Achilles' heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures

Abstract

This article assesses the usefulness of conceptions of policy capacity for understanding policy and governance outcomes. In order to shed light on this issue, it revisits the concept of governance, derives a model of basic governance types and discusses their capacity pre‐requisites. A model of capacity is developed combining competences over three levels of activities with analysis of resource capabilities at each level. This analysis is then applied to the common modes of governance. While each mode requires all types of capacity if it is to match its theoretically optimal potential, most on‐the‐ground modes do not attain their highest potential. Moreover, each mode has a critical type of capacity which serves as its principle vulnerability; its “Achilles' heel.” Without high levels of the requisite capacity, the governance mode is unlikely to perform as expected. While some hybrid modes can serve to supplement or reinforce each other and bridge capacity gaps, other mixed forms may aggravate single mode issues. Switching between modes or adopting hybrid modes is, therefore, a non‐trivial issue in which considerations of capacity issues in general and Achilles' heel capacities in particular should be a central concern.

Understanding public health insurance in India: A design perspective

“…To overcome this, the policy design must evolve, adapting to different contexts, balancing political and practical aspects, but the evolution process requires corresponding evolution in the policy capacity . Therefore, the capability to continuously adapt policy design is another critical determinant of policy effectiveness …”

“…Political capacity at the individual level refers to the ability to work with stakeholders and use interpersonal influence for achieving desirable outcomes; at the organizational level, it refers to good relationship with key policy makers; and at the systemic level, it enables key stakeholders to participate in the policy process, get public support, and resolve conflicts. Different governance modes require a different set of capacities, and, therefore, effective policy design is based on the realistic assessment of the policy capacity at multiple levels—individual, organizational, and systemic . Some capacities are easier to develop and require shorter time, while some others may be difficult to develop.…”

Trading Refugees: The Governance of Refugee Settlement in a Decentralized Welfare State

“…We discuss the respective strengths and weaknesses of market, network, and hierarchy‐type governance in the light of local self‐determination and oscillations in problem intensity. We thus follow Howlett and Ramesh's call for policy instrumentation research to move beyond ‘extrapolat[ing] from idealized conceptions of how … modes of governance might work’ (Howlett and Ramesh , 309). The study also responds to Pollitt et al's () call for improved understanding about the hybridization of policy instruments and about how different instruments influence each other's effects; reaching such understanding is possible through longitudinal studies.…”

Sustainability · Strategy · Space: exploring influences on governing for urban sustainability in municipalities

“…This role is likely to fall upon the municipal organisation, as the primary institutional actor at the local level (cf. Howlett and Ramesh, 2015).…”

“…Capacity has both institutional and social characteristics; it may relate to group or individual competencies or capabilities, in terms of knowledge and understanding, yet may also relate to whether such groups or individuals have the opportunity to participate (Howlett and Ramesh, 2015;Jänicke and Weidner, 1995;Rydin, 2010).…”