Polycentric to monocentric governance: Power dynamics in Lake Victoria's fisheries

Abstract

In theory, polycentric governance arrangements are better able to respond to complex, uncertain, and multiscale challenges. Research on polycentric governance challenges these normative assumptions to find that the functionality of polycentric systems is constrained because different kinds of power influence not only the emergence and design of polycentric systems, but also decisions about policy choices and outcomes. This study uses a polycentric power typology to provide insights into the power dynamics underpinning the polycentric fisheries system of Lake Victoria through qualitative case study methods. The study reveals that power by design creates a polycentric structure that could potentially provide opportunities for power‐sharing between higher and lower decision centers. However, pragmatic and framing power erode power away from lower‐level authorities by either taking over or dismantling lower‐level decision centers and institutions. Without a genuine intent to share power among decision centers, cross‐level linkages are deliberately nonfunctional or have high transaction costs, creating and intensifying conflicts and competitions between the state and local governments. In the absence of functional cross‐linkages, information‐sharing, accountability, and conflict‐resolution mechanisms are hampered as is the inclusion of lower‐level actors in management. Higher‐level actors justify taking over functions of lower‐level actors by deploying frames of the lower‐level's “lack of capacity.” In combination, these factors concentrate power at the center, resulting in maladaptive outcomes in Lake Victoria's fisheries. The findings suggest that improving understanding of contextual conditions that are more suited to polycentric governance is important for refining theory and improving governance.

Relating Country-Level Governance and Tree Cover Loss in Sub-Saharan African Protected Areas: Identifying Knowledge Gaps and a More Nuanced Perspective

“…Importantly, however, whilst local-level and bottom-up movements of improving conservation governance appear crucial, more feasible and promising, they do require favorable higher level legal and policy frameworks, as well as "genuine intent" for power shifting (Barrett et al, 2001;Mudliar, 2020;Dawson et al, 2021, p. 9). Good governance in the context of conservation then does not primarily refer to conventional indicators such as corruption control, law enforcement and security, but more specifically to "clear respect for local rights and institutions, decision-making influence for [Indigenous peoples and local communities], and accountability to adhere to these standards" (Dawson et al, 2021, p. 10;citing Ostrom et al, 1999;Brosius, 2004;Borrini-Feyerabend et al, 2013).…”

The Evolution of Polycentric Governance in the Galapagos Small-Scale Fishing Sector

“…This implies cross-sectoral interaction between different organizations regardless of their economic sector and administrative level. Furthermore, it is important to point out that while the existence of multiple semi-autonomous decision centers might be enough to deem a governance arrangement as polycentric, it does not mean that there will be enough coordination among such centers to ensure that a system acts as a polycentric governance system, see discussion in Carlisle and Gruby ( 2019 ) and Mudaliar ( 2020 ). The latter consideration is particularly important in terms of the influence of power in the management of common-pool resources.…”

“…The latter consideration is particularly important in terms of the influence of power in the management of common-pool resources. Power dynamics are pivotal to defining polycentric systems and coordination among decision-making centers (Mudaliar 2020 ). Without the actual intention to share power, cross-sectoral and cross-level interactions are challenging to achieve, keeping a system from functioning as one polycentric governance system (Morrison et al 2019 ; Mudaliar 2020 ).…”

Understanding the governance of sustainability pathways: Hydraulic megaprojects, social-ecological traps, and power in networks of action situations

“…There is a growing interest in integrating the role of power and politics in institutional analysis for environmental governance (Theesfeld 2011;Epstein et al 2014;Bennett et al 2018;Mudliar 2020). For example, Kashwan (2016) builds on the theoretical microfoundations of the Bloomington school and offers key insights to better understand the combined effect of power and institutional dynamics over outcomes.…”

“…To capture this pIAD structural form of power, which is often found dispersed across institutions, we added a fourth type of power: 'discursive power' (Table 1). Morrison et al, 2017Morrison et al, , 2019Mudliar 2020;Clement 2010).…”