1
Renewing the Theory of Public Interest:
The Quest for a Reflexive and Learning-based Approach to
Governance
JACQUES LENOBLE AND MARC MAESSCHALCK
I. Introduction
What is the meaning we ascribe to the expression ‘reflexive governance’, thereby
defining the conditions a collective action must fulfil in order to ensure, to the extent
possible, that satisfaction of its members’ normative expectations is ‘maximised’; that
is, in order to ensure what is generally called ‘governance in the public interest’? The
expression ‘reflexive governance’ can only be understood if we first recall the project
that has underpinned REFGOV.1 This project emerged out of an option and an insight.
The option related to how to broach the question of ‘governance of a collective action’.
The insight was that by reconstructing the various current investigations into the theory
of governance from the angle of their theoretical assumptions about the theory of
collective action, we would arrive at an important theoretical finding.
A. The Option
No one doubts that the issue designated by the term ‘governance’ is currently dealt with
in differing ways, depending on the disciplinary approach taken (economic, legal,
1
The research presented in this introduction has been supported both by the 6th EC Framework Programme on
Research and Development (REFGOV) and the Interuniversity Attraction Pole Programme (IAP) – Belgian State –
Belgian Science Policy (BELSPO).
1
,political-science, and so on) and the level at which a specific issue addressed is situated.
Indeed, one is often struck by how difficult it is to integrate all this work into a cohesive
inquiry, the issues under study being so diverse and situated at such divergent levels.
(For instance, how are we to integrate economic analyses of reform to the management
of common goods with political-scientific or legal analyses about multilevel governance
or with analyses of new modes of governance inspired by the theories of deliberative
democracy?) Thus, under the umbrella of a single term — one that designates a
common investigation into the question of governance — can be found an aggregation
of studies that diverge significantly as regards the issues examined and the
methodological approaches used. Besides this, however, even when the studies deal
with similar issues, dialogue appears to be impossible. Often, discipline-based
approaches are developed in one sphere in ignorance of studies on governance taking
other disciplinary approaches in other spheres. In other words, no interdisciplinary
dialogue has been organised with respect to the theoretical models being deployed
within the various disciplinary approaches to the theory of governance. A salient
example of this lack of interpenetration between approaches can be found in new
institutional economics: this discipline deploys a particular theory of learning but
remains under-informed about recent inquiry into theory of learning that relies on
current pragmatist approaches developed in the field of political science, especially in
the context of research on organisational theory. This situation accounts for the present
state of inquiry into the subject of governance. The option that has underpinned the
REFGOV project is to seek to integrate these various current investigations into
governance by shifting the angle of the perspective of research. This shift consists of re-
examining the theoretical backdrop to these various current investigations and engaging
with the different theoretical approaches to collective action these disciplined-based
studies deploy, often no more than implicitly. Let us specify here what we understand
by a theory of collective action: it is a theory of the conditions that the organisation (ie
governance or regulation) of a collective action must fulfil so that the action can provide
for the best possible fulfilment of its members’ normative expectations.
B. The Insight
2
, The insight is that by reconstructing the various current investigations into theory of
governance from the angle of their theoretical assumptions about a theory of collective
action, we will arrive at an important theoretical result. Today, our findings on this
score are threefold:2
• An initial finding is that this reconstruction reveals that, beyond their apparent
differences, the various orientations present in the current landscape of social
science research into theory of governance all share a single assumption, which
represents a theoretical advance. As will be seen below, it is at this level that we
situate the ‘reflexive’ dimension that must be a feature of any way of organising
a collective action if the best possible fulfilment of its members’ expectations is
to be ensured.
• A second finding is that this shared advance in current research in the social
sciences, because it often remains opaque and is insufficiently exhibited by the
various current orientations in theory of governance, is not the object of
adequate ‘attention’ by these investigations. While, then, an adequate
reconstruction of current discussion on theory of governance reveals a shared
awareness of the need for the ‘reflexive’ organisation of governance, it also
reveals a new approach to this ‘reflexivity’. In other words, nowadays any
advance in research into theory of governance entails an elucidation of the
question of the reflexive dimension the ‘success’ of a collective action depends
on.
• A third finding is that in reconstructing the various current approaches to theory
of governance from the perspective of their conception of reflexivity, we
observe that the differences among these approaches is less reflective of a deep-
rooted divergence or antagonism than of a growing recognition of the need to
progressively expand the conditions to be put in place to ensure the success of
this reflexive operation. That is, the four theoretical currents of which the
essence of recent research into theory of governance is comprised are
complementary and reflect an increasingly acute understanding of the precise
2
See, on this reconstruction of the various theories that make up the current landscape of inquiry into theory of
governance, and on these findings, Lenoble and Maesschalck 2010. It should be noted that the purpose of this
reconstruction was not solely to describe the current landscape of research. In the first instance, it was intended to
shed light on the theoretical reasons for the current shared commitment to exposing the weaknesses of classical
approaches to governance, whether based on the traditional command-and-control regulation model or on the model
advanced by neo-classical economists as an alternative to it, which in turn is based on a market theory supplemented
as necessary by a theory of incentive contracts. In the second instance, the goal of the reconstruction was to account
for the observable differences in ways of conceiving the institutional mechanisms that must ‘monitor’ (frame) the
capacity for action of participants in a collective action.
