Putting Civil Society in Its Place. Jessop, Bob

scientists, for example, have expressed growing dissatisfaction with a rigid public–private distinction in state-centred analyses of politics and its associated top-down account of the exercise of state power. Whereas statehood (or, less abstractly, authoritative government) presupposes a state apparatus, territory and population, the notion of governance lacks this core juridico-political or otherwise relatively fixed institutional reference point. If statehood is a concept that applies in the first instance to the polity, then governance relates more to politics and policy. It concerns public politics, public policies or public affairs (Larsson, 2013: 107) rather than the state-cum-polity that provides the framework in which these unfold. However, it is even broader in scope because governance practices are not limited to the polity and indeed, are often advocated as a means to avoid the iron fist (even when concealed in a velvet glove) of state power. This has been reflected in growing concern with various forms of political coordination that not only span the conventional public–private divide, but also involve ‘tangled hierarchies’, parallel power networks or other forms of complex interdependence across tiers of government and/or different functional domains.

      The Köln School has been an influential contributor to governance studies under the rubric of Steuerung (steering).⁷ It has thereby developed a distinctive approach to the problems of governing functionally differentiated, organizationally dense and complex societies. Its leading figures recognized that these problems involved both the steering capacity of governing subjects and the governability of the objects to be governed (Mayntz, 2003: 29; cf also Mayntz, 1993). While these problems can lead to ‘steering pessimism’ (for example, in the work of Niklas Luhmann), the Köln School was more optimistic, influenced, perhaps, by specific examples of successful administrative reform and the overall record of neocorporatism in Germany in promoting economic development and sustaining a high-waged, high-tech, globally competitive ‘Modell Deutschland’ (German Model). Two key figures in developing these ideas were Renate Mayntz and Fritz Scharpf who codirected the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies at Köln for many years. A distinctive feature of this school is its actor-centred institutionalism, namely, its interest in how the interaction between micro-and meso-level actors and institutional factors shapes the possibilities of effective governance. Indeed, Mayntz (2004) later emphasized that the actor-centred political steering (Steuerung) approach to policy-making was quite distinct from the governance (Regulierung) approach, which is more institutionalist and deals with regulatory structures combining public and private, hierarchical and network forms of action coordination. In this spirit, the Köln School explored how to (re)design the interaction between institutions and actors to improve the chances of overcoming policy problems. This is yet another way in which the topic of metagovernance (or, in this context, metasteering) has emerged.

       Theoretical background to metagovernance

      The notion of metagovernance obviously builds on that of governance. As noted, in its most basic and general sense, it denotes the governance of governance. Whereas some scholars and practitioners explicitly refer to metagovernance, many other terms have been used to denote or connote this phenomenon. This linguistic variety is linked in part to the relatively ‘pre-theoretical’ nature of work on governance and metagovernance, to the diversity of theoretical traditions with which more rigorous work is associated, to the different political traditions and tendencies that have shown interest in governance, to the great heterogeneity of the subjects and objects of governance and, a fortiori, of metagovernance, and to the challenges involved in translating theoretical reflections on governance and metagovernance into policy paradigms or indeed, commercial consultancy in the public, private and third sectors.

      This is illustrated neatly in Louis Meuleman’s work on metagovernance (2008: 73). He shows some significant routes to interest in metagovernance in two theoretical traditions (rational choice vs sociological) and with respect to the three most commonly identified modes of governance (market, hierarchy and network). Of particular interest in his analysis is an implicit distinction between first-, second-and third-order governance, to which we return below, as well as the key role this distinction accords to reflexivity, deliberation and normative commitments in second-and third-order governance, which are also the two main sites of what he identifies as metagovernance.

      One of the two authors most often cited as the originator of the term ‘metagovernance’ is the Dutch scholar, Jan Kooiman, who belongs to a broader Dutch tradition of sociocybernetic inquiry (see, for example, Kickert et al, 1997; Edelenbos and Klijn, 2007; Meuleman, 2008; see also Deutsch, 1963). Interested in the problems that states faced in governing complex societies, he drew on sociocybernetics to explore state–society interactions not only in terms of automatic cybernetic mechanisms but also in terms of conscious guiding actions (Kooiman, 1993a, 2003). Rather than assume that the state stands over and against society, he viewed governments as cooperating with key societal actors to guide societal development.

      Accordingly, he stressed the need for requisite variety among modes of government–society interactions that range from hierarchical governance (top-down intervention) through cogovernance (joint action) to self-governance (societal self-organization without government interference). Whereas Kooiman recognized that each mode has its own specific properties, he argued that they also interact to produce hybrid, or mixed, patterns of governance (Kooiman, 2003: 7). He further noted the importance for effective governance of cultivating the capacity to reflect on, and rebalance, the mix among these modes in response to changes in the challenges and/or opportunities that exist at the interface of market, state and civil society. Governing in modern society requires an interactive perspective concerned to balance social interests and facilitate the interaction of actors and systems through self-organization, co-arrangements or more interventionist forms of organization. Thus, for Kooiman, the key problem is how best to ‘strike a balance’ among different kinds of actors and steering mechanisms at the micro, meso and macro levels of society.⁸

      Kooiman distinguishes first-, second-and third-order governing. First-order governing is problem-solving; second-order governing occurs when attempts are made to modify the institutional conditions of first-order governing when, according to Kooiman, these conditions are out-dated, dysfunctional or detrimental in governance terms; and third-order governing (or, for Kooiman, metagovernance) involves attempts to change the broad principles that concern the way governing takes place: it is the governance of governance or governors through modification of the (normative) framework in which first-and second-order governing activities evolve (Kooiman, 2000, 2002).

      Whereas the literature on governance and metagovernance has shown much interest in issues of institutional design appropriate to different objects of governance, work on governmentality has explored attempts to change the subjects of governance and their values. The neoliberal project, for example, clearly requires attempts to create entrepreneurial subjects and demanding consumers aware of their choices and rights as well as actions to expand the scope of the market mechanism. Anglo-Foucauldian scholars have explored the role of power and knowledge in shaping the attributes, capacities and identities of social agents and, in the context of self-reflexive governance, in enabling them to become self-governing and self-transforming (cf Miller and Rose, 2008). This raises questions about the compatibility of modes of governance not only institutionally but also in terms of individual and collective capacities to pursue creatively and autonomously the strategies and tactics required to sustain contrasting modes of governance. This indicates that collibration demands more than the search for a technical, problem-solving fix. It also involves specific objects, techniques and subjects of governance and efforts to manage the wider ‘unstable equilibrium of compromise’. Applied to metagovernance, this means comparing the effects of failure or inadequacies in markets, government, self-organization and solidarity, and regularly reassessing how far current actions are producing desired outcomes. This, in turn, requires monitoring and modulating mechanisms, and a willingness to reevaluate objectives.

       Political contexts

      Given such theoretical pre-histories and current theoretical alternatives, it is worth asking whether other factors might lie behind the recent interest in governance. Here one should certainly consider the strong practical dimension to such paradigm shifts. Current fascination with the nature and dynamics of governance