Search results

AbstractScholars have engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the relationships among management, politics, and law in public administration. Collaborative governance presents new challenges to this dynamic. While scholars have made substantial contributions to our understanding of the design and practice of collaborative governance, others suggest that we lack theory for this emerging body of research. Law is often omitted as a variable. Scholarship generally does not explicitly include collaboration as a public value. This article addresses the dialogue on management, politics, and law with regard to collaborative governance. It provides an overview of the current legal framework for collaborative governance in the United States at the federal, state, and local levels of government and identifies gaps. The institutional analysis and development framework provides a body of theory that incorporates rules and law into research design. The article concludes that future research on collaborative governance should incorporate the legal framework as an important variable and collaboration as a public value.

Frameshifting : lateral thinking for collaborative public management / Lisa Blomgren Bingham, Rosemary O'Leary, and Chris Carlson -- The paradoxical nature of collaboration / David R. Connelly, Jing Zhang, and Sue Faerman -- Intersectoral collaboration and the motivation to collaborate : toward an integrated theory / Beth Gazley -- Failing into cross-sector collaboration successfully / John M. Bryson and Barbara C. Crosby -- Incentivizing collaborative performance : aligning policy intent, design, and impact / Patricia Wallace Ingraham and Heather Getha-Taylor -- Linking collaboration processes and outcomes : foundations for advancing empirical theory / Ann Marie Thomson, James L. Perry, and Theodore K. Miller -- Legitimacy building in organizational networks / Keith G. Provan, Patrick Kenis, Sherrie E. Human -- Managing for results across agencies : building collaborative capacity in the human services / Stephen Page -- Collaboration for knowledge : learning from public management networks / Robert Agranoff -- Institutional collective action and local government collaboration / Richard C. Feiock -- Outcomes achieved through citizen-centered collaborative public management / Terry L. Cooper, Thomas A. Bryer, and Jack W. Meek -- The space station and multinational collaboration : a merger of domestic and foreign policy / W. Henry Lambright and Carla Pizzarella -- Legal frameworks for collaboration in governance and public management / Lisa Blomgren Bingham -- Learning to do and doing to learn : teaching managers to collaborate in networks / Lisa Blomgren Bingham, Jodi Sandfort, and Rosemary O'Leary

The world of public management is changing dramatically, fueled by technological innovations such as the Internet, globalism that permits us to outsource functions anywhere in the world, new ideas from network theory, and more. Public managers no longer are unitary leaders of unitary organizations - instead, they often find themselves convening, negotiating, mediating, and collaborating across borders.""Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management"" brings together a rich variety of big picture perspectives on collaborative public management. The chapters are all original and written by distin.

How may local government, nested in state government as a creature of state law, effectively engage in collaborative governance? What if it finds itself thwarted by state legislation related to policy solutions that community stakeholders identify through collaborative governance as steps to mitigate climate change? This article examines how state legislation may limit or empower local government to use collaborative governance to address climate change. It uses Institutional Analysis and Development with a particular focus on state law as rules that shape municipal action arenas. Legal scholars term state legislation that limits local government action as state preemption or intrastate preemption. Using a 50-state review of state statutes regarding single use plastic bags, fracking, electricity supply, and broadband, this article identifies patterns of intrastate preemption of municipal government authority to adopt policies or ordinances related to the environment. It identifies patterns in states adopting intrastate preemption related to majority political party in the state legislature and governorship. It concludes intrastate preemption may inhibit collaborative governance and community problem-solving by limiting municipal policy choices. This research illustrates the importance of controlling for state law in research on municipal collaborative governance in policy-making.

PurposeOver the 30 years, public management and administration scholars have crossed disciplinary boundaries to build a body of scholarship on collaboration for public good, services, and values. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approachPublic management and administration researchers need to integrate the scholarship on collaboration through systems thinking. How do we define collaboration? How do we distinguish among the categories of collaborative public management (CPM), collaborative governance (CG), and networks? How do systems and institutional context shape collaboration in these categories? Within these categories, what are our units of analysis: individual leadership, organizations, or groups in collaboration processes? How do we apply what we know to practice and design?FindingsThe work requires that the authors examine CPM, CG, and networks in their larger and nested institutional contexts to determine how they are related to and shape each other. The Institutional Analysis and Development framework may inform this work. CPM or networks may be nested in CG processes and structures in inter-governmental contexts.Research limitations/implicationsResearchers need more clarity as to the context within which CPM, CG, and networks occur, and in units of analysis and the roles of individual people as managers and as agents of organizations, as distinguished from organizations as constructs.Practical implicationsScholars need to apply research to practice related to designing systems and structures in which collaboration occurs.Social implicationsAs humankind faces increasingly complex and multifaceted policy problems that cross inter-governmental and international boundaries and require inter-sectoral work, managers and organizations must improve both the design of collaboration in governance and management and mastery of essential skills to participate in collaboration.Originality/valueCPM, CG, and network research does not sufficiently incorporate or control for institutional context into research design.

Public engagement is an umbrella term that encompasses numerous methods for bringing people together to address issues of public importance. In this article, we focus on direct public engagement in local government, exploring what we know and proposing areas where more research is needed. We first define direct public engagement and distinguish it from related concepts and terms. We then introduce a simple framework for exploring variations in direct public engagement at the local level. Next, we use this framework to examine the extant literature on why, how, and to what effect direct public engagement in local government is used. Finally, we identify gaps in the literature and propose a research agenda for the future.

What is dispute system design? -- Analytic framework for dispute system design -- System building blocks : processes for preventing, managing, and resolving conflict -- System design practice -- Accountability : evaluating dispute system design -- Ethics in system design -- Court programs -- Claims facilities -- Communities and justice -- Labor relations : the birthplace of dispute system design -- Managing conflict in employment -- Arbitration in commercial and employment designs -- Commercial disputes -- Consumer disputes -- Transitional justice -- International dispute resolution -- Collaborative governance and dispute system design -- Designing dispute systems for the environment.

AbstractChristina Merchant made an important contribution to the field of dispute resolution through her teaching, writing, and training on dispute system design. Using principles of organization development, she brought a new organizational lens to thinking about dispute system design (DSD) beyond collective bargaining and grievance procedures; she looked at the whole organization, its many sources of, causes for, and ways to address conflict. With Cathy Costantino, her 1996 book provided a unique and influential resource for a field that has continued to grow. The field would benefit from broadening the academic literature that informs systems for managing conflict. Zooming out to the organization's nested institutional contexts, the work of Elinor Ostrom in political science and political economy provides the tools of institutional analysis for DSD. She also laid the groundwork for thinking about DSD in relation to governance, not only at the local but also at the state, regional, national, and international levels. By applying a more comprehensive analytic framework to DSD, conflict resolvers with DSD skills and expertise are poised to make important differences in emerging global systems for addressing conflict upstream in policy development, midstream in its implementation, and downstream in enforcement.