We review the literature examining collaborative governance processes from a network perspective and evaluate the extent to which it tackles important conceptual and methodological challenges. In particular, we assess whether scholars clearly identify the boundaries of the network, define nodes and the nature of ties, and examine how they deal with missing data, account for tie strength, take tie multiplexity into account, and study networks over time. We discuss the implications of our findings for the collaborative governance literature and ways to address the shortcomings in existing research.
AicherC.JacobsA. Z.ClausetA. (2014).
Learning latent block structure in weighted networks. Journal of Complex Networks,
3(2), 221–248.
2.
AllenJ.JamesA. D.GamlenP. (2007).
Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: A case study using social network analysis.R&D Management,
37(3), 179–196.
3.
AmslerL. B. (2016).
Collaborative governance: Integrating management, politics, and law. Public Administration Review,
76(5), 700–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12605
4.
AnsellC.GashA. (2008).
Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
18(4), 543–571.
5.
AshworthR. E.McDermottA. M.CurrieG. (2019).
Theorizing from qualitative research in public administration: Plurality through a combination of rigor and richness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
29(2), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy057
6.
BalsigerJ.IngoldK. (2016).
In the eye of the beholder: Network location and sustainability perception in flood prevention. Environmental Policy and Governance,
26(4), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1715
7.
BardachE. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship.
Brookings Institution Press.
8.
Berardo, R. (2010). Sustaining joint ventures: The role of resource exchange and the strength of inter-organizational relationships. In R.C. Feiock & J.T. Scholz (Eds.) Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action (pp. 204–228). Cambridge University Press.
9.
Berardo, R. (2013). The coevolution of perceptions of procedural fairness and link formation in self-organizing policy networks. The Journal of Politics, 75(3), 686–700.
10.
Berardo, R., Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Interorganizational engagement in collaborative environmental management: Evidence from the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 697–719.
11.
Berardo, R., & Lubell, M. (2016). Understanding what shapes a polycentric governance system. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 738–751.
12.
Berardo, R., & Scholz, J. T. (2010). Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 632–649.
13.
BergenholtzC.WaldstrømC. (2011).
Inter-organizational network studies—A literature review. Industry and Innovation,
18(6), 539–562.
BodinÖ.NohrstedtD. (2016).
Formation and performance of collaborative disaster management networks: Evidence from a Swedish wildfire response. Global Environmental Change,
41, 183–194.
16.
BodinÖ.SandströmA.CronaB. (2017).
Collaborative networks for effective ecosystem-based management: A set of working hypotheses. Policy Studies Journal,
45(2), 289–314.
17.
BurtR. S. (1983). Studying status/role-sets using mass surveys. In BurtR. S.MinorM. (Eds.), Applied network analysis (pp. 100–118).
SAGE.
18.
BurtR. S. (1987).
A note on missing network data in the general social survey. Social Networks,
9(1), 63–73.
19.
CalliariE.MichettiM.FarniaL.RamieriE. (2019).
A network approach for moving from planning to implementation in climate change adaptation: Evidence from southern Mexico. Environmental Science & Policy,
93, 146–157.
20.
ClaroD. P.HagelaarG. J.KempR. G.OmtaS. W. F. (2003).
The impact of downstream network subgroups on collaboration and performance: A survey of buyer-supplier relationships in the Dutch flower sector.International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,
6(2), 87–98.
21.
CostenbaderE.ValenteT. W. (2003).
The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled. Social Networks,
25(4), 283–307.
22.
Della CorteV.AriaM. (2014).
Why strategic networks often fail: Some empirical evidence from the area of Naples. Tourism Management,
45, 3–15.
23.
Dowding, K. (1995). Model or metaphor? A critical review of the policy network approach. Political Studies, 43(1), 136–158.
24.
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.
25.
EmersonK.NabatchiT.BaloghS. (2012).
An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
26.
FaulM. V. (2016).
Networks and power: Why networks are hierarchical not flat and what can be done about it. Global Policy,
7(2), 185–197.
27.
FischerM. (2015).
Collaboration patterns, external shocks and uncertainty: Swiss nuclear energy politics before and after Fukushima. Energy Policy,
86, 520–528.
28.
