226 9: Th eories of Governance
understanding this variation help fashion better public administration and man-
agement strategies? A theory of governance may help provide answers to such
questions and provide public administration with an intellectual handle on the
hollow state. Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill do not claim to create such a theory, but
they do seek to lay a systematic foundation for the study of governance. Th eir goal
is advisory rather than prescriptive; it is to suggest approaches to research design
and interpretation that “will promote the creation of a body of knowledge whose
value equals or exceeds the sum of its numerous parts” (2001, 15).
Although Lynn et al.’s objectives do not include the construction of a com-
prehensive explanatory framework, they do off er several planks necessary to con-
struct such a full-blown theory. Th ese begin with a defi nition of governance as
the “regimes of laws, administrative rules, judicial rulings, and practices that con-
strain, prescribe, and enable government activity, where such activity is broadly
defi ned as the production and delivery of publicly supported goods and services”
(Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill 2000, 3). Th is defi nition implies that governance con-
sists of separate but interrelated elements. Th ese elements include organizational,
fi nancial and programmatic structures; statutes and laws; policy mandates; avail-
able resources; administrative rules; and institutionalized rules and norms. Th e
defi nition also implies that governance is inherently political, that it involves
bargaining and compromise between actors with diff erent interests, and that it
comprises both formal structures and informal infl uence, either of which may
characterize the relationship between formal authority and the actual conduct of
government-mandated operations (10).
Th e combined elements that make up Lynn et al.’s concept of governance are
argued to describe the ends and means of governmental activity and how these
ends and means connect. A particular confi guration of these elements is termed a
“governance regime,” with each regime encompassing the broad array of compo-
nents that determine public service provision in a particular area. Th ese compo-
nents include policy domain (e.g., environmental protection), type of government
activity (e.g., regulation), particular jurisdiction (e.g., a state), and particular or-
ganization (e.g., a state department of natural resources). Th e formation of these
regimes is a product of a dynamic process they call the “logic of governance.” Th is
process links the values and interest of citizens with the actions of legislatures, ex-
ecutives, and the courts (Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill 1999). Lynn and his colleagues
argue that the key to the study of governance is coming to some systematic un-
derstanding of this process and its relationship to performance: “Th e central the-
oretical problem in governance research is applying theories that impose a causal
ordering or a priori structure on the logic that links contexts, governance, and
consequences or outcomes” (2001, 17).
Lynn et al. suggest that the study of governance has two primary intellectual
antecedents. Th e fi rst is institutionalism, especially as practiced by public choice
scholars. Th is body of literature has repeatedly confi rmed that structural arrange-
ments shape behavior within an organization, determine the performance of an