Polycentric Governance Pattern
Also known as: Ostrom Governance, Multi-Center Governance
Polycentric Governance Pattern
Type: Platform Pattern
TypeID:
Slug: polycentric-governance-pattern
1. Overview
Polycentric governance is a governance system where multiple centers of authority coexist and interact to make decisions and solve collective action problems. This pattern promotes a decentralized and multi-stakeholder approach to governance, where decision-making is distributed among various actors and institutions, rather than being concentrated in a single, central authority.
2. Core Principles
This pattern is applicable in complex and dynamic environments where a one-size-fits-all approach to governance is not effective. It is particularly relevant for the governance of common-pool resources, such as natural resources, digital commons, and online communities, where diverse stakeholders with different interests and values need to collaborate.
3. Key Practices
Centralized, top-down governance models often fail to address the complexities and uncertainties of many real-world problems. They can be slow to adapt to changing conditions, unresponsive to local needs, and may lack the legitimacy and trust of the communities they are meant to serve. This can lead to ineffective governance, resource depletion, and social conflict.
4. Implementation
The polycentric governance pattern proposes a system of multiple, autonomous, yet interdependent, decision-making centers. These centers can be formal or informal, and can operate at different scales, from local to global. The key principles of this pattern are:
- Multiple Centers of Authority: Decision-making is distributed among a variety of actors and institutions, including government agencies, non-profit organizations, community groups, and private sector actors.
- Autonomy and Interdependence: Each center of authority has a degree of autonomy to make its own decisions, but they are also interdependent and must coordinate their actions with other centers.
- Overlapping Jurisdictions: The jurisdictions of different centers of authority may overlap, creating a system of checks and balances and promoting competition and innovation.
- Spontaneous Order: The overall order of the system emerges from the interactions of the different centers of authority, rather than being imposed from the top down.
5. 7 Pillars Assessment
| Pillar | Score (1-5) | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | 3 | Serves a clear technical purpose in system design |
| Governance | 3 | Can be governed through standard engineering practices |
| Culture | 3 | Supports engineering culture of reliability and quality |
| Incentives | 3 | Aligns incentives toward system stability |
| Knowledge | 4 | Well-documented pattern with extensive community knowledge |
| Technology | 4 | Directly applicable to modern technology stacks |
| Resilience | 4 | Contributes to overall system resilience |
| Overall | 3.4 | A valuable technical pattern that supports commons infrastructure |
Polycentric governance offers several advantages over centralized governance models:
- Adaptability: A polycentric system can adapt more easily to changing conditions because it allows for experimentation and learning at multiple levels.
- Resilience: The redundancy and diversity of a polycentric system make it more resilient to shocks and disturbances.
- Legitimacy: By involving a wide range of stakeholders in the decision-making process, polycentric governance can increase the legitimacy and acceptance of decisions.
- Efficiency: Polycentric governance can be more efficient than centralized governance because it allows for a better matching of governance solutions to local problems.
6. When to Use
Implementing a polycentric governance system can have the following consequences:
- Increased Complexity: A polycentric system can be more complex to manage than a centralized system.
- Coordination Challenges: Coordinating the actions of multiple centers of authority can be challenging.
- Potential for Conflict: The overlapping jurisdictions of different centers of authority can lead to conflict.
- Improved Governance Outcomes: Despite the challenges, polycentric governance has the potential to lead to more effective, equitable, and sustainable governance outcomes.
6. When to Use
- The governance of the internet: The internet is a classic example of a polycentric governance system, with multiple organizations, such as ICANN, the IETF, and W3C, sharing responsibility for its management.
- The governance of fisheries: Many fisheries around the world are managed through polycentric governance systems, with local communities, fishing cooperatives, and government agencies all playing a role.
- The governance of climate change: The global response to climate change is increasingly taking on a polycentric character, with a variety of state and non-state actors involved in the governance process.
8. References
[1] Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641-62.
[2] Carlisle, K., & Gruby, R. L. (2019). Polycentric systems of governance: a theoretical model for the commons. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 927-952.
[3] SESYNC. (2023). Polycentric Governance: When Is It Good?. Retrieved from https://www.sesync.org/resources/polycentric-governance-when-it-good
7. Anti-Patterns & Gotchas
Common mistakes include applying this pattern without understanding the specific context and constraints of the system.