Despite the widespread use and extensive studies of collaborative governance in the United States, we still know too little about how the public at large evaluates the formal inclusion of private stakeholders in collaborative decision making. We examine this question by conducting a series of survey experiments about the function, composition, and power of a proposed regional transportation board. The survey results reveal that while our respondents generally favored collaborative governance (i.e., public officials with private stakeholders) over collaborative government (i.e., public officials only), it was largely due to the inclusion of private citizens, not the stakeholder group representatives. This finding is consistent with a populist framework that presumes that interest group influences tend to impede or distort the will of the electoral majority and that favors functionally delimited mandates and limited power for non-elected decision-making bodies. This has important implications for the design and public acceptance of future collaborative government arrangements.
AchenChristopher H.BartelsLarry M.2017. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Vol. 4. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2.
AnsellChrisGashAlison. 2008. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18 (4): 543–71.
3.
BartelsLarry M.2016. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
4.
BinghamLisa BlomgrenNabatchiTinaO’LearyRosemary. 2005. “The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government.” Public Administration Review65 (5): 547–58.
5.
BlairRobertJanousekChristian L.2013. “Collaborative Mechanisms in Interlocal Cooperation: A Longitudinal Examination.” State and Local Government Review45 (4): 268–82.
6.
BollensScott A.1997. “Fragments of Regionalism: The Limits of Southern California Governance.” Journal of Urban Affairs19 (1): 105–22.
7.
BörzelTanja A.PankeDiana. 2007. “Network Governance: Effective and Legitimate?” In Theories of Democratic Network Governance, edited by SørensenEvaTorfingJacob, 153–66. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
BoyneGeorge A.JamesOliverJohnPeterPetrovskyNicolai. 2009. “Democracy and Government Performance: Holding Incumbents Accountable in English Local Governments.” Journal of Politics71 (4): 1273–84.
9.
CainBruce E.2015. Democracy More or Less. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CainBruce E.EganPatrickFabbriniSergio. 2003. “Towards More Open Democracies: The Expansion of Freedom of Information Laws.” In Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies, edited by CainBruce E.DaltonRussell J.ScarrowSusan E., 115–39. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
ChaffinBrian C.GosnellHannahCosensBarbara A.2014. “A Decade of Adaptive Governance Scholarship: Synthesis and Future Directions.” Ecology and Society19 (3): 56.
12.
DamanpourFariborzSchneiderMarguerite. 2008. “Characteristics of Innovation and Innovation Adoption in Public Organizations: Assessing the Role of Managers.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19 (3): 495–522.
13.
DonahueJohn D.ZeckhauserRichard J.2012. Collaborative Governance: Private Roles for Public Goals in Turbulent Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
14.
EggersAndrew C.2014. “Partisanship and Electoral Accountability: Evidence from the UK Expenses Scandal.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science9 (4): 441–72.
EmersonKirkNabatchiTinaBaloghStephen. 2012. “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22 (1): 1–29.
17.
EsmarkAnders. 2007. “Democratic Accountability and Network Governance—Problems and Potentials.” In Theories of Democratic Network Governance, edited by SørensenEvaTorfingJacob, 274–96. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
FeiockRichard C.2007. “Rational Choice and Regional Governance.” Journal of Urban Affairs29 (1): 47–63.
FeiockRichard C.LeeIn WonParkHyung JunLeeKeon-Hyung. 2010. “Collaboration Networks among Local Elected Officials: Information, Commitment, and Risk Aversion.” Urban Affairs Review46 (2): 241–62.
21.
FreemanJody. 1997. “Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State.” UCLA Law Review45 (1): 1–99.
22.
GasperJohn T.ReevesAndrew. 2011. “Make It Rain? Retrospection and the Attentive Electorate in the Context of Natural Disasters.” American Journal of Political Science55 (2): 340–55.
23.
GazleyBethBrudneyJeffrey L.2007. “The Purpose (and Perils) of Government-Nonprofit Partnership.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly36 (3): 389–415.
24.
GerberElisabeth R.GibsonClark C.2009. “Balancing Regionalism and Localism: How Institutions and Incentives Shape American Transportation Policy.” American Journal of Political Science53 (3): 633–48.
25.
GerberElisabeth R.HenryAdam DouglasLubellMark. 2013. “Political Homophily and Collaboration in Regional Planning Networks.” American Journal of Political Science57 (3): 598–610.
26.
GriffithJanice C.2005. “Regional Governance Reconsidered.” Journal of Law & Politics21:505–59.
27.
HamiltonDavid K.2002. “Regimes and Regional Governance: The Case of Chicago.” Journal of Urban Affairs24 (4): 403–23.
