Post-normal governance: an emerging counter-proposal.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to bring together three bodies of interrelated thought (complexity, governance and civics) in order to begin to develop the concept of post-normal governance as a counter-proposal to the notion of managerial ecology. Managerial ecology has developed, or coevolved, with human institutions over the past several decades as a pervasive, but almost implicit, framework for environmental decision-making. It is characterized by top-down, 'command and control', often bureaucratic structures, which can be seen to short-circuit more participative, democratic decision-making. It will be argued, based on insights gleaned from complex systems thinking, that due to the high uncertainty and high decision stakes associated with making decisions within complex systems that a more ethically-sound, 'post-normal' approach to science and decision-making, in which the 'peer community is extended', should be explored. This notion of post-normal science will be contextualized within recent governance literature and related to a civics approach to planning developed by Nelson and others in an effort to explore an extension of Funtowicz and Ravetz' notion of a post-normal science to governance.

L'objectif de cet article est de tenter de reunir trois types de pensees interreliees (complexite, gouvernance et civique) afin d'elaborer la notion de gouvernance post-normale comme contre-proposition a l'ecologie de gestion. Au cours des dernieres decennies, l'ecologie de gestion s'est developpee et a evolue de concert avec les institutions pour devenir un cadre de travail envahissant, et presque implicite, lors des prises de decisions en matiere d'environnement. Elle est caracterisee par des structures descendantes, directes, souvent bureaucratiques, qui court-circuitent les prises de decisions plus democratiques et participatives. En se basant sur la theorie des systemes complexes, cet article soutient qu'a cause du haut degre d'incertitude et des importants enjeux associes a des prises de decisions dans le cadre de systemes complexes plus ethiques, une approche << post-normale >> de la science et de la prise de decision, dans laquelle la << communaute des pairs s'elargit >>, doit etre exploree. Des ecrits recents de Nelson (et d'autres) sur la gouvernance associee a l'approche civique de la planification permettront d'explorer le prolongement logique du concept de science post-normale de la gouvernance de Funtowicz et Ravetz.

Key Words

Complexity, governance, civics, post-normal science, post-normal governance

Introduction and Outline

The postmodern world view, which ... is paralleled in aspects

of new science emphasizing the chaotic, paradoxical

and transient nature of order and disorder, requires an approach

that allows the theory and practice of organization

and management to acquire a more fluid form (Morgan

1993: 282-283).

With major institutions, most recently, and perhaps notably, the National Science Foundation, 'embracing complexity' through their recent biocomplexity funding agenda (NSF 1999), complex systems theory is receiving considerable attention and exposure. Complexity-based conceptual models of ecology, and even human societies--including economic and political models--have expanded the heuristic toolkit of researchers and practitioners alike with concepts that include self-organization, bifurcations, and nested or holarchic (or panarchic) structures of systems, among others. The use of these heuristics and conceptual models, as well as the broader implications of the theory --really a body of interrelated theories--are being explored through a wide variety of disciplines, beyond physics, chemistry, biology, ecology and mathematics from which they were originally conceived. However, their implications can arguably be seen to also question some of the very tenets of traditional modern, 'normal' scientific thought.

The notion of scientific objectivity, for instance, is challenged under a complexity-based, post-normal (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994, Ravetz, 1999b) approach. A top-down, command and control approach, such as managerial ecology, can be challenged on ethical and philosophical grounds from a post-normal perspective. A post-normal approach to decision-making, in fact, requires an extension of the peer community to more ethically address the uncertainty and decision-stakes associated with policy-making and governance in complex systems. Of course, complexity scientists and postnormalists are not the only ones to promote more participatory or democratic approaches to planning and decision- and policy-making. Participatory planning approaches have been advanced by transactive planners, participatory planners, organizational theorists and civic-oriented planners among many others for decades. However, the decades old trend towards integrating public participation--particularly in environmental policy and decision-making--can be seen to be running up against a contrary political-economic trend towards smaller, more stream-lined, efficient government which appears to be making broader public participation less of a public decision-making priority.

