Ecological Governance:
Organizing Principles for an Emerging Era
Peter J. Robertson
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
University of Southern California
RGL 222, MC 0626
Los Angeles, CA 90089
Ph: 213-740-0353
Fax: 213-740-0001
September, 2007
ECOLOGICAL GOVERNANCE:
ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES FOR AN EMERGING ERA
ABSTRACT
The paper argues that the significant reforms being implemented in governance systems around the world reflect a broader transition of society from the modern to a new emerging era. This transition is framed in terms of a shift from a mechanistic to an ecological worldview, which has been stimulated by a number of developments throughout the 20th century. In contrast to the mechanistic orientation towards reductionism, prediction and control, and competition, an ecological worldview emphasizes the interconnectedness, self-organizing capacity, and coevolutionary dynamics of all natural systems. This emergent worldview yields useful insights regarding the purpose, design, process, and relationships characteristic of organizations that desire to play an effective role in the future governance of society. The discussion identifies specific changes compatible with these four themes that are already being adopted by many public and private organizations. The concluding section addresses various factors that could influence the extent to which ecological governance systems replace modern mechanistic institutions, suggesting that systemic transformation may be necessary to insure a sustainable future for humanity.
ECOLOGICAL GOVERNANCE:
ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES FOR AN EMERGING ERA
A significant trend in the field of public administration at present is the broadening of its focus, with attention now being given to the more expansive notion of governance in contrast to the field’s primary emphasis historically on the more limited issues of government (Bingham, Nabatchi, and O’Leary 2005; Keohane and Nye 2000; Kettl 2000; Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill 2001; Milward and Provan 2000; Peters and Pierre 1998). This shift reflects the systemic changes taking place in the world of practice, where a quarter-century of devolution, decentralization, downsizing, and debureaucratization coupled with privatization, contracting out, and the adoption of business management techniques has slowly yet inexorably been reconfiguring the organizational systems through which public interests are being served. Seen first in such management fads as total quality management (Cohen and Brand 1993; Schmidt and Finnigan 1992) and re-engineering (Linden 1994) and then in the more inclusive reinventing government movement (Brudney, Hebert, and Wright 1999; Kamensky 1996; Moon and deLeon 2001; National Performance Review 1993; Osborne and Gaebler 1992), this reform agenda has been moving forward under the banner of the new public management (Barzelay 2001; Ferlie, Ashburner, Fitzgerald, and Pettigrew 1996; Lane 2000; Lynn 1998). The net effects of this change process have stimulated the field’s current focus on the concept of network governance (Bogason and Musso 2006; Goldsmith and Eggers 2004; Kamensky 2007).
Growing interest in issues of governance thus reflects the fact that much of the work in the public arena takes place not just by government organizations but through partnerships and networks involving public, private, and non-profit organizations, with greater involvement and/or scrutiny by a wide range of interest groups and concerned citizens. In this context, the tasks of policy-making, implementation, and evaluation become even more complex, and traditional bureaucratic organizations often do not perform very well under these conditions. Much attention has been given to the kinds of changes that public organizations and managers must make in order to be effective actors in these cross-sectoral, multi-level governance systems (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Kickert, Klijn, and Koppenjan 1997; McGuire 2002; Milward and Provan 2006; Page 2003). An important theme in this literature is the importance of establishing structures and processes that facilitate collaborative dynamics among diverse participants that in turn can enhance the quality of decisions made and implemented (Gray 1997; Huxham and Vangen 2005; Mandell 1999; McGuire 2006; Thomson and Perry 2006; Vigoda 2002).
