Enabling Collaborative Governance

through Systems Modeling Methods:

Public Policy Design and
Implementation Carmine Bianchi
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/enabling-collaborative-governance-through-systems-
modeling-methods-public-policy-design-and-implementation-carmine-bianchi/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Spatial agent-based simulation modeling in public

health: design, implementation, and applications for
malaria epidemiology 1st Edition Arifin

https://textbookfull.com/product/spatial-agent-based-simulation-
modeling-in-public-health-design-implementation-and-applications-
for-malaria-epidemiology-1st-edition-arifin/

Infrastructure Delivery Systems Governance and

Implementation Issues Bankole Osita Awuzie

https://textbookfull.com/product/infrastructure-delivery-systems-
governance-and-implementation-issues-bankole-osita-awuzie/

Nonlinear Regression Modeling for Engineering

Applications Modeling Model Validation and Enabling
Design of Experiments 1st Edition R. Russell Rhinehart

https://textbookfull.com/product/nonlinear-regression-modeling-
for-engineering-applications-modeling-model-validation-and-
enabling-design-of-experiments-1st-edition-r-russell-rhinehart/

Database Systems: Design, Implementation, and

Management 13th Edition Carlos Coronel

https://textbookfull.com/product/database-systems-design-
implementation-and-management-13th-edition-carlos-coronel/
Database Systems Design Implementation Management 12th
Edition Carlos Coronel

https://textbookfull.com/product/database-systems-design-
implementation-management-12th-edition-carlos-coronel/

PISA Policy and the OECD Respatialising Global

Educational Governance Through PISA for Schools Steven
Lewis

https://textbookfull.com/product/pisa-policy-and-the-oecd-
respatialising-global-educational-governance-through-pisa-for-
schools-steven-lewis/

Public–Private Partnerships: Policy and Governance

Challenges Facing Kazakhstan and Russia 1st Edition
Nikolai Mouraviev

https://textbookfull.com/product/public-private-partnerships-
policy-and-governance-challenges-facing-kazakhstan-and-
russia-1st-edition-nikolai-mouraviev/

Linear and Switch-Mode RF Power Amplifiers: Design and

Implementation Methods 1st Edition Abdullah Eroglu

https://textbookfull.com/product/linear-and-switch-mode-rf-power-
amplifiers-design-and-implementation-methods-1st-edition-
abdullah-eroglu/

Desegregating Chicago s Public Schools Policy

Implementation Politics and Protest 1965 1985 1st
Edition Dionne Danns (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/desegregating-chicago-s-public-
schools-policy-implementation-politics-and-protest-1965-1985-1st-
edition-dionne-danns-auth/
System Dynamics for Performance Management
& Governance 4

Carmine Bianchi
Luis F. Luna-Reyes
Eliot Rich Editors

Enabling
Collaborative
Governance through
Systems Modeling
Methods
Public Policy Design and
Implementation
System Dynamics for Performance Management
& Governance

Volume 4

Series Editor
Carmine Bianchi, Department of Political Sciences, CED4-System
Dynamics Group, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13452

Scientific Committee for System Dynamics for Performance
Management & Governance
Luca Anselmi University of Pisa, Italy—Professor of Public Administration
David Birdsell Baruch College/CUNY, USA—Dean, School of Public Affairs
Elio Borgonovi Bocconi University, Milan, Italy—Professor of Economics and
Management of Public Administration
Tony Bovaird University of Birmingham, UK—Professor of Public Management
and Policy
Dario Cavenago Bicocca University, Milan, Italy—Professor of Public Management
Lino Cinquini Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy—Professor of Business
Administration
Paal I. Davidsen University of Bergen, Norway—Professor of System Dynamics,
Chair of the System Dynamics Group
John Hallighan University of Canberra, Australia—Emeritus Professor of Public
Administration and Governance
David Lane Henley Business School, UK—Professor of Informatics
Manuel London State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA—Distinguished
Professor of Management
Luciano Marchi University of Pisa, Italy—Professor of Planning & Control Systems
Marco Meneguzzo Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano—Switzerland;
University Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy—Professor of Public Management
Riccardo Mussari University of Siena, Italy—Professor of Public Management
Guy Peters University of Pittsburgh, USA—Maurice Falk Professor, Department
of Political Science
Angelo Riccaboni University of Siena, Italy—Professor of Planning &
Control Systems
William C. Rivenbark University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA—MPA
Program Director, School of Government
Etienne Rouwette Nijmegen School of Management, The Netherlands—Associate
Professor of Research Methodology and System Dynamics
Salvatore Rotella Riverside College, California, USA—Chancellor Emeritus and
Professor of Political Science
Khalid Saeed Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA—Professor of System
Dynamics
Markus Schwaninger University of St Gallen, Switzerland—Professor of
Management
Carlo Sorci University of Palermo, Italy—Professor of Business Management
Jürgen Strohhecker Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, Germany—
Professor for Business Administration, Operations and Cost Management
Jarmo Vakkuri University of Tampere, Finland—Professor of Local Government
Accounting & Finance
Wouter Van Dooren University of Antwerp, Belgium—Associate Professor of
Public Management
David Wheat University of Bergen, Norway—Professor in System Dynamics
Carmine Bianchi • Luis F. Luna-Reyes
Eliot Rich
Editors

Enabling Collaborative
Governance through Systems
Modeling Methods
Public Policy Design and Implementation
Editors
Carmine Bianchi Luis F. Luna-Reyes
Department of Political Sciences Department of Public Administration
CED4 – System Dynamics Group & Policy
University of Palermo University at Albany, SUNY
Palermo, Italy Albany, NY, USA

Eliot Rich
Department of IS & Business Analytics
University at Albany, SUNY
Albany, NY, USA

ISSN 2367-0940     ISSN 2367-0959 (electronic)

System Dynamics for Performance Management & Governance
ISBN 978-3-030-42969-0    ISBN 978-3-030-42970-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42970-6

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents

Foreword����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   vii
(by John M. Bryson)
Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    xi
(by Carmine Bianchi, Luis F. Luna-Reyes, and Eliot Rich)

Part I Systems Approaches to Collaborative Governance

Networks and Policy Implementation
  1 Applying Governing Networks and Multilevel Scales
to Address Wicked Problems������������������������������������������������������������������    3
Henrik P. Minassians and Ravi K. Roy
  2 Participative Governance of the Swiss Construction
Material Industry: Transitioning Business Models
and Public Policy��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   23
Daniel Kliem and Alexander Scheidegger
  3 Leveraging Collaborative Governance: How Co-production
Contributes to Outcomes and Public Value in a Small Town��������������   47
Vincenzo Vignieri
  4 The Conceptual Dynamic Model of Rural Development
Towards Sustainable Self-­Sufficiency����������������������������������������������������   73
Athor Subroto and Vanda Ningrum
  5 Policy Implementation: A Review of Selected Literature��������������������   91
Joshua Mugambwa, Isaac Nkote Nabeta, Mohamed Ngoma,
Nichodemus Rudaheranwa, Will Kaberuka, and John C. Munene

v
vi Contents

Part II Systems Methods to Enable Collaborative Planning

and Decision Making
  6 A Model-Based Governance and Planning Tool
for HIV/AIDS Services in Vietnam�������������������������������������������������������� 119
Gary Hirsch and James Rice
  7 Collaboration Governance and System Dynamics
Modelling: What Do Clients Want? ������������������������������������������������������ 141
Rodney J. Scott and Robert Y. Cavana
  8 Multi-Criteria Policy Options Analysis of the Swedish
Environmental Goals Using Indexed Causal Loop
Diagram Modelling Method�������������������������������������������������������������������� 175
Hördur V. Haraldsson
  9 Participatory Multicriteria Evaluation of Metropolitan
Transportation Planning System Scenarios: Navigating
Trade-Offs for Collaborative Design
of Sustainable Communities������������������������������������������������������������������� 191
Asim Zia

Part III Collaborative Governance and Dynamic

Performance Management
10 Patronage and the Public Service: A Dynamic
Performance Governance Perspective���������������������������������������������������� 215
B. Guy Peters and Carmine Bianchi
11 Blending Collaborative Governance and Dynamic
Performance Management to Foster Policy Coordination
in Renewable Energy Supply Chains ���������������������������������������������������� 237
Milton M. Herrera, Federico Cosenz, and Isaac Dyner
12 Applying Dynamic Performance Management to Public
Emergency Management: An Analysis of the
Wenchuan Earthquake���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 263
Linlin Wang, Enzo Bivona, Haiyan Yan, and Jiayin Qi
13 Institutional Logics Analysis for Enabling Collaborative
DPM Processes: Universities’ Third Mission
Performance as an Illustrative Example������������������������������������������������ 277
Francesca Ricciardi, Paola De Bernardi, Canio Forliano,
and Mattia Franco
14 Fostering Collaborative Governance in Chronic
Disease Management Programs: A Dynamic
Performance Management Approach���������������������������������������������������� 297
Enzo Bivona and Guido Noto
Contents vii

15 Applying Dynamic Performance Management

to Foster Collaborative Governance in Higher Education:
A Conceptual Framework���������������������������������������������������������������������� 317
Zhenping Zhang, Enzo Bivona, Jiayin Qi, and Haiyan Yan

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 335
Foreword
(by John M. Bryson)

Humans have a rather astonishing array of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral

limitations. Given all of that, it is somewhat surprising that we have emerged as the
dominant species on the planet. It must mean that most of the competition was and
is relatively weak. After all, we are vastly outnumbered by bacteria, viruses, crusta-
ceans, insects, fish, birds, and much else. Nonetheless, based on our ability to think,
make and use tools, cooperate, and procreate, we have been able to shape our envi-
ronments in ways that enabled “victory,” at least for a large fraction of (the now-­
quite-­numerous) us. For example, noted cognitive scientist, linguist, and popular
science author Steven Pinker argues in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature
(2011) that violence in human societies is generally down from previous times. In
addition, Pinker in his book Enlightenment Now (2018) and Nobel Prize-winning
economist Angus Deaton in The Great Escape (2015) argue that the available data
indicate a general improvement of the human condition over recent history.
The victories, however, are never complete and never permanent. Governance
regimes and vital institutions can be fragile; power can be abused; civic engagement
can be badly skewed and otherwise problematic; knowledge, theory, and analysis
can be incomplete or just plain wrong; learning may be incomplete, superstitious, or
absent; public values such as liberty, justice, equity, security, and democracy can be
undermined. Our cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacities; inclinations to
cooperate; and institutions face some severe challenges, including the fact that we
humans in some circumstances can be our own worst enemies. The causes and con-
sequences of climate change, serious threats to global security, severe inequalities,
terrible human rights violations, instabilities in the Middle East, and other issues
addressed in this book are just some of the many challenges.

J. M. Bryson
McKnight Presidential Professor of Planning and Public Affairs,
Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN, USA

ix
x Foreword

To address these and other challenges we need good ideas (policies, programs,
etc.) worth implementing that can be implemented, along with coalitions of support
large enough and strong enough to adopt the ideas and protect them during imple-
mentation. More broadly, we need to have worthy aspirations (vision, mission, val-
ues, principles, goals) that can be achieved via approaches (governance arrangements,
policies, strategies) that are supported by the capabilities (institutional, political,
social, economic, organizational, administrative, technological, financial, analytic,
engagement-oriented, etc.) necessary to achieve them.
Unfortunately, the big challenges we humans face are all embedded in large,
complex—or at the very least, quite complicated—systems. So right off the bat our
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral limitations cause mischief absent good institu-
tions built around a sound, pragmatic understanding of the problem at hand and
approaches to managing the challenges effectively. We individuals can only keep a
few pieces of information in short-term consciousness at a time—thus the informa-
tional content of most systems totally outstrips any individual’s capacity to keep it
in mind. We need some sort of external representation and memory to keep track of
it all, let alone analyze it. The challenge is much worse when you take feedback
effects into account. In short, we humans are badly disabled when it comes to han-
dling dynamic situations involving lots of inter-related elements, stakeholders, and
feedback effects. Add in the cumulative disabilities of all the key actors and stake-
holders involved or affected and you have a great pool of ignorance. When that
ignorance infiltrates the resource pool that supports and guides action, some really
dumb, disappointing, and often extremely damaging stuff can happen.
So how do we come up with worthy aspirations, approaches to achieving them,
and the capabilities needed to power the approaches? Problem formulation and
problem-solving using systems principles can help. Drawing on these principles is
especially useful for coming up with good ideas worth implementing that can be
implemented. When deployed in a group setting or when key stakeholders are oth-
erwise engaged with understanding, analyzing, and addressing important chal-
lenges, systems principles can also help with building the coalition of support
needed to adopt recommendations flowing from the effort and protecting them dur-
ing implementation.
Enabling Collaborative Governance Through Systems Modeling Methods is a
valuable and much-needed book. As the editors Carmine Bianchi, Luis Luna-Reyes,
and Elliot Rich note in their introduction, the focus is on “collaborative governance
for public policy and managerial problem-solving through systemic principles, as
well as through the use of group processes to facilitate agreement and buy-in regard-
ing collective strategies.” In other words, the book is meant to foster understanding
and analysis of complex systems in such a way that changes can be made to produce
better outcomes. The inventory of systems modeling and analysis approaches is
diverse. This volume focuses on a few of these, including system dynamics model-
ing, participatory approaches to system dynamics modeling, and the use of system
dynamics for performance management. The book shows clearly how system
dynamics thinking can make extremely valuable contributions to collaborative gov-
ernance, policy making, and implementation not likely using other methods. Hooray
for this book!
Foreword xi

The book is especially timely because of the heightened need for collaboration
across boundaries of many kinds, including business, government, nonprofit, civil
society, and national boundaries, if important, and especially public, challenges are
to be addressed effectively. The book can help broaden the understanding and use of
system dynamics approaches in the fields of political science, policy analysis, and
public, nonprofit, and business management. Indeed, my hope is that schools of
public affairs, public policy, public administration, and planning will all embrace
systems approaches, and system dynamics in particular, as part of their curricula.
That way the stock of knowledgeable practitioners can increase so that the flow of
good collaborations, analyses, interventions, and governance can increase. As a
result, one can easily imagine we can all be made better off—and that is precisely
what we ought to want.
Introduction
(by Carmine Bianchi, Luis F. Luna-Reyes, and Eliot Rich)

Public policy implementation remains a vital topic for research and practice, par-
ticularly in the current debate surrounding the pursuit of sustainable social develop-
ment and community quality of life. Lack of coordination between the political and
administrative levels in a single agency is a major cause of inconsistency in the
provision of public services. Moreover, with trends on New Public Management
(Osborne & Gaebler, 1992), New Public Governance (Osborne, 2006), Networked
Government (Bryson, Crosby, & Bloomberg, 2014; Stoker, 2006), and Joined-up
Government (Bogdanor, 2005), coordination among government agencies and coor-
dination among government, the private sector, and civil society become also neces-
sary. Inconsistent policy design and unsustainable policy implementation are
associated often with the use of an overly narrow, static and non-systemic view that
is insufficiently robust for the dynamic complexity of the current spate of “wicked”
social problems (Eden, Jones, & Sims, 1983), e.g., unemployment, youth disen-
gagement, social cohesion, domestic violence, child abuse, crime, corruption, ter-
rorism, poverty, migration flows of refugees, homelessness, climate change, and
natural disasters. Such policy areas involve a multitude of complex dynamic prob-
lems that today’s societies expect to deal with as they pursue resilience and improved
quality of life. Failing to consider the dynamic complexity of such problems

