A theoretical framework for exploring the capability of participative and collective governance in sustainable outcomes - Literature Review and Draft Framework- Jennifer Meyer-Ueding Division of Cooperative Sciences, Department of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt University of Berlin, [email protected] Abstract This paper presents the draft of a composite theoretical framework for describing participative and collective forms of resource governance in integrative institutional settings. Given the observable deficiencies in hierarchical governance, the underlying approach argues that the transfer of governance powers to affected stakeholders makes the provision of basic and limited resources more legitimate and sustainable as long as it is organized according to specific criteria for participation and cooperation. Our approach is multidisciplinary, combining insights from political science, institutional economics and systems theory in an extensive literature review. This draft framework is intended for analyzing the degree of participative governance and collective action according to appropriate organizational forms of civil society at the local level and in an urban context in India (i.e. cooperatives, NGOs, CBOs) but can be employed for analyzing different organizational forms at different levels (local, regional, national, global). Key words: Framework, Participative Governance, Collective Action, Social Capital, Sustainable Development, Integrative Institutions, Civil Society, System Theory, Actor- Centered Institutionalism, India, Hyderabad 1. Aims and scope of this paper This paper aims to design a comprehensive framework to aid both in the analysis of the degree of participative governance and collective action according to appropriate organizational forms and at various levels, and to analyse its implications for sustainability. It is intended to deliver some new insights into the interrelation between participation, collective action and sustainability. Elinor Ostrom claims that ‘a general framework helps to identify the elements (and the relationships among these elements) that one needs to consider for institutional analysis’ (Ostrom 2005, p. 28). The paper proceeds as follows: In the second section, we give a short overview on various approaches to participation and participative governance. The third section deals with collective action, concentrating primarily on Elinor Ostrom’s approach. The fourth section presents in detail the concept of social capital according to Robert Putnam. The fifth section addresses the dependent variable of our concept, introduces Konrad Hagedorn’s concept of integrative and segregative institutions and is centered around our understanding of sustainability. We base the political discourse on sustainability and the Brundlandt definition on the scientific theories of institutions. The sixth section looks directly at the theoretical interlinkages between participation, collective action and sustainability. The seventh section describes the actor-centered institutionalist approach of Renate Mayntz and Fritz Scharpf, which serves as basic material for our framework design. In the eights section, the actor-centered institutionalist approach is broadened with the views of David Easton and Gabriel A. Almond in their systems theory approach, which applies input-output logic for taking causalities into account. The ninth section analyses the results of our literature review, summarizes the major variables that can be 1 extracted from the theories presented and lays out our composite analytical framework. In the conclusion we call for the empirical application and review of this framework. 2. Participatory governance Supplementing definitions of governance from political science, which focus on regulation, with economic definitions of governance focusing on the limitation of transaction costs (Mayntz 2004; Williamson 2005), we define governance here as follows: the entire coexisting forms of the intended regulation of common issues and transactions at various levels of organization. Participatory governance is defined broadly as all those forms of governance that involve in the processes of planning and decision-making those actors who are in turn affected by the end decision (Walk 2008, p. 52). Research has until now notably disregarded considering at the concepts of governance and participation in a combined and systematic approach (Walk 2008, p. 14). Various approaches to participation and participatory governance are presented here. They provide multiple perspectives in terms of the conditions, purposes, modes and outcomes of participative decision-making and will be used for designing a comprehensive participative collective governance framework for sustainable outcomes. The reader should consider that this literature review examines fundamental theoretical approaches to participation and participatory governance. Participation and participatory governance are not defined or reviewed in a manner restricted to ‘the participation of ordinary citizens in the public policy process’ (Andersson, van Laerhoven 2007, p. 1090). The literature and approaches reviewed can be applied to the analysis of participation at different political levels (local, regional, national, global) and within various organizational forms (e.g. within non-governmental organizations or within co- operatives). It should be noted that the comprehensive group of participatory approaches within the wider discourse of development is not incorporated into the discussion in the present paper (More on this can be found in Blair 2000; Gaventa 2004; Hickey, Mohan 2004; World Bank 1997.). a. Participatory governance – Arnstein Sherry Arnstein’s well-known ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ from 1969 (Arnstein 2007) serves as a basic matrix for the present framework. Arnstein designed her ladder based on her work on urban citizen participation in the US in the 1960s and was concentrating on the redistribution of power and empowerment of the ‘have-not’ citizens. She differentiates three dimensions and eight levels of (non)participation. At the bottom of her ladder she places two levels of ‘Nonparticipation’: ‘Manipulation’ and ‘Therapy’, which include citizens who are being educated or orchestrated for their support (Arnstein 2007, pp. 235, 237). The proceeding levels of ‘Tokenism’, ‘Informing’ and ‘Consultation’ ‘allow the have nots to hear and have a voice’ but ‘lack the power to insure that their views will be heeded by the powerful’ (Arnstein 2007, p. 235). Even the fifth rung of ‘Placation’ can, according to Arnstein, not be called real participation, because it only allows to advisement, giving citizens some influence but no power to decide (Arnstein 2007, pp. 235, 239). The first level of ‘Participation’ where power is actually redistributed is ‘Partnership’, where citizens and power-holders agree to share planning and decision-making responsibilities (Arnstein 2007, p. 241). The last two rungs on Arnstein’s ladder are ‘Delegated Power’ and ‘Citizen Control’. Under ‘Delegated Power’ citizens have the dominant decision-making authority over a particular program. ‘Citizen Control’ even encompasses the citizens’ rights to negotiate the conditions of their decision-making powers (Arnstein 2007, pp. 236, 242- 243). 2 b. Participatory governance – Geißel Focusing on consolidated, Western democracies and based on her research on the European Local Agenda 21 processes, Brigitte Geißel is elaborating a framework for assessing the surplus and perils of democratic innovations that move society toward more participative forms (Geißel 2008, p. 228). Oriented on the functions with which she credits democracy and based on a broad literature review (Geißel 2008, pp. 232–233), Geißel highlights four criteria for evaluating participatory governance: 1. Effectiveness, 2. Legitimacy, 3. Yielding social capital and 4. Yielding civic skills (Geißel 2008, p. 233; Geißel 2009, p. 403). Regarding the first criterion, effectiveness, the core question for Geißel was whether participation advances or impedes desirable outputs (Geißel 2008, p. 235). Geißel concentrates on input-legitimacy (participation of affected stakeholders), throughput-legitimacy (process of participation – transparency and fairness), and deliberative legitimacy (rational and non-hierarchical participation) (Geißel 2008, p. 234). Geißel notes that participation can boost binding as well as bridging social capital (Geißel 2008, p. 236). Civic education by participation could lead to the transformation of egoistic interests and encourage participants to enhance their regard for common welfare (Geißel 2008, p. 235; Geißel 2009, p. 406). Here Geißel identifies three major groups of participative innovations: elements of direct democracy, co-governance (e.g. participatory budgeting) and deliberative procedures (Geißel 2008, p. 229). Her analyses show that these different forms of participation have different effects on effectiveness, legitimacy, social capital and civic skills (Geißel 2008, pp. 243ff). Geißel indicates that the different forms of participation do not stringently promote the four criteria of democracy, hence participation can build up social capital but eventually only between elites. Civic skills can be enhanced by participation, and egoistic interest might be transformed, but this transformation might also fail to appear (Geißel 2009, p. 404). The emancipatory character of participation and its educational impact, as described by Geißel under