Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A threefold perspective: conditions for collaborative governance

  • Published:
Journal of Management and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collaborative governance arrangements have been touted as a useful tool in a world of multiple actors and dynamic public policy. However, they are also cumbersome, costly, difficult to manage, and may be problematic from the democratic perspective. In this theoretical paper we explore the question: Under what conditions is it beneficial to promote collaborative governance arrangements and when is it not? To answer this question, we utilize a three-layer conceptual perspective. In the first layer, we focus on identifying the values most suitable for these arrangements. In the second layer, we look at different situational decisions and the last layer examines the context. While this perspective does not provide a definitive guide, we believe it could contribute to the theoretical and practical development of collaborative arrangements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Part of the development of the conceptual work is based on the work of Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith.

  2. The concept of drivers reflects the elements that affect the creation of collaborative governance, but we are focusing on the question of the conditions, so we will not elaborate on them here.

References

  • Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. The American Review of Public Administration,38(2), 130–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C. (2012). Collaborative governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 499–511). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C. (2016). Collaborative governance as creative problem-solving. In J. Torfing & P. Triantafillou (Eds.), Enhancing public innovation by transforming public governance (pp. 35–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Theory and Practice,18, 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Jacob Torfing, J. (2017). Improving policy implementation through collaborative policymaking. Policy & Politics,45(3), 467–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booher, D. E. (2004). Collaborative governance practices and democracy. National Civic Review,93(4), 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., T’Hart, P., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.). (2002). Success and failure in public governance: A comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review,62(2), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review,19(5), 640–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dery, D. (1996). Introduction to public administration. Israel: The Open University of Israel. (in Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead - long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,16(3), 467–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, K., & Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Adaptation in collaborative governance regimes. Environmental Management,54, 768–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,22(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (2006). Three world of welfare capitalism. In C. Pierson & F. G. Castles (Eds.), The welfare state reader (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R., & Sturdy, S. (Eds.). (2014). Knowledge in policy. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review,66, 66–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillett, A., Loader, K., Doherty, B., & Scott, J. M. (2016). A multi-organizational cross-sectoral collaboration: empirical evidence from an ‘Empty Homes’ project. Public Money & Management,36(1), 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodship, J., Jacks, K., Gummerson, M., Lathlean, J., & Cope, S. (2004). Modernising regulation or regulating modernisation? The public, private and voluntary interface in adult social care. Public Policy and Administration,19(2), 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, A., & Harrison, S. (1999). An exploration of collaborative government. Public Policy and Administration,14(2), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpin, D. R., & Fraussen, B. (2017). Laying the groundwork: Linking internal agenda-setting processes of interest groups to their role in policy making. Administration & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399717728094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammerschmid, G., Van de Walle, S., Andrews, R., & Bezes, P. (Eds.). (2016). Public administration reforms in Europe: The view from the top. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J., Alford, J., Hughes, O., & Yates, S. (2015). Public value and political astuteness in the work of public managers: The art of the possible. Public Administration,93(1), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation. Policy Studies Journal,19(2), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences,47(3), 187–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C. (2003). Theorizing collaboration practice. Public Management Review,5(3), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., Vangen, S., Huxham, C., & Eden, C. (2000). The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Management an International Journal of Research and Theory,2(3), 337–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society,37(3), 281–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., & Mandell, M. (2014). The collaborative push: Moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence. Journal of Management and Governance,18(1), 9–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kekez, A., Howlett. M., & Ramesh, M. (2019). Collaboration in Public Delivery: What, When and How. ch1. in A. Kekez, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh (Eds.) Collaboration and Public Service Delivery: Promise and Pitfalls. Edward Elgar Publishing. ch. 1with authors’ permission.

  • Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating public value—An analytical framework for public service reform. UK: Strategy Unit, Cabinet office. Retrieved 20.10.2012 from http://webmail.sgb.gov.tr/YBS/IPA%20PROJES%20DOKMANLARI/E%C4%9Fitim%20Sunumlar%C4%B1%20ve%20E%C4%9Fitime%20%C4%B0li%C5%9Fkin%20Dok%C3%BCmanlar/5.%20Kamu%20De%C4%9Feri%20-%20Politika%20Analizi%20ve%20De%C4%9Ferlendirme/%C4%B0ngilizce%20Dok%C3%BCmanlar/Petrus%20Kautto/%C4%B0lgili%20Dok%C3%BCmanlar/Creating%20Public%20Value.pdf

  • Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2014). Complexity in governance network theory. Complexity, Governance & Networks,1(1), 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahat, L. (2018). Swimming on land: Some suggestions for today's public administration. Perspectives - Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 30(3), 229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahat, L., & Sher Hadar, N. (2019). Coping with the implementation challenge: Decision-making strategies and their implications for collaborative governance. In A. Kekez, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh (Eds.), Collaboration and public service delivery: Promise and pitfalls. Edward Elgar (in press).

  • Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge- Social science and social problem solving. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., & Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post-NPM in New Zealand. Governance,24(1), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2014). Introduction: Governance innovation, administrative capacities, and policy instruments. In M. Lodge & K. Wegrich (Eds.), The Problem-solving capacity of the modern state: Governance challenges and administrative capacities (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M. (2004). Collaborative environmental institutions: All talk and no action? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,23(3), 549–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M., Henry, A. D., & McCoy, M. (2010). Collaborative institutions in an ecology of games. American Journal of Political Science,54(2), 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauri, A. G., & Muccio, S. (2012). The public management reform, from theory to practice – the role of cultural factor. International Journal of Advanced Management Science,1(3), 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. (2000). Collaborative policy making and administration: The operational demands of local economic development. Economic Development Quarterly,14(3), 278–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review,66(s1), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menahem, G., & Stein, R. (2013). High-capacity and low-capacity governance networks in welfare services delivery: a typology and empirical examination of the case of Israeli municipalities. Public Administration,91(1), 211–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina, A. D. (2015). The virtues of administration: Values and the practice of public service. Administrative Theory & Praxis,37(1), 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nabatchi, T. (2017). Public values frames in administration and governance. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance,1(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review,77(5), 766–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Flynn, J. (2008). Elusive appeal or aspirational ideal? The rhetoric and reality of the ‘Collaborative Turn’ in public policy. In J. O’Flynn & J. Wanna (Eds.) Collaborative governance: A new era of public policy in Australia. Australia and New Zealand School of Government, The Australian National University, E- Press, ch. 17.