C. Bianchi
Department of Political Sciences,
CED4 – System Dynamics Group,
University of Palermo,
Palermo, Italy
L. F. Luna-Reyes
Department of Public Administration & Policy,
University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, USA
E. Rich
Department of IS & Business Analytics,
University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, USA

xiii
xiv Introduction

increases the risk of policy resistance and of the counterintuitive, unpredictable

behavior of the systems that a public agency may try to affect through its own
actions. In addition to the intrinsic complexity of the problems, coordinating policy
and actions to solve them usually involves a multitude of policymakers and other
stakeholders from the public, but also from the nonprofit and the private sectors.
Moreover, the literature on collaborative governance notes the need to avoid
adversarial conditions between the public and private sectors in problem examina-
tion and resource acquisition and deployment (Ansell & Gash, 2008). The current
political climate promotes investment in programs that provide high value to both
private and public sectors, without a good understanding of the possible trade-offs
that skew results toward one sector or another over time.
This opening chapter sets out a structure for considering collaborative gover-
nance for public policy and managerial problem-solving through systemic ­principles,
as well as through the use of group processes to facilitate agreement and buy-in in
collective strategies. Such a collection of tools, techniques, and frameworks is
needed to establish the value of these approaches and to accelerate their dissemina-
tion through the field.
As mentioned in previous paragraphs, the importance of collaboration among
government agencies and other partners, such as private organizations and nonprof-
its, is part of several streams of literature such as collaborative public management,
multi-partner governance, joined-up government, public value management, or net-
worked government (Bryson et al., 2014; Stoker, 2006). Also, collaborative
approaches to developing governmental IT projects are appealing for several rea-
sons (Faerman, McCaffrey, & Van Slyke, 2001; McCaffrey, Faerman, & Hart,
1995). Collaboration is frequently triggered by a problem that requires actions
involving multiple stakeholders (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bryson, Crosby, & Stone,
2006; Luna-Reyes, 2013): (1) a complex problem requiring external assistance
(Bryson et al., 2006; Dawes, Cresswell, & Pardo, 2009; Vangen & Huxham, 2011),
or when the problem or task requires expertise beyond organizational boundaries
(Black, Carlile, & Repenning, 2004; Daley, 2009), (2) an opportunity to use
resources in a more effective way (Bardach, 2001), and (3) the opportunity to inno-
vate in the provision of services (Page, 2003; Yuan & Gasco-Hernandez, 2019).
Ansell and Gash (2008) developed a model to guide collaboration processes across
organizational boundaries. Their model comprises five main components: starting
conditions, institutional design, and facilitative leadership determine the collabora-
tive process which, in turn, determines outcomes. Starting conditions refer to the
main incentives and constraints to participate in a collaborative effort, comprising
asymmetries in terms of power, resources, and knowledge, as well as the previous
history of collaboration among partners. The second element in their model, institu-
tional design, involves participatory inclusiveness, forum exclusiveness, clear
ground rules, and process transparency.
Institutional design may also include, more generally, the main decision-making
rules, design policies, network structure, and assessment mechanisms. A third
important component of the model involves facilitative leadership. The fourth com-
ponent involves the collaboration process itself. Often, the literature considers this
Introduction xv

as a set of virtuous (or vicious) cycles where collaboration brings commitment

among participants and shared understanding about the problem area, improving
results (Vangen & Huxham, 2011). The virtuous cycle becomes a trap when there is
no trust, people will not develop commitment or shared understanding, and when
the likelihood to obtain the planned outcomes is low. Commitment and shared
understanding specify the way in which collaboration enhances processes to reach
positive outcomes as the fifth component of the model. Bryson, Crosby, and Stone
(2015), on the other hand, characterize collaborative governance as a black box of
interactions between collaboration processes and structures. Such interactions
express themselves in the face of leadership, technology, governance, and capacity
to collaborate. They also suggest that systems approaches could be useful to under-
stand the black box better, providing a better understanding on the complexity of
both problems and the necessary collaboration. This edited volume is an attempt to
respond to their call and provide a first approximation to collaborative approaches
through systems approaches.

 ystems Approaches and Collaborative Governance

S
as Included in This Volume

Systems approaches are diverse and include both hard and soft methodologies, as
well as unitarian, pluralistic, and coercive perspectives (Jackson, 2003). This vol-
ume focuses on a few specific perspectives among the diverse set of systems
approaches. First, most of the contributions in the book relate to system dynamics,
a system approach based on the understanding of dynamic behaviors over time as
well as feedback processes that explain the behaviors over time (Richardson, 2011).
Also, contributions in the book focus on participatory approaches to system dynam-
ics identified in the literature as Group Model Building (Richardson, Andersen, &
Luna-Reyes, 2015; Vennix, 1996). Finally, the book presents a specific application
of system dynamics to performance management. In the following sections, we
briefly describe these approaches.

 roup Model Building as an Approach to Collaborative

G
Modeling

Group Model Building (GMB) is a technique for exploring complex problems that
use some combination of collective effort to produce knowledge artifacts. While
similar approaches are practiced widely, under names like Joint Application Design,
Collaborative Workshops, Brainstorming, Delphi, Participatory Modeling, and
many others, we focus here on the use of GMB and System Dynamics (SD)
Modeling. In this context, the knowledge artifacts include constructs specific to SD,
xvi Introduction

such as causal maps and reference and aspirational behaviors over time as well as
focal and prioritized issue lists, domain epistemology, and other outcomes common
to collective ideation (Black & Andersen, 2012; Luna‐Reyes et al., 2019). A GMB
project may be a one-shot activity, though it is often part of a series of stakeholder
and modeler tasks that include revisiting and refinement of the models and other
work products (Andersen, Richardson, & Vennix, 1997; Scott, 2018).
GMB efforts usually include a mix of formal and informal activities. With some
variation depending upon the context, these include stages of solicitation of indi-
vidual perspectives, followed by an articulation of a dynamic hypothesis expressing
facets of the problem through system behaviors over time. These, in turn, are linked
through causal structures common to SD models. There is a rich literature on how
to prepare for and execute the modeling effort (Andersen & Richardson, 1997,
2010; Hovmand et al., 2012; Richardson & Andersen, 1995; Richardson et al.,
2015) as well as how to interpret the formal and informal materials generated
through the process (Black, 2013; Black & Andersen, 2012; Luna‐Reyes et al.,
2019). In our own experience, GMB projects tend to be very intensive and expen-
sive efforts and warrant the careful preparation described by these authors. Even
with careful preparation, there are often moments where improvisational facilitation
skills are beneficial.
In his Forrester Award lecture to the International Conference of the System
Dynamics Society, Vennix (1999) notes three motivations for including GMB in
systems projects: improved knowledge capture, model implementation, and
increased participant learning. When stakeholders provide insights into the problem
collectively, we anticipate more effective (e.g., insightful) and efficient (e.g., ideas
per hour) results. As perceptions of possible root causes may vary based on the posi-
tion of the individual, successful articulation of contrasts and parallels are surfaced.
In the context of GMB, model implementation again takes many forms: illustrations
of classic system archetypes (Kim, 1993) or variations of small models that capture
classic systems behaviors (viz., “Boom and Bust,” see (Sterman, 2000)). Even mod-
els with limited fidelity to data can produce meaningful lessons, stimulate explora-
tion of the problem, and increase stakeholder engagement (Ghaffarzadegan, Lyneis,
& Richardson, 2011). Developing robust simulation models is very difficult to
accomplish during the time constraints of a GMB meeting. Anecdotal reports of
multi-day GMB efforts with the modelers working overnight to produce refined
models indicate that the effort was of limited value.1 On the other hand, integrating
stakeholders into the validation of a robust model may improve both the quality of
the model and the learning outcomes (van Nistelrooij, Rouwette, Verstijnen, &
Vennix, 2015).
The third motivation, increased participant learning, is perhaps the particularly
valuable facet of a GMB project. Here we recognize the potential growth of the
systems perspective among participants. Broadening the view of the problem to

1
David Andersen notes that in his experience attempting to create a robust running model during a
GMB was akin to a “parlor trick” rather than of value. Andersen, D.F., (n.d.), personal
communication.
Introduction xvii

account for multiple perspectives, enabled through the co-creation of causal mod-
els, specification of desirable and undesirable outcomes, creates a platform for
leverage and change. It also opens opportunities to share aspects of the problem that
cross organizational boundaries and priorities. As participants work together over
several sessions to define, refine, and strategize a complex problem, their trust in
each other and their organizations is expected to increase. Both formal research and
informal observation note that active participation in the modeling process may
affect the feelings of ownership among the stakeholders, increase interpersonal
trust, and reinforce the value of the process and the outcomes.
The evaluation studies surrounding GMB-based SD projects demonstrate both
promise and pitfalls. Rouwette, Vennix, and Van Mullekom (2002) performed a
meta-analysis of 107 case studies that integrated stakeholders into the modeling
process. Their conclusions showed mixed results: Many case studies reported
­positive learning effects, and an increase in commitment, though the variety of
assessment techniques and data reports made summary judgments uncertain.
Hovmand et al. (2012) help address the inconsistency through the application of
standardized scripts that improve effectiveness and address cultural barriers. More
recent studies provide focused insight into outcomes, with emphasis on the role of
boundary objects linked to participant recollection (Scott, Cavana, & Cameron,
2016). Stave, Dwyer, and Turner (2019) found that participant satisfaction and out-
come quality may differ within the same intervention, so that care needs to be taken
on how to evaluate GMB results at the individual and organizational level. McCardle‐
Keurentjes, Rouwette, Vennix, and Jacobs (2018) extend the evaluation space
through a controlled experiment examining the role of models in a group setting,
finding partial support for the role of qualitative models on insight and confidence
in a group decision process. As is usually the case, more study on the effectiveness
of GMB is warranted.
A final observation on the role of SD and GMB comes from the use of existing
models to help develop consensus or motivations for stakeholder action. In these
applications, the model can be used as an experimental platform to examine the
effect of policy choices on possible futures. Large-scale, data-driven models such as
C-Roads (Sterman et al., 2012) help stakeholder groups envision possible futures
and affect national and global futures (Rooney-Varga et al., 2018).

Dynamic Performance Management

An important domain for public management well represented in this volume is the
domain of performance management. Systems thinking and collaborative gover-
nance in this context are relevant because, in today’s complex, plural, and frag-
mented governance settings, a single organization can manage only a subset of the
resources affecting the wider system outcomes (Osborne, 2010). In this context,
innovative performance governance methods (Bouckaert & Halligan, 2008) can
become a key to foster the implementation of a “whole of government” approach
4 H. P. Minassians and R. K. Roy

This study provides extensive discussion of the literature and examines how
evolving public networks of actors came together to address the human trafficking
problem in a locality.

Keywords Network governance · Scalar politics · Public management · Wicked

problems

Public administrators throughout the world operate in highly differentiated politi-

cal, social, and economic contexts. Consequently, the resources and capacities of
public administrators and the agencies in which they work tend to vary widely
across these contexts. With the intensification of globalization in recent decades,
economic, social, political, and ideological issues are increasingly transcending
national and regional boundaries. Indeed, many of these issues extend beyond the
scope of sovereign governments and often circumvent the formal apparatuses of the
state. Constrained in their ability to tackle such problems at their foreign source,
local public administrators must adapt to working in environments that are increas-
ingly unstable and hence much less predictable. Theodoulou and Roy (2016) claim
that as a result, “a new era characterized by ‘unreason’ and ‘confusion’ where ‘no
one is in charge’ is quickly eclipsing ‘rationalized’ processes that have characteristi-
cally been associated with the relatively stable nation-state–centric system.” In the
past few decades, this has been exacerbated due to the rise of greater reliance on
government contracting. Hence, formal top-down organizational structures and pro-
cesses emphasized in traditional public management paradigms are increasingly
being reconsidered.
Traditional public management paradigms emphasizing the role of formal orga-
nizations are proving inadequate to address many globally-sourced wicked prob-
lems such as human trafficking. As a result, concepts such as network governance
are increasingly studied. Milward and Provan (2006) attribute the rise of societal
networks to the hollowing-out of the state and the weakening capacity of govern-
ments to address complex social, political, and economic issues. Relatedly, the mul-
tilevel and multiscale character of many of today’s policy issues and solutions
reflect the network structures through which they have emerged. Scholars and prac-
titioners of public management must develop innovative conceptual approaches that
allow us to map the activities of multiscale networks. This will equip us better as we
address complex, wicked social problems with the appropriate policy and adminis-
trative tools.
A major challenge facing public managers in tackling wicked social problems is
the difficulty in conceptualizing the complex collective action issues that come into
play when numerous state and social network actors are involved. This study relies
on Gibson, Ostrom, and Ahn’s (2000) typology as a foundation for our conceptual
1 Applying Governing Networks and Multilevel Scales to Address Wicked Problems 5

framework. Considering that the natural sciences have long understood the
­importance of scales, there is a paucity of knowledge in the social sciences. More
specifically, in the social sciences, the idea of scales has been less explicit, less pre-
cise, and more variable.
To help us illustrate the applicability of this framework, we will examine the
interactions of different purposed organizations operating in complex cross-­
organizational environments. These include, for example, state, county, municipal,
nonprofit, private, and voluntary networks. More specifically, we will apply this
framework to map the size, scope, and depth of interactions between the organiza-
tions participating in a Los Angeles Police Department-led human trafficking task
force. Using this approach, we will be better able to assess the task force’s impact
in reducing human trafficking-related crimes and activities, which range from phys-
ical violence and drug addiction to money laundering and vandalism. The size,
scope, capacity, and resources of different actors reflect the political spatial dynam-
ics in which they operate. Whether the framing of a policy problem is a local,
regional, national, or trans-boundary issue is determined largely by the political
context through which it emerges (Delaney & Leitner, 1997).
In recent decades, domestic governments have been compelled to change how
they function and operate. On an international scale, the intensification of globally-­
sourced economic, political, and social problems are compelling governments to
think and initiate actions beyond their borders. Compelling factors drive these
changes, including domestic pressures for fiscal austerity placed on local govern-
ments, a growing demand for integrated services aimed at improving customer ser-
vice and satisfaction, the increasing role of e-governance, as well as the demand for
cross-sectoral and cross-governmental collaboration.
As we shall explore in greater depth, traditional official government agencies
operating at the municipal, state, and federal level have been attempting to augment
their capacity to cope with the growing complexities described above by “scaling-
­up” their collective resources through intergovernmental cooperative action with a
variety of state and nonstate actors. Campbell and Lindberg (1990) argue that the
ability of local governments to mobilize resources in pursuit of their goals is depen-
dent upon the strength of the relationships that they have built with network actors.
Different types of governance models reflect the distinct socioeconomic, political,
and administrative processes that they operate through. Rhodes (1997) asserts that
the development and evolution of governance structures directly influence the inter-
action of state and nonstate actors. While the state continues to play a leading role
in policy formation and implementation, societal actors increasingly promote inno-
vative agendas and related strategies through governing networks. Rijke et al. (2012)
assert that the fit-for-purpose governance framework can become the alternative
starting point for guidance to the decision makers. Adopting different governance
forms, in return, requires institutional reforms and adaptations.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Apollodorus’s shadow painting was not in any sense what we call
chiaroscuro and atmosphere, but sheer modelling in the round in the
sculptor’s sense; and of Zeuxis Aristotle says expressly that his work
lacked “Ethos.” Thus, this newer Classical painting with its
cleverness and human charm is the equivalent of our 18th-Century
work. Both lacked the inner greatness and both tried by force of
virtuosity to speak in the language of that single and final Art which
in each case stood for ornamentation in the higher sense. Hence
Polycletus and Phidias aline themselves with Bach and Händel; as
the Western masters liberated strict musical form from the executive
methods of the Painting, so the Greek masters finally delivered the
statue from the associations of the Relief.
And with this full plastic and this full music the two Cultures reach
their respective ends. A pure symbolism of mathematical rigour had
become possible. Polycletus could produce his “canon” of the
proportions of the human body, and his contemporary Bach the
“Kunst der Fuge” and “Wohltemperiertes Klavier.” In the two arts that
ensued, we have the last perfection of achievement that pure form
saturated with meaning can give. Compare the tone-body of
Faustian instrumental music, and within that system again the body
of the strings (in Bach, too, the virtual unity of the winds), with the
bodies of Attic statuary. Compare the meaning of the word “figure” to
Haydn with its meaning to Praxiteles. In the one case it is the figure
of a rhythmic motive in a web of voices, in the other the figure of an
athlete. But in both cases the notion comes from mathematics and it
is made plain that the aim thus finally attained is a union of the
artistic and the mathematical spirit, for analysis like music, and
Euclidean geometry like plastic, have both come to full
comprehension of their tasks and the ultimate meaning of their
respective number-languages. The mathematics of beauty and the
beauty of mathematics are henceforth inseparable. The unending
space of tone and the all-round body of marble or bronze are
immediate interpretations of the extended. They belong to number-
as-relation and to number-as-measure. In fresco and in oil-painting,
in the laws of proportion and those of perspective, the mathematical
is only indicated, but the two final arts are mathematics, and on
these peaks Apollinian art and Faustian art are seen entire.
 With the exit of fresco and oil-painting, the great masters of
absolute plastic and absolute music file on to the stage, man after
man. Polycletus is followed by Phidias, Pæonius, Alcamenes,
Scopas, Praxiteles, Lysippus. Behind Bach and Händel come Gluck,
Stamitz, the younger Bachs, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven—in their
hands an armoury of wonderful and now long-forgotten instruments,
a whole magician’s world created by the discovering and inventing
spirit of the West in the hope of getting more and more tones and
timbres for the service and enhancement of musical expression—in
their winds an abundance of grand, solemn, ornate, dainty, ironic,
laughing and sobbing forms of perfectly regular structure, forms that
no one now understands. In those days, in 18th-Century Germany
especially, there was actually and effectively a Culture of Music that
suffused all Life. Its type was Hoffmann’s Kapellmeister Kreisler. To-
day it is hardly even a memory.
And with the 18th Century, too, architecture died at last,
submerged and choked in the music of Rococo. On that last
wonderful fragile growth of the Western architecture criticism has
blown mercilessly, failing to realize that its origin is in the spirit of the
fugue and that its non-proportion and non-form, its evanescence and
instability and sparkle, its destruction of surface and visual order, are
nothing else than a victory of tones and melodies over lines and
walls, the triumph of pure space over material, of absolute becoming
over the become. They are no longer buildings, these abbeys and
castles and churches with their flowing façades and porches and
“gingerbread” courts and their splendid staircases, galleries, salons
and cabinets; they are sonatas, minuets, madrigals in stone,
chamber-music in stucco, marble, ivory and fine woods, cantilene of
volutes and cartouches, cadences of fliers and copings. The
Dresden Zwinger is the most completely musical piece in all the
world’s architecture, with an ornamentation like the tone of an old
violin, an allegro fugitivo for small orchestra.
Germany produced the great musicians and therefore also the
great architects of this century (Poppelmann, Schlüter, Bähr,
Naumann, Fischer von Erlach, Dinzenhofer). In oil-painting she
played no part at all: in instrumental music, on the contrary, hers was
the principal rôle.
 VII

