Dilemma

The term dilemma plays a significant role in political science in general and in theories of public governance. The objectives of public governance are numerous and multifarious, and this increases the potential for conflicts between policy objectives in the governing process. Hence, governors often face dilemmas in the performance of societal governance. Kenneth Arrow's famous impossibility theorem, which claims that public governance cannot at the same time be democratic and efficient and inexpensive, synthesizes what traditional political science has regarded as one of the most prominent dilemmas of public governance that constantly threatens to reduce the possibility of governing democratic societies. This idea that there exists a fundamental trade off between democracy, efficiency, and costs is closely linked to the idea that governments must find ways to adjust the democratic demands on the input side so that they do not exceed the output and outcome that the political system is capable of producing.

Governance theorists confront this view on dilemmas of public governance in two ways. First, they tend to give up the idea that the presence of a dilemma necessarily has a negative impact on the ability to govern. Mark Bevir and R. A. W. Rhodes in particular see dilemmas instead as a constructive driving force for change and innovation. People modify their beliefs and so actions in response to dilemmas whether these come from the environment or from their own reflection. Second, governance theorists give up the idea that there necessarily is a dilemma between the desire to enhance democracy and efforts to increase governance efficiency. They argue that a decisive input from stakeholders in many cases increases governance efficiency. Therefore, the relationship between democracy, efficiency, and costs might turn out to be a plus-sum game. This does not mean that governance theorists regard public governance as dilemma free. Rather, they regard the most pressing dilemma in processes of public governance to be of another sort.

Governance theorists claim that one of the most pressing dilemmas in public governance today is that we need both centralized governance and decentered self-governance. Governance theorists emphasize the considerable governance capacity of self-governing networks, groups, and organizations. When stakeholders are granted space to govern themselves, they develop a sense of ownership that transforms them from pressure groups to responsible, resourceful, and cooperating coproducers of public governance. However, this transformation will not take place unless the stakeholders are given a considerable amount of autonomy vis-à-vis government. But if self-governing networks, groups, and organizations gain too much autonomy, [Page 230]there is considerable risk that the aggregated outcome of the governance process will become fragmented and chaotic. Accordingly, there is a pressing need for centralized governance of self-governance. Governance theorists regard this double need for centralized governance and self-governance as a basic dilemma in contemporary governance processes that cannot be overcome, but only handled and balanced more or less successfully. They suggest that this balance should be established through various forms of metagovernance. Metagovernance can be exercised in three ways: hands on through the facilitation of self-governance; hands off through political, financial, institutional, and discursive framing of self-governing networks, organizations, and groups; or indirectly through the presence of a strong shadow of hierarchy. This shadow has an indirect effect on the self-governing actors if they think that if they themselves do not find solutions to a given problem, government will take over. A core issue for governance theorists is the search for new forms of metagovernance that can contribute to handling the difficult dilemma between the need for centralized governance and the need for decentered self-governance.

...