From the abstract:
Collaborative governance draws from diverse realms of practice and research in public administration. This article synthesizes and extends a suite of conceptual frameworks, research findings, and practice-based knowledge into an integrative framework for collaborative governance. The framework specifies a set of nested dimensions that encompass a larger system context, a collaborative governance regime, and its internal collaborative dynamics and actions that can generate impacts and adaptations across the systems. The framework provides a broad conceptual map for situating and exploring components of cross-boundary governance systems that range from policy or program-based intergovernmental cooperation to place-based regional collaboration with nongovernmental stakeholders to public-private partnerships. The framework integrates knowledge about individual incentives and barriers to collection action, collaborative social learning and conflict resolution processes, and institutional arrangements for cross-boundary collaboration. It is presented as a general framework that might be applied to analyses at different scales, in different policy arenas, and varying levels of complexity. The article also offers 10 propositions about the dynamic interactions among components within the framework and concludes with a discussion about the implications of the framework for theory, research, evaluation, and practice.
From the introduction:
Although media and public attention have focused mostly on national policy making, program development, and funding decisions, intergovernmental relations and management remain vital to virtually all initiatives emanating from Washington, D.C. Yet a lack of adequate attention to intergovernmental matters--from policy formulation through policy implementation and evaluation--imperils effective and efficient governance in ways that are readily evident today. The intergovernmental confusion and clashes that attended governments' responses to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico suggested, for instance, that key government actors had not fully learned the lessons of the horribly bungled responses to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Hence, forces of coercion, cooperation, competition, and contestation continue to vie for intergovernmental preeminence.
The capacity--especially the federal government's capacity--to even recognize, let alone address, the intergovernmental sinews of our federal democracy has atrophied severely since the 1980s. This symposium focuses on the loss in 1996 of one element of such an institutional capacity--the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR)--but intergovernmental deinstitutionalization occurred across the board during the 1980s and 1990s. The president's Office of Management and Budget no longer has an explicit intergovernmental shop; the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (called the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement under President Obama) is more pertinent to politics than to policy; the U.S. House and Senate no longer have subcommittees on intergovernmental relations; and the U.S. Government Accountability Office no longer has a formal intergovernmental unit. At the same time, partisanship, interest group advocacy, and confrontational politics have eroded support for the kinds of impartial research, objective data collection, bipartisan policy development, and collaborative performance produced by the ACIR and its former institutional cousins in Congress and the executive branch.
This symposium looks mainly at the trends and issues associated with the creation and demise of the ACIR, and assesses prospects for recreating lost capacities. These include monitoring intergovernmental trends, convening key stakeholders, conducting impartial research and data analysis, and recommending practical policies and management practices. The symposium also surveys the state ACIRs.
Articles include:
- Reflections on the Spirit and Work of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations by Bruce D. McDowell
- An ACIR Perspective on Intergovernmental Institutional Development by
Carl W. Stenberg
- Reflections of a Member of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations by Richard P. Nathan
- The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations: Unique Artifact of a Bygone Era by John Kincaid
- The Current Status and Roles of State Advisory Commissions on Intergovernmental Relations in the U.S. Federal System by Richard L. Cole
- "Big Questions" about Intergovernmental Relations and Management: Who Will Address Them? by John Kincaid and Carl W. Stenberg
]]>From the abstract:
Interlocal cooperation through service-sharing agreements has a long history, but its use has increased in popularity during the last 20 years. The decisions of local government units to collaborate through intergovernmental service agreements are best understood as a two-stage process. The first stage, in which communities decide whether to consider interlocal cooperation, involves the nature of the immediate problem faced plus specific demands for performance and efficiency gains that can result from service cooperation. In the second stage, communities confront a question of institutional supply, and hence must overcome inherent bargaining and collective action issues in order to forge interlocal agreements. Heckman probit estimates of such complex relationships using data drawn from a 2003 ICMA survey suggest strong support for this model. The authors conclude by discussing the role of network relationships among local actors for reducing transaction costs and facilitating intergovernmental collaboration.
From the summary:
This three-volume report examines Wallace-supported efforts in five cities to build systems to improve the quality and accessibility of after-school, summer and other out-of-school time (OST) programs. The study concludes that the fledgling systems, which seek to coordinate the work of major OST players like schools, parks departments, and nonprofit after-school programs, hold some promise. It also describes major challenges the efforts face. Volume I, Lessons From Five Cities, looks at what helped and hindered the ventures. Volume II, The Power of Data, explores the use of management information systems by the five Wallace-supported projects and three other OST initiatives. Volume III, Profiles of Five Cities, describes in detail each Wallace-funded effort. A Wallace Knowledge in Brief highlights key study findings and offers considerations for those interested in OST system-building.