There is a word, “Impressionism,” which only came into general

use in Manet’s time (and then, originally, as a word of contempt like
Baroque and Rococo) but very happily summarizes the special
quality of the Faustian way of art that has evolved from oil-painting.
But, as we ordinarily speak of it, the idea has neither the width nor
the depth of meaning that it ought to have: we regard it as a sequel
to or derivative of the old age of an art which, in fact, belongs to it
entirely and from first to last. What is the imitation of an
"impression"? Something purely Western, something related to the
idea of Baroque and even to the unconscious purposes of Gothic
architecture and diametrically opposed to the deliberate aims of the
Renaissance. Does it not signify the tendency—the deeply-
necessary tendency of a waking consciousness to feel pure endless
space as the supreme and unqualified actuality, and all sense-
images as secondary and conditioned actualities "within it"? A
tendency that can manifest itself in artistic creations, but has a
thousand other outlets besides. Does not Kant’s formula "space as a
priori form of perception" sound like a slogan for the whole
movement that began with Leonardo? Impressionism is the inverse
of the Euclidean world-feeling. It tries to get as far as possible from
the language of plastic and as near as possible to that of music. The
effect that is made upon us by things that receive and reflect light is
made not because the things are there but as though they “in
themselves” are not there. The things are not even bodies, but light-
resistances in space, and their illusive density is to be unmasked by
the brush-stroke. What is received and rendered is the impression of
such resistances, which are tacitly evaluated as simple functions of a
transcendent extension. The artist’s inner eye penetrates the body,
breaks the spell of its material bounding surfaces and sacrifices it to
the majesty of Space. And with this impression, under its influence,
he feels an endless movement-quality in the sensuous element that
is in utter contrast to the statuesque “Ataraxia” of the fresco.
Therefore, there was not and could not be any Hellenic
impressionism; if there is one art that must exclude it on principle, it
is Classical sculpture.
 Impressionism is the comprehensive expression of a world-feeling,
and it must obviously therefore permeate the whole physiognomy of
our “Late” Culture. There is an impressionistic mathematic, which
frankly and with intent transcends all optical limitations. It is Analysis,
as developed after Newton and Leibniz, and to it belong the
visionary images of number-“bodies,” aggregates, and the
multidimensional geometry. There is again an impressionistic
physics which “sees” in lieu of bodies systems of mass-points—units
that are evidently no more than constant relations between variable
efficients. There are impressionistic ethics, tragedy, and logic, and
even (in Pietism) an impressionistic Christianity.
Be the artist painter or musician, his art consists in creating with a
few strokes or spots or tones an image of inexhaustible content, a
microcosm meet for the eyes or ears of Faustian man; that is, in
laying the actuality of infinite space under enchantment by fleeting
and incorporeal indications of something objective which, so to say,
forces that actuality to become phenomenal. The daring of these arts
of moving the immobile has no parallel. Right from the later work of
Titian to Corot and Menzel, matter quivers and flows like a solution
under the mysterious pressure of brush-stroke and broken colours
and lights. It was in pursuit of the same object that Baroque music
became “thematic” instead of melodic and—reinforcing the “theme”
with every expedient of harmonic charm, instrumental colour, rhythm,
and tempo—developed the tone-picture from the imitative piece of
Titian’s day to the leitmotiv-fabric of Wagner, and captured a whole
new world of feeling and experience. When German music was at its
culmination, this art penetrated also into lyric poetry (German lyric,
that is, for in French it is impossible) and gave rise to a whole series
of tiny masterpieces, from Goethe’s “Urfaust” to Hölderlin’s last
poems—passages of a few lines apiece, which have never yet been
noticed, let alone collected, but include nevertheless whole worlds of
experience and feeling. On a small scale, it continually repeats the
achievements of Copernicus and Columbus. No other Culture
possesses an ornament-language of such dynamical impressiveness
relatively to the means it employs. Every point or stroke of colour,
every scarce-audible tone releases some surprising charm and
continually feeds the imagination with fresh elements of space-
creating energy. In Masaccio and Piero della Francesca we have
actual bodies bathed in air. Then Leonardo, the first, discovers the
transitions of atmospheric light and dark, the soft edges, the outlines
that merge in the depth, the domains of light and shade in which the
individual figures are inseparably involved. Finally, in Rembrandt,
objects dissolve into mere coloured impressions, and forms lose
their specific humanness and become collocations of strokes and
patches that tell as elements of a passionate depth-rhythm.
Distance, so treated, comes to signify Future, for what
Impressionism seizes and holds is by hypothesis a unique and
never-recurring instant, not a landscape in being but a fleeting
moment of the history thereof. Just as in a Rembrandt portrait it is
not the anatomical relief of the head that is rendered, but the second
visage in it that is confessed; just as the art of his brush-stroke
captures not the eye but the look, not the brow but the experience,
not the lips but the sensuousness; so also the impressionist picture
in general presents to the beholder not the Nature of the foreground
but again a second visage, the look and soul of the landscape.
Whether we take the Catholic-heroic landscape of Claude Lorrain,
the “paysage intime” of Corot, the sea and river-banks and villages
of Cuyp and Van Goyen, we find always a portrait in the
physiognomic sense, something uniquely-occurring, unforeseen,
brought to light for the first and last time. In this love of the character
and physiognomy in landscape—just the motive that was
unthinkable in fresco art and permanently barred to the Classical—
the art of portraiture widens from the immediately human to the
mediately human, to the representation of the world as a part of the
ego or the self-world in which the painter paints himself and the
beholder sees himself. For the expansion of Nature into Distance
reflects a Destiny. In this art of tragic, daemonic, laughing and
weeping landscapes there is something of which the man of another
Culture has no idea and for which he has no organ. Anyone who in
the presence of this form-world talks of Hellenistic illusion-painting
must be unable to distinguish between an ornamentation of the
highest order and a soulless imitation, an ape-mimicry of the
obvious. If Lysippus said (as Pliny tells us he said) that he
represented men as they appeared to him, his ambition was that of a
child, of a layman, of a savage, not that of an artist. The great style,
the meaning, the deep necessity, are absent; even the cave-dwellers
of the stone age painted thus. In reality, the Hellenistic painters could
do more when they chose. Even so late, the wall-paintings of
Pompeii and the “Odyssey” landscapes in Rome contain a symbol.
In each case it is a group of bodies that is rendered—rocks, trees,
even “the Sea” as a body among bodies! There is no depth, but only
superposition. Of course, of the objects represented one or several
had necessarily to be furthest away (or rather least near) but this is a
mere technical servitude without the remotest affinity to the illumined
supernal distances of Faustian art.