  • O’Flynn, J. (2009). The cult of collaboration in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration,68(1), 112–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal,39(1), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2009). Political culture and public administration. In The politics of bureaucracy, 6th edition. London: Routledge, ch. 2, pp. 33–45.

  • Plantinga, M. (2010). The public interests of social security: A social science perspective. In: G. Vonk & A. Tollenaar (Eds.) Social security as a public interest: A multidisciplinary inquiry into the foundations of the regulatory welfare state. Social Europe Series 24 Antwerp, Oxford, Portland: Intersentia, pp. 49–66.

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Comparative public management reform: An introduction to the key debates. In C. Pollitt & G. Bouckaert (Eds.), Public management reform: A comparative analysis-new public management, governance, and the neo-weberian state (pp. 1–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W., & Wanna, J. (2007). The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government from the platonic guardians. The Australian Journal of Public Administration,66(4), 406–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W., & Wanna, J. (2009). Bringing the politics back in: Public value in Westminster Parliamentary Government. Public Administration,87(2), 161–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J., Gustafsson, G., & Jordan, G. (1982). The concept of policy style. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Policy styles in western Europe (pp. 1–16). London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittberger, B., & Richardson, J. (2003). Old wine in new bottles? The commission and the use of environmental policy instruments. Public Administration,81(3), 575–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, D. H., & Gong, T. (2013). Coproducing” clean” collaborative governance: Examples from the United States and China. Public Performance & Management Review,36(4), 544–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummery, K. (2006). Partnerships and collaborative governance in welfare: The citizenship challenge. Social Policy and Society,5(2), 293–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy,5, 98–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189–220). Colorado: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R. (2013). Another size fits all? Public value management and challenges for institutional design. Public Management Review,15(4), 477–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (1st ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. F. I. (2004). Focusing on public value: Something new and something old. Australian Journal of Public Administration,63(4), 68–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2016). Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. The American Review of Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016643181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C. (1996). Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: Three concepts in search of a theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management,9(1), 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance? The American Review of Public Administration,36(1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., & Røiseland, A. (2017). Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Administration & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson. J. D., & Tuden, A. (1959). Strategies, structures, and processes of organizational decision. In: J. D. Thompson (Ed.) comparative studies in administration. University of Pittsburgh, Administrative Science Center, ch. 12.

  • Van Buuren, A. (2009). Knowledge for governance, governance of knowledge: Inclusive knowledge management in collaborative governance processes. International Public Management Journal,12(2), 208–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Walle, S., Hammerschmid, G., Andrews, R., & Bezes, P. (2016). Introduction: Public administration reforms in Europe. In G. Hammerschmid, S. Van de Walle, A. Rhys, & P. Bezes (Eds.), Public administration reforms in Europe: The view from the top (pp. 1–11). Cheltengham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2004). Collaborative public administration. Some lessons from the Israeli experience. Managerial Auditing Journal,19(6), 700–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2009). Building a strong nation. Fanham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V., Flemig, S., Timeus, K., Tõnurist, P., & Tummers, L. (2017). Does co-creation impact public service delivery? The importance of state and governance traditions. Public Money & Management,37(5), 365–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanna, J. (2008). Collaborative government: Meanings, dimensions, drivers and outcomes. In J. O’Flynn & J. Wanna (Eds.) Collaborative governance: A new era of public policy in Australia? ANUE Press, 3-12.

  • Weible, C. M. (2008). Caught in a maelstrom: Implementing California marine protected areas. Coastal Management,36(4), 350–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review,39(5), 426–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration,80(1), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. (2012). Collaboration in public policy and practice: Perspectives on boundary spanners. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society,34(3–4), 165–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by The Center for Social Justice and Democracy in Memory of Yakov Chazan at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. We would like to thank Professor Itzhak Galnoor, the Academic Director of the Center, for his illuminating remarks that helped improve this version of the article. We are also grateful to our research group at the center, especially Nomika Zion and Dr. Varda Shiffer. We would also like to thank the reviewers of Management & Governance for their important remarks. Dr. Lahat would like to thank the Azrieli Institute of Israel Studies at Concordia University in Montreal for the time dedicated to this paper. The first version was presented at the 3rd International Conference on Public Policy, Singapore, 28–30 June 2017.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Lihi Lahat, Neta Sher-Hadar have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Administration and Public Policy, Sapir College, Hof Ashkelon, Israel

    Lihi Lahat

  2. Mandel School for Educational Leadership, Department of Administration and Public Policy, Sapir College, Hof Ashkelon, Israel

    Neta Sher-Hadar

  3. The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, Jerusalem, Israel

    Lihi Lahat & Neta Sher-Hadar

Authors
  1. Lihi Lahat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neta Sher-Hadar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lihi Lahat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lahat, L., Sher-Hadar, N. A threefold perspective: conditions for collaborative governance. J Manag Gov 24, 117–134 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-019-09465-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-019-09465-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation