Performative Governance: A Reddish Flag

8/4/2024

Performative governance represents one of the most intriguing developments in contemporary political and administrative practice.

It is where the act of governing becomes increasingly focused on the appearance of action rather than implementation and substantial shifts in outcomes.

It is a phenomenon that has become particularly salient in our increasingly always-on-media-saturated political discourse.

The concept builds upon Edelman’s seminal work on symbolic politics (1964). Still, it extends far beyond mere symbolism into Schill’s (2006) argument that Ronald Reagan and his team perfected the integration of stagecraft (the technical aspects of staging events) with statecraft (the art of conducting state affairs).

First, there’s the theatrical aspect of policy-making, where governments engage in what Hood and Dixon (2015) describe as “impression management through administrative reform.” Their longitudinal study of UK government reforms revealed that many high-profile initiatives primarily created the appearance of progress while actually increasing costs and complexity.

Second, we observe the “cascade effect” of performative policies. When one jurisdiction adopts performative measures, others follow suit, creating what I have previously called the Westminister mimetic legitimacy. This process often occurs regardless of whether the original policy achieved its objectives.

This can be seen in the less-than-careful adoption of public management innovations from the United Kingdom and Australia with little necessary diligence. The most recent example was the adoption of the capability review from the United Kingdom, which had the impact of unbundling institutional capability from outcomes.

 The rise of social media has dramatically amplified these dynamics. Work by Schmuhl (1990) outlines how performance became central to governing during the Reagan era:

"The Reagan years magnified the relationship between statecraft and stagecraft" (p. viii).

Futrell (1999) powerfully demonstrates how “governance as performance” works through tools like impression management, teamwork, scripting, and conflict containment strategies to support participatory democracy.

We are right to be concerned that policy announcements become the primary political product, often divorced from implementation concerns. In this respect, and perhaps most concerningly, there’s evidence that performative governance crowds out substantive policy work.

In a soon-to-be-published comparative study of local institutions, departments that focussed on supporting the political executive’s performative needs did not achieve better outcomes in their core service delivery functions than those that did not.

That said, the finding above has to be placed in a context that performative governance as a mere political theatre is overly simplistic. Performative policy can drive substantive change: Aotearoa-New Zealand’s Nuclear Free Zone declaration of 1984 was a matter of politics and political theatre.

It was largely performative – a small country at the top of the world – taking a symbolic stance against nuclear weapons and power when it had neither. However, this performative stance led to profound real-world impacts: it catalysed a significant shift in ANZ-US relations, leading to Aotearoa-New Zealand’s suspension from the ANZUS treaty when they refused to allow nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships into their ports; and it helped build international momentum for nuclear disarmament movements and influenced policy discussions in other Pacific nations.

The initially symbolic policy is now deeply embedded in our national identity and foreign policy, leading to lasting institutional changes, including the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987, a permanent shift in defence procurement and alliance policies, and the establishment of various peace and disarmament initiatives.

It is the perfect example of how policy issues that could be seen as primarily performative—given our limited direct involvement with nuclear weapons or power—can create tangible diplomatic, legal, and social changes that can persist for decades.

Indeed, some argue that the performative aspect helped create public buy-in and international attention that supported substantive policy changes. However, it’s worth noting that not all performative policies achieve this kind of transformation. The success of the nuclear-free stance was likely aided by specific historical circumstances, strong public support, and committed political leadership willing to accept the actual costs for their symbolic stance.

The key lies in understanding when performance is a bridge to action versus when it becomes an end.

Looking ahead, democratic societies will face the challenge of managing the tension between the legitimate need for governments to communicate and engage with citizens and the risk that governance becomes reduced to a series of performative acts. This is particularly crucial as we face complex challenges like climate change and economic inequality that require sustained, substantive policy responses rather than merely performative ones.

References

Edelman, M. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. University of Illinois Press.
Futrell, R. (1999). Performing governance: Impression management, teamwork, and conflict containment in city commission proceedings. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 27(4), 494-529.
Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A government that worked better and cost less?: Evaluating three decades of reform and change in UK central government. Oxford University Press.
Schmuhl, R. (1990). Statecraft and stagecraft: American political life in the age of personality. University of Notre Dame Press.