Public administration and politics meet turbulence: The search for robust governance responses

Public Administration, Journal Year: 2022, Volume and Issue: 101(1), P. 3 - 22

Published: July 2, 2022

Public governance has always been challenged by turbulence, defined as "situations where events, demands, and support interact change in highly variable, inconsistent, unexpected or unpredictable ways" (Ansell & Trondal, 2017, p. 1). Social conflicts, economic recession, war, political leadership contests create turmoil chaos to which governments aim respond with a mixture of repression, concession, reform, regime maintain restore some form social, economic, order. Political philosophers such Machiavelli Hobbes depicted history circular movement the rise relatively stable regimes predicated on excise hard power ultimately gives way decadence, corruption, ruin that erode social In contrast, Hegel Marx portrayed linear trajectory governed rational unfolding dialectics whereby new, contradicting developments challenge old, structures, thus leading turbulent transitions bring society higher stages. Despite their different views history, they all agreed order is temporary invariably disturbed short spells crisis heightened turbulence occurring at regular intervals but tending foster new period rule. Today, there seems be sense become chronic endemic condition for modern governance. This cannot traced any single factor, arising instead from multiple interacting developments. A first factor acute creeping crises seem more frequently, affecting wider range sectors, spilling across boundaries, possibly producing (dubbed "poly-crisis" Zeitlin et al., 2019). second how interactions among widely distributed, multi-level parties are accelerating—producing surprising speed, scale, scope (Hong Lee, 2018). Communication information technologies lightning-fast exchanges demanding rapid timely response far-flung citizens, suppliers, stakeholders, decision-makers who may not have even part administrative picture until recently. Keeping up potentially destabilizing, mediatized events can easily devolve into constant stream fire drills (Cottle, 2006). third source arises an intensification conflict challenges existing norms mechanisms mediation. While public organizations familiar politics conflict, must now adapt shifting issues, polarized populations, turnover, clashing reform agendas, uncertain planning horizons—sometimes once (Kriesi 2012). Although concept implies need change, it refers certain kind adaptation change. When slow steady, when shifts trends clearly anticipated, important parameters observable, understandable, discrete ways, we world. leisure through planned adaptation, seek optimize structures processes comprehensive system reforms, tweak operations expected variance resources, supplies, personnel, generally world turbulence; instead, describes state sudden, difficult understand track. It deal multiple, simultaneous changes, each our immediate attention, often creating contradictions dilemmas. Adaptation like group strangers rapidly assembling puzzle, blurry pieces fit together poorly. crises, no means novel administration, theories analytical perspectives treat them peripheral exceptional rather than central commonplace. Both systems theory (Easton, 1965) neoclassical economics (McKenzie, 1959) focused occasional disturbance systemic equilibrium subsequent efforts equilibrium. Similarly, historical institutionalism talks about periodic disrupt policy paths self-reinforcing restored (Streeck Thelen, 2005; Torfing, 2009). Even poststructuralist discourse theorists describe hegemonic discourses dislocated domesticate, struggles aimed moral-intellectual (Laclau Mouffe, 1985). The common story here societal rule prevail despite brief interregnums turbulence. intellectual legacy this sharp order–disorder dichotomy reflected difficulty understanding designed, led, managed complex interactive normal exceptional. Our institutions tend associate stability absence while understood disruption stability. As intuitive is, prevents us what makes robust face dynamic challenges. key addressing these re-conceptualize administration stability–change relationship; focus enables and, reciprocally, To (as opposed resilient, explained below) essentially able continue providing value unexpected, demands. We argue paying attention interdependence—as opposition—of illuminate contributing robustness. special issue suggests address thinking robustness governing processes. situate frame argument times, examine paradigms conceptualized relationships. selectively two prominent well-established paradigms—public bureaucracy network governance—and then contrast emerging paradigm: (we leave management out analysis because does build directly upon it). account three one-by-one view define governance, discuss its distinctiveness compared management, resilience, agile investigate conditions strategies pursuing it. following section reviews prior theoretical claims relates findings articles issue. conclude returning notion seen interdependent, use springboard suggesting additional achieving ideas impersonal civil servants long (Kiser Schneider, 1994; Nickerson, 1996), growth Weberian Wilsonian was particularly pronounced interwar postwar periods. core ambition rules based predictable decisions (Du Gay, 2000). Separating private interests personal whims authority exercised professionally trained rule-bound provides potent tool securing controlled few surprises. bureaucratic quest predictability motivated interest maintaining sovereign simultaneously protecting citizens against arbitrary decisions. Hence, inherently good, making instability disorder problem. Since regarded exceptional, however, poses significant threat; indeed, invented tame eliminate shows ugly if incomplete breaks down extraordinary, unforeseen situations. Modern child industrial revolution. bureaucracies administer numerous large-scale programs systematically coordinate actions large numbers people working levels achieve goals. They economies scale delivering standardized service solutions masses. Built centralized hierarchical orders flow top bottom, compliance success criteria. Hierarchy along vertical axis complemented functional division labor horizontal axis. compartmentalization separate departments, agencies, bureaus creates specialization advantage, allowing employees experts undertaking particular task greatly enhancing coordination provided higher-level agencies. Together, hierarchy help keep everyone check. theory, should know exactly position do, do it, resources disposal. formulation written ultimate compliance, predictability, transparency, especially combined formal accountability monitoring, auditing, legal sanctions (West, 2005). paradigm relies organizational ensure perform expected. Deviation script limited professional altruistic concerns interest. little transactional transformational aiming motivate employees. Elected politicians lead defining overall goals occasionally reshaping sector, whereas managers overseeing implementation policies dealing breaches. Being integral liberal democracy, deeply concerned free fair elections universal suffrage, democratic control government, preventing pressure groups gaining excessive influence. legislation regulated rules, norms, procedures guaranteeing fairness abuse power. model, input legitimacy throughput over output (Schmidt, 2013). recognized paradigm—with rule-based command-and-control accountability—may rigid, siloed changing sluggish (Downs, 1967). begs question circumstances. initial answer "planning"; budgets activities present coming years forecasting demographic developments, needs, largely determine tax revenues. Planning helps rationally predict provide services, undertaken departments responsible documents statistics requesting parts sector submit relevant (Friedmann, 1971). Comprehensive supplemented planning, emerges instrument align plans diverge prompt reduce conflicts synergies. Coordination also needed prevent overlaps gaps services government sponsored agencies sectors (Bouckaert 2016). Bureaucratic top-down bodies make authoritative many Optimism sectoral peaked early 1960s, after assumptions underpinning were severely criticized (Lindblom, 1959; Wildavsky, 1973). fall grace, did disappear; assumed modest targeted forms sought facilitate specific Strategic anticipate mid- long-term context-dependent responses shaped differentiating itself rational-comprehensive (Bryson, Contingency became fashionable late 1960s several environmental (Lentzos Rose, decision-making tools determining takes decision anticipated circumstances crisis. mandatory, although foiled actual (Clarke, 1999). Organizational scholars increasingly open closed began questioning could resilient external shocks. Thompson (1967) described open-system buffer "technical core," coining term "boundary spanner" specialized functions managing fluctuations might disturb core. Cyert March (1963) importance "slack" resource called undergo stress. Landau (1969) introduced redundancy back-up ensuring reliability. Finally, pointed structural adaptations unique problems For example, "adhocracy" coined organization draws membership sufficiently flexible adaptable cope wake (Mintzberg McHugh, 1985; Toffler, 1970). Large-scale urged "ambidextrous" effectively exploiting well-known exploring develop future demands (March, 1991). sum, still dominated 1980s, increasing number hinted becoming concern. However, remained monumental bureaucracies, one occurred only periodically urgent (Fernandez Rainey, Often associated New Governance (Osborne, 2006, 2010; Torfing Triantafillou, 2013), emerged pluricentric alternative unicentric model (Kersbergen Waarden, 2004), limiting mobilization exploitation advantages collaborative (Huxham Vangen, mode fits well postindustrial post-Fordist logic specialization, since small stakeholders brought design tailor-made target subsequently amend preferences (Jessop, 2002). networks scale. Digital sustained interaction between manifold actors knowledge-sharing distributed settings. Collaborative networks, partnerships, so forth initially perceived lender last resort other market-based had failed Gash, 2008). eventually standard toolbox frequently used confronted wicked (Rittel Webber, 1973) mediate