Much of the governance and political-economic literature documents this kind of political-economic shift--due, in no small part, to the impacts of economic globalization. Such a shift has generally resulted in a much more corporate or managerial model and an often market-based form of governance--especially when dealing with issues that are often considered externalities, such as the environment. Managerial ecology--defined by Bavington (2002: 5) as the "unquestioned faith in management as the solution to deep seated ecological and social problems"--is linked to this political-economic shift.

In the first of these two theme issues on managerial ecology (Bavington and Slocombe 2002) the authors laid out the problematique of the science, economics, politics and ethics of managerial ecology through explorations of the etymology of the term management, and through perspectives based on the work of Marx, Arendt and Bauman. In his commentary on these papers McMurray (2002) asked the pertinent, 'next' question, "and so ...?". He notes that, "a management regime that gave more than passing attention to its own fallibility would be salutory, for it would be grounded in human kind's boundless ignorance rather than its fragmentary and fleeting knowledge" (McMurray 2002: 74).

It would seem, then, that any attempt at answering the "and so ...?" question and developing a counter-proposal to managerial ecology must contextualize interventions and be cognisant of the inherent complexity of ecological and human social, political-economic systems and our 'fragmentary and fleeting' knowledge of them. This paper attempts to bring together complexity-based, post-normal, political-economic and governance literatures for this purpose. In addition, Nelson's (Dempster and Nelson 2001; Lawrence and Nelson 1999; Nelson 1991) civic approach to planning will be introduced as what seems to be a logical extension of the post-normal agenda. Finally, the related notion of post-normal governance will be proposed.

To begin, several complexity-based heuristics, that can be applied in an attempt to characterize human social and ecological systems will be described. This will provide a context for a short discussion of Funtowicz and Ravetz' notion of post-normal science. This will be followed by a discussion of the implications of elements of the governance, political-economic and globalization literatures as they describe a context for environmental decision-making. This is meant to set the stage for a consideration of Nelson's civic approach to planning and its relation to the concept of post-normal governance.

Complex Systems Thinking

A body of theory has emerged over the last two and a half decades that explicitly addresses the complex, uncertain and inherently pluralistic nature of human socio-economic as well as biophysical systems. The 'new science' or complexity theory refers to a group of interrelated theories--catastrophe theory, chaos theory, hierarchy theory and the theories of self-organization--that have been derived in several scientific disciplines including chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology and ecology. For applications to ecological systems and human social/organizational systems, see Gunderson and Holling (2002) and Jackson (2000), respectively.

It is argued by complex systems theorists that complex systems exist at a threshold between order and chaos, too complex to be treated as machines and too organized to be assumed random and averaged. Newtonian and stochastic conceptual tools, for the sake of mathematical tractability, often seek to eliminate the very complexity and uncertainty (by assuming mechanistic linear causality) and macro-level order (by assuming chaotic or random distribution) that characterize complex systems. The types of errors that result from the potentially inappropriate application of these tools have, to some extent, come to be expected by the general public in policy matters and are often justified away by citing the inadequacy of the data or limitations of a particular technique. The underlying epistemology is not often considered. In fact, many of these represent errors on an epistemological level.

How then does a scientist, planner or decision-maker, avoid these epistemological errors and effectively address the phenomena associated with organized complexity? Complex systems thinking (see for example, Kay et al. 1999) is a mode of reasoning based on the implications of the interrelated theories of complexity. Complex systems thinking does not attempt to reduce the uncertainty and complexity inherent in complex phenomena, assuming linear causality, nor does it attempt to aggregate, assuming a completely chaotic system. Instead, complex systems thinking is an explicit attempt to embrace complexity and uncertainty within decision-making. The attempt is made through the use of complexity-based descriptive heuristics in the development of context-specific, adaptive, pluralistic and transparent planning and decision-making approaches. While a comprehensive description of the structures and behaviours described by complexity theory used in complex systems thinking is beyond the scope of this current work, Table 1 outlines several of the main properties of complex systems.

It has been argued that these are characteristics of any complex system --whether a single organism, a human organization, a city, an economic system, or an ecosystem. The implications of complexity theory have been explored in some depth in various fields including: sociology (Luhmann 1995, Rasch and Wolfe 2000) the study of human organizations (Flood 1999, Jackson 2000) , urban planning (Portugali 2000), ecological economics (Constanza 1997) and biology and ecology (Maturana and Varela 1980, Kay et al. 1999). Without going into any specific examples, complexity theory and complex systems thinking point to the need to embrace complexity and uncertainty, not reduce, or eliminate them altogether for the sake of mathematical tractability. Instead, when trying to understand, plan or make decisions within a complex system, a new set of tools or heuristics has, and is being, developed that can be used to describe the structures and dynamics of these systems. More fundamentally, however, complex systems thinking points to a changing role for the scientist, the planner and, more generally, the expert, in decision-making. For instance, Funtowicz and Ravetz have described this new role for the expert in terms of a 'post-normal' approach to science and decision-making.

Post-Normal Science

Funtowicz and Ravetz (1992) originally coined the term 'post-normal' in contrast to Kuhn's concept of 'normal science' (Kuhn 1970). More recently Ravetz has defined post-normal science as the following:

(g)oing beyond the traditional assumptions that science is

both certain and value-free, it makes system certainties and

decision stakes the essential elements of its analysis. It

distinguishes between 'applied science' where both dimensions

are low, 'professional consultancy' where at least one

is salient, and Post-Normal Science where at least one is

severe Ravetz (1999: 647).

The authors contrast post-normal science with more conventional perspectives such as applied science, and professional consultancy. As opposed to the search for objective, scientific truth (normal or applied science) or in the interest of a client (professional consultancy), "the theoretical core (of postnormal science) is the task of quality assurance; it argues the need for new methods, involving 'extended peer communities', who deploy 'extended facts' and take an active part in the solution of their problems" (Ravetz 1999: 647).

In this post-normal decision-making context, what then is the role of science in policy-making? Kay et al. (1999: 18) indicate that "a scientist's role in decision making shifts from inferring what will happen, that is, making predictions which are the basis of decision-making, to providing decision makers and the community with an appreciation through narrative descriptions, of how the future might unfold." Such descriptions might include: plausible attractors and the structures and processes within the domain of a given attractor; and potential methods of enhancing or decoupling the self-organizing system's feed-back loops in order to 'push' the system towards a democratically derived-vision.

This is seen as a far more ethically sound position for scientists in policy-making. They are not forced to provide objective, value-free, often quantitative solutions to what are ultimately, value-laden, uncertain circumstances that can often impact a great many people. In the post-normal decisionmaking realm the scientist cannot be expected to provide objective 'truths' and so decision-makers must take responsibility for their policy choices. Or better still, for both scientists and decision-makers, that those individuals and groups impacted by a policy take responsibility themselves and become directly involved in the post-normal inquiry.

Of course, this does open up an entire suite of issues relating to equity and power relations and at the same time issues of efficiency and effectiveness within a decision-making context. For instance, who decides who gets to sit at the decision-making table, and--while complete consensus is not necessary in most cases--what does one do about completely incommensurate perspectives and visions and the conflict that may result in attempting to reconcile them? What are the most effective methods or processes for bringing together various perspectives effectively and equitably? At the same time, efficiency of the processes is also critical, for two reasons. First due to the pressures imposed by the changing political-economic context, which are described in the next section. Second considers the implications of complex systems thinking: critical thresholds within the system can be breached while democratically-based, extended peer communities attempt to decide on a vision and how they might implement it. In fact, one could argue, the system may have changed fundamentally by the time the decision has been made. It is critical then to have an understanding of context.