VIII

I have said that oil-painting faded out at the end of the 17th
Century, when one after another all its great masters died, and the
question will naturally, therefore, be asked—is Impressionism (in the
current narrow sense) a creation of the 19th Century? Has painting
lived, after all, two centuries more? Is it still existing? But we must
not be deceived by appearances. Not only was there a dead space
between Rembrandt and Delacroix or Constable—for when we think
of the living art of high symbolism that was Rembrandt’s the purely
decorative artists of the 18th Century do not count—but, further, that
which began with Delacroix and Constable was, notwithstanding all
technical continuity, something quite different from that which had
ended with Rembrandt. The new episode of painting that in the 19th
Century (i.e., beyond the 1800 frontier and in “Civilization”) has
succeeded in awakening some illusion of a great culture of painting,
has itself chosen the word Plein-air (Freilicht) to designate its special
characteristic. The very designation suffices to show the significance
of the fleeting phenomenon that it is. It implies the conscious,
intellectual, cold-blooded rejection of that for which a sudden wit
invented the name “brown sauce,” but which the great masters had,
as we know, regarded as the one truly metaphysical colour. On it had
been built the painting-culture of the schools, and especially the
Dutch school, that had vanished irretrievably in the Rococo. This
brown, the symbol of a spatial infinity, which had for Faustian
mankind created a spiritual something out of a mere canvas, now
came to be regarded, quite suddenly, as an offence to Nature. What
had happened? Was it not simply this, that the soul for which this
supernal colour was something religious, the sign of wistfulness, the
whole meaning of “Living Nature,” had quietly slipped away? The
materialism of a Western Cosmopolis blew into the ashes and
rekindled this curious brief flicker—a brief flicker of two generations,
for with the generation of Manet all was ended again. I have (as the
reader will recall) characterized the noble green of Grünewald and
Claude and Giorgione as the Catholic space-colour and the
transcendent brown of Rembrandt as the colour of the Protestant
world-feeling. On the other hand, Plein-air and its new colour scale
stand for irreligion.[364] From the spheres of Beethoven and the stellar
expanses of Kant, Impressionism has come down again to the crust
of the earth. Its space is cognized, not experienced, seen, not
contemplated; there is tunedness in it, but not Destiny. It is the
mechanical object of physics and not the felt world of the pastorale
that Courbet and Manet give us in their landscapes. Rousseau’s
tragically correct prophecy of a “return to Nature” fulfils itself in this
dying art—the senile, too, return to Nature day by day. The modern
artist is a workman, not a creator. He sets unbroken spectrum-
colours side by side. The subtle script, the dance of brush-strokes,
give way to crude commonplaces, pilings and mixings and daubings
of points, squares, broad inorganic masses. The whitewasher’s
brush and the trowel appear in the painter’s equipment; the oil-
priming of the canvas is brought into the scheme of execution and in
places left bare. It is a risky art, meticulous, cold, diseased—an art
for over-developed nerves, but scientific to the last degree, energetic
in everything that relates to the conquest of technical obstacles,
acutely assertive of programme. It is the “satyric pendant” of the
great age of oil-painting that stretches from Leonardo to Rembrandt;
it could only be at home in the Paris of Baudelaire. Corot’s silvern
landscapes, with their grey-greens and browns, dream still of the
spiritual of the Old Masters; but Courbet and Manet conquer bare
physical space, “factual” space. The meditative discoverer
represented by Leonardo gives way to the painting experimentalist.
Corot, the eternal child, French but not Parisian, finds his
transcendent landscapes anywhere and everywhere; Courbet,
Manet, Cézanne, portray over and over again, painfully, laboriously,
soullessly, the Forest of Fontainebleau, the bank of the Seine at
Argenteuil, or that remarkable valley near Arles. Rembrandt’s mighty
landscapes lie essentially in the universe, Manet’s near a railway
station. The plein-air painters, true megalopolitans, obtain as it were
specimens of the music of space from the least agitated sources of
Spain and Holland—from Velasquez, Goya, Hobbema, Franz Hals—
in order (with the aid of English landscapists and, later, the
Japanese, “highbrows” all) to restate it in empirical and scientific
terms. It is natural science as opposed to nature experience, head
against heart, knowledge in contrast to faith.
In Germany it was otherwise. Whereas in France it was a matter of
closing-off the great school, in Germany it was a case of catching up
with it. For in the picturesque style, as practised from Rottmann,
Wasmann, K. D. Friedrich and Runge to Marées and Leibl, an
unbroken evolution is the very basis of technique, and even a new-
style school requires a closed tradition behind it. Herein lies the
weakness and the strength of the last German painters. Whereas the
French possessed a continuous tradition of their own from early
Baroque to Chardin and Corot, whereas there was living connexion
between Claude Lorrain and Corot, Rubens and Delacroix, all the
great Germans of the 18th Century had been musicians. After
Beethoven this music, without change of inward essence, was
diverted (one of the modalities of the German Romantic movement)
back into painting. And it was in painting that it flowered longest and
bore its kindliest fruits, for the portraits and landscapes of these men
are suffused with a secret wistful music, and there is a breath of
Eichendorff and Mörike left even in Thoma and Böcklin. But a foreign
teacher had to be asked to supply that which was lacking in the
native tradition, and so these painters one and all went to Paris,
where they studied and copied the old masters of 1670. So also did
Manet and his circle. But there was this difference, that the
Frenchmen found in these studies only reminiscences of something
that had been in their art for many generations, whereas the
Germans received fresh and wholly different impressions. The result
was that, in the 19th Century, the German arts of form (other than
music) were a phenomenon out of season—hasty, anxious,
confused, puzzled as to both aim and means. There was indeed no
time to be lost. The level that German music or French painting had
taken centuries to attain had to be made good by German painting in
two generations. The expiring art demanded its last phase, and this
phase had to be reached by a vertiginous race through the whole
past. Hence the unsteadiness, in everything pertaining to form, of
high Faustian natures like Marées and Böcklin, an unsteadiness that
in German music with its sure tradition (think of Bruckner) would
have been impossible. The art of the French Impressionists was too
explicit in its programme and correspondingly too poor in soul to
expose them to such a tragedy. German literature, on the contrary,
was in the same condition as German painting; from Goethe’s time,
every major work was intended to found something and obliged to
conclude something. Just as Kleist felt in himself both Shakespeare
and Stendhal, and laboured desperately, altering and discarding
without end and without result, to forge two centuries of
psychological art into a unit; just as Hebbel tried to squeeze all the
problems from Hamlet to Rosmersholm into one dramatic type; so
Menzel, Leibl, and Marées sought to force the old and new models—
Rembrandt, Claude, Van Goyen, and Watteau, Delacroix, Courbet
and Manet—into a single form. While the little early interiors of
Menzel anticipated all the discoveries of the Manet circle and Leibl
not seldom succeeded where Courbet tried and failed, their pictures
renew the metaphysical browns and greens of the Old Masters and
are fully expressive of an inward experience. Menzel actually re-
experienced and reawakened something of Prussian Rococo,
Marées something of Rubens, Leibl in his “Frau Gedon” something
of Rembrandt’s portraiture. Moreover, the studio-brown of the 17th
Century had had by its side a second art, the intensely Faustian art
of etching. In this, as in the other, Rembrandt is the greatest master
of all time; this, like the other, has something Protestant in it that puts
it in a quite different category from the work of the Southern Catholic
painters of blue-green atmospheres and the Gobelin tapestries. And
Leibl, the last artist in the brown, was the last great etcher whose
plates possess that Rembrandtesque infinity that contains and
reveals secrets without end. In Marées, lastly, there was all the
mighty intention of the great Baroque style, but, though Guéricault
and Daumier were not too belated to capture it in positive form, he—
lacking just that strength that a tradition would have given him—was
unable to force it into the world of painter’s actuality.

