SDI Convergence - Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association

several decades or more. In essence, every citizen is located in a Russian Doll of
nested jurisdictions where there is only one relevant jurisdiction at each level of the
administrative hierarchy.
224
Table 3: Types of multi level governance (Hooghe and Marks, 2003, p. 236).
Type 1 Type 2
General purpose jurisdictions
Non intersecting memberships
Jurisdictions at a limited number of levels
System wide architecture
Task specific jurisdictions
Intersecting memberships
No limit to the number of jurisdictional levels
Flexible design
Type 2 governance, on the other hand, is composed of specialised task specific jurisdictions
such as school catchment areas, watershed management regions, and travel
to work areas. Like a collage it is fragmented in nature with every piece fulfilling its own
function. In type 2 governance there is no reason why smaller jurisdictions should be
neatly contained in larger ones while others may define a small segment of a larger
area as is the case with a site of special scientific interest within a National Park. There
is no limit to the number of jurisdictional levels that are designed to respond flexibly to
new needs and circumstances.
Generally, type 2 governance activities are embedded in type 1 structures, but the way
that this works out varies considerably. Type 1 jurisdictions are rooted in community
identities whereas type 2 structures are more pliable. The main benefit of multi level
governance lies in its scale flexibility. Its chief cost lies in the transaction costs of coordinating
multiple jurisdictions. The coordination dilemma confronting multi level governance
is described by Hooghe and Marks (2003, p.239) in the following terms: “To the
extent that policies of one jurisdiction have spillovers (i.e. negative or positive externalities)
for other jurisdictions, so coordination is necessary to avoid socially perverse outcomes”.
One strategy for dealing with the coordination dilemma that underpins type 1 governance
is to limit the number of autonomous actors who have to be coordinated by limiting
the number of autonomous jurisdictions. An alternative approach is to limit coordination
costs by constraining interaction across jurisdictions. Type 2 governance sets no
ceiling on the number of jurisdictions, but may spawn new ones along functionally differentiated
lines to minimise externalities across jurisdictions. Both these strategies
have important implications for those concerned with SDI implementation.
5. SDI IMPLEMENTATION AS A SOCIAL LEARNING PROCESS
The old adage that Rome wasn’t built in a day is equally applicable to SDIs. The creation
of SDIs is a long term task that may take years or even decades in some cases
before they are fully operational. This process is likely to be an evolving one that will
also reflect the extent to which the organisations that are involved are changing themselves
over time. As a result major changes in the form and content of SDIs can be expected
over time as they reinvent themselves. In some instances this process may
even lead to the closing down of a SDI as was the case with the British National Geospatial
Data Framework in 2002 (Masser, 2005).
The experiences of the State of Victoria in Australia provide a good example of learning
by doing during the implementation process at the sub national level. It is worth considering
because Victoria has been particularly innovative in recent years both in the