Governance, Globalization and Political Economy

While complex systems thinking, and post-normal science emphasize the need to ensure that a broad range of perspectives is brought to bear on decisions relating to complex systems, the governance and political-economic literature points to long-term trends that could appear to work against the inclusion of multiple perspectives. These trends point to a changing style of governance associated with a shift from a 'Fordist' to a 'post-Fordist' accumulation regime (Jessop 1995) and from a 'Keynesian' welfare state to a more 'neo-conservative', 'Shumpeterian' workfare/competition state (Cerny 1997, Jessop 1993) in response to a globalizing economy (see Tables 2 and 3). The term 'governance' (vs. government) has become popularized in reaction to these political-economic trends as well as to what has been termed the 'hollowing out' of the nation-state (Rosenau 1995). Whereas the activities of governance have traditionally been associated with government and in particular the nation-state, the current literature emanating from several fields, including international relations, urban studies and organizational behavior broadens the notion of governance beyond that of traditional government (see for instance, Rosenau 1995, MacLeod and Goodwin 1999, Kickert 1993, respectively).

In three recent reviews of the current governance literature (Stoker 1998, Rhodes 1996, MacLeod and Goodwin 1999) the focus is a new found appreciation for loosely structured governance entities that spontaneously emerge or self-organize. Governments at various scales are struggling to re-orient themselves in a globalizing political-economic context. This is part of a continuous effort to ensure regional economic competitiveness with reduced budgets and authority. In the process, new forms or structures of governance are emerging. The system can be seen or constructed as having reorganized within the domain of a new attractor, often described as a post-Fordist accumulation regime and a 'Shumpeterian' workfare state (Cerny 1997, Jessop 1993). Both Cerny and Jessop document such a shift in accumulation regime and governance model (see Tables 2 and 3).

If we consider that we are dealing with phenomena that can be described as complex systems, and that these involve extreme uncertainty and high decision-stakes of the many policy decisions made by governments at all levels, we are left with the responsibility of searching for the most effective methods of developing high-quality information and knowledge for decision-making. In doing so, we need to ensure as many perspectives as possible are incorporated in the process. Yet we are to do this in the face of global trends in governance that tend to devalue participatory approaches in favour of market-based approaches, with an explicit emphasis on efficiency over equity. It is this context--this requirement of governments to do 'more with less'--that is the primary concern of the author's PhD research. It is in this context, where the notion of governance as being something broader than government is key. Stoker's (1998) overview of the governance literature captures this aspect of the concept best. His work reveals five interrelated propositions of governance theory. Based on Stoker's review of the literature, the term governance has been used to:

* Refer to a set of institutions

* Identify the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and economic issues

* Identify the power dependence involved in collective action

* Describe autonomous self-governing networks of actors

* Recognize the capacity to get things done which does not rest on the power of government to command or use its authority

Given Cerny and Jessop's description of a political-economic shift and Stoker's conception of governance, the traditional role of government appears to be changing as well. A Schumpterian-style government would take a much-reduced role, in order to reduce intrusive, over-regulation of the free-market and ensure competitiveness in a globalizing economy. If we take Cerny and Jessop's political economic system description seriously, and if we then focus on a broader system of governance, a critical question should be: "what is the role of government in a governance system and what is the role of the individual, citizen or consumer?"

Civics and the Civics Approach

A civics approach to decision-making has multiple meanings, making it ambiguous and difficult to define. Here, it is described based on the work of Nelson (Dempster and Nelson 2001; Lawrence and Nelson 1999; Nelson 1991) and Dagger (1997). These works are complementary in the sense that one is a more abstract look at civic virtue (Dagger) and the other emphasizes the more practical, operational civic approach to planning (Nelson). As such, a civics approach would involve an 'interactive and adaptive' process of education and decision-making (Dempster and Nelson 2001) emphasizing the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship (Dagger 1997). This appears to be a logical conceptual thread to follow and to eventually weave into an attempt to operationalize a post-normal decision-making perspective in the current political-economic context.

