Emerging Theoretical Understanding of Pluricentric Coordination in Public Governance

Abstract

Currently, we are witnessing a comprehensive change in the theoretical understandings of how coordination is provided in the pursuit of public governance. Traditional strands of theory took their departure from the presumption that coordination is the outcome of processes within coherent institutionally or functionally demarcated units that follows a specific pregiven rational logic of consequentiality. This view is apparent in public administration theory, organization theory, and planning theory. In recent years, this unitary, rationalist understanding of coordination has been challenged by a more pluricentric understanding of coordination in public governance. Coordination is viewed as a messy and floating process that revolves around interactive arenas that promote communication between a plurality of interpretive logics and situated practises. Although the traditional theories of coordination tended to view vertical and horizontal forms of coordination as radically different modes of coordination, the new theories question the analytical value of this distinction by pointing to the relational, interpretive, interdependent, and interactive aspects of all coordination processes including processes in which public authorities seek to govern their subjects. In the new theories, one of the main questions is how to get a better hold of this new understanding of coordination in processes of public governance. The article aims to do so by bringing together insights from three theoretical strands: public administration theory, organizational theory, and planning theory to show how each of them are currently contributing to the development of what we define as a theory of pluricentric coordination in public governance.

Regulating full contact martial arts and combat sports: how governmentality as an analytical framework informs practices of the governing of sports

“…Besides coercion, more subtle ways of governing are also needed. Pedersen et al (2011) suggest that the management of selfregulation requires a combination of the technologies of power, authority and dialogue or mediation to find the balance between under-and over-regulation.…”

Whole of Government: the Solution to Managing Crises?

“…In more recent times it has been suggested that the ‘unitary, rationalist, understanding of coordination has been challenged by a more pluricentric understanding of coordination in public governance’ (Pedersen et al. :375).…”

“…Traditional views regarding coordination have suggested that ‘coordination is the outcome of processes within coherent institutionally or functionally demarcated units’ (Pedersen et al. :375). This however is increasingly being challenged by views which suggest that coordination can be seen as the ‘outcome of a messy pluricentric process that involves a plurality of endogenously constructive interpretive logics of action that are linked through loosely coupled interactive arenas’ (Pedersen et al.…”

Interrogating Networks: Towards an Agnostic Perspective on Governance Research

“…Perhaps most notably, globalization is perceived to have undermined the command power of nation states -their capacity to govern either citizens or markets. In this world, the ability to learn the arts of networking is increasingly essential for successful (meta) governance (Pedersen, Sehested and Sørensen, 2011). In addition, after the late 1970s New Public Management reforms further dissipated state capacities creating additional coordination problems, for which networks were conceived as the best, albeit imperfect, solution (Rhodes, 1997a).…”