Beyond Regulation: Innovative Strategies for Governing Large Complex Systems

Oran R. Young

doi:10.3390/su9060938

Abstract

We have entered an era characterized by levels of complexity that are unprecedented in human experience. The hallmarks of complex systems are the growth of connectivity, the prominence of nonlinear patterns of change, the occurrence of bifurcations in contrast to oscillations, and frequent surprises associated with emergent properties. There are good reasons to question the adequacy of the standard repertory of practices associated with regulatory strategies in efforts to fulfill needs for governance in complex systems. Whereas regulatory strategies feature the articulation of rules expected to remain in place indefinitely and emphasize efforts to maximize compliance with the rules, governing complex systems calls for a willingness to experiment with innovative practices in the face of uncertainty and a capacity to adapt existing practices easily to new circumstances. It is helpful in this connection to distinguish between Type I governance, which is a matter of devising supplementary practices to augment rather than to replace regulatory measures in managing volatile oscillations, and Type II governance, which is a matter of devising new governance strategies to address needs for governance arising during periods of transformation and in the settings that become the new normal following major state changes. There is no need to discard familiar regulatory strategies. Rather, the challenge is to devise innovative steering mechanisms to augment the existing toolkit to meet needs for governance in the 21st century.

Highlights

It is common to equate governance with the creation and implementation of regulatory measures
Those endeavoring to solve largescale collective-action problems or to internalize social costs, for example, regularly approach these challenges as a matter of reaching agreement on the content of a set of rules applicable to the behavior of a relatively well-defined group of subjects, formalizing these rules through the promulgation of regulations, applying the regulations to the circumstances prevailing in specific cases, and devising mechanisms designed to maximize compliance with the regulations on the part of individual subjects [1]. Most of those who operate within this regulatory paradigm regard it as advantageous to formalize the resultant arrangements by making the rules legally binding, and to clarify and sharpen the operational content of the associated regulations by resorting to judicial or quasi-judicial procedures designed to determine how they apply to a range of real-world fact patterns [2]
I introduce a distinction between Type I governance centered on managing increasingly volatile fluctuations in oscillating systems and Type II governance focused on addressing challenges of governance arising in the wake of transformative changes or bifurcations

Summary

Introduction

It is common to equate governance with the creation and implementation of regulatory measures. I argue that we need to expand our repertory of governance strategies to supplement regulatory measures in many settings and even to replace them in some settings that are becoming more prevalent as we move deeper into the era widely characterized as the Anthropocene [7] In developing this argument, I introduce a distinction between Type I governance centered on managing increasingly volatile fluctuations in oscillating systems and Type II governance focused on addressing challenges of governance arising in the wake of transformative changes or bifurcations. If I am right, we will find it imperative to think hard about new governance strategies during the coming years

Distinctive Features of Complexity

Governance Challenges under Complexity

Governing Complex Systems

A Concluding Observation