28.
HardyScott D.KoontzTomas M.2010. “Collaborative Watershed Partnerships in Urban and Rural Areas: Different Pathways to Success?” Landscape and Urban Planning95 (3): 79–90.
29.
HealyAndrewMalhotraNeil. 2010. “Random Events, Economic Losses, and Retrospective Voting: Implications for Democratic Competence.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science5 (2): 193–208.
30.
HuiIrisUlibarriNicolaCainBruce. 2018. “Representation and Resource Allocation in Regional Water Collaboration.” Policy Studies Journal. Published electronically March 4. doi:10.1111/psj.12266.
31.
JohnstonErik W.HicksDarrinNanNingAuerJennifer C.2010. “Managing the Inclusion Process in Collaborative Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21 (4): 699–721.
32.
KoontzTomas M.ThomasCraig W.2006. “What Do We Know and Need to Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management?” Public Administration Review66:111–21.
33.
LeeRobert E.Hannah-SpurlockSarah. 2015. “Bridging Academic and Practitioner Interests on Interlocal Collaboration: Seasoned Managers Share Their Experiences in Florida.” State and Local Government Review47 (2): 127–33.
34.
LesterT. WilliamReckhowSarah. 2013. “Network Governance and Regional Equity: Shared Agendas or Problematic Partners?” Planning Theory12 (2): 115–38.
35.
LineberryRobert L.FowlerEdmund P.1967. “Reformism and Public Policies in American Cities.” The American Political Science Review61 (3): 701–16.
36.
LubellMarkHenryAdam DouglasMcCoyMike. 2010. “Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games.” American Journal of Political Science54 (2): 287–300.
37.
LubellMarkLippertLucas. 2011. “Integrated Regional Water Management: A Study of Collaboration or Water Politics-as-Usual in California, USA.” International Review of Administrative Sciences77 (1): 76–100.
38.
LuyetVincentSchlaepferRodolpheParlangeMarc B.ButtlerAlexandre. 2012. “A Framework to Implement Stakeholder Participation in Environmental Projects.” Journal of Environmental Management111:213–19.
39.
MacedoStephenAlex-AssensohYvetteBerryJeffrey M.BrintnallMichaelCampbellDavid E.FragaLuis RicardoFungArchon, et al. 2005. Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation, and What We Can Do about It. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
40.
MargerumRichard D.RobinsonCatherine J.2015. “Collaborative Partnerships and the Challenges for Sustainable Water Management.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability12:53–58.
41.
MatkinDavid S.FredericksonH. George. 2009. “Metropolitan Governance: Institutional Roles and Interjurisdictional Cooperation.” Journal of Urban Affairs31 (1): 45–66.
PageStephen. 2010. “Integrative Leadership for Collaborative Governance: Civic Engagement in Seattle.” The Leadership Quarterly21 (2): 246–63.
46.
PildesR. H. (2014). “Romanticizing Democracy, Political Fragmentation, and the Decline of American Government.” Yale LJ124: 804.
47.
PurdyJill M.2012. “A Framework for Assessing Power in Collaborative Governance Processes.” Public Administration Review72 (3): 409–17.
48.
ReedMark S.2008. “Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review.” Biological Conservation141 (10): 2417–31.
49.
RogersEllenWeberEdward P.2010. “Thinking Harder about Outcomes for Collaborative Governance Arrangements.” American Review of Public Administration40 (5): 546–67.
50.
ScottTyler A.ThomasCraig W.2017. “Unpacking the Collaborative Toolbox: Why and When Do Public Managers Choose Collaborative Governance Strategies?” Policy Studies Journal45 (1): 191–214.
51.
SkelcherC.2005. “Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance.” Governance18 (1): 89–110.
52.
SørensenEva. 2006. “Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance.” The American Review of Public Administration36 (1): 98–114.
53.
SørensenEvaTorfingJacob. 2007. “Theoretical approaches to democratic network governance.” In Theories of Democratic Network Governance, edited by SørensenEvaTorfingJacob, 233–46. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
54.
TaylorBrentde LoeRob C.2012. “Conceptualizations of Local Knowledge in Collaborative Environmental Governance.” Geoforum43 (6): 1207–17.
55.
ThomsonAnn MariePerryJames L.2006. “Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box.” Public Administration Review66:20–32.
56.
VerbaSidneySchlozmanKay LehmanBradyHenry E.1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
57.
ZeemeringEric S.2012. “The Problem of Democratic Anchorage for Interlocal Agreements.” American Review of Public Administration42 (1): 87–103.
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.