Dagger (1997) speaks of 'civic virtues' (responsibilities) and individual rights as not being incommensurate. He does this, in part, by making the distinction between 'fundamental' and 'special' rights. Dagger identifies one fundamental right, the right of autonomy (the capacity to lead a self-governed life) that all other special rights may be said to manifest. He argues that an individual's ability to enter into pledges, promises, contracts and vows manifests his/her fundamental right of autonomy. Dagger goes on to argue that two key implications follow from this conception of a fundamental right of autonomy:

autonomy is a matter of degree, which means that we can

draw comparisons between persons, or even between

one's self at different times, as being more or less autonomous

... the second implication is that the cultivation of

autonomy, like that of other abilities, requires the efforts of

not only the individual in question but also of others ... this

ability grows out of our needs and desires, our talents and

limitations, and the opportunities and obstacles in the world

around us. And no one can develop this ability without the

help of others (Dagger 1997: 38).

Hence, his notion of civic virtue--the acknowledgement and appreciation of this fundamental right of autonomy--provides context for individual rights and, in fact, these mutually reinforce each other. Thus, Dagger argues that the concept of 'republican liberalism' is not an oxymoron. This conception of a civic responsibility to respect and promote the autonomy of others, which sets individual rights and civic responsibilities in dynamic tension, provides an intriguing framework for a complex systems-based and post-normal perspective on governance.

Complementary to this more abstract conception of civics and civic virtue is the more practical, operational civics approach described by Nelson (among others). In work promoting a civics approach to planning, Nelson notes that,

the civics approach arises largely from recognition of the

limitations of the corporate or rational planning model. The

rational planning model often is driven by government officials.

It proceeds in a top-down manner, seeking control of

the situation ... the civics approach is more interactive,

adaptive and inclusive than the corporate or rational approach

(Lawrence and Nelson 1999: 14).

Nelson's civics approach to planning takes as its fundamental aim an attempt to understand humans in relation to the environment. It advocates an explicitly pluralistic, interactive and adaptive approach to planning focusing on a broad context which includes human values and institutional contexts. Nelson's civics approach to planning would attempt to deal directly with competing values and incomplete information in working with different planning and management systems. It is acknowledged to often involve a 'messy', non-linear process which focuses on understanding, communicating, assessing, visioning or planning, implementing, monitoring and adapting. Finally, Nelson's civics approach stresses interaction, mutually beneficial outcomes, and common interests over the long run (Lawrence and Nelson 1999).

More recently, Nelson and others have established the Civic Research Group (CRG 2002) a local initiative that is attempting to operationalize this interactive, adaptive and inclusive approach to research and planning. The CRG was established to provide local groups with research capacity through assistance provided by faculty and students involved with the CRG or through holding of various fora in which interactive, adaptive, civic learning could be facilitated. Two series of workshops initiated through the Urban Environmental Management Project (UEMP 2001, Dempster and Nelson 2001), a CRG predecessor, as well as several more recent series of civic dialogues are examples of forums which have brought together members of the local and academic communities. These have provided opportunities for people to share knowledge and learn as citizens about relevant issues such as urban environmental management, local poverty, security, the Walkerton Inquiry and Smart Growth. These are not explicitly systems or post-normal exercises --although some members of the group have systems and post-normal science in their academic backgrounds. However, this type of approach to planning and promoting civic learning, understanding and autonomy in complex and uncertain situations, would be considered by most to be close to the post-normal ideal.

Post-Normal Governance as an Emerging Counter-Proposal?

This paper has considered ideas relevant to the notion of post-normal governance as a counter-proposal to managerial ecology. As with almost any academic exercise it has provided fewer prescriptions for concrete action than it has abstract descriptions or critiques. However, just as a complexity-based, post-normal science would require a multi-perspective, context-relevant, trans-scalar, process-oriented approach, it would seem that post-normal governance would be based on similar tenets. The integration of multiple perspectives in the current political-economic context seems to require a process-oriented approach not unlike that of Nelson's civics approach. However, and perhaps not surprisingly, the operationalization of such an approach, given this context, seems more complex than this paper can begin to describe. Post-normal governance points to complexities in many types of systems including the ecological, human economic, political, and institutional to name but a few, and to scales from the individual cognitive to the global. It points to what seem to be the daunting tasks of addressing and possibly altering global, political-economic trends to ensure a more ethical and equitable basis for decision-making as well as convincing individuals with often incommensurate perspectives to become involved in a civil planning and decision-making process.

