Meta-Governance, a Step in Improving the Governance Model Case of study: Petrochemical industry of Iran

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD student, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

2 Prof., Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Abstract
Despite the strengths of the new public governance, researchers have noted the necessity of governance over network governance or meta -governance and ensuring the achievement of public interests and the effectiveness of network actors' activities. But some theorists have considered meta -governance as governance over any governance mode, which is the subject of future research. This research seeks to find the meta–governance model of the existing governance system of the petrochemical industry and solve the challenges related to the lack of a central strategy. Pattern extraction with the help of structured grounded theory method and through in-depth interviews with 22 people (snowball sampling and the necessity of theoretical sampling) from experts and managers in public and private sectors of industry as well as NGO and the initial and centralized coding and analytical notes were done. The 20 theoretical categories found in three clusters and with a systematic connection, have depicted the model of the meta -governance of the industry. The results of this research put meta -governor responsible for designing, steering and evaluating the governance system of the industry by explaining the composition of governance and the role of actors, policymaking and macro planning of the industry and the formulation of functional and professional requirements and criteria; Embedding frameworks and implementing coordination and ensuring the alignment of activities with macro plans; Facilitation of financial resources, information and infrastructures, as well as efforts to empower and find solutions And finally, the actors should be held accountable for the realization of the policies, macro plans, the requirements and standards, and by obtaining feedback, meta -governor should demand reforms and force them if necessary. Applying this meta-governance is possible through amendments in the superior documents and the structure and revision of the duties of the organizational units (at different levels) of the headquarters of the Ministry of Petroleum and the National Company of Petrochemical Industries of Iran.
Introduction
Network governance has some weaknesses in decision-making mechanisms and coordination between different actors; The absence of a system for evaluating the activities of network actors in line with accountability and the possibility of tending to the interests of specific groups and individuals and leaving public interests behind (Osborn, 2010, 41-43). This delegated power requires a larger central strategy or meta-governance to increase effectiveness and improve legitimacy (Sorensen and Torfing, 2016; Sorensen and Torfing, 2009). Another group of theorists, however, consider meta-governance as governance over different governance procedures and believe that the other two styles of governance, i.e., hierarchy and market, will also remain in force and will be subject to meta-governance (Jesop, 2003). Although frameworks have been presented on how to apply meta-governance to governance networks and most of the field researches have been conducted in this area, but the framework of meta-governance from the perspective of meta-governance as governance over different governance procedures is still at the beginning of its verification process. Therefore, the current research aims to search for a model for applying meta-governance over each of the three governance styles (existing in Iran's petrochemical industry).
Case study
The current study was carried out in petrochemical industry of Iran. In the governance system of the petrochemical industry, in addition to the network governance, there are two market modes and hierarchy, and one of the governance challenges of this industry is the absence or meta-governance, which the present research seeks to extract this model.
Materials and Methods
The current research is in an interpretative paradigm, with a simultaneous developmental and practical approach, and will use qualitative methodology. Because in the present research, seeking to find the hidden pattern of supra-governance in Iran's petrochemical industry by searching the experiences and views of the research participants in the governance system of Iran's petrochemical industry with specific spatial, cultural and situational characteristics, the research method is constructivist grounded theory (Charmez, 1390, 235). The statistical population and sample of the research is composed of three groups of selected experts and managers (non-random snowball sampling method) in the public and private sector of the industry and NGOs. A total of 24 in-depth interviews were conducted and initial and centralized coding and analysis continued from the first interview until reaching the research model.
Discussion and Results
From the very beginning of the research, the coding of the recorded in-depth interviews started based on the Charms method. The produced codes (primary, centralized), concepts and categories have been reviewed and modified many times. According to Charmez's point of view, classification was used in the service of emerging theory (pattern) for theoretical integration and comparison of categories (Charmez, 2010, 209). The theoretical categories of each clusters have a high internal coherence and their conceptual connection has made the classification possible. The explanation of the connections between theoretical concepts and categories in the model is also presented using diagramming. The three clusters of design, steering and evaluation of the governance system in the model have a two-way relationship and envision meta-governance responsibilities in the form of a system with prerequisite communications and feedback. The responsibilities of the meta-governance in each of these three clusters are explained in the form of the final extracted theoretical categories (20 categories):
The cluster of design (governance system) includes the categories of (participation in) explaining the composition of governance and the role of actors, participation in policymaking and macro-planning of the (industrial) development of the country, (participation in) embedding frameworks and persuasion, policymaking and macro-planning of Industry, structure design (invisible) of petrochemical industry.
The steering category (governance system) includes the categories of aligning with policies and plans, developing requirements and guidelines, evaluating qualifications and licensing activities, implementing coordination and coherence, embedding bills and supporting (financial) mechanisms, providing information sources and raising awareness, providing infrastructure and facilities, strengthening and empowering and support and finding solutions.
The cluster of evaluation (governance system) includes the categories of being accountable for the achievement of the policies and plans of the industry, being accountable for the requirements and instructions, obtaining and analyzing the opinions of the stakeholders, improving the performance, playing role of Arbitrator and verdict and coercion.
Conclusion
This research has succeeded in presenting a model for meta-governance in the form of governance over different governance modes. By presenting this framework, which is the research value-added value of this study, the meta-governance will be the responsible for designing, steering and evaluating the governance system. The model presented in this research with the concepts taken from the views of theorists who believe in the necessity of governance over governance modes has shown a high compliance in terms of the nature of meta-governance duties and in addition succeeded in determining the functionality of this Concepts. The functions explained for the meta-governors indicate that the realization of these responsibilities is not limited to sovereignty affairs or not only from the list of duties related to the formulation and implementation of standards and regulations (regulation). The organization of these tasks can be done in the form of structural reorganization and changing the description of duties and responsibilities of the organizational units (at different levels) in the headquarters of the Ministry of Petroleum and the National Petrochemical Industry Company; Obviously, to perform some of these tasks, new organizational units must be thought of. Another issue is that in the fulfillment of meta-governance responsibilities, the experts and executives of the industry in the private sector and experts and those concerned about the issues of the industry in form of NGOs (even unorganized) are also active and their information, analyzes and the proposals of this triple set of actors will be the basis of decisions made at high levels of meta-governor.

Keywords

References

منابع فارسی
آقازاده محمدرضا، عسگری طیبه، شاهی عادله و فرهمند آمنه. (1394). طراحی مدل فرآیندی تدوین استراتژی سازمان­های حاکمیت بر مبنای پارادایم حکمرانی شبکه­ای، مدیریت سازمان­های دولتی، 4(1)، 27-56.
ایزدبخش حمید. (1397). تأملی در رابطه نظام سلامت و تحلیل نهادی از منظر استروم درس تحلیل نهادی، گاهنامه حکمتانه (پژوهشکده سیاست پژوهی و مطالعات راهبردی حکمت)، 2(14)، 12-4.
خواجه نایینی، علی. (1393). در آمدی بر مفهوم حکمرانی شبکه­ای؛ مطلوبیت ها و چالش­ها، رهیافت­های سیاسی و بین المللی، 6(1)، 155-129.  
غلامپور آهنگر، ابراهیم؛ ادیانی، سید یونس و خواجه نایینی، علی. (1395). مروری بر مفهوم حکمرانی شبکه­ای، دفتر مطالعات بنیادین حکومتی (مرکز پژوهش­های مجلس شورای اسلامی)، شماره مسلسل گزارش 14930.
References
Aghazadeh, M. R., Asgari, T., Shahi, A., & Farahmand, A. (2016). Designing strategy formulation processing model of governmental organizations based on network governance. Quarterly Journal of Public Organizations Management, 4(1), 29-52 (In Persian).
Bell, S., & Hindmoor, A. (2009). Rethinking governance: The centrality of the state in modern society. Cambridge University Press.
Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. (2010). The state as cultural practice. OUP Oxford; Chapter 5.
Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2003). Interpreting british governance. Routledge.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory (Translated by Kazemi Movahed, M., & Irani, H. R.) Tehran: Rasa Publishing.
Damgaard, B., & Torfing, J. (2011). The impact of metagovernance on local governance networks. Lessons from Danish employment policy. Local Government Studies, 37(3), 291-316.
Doberstein, C. (2013). Metagovernance of urban governance networks in Canada: In pursuit of legitimacy and accountability. Canadian Public Administration, 56(4), 584-609.
Dommett, K., & Flinders, M. (2015). The centre strikes back: Meta‐governance, delegation, and the core executive in the United Kingdom, 2010–14. Public Administration, 93(1), 1-16.
Dunn-Cavelty, M., & Suter, M. (2009). Public–Private Partnerships are no silver bullet: An expanded governance model for Critical Infrastructure Protection. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 2(4), 179-187.
Ek Österberg, E., & Qvist, M. (2022). Meta-governance as partial organization. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 1-19.
Fotel, T., & Hanssen, G.S. (2009). Meta-governance of regional governance networks in Nordic countries. Local Government Studies, 35(5), 557-576.
Gholampour-Ahangar, E., Adiyani, S. Y. & Khajeh Naini, A. (2015), A review of the concept of network governance, Office of Basic Governmental Studies (Islamic Parliament Research Center), report serial number 14930 (In Persian).
Gjaltema, J., Biesbroek, R., & Termeer, K. (2020). From government to governance… to meta-governance: a systematic literature review. Public Management Review, 22(12), 1760-1780.
Glaser, B.G. (2007). Constructivist grounded theory? Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung. Supplement, 93-105.
Hooge, E. H., Waslander, S., & Theisens, H. C. (2022). The many shapes and sizes of meta-governance. An empirical study of strategies applied by a well-advanced meta-governor: the case of Dutch central government in education. Public Management Review, 24(10), 1591-1609.
Hovik, S., & Edvardsen, M. (2003, May). Private–public partnership in local nature conservation in Norway. In Conference on Democratic Network Governance, Helsingør (pp. 22-23).
Hovik, S., & Vabo, S.I. (2005). Norwegian Local Councils as Democratic Meta‐governors? A Study of Networks Established to Manage Cross‐border Natural Resources. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 257-275.
Izadbakhsh, H. (2018), A reflection on the relationship between the health system and institutional analysis from the perspective of Strom's institutional analysis course, Hekmatane, 2(14), 4-12 (In Persian).
Jagiello, K., (2019), Seeking to Do What’s Best for Baby: A Grounded Theory, The Grounded Theory Review, 18(1), 1, 65-82.
Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jessop, B. (2003). Governance and meta-governance: on reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. Governance as social and political communication, 101.
Jessop, B. (2011) ‘Metagovernance’, in M. Bevir (ed.), The Sage Handbook of Governance. London: Sage, 106-123.
Kersbergen, K.V. & F.V. Waarden. (2004). ‘“Governance” as a Bridge between Disciplines: Cross-disciplinary Inspiration Regarding Shifts in Governance and Problems of Governability, Accountability and Legitimacy’, European Journal of Political Research, 43(2), 143 – 171.
Khajeh Naeini, A. (2014). An introduction to the concept of network governance; Desires and Challenges, Journal of Political and International Approaches, 6(1), 129-155 (In Persian).
Klijn, E.H. (2008). Governance and governance networks in Europe: An assessment of ten years of research on the theme. Public management review, 10(4), 505-525.
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. Sage.
Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks: Public private controversies. Routledge.
Koppenjan, J., Kars, M., & van der Voort, H. (2011). Politicians as Metagovernors—Can Metagovernance Reconcile Representative Democracy and Network Reality? ECPR Press: Colchester, UK, 129-148.
Meuleman, L. (2010). The cultural dimension of metagovernance: Why governance doctrines may fail. Public Organization Review, 10(1), 49-70
Müller, R., Alix-Séguin, C., Alonderienė, R., Bourgault, M., Chmieliauskas, A., Drouin, N., & Zhu, F. (2022). A (meta) governance framework for multi-level governance of inter-organizational project networks. Production Planning & Control, 1-20.
Murphy‐Gregory, H., & Gale, F. (2019). Governing the governors: the global metagovernance of fair trade and sustainable forestry production. Politics & Policy, 47(3), 569-597.
Osborne, S. P. (2010), The New Public Governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance, Routledge taylor & Francis group.
Ottens, M., & Edelenbos, J. (2018). Political leadership as meta-governance in sustainability transitions: A case study analysis of meta-governance in the case of the Dutch national agreement on climate. Sustainability, 11(1), 110.
Scharpf, F.W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Skelcher, C. (2007). Does democracy matter? A transatlantic research design on democratic performance and special purpose governments. Journal of public administration research and theory, 17(1), 61-76.
Sørensen, C. H., Hansson, L., & Rye, T. (2023). The role of meta-governance in public transport systems: A comparison of major urban regions in Denmark and England. Transport Policy, 130, 37-45.
Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American review of public administration, 36(1), 98-114.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public administration, 87(2), 234-258.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2016). Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(7), 826-839.
Stark, A. (2015). More micro than meta? Competing concepts of metagovernance in the European Union. Public Policy and Administration, 30(1), 73-91.
Thuesen, A.A. (2013). Experiencing multi-level meta-governance. Local Government Studies, 39(4), 600-623.
Treharne, G. J., & D.W. Riggs. (2014). Ensuring quality in qualitative research. In Qualitative research in clinical and health psychology, ed. P. Rohleder and A. Lyons, 57–73. London: Red Globe Press.
Wenene, M. T., Steen, T., & Rutgers, M. R. (2016). Civil servants’ perspectives on the role of citizens in public service delivery in Uganda. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 169-189.
Whitehead, M. (2003). ‘In the shadow of hierarchy’: meta‐governance, policy reform and urban regeneration in the West Midlands. Area, 35(1), 6-14.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics