Governing security – Some Theoretical perspectives Lecture 6, sampol 208 07.10.2016 asego@cmi.no

«The shift from government to governance» 1 Governance theory «The shift from government to governance» - Rosenau 1992 Who carries out the governing??? Who influences/ carries out policy-making? - Governance theory concerns how traditional bases of power have been shifting over the past few decades and how new structures of authority have emerged

- Most denotations of governance convey: the existence of a process of the dispersion of decision-making and political power away from the state, as the lone actor, and towards multiple actors, locally, nationally and internationally. Overall, governance refers to new theories, practices and dilemmas of governing which place less emphasis on hierarchy and the state, and more on markets and networks. Remember: Governing is carried out also by other actors but state actors (by public, semi-public and private actors) Governing takes place on many arenas (locally, nationally and internationally) Some governing is formalized, some is not Some obvious, some not

Governance and the power of the state As more actors are involved in governing diverse policy areas. Does this imply a zero-sum relationship where states lose power? OR does this represent a new technique for states to govern? Govern through other actors? The state does not want to run things from above? In fact, complex and heterogeneous transformations in national and global governance mean that ‘state power is certainly reconfigured, but not necessarily weakened’ (Abrahamsen and Williams 2011, 11).

What brought about such changes? A range of structural developments: Globalization The end of the Cold War The prevalence of privatization New technologies

Public- private blurriness At the actor level, it is not always easy to discern public from private actors. Consider the following: - The head of a major UN humanitarian organization - Scientific experts - Business leaders employed by the state - Advocacy oraganizations (Amnesty International)

«Global governors» Avant, Finnemore and Sell Global Governors are authorities who exercise power across borders for purposes of affecting policy. Governors thus create issues, set agendas, establish and implement rules or programs, and evaluate and/ or adjudicate outcomes (2006: 2). Avant et al. focus on two relationships: Those who govern Those who are governed Governors Governors

Nonstate governors have authority Authority- The ability to induce deference to others There is a difference between being an authority and being in authority Avant et al. Identify 5 sources of authority for global governors: - Institutional - delegated - expert - principled - capacity-based

The classic policy circle The model is simple and appealing In reality: the process is often complex Messy Goes back and forth (dynamic) Includes many actors Stylized «No Governor governs alone»

The relationships between governors Three main ways to envisage relationships dominate the governance literatur:e Assemblages Networks Nodal governance

1A Global security Assemblages (Abrahamsen and Williams (2011) Transnational structures and networks in which a range of different security actors interact, cooperate, and compete to produce new institutions, practices and forms of deterritorialized security governance (2011: 90, 95). Public functions (such as security) undergo this process: 1. Disassembly 2. Development of private capacities 3. Reassembly Reassembly: Here new actors and their new capacities integrate with the assembly in a national context, but with global reach Central to this process: neo-liberal thinking

AN ASSEMBLAGE A complex hybrid structure that are found in national settings but stretched across bordersin terms of actors, knowledges, technologies, norms and values. STATE POWER Projected and exercised in different ways, through different actors and in different fora, not necessarily diminished SECURITY Outsourced and made into a commodity. Private security providers: increased responsibility, made into experts and legitimized in the field of security

Thsi means that private security actors operate from within the circles of security managers. These circles (assemblages) are inhabited by a range of actors (public, private, semi- private, national, international etc.) They all are part of the security assemblage. The security assemblage governs security

Capital as leverage Within each field of activity it is necessary to posit a certain capital to succeed. Economic, cultural, symbolic capital According to Abrahamsen and Williams, PSCs have: - a certain level of economic capital (and this has been on the rise) - growin cultural and symbolic capital This allows them to act more freely in the field and to expand their activities, changes their relations to the state and to other clients

1b Networks (Sørensen and Torfing) Governing networks are: 1. A relatively stable horizontal articulation of interdependent, but operationally autonomous actors; 2. who interact through negotiations; 3. which take place within a regulative, normative, cognitive and imaginary framework; 4. that to a certain extent is self-regulating; and 5. which contributes to the production of public purpose within or across particular policy areas.

Network Public policy is shaped and reshaped in and through negotiations between interdependent actors who have a rule and ressource base on their own. These networks negotiate how a policy problem is defined, discussed and responded to. A horizontal structure, but actors need ot have equal leverage or resources Examples: The International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers process «a multi-stakeholder initiative » The IMO (the international Maritime Organization)

Networks Vary in terms of: the involvement of state actors permanent or short-lived the range of issues they engage with (more or less issue specific) the level of formality their openness whether they are local, regional, national or transnational Whether they are formed bottom-up or top-down

Good or bad? Good at identifying new problems and issue areas Bring a wide range of information and interests to the table Provide a framwork for consensus building Efficient create joint responsibility for policies (eases implementation) Interest organizations are often very influential transparency into their processes? Who determines access? How legitimate are their products? Who’s interests prevail? Undemocratic?

1C Nodal governance Networks consists of a number of “nodes” Nodes are particularly governing entities in the network The state is often one such node See networks as polycentric Focus on particularites concerning the actors (nodes) Focus on norms, practices within the network Used especially within the field of criminology

2 Principal-Agent theory One or several actors (principals) engage other actors (agents) to perform specific services or functions on their behalf. They do this to reduce costs, increase effectiveness, or gain access to expertise, resources or knowledge. Agents benefit by earning money, political support, legitimacy or other resources Principal-agent theory deals with the problems that derive from the delegation of functions from a principal to an agent

Such contractual or institutional relationships usually involve delegating some decision- making authority and influence, which agents can use in contradiction to the preferences of their principals. Moral Hazard. Three factors help explain why principals find it difficult to ensure that their agents act in desired ways: 1) Diverging interests 2) Information asymmetries 3) Multiple principals P-A theory looks at the problems of delegation from the perspective of the principal

Two problems: