Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Governance as multiplicity: the Assemblage Thinking perspective

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Governance, the process of steering for collective action, is being theorized and empirically explored on a variety of subjects, private and collective issues and spatial levels. Depending on epistemological and theoretical preferences, studies adopt a hierarchical/centralized or a relational/decentralized conception of governance although they increasingly recognize that ‘hybrid governance,’ a mix of multiple models and modes, prevails in practice. Theoretical and empirical studies alike discuss sparingly, if at all, ontological issues, i.e., the nature of the ‘what’ is governed, despite their prominence for meaningful empirical analysis. A ‘system’ ontology is mostly presumed that usually produces static, context-insensitive accounts of dynamic governance phenomena and one-size-fits-all and ‘best practices’ recommendations. Since the 2000s, Assemblage Thinking (AT), a current of poststructuralist thinking, is being utilized on the grounds that the assemblage ontology better supports, conceptually and methodologically, the situated study of governance. This paper offers an overview of the application of AT in governance studies and an introductory exploration into the capacity of AT to frame a compleat approach for the applied study of governance conceived not as unitary process but as multiplicity. After summarizing the discourse on governance, the paper highlights the main features of AT and critically reviews selected assemblage-based governance studies. Then, it discusses the conceptual affinities between governance and assemblage, reconceptualizes governance, outlines the contours of an assemblage-based methodology and proposes an AT-based approach to governance. A discussion of the value of AT for applied governance studies and future research challenges conclude the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Assemblage Thinking rather than Assemblage Theory is usually used in the literature. Theory negotiates the structure and dynamics of a concept/issue. Thinking denotes an approach to the analysis of various issues guided by a particular concept (cf. Complexity Thinking, Resilience Thinking).

  2. Note that ‘purpose’ is used here in the sense of commitment of steering (Jessop 2002; Li 2007); i.e. the purpose of engaging in governance, of steering/governing in order to achieve some goals. Purpose is not identical to goals; the latter relate to the issue being governed.

  3. ‘Governance’ and ‘policy’ are often used interchangeably; however, policies are means used in governance (Peters 2014).

  4. Some authors conflate, or even identify, governance with particular modes of governance.

  5. ‘Account’ denotes the particular combination of epistemological, theoretical and analytical choices made to study a subject.

  6. Absolute and bounded rationality.

  7. Ostrom (2011) has developed dynamic, nonlinear versions accommodating endogenous changes and transformations.

  8. See the definition of governance networks and interactive governance in Torfing and Sorensen (2014).

  9. Ostrom’s (2011) IAD framework includes ‘resources’.

  10. Dispositif is the French term introduced by Foucault (1977).

  11. A not-quite-satisfactory translation of ‘agencement’ used by Deleuze (Phillips 2006).

  12. The term ‘assemblage’ has been (and it is) used as a simple descriptor in non-AT literature; see, e.g. Rose and Miller (1992); Sassen (2006, p. 5) (note 1).

  13. “… for it is always by rhizome that desire moves and produces.” (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, p. 14).

  14. Their unity is not externally defined/imposed.

  15. In contrast, in hierarchical ontologies, each level represents a different ontological category (DeLanda 2002).

  16. ‘Redundant causality’ (DeLanda 2006).

  17. From one to several times.

  18. DeLanda’s articulate, tractable and accessible account of Assemblage Theory is often used in governance applications.

  19. Policy making is conceived similarly (McCann and Ward 2013).

  20. Purpose is used in the sense of will to improve a situation (Li 2007).

  21. No pre-determined priority between them.

  22. The practices are: “(1) forging alignments, (2) rendering technical, (3) authorizing knowledge, (4) managing failures, (5) anti-politics, and (6) reassembling” (Li 2007, p. 263).

  23. REDD+ (Reducing Emissions by Deforestation and Degradation) is a climate instrument implemented in several third-world countries.

  24. See also, Crampton (2015) and Newman and Clarke (2009) for a discussion of (geo)privacy and publicness, respectively.

  25. E.g. actors, institutions, policy instruments, policy ideas, documents and networks, existing infrastructures, materials, agricultural products, artefacts, etc.

  26. Some accounts mention ‘governance assemblages’ but not in the AT sense.

  27. Post-2010 versions of the IAD and SES frameworks (Ostrom 2011) problematize the constitution of pre-given entities, implicitly suggesting the suitability of the assemblage ontology.

  28. ‘Milieu’ is used instead of ‘system’ because ‘system’ connotes more-or-less territorially fixed boundaries and structure.

  29. Symmetry is assumed between them.

  30. Due to lagged and asynchronous responses of the assemblage components.

  31. A similar methodological approach can be found in Detsis et al. (2017).

  32. The phases of the SEM during a study period are defined on the basis of their identity that is considered a key property of a socio-ecological milieu (Detsis et al. 2017).

