Table 1. Comparing scale approaches in governance theories.
| |
| |
|
|
Monocentric governance |
Multilevel governance |
Adaptive governance |
| |
|
Governing paradigm |
Central authority steering society |
Interactions between public and private actors, from local to global
level |
Complex interplay of social and ecological systems |
|
Scale definitions |
Focus on levels at the jurisdictional scale, especially size (number of
inhabitants) and territorial scope of government units |
Focus on multiple levels at the jurisdictional and spatial scale |
Focus on spatial, temporal, institutional, knowledge, and other scales, each
including different levels |
|
Why do scales matter? |
The ideal scale can provide both governance capacity and citizens’
trust |
Governance must operate at multiple levels in order to capture variations
in the territorial reach of policy externalities |
Complex interactions across scales and levels are important drivers in
social-ecological systems |
|
Problem definitions |
Inappropriate size of governments, regional gap, overlapping jurisdictions
|
Inefficiency, coordination costs, and lack of democratic legitimacy
|
Scale mismatches and unaddressed interdependencies between levels
|
|
Dominant responses |
Structural reforms (amalgamation, new authorities) and clarification of
responsibilities |
Designing and implementing coordination procedures and multilevel policy
arrangements |
Enhancing the fit between relevant scales and creating better linkages
between levels |
|
| |
|