FischerM.AngstM.MaagS. (2017).
Co-participation in the Swiss water forum network. International Journal of Water Resources Development,
35(3), 446–464.
29.
FischerM.IngoldK.SciariniP.VaroneF. (2012).
Impacts of market liberalization on regulatory network: A longitudinal analysis of the Swiss telecommunications sector. Policy Studies Journal,
40(3), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00460.x
FischerM.SciariniP. (2016).
Collaborative tie formation in policy networks: A cross-sector perspective. The Journal of Politics,
78, 63–74.
32.
GallemoreC.JespersenK. (2016).
Transnational markets for sustainable development governance: The case of REDD+. World Development,
86, 79–94.
33.
GreenacreM.BlasiusJ. (2006). Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods.
Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.
34.
HåakanssonH.JohansonJ. (1988). Formal and informal cooperation strategies in international industrial networks. In ContractorF. J.LorangeP. (Eds.), Cooperative strategies in international business (pp. 369–379).
Lexington Books.
35.
HayesA. L.ScottT. A. (2018).
Multiplex network analysis for complex governance systems using surveys and online behavior. Policy Studies Journal,
46(2), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12210
36.
HorningD.BauerB. O.CohenS. J. (2016).
Missing bridges: Social network (dis)connectivity in water governance. Utilities Policy,
43, 59–70.
37.
HughesS.PincetlS. (2014).
Evaluating collaborative institutions in context: The case of regional water management in southern California. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,
32(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1210
38.
HuxhamC.VangenS.HuxhamC.EdenC. (2000).
The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Management: An International Journal of Research and Theory,
2(3), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030000000021
39.
IngoldK.FischerM. (2014).
Drivers of collaboration to mitigate climate change: An illustration of Swiss climate policy over 15 years. Global Environmental Change,
24, 88–98.
40.
IngoldK.FischerM.CairneyP. (2017).
Drivers for policy agreement in nascent subsystems: An application of the advocacy coalition framework to fracking policy in Switzerland and the UK. Policy Studies Journal,
45(3), 442–463.
41.
IsettK. R.MergelI. A.LeRouxK.MischenP. A.RethemeyerR. K. (2011).
Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
21(Suppl. 1), i157–i173.
42.
JohnstonE. W.HicksD.NanN.AuerJ. C. (2011).
Managing the inclusion process in collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
21(4), 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq045
43.
Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2016). missMDA: A package for handling missing values in multivariate data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 70(1), 1–31.
44.
KanwarP.KolibaC.GreenhalghS.BowdenW. B. (2016).
An institutional analysis of the Kaipara Harbour governance network in New Zealand. Society & Natural Resources,
29(11), 1359–1374.
45.
KapucuN.GarayevV. (2013).
Designing, managing, and sustaining functionally collaborative emergency management networks. The American Review of Public Administration,
43(3), 312–330.
KininmonthS.BergstenA.BodinÖ. (2015).
Closing the collaborative gap: Aligning social and ecological connectivity for better management of interconnected wetlands. Ambio,
44(1), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0605-9
KrivitskyP. N. (2012).
Exponential-family random graph models for valued networks. Electronic Journal of Statistics,
6, 1100–1128.
50.
KronenbergJ.Pietrzyk-KaszyńskaA.ZbiegA.ŻakB. (2016).
Wasting collaboration potential: A study in urban green space governance in a post-transition country. Environmental Science & Policy,
62, 69–78.
51.
LaumannE. O.MarsdenP. V.PrenskyD. (1989). The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In FreemanL. C.WhiteD. R.RomneyA. K. (Eds.), Research methods in social network analysis (pp. 61–87).
George Mason University Press.
52.
LêS.JosseJ.HussonF. (2008).
FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software,
25(1), 1–18.
53.
LecyJ. D.MergelI. A.SchmitzH. P. (2014).
Networks in public administration: Current scholarship in review. Public Management Review,
16(5), 643–665.
54.
LeeY.LeeI. W.FeiockR. C. (2012).
Interorganizational collaboration networks in economic development policy: An exponential random graph model analysis. Policy Studies Journal,
40(3), 547–573.
55.
LeifeldP.SchneiderV. (2012).
Information exchange in policy networks. American Journal of Political Science,
56(3), 731–744.
