This presentation and subsequent paper is made as a part of my Urban Governance module. (Sorry for the lack of citations, all hail Swyngedouw, Foucault, Harvey and Wikipedia)
Article Review
Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus
Face of Governance-beyond-the-State
Erik Swyngedouw[1]
Introduction
Swyngedouw in this
paper focuses on political governance and the new developments around it. The
author argues that over the past two decades there have been many innovations
in governance leading to reformed (and in many cases new) institutional
arrangements have emerged, but these new changes have created a scenario of
governance beyond the control of the State or public sector. The author calls
this form of governance beyond the state as Janus-faced.
Understanding key ideas discussed in paper
The title of the paper
is in itself very interesting where the author describes the scenario of
governance beyond the state as Janus faced. Janus is the God of beginnings and
transitions in ancient Roman mythology. The month January is named after Janus.
Janus presided over the beginning and ending of
conflict, and hence war and peace. Comparison of transition from a State led
governance model to a market/ capitalist induced changes in institutional
arrangement with the symbolic of Janus marking a stage in time where the old,
i.e., the State is now seen upon as redundant and the new market model as the
way for the future. The author firmly criticizes the new model and states that
such a shift leads to eroding the democratic character of the state led by market forces that set the ‘rules of the game’.
Firstly it needs to be
understood what the author means by ‘Governance-beyond-the-state’. It refers to
the emergence, proliferation and active encouragement (by the state and
international bodies like the European Union or the World Bank) of
institutional arrangements of ‘governing’ which give a much greater role in
policy-making, administration and implementation to private economic actors on
the one hand and to parts of civil society on the other in self-managing what
until recently was provided or organised by the national or local state.
The author also draws
fundamentally from Foucault’s notion of governmentality where these modes of governance
have been depicted, that is ‘the conduct of conduct’[2]
in which a particular rationality of governing is combined with new
technologies, instruments and tactics of conducting the process of collective
rule-setting, implementation and often including policing as well. At this
juncture, Foucault’s idea of conduct-of-conduct shall also be made clear. In simple terms, it means that even though the government propagates
free practice and liberty to all its citizens but at the same time they expect
each citizen to follow some guidelines and sets some deliverables from each
individual. So, in a way, they conduct the lives of these individuals in a
manner that their power is not challenged.
Structure of the paper
The paper has been divided into five parts.
In the first part, the concept of
governance-beyond-the-state is explained in accordance with the present
scenario. In the subsequent part, the contradiction of state–civil society
relationship in the context of the emergence of the new governmentality
associated with governance-beyond-the-state is explored. In the third part, the
contradictory way in which new arrangements of governance have created new
institutions and empowered new actors, while disempowering other is detailed
out. The author concludes by suggesting that governance-beyond-the-state are
fundamentally Janus-faced, particularly under conditions in which the democratic
character is reduced by the over involvement of market forces which have become
the new power.
Key
points highlighted in the paper
The author points out how neoliberal forces
have crept into policy and decision making and the emerging policies and trends
are a resultant of that. New agencies and bodies are formed at piece-meal basis
to suit short term accumulation motives. There are strong processes at work pointing in the direction of a greater
autocratic governmentality. These socially innovative forms of governance are both
actively encouraged and supported by agencies pursuing a neo-liberal agenda
(like the IMF or the World Bank). This analysis is particularly pertinent as
the inclusion of civil society organisations (like NGOs) in systems of (urban)
governance, combined with a greater political and economic role of ‘local’
political and economic arrangements which is particularly seen as diluting the
State’s stature.
The author highlights
the emergence of new state like agencies like EU, and increasing role of
agencies promoting the neoliberal agenda like IMF, World Bank and the boundary
between organisations and public and private sectors has become permeable. The
particular role of stakeholders is also highlighted and argued that the new
form of governance lays emphasis on stakeholder led initiatives while ignoring
the fact that all stakeholders are not equal and under such skewed power
relationship, whose voice is going to be heard remains questioned. In the name
of promoting stakeholders, there is scope for further marginalization induced
by these new socially innovative measures of governance.
The emergence of ‘civil society’ into the political governance domain is
also discussed. Antonio Gramsci, writing at the early days of the
liberal-democratic Keynesian-welfarist state[3],
civil society became viewed as one of the three components (the others being
the state and the market) that define the content and structure of society. For
him, civil society is the sum total of private actors (outside state and
market) and constitutes the terrain of social struggle for hegemony. These
civil society agents increasingly got involved in delivery of health,
education, disciplining, socioeconomic well-being, etc. which are essentially
State functions.
The ‘conduct of
conduct’ shall be sustained, maintained and further improved and the changing
nature of governance is a resultant of that, i.e., to keep the power relations
intact and accumulation process continues and remains focussed in certain
hands.
The reduced stature of
democracy led by governance beyond the state is also highlighted in the paper
under various parameters such as Entitlement and Status, the Structure of
Representation, Accountability, Legitimacy, Scales of Governance and Order of Governance.
The central argument here is that the shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’
is associated with the consolidation of new technologies of government, on the
one hand, and with profound restructuring of the parameters discussed of
political democracy on the other, leading to a substantial democratic deficit.
Conclusion
The concluding section
of the article sums up that in the scenario of governance-beyond-the-state, particularly
within a market economy, the key decisions over resource allocation, use and
transformation, are taken by private actors who operate within the constraining
or enabling regulatory framework of systems of government. To the extent that
over the past few decades there has been a tendency towards deregulation and re-regulation,
and towards the devolution of state functions, the new forms of governance were
either instrumental in shaping this transformation or else they became
established as the regulatory framework for managing a beyond-the-state polity.
This shift or “game” is essentially harmful for a democracy in the long run.
[1] Erik Swyngedouw is
Professor of Geography at the University of Manchester in
its School of Environment and Development. Swyngedouw is committed to political
economic analysis of contemporary capitalism, producing several major
works on economic globalization, regional development, finance,
and urbanization. completed a PhD entitled "The production of new
spaces of production" under the supervision of the renowned Marxist
geographer David Harvey.
For further details:
[2] Pam Christie, an Australian scholar at the University of Queensland
wrote that Foucault refers to government as ‘the conduct of conduct’, or the
power to act on the actions of others. Conduct of conduct is the central
problem of modern government. The very idea of liberal government involves a
paradox: liberalism asserts the sovereignty of the free individual, yet
government requires that individual behaviour be regulated and modified.
For further details: http://foucaultblog.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/key-term-conduct-of-conduct/
[3] Of or relating to the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes,
especially those theories advocating government monetary and fiscal programs
designed to increase employment and stimulate business activity.
For further details: http://www.ie.ufrj.br/eventos/seminarios/pesquisa/texto_02_12.pdf