interdependent (Rhodes, 1997). Wicked both cognitive dimensions ill-defined poorly due presence tangled causalities, existence tradeoffs competing tends hamper (Head Alford, 2015). Complex vary terms wickedness, calling customized arrangements 2017). Much corporatism prequels, islands provisional cognitively politically complex—and therefore unstable challenging—policy contexts (Mayntz, 1993; Provan Kenis, 2008; Sørensen 2007). Provisional fostered involving networked find ways constructively differences (Gray, 1989) agreeing understandings hand set satisfactory solutions. recognizes perceives matter situational complexity. So manage spin cause turbulence? First, connect around solving. Second, participate trust-based collaboration self-regulated institutional sometimes hard-nosed bargaining, times involves open-ended deliberations search agreement. Third, contribute joint establish ownership Emerson Nabatchi, Compared modus operandi bureaucracy, replaces hierarchy, insulation, inter-organizational interdependency. Network grant priority legitimacy, prevails legitimacy. Pragmatic problem-solving getting things done override impartiality observing fixed process. Nearly definition, "flexible"; property advantageous responding centralized, authority, becomes emergent alignment aims combine diverse jointly negotiated happen, when, (Innes Booher, 2010). retain operational autonomy. respective prefabricated negotiation table explore congruencies possible synergies, mutual adjustments, scenarios contingent priorities conditions. Thus, Kenis (2008) observe, "flexibility–stability" tension. tension represented literature. Networks typically critical (e.g., Comfort Zhang, 2020; Kapucu, 2006; Moynihan, Nohrstedt, adaptive frameworks situations demand appeal, necessity fiat, "command center" orchestrator hybrid (Christensen "self-organizing" process 2010), meaning come (rather mandated) fashion self-regulating. Research tradition complexity stresses self-organizing nature underscoring self-organization (Duit Galaz, Koliba, paradigm, stress informal (Hawkins Still, convening actors, supporting collaboration, mediating conflict. facilitative directional (Kickert 1997) organized less (Provan By stressing values flexibility, self-organization, informality, respects mirror image paradigm. Indeed, failures bureaucracies—particularly limits placed formality fragmentation produced contracting services. studied failures, encounter (Koolma, 2013; Schrank Whitford, 2011; 2007; Teubner, 2009), occur collaboration; or, Whitford (2011, 170) vividly put "exchange partners either screw up." Transaction costs high (Lubell 2017), interdependence increase risk failure. paradoxes conflicting unity diversity (Ospina Saz-Carranza, arise (Koliba 2011) anchorage (Sørensen considered temporal rarely explicitly considered. Yet effective trust-building time, issues grow Johnston Klijn imply shared leadership, time (Ulibarri 2020). Failure negotiate, trust, produce "collaborative inertia" (Huxham, 2003). If traditional confronts related emphasis order, control, stability, equally very informality. Moreover, neither nor likely simply replace another. scenario will compete co-exist Agranoff (2014) rightly observes, reconstructed transformed growing play role metagovernors initiate, support, influence without reverting unduly command constrain built-in flexibility scare off 2009; flawless approach quixotic, suggest considering drawbacks light prompts viable alternative. embryonic paradigm—what call "robust governance"—aims societies enhance capacity permanently engage production creation developmental capable fostering improvisation, experimentation, learning systematic involvement affected beyond narrow involved networks. Envisioning requires rethinking relationship modalities interact. exhibit impressive characterized "galloping elephants" (Rainey Steinbauer, 1999) known adaptability. qualities, institutionalization 2020), touted suggest, viewed opposing attributes: disrupting On abstract level, building meet examining light: posing mutually conditions, relating wide scientific disciplines—from biology, engineering, sociology—to signify ability carry hold (Anderies Janssen, Carlson Doyle, 2002; Holling, 1973; Huber, 1981; Kitano, 2004; Leeson Subrick, Lempert Schupbach, Robustness refer features persist flux, implying basic cousin, refer, latter, bounce back shock. necessarily point uphold (stability) continuous transformations (change) supported infrastructure (stability). instance conservatism bounces forward perhaps attractive recently found study policy, 2021; Capano Woo, 2018; Ferraro 2015; Howlett, 2019; Trondal 2021). previous triggered internal malfunctions (Duit, 2016; Juncos, 2017; Lindbom Rothstein, Walker 2004). Recent strands research distinguish static resilience; resilience continuously function under improve performance relation goals, values, Howlett Ramesh, 2022). There clear resemblance advanced al. (2015), Woo (2017), (2019). Explaining difference robustness, Ansell (2018) capture absorb complexity, improving fitness environment incorporating requisite variety. emphasizes repertoires flexibly redeployed

