https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8618-1655
![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
In governance theory, there is a crucial theoretical conundrum of meta-governance: how can meta-governors simultaneously stay outside of the governed network while also being embedded within it, and appropriately apply hands-off and hands-on strategies? The heterogeneous experiences of governance practices in non-Western contexts may help to explore this issue. The paper examines the ‘Starfish Project’(haixing jihua), a volunteer action aimed at improving the incomes of rural residents in mountainous areas of H District in N City, China, against the backdrop of promoting common prosperity. This initiative involves non-profit organizations, market actors, and government agencies, forming a multi-order meta-governance system. In this system, the government acts as a second-order meta-governor. It provides shared values, norms, and objectives, for the social network, thereby conferring institutional legitimacy upon the social network and its activities. Meanwhile, a non-profit organization operates as a first-order meta-governor within the network, and leverages market-based mechanisms to continuously incentivize network members, foster network interaction, and facilitate conflict resolution. The multi-order meta-governance model provides a potential solution to the dilemma. However, it is important to note that this may not yet be a definitive solution to the conundrum.
Keywords:
Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.
Notes
1 Katsamunska, “The Concept of Governance and Public Governance Theories”.
2 Starr, “The Meaning of Privatization”.
3 Chen and Chulu, “Complementary Institutions of Industrial Policy: A Quasi-market Role of Government Inspired by the Evolutionary China Model”.
4 Wang, et al., “A Refined Experimentalist Governance Approach to Incremental Policy Change: The Case of Process-tracing China’s Central Government Infrastructure PPP Policies between 1988 and 2017”.
5 Hu, et al., “Dynamics in Network Governance of Infrastructure Public-private Partnerships: Evidence from Four Municipalities of China”.
6 Torfing, Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, 122.
7 Jessop, “The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure: The Case of Economic Development”.
8 Benton, “How Participatory Governance’ Strengthens Authoritarian regimes: Evidence from Electoral Authoritarian Oaxaca, Mexico”.
9 Newell, et al., “Multiactor Governance and the Environment”.
10 According to public documents of the State Council of China, common prosperity is an essential requirement of socialism and a common aspiration of the people. Its specific contents include narrowing the income gap, narrowing the development gap between urban and rural areas, and increasing residents’ incomes, reflecting the policy tendency to promote social equity. The original document can be found at https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-06/10.
11 Sørensen, “Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance”.
12 Offe, “Governance An ‘Empty Signifier’?”.
13 Torfing, Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, 130.
14 Sørensen and Torfing, “Theoretical Approaches to Metagovernance,” 169–182.
15 Kooiman and Jentoft, “Meta-governance: Values, Norms and Principles, and the Making of Hard Choices”.
16 Edelenbos and Klijn, “Trust in Complex Decision-making Networks: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration”.
17 Torfing, Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, 126.
18 Schaap, “Closure and Governance,” 111–132.
19 Koppenjan, et al., Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making, 203.
20 Rhodes, Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, 408–409.
21 Gronow, et al., “Explaining Collaboration in Consensual and Conflictual Governance Networks”.
22 Klijn and Edelenbos, “Meta-governance as Network Management,” 199–214.
23 See note10 above.
24 Sørensen, “Local Politicians and Administrators as Metagovernors,” 89–108.
25 Wang, “Meta-governance, Uncertainty and Self-organization in Corporatist Social Service Sectors: The Case of Hong Kong”.
26 Lou and Chen, “Meta-Governance in the Transformation of Urban Grassroots Governance: A Case Study of Party Building and Property in Weihai City”.
27 Koppenjan, et al., Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making, 14–16.
28 Koppenjan, et al., Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making, 203.
29 Torfing, Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, 135.
30 See note 22 above.
31 Hertting, “Mechanisms of Governance Network Formation—a Contextual Rational Choice Perspective,” 43–60.
32 Yeung. “The Logic of Production Networks”.
33 Boin and Goodin, “Institutionalizing Upstarts: The Demons of Domestication and the Benefits of Recalcitrance”.
34 Thuesen, “Experiencing Multi-level Meta-governance”.
35 Torfing, Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, 139.
36 Meuleman, Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: The Feasibility of Designing and Managing Governance Style Combinations, P82.
