Governance Beyond Government

• Author: Aaron Wachhaus
• Published date: 01 July 2014
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399713513140
• Date: 01 July 2014
• Subject Matter: Disputatio Sine Fine

Administration & Society

2014, Vol. 46(5) 573 –593

© 2013 SAGE Publications

DOI: 10.1177/0095399713513140

aas.sagepub.com

Disputatio Sine Fine

Governance Beyond

Government

Aaron Wachhaus1

Editor’s Note

Aaron Wachhaus makes a learned and compelling case for bringing the ideas and

concepts associated with anarchism to bear upon government and governance

today. I thought his work was unique and stimulating enough to warrant placing it

in the Disputatio section and inviting responses. See what you think.

Abstract

Our methods of governance are shifting. We increasingly rely on an

interconnected web of public, private, and nonprofit actors working across

organizational, institutional, and sectoral boundaries to deliver public

services. Our understanding of these new practices, however, is reliant on

models of individual rationality and social behavior developed for hierarchical

organizational forms. I argue that collectivist models of decentralized,

self-organizing social forms may advance our understanding of modern

governance practices and balance tensions in three areas: perspectives

on organizations (structure or process), between individual liberty and

collective responsibility, and whether increasing freedom or control over

individuals enhances organizational efficiencies.

Keywords

governance, networks, emergence, self-organization

1Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Aaron Wachhaus, Penn State Harrisburg, W160 Olmsted, 777 West Harrisburg Pike,

Middletown, PA 17057, USA.

Email: wachhaus@psu.edu

513140AAS46510.1177/0095399713513140Administration & SocietyWachhaus

research-article2013

574 Administration & Society 46(5)

Government is not just about government anymore. As governmental walls

become more porous, actors from a range of sectors are becoming involved

in the processes of governing. We are undergoing a transformation of govern-

ment (Kettl, 2000), one that emphasizes collaboration among interdependent

actors, the growth of horizontal relationships, networking, decentralization,

and indirect provision of government services through contractual relation-

ships with private and nonprofit organizations. In short, the patterns of gov-

erning are changing (Peters & Pierre, 1998) in ways that have been captured

as the “shift from government to governance” (pp. 223-224). This shift

involves the “focus of administrative practice” moving outside the walls of

government—away from “the bureaucratic state and direct government” pro-

vision of services and toward what has been labeled “third party government”

(Hill & Lynn, 2005, p. 174). In other words, the ways in which we govern are

moving beyond governmental boundaries—the traditional mechanisms and

institutions of government are becoming less involved with, and less central

to, the ways that we govern ourselves. Put another way, there’s a gap between

the governed and the government.

The key features of government are representation and institutionalization

(Plumptre & Graham, 1999). Of particular salience for this project, is the fact

that without institutionalized representation, government is simply “us”

(p. 2). In other words, government exists precisely as a set of activities that

we no longer do ourselves but have relegated to a defined set of actors (rep-

resentatives) within a defined context (institutions). Government is govern-

ment precisely because someone else, somewhere else, is doing it for us.

However, governance is fundamentally “about power, relationships and

accountability: Who has influence, who decides, and how decision-makers

are held accountable” (Plumptre & Graham, 1999; World Bank, 1992; see

also Institute on Governance, 2003). The administrative practices of gover-

nance are, in contrast to those of institutionalized government, hybrid in form

and emphasize horizontal, networked associations and a collaborative

approach to service provision.

These aspects seem particularly relevant in an era of devolution, decen-

tralization, contracting out, and other trends that impact the form, process,

and capacity of government to deliver services. The “standard bureau model”

of direct service provision is giving way to a complex web of government

agencies, regions, nonprofits, partnerships, and collaborative networked

arrangements (Lynn, Heinrich & Hill, 2001, p. 1). My contention is that as

these activities increasingly take place outside the walls of government, our

perspective must also include more than a traditional framework.

Governance seeks multilevel coordination rather than authoritative

decision-making; it is therefore seen as emerging from the interaction of

active stakeholders (Karkatsoulis, 2010). More plainly, governance returns