Journal of Iranian Public Administration Studies

Journal of Iranian Public Administration Studies

An Introduction to the Metaphor of Governance as an Ecosystem:Approaches to a Governance System Grounded in Hybrid Logic

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Heidar Najafi Rastaghi 1
Mahdi Abdolhamid 2
1 PhD student in Public Administration, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Faculty of Public Administration and Organizational Sciences, School of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, School of Management, Economics and Progress Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/jipas.2025.474019.1728
Abstract
Purpose: This article aims to propose the “governance as an ecosystem” metaphor as a novel, integrated, and evolutionary approach in governance studies. Given the plurality and occasional fragmentation of existing approaches, the primary objective is to formulate a metaphorical model that, relying on a hybrid logic, can conceptualize governance as a living, complex, adaptive, and participatory system. The main research question is: what are the fundamental features and components of such an ecosystem-based governance model, and how can it serve as an analytical-prescriptive framework to reduce existing ambiguities in selecting an appropriate approach?
Methodology: This qualitative research employs a meta-synthesis method. First, through a systematic review of the extensive literature in governance studies, systems thinking, and ecology, key concepts and components were extracted. Then, by applying the step-by-step process of metaphor creation, structural and functional similarities between complex natural systems (ecosystems) and the complex system of public governance were analyzed. This process enabled the systematic transfer of characteristics and principles governing natural ecosystems to the social realm of governance, shaping the conceptual model of the research.
Findings: The research findings indicate that the ecosystem-based governance model can be structured at three analytical levels: Macro Level (Structure): At this level, components such as collective value creation, sustainability and resilience, evolution of goals, self-organized capacity to solve complex problems, context-dependence, platform thinking, self-organization, growth and co-evolution, adherence to institutional/social rules, self-sustainability, and interactivity are emphasized. Governance at this level acquires a dynamic, flexible, and decentralized structure that emerges from interactions. Meso Level (Processes and Interactions): This level focuses on the modes of communication and interaction among actors. Key components include learning (single-loop, double-loop, and triple-loop), participation and cooperation, interdependence and entanglement, free interaction, co-design of the future, openness, innovation, and inter-specialization. In this view, the governance process is a complex, learning network of knowledge, resource, and action exchange. Micro Level (Actors): The characteristics of actors in this model are: diversity and acceptance of diverse actors, inclusiveness and equality in access to resources, importance of all components and actors, distributive justice, adaptability, engagement of all stakeholders, and co-creation. Governance actors are independent entities yet deeply embedded in and dependent on the network, possessing active agency in shaping the entire system.
Conclusion: This article demonstrates that the “ecosystem” metaphor, as a hybrid framework, can complete the logical evolution of governance approaches from “government-centric” to “networked” and “platform-based,” taking the next step towards a living, decentralized, and evolutionary model. The practical implication of this perspective is a shift in the mindset and practice of policymakers and public managers. They must move away from linear, top-down control logic and toward creating enabling platforms and institutional rules that foster self-organization, collective learning, innovation, and co-evolution of all stakeholders. The design of governance systems must be context-sensitive, flexible, and serve to enhance the resilience and sustainability of the entire social system. This model can provide guidance for redesigning policy-making processes, public service delivery, and managing social interactions in today's complex conditions.
Keywords
Governance
Ecosystem
Metaphor
Hybrid Logic
Self-organization
Co-evolution
Network Governance
Platform Governance
عبدالحمید، مهدی؛ لاری، مائده؛ و نجفی رستاقی، حیدر (1403). مطالعه تطبیقی تجربیات جهانی کاربست هوش مصنوعی در اداره امور عمومی: دلالت‌هایی برای ارتقای حکمرانی هوشمند در ایران. مطالعات مدیریت دولتی ایران، 7(3)، 189-226.
کمالی، یحیی (1396). روش‌شناسی فراترکیب و کاربرد آن در سیاستگذاری عمومی. فصلنامه سیاست، 47(3)، 721-736.
Abdolhamid, M., Abdolhoseinzadeh, M., Esmaeili Givi, M., Saberi, M. K., Mirezati, S. Z., & Amiri, M. R. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of global scientific research on Public Administration: 1923-2020. International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM), 21(1), 75–96.
Abdolhamid, M., Lari, M., & Najafi Rastaghi, H. (2024). A Comparative Study of Global Experiences in the Application of Artificial Intelligence in Public Administration: Implications for Enhancing Smart Governance in Iran. Journal of Iranian Public Administration Studies, 7(3), 189–226.  (In Persian)
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58.
Alford, J. (2016). Co-production, interdependence and publicness: Extending public service-dominant logic. Public Management Review, 18(5), 673–691.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2022). Introduction to the Handbook on Theories of Governance. In Handbook on Theories of Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bakhtadze, N., & Suleykin, A. (2021). Industrial digital ecosystems: Predictive models and architecture development issues. Annual Reviews in Control, 51, 56–64.
Bason, C. (2017). Leading public design: Discovering human-centred governance. Policy Press.
Bason, C. (2018). Leading public sector innovation. Policy Press.
Bason, C., & Austin, R. D. (2021). Design in the public sector: Toward a human centred model of public governance. Public Management Review, 23(2), 314–344.
Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications (Revised ed.). George Braziller.
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