Language: Английский

---

Drivers and Dynamics of Collaborative Governance in Environmental Management

Environmental Management, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 71(3), P. 495 - 504

Published: Feb. 10, 2023

Abstract This special issue brings together new case studies and comparative works highlighting the drivers dynamics of collaborative environmental governance. Each is part Collaborative Governance Case Database, which an open-access resource allowing individuals to contribute access cases support research projects. article highlights issue’s contributions governance theory. Common themes that cut across include: importance using a broad definition capture diversity in interorganizational relationships contexts; improving our understanding for initiating governance; enhanced collaboration’s lifecycle developmental trajectories; their roles processes; political collaboration; role accountability; challenges associated with assessing performance collaborations. Collectively, also demonstrate value resources such as Database undertake small-n medium-n further theory building.

Language: Английский

---

Understanding Collaboration: Introducing the Collaborative Governance Case Databank

Policy and Society, Journal Year: 2020, Volume and Issue: 39(4), P. 495 - 509

Published: Aug. 4, 2020

Abstract Studying collaborative governance has become a booming business. However, the empirical literature still struggles to produce robust generalizations and cumulative knowledge that link contextual, situational institutional design factors processes outcomes. We have not mustered broad deep evidence base will really help us sort fact from fiction identify more less productive approaches collaboration. The current in study of consists chiefly small-N case studies or large-N surveys. challenge is move case- based, mid- range theory building largeN- driven systematic theory- testing, while also retaining rich contextual process insights only tend yield. This article, articles accompanying special issue, introduces an attempt provide this middle ground – Collaborative Governance Case Database. database been developed serve as free common pool resource for researchers systematically collect compare high- quality studies. article introduction database, exploring its design, opportunities limitations. invitation; inviting all freely use cases their own research interest strengthening by adding new there are eager share with colleagues.

Language: Английский

---

Mitigating conflict with collaboration: Reaching negotiated agreement amidst belief divergence in environmental governance

Policy Studies Journal, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 51(2), P. 439 - 458

Published: Feb. 7, 2023

Abstract High levels of conflict among coalitions in a policy process are often attributed to belief divergence and may lead gridlock. Thus, reducing facilitate negotiation open the door for change. Beliefs notoriously difficult change, however, especially high‐conflict settings. Collaborative governance has been touted as one method mitigating level where is possible by means including but not limited This study investigates relationship between driver collaborative mitigation tool analyzing beliefs two opposing they participate decade‐long environmental that ended negotiated agreement. Using longitudinal survey interview data, we find coalitions' diverge more at later point process, due primarily reinforcement strengthening coalition's beliefs; also identify aspects helped foster agreement amidst this growing divergence. These findings can inform scholarship on well design effective processes

Language: Английский

---

Adapting to Sea‐Level Rise: Centralization or Decentralization in Polycentric Governance Systems?

Policy Studies Journal, Journal Year: 2021, Volume and Issue: 50(1), P. 143 - 175

Published: May 8, 2021

How do polycentric governance systems respond to the emergence of new collective‐action problems? We study this question in context evolution sea‐level rise adaptation San Francisco Bay Area. focus on how structure changes over time support cooperation and learning whether those represent a process centralization or decentralization. The ecology games framework provides theoretical background for developing hypotheses about system time. test by analyzing as two‐mode network where actors are linked policy, divided into five periods from 1991 2016. results suggest that started with centralized set actors, which evolved more decentralized structure. research has general implications respect manage trade‐off between maintaining local autonomy coordinating decisions at regional level across fragmented policy communities.