37 Peters, “Meta-governance and Public Management,” 52–67.
38 Damgaard, “Do Policy Networks Lead to Network Governing?”.
39 Bell and Park, “The Problematic Meta-governance of Networks: Water Reform in New South Wales”.
40 Haveri, et al., “Governing Collaboration: Practices of Meta-governance in Finnish and Norwegian Local Governments”.
41 Walker, “Water Scarcity in England and Wales as a Failure of (meta) Governance”.
42 Torfing, Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, 136.
43 See note14 above.
44 Scharpf, “Games Real Actors Could Play: Positive and Negative Coordination in Embedded Negotiations”.
45 Torfing, Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, 131.
46 Hua, et al., “Institutional Logic Dynamics: Private Firm Financing in Ningbo (1912–2008)”.
47 Fulda, et al., “New Strategies of Civil Society in China: A Case Study of the Network Governance Approach”.
48 Interview, person in charge of ZeYuan, March 2023, said: In addition to the WeChat chat group established by us, there also widely exist various groups set up by enterprises within communities. The commission for group chiefs in these groups can reach 20% or even more of the sales revenue, while the commission for our group chiefs is only 5%. Indeed, some group chiefs switched to for-profit enterprises for higher profits. However, the community group chiefs who have stayed with us now all have a strong spirit of voluntary service.
49 Interview, a community group chief from Gaoqiao Town, September 2023, said: Our main task at the self-governance station is to support disabled people in the community. We invested funds to invite nearby enterprises to provide vocational skills training for them, and offer sign language and handicraft manufacturing instructions to hearing-impaired persons, enabling them to increase their monthly income by 800 yuan through handicraft manufacturing, thus relieving the burden on their families.
50 Kelly, “Central Regulation of English Local Authorities: An Example of Meta-governance?”.
51 Wilson, et al., “Linking the ‘Meta-governance’ Imperative to Regional Governance in Resource Communities”.
52 Interview, a director of the service center, March 2023, said: The Starfish Project serves common prosperity. Therefore, we invited the director of the district party committee’s organization department to introduce the Starfish Project to various government departments. Under the leadership of the party committee, various government departments are required to exercise administrative powers centered around the goal of common prosperity, and the Starfish Project provides them with a platform to participate in the common prosperity system. Thus, the government departments are willing to cooperate with our work.
53 Interview, a farmer from Longguan Township Fruit Cooperative, June 2023, said: The peaches from Fenghua and our peaches are only separated by one mountain in origin, and their quality is also similar. One box of Fenghua peaches could be sold at 120 yuan, while one box of Longguan peaches could only be sold at 40 yuan previously. Now through the Starfish Project, city residents have had access to and recognized the quality of Longguan peaches through ways like rural tourism in villages and watching livestreams. This year, we are also able to sell one box of peaches at 80 yuan.
54 Klijn and Koppenjan. “Public Management and Policy Networks: Foundations of a Network Approach to Governance”.
55 Gao and Yu, “Public Governance Mechanism in the Prevention and Control of the COVID-19: Information, Decision-making and Execution”.
56 Yang, et al., “Enlisting Citizens: Forging the Effectiveness of Policy Implementation in Local China”.
57 Torfing, Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, 57.
58 Temmerman, et al., “Opening the Black Box of Meta-governance: The Roles of Central Government in Local Multilevel Networks-the Case of the Local Job Centers in Flanders”.
59 Rutherford, “The State of Training: Learning, Institutional Innovation, and Local Boards for Training and Adjustment in Ontario, Canada”.
60 Fransen, “The Politics of Meta-governance in Transnational Private Sustainability Governance”.
61 See note 53 above.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Shizong Wang
Shizong Wang is a professor in the School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, China. His interests encompass local governance, local government, and governance theory.
Yuqi Deng
Yuqi Deng is a postgraduate student in the School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, China. He focuses on the local governance and nonprofits studies.
Zhihan Zhang
Zhihan Zhang is a postgraduate student in the School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, China. He focuses on the local policy implementation and nonprofits studies.