is ‘the ‘‘self-organization of inter-
organizational relations’’ ’ (1997, p. 59), while
Rhodes defines it as ‘self-organizing, interor-
ganizational networks’ (Rhodes, 1997, p. 53).
Rhodes expands this definition as follows:

(1) Interdependence between organizations.
Governance is broader than government,
covering non-state actors. Changing the
boundaries of the state meant the bound-
aries between public, private and volun-
tary sectors became more shifting and
opaque.
(2) Continuing interactions between net-
work members, caused by the need to
exchange resources and negotiate shared
purposes.
(3) Game-like interactions, rooted in trust
and regulated by rules of the game nego-
tiated and agreed by network partici-
pants.
(4) A significant degree of autonomy from
the state. Networks are not accountable
to the state; they are self-organizing.
Although the state does not occupy a
sovereign position, it can indirectly and
imperfectly steer networks.

Such definitions make it possible to speak
of a shift from government (coordination
through hierarchy)togovernance (coordin-
ation through networks). Like Rhodes, most
writers on governance take the view that net-
works may include a wide variety of organiza-
tions and are not limited only to state
institutions. Indeed, one of the central pro-
positions of governance research is that those
involved in the generation and implementa-
tion of public policy are not only the formal
agencies of government, but may include pri-
vate firms, NGOs, voluntary organizations,
faith- and community-based groups and grass-
roots campaigns. In part, this merely recog-
nizes that the coordination of complex social
systemsand the steering of societal develop-
ment have never been the responsibilities of
the state alone. Most writers, though, go fur-
ther and argue that the state has become less
prominent and that non-state organizations
have become relatively more important within
the coordination process.
Reducing the role of the state has also been
an important goal of efforts by international
developmentorganizations to promote what
they term ‘good governance’. The World Bank

and theinternational monetary fundin

particular have often made development as-

sistance to poorer countries conditional on

programmes of public-sector reform. In this

context, ‘good governance’ involves transpar-

ency and accountability in public administra-

tion, the efficient use of public resources,

participation indecision-makingand respect

for the rule oflaw. Critics (e.g. Evans, 2004)

object that these reforms require governments

in developing countries to adopt inappropriate

Western models of public administration, to

reduce public expenditure and to privatize

the provision of goods and services, leading

to detrimental impacts on the lives of poorer

people (cf.privatization). In both developing

and developed countries the shift from govern-

ment to governance and the increased public

role of non-state actors has raised concerns

about the lack of democratic control over

decision-making and policy implementation.

Research on the geographies of gover-

nance has focused on two main overlapping

themes:

(1) The role of networks. Rhodes’ own work

on ‘policy networks’ has been adapted

and supplemented by other approaches

to examine, for example, processes of

urban development (McGuirk, 2000).

Research has also focused on the grow-

ing use of inter-agency partnerships as an

institutionalized expression of networked

governance (Geddes, 2006) and on

inter-urban networks (Leitner, Pavlik

and Sheppard, 2002).

(2) The ‘re-scaling’ of governance. Early ac-

counts of the shift from government to

governance linked it to the ‘hollowing-

out’ of the state, which was said to involve

the loss of central state functions to both

supra-national scales (e.g. the European

Union) and sub-national scales (e.g. au-

tonomous regions, local bodies). The na-

ture of governance processes at sub-

national spatial scales has been examined

in detail inurbanandregional geog-

raphy (Painter and Goodwin, 2000;

Jones, 2001; Brenner, 2004). One strand

of this work focuses explicitly on ‘multi-

level governance’, highlighting relations

between local or regional, national and

supranationalscales(e.g. Bulkeley and

Betsill, 2005). jpa

Suggested reading

Brenner (2004); Jessop (2000); Painter (2000);

McGuirk (2004).

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_G Final Proof page 313 2.4.2009 6:30pm

GOVERNANCE