  33. Such as combinations of particular resources, economic activities, modes of governance.

  34. Cf. Kooiman et al. (2005).

  35. From the viewpoint of both the assemblages and the multiplicity,.

References

  • Albrecht, M., Kortelainen, J., Sawatzky, M., Lukkarinen, J., & Rytteri, T. (2017). Translating bioenergy policy in Europe: Mutation, aims and boosterism in EU energy governance. Geoforum, 87, 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J., & Cochrane, A. (2007). Beyond the territorial fix: Regional assemblages, politics and power. Regional Studies, 41(9), 1161–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, B., Keanes, M., McFarlane, C., & Swanton, D. (2012). On assemblages and geography. Dialogues in Human Geography, 2(2), 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, B., & McFarlane, C. (2011). Assemblage and geography. Area, 43(2), 124–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aurora-Jonsson, S., Westholm, L., Petit, A., & Temu, B. J. (2016). Carbon and cash in climate assemblages: The making of a new global citizenship. Antipode, 48(1), 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bache, I. (2003). Europeanization: A governance approach. Paper presented at the EUSA 8th International Biennial Conference, Nashville, March 27–29, 2003.

  • Baker, T., & McGuirk, P. (2016). Assemblage thinking as methodology: Commitments and practices for critical policy research. Territory, Politics, Governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1231631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. (2005). The agency of assemblages and the North American Blackout. Public Culture, 17(3), 445–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M. (2009). Key concepts in governance. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M. (2013). A theory of governance. Berkeley: UCP, Gaia Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, M., & Protevi, J. (2004). Deleuze and geophilosophy. A guide and glossary. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Wochnik, A. (2015). Making territory through infrastructure: The governance of natural gas transit in Europe. Geoforum, 64, 217–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briassoulis, H. (2005). Analysis of policy integration: Conceptual and methodological considerations. In H. Briassoulis (Ed.), Policy integration for complex environmental problems. The example of mediterranean desertification (pp. 49–80). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briassoulis, H. (2015). The socio-ecological fit of human responses to environmental degradation: An integrated assessment methodology. Environmental Management, 56(6), 1448–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briassoulis, H. (2017a). Response assemblages and their socio-ecological fit. Dialogues in Human Geography, 7(2), 166–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briassoulis, H. (2017b). Why I fell for assemblages. Dialogues in Human Geography, 7(2), 212–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bueger, C. (2014). Thinking assemblages methodologically: Some rules of thumb. In M. Acuto & S. Curtis (Eds.), Reassembling international theory: Assemblage thinking and international relations (pp. 58–66). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bueger, C. (2017). Territory, authority, expertise: Global governance and the counter-piracy assemblage. European Journal of International Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117725155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, Μ. (2013). Doing and enacting economies of value: Thinking through the assemblage. New Zealand Geographer, 69, 176–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEC (2001). European governance: A white paper. Commission of the European Communities. COM (01) 428 final.

  • Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J., Bainton, D., Lendvai, N., & Stubbs, P. (2015). Making policy move: Towards a politics of translation and assemblage. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, A. (2010). Exploring the regional politics of ‘sustainability’: Making up sustainable communities in the South-East of England. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20, 370–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colebatch, H. K. (2014). Making sense of governance. Policy and Society, 33(4), 307–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colebrook, C. (2004). Understanding Deleuze. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crampton, J. (2015). Collect it all: National security, big data and governance. Geoforum, 80, 519–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A. R. (2013). Cleantech clusters: Transformational assemblages for a just, green economy or just business as usual? Global Environmental Change, 23, 1285–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLanda, M. (2002). Intensive science and virtual philosophy. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLanda, M. (2011). Philosophy and simulation: The emergence of synthetic reason. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLanda, M. (2016). Assemblage theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1984). What is philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detsis, V., Briassoulis, H., & Kosmas, C. (2017). The socio-ecological dynamics of human responses in a land degradation-affected region: The Messara Valley, Crete, Greece. Land, 6, 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6030045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, R., McGuirk, P. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2014). Retrofitting cities: Local governance in Sydney, Australia. Cities, 38, 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezzamel, M., & Reed, M. (2008). Governance: A code of multiple colours. Human Relations, 61(5), 597–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbanks, L., Campbell, L. M., Boucquey, N., & St. Martin, K. (2018). Assembling enclosure: Reading marine spatial planning for alternatives. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(1), 144–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). What is the dispositif? https://foucaultblog.wordpress.com/2007/04/01/what-is-the-dispositif/. Accessed December 4, 2018.

  • Gabriel, N. (2014). Urban political ecology: Environmental imaginary, governance, and thenon-human. Geography Compass, 8(1), 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossmann, K., & Haase, A. (2015). Neighborhood change beyond clear storylines: What can assemblage and complexity theories contribute to understandings of seemingly paradoxical neighborhood development? Urban Geography, 37, 727–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haarstad, H. (2016). Where are urban energy transitions governed? Conceptualizing the complex governance arrangements for low-carbon mobility in Europe. Cities, 54, 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heritier, A. (2002). New modes of governance in Europe: Policy making without legislating? Wien: Reihe Politikwissenschaft/Institut für Höhere Studien, Abt. Politikwissenschaft 81. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-246304. Accessed February 16, 2018.

