Governance and Democracy katarsis survey Paper

CAHIERS DU CRISES 

–

 COLLECTION ÉTUDES THÉORIQUES 

–

 NO 

ET0908 

22

 

 

 

 

 

                                                     

beginning, neoliberalism was not an attack against the state, but via the state against 

democratic forms of government. Traditional and newly emerging business and technocratic 

elites have been supported to the detriment of the majority of the population. As a 

consequence, social inequality and poverty have risen considerably (Milanovic 2002). New 

patterns of social exclusion have thus been created (Duménil/Lévy 2001). Women were 

affected in a double way by privatizations and the downsizing of the welfare states as jobs got 

lost in the social sector and parts of the social work were re-privatized to the families, where 

mostly women took over those responsibilities (Young 1998; 2000a)

2

. Apart from the social 

crisis resulting from rising inequality and poverty (Wade 2004), neoliberalism also produced 

vast economic and financial crises in the 1990s (Allegret et al. 2003; Becker et al. 2003). 

These crisis-tendencies were rooted in structural contradictions (cf. Jessop 2002: 103ff.) and 

led to a revision of neoliberal policies. 

The invention of governance as an analytical and normative term was linked to these 

developments. However, discursive shifts must not be confused with reality. Governing was 

never reduced to sovereign government, neither in Feudalism when power was exercised 

indirectly, nor in Fordism when corporatism systematically integrated civil society. 

Nevertheless, we will first present modalities of governance (table 2) to be employed within 

the framework of KATARSIS to present ongoing restructurings in European governance-

structures in a second step. The proposed modalities of governance relate to the two classic 

modes on the one hand: the market and the state, which we will further differentiate. The 

market works with the principle of exchange. The core principle for the functioning of  

a market society is private property, which has to be secured by the state, which normally 

works by the principle of command which is therefore the concept employed to represent the 

bureaucratic state-apparatus. Hybrid forms of governance are represented by the two forms  

of multilateral governance and citizen’s governance. 

 

2

 

  The exclusionary dynamics concerning women were even more complicated. As career chances for upper-class women partly increased 

during the last decades, household work in the corresponding families is increasing being done by domestic servants, which was 

described as a relationship between the “mistress” and the “maid” by Brigitte Young (2000b). 

---

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY 

–

 KATARIS PROJECT

 

23

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2 

Modalities of Governance 

DIMENSIONS 

OF ANALYSIS

 

GOVERNANCE 

BY COMMAND

 

MULTILATERAL 

GOVERNANCE

 

CITIZEN

’

S 

GOVERNANCE

 

MARKET

-

BASED 

GOVERNANCE

 

Definition  

of general 

interest 

Imposed by  

the state 

Co-produced by 

various agents 

Co-produced by 

various actors 

Sum of 

particularistic 

interests 

Definition  

of rules and 

evaluation 

Command, 

Control 

Consultation, 

negotiation 

Interpellation 

and public 

debate 

Reputation, 

efficiency, 

satisfaction 

Actors 

Dominance  

by the state 

Plurality of actors  Plurality of 

actors with 

preponderance of 

associated actors 

Plurality of 

actors with 

preponderance 

of commercial 

actors 

Instances of 

coordination 

Top-down 

Closed 

Top-down 

Open 

Bottom-up 

Open 

Bottom-up 

Closed 

Organisation 

and 

management 

of collective 

goods 

Direct or 

delegated 

production 

Coproduction, 

contractualization 

Citizen’s 

initiatives, 

revelation of 

social needs 

Demand and 

supply 

Public 

finance and 

logics of 

attribution 

Direct financing 

Due to 

bureaucratic 

rules 

Mixed finance 

(Public – Private 

Partnerships) 

Negotiated 

Mixed finance 

Project-based or 

experimentation 

Potential to pay 

for demand 

Incentives 

Criterion  

of success 

Efficient  

Allocation 

Negotiated  

consent 

Negotiated  

consent 

Effective goal 

attainment 

Sources  

of failure 

Ineffectiveness, 

bureaucratism, 

corruption 

“Talking shop”, 

secrecy, distorted 

communication 

“Talking shop”, 

secrecy, 

distorted 

communication 

Inefficiency, 

market 

inadequacies 

Sources: Jessop 2006; Fraisse 2007 

---