If nothing else, the concept of post-normal governance could be seen to be an emerging counter-proposal to managerial ecology, or to corporate-style, market-based planning and governance. Perhaps that is, in fact, all it should be. I once overheard Silvio Funtowicz, one of the people who coined the term 'post-normal science', say that "when everyone else is a post-normal scientist, I'll be something else!" In some ways then, the point of post-normal science, and perhaps the exploration of the concept of post-normal governance is, and should be, to emphasize the need to critically and collectively review our assumptions, about ourselves and about the way we construct or conceive of others and the world around us. And so, post-normal governance should be explored as a constructive critique of current governance systems. Table 1: Properties of Complex Systems

Non-Linear Behave as whole, a system. Cannot be understood by

simply decomposing into pieces which are added or mul-

tiplied together. Hierarchical Are holarchically nested. The 'control' exercised by a

holon of specific level always involves a balance of

internal or self-control and external, shared,

reciprocating controls involving other holons in a

mutual causal way that transcends the old

selfish-altruistic polarizing designations. Such

nestings cannot be understood by focusing

on one hierarchical level (holon) alone. Understanding

comes from multiple perspectives of different types

and scales Internal Cau- Non-Newtonian, not a mechanism, but rather is self-

sality organizing. Characterized by: goals, positive and

negative feedback, autocatalysis, emergent properties

and surprise.

Window of Must have enough complexity but not too much. There is

Vitality a range within which self-organization can occur. Com-

plex systems strive for optimum, not minimum or maxi-

mum.

Dynamically There may not exist equilibrium points for the system.

Stable?

Multiple There is not necessarily a unique preferred system Steady States state in a given situation. Multiple attractors can be

possible in a given situation and the current system

state may be as much a function of historical

accidents as anything else. Catastrophic The norm,

Behaviour Bifurcations: moments of unpredictable behaviour

Flips: sudden discontinuity

Holling four-box cycle: shifting steady state mosiac

Chaotic Be- our ability to forecast and predict is always limited,

haviour for example to about five days for weather forecasts,

regardless of how sophisticated our computers are and

how much information we have (Kay et al. 1999: 726, Table 1) Table 2: Shift from Keynesian to Schumpeterian States Keynesian Welfare State Schumpeterian Workfare State Promote full employment Promotion of product, process,

organizational and market

innovation Relatively closed national Enhancement of structural economy competitiveness of open economies Demand-side management Supply-side management Generalize norms of mass con- Subordination of social policy to sumption through welfare rights the demands of labour market and new forms of collective con- flexibility and structural sumption competitiveness Fordist Post-Fordist Based on mass production Based on flexible production,

innovation Scale economies 'Scope' economies Mass consumption Differentiated patterns of

consumption (Jessop 1993: 19) Table 3: Shift from Welfare to Competition States Welfare State Competition State Purpose--insulate certain key ele- Purpose--increase marketization in ments of economic life from market order to make economic activities forces while promoting other located within the national aspects of the market territory, or otherwise contribute

to national wealth, more com-

petitive in international and

transnational terms Goals / Objectives--full Goals / Objectives--reduce employment, public health care, government spending to minimize regulating business in the public 'crowding out' of private interest etc. investment by state consumption,

deregulate economic activities

especially financial markets (Cerny 1997:259)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dean Bavington for organizing the original ESAC session and Beth Dempster and Dean for all their work in putting together this and the previous theme issue. I would also like to thank George Francis, James Kay, Scott Slocombe, Eric Tucs, Beth Dempster, Mary-Louise McAllister and Gordon Nelson for their invaluable contributions to the thinking that led to this work. I also gratefully acknowledge the support of the Ontario Graduate Scholarship Program for providing financial support for my research.

References

Bavington, Dean. 2002. Managerial Ecology and Its Discontents: Exploring the Complexities of Control, Careful Use and Coping in Resource and Environmental Management. Environments 30(3): 3-22.

Bavington, Dean and Scott Slocombe. 2002. Guest Editors. Managerial Ecology: Contestation and Critique. Environments 30(3).

Cerny, Philip. 1997 Paradoxes of the Competition State: The Dynamics of Political Globalization. Government and Opposition. 32(2): 251-274.

Civics Research Group (CRG) 2002 [Accessed in May 2003].

Costanza, Robert. 1997 Frontiers in Ecological Economics: Transdisciplinary Essays. London: Cheltonham.

Dagger, Richard. 1997. Civic Virtues: Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism. New York: Oxford Columbia University Press.

Dempster, Beth and J. Gordon Nelson. 2001. Urban Environmental Planning, Management and Decision-Making. Environments 29(1) Theme Issue.

Flood, Robert Louis. 1999. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable. New York: Routledge.

Funtowicz, Silvio O. and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures. 25(7): 739-755.

Funtowicz, Silvio O. and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1992. Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post Normal Science. S. Krimsky and D. Golding, editors. Social Theories of Risk. Praeger: 230-251.

Gunderson, Lance and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington: Island Press.

Jackson, Michael C. 2000. Systems Approaches to Management. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.

Jessop, Bob. 1995. The Regulation Approach, Governance and Post-Fordism. Economy and Society. 24(3): 307-333.

Jessop, Bob. 1993. Towards a Schumpeterian Workfare State? Preliminary Remarks in Post-Fordist Political Economy. Studies in Political Economy. 40(3): 7-39.

Kay. J. J., H. Regier, M. Boyle and G. Francis 1999. An Ecosystem Approach for Sustainability: Addressing the Challenge of Complexity. Futures 31(7): 721-742.

Kickert, Walter J. M. 1993. Autopoiesis and the Science of (Public) Administration: Essence, Sense and Nonsense. Organization Studies 14(2):261-278.

Kuhn, T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lawrence, P. L. and J. G. Nelson. 1999. Great Lakes and Lake Erie Floods: A Life Cycle and Civics Perspective. Environments 27(1): 1-22.

Luhmann, Nicholas. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

MacLeod, Gordon and Mark Goodwin. 1999. Reconstructing and Urban and Regional Political Economy: On the State, Politics, Scale, and Explanation. Political Geography 18(6):669-696.

Maturana, H. and F. Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co.

McMurray, Andrew. 2002. Management and Ignorance, Theme Issue Commentary. Environments 30(3): 71-74.

Morgan, G. 1993. Imaginization: the Art of Creative Management. London: Sage.

National Science Foundation (NSF). 1999. Biocomplexity: Phase I: Research on the functional interrelationships between microrganisms and biological, chemical, geological, physical and social systems. Washington D.C.: NSF.

Nelson, J. G. 1991. Research in Human Ecology and Planning: An Interactive, Adaptive Approach. The Canadian Geographer 35(2): 114-127.

Portugali, Juval. 2000. Self-Organization and the City. New York: Springer.

Rasch, William and Cary Wolfe. 2000. Observing Complexity: Systems Theory and Postmodernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ravetz, Jerome R. 1999. What is Post-Normal Science. Futures 31(7): 647-653.

Ravetz, Jerome R. and Silvio Funtowicz. 1999. Post-Normal Science: an insight now maturing. Futures 31(7): 641-646.

Rhodes, R. A. W. 1996. The New Governance: Governing Without Government. Political Studies XLIV: 652-667.

Rosenau, James N. 1995. Governance in the Twenty-First Century. Global Governance 1(1): 13-43.

Stoker, Gerry. 1998. Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. International Social Science Journal 155(1): 17-27.

Urban Environmental Management Project 2001 [Accessed in May 2003].

Dan McCarthy is a doctoral candidate in the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo. His research interests focus on the application of complexity-based heuristics, complex systems thinking and critical systems thinking to environmental information and knowledge generation for governance and decision-making primarily at the municipal level. He can be reached through the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W. Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada or at dkmccarthy@sympatico.ca.