  • Hillier, J., & Van Wezemael, J. (2008). ‘Empty, Swept and Garnished’: The Public Finance Initiative case of Throckley Middle School. Space and Polity, 12(2), 157–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multilevel governance and European integration. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2014). The two orders of governance failure: Design mismatchesand policy capacity issues in modern governance. Policy and Society, 33(4), 317–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2002). Governance and metagovernance: On reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony. In H. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and political communication (pp. 101–116). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2005). Critical realism and the strategic-relational approach. New Formations, 56, 40–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D, 26, 389–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohne, M. (2014). Multi-stakeholder initiative governance as assemblage: Roundtable on sustainable palm oil as a political resource in land conflicts related to oil palm plantations. Agriculture and Human Values, 31, 469–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., & Pullin, R. (Eds.). (2005). Fish for life. Interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, M. (2015). Citizenship agendas, urban governance and social housing in the Netherlands: an assemblage approach. Citizenship Studies, 19(2), 214–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koster, M., & van Leynseele, Y. (2018). Brokers as assemblers: Studying development through the lens of brokerage. Ethnos. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2017.1362451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, W. M. (Ed.). (2004). Governance for sustainable development. The challenge of adapting form to function. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Heron, E., Le Heron, R., & Lewis, N. (2013). Wine economy as open assemblage: Thinking beyond sector and region. New Zealand Geographer, 69, 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, A. (2012). Personifying colonial governance: George Arthur and the transition from humanitarian to development discourse. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(6), 1468–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, D. (2012). Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, N., Le Heron, R., Campbell, H., Henry, M., Le Heron, E., Pawson, E., et al. (2013). Assembling biological economies: Region-shaping initiatives in making and retaining value. New Zealand Geographer, 69, 180–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, T. M. (2007). Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Economy and Society, 36(2), 263–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, M., & Davidson, J. (2010). Environmental governance and the hybrid regime of Australian natural resource management. Geoforum, 41, 388–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, E. (2011). Veritable inventions: Cities, policies and assemblage. Area, 43(2), 143–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2013). A multi-disciplinary approach to policy transfer research: Geographies, assemblages, mobilities and mutations. Policy Studies, 34(1), 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, C. (2009). Translocal assemblages: Space, power and social movements. Geoforum, 40, 561–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montenegro, L. M., & Bulgacov, S. (2014). Reflections on actor-network theory, governance networks, and strategic outcomes. Brazilian Administration Review, 11(1), 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nel, A. (2015a). The choreography of sacrifice: Market environmentalism, biopolitics and environmental damage. Geoforum, 65, 246–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nel, A. (2015b). The neoliberalisation of forestry governance, market environmentalism and re-territorialisation in Uganda. Third World Quarterly, 36(12), 2294–2315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nel, A. (2017). Contested carbon: Carbon forestry as a speculatively virtual, falteringly material and disputed territorial assemblage. Geoforum, 81, 144–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J., & Clarke, J. (2009). Publics, politics and power: Remaking the public in public services. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, T., Deetz, S., & Reed, M. (2011). Responses to social constructionism and critical realism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 32(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the IAD framework. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 21–64). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, J., & Owens, S. (2015). Indirect land-use change and biofuels: The contribution of assemblage theory to place-specific environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 53, 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2014). Is governance for everybody? Policy and Society, 33, 301–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, J. (2006). Agencement/Assemblage. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2–3), 108–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, J., & Peters, G. B. (2005). Governing complex societies. Trajectories and scenarios. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, R. (2010). Policy transfer as policy assemblage: Making policy for the creative industries in New Zealand. Environment and Planning A, 42(1), 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, R. (2012). Policy transfer, consultants and the geographies of governance. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 188–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the State: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin, C., Dwiartama, A., Grant, D., & Hopkins, D. (2013). Using provenance to create stability: State-led territorialisation of Central Ottago as assemblage. New Zealand Geographer, 69, 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2007). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the European Union. European Governance Papers (EUROGOV). C-07-02.

  • Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, authority, rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawatzky, M., & Albrecht, M. (2017). Translating EU renewable energy policy for insular energy systems: Reunion Island’s quest for energy autonomy. Fennia, 195(2), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (1984). Method in social science: A realist approach. London: Hutchinson.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. W. (2007). Deleuze and the question of desire: Toward an immanent theory of ethics. Parrhesia, 2, 66–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, G. (1998). Designing institutions for governance in complex environments: Normative, rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted. ESRC Fellowship Paper No. 1, June 2004.

  • Torfing, J., & Sørensen, E. (2014). The European debate on governance networks: Towards a new and viable paradigm? Policy and Society, 33(4), 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treib, O., Bähr, H., & Falkner, G. (2007). Modes of governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wezemael, J. (2008). The contribution of assemblage theory and minor politics for democratic network governance. Planning Theory, 7(2), 165–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodard, K., & Jones, J. P. (2009). Post-structuralism. In D. Gregory, R. Johnston, G. Pratt, M. Watts, & S. Whatmore (Eds.), Dictionary of human geography (pp. 571–573). Chicherster, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Mytilini, Lesvos, Greece

    Helen Briassoulis

Authors
  1. Helen Briassoulis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Briassoulis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Briassoulis, H. Governance as multiplicity: the Assemblage Thinking perspective. Policy Sci 52, 419–450 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-09345-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-09345-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation