Governance and Democracy katarsis survey Paper

CAHIERS DU CRISES 

–

 COLLECTION ÉTUDES THÉORIQUES 

–

 NO 

ET0908 

 

 

 

 

 

26

mentioned typology of governance (cf. tab. 2), these arrangements can either represent 

governance by command, multilateral or citizen’s governance. 

As welfare governance represents the only clear-cut ideal type in Pierre’s typology aiming at 

solving problems of social exclusion, different European variations of this type of governance 

will now be introduced more thoroughly. The work of Esping-Andersen (1990) on the three 

different forms of the welfare state can be an interesting starting point for this sake (cf. also 

Jessop 2002: 62f.): (1) The Anglo-American liberal welfare regime attributes only a minimal 

role for the state, emphasizing the individualization rather than socialization of the risks 

related to labour market participation and preferably seeks for market solutions to economic 

and social problems. (2) The conservative welfare regime privileges the traditional family 

form. Welfare rights are attached to class and status rather than national citizenship, and have 

a limited redistributive impact because they reflect rather than reduce existing class and status 

inequalities. Conservative welfare regimes also allocate a key role to the voluntary sector. (3) 

The  social democratic welfare regime is most strongly developed in the Nordic economies, 

and is strongly committed to social redistribution. It accepts an extended role for state action 

in compensating for market failures, socializes a broad range of risks, and offers generous 

levels of universal benefits and redistribution. 

As Andreotti et al. (2001) show, this typology does not grasp (4) the Southern European 

welfare regime, which relies on the family with a male breadwinner and female care-work. 

The weak state is thus heavily dependent on reciprocity networks and family support. Women 

bare most of the burden of social welfare and therefore participate considerably less in the 

labour market than in other European countries. The transition from dictatorships to liberal 

democracies led in some cases to the establishment of new welfare structures and to 

experiments with new forms of democracy. (5) The former state socialist countries form 

another distinct group (Berend 1996: 55). Until 1989, it was an authoritarian regime that gave 

universal access to social services. Afterwards, transition to neoliberalism was radical, leading 

to severe cases of social exclusion (cf. Winkler 2007). 

---

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY 

–

 KATARIS PROJECT

 

27

 

 

 

 

 

2

2

.

.

 

 

T

T

H

H

E

E

O

O

R

R

I

I

E

E

S

S

 

 

O

O

F

F

 

 

G

G

O

O

V

V

E

E

R

R

N

N

A

A

N

N

C

C

E

E

:

:

 

 

P

P

O

O

W

W

E

E

R

R

,

,

 

 

E

E

X

X

C

C

L

L

U

U

S

S

I

I

O

O

N

N

 

 

A

A

N

N

D

D

 

 

I

I

N

N

C

C

L

L

U

U

S

S

I

I

V

V

E

E

N

N

E

E

S

S

S

S

                                                     

 

 

2.1. 

Coordination, Organisation and Domination 

Governance theories focus on the coordination and organization of society. Governance can 

also be treated as a concept to cope with the liberal transformation of society and a relational 

conception of space with a focus on the inclusion of segments of civil society. Concerning 

actors in politics it describes a new mode of governing which transcends the rather mechanical 

view of governing as government: a normative claim that governance is a more integrative and 

efficient form of governing. In a territorial dimension governance tries to capture ongoing 

spatial restructuring by introducing global, regional and local dimensions beside the national 

state (cf. Stoker 1998; Rhodes 2000; Kjær 2004; Benz/Papadopoulos 2006a; Leubolt 2007 for 

literature reviews). To be able to deal with questions of power relations, including the 

relationship between governance and socioeconomic development, an adequate understanding 

of capitalist market economies and the role of the state therein is necessary (Jessop 1990). 

Transforming governance theory into a “modern theory of domination” (Mayntz 2005), within 

the framework of Gramscian state theory is a promising approach. Antonio Gramsci 

(1971; 1992ff.) had a broad understanding of the “integral state”, including civil society as 

well as state bureaucracy and government

3

. The corresponding theories on the state have 

always treated the state as the concrete form of power relations (Jessop 1990; Poulantzas 

2001; Hirsch 2005), thereby differing from the widely used definition of the state as neutral 

arbiter of the common good as applied by mainstream governance theorists (Kjær 2004: 

124ff.) and of civil society as an autonomous sphere. 

2.2. 

Main Mechanisms of Social Exclusion 

Dominant discourses concerning the role of the state in society/in the economy usually rest on 

the neoclassical assumption of the state and the market constituting two completely 

independent realms (cf. e.g. Williamson 1979). The market is conceived as the natural – and 

efficient – order of things, whereas the state is seen as being highly bureaucratic and 

non-transparent and therefore to lack efficiency. Yet this understanding neglects the fact that 

 

3

  This historical heritage is hardly ever taken into account in governance theory, with the important exception of the strategic-relational 

approach (e.g. Jessop/Sum 2006). 

---