3
Renewing the Theory of Public Interest:
The Quest for a Reflexive and Learning-based Approach to
Governance
JACQUES LENOBLE AND MARC MAESSCHALCK
I. Introduction
What is the meaning we ascribe to the expression ‘reflexive governance’, thereby
defining the conditions a collective action must fulfil in order to ensure, to the extent
possible, that satisfaction of its members’ normative expectations is ‘maximised’; that
is, in order to ensure what is generally called ‘governance in the public interest’? The
expression ‘reflexive governance’ can only be understood if we first recall the project
that has underpinned REFGOV.1 This project emerged out of an option and an insight.
The option related to how to broach the question of ‘governance of a collective action’.
The insight was that by reconstructing the various current investigations into the theory
of governance from the angle of their theoretical assumptions about the theory of
collective action, we would arrive at an important theoretical finding.
A. The Option
No one doubts that the issue designated by the term ‘governance’ is currently dealt with
in differing ways, depending on the disciplinary approach taken (economic, legal,
1
The research presented in this introduction has been supported both by the 6th EC Framework Programme on
Research and Development (REFGOV) and the Interuniversity Attraction Pole Programme (IAP) – Belgian State –
Belgian Science Policy (BELSPO).
1
,political-science, and so on) and the level at which a specific issue addressed is situated.
Indeed, one is often struck by how difficult it is to integrate all this work into a cohesive
inquiry, the issues under study being so diverse and situated at such divergent levels.
(For instance, how are we to integrate economic analyses of reform to the management
of common goods with political-scientific or legal analyses about multilevel governance
or with analyses of new modes of governance inspired by the theories of deliberative
democracy?) Thus, under the umbrella of a single term — one that designates a
common investigation into the question of governance — can be found an aggregation
of studies that diverge significantly as regards the issues examined and the
methodological approaches used. Besides this, however, even when the studies deal
with similar issues, dialogue appears to be impossible. Often, discipline-based
approaches are developed in one sphere in ignorance of studies on governance taking
other disciplinary approaches in other spheres. In other words, no interdisciplinary
dialogue has been organised with respect to the theoretical models being deployed
within the various disciplinary approaches to the theory of governance. A salient
example of this lack of interpenetration between approaches can be found in new
institutional economics: this discipline deploys a particular theory of learning but
remains under-informed about recent inquiry into theory of learning that relies on
current pragmatist approaches developed in the field of political science, especially in
the context of research on organisational theory. This situation accounts for the present
state of inquiry into the subject of governance. The option that has underpinned the
REFGOV project is to seek to integrate these various current investigations into
governance by shifting the angle of the perspective of research. This shift consists of re-
examining the theoretical backdrop to these various current investigations and engaging
with the different theoretical approaches to collective action these disciplined-based
studies deploy, often no more than implicitly. Let us specify here what we understand
by a theory of collective action: it is a theory of the conditions that the organisation (ie
governance or regulation) of a collective action must fulfil so that the action can provide
for the best possible fulfilment of its members’ normative expectations.
B. The Insight
2
, The insight is that by reconstructing the various current investigations into theory of
governance from the angle of their theoretical assumptions about a theory of collective
action, we will arrive at an important theoretical result. Today, our findings on this
score are threefold:2
• An initial finding is that this reconstruction reveals that, beyond their apparent
differences, the various orientations present in the current landscape of social
science research into theory of governance all share a single assumption, which
represents a theoretical advance. As will be seen below, it is at this level that we
situate the ‘reflexive’ dimension that must be a feature of any way of organising
a collective action if the best possible fulfilment of its members’ expectations is
to be ensured.
• A second finding is that this shared advance in current research in the social
sciences, because it often remains opaque and is insufficiently exhibited by the
various current orientations in theory of governance, is not the object of
adequate ‘attention’ by these investigations. While, then, an adequate
reconstruction of current discussion on theory of governance reveals a shared
awareness of the need for the ‘reflexive’ organisation of governance, it also
reveals a new approach to this ‘reflexivity’. In other words, nowadays any
advance in research into theory of governance entails an elucidation of the
question of the reflexive dimension the ‘success’ of a collective action depends
on.
• A third finding is that in reconstructing the various current approaches to theory
of governance from the perspective of their conception of reflexivity, we
observe that the differences among these approaches is less reflective of a deep-
rooted divergence or antagonism than of a growing recognition of the need to
progressively expand the conditions to be put in place to ensure the success of
this reflexive operation. That is, the four theoretical currents of which the
essence of recent research into theory of governance is comprised are
complementary and reflect an increasingly acute understanding of the precise
2
See, on this reconstruction of the various theories that make up the current landscape of inquiry into theory of
governance, and on these findings, Lenoble and Maesschalck 2010. It should be noted that the purpose of this
reconstruction was not solely to describe the current landscape of research. In the first instance, it was intended to
shed light on the theoretical reasons for the current shared commitment to exposing the weaknesses of classical
approaches to governance, whether based on the traditional command-and-control regulation model or on the model
advanced by neo-classical economists as an alternative to it, which in turn is based on a market theory supplemented
as necessary by a theory of incentive contracts. In the second instance, the goal of the reconstruction was to account
for the observable differences in ways of conceiving the institutional mechanisms that must ‘monitor’ (frame) the
capacity for action of participants in a collective action.
3