Most public problems that state and local governments tackle are addressed effectively within their particular jurisdiction. In such cases, the benefits from addressing them usually are confined to the citizens living within the government's limits. For example, waste disposal is handled by picking up trash at citizens' homes or by giving them a specific site to deposit it, both within a discrete jurisdiction. Likewise, educational, community, and recreational benefits can be restricted to the citizens of a particular jurisdiction by requiring proof of residence within it. Similarly, when state and local governments aim to reduce harms, their jurisdiction for and delivery of public safety and security services is limited to a specific area, not withstanding public safety boundary problems, such as hot pursuit or threats from adjacent jurisdictions (these can be handled though internal practices, such as standard operating procedures or bilateral agreements like memoranda of understanding). Although these examples do admit of ''spillover effects'' or externalities affecting or affected by other jurisdictions, the direct benefits provided are limited to those governed by a single, limited jurisdiction. In short, the delivery of these services in an effective way is not dependent on or limited by cooperation with other locales.
]]>NACo's Larry Naake is pushing for a commission of representatives from all forms of government.
From the abstract:
Local governments increasingly confront policy problems that span the boundaries of individual political jurisdictions. Institutional theories of local governance and intergovernmental relations emphasize the importance of networks for fostering service cooperation among local governments. Yet empirical research fails to examine systematically the effects of social networks on interlocal service cooperation. Do the individual networks of local government actors increase their jurisdiction's level of interlocal service delivery? Drawing data from the National Administrative Studies Project IV (NASP-IV), multivariate analysis is applied to examine this question among 919 municipal managers and department heads across the United States. The findings indicate that interlocal service cooperation increases when jurisdictional actors network frequently through a regional association or council of government and when they are united by a common set of professional norms and disciplinary values. Manager participation in professional associations, however, does not increase interjurisdictional cooperation. The key conclusion for local government practitioners searching for ways to increase collaboration: networks that afford opportunities for more face-to-face interaction yield better results for effective service partnerships.
Some local and state government officials say that cooperation between them and federal government agencies is better than it has been in a long time, however, the Washington-based International City/County Management Association (ICMA) sees plenty of room for improvement. It has released a whitepaper that calls for a new kind of partnership between the state and local levels and the federal government.
In "Restoring the Intergovernmental Partnership: What Needs to Change," ICMA calls for a new intergovernmental structure that would be similar to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) that was disbanded in 1996 after 37 years of operation. "Rather than a reactive situation where we're jumping into something after it gets going, we'd like to work closely with our partners in the federal government in a more thoughtful way so that we can work with them on the policy questions and problems over time," ICMA Deputy Executive Director Elizabeth Kellar says.
]]>Perhaps due to the speed of the current debate, however, federal policymakers have largely ignored two issues critical to the implementation of any new legislation: first, how will new federal rules fit with the nation's complicated and entrenched set of inter-governmental health care partnerships; and second, how will those rules accommodate the extraordinary inter-state (and intra-state) variation in every aspect of the nation's health care system? This issue brief addresses these issues. It begins with a review of the evolution of the nation's inter-governmental health care partnership, followed by a discussion of how proposed federal reforms to expand Medicaid, to create a health insurance exchange, and to restructure the health care delivery system might impact that partnership. The brief concludes by encouraging policymakers to establish a task force, work-group, or some similar institutional mechanism that would focus on the federalism and implementation implications of both proposed and enacted reforms.
]]>From the abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to suggest that a more deliberate strategy of partnering be considered by library administrators.
An organization can innovate more successfully by carefully collaborating with other organizations.
Originality/value - Guidelines for selecting and establishing partnerships are offered, along with illustrations of effective library partnering.
]]>For years, municipalities nationwide have looked to consolidation, or shared-service arrangements, in an ongoing effort to reduce or stabilize costs and maintain a high level of service in the face of ever-shrinking revenues.
]]>From the abstract:
This article identifies four different roles that government agencies can pursue in network-based collaborative innovation and problem-solving: innovation integrator, innovation seeker, innovation champion, and innovation catalyst. It draws on examples to elaborate on these four roles. It also briefly considers the organizational competencies and capabilities that government agencies would need to succeed in such network-based collaborative innovation initiatives.
States are pushing localities to consolidate -- and localities are pushing back.
...... The common thread is that state officials in many places see local government as bloated and fractured. The result is a tense debate between states and localities over just what local government should look like.
]]>