Public Organization Review

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 411–426 | Cite as

Constructing Co-governance between Government and Civil Society: An Institutional Approach to Collaboration

Article
First Online:

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyze how civil society organizations (CSOs) collaborate with both developed and developing governments in Asia through institutional processes. It argues that in developed countries, institutional arrangements have a positive impact on collaboration. Favourable administrative governance can create collaboration between governments and CSOs. This paper reports on 3,944 studies of CSOs from 2004 to 2009 in Tokyo, Seoul, Manila, and Dhaka. CSOs in Tokyo have better combined collaborative and institutional processes than those in the other three cities. Governance in Seoul is more polarized than in the other cities, and in both Manila and Dhaka, despite there being a high degree of institutionalized relations between CSOs and the government, their collaboration is low. This research also finds that intermediary institutions between governments and CSOs play a role in co-governance.

Keywords

Civil society Co-governance Institutionalization Collaboration Japan Korea Philippines Bangladesh 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Carlssona, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and Methodological Implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Farazmand, A. (2012). Sound Governance: Engaging Citizens through Collaborative Organizations. Public Organization Review, 12(3), 231–241.Google Scholar
  3. Fukui, H., & Fukai, S. N. (1996). Pork Barrel Politics, Networks, and Local Economic Development in Contemporary Japan. Asian Survey, 36(3), 268–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hayashi, M. (2004). Global Governance of Deep-Sea Fisheries. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 19(3), 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jamil, I. (1998). Transactional friction between NGOs and public agencies in Bangladesh: culture or dependency? Contemporary South Asia, 7(1), 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kim, S. (2009). The Limits of Ngo-Government Relations in South Korea. Asian Survey, 49(5), 873–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kooiman, J. (2000). Societal Governance: Levels, Modes, and Orders of Social-Political Interaction. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy (pp. 138–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as Governance. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  9. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee R., Mahon, R. & Pullin, R. (Eds.) (2008). Interactive Governance and Governability: An Introduction. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 7 (1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  10. Muramatsu, M., Itho, M., Tsujinaka, Y., et al. (2001). Nihon no Seiji [Politics in Japan 2nd edition]. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.Google Scholar
  11. North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. (2009). Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oh, J. S. (2012). Strong State and Strong Civil Society in Contemporary South Korea: Challenges to Democratic Governance. Asian Survey, 52(3), 528–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pekkanen, R. (2006). Japan’s Dual Civil Society: Members Without Advocates. California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Quimpo, N. G. (2008). Contested Democracy and the Left in the Philippines after Marcos. Manila: Ateneo De Manila University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Siddiqui, K. (2008). Local Government in Bangladesh. Dhaka: University Press Limited.Google Scholar
  17. Sidel, J. T. (2004). Bossism and Democracy in the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia: Towards an Alternative Framework for the Study of ‘Local Strongmen'. In J. Harriss, K. Stokke, & O. Tornquist (Eds.), Politicising Democracy: The New Local Politics of Democratisation (pp. 51–74). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Tsujinaka, Y. (2011). Center for International, Comparative, and Advanced Japanese Studies. http://cajs.tsukuba.ac.jp/TSUJINAKA%20Tunisia-Nov%209-14%202011-R.pdf. (Accessed 13 April 2012)
  19. Tsujinaka, Y. (2012). Seijigaku Nyumon: Kotekikettei No Kozo Akuta Jokyo [Introduction of Politics: Structure, Actor and Situation of Public Decision]. Tokyo: Open University of Japan.Google Scholar
  20. Vodden, K., Ommer, R., & Schneider, D. (2005). A Comparative Analysis of Three Modes of Collaborative Learning in Fisheries Governance: Hierarchy, Networks and Community. In G. S. Tim (Ed.), Participation in Fisheries Governance Reviews: Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries (pp. 291–306). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Walker, J. L. (1983). The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Group in America. The American Political Science Review, 77(2), 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. World Bank. (1991). Managing Development: The Governance Dimension. World Bank: Washington D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TsukubaTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations