Between Coordination and Regulation. Conceptualizing Governance in Internet Governance
1. Between
Coordination and Regulation
Conceptualizing Governance in
Internet Governance
GigaNet Symposium 2014, Istanbul
Prof. Dr. Jeanette Hofmann, Social Science Center Berlin
Christian Katzenbach, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society
Kirsten Gollatz, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society
2. Structure
“Internet Governance”
Internet governance
ref lexive
coordination
governance as
reflexive coordination in: Internet governance
4. “
A common definition
Internet governance is the
development and application by Governments,
the private sector and civil society,
in their respective roles,
of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making
procedures, and programmes
that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.
(WGIG 2005)
5. Contradictions and shortcomings of
Internet governance research
“shared principles, norms, rules,
decision-making procedures,
and programmes”
versus distributed agency
versus governance as side-effects
?
“steering and shaping”
Scope – What is not Internet governance?
Modes – Governance and regulation: Are they the same?
Reflection of governance and regulation literature?
7. The Concept of Governance
Different terminological traditions
Anglo-American Approach European Approach
Governance = Government 3-step paradigm shift:
(Mayntz 2003)
Public planning
Public steering
Governance
- hierarchical,
command & control
- distributed,
cooperative, network
8. Governance versus Regulation
Modes of Coordination Constellation of Actors Structure Formation
non-hierarchal
regulation
distinction between
steering subject and
steering object
intentional
simple
governance
integration of steering
subject and steering
object
intentional
complex
governance
integration of steering
subject and steering
object
non-intentional
(Translation of Grande 2012: 583)
9. Governance versus Regulation:
Analytical Shortcomings
Regulation – misses empirical phenomena that
cannot be explained as outcomes of rational
problem solving
Governance – vague term without clear
boundaries: what is outside of governance?
Task – Specifying a middle ground between
concepts too narrow and too broad
11. When simple coordination fails it
becomes reflexive
Coordination – building blocks of social order, varying by reach,
stability and number of people involved
Governance = coordinating coordination
– institutions designed to enable coordination cause new
coordination issues
Critical moments – actors articulate formerly implicit
understandings and norms to evaluate the situation and
consider new rules
Periods of simple and reflexive coordination may alternate
over time
12. Coordination, Regulation, Governance
Definition Evaluation Criteria
Coordination reciprocal social
processes
mutual
adjustments
Regulation intentional
interventions
outcome,
achievement of pre-defined
goals
Governance legitimacy,
acceptance,
smooth process
ref lexive
coordination
14. Internet Governance as Reflexive
Coordination: The IGF
Conditions of coordination – (re-)shaping its own
context
Coordinating coordination – “recursive loops” (p.3)
Critical moments – compromising different worldviews
and conflicting opinions
Bottom-up perspective – debating the formal and
informal practices
Reflexivity – boundaries are enacted and constantly
negotiated by the actors involved
Outcome – a fluid concept
(Epstein 2011: 6)
15. Summary
Shortcomings – lack of a systematic reflection of
governance in Internet governance
Task – specifying a conceptual and pragmatic
ground
Approach – governance as reflexive coordination
Further research – empirical applicability in
Internet governance arrangements,
contextualization, theoretical extensions
Editor's Notes
How to conceptualize governance in Internet governance? Conceptual history of Internet Governance
Revisiting the governance concept
Governance as reflexive coordination
Reflexive coordination in Internet governance
Political definition that bears the marks of its context and time:
1. Actor constellation; 2. quote of "in their respective roles" 3. SHARED principles, norms etc; 4. no laws, no policies or contracts.
We need a theoretically informed definition!
Predominantly empirical research
Lack of defintion, terminology
Blurred lines between analytical and normative
No systematic discussion, nor conceptual terminology
"Common to all definitions of governance is a notion of steering. (van Eeten & Mueller)
Regulation: targeted action with clearly defined regulatory goals
Governance is the same?
Different terminological traditions between anglo-american and European research
US: Governance = Government
EU: Governance as the latest instant in a 3 step paradigm shift (Mayntz 2003):
Modes of coordination in politics:
Public planning hierarchical, command & control
Public steering
Governance : distributed, cooperative, networks
Def Regulation: operations intending to influence a given state in a regulatory field
Regulation: Emphasis on acts and situations of decision making
Governance: Emphasis on structures and processes of coordination,
Significance of intentionality varies with the complexity of governance arrangement
Introducing our own approach to the question of „how to define internet governance?“ and finding reflexivity in governance.
combining ideas from scholars Strassheim, Jessop and Grande
Fundmental idea:
Coming from Coordination instead of regulation: mutual adjustments, internalized norms and rules we do not reflect.
Would be too broad to understand every act of coordination as governance
Narrowing it down to: coordinating coordination reflexive action eminating from exisiting coordination structures
First question: When becomes regular coordination reflexive?
Critical moments:
circumstances where coordination requires coordination
Routines break down, are becoming problematic Paper: Example of two cars
Reflexive, procedural elements
The reflexive momentum: routines break down to assess this problematic situation, and to reflect on each other’s intentions, expectations, strategies and available creative solutions, continuously being evaluated and justified.
Implicit understanding explicit negotiation
articulate formerly implicit understandings, assumptions and norms framing the situation in question in order to mutually evaluate the situation and justify their behavior
Disentangling Governance, Regulation and Coordination defintion and evaluation criteria
Such approach is rather grounded in coordination than in the concept of regulation
Coordination: the shared understandings and expectations form elementary building blocks of our social order:
the “mutual adjustments” of our daily social life (Kaufmann 1986; Strassheim 2009)
rules we have internalised and conventionally agreed to
Often local implicit nature of shared norms and understandings that enable coordination
However, shortcomings: understanding of governance as coordination to be too broad to be analytically and empirically helpful
Regulation: intentional design of programs, rules or norms aiming to influence the behavior of others. Outcome evaluated against predefined goals
Governance
dynamics of evaluating and articulating rules in the face of complex situations that arise when authorities and regulatory structures overlap, when implicit expectations of the actors involved collide and contradictory interests become visible
According to Grande (2012: 584), the assessment of governance arrangements depends on the acceptance of its consequences for the actors involved. In this sense, evaluation criteria are defined as part of governance processes
Informed by Dimitri Epsteins work of 2011, and Diss. 2012
- Epstein describes the IGF as a "space that produces discourse and is shaped by discourse at the same time" (p.3)
PROCESS: Recursive Loops
In a form of a "recursive loop" (p.3) the IGF debates its role, its shape and processes of decisions-making within the IGF
and continues to negotiate and renegotiate the boundaries and institutional arrangements.
CRITICAL MOMENTS
- Continuous conflict for instance about where the IGF should formally be based, or on agreeing on participation and decision-making mechanisms (p.17, 19) , esp. On the role of the MAGs
- in this open, discursive space, the challenge is however to compromise of many different worldviews and the conflicting opinions the participants bring in about how the internet should be governed.
- IGF gains and maintains legitimacy through participation, but at the same time exercise some kind of authority: "The discursive attributes employed in the IGF, are symbolic representations of different worldviews on Internet and Internet governance. To participate effectively in the IGF, one needs to internalize those attributes and to accept a model of coexistence of the different perspectives." (p. 37)
BOTTOM up
By debating the formal and the informal practices of the forum, IGF participants engage in discursive reflection not only on the technical modus operandi of the forum, but also on the underlying normative framework for Internet policy decision-making." (p.5)
OUTCOME: a fluid concept
- primary outcome is language
- "In absence of predefined “tangible” outcomes, the success of the IGF is a fluid concept." (p. 23)