Governance with, not government over citizens

James C. Scott criticized the social-science perspective of “seeing like a state” both positively and normatively. He argued that many top-down policies failed to achieve their ends, largely because planners lacked the knowledge or incentives to control such complex systems. Scott also argued that top-down government control often becomes tyrannical. Scott’s work echoes the arguments of thinkers in liberal political economy, such as Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, James M. Buchanan, Vincent Ostrom, and Elinor Ostrom. Liberal political economists distinguish between government and governance, as well as institutional structures that facilitate governing with citizens rather than governing over them. This paper explores the methodological, analytical, and social philosophical implications of seeing like a citizen, rather than like a state. It puts Scott’s body of work in conversation with the leading liberal political economists. In particular, it highlights three important similarities: (1) an emphasis on the republican vision of a free society, (2) the fragility of self-governing democratic societies, and (3) the importance of cultivating citizens capable of self-governance. Scott disagreed with the liberal political economists on some margins, such as his skepticism of global markets and large-scale firms, but this tension provides an area for mutual learning. Liberal economists would likely say that Scott is too skeptical of markets, but classical liberals could better incorporate Scott’s conceptions of the art of resistance and the art of not being governed.