Successfully reported this slideshow.

Between Coordination and Regulation. Conceptualizing Governance in Internet Governance



Loading in …3
1 of 15
1 of 15

More Related Content

Related Books

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

Between Coordination and Regulation. Conceptualizing Governance in Internet Governance

  1. 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. 2. Structure “Internet Governance” Internet governance ref lexive coordination governance as reflexive coordination in: Internet governance
  3. 3. “Internet Governance”
  4. 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. 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?
  6. 6. Internet governance
  7. 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. 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. 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
  10. 10. ref lexive coordination governance as
  11. 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. 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
  13. 13. reflexive coordination in: Internet governance
  14. 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. 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.

    - 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)
  • ×