56.
Le RouxB.RouanetH. (2010). Multiple correspondence analysis.
SAGE.
57.
LieberherrE.FischerM.TschannenA. (2019).
Taking stock of institutional resource regime research: A meta-analysis. Environmental Science & Policy,
97, 81–89.
58.
MargerumR. D. (2008).
A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management,
41(4), 487–500.
59.
MarshD. (1998). Comparing policy networks.
Open University Press.
60.
MattiS.SandströmA. (2011).
The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: Examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. Policy Studies Journal,
39(3), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00414.x
61.
NordlundC. (2016).
A deviational approach to blockmodeling of valued networks. Social Networks,
44, 160–178.
62.
OlivierT. (2019).
How do institutions address collective-action problems? Bridging and bonding in institutional design. Political Research Quarterly,
72(1), 162–176.
63.
PersonM. T.DeleaM. G.GarnJ. V.AlexanderK.AbaireB.FreemanM. C. (2017).
Assessing the influence of social capital on water point sustainability in rural Ethiopia. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development,
7(4), 611–622.
64.
ProvanK. G.BeaglesJ. E.LeischowS. J. (2011).
Network formation, governance, and evolution in public health: The North American Quitline Consortium case. Health Care Management Review,
36(4), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e31820e1124
65.
RobinsG.BatesL.PattisonP. (2011).
Network governance and environmental management: Conflict and cooperation. Public Administration,
89(4), 1293–1313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01884.x
66.
ScholzJ. T.BerardoR.KileB. (2008).
Do networks solve collective action problems? Credibility, search, and collaboration. Journal of Politics,
70(2), 393–406.
67.
ScottT. A. (2016).
Analyzing policy networks using valued exponential random graph models: Do government-sponsored collaborative groups enhance organizational networks?Policy Studies Journal,
44(2), 215–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12118
68.
ScottT. A.ThomasC. W. (2017).
Winners and losers in the ecology of games: Network position, connectivity, and the benefits of collaborative governance regimes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
27(4), 647–660.
69.
ScottT. A.UlibarriN.ScottR. P. (2020).
Stakeholder involvement in collaborative regulatory processes: Using automated coding to track attendance and actions. Regulation & Governance,
14, 219–237.
ShresthaM. K.FeiockR. C. (2009).
Governing US metropolitan areas: Self-organizing and multiplex service networks. American Politics Research,
37(5), 801–823.
72.
SmithJ. A.MoodyJ. (2013).
Structural effects of network sampling coverage I: Nodes missing at random. Social Networks,
35(4), 652–668.
73.
SnijdersT. A.Van de BuntG. G.SteglichC. E. (2010).
Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks,
32(1), 44–60.
74.
SongA. M.TembyO.KimD.CisnerosA. S.HickeyG. M. (2019).
Measuring, mapping and quantifying the effects of trust and informal communication on transboundary collaboration in the Great Lakes fisheries policy network. Global Environmental Change,
54, 6–18.
75.
StokmanF. N.ZeggelinkE. P. (1996).
Is politics power or policy oriented? A comparative analysis of dynamic access models in policy networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology,
21(1–2), 77–111.
76.
ThomasA. C.BlitzsteinJ. K. (2011). Valued ties tell fewer lies: Why not to dichotomize network edges with thresholds. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1101.0788. https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0788
77.
TreinP.MeyerI.MaggettiM. (2019).
The integration and coordination of public policies: A systematic comparative review. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice,
21(4), 332–349.
78.
UlibarriN.ScottT. A. (2017).
Linking network structure to collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
27, 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw041
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol.
8).
Cambridge University Press.
81.
WeareC.LichtermanP.EsparzaN. (2014).
Collaboration and culture: Organizational culture and the dynamics of collaborative policy networks. Policy Studies Journal,
42(4), 590–619.
82.
WeibleC. M. (2011).
Political-administrative relations in collaborative environmental management. International Journal of Public Administration,
34(7), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.569916
83.
YiH.ScholzJ. T. (2016).
Policy networks in complex governance subsystems: Observing and comparing hyperlink, media, and partnership networks. Policy Studies Journal,
44(3), 248–279.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