IX

The last of the Faustian arts died in “Tristan.” This work is the giant
keystone of Western music. Painting achieved nothing like this as a
finale—on the contrary, the effect of Manet, Menzel and Leibl, with
their combination of “free light” and resurrected old-master styles, is
weak.
“Contemporaneously,” in our sense, Apollinian art came to its end
in Pergamene sculpture. Pergamum is the counterpart of Bayreuth.
The famous altar itself,[365] indeed, is later, and probably not the most
important work of the epoch at that; we have to assume a century
(330-220 B.C.) of development now lost in oblivion. Nevertheless, all
Nietzsche’s charges against Wagner and Bayreuth, the “Ring” and
“Parsifal”—decadence, theatricalness and the like—could have been
levelled in the same words at the Pergamene sculpture. A
masterpiece of this sculpture—a veritable “Ring”—has come down to
us in the Gigantomachia frieze of the great altar. Here is the same
theatrical note, the same use of motives from ancient discredited
mythology as points d’appui, the same ruthless bombardment of the
nerves, and also (though the lack of inner power cannot altogether
be concealed) the same fully self-conscious force and towering
greatness. To this art the Farnese Bull and the older model of the
Laocoön group certainly belong.
The symptom of decline in creative power is the fact that to
produce something round and complete the artist now requires to be
emancipated from form and proportion. Its most obvious, though not
its most significant, manifestation is the taste for the gigantic. Here
size is not, as in the Gothic and the Pyramid styles, the expression of
inward greatness, but the dissimulation of its absence. This
swaggering in specious dimensions is common to all nascent
Civilizations—we find it in the Zeus altar of Pergamum, the Helios of
Chares called the “Colossus of Rhodes,” the architecture of the
Roman Imperial Age, the New Empire work in Egypt, the American
skyscraper of to-day. But what is far more indicative is the
arbitrariness and immoderateness that tramples on and shatters the
conventions of centuries. In Bayreuth and in Pergamum, it was the
superpersonal Rule, the absolute mathematic of Form, the Destiny
immanent in the quietly-matured language of a great art, that was
found to be intolerable. The way from Polycletus to Lysippus and
from Lysippus to the sculptors of the groups of Gauls[366] is paralleled
by the way from Bach, by Beethoven, to Wagner. The earlier artists
felt themselves masters, the later uneasy slaves, of the great form.
While even Praxiteles and Haydn were able to speak freely and gaily
within the limits of the strictest canon, Lysippus and Beethoven could
only produce by straining their voices. The sign of all living art, the
pure harmony of “will,” “must” and “can,” the self-evidence of the
aim, the un-self-consciousness of the execution, the unity of the art
and the Culture—all that is past and gone. In Corot and Tiepolo,
Mozart and Cimarosa, there is still a real mastery of the mother-
tongue. After them, the process of mutilation begins, but no one is
conscious of it because no one now can speak it fluently. Once upon
a time, Freedom and Necessity were identical; but now what is
understood by freedom is in fact indiscipline. In the time of
Rembrandt or Bach the “failures” that we know only too well were
quite unthinkable. The Destiny of the form lay in the race or the
school, not in the private tendencies of the individual. Under the spell
of a great tradition full achievement is possible even to a minor artist,
because the living art brings him in touch with his task and the task
with him. To-day, these artists can no longer perform what they
intend, for intellectual operations are a poor substitute for the trained
instinct that has died out. All of them have experienced this. Marées
was unable to complete any of his great schemes. Leibl could not
bring himself to let his late pictures go, and worked over them again
and again to such an extent that they became cold and hard.
Cézanne and Renoir left work of the best quality unfinished because,
strive as they would, they could do no more. Manet was exhausted
after he had painted thirty pictures, and his “Shooting of the Emperor
Maximilian,” in spite of the immense care that is visible in every item
of the picture and the studies for it, hardly achieved as much as
Goya managed without effort in its prototype the “shootings of the
3rd of May.” Bach, Haydn, Mozart and a thousand obscure
musicians of the 18th Century could rapidly turn out the most
finished work as a matter of routine, but Wagner knew full well that
he could only reach the heights by concentrating all his energy upon
“getting the last ounce” out of the best moments of his artistic
endowment.
Between Wagner and Manet there is a deep relationship, which is
not, indeed, obvious to everyone but which Baudelaire with his
unerring flair for the decadent detected at once. For the
Impressionists, the end and the culmination of art was the conjuring
up of a world in space out of strokes and patches of colour, and this
was just what Wagner achieved with three bars. A whole world of
soul could crowd into these three bars. Colours of starry midnight, of
sweeping clouds, of autumn, of the day dawning in fear and sorrow,
sudden glimpses of sunlit distances, world-fear, impending doom,
despair and its fierce effort, hopeless hope—all these impressions
which no composer before him had thought it possible to catch, he
could paint with entire distinctness in the few tones of a motive. Here
the contrast of Western music with Greek plastic has reached its
maximum. Everything merges in bodiless infinity, no longer even
does a linear melody wrestle itself clear of the vague tone-masses
that in strange surgings challenge an imaginary space. The motive
comes up out of dark terrible deeps. It is flooded for an instant by a
flash of hard bright sun. Then, suddenly, it is so close upon us that
we shrink. It laughs, it coaxes, it threatens, and anon it vanishes into
the domain of the strings, only to return again out of endless
distances, faintly modified and in the voice of a single oboe, to pour
out a fresh cornucopia of spiritual colours. Whatever this is, it is
neither painting nor music, in any sense of these words that attaches
to previous work in the strict style. Rossini was asked once what he
thought of the music of the “Huguenots”; “Music?” he replied. “I
heard nothing resembling it.” Many a time must this judgment have
been passed at Athens on the new painting of the Asiatic and
Sicyonian schools, and opinions not very different must have been
current in Egyptian Thebes with regard to the art of Cnossus and
Tell-el-Amarna.
 All that Nietzsche says of Wagner is applicable, also, to Manet.
Ostensibly a return to the elemental, to Nature, as against
contemplation-painting (Inhaltsmalerei) and abstract music, their art
really signifies a concession to the barbarism of the Megalopolis, the
beginning of dissolution sensibly manifested in a mixture of brutality
and refinement. As a step, it is necessarily the last step. An artificial
art has no further organic future, it is the mark of the end.
And the bitter conclusion is that it is all irretrievably over with the
arts of form of the West. The crisis of the 19th Century was the
death-struggle. Like the Apollinian, the Egyptian and every other, the
Faustian art dies of senility, having actualized its inward possibilities
and fulfilled its mission within the course of its Culture.
What is practised as art to-day—be it music after Wagner or
painting after Cézanne, Leibl and Menzel—is impotence and
falsehood. Look where one will, can one find the great personalities
that would justify the claim that there is still an art of determinate
necessity? Look where one will, can one find the self-evidently
necessary task that awaits such an artist? We go through all the
exhibitions, the concerts, the theatres, and find only industrious
cobblers and noisy fools, who delight to produce something for the
market, something that will “catch on” with a public for whom art and
music and drama have long ceased to be spiritual necessities. At
what a level of inward and outward dignity stand to-day that which is
called art and those who are called artists! In the shareholders’
meeting of any limited company, or in the technical staff of any first-
rate engineering works there is more intelligence, taste, character
and capacity than in the whole music and painting of present-day
Europe. There have always been, for one great artist, a hundred
superfluities who practised art, but so long as a great tradition (and
therefore great art) endured even these achieved something worthy.
We can forgive this hundred for existing, for in the ensemble of the
tradition they were the footing for the individual great man. But to-
day we have only these superfluities, and ten thousand of them,
working art “for a living” (as if that were a justification!). One thing is
quite certain, that to-day every single art-school could be shut down
without art being affected in the slightest. We can learn all we wish to
know about the art-clamour which a megalopolis sets up in order to
forget that its art is dead from the Alexandria of the year 200. There,
as here in our world-cities, we find a pursuit of illusions of artistic
progress, of personal peculiarity, of “the new style,” of “unsuspected
possibilities,” theoretical babble, pretentious fashionable artists,
weight-lifters with cardboard dumb-bells—the “Literary Man” in the
Poet’s place, the unabashed farce of Expressionism which the art-
trade has organized as a “phase of art-history,” thinking and feeling
and forming as industrial art. Alexandria, too, had problem-
dramatists and box-office artists whom it preferred to Sophocles, and
painters who invented new tendencies and successfully bluffed their
public. What do we possess to-day as "art"? A faked music, filled
with artificial noisiness of massed instruments; a faked painting, full
of idiotic, exotic and showcard effects, that every ten years or so
concocts out of the form-wealth of millennia some new “style” which
is in fact no style at all since everyone does as he pleases; a lying
plastic that steals from Assyria, Egypt and Mexico indifferently. Yet
this and only this, the taste of the “man of the world,” can be
accepted as the expression and sign of the age; everything else,
everything that “sticks to” old ideals, is for provincial consumption.
The grand Ornamentation of the past has become as truly a dead
language as Sanskrit or Church Latin.[367] Instead of its symbolism
being honoured and obeyed, its mummy, its legacies of perfected
forms, are put into the pot anyhow, and recast in wholly inorganic
forms. Every modern age holds change to be development, and puts
revivals and fusions of old styles in the place of real becoming.
Alexandria also had its Pre-Raphaelite comedians with their vases,
chairs, pictures and theories, its symbolists, naturalists and
expressionists. The fashion at Rome was now Græco-Asiatic, now
Græco-Egyptian, now (after Praxiteles) neo-Attic. The relief of the
XIXth Dynasty—the modern age in the Egyptian Culture—that
covered the monstrous, meaningless, inorganic walls, statues and
columns, seems like a sheer parody of the art of the Old Kingdom.
The Ptolemaic Horus-temple of Edfu is quite unsurpassed in the way
of vacuous eclecticism—so far, for we are only at the beginning of
our own development in this line, showy and assertive as the style of
our streets and squares already is.
 In due course, even the strength to wish for change fades out.
Rameses the Great—so soon—appropriated to himself buildings of
his predecessors by cutting out their names and inserting his own in
the inscriptions. It was the same consciousness of artistic impotence
that led Constantine to adorn his triumphal arch in Rome with
sculptures taken from other buildings; but Classical craftsmanship
had set to work long before Constantine—as early, in fact, as 150—
on the business of copying old masterpieces, not because these
were understood and appreciated in the least, but because no one
was any longer capable of producing originals. It must not be
forgotten that these copyists were the artists of their time; their work
therefore (done in one style or another according to the moment’s
fashion) represent the maximum of creative power then available. All
the Roman portrait statues, male and female, go back for posture
and mien to a very few Hellenic types; these, copied more or less
true to style, served for torsos, while the heads were executed as
“Likenesses” by simple craftsmen who possessed the knack. The
famous statue of Augustus in armour, for example, is based on the
Spearman of Polycletus, just as—to name the first harbingers of the
same phase in our own world—Lenbach rests upon Rembrandt and
Makart upon Rubens. For 1500 years (Amasis I to Cleopatra)
Egypticism piled portrait on portrait in the same way. Instead of the
steady development that the great age had pursued through the Old
and Middle Kingdoms, we find fashions that change according to the
taste of this or that dynasty. Amongst the discoveries at Turfan are
relics of Indian dramas, contemporary with the birth of Christ, which
are similar in all respects to the Kalidasa of a later century. Chinese
painting as we know it shows not an evolution but an up-and-down of
fashions for more than a thousand years on end; and this
unsteadiness must have set in as early as the Han period. The final
result is that endless industrious repetition of a stock of fixed forms
which we see to-day in Indian, Chinese, and Arabian-Persian art.
Pictures and fabrics, verses and vessels, furniture, dramas and
musical compositions—all is patternwork.[368] We cease to be able to
date anything within centuries, let alone decades, by the language of
its ornamentation. So it has been in the Last Act of all Cultures.
 CHAPTER IX
SOUL-IMAGE AND LIFE-FEELING
 I
ON THE FORM OF THE SOUL
 CHAPTER IX
SOUL-IMAGE AND LIFE-FEELING
 I
ON THE FORM OF THE SOUL
I

Every professed philosopher is forced to believe, without serious

examination, in the existence of a Something that in his opinion is
capable of being handled by the reason, for his whole spiritual
existence depends on the possibility of such a Something. For every
logician and psychologist, therefore, however sceptical he may be,
there is a point at which criticism falls silent and faith begins, a point
at which even the strictest analytical thinker must cease to employ
his method—the point, namely, at which analysis is confronted with
itself and with the question of whether its problem is soluble or even
exists at all. The proposition “it is possible by thought to establish the
forms of thought” was not doubted by Kant, dubious as it may
appear to the unphilosophical. The proposition “there is a soul, the
structure of which is scientifically accessible; and that which I
determine, by critical dissection of conscious existence-acts into the
form of psychic elements, functions, and complexes, is my soul” is a
proposition that no psychologist has doubted hitherto. And yet it is
just here that his strongest doubts should have arisen. Is an abstract
science of the spiritual possible at all? Is that which one finds on this
path identical with that which one is seeking? Why has psychology—
meaning thereby not knowledge of men and experience of life but
scientific psychology—always been the shallowest and most
worthless of the disciplines of philosophy, a field so empty that it has
been left entirely to mediocre minds and barren systematists? The
reason is not far to seek. It is the misfortune of “experimental”
psychology that it does not even possess an object as the word is
understood in any and every scientific technique. Its searches and
solutions are fights with shadows and ghosts. What is it—the Soul? If
the mere reason could give an answer to that question, the science
would be ab initio unnecessary.
 Of the thousands of psychologists of to-day not one can give an
actual analysis or definition of “the” Will—or of regret, anxiety,
jealousy, disposition, artistic intention. Naturally, since only the
systematic can be dissected, and we can only define notions by
notions. No subtleties of intellectual play with notional distinctions, no
plausible observations of connexions between sensuous-corporeal
states and “inward processes” touch that which is in question here.
Will—this is no notion, but a name, a prime-word like God, a sign for
something of which we have an immediate inward certainty but
which we are for ever unable to describe.
We are dealing here with something eternally inaccessible to
learned investigation. It is not for nothing that every language
presents a baffling complexity of labels for the spiritual, warning us
thereby that it is something not susceptible of theoretical synthesis or
systematic ordering. Here there is nothing for us to order. Critical
(i.e., literally, separating) methods apply only to the world-as-Nature.
It would be easier to break up a theme of Beethoven with dissecting-
knife or acid than to break up the soul by methods of abstract
thought. Nature-knowledge and man-knowledge have neither aims
nor ways in common. The primitive man experiences “soul,” first in
other men and then in himself, as a Numen, just as he knows
numina of the outer world, and develops his impressions in
mythological form. His words for these things are symbols, sounds,
not descriptive of the indescribable but indicative of it for him who
hath ears to hear. They evoke images, likenesses (in the sense of
Faust II)—the only language of spiritual intercourse that man has
discovered to this day. Rembrandt can reveal something of his soul,
to those who are in inward kinship with him, by way of a self-portrait
or a landscape, and to Goethe “a god gave it to say what he
suffered.” Certain ineffable stirrings of soul can be imparted by one
man to the sensibility of another man through a look, two bars of a
melody, an almost imperceptible movement. That is the real
language of souls, and it remains incomprehensible to the outsider.
The word as utterance, as poetic element, may establish the link, but
the word as notion, as element of scientific prose, never.
“Soul,” for the man who has advanced from mere living and feeling
to the alert and observant state, is an image derived from quite