Bozeman, B. (2019). Public values: Citizens’ perspective. Public Management Review, 21(6), 817–838.
Briscoe, G., & Sadedin, S. (2009). Digital business ecosystems: Natural science paradigms. Neural and Evolutionary Computing.
Brush, K. (2019). Digital ecosystem. TechTarget.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2005). Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 751–764.
Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2010). Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(2), 246–254.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.
Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Columbia University Press.
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75.
Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90–91, 102098.
Harrison, T. M., Pardo, T. A., & Cook, M. (2012). Creating open government ecosystems: A research and development agenda. Future Internet, 4(4), 900–928.
Heuer, C. (2017, June 23). Introducing ecosystem thinking. Mentor Bureau.
Hodgkinson, I. R., Hannibal, C., Keating, B. W., Buxton, R. C., & Bateman, N. (2017). Toward a public service management: Past, present and future directions. Journal of Service Management, 28(5), 998–1023.
Hooghe, L. (2001). The European Commission and the integration of Europe: Images of governance. Cambridge University Press.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.
Isenberg, D. J. (2016). Applying the ecosystem metaphor to entrepreneurship: Uses and abuses. The Antitrust Bulletin, 61(4), 564–573.
Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 29–45.
Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Polity.
Kamali, Y. (2017). The methodology of meta synthesis and implications for public policy. Political Quarterly, 47(3), 721–736.  (In Persian)
Kieninger, P., Gugerell, K., & Penker, M. (2016). Governance-mix for resilient socio-ecological production landscapes in Austria – an example of the terraced riverine landscape Wachau. In Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review (Vol. 2, pp. 36–49). United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability.
Kim, D. H. (1999). Introduction to systems thinking. Pegasus Communications, Inc.
Kinder, T., Six, F., Stenvall, J., & Memon, A. (2020). Governance-as-legitimacy: Are ecosystems replacing networks? Public Management Review, 22(12), 1850–1875.
Kinder, T., Stenvall, J., Six, F., & Memon, A. (2021). Relational leadership in collaborative governance ecosystems. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1612–1639.
Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern governance. Sage.
Leite, H., & Hodgkinson, I. R. (2021). Examining resilience across a service ecosystem under crisis. Public Management Review, 23(10), 1565–1584.
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.
Meuleman, L. (2008). Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets. Physica-Verlag.
Moon, M. J. (2020). Shifting from old open government to smart open government: From the perspectives of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. International Review of Public Administration, 25(1), 1–10.
Moore, M. L., & Westley, F. (2011). Surmountable chasms: Networks and social innovation for resilient systems. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 5.
Mustak, M., & Plé, L. (2020). A critical analysis of service ecosystems research: Rethinking its premises to move forward. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(3), 399–413.
Nardi, B., & O’Day, V. L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart. MIT Press.
Osborne, S. P., Powell, M., Cui, T., & Strokosch, K. (2022). Value creation in the public service ecosystem: An integrative framework. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 634–645.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672.
Parsons, T. (1975). The present status of "structural-functional" theory in sociology. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Social systems and the evolution of action theory (pp. 100–117). Free Press.
Pauli, G. A. (2010). The blue economy: 10 years, 100 innovations, 100 million jobs. Paradigm Publications.
Payne, E. M., Dahl, A. J., & Peltier, J. (2021). Digital servitization value co-creation framework for AI services: A research agenda for digital transformation in financial service ecosystems. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 15(2), 200–222.
Petrescu, M. (2019). From marketing to public value: Towards a theory of public service ecosystems. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1733–1752.
Pickett, S. T. A., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2002). The ecosystem as a multidimensional concept: Meaning, model, and metaphor. Ecosystems, 5(1), 1–10.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Real, L. A., & Brown, J. H. (Eds.). (1991). Foundations of ecology: Classic papers with commentaries. University of Chicago Press.
Rossi, P., & Tuurnas, S. (2021). Conflicts fostering understanding of value co-creation and service systems transformation in complex public service systems. Public Management Review, 23(2), 254–275.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer Publishing Company.
Shaughnessy, H. (2018). Why disruption is all about ecosystem thinking. DisruptionHub.
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–76.
Sørensen, E., & Triantafillou, P. (2009). The politics of self-governance. Ashgate.
Strokosch, K., & Osborne, S. P. (2020). Co-experience, co-production and co-governance: An ecosystem approach to the analysis of value creation. Policy & Politics, 48(3), 425–442.
Swedberg, R., & Agevall, O. (2005). The Max Weber dictionary: Key words and central concepts. Stanford University Press.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Random House.
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45.
Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press.
Trischler, J., & Trischler, J. W. (2021). Design for experience – A public service design approach in the age of digitalization. Public Management Review, 24(8), 1251–1270.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.
Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204–211.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). Free Press.
World Bank. (2007). A decade for measuring the quality of governance. World Bank.

  • Receive Date 31 August 2024
  • Revise Date 31 January 2025
  • Accept Date 26 May 2025