Law and Governance: the difference between houses and ships

In this article it is argued that governance should be regarded as a style of regulation. Good governance is thought to be flexible, non-bureaucratic, informal and non-hierarchical. The effective and efficient achievement of measurable and controllable aims is deemed more important than compliance to rules. Competences are not strictly defined in a formal manner but are spread over a complex and diverse set of institutions on different levels. In a number of ways, therefore,the requirements of `good governance’ are at odds with the traditional core values of legal systems: autonomy, solidity, continuity, formality, legal certainty and equality. After exploring the tensions between law and governance, it is investigated to what extent legal systems are affected by governance practices. The conclusion is drawn that these changes are so pervasive that the assumption of a separate legal realm is no longer tenable. The new constellation should be studied by combining a number of perspectives that cannot be labeled as either 'internal' or 'external', since they assume demarcation lines that no longer exist.

The working paper 'Law and Governance: the difference between houses and ships' can be found here.