The starting premise of this paper is that the reform processes apparent over the last twenty-five years can fruitfully be viewed as a manifestation of a deeper and subtler transformation underway in society, namely, the transition out of modernity into a new, emerging era. On one hand, the philosophical foundations of the modern era have been challenged if not undermined during this period by the postmodern critique and “deconstruction,” such that modern-era institutions have lost some of their legitimacy and are now frequently expected to incorporate a more diverse set of perspectives and values (Bogason 2001; Farmer 1995; Healey 2006; Fox and Miller 1995). On the other hand, an eclectic “new paradigm” literature posits that a new worldview is indeed emerging to supersede the now-outdated modern worldview (Capra 2002; de Quincey 2002; Dennard 1996; Devereux 1989; Eisler 1987; Elgin 1993; Elgin and LeDrew 1997; Harman 1998; Hartmann 1998; Hubbard 1998; Laszlo 2001; Pinchbeck 2006; Ray and Anderson 2000; Russell 1998; Woodhouse 1996). Just as the emergence of the modern era transformed the dominant institutions of premodern society, it is natural and inevitable that contemporary institutions founded on the premises of modernity will need to undergo transformation to reflect the premises of this emergent paradigm.1
While the reforms implemented to date have clearly not resulted in any wholesale transformation of modern systems of governance, the objectives of this paper are to identify a set of organizing principles grounded in this new paradigm perspective and to suggest that many specific types of reforms implemented in numerous organizations around the world in recent years are compatible with these principles. To the extent that these reform efforts are in fact part of the deeper process of the evolution of human civilization, these principles may provide useful insights regarding how contemporary governance systems can and should continue to change as the diffusion of the new paradigm further erodes the foundations of modern society. The two worldviews are described briefly in the first section, contrasting the mechanistic orientation of the modern era with the ecological emphasis of the emerging era. The second section then outlines implications of an ecological worldview for organizations involved in the governance of society, focusing in particular on the four issues of purpose, design, process, and relationships. In this discussion, reforms that have been taking place in public as well as private organizations are identified, providing some evidence of the emergence of a new ecological organizational form. The final section addresses the question of the viability of extensive change in contemporary systems of governance, arguing that evolutionary transformation could be possible as ecological consciousness diffuses throughout global society.
MECHANISTIC VS. ECOLOGICAL WORLDVIEWS
The emergence of modern civilization is typically acknowledged as resulting from Enlightenment-era philosophy of 17th and 18th century Europe, especially the work of René Descartes and Isaac Newton. The Newtonian-Cartesian worldview is essentially mechanistic in nature, in that the universe is conceptualized as a perfect machine that operates according to a set of precise mathematical laws. From this perspective, any given system comprises differentiated parts whose behaviors and interactions are governed by stable and predictable rules that determine the outcomes of the system as a whole. The purpose of scientific investigation is to identify these laws of nature, using analytic methods in which the system under study is divided into its component parts so as to understand the behavior of the whole from knowledge about the properties of the parts. In contrast to premodern societies in which truth was dictated by religious or spiritual beliefs, modern science insists that knowledge can only be discovered empirically, i.e., through quantitative measurement of material phenomena. The modern worldview is thus essentially dualistic, assuming that objective external phenomena are inherently real, and separate and distinct from subjective internal experience.
The modern mechanistic worldview is characterized by three ideological orientations that serve as useful points of comparison with the emerging ecological worldview. The first of these is an orientation towards reductionism, which refers to the belief that systems can best be understood by an analysis of their component parts. The scientific method in the modern era has been characterized by this reductionistic tendency, leading to considerable fragmentation in the total pool of human knowledge and thought (i.e., physics, biology, and chemistry emerged as separate disciplines; the natural sciences were differentiated from the social sciences; the spheres of science, ethics, and art were separated from each other; etc.). Philosophically, this emphasis on reductionism gave rise to the individualistic orientation embedded in modern political and economic theory, in contrast to the more collectivistic attitudes dominant in premodern societies. In more practical terms, this orientation led to the notion that problems can be solved most effectively by decomposing them into subcomponent issues that can then be addressed separately. This approach is based on the premise that, like a machine, fixing a broken part will enable the system as a whole to function properly. Modern systems of governance and administration reflect these tendencies in that they are divided into distinct branches, jurisdictions, spheres of activity, and organizations, each of which is expected to focus on its own issues and concerns without much regard for the larger systems of which they are a part.
A second key orientation of the mechanistic worldview is its emphasis on prediction and control. The primary objective of modern science has been to identify the mathematical laws of nature that enable humans to more accurately predict the future consequences of current activities and thereby exert more control over their environment. Successful clarification of many such cause-and-effect relationships enabled the development of myriad technologies which have supported the process of industrialization that has dominated the modern era. Faith in the power and value of technology likewise reinforced the belief in a deterministic world, in which mechanistic systems can be designed at the front end – based on established laws of nature and known causal relationships – to function predictably and maintain stability over time. This goal of maintaining a steady-state equilibrium was reflected in the design of modern administrative systems as well, with the Weberian bureaucracy serving as a prime example. The desire for control over the increasingly complex organizations arising in modern industrial society supported the reliance on hierarchical systems designed according to presumably scientific or general principles. While the diffusion of the bureaucratic form of organization became almost synonymous with the process of modernization in the 20th century, the mechanistic overemphasis on stability and control resulted in a level of bureaucratic rigidity that ultimately helped motivate the various reform efforts of recent years.
A third prominent orientation of the modern worldview is its focus on the competitive dynamics underlying evolution. “Survival of the fittest” is taken to be the rule guiding the unfolding of life, with all living things presumably subject to this “law of the jungle,” engaged in a struggle to survive while competing with others for limited resources. The inevitability of human competitiveness is likewise taken for granted, and thus modern political and economic institutions were designed to take this competition into account. More specifically, it is assumed that individuals act first and foremost in pursuit of their own self-interest, and thus they can be expected to take advantage of those around them and to manipulate their circumstances however possible to insure their own benefit. With the emergence of large organizations as primary actors in the political and economic realms, this competitive, self-interested trait was attributed to them as well. The consequence is that an adversarial relationship between organizations and their environments was established as the norm, with managerial strategies used to resist attempts by external actors to influence organizational activities and, when possible, to exert influence over such actors for their own gain. This orientation is congruent with and reinforces the reductionistic tendency to focus on the well-being of the parts of a system (i.e., a single organization) rather than the system as a whole (i.e., the political system, economy, or community) in which the organization is embedded.
Generally speaking, the modern worldview – i.e., its underlying philosophy and core institutions – emerged in the 18th century, was firmly established in Western society in the 19th century, and diffused throughout much of the rest of the world during the 20th century. At the same time, however, the last century witnessed a number of developments that served to undermine the mechanistic mindset of modernity and lay the foundations for a new paradigm. In the realm of science, the discoveries of quantum physics posed serious challenges to the foundations of classical physics, indicating that the universe consists of a single unified field of energy and that uncertainty and indeterminacy are inherent qualities of the quantum realm (Bohm 1980; Capra 1991). Research on the brain and mind have established that cognitive capabilities and consciousness itself result from holistic, integrated interactions among different parts of the brain and cannot be reduced to the functioning of its separate components (Talbot 1991; Zohar 1990).
The development of systems theory (Bertalanffy 1968; Boulding 1956) provided a theoretical foundation for studying systems as integrated wholes, with a focus on the interactions among their parts and with the larger environment in which they are embedded. Scientists in many fields recognized that improved understanding of their research foci required interdisciplinary investigation of issues at the intersection of the separate, fragmented disciplines. A broad range of such systemic, interdisciplinary research has highlighted the fact that systems at many different levels of analysis display chaotic (non-random but unpredictable) behavior that simultaneously reflects a deeper pattern of order or structure (Gleick 1987; Parker 1996). These findings have given rise to the new field of complexity science that explores the properties of complex, adaptive systems in which qualities of the system as a whole emerge spontaneously and unpredictably from the dynamic, nonlinear interactions among system components (Lewin 1992; Waldrop 1992). Studies in the life sciences have clarified that the diverse species in any ecological system engage in a variety of different types of interactions or relationships, ranging from parasitic and competitive to collaborative and altruistic (Dugatkin 1999; Sober and Wilson 1998).
Along with these developments, a number of other trends in the social sciences have supported a transition from mechanistic to ecological thinking. A resurgence of humanistic ideology in the mid-20th century (Maslow 1954) provided a basis for critiquing the assumptions about human nature underlying the principles of administration and organizational design associated with the rational, scientific management school of thought espoused by the classical theorists at the beginning of the century. At the same time, contingency theory studies of organization and management undermined the mechanistic premise that there is “one best way” to design and manage organizations, indicating instead that the most effective approach depends on the specific circumstances involved in any particular context (Galbraith 1973; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967). The emergence of an open systems theory perspective focused attention on the relationships between organizations and their environments, including issues of resource acquisition (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978), responses to institutional demands (Meyer and Rowan 1977), and consequences of evolutionary dynamics (Hannan and Freeman 1977).