Gilles Paquet: Homo hereticus

Chapter 22. Contribution to Governance Scholarship: Defi nitions, Debates, and Omissions

 210  Chapter 22 Contribution to Governance Scholarship: Definitions, Debates, and Omissions  Monica Gattinger La problématique de la gouvernance . . . propose la recherche des moyens d’assurer une coordination efficace quand ressources, pouvoir et information sont vastement distribués et que personne ne peut prétendre avoir la possibilité de faire le travail seul. —Gilles Paquet With this deceptively simple definition, Gilles Paquet proposes a conceptualization of governance that may be among the most comprehensive and analytically useful approaches to the term. He has also, through his prolific writing on governance, developed a means of analyzing the concept that elevates it from an abstract, loosely defined term (which is often the case in governance literature), to a veritable—to use his words—manière de voir. His application of this manière de voir to topics as far-flung as cultural diversity, national defence, corporate governance, health care, and universities has contributed greatly to governance, policy, and administrative studies both in Canada and abroad. In the face of this broad and impressive body of scholarship, it is daunting— perhaps foolhardy—to contemplate addressing Paquet’s contribution to the field in a short chapter. Nonetheless, it is an important and worthy challenge to undertake—albeit with the knowledge that such a brief piece cannot possibly do justice to or capture adequately the man’s contribution to governance scholarship. Hence, I have intentionally kept the focus of this chapter narrow, and admittedly this is a very modest attempt at a Herculean task and certainly not the last word on the subject. CONTRIBUTION TO GOVERNANCE SCHOLARSHIP  211  I explore Paquet’s contribution to governance scholarship in two main respects.1 First, I examine his contribution to the conceptualization and operationalization of the term. Through an overview of other scholars’ work in the field, I identify the novelty and utility of the “Paquet approach.” Second, I explore his approach to governance vis-à-vis that of multilevel governance (MLG)—an increasingly important strand of the governance literature both in Europe and in North America. The section begins by briefly highlighting a number of key themes, debates, and areas of convergence/divergence in Paquet’s work and this emerging strand of literature. In the spirit of open academic debate, of which Paquet is so fond, this text would be remiss were it not to consider potential weaknesses in the Paquet approach to governance. I also explore the growing focus on questions of democratic legitimacy and governance in the MLG scholarship, a tendency not found in Paquet’s work. I examine whether his approach privileges notions of effectiveness over considerations of democratic legitimacy. The analysis reveals that Paquet’s work converges with MLG literature on questions of effectiveness but diverges in the level of importance that it accords to questions of democratic legitimacy. The chapter concludes with final reflections on the importance of Paquet’s contribution to governance studies. Defining Governance: The Paquet Approach Scholars and students of governance, as well as practitioners in the field, often lament the lack of clarity around the concept of governance. This confusion arises in part because of the multiple purposes or levels to which the concept can be and has been applied. Rhodes (2000), taking a functional approach, notes that the term can refer to governance as corporate governance, as New Public Management, as “good governance,” as international interdependence, as sociocybernetic system, as the new political economy, or as networks, each with its own distinct definition. Krahmann (2003), peering at governance through a “level of analysis” lens, notes that it can be applied globally, regionally, or nationally, with differing conceptualizations of the term at each level. Each of these governance “worlds” can be characterized by differing foci and emphases,centringoninternalorganizationalgovernance(e.g.,corporategovernance or New Public Management), extending beyond public or private organizations to encompass these bodies’ relations with other public, private, or civil society actors (e.g., international interdependence, networks, or sociocybernetics), or adopting GILLES PAQUET  HOMO HERETICUS  212  purposively normative conceptions of organizational or interorganizational relations (e.g., good governance or governance as the new political economy). Inthiscontext,definitionsofgovernanceabound.Corporategovernanceanalyzes the way in which private sector firms are directed and controlled, and generally centres on openness and disclosure, integrity, responsibility, and accountability (Rhodes 2000, 56). Governance as New Public Management, meanwhile, deals with the introduction of private sector management techniques into the public...