Language: Английский

---

Exploring Collaborative Governance Processes Involving Nonprofits

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 53(1), P. 54 - 78

Published: March 1, 2023

Nonprofits are increasingly involved in collaborative governance mechanisms, on the premise that their proximity to end users and better understanding of local contexts can lead policy outcomes. Although government–nonprofit relations have been theorized explored by several studies, few studies examined specifically governance, instead focusing other phases development or service delivery. In this article, we present a realist evaluation data gathered from in-depth semi-structured interviews ( N = 41) four focus groups with stakeholders arrangements within “Strategic Public Social Partnerships” Scotland. Our findings indicate processes involving nonprofits potentially improved services through mechanisms such as trust establishment new learning dynamics, when knowledgeable leadership mutuality drive collaborations. However, is only true if long-term sustainability these translates into mainstreaming both resulting underlying principles.

Language: Английский

---

Assessing drivers of sustained engagement in collaborative governance arrangements

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 34(4), P. 498 - 514

Published: Feb. 16, 2024

Abstract The formal engagement of diverse stakeholder groups in policy design and implementation has become a mainstay governance strategy. While much been learned about collaborative arrangements terms their structure, processes, participant dynamics, one particularly salient dynamic relatively underexplored: the factors contributing to sustained participation venues. Public administration have developed variety conceptual theories which draw attention interpersonal interactions ability stakeholders garner political wins as important participation. In this article, we test four theoretically rooted hypotheses investigate attendance case an environmental justice council. We analyze council meeting minute data using computational text analysis tools Stochastic Actor-Oriented Model assess: (1) conflict concord, measured repeated (dis)agreement with others (2) interest advancement, or extent makes positive, neutral, negative comments toward topics council’s annual objectives relation individual’s attendance. Our interaction results show that increased positive relationships are associated attendance, decreased but, for both cases, only when not one-off. advancement show: increase supported is decreases individual stakeholder, but oppositional neutral greater likelihood This article contributes existing scholarship on by offering additional insights into venue. Furthermore, offers generalizable methodological approach analyzing these dynamics drawing data.

Language: Английский

---

How can Transnational Municipal Networks foster local collaborative governance regimes for environmental management?

Environmental Management, Journal Year: 2022, Volume and Issue: 71(3), P. 505 - 522

Published: July 29, 2022

Language: Английский

---

Exploring governance challenges of sustainable infrastructure development on the nexus between energy and mobility

Deleted Journal, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 2(1)

Published: Jan. 7, 2025

The development of infrastructure can create synergies across multiple sectors, yet the governance and decision-making processes that drive such transformations often receive insufficient attention. This study aims to highlight key challenges in associated with 'infrastructural turn' at intersection energy mobility. case focuses on a public transport provider's initiative leverage its metro power grid for charging electric vehicles. We trace how collaborative process navigated through various configurations. challenged established organizational roles pervasive silo mentalities ultimately reached two significant milestones after nearly decade. findings suggest harnessing potential requires developing more integrative thinking allowing sufficient space joint goal-setting sectors. advocate research informal organization unintended consequences better understand sustainable development.

Language: Английский

---

Exploring contextual influences in collaboration: A sensemaking perspective

Policy Studies Journal, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Jan. 7, 2025

Abstract Almost all existing models explaining collaborative actions focus on the interactive dynamics among collaborators. While these are thought to be influenced by external contextual forces, there is little theory or empirical work documenting this relationship. Employing a unique and comprehensive database of 890 tensions, we adopt sensemaking approach explore role fast‐evolving ambiguous context in governance. We find that heightened sociopolitical controversies were “weaponized” certain stakeholder groups influence collaboration through forming intensifying political narrative, narrative was aided convenient adoption evolving economic financial circumstances as “ammunition.” These strategic choices, combined, produced significant for adapt. insights highlight theoretical significance forces intergovernmental governance call policymakers' attention uncertainties.

Language: Английский

---