POL 695 University of Miami Week 3 Collaborative Governance Discussion a 500-word response that includes the following points: Discuss the positives, nega

POL 695 University of Miami Week 3 Collaborative Governance Discussion a 500-word response that includes the following points:

Discuss the positives, negatives, and lessons learned from the New Zealand collaborative governance study (500 words).
Reflect on whether such collaboration is or is not possible in your public sector life experiences and/or a public sector case with which you are familiar.
Be sure to support your statements with appropriate references to this week’s readings and other sources.
Apply correct APA citations and format to your paper

This slide set contains information needed for the Assignment.

Moloney, K. (2018l). Attached

Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008).

Getting the Right Mix: Unpacking Integration Meanings and Strategies.

International Public Management Journal, 10(1), 9–33.

Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. (2007).

Collaborative Governance Case Studies: The Land and Water Forum.

Working Paper No.13/05, New Zealand: Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.

Eppel, E. (2013). Contesting Collaborative Governance
Kim Moloney, Ph.D.
Defining Collaborative Governance
The Academic Version:
Collaborative Governance is the “process of establishing, steering,
facilitating, operating, and monitoring cross-sectoral organizational
arrangements to address public policy concerns that cannot be easily
addressed by a single organization or the public sector alone. These
arrangements are characterized by joint efforts, reciprocal expectations,
and voluntary participation among formally autonomous entities, from
two or more sectors – public, for profit, and nonprofits – in order to
leverage (build on) the unique attributes and resources of each” (Tang and
Mazmanian, 2010, p. 6)
The Simple Version:
Collaboration of public, corporate, and NGO sectors across each stage of
the policy process.
A Short History:
Collaborative Governance
Collaborative Governance arose out of a confluence our increasingly “hollowed out” states and
the evolution in our understanding of participatory processes, informed debates, and coordination
efforts.
“Hollowed Out” State
? Devolution and decentralization of power from national-level to state- and/or local levels.
? Uncertainty if lower-level jurisdictions were necessarily more competent or more able than
national-level governments to provide service delivery.
? The state becomes “hollowed” via the separation of the state from those they serve and/or an
extensive reliance on non-state actors to provide government services.
+
Participatory Processes
? Public Involvement (1960s, 1970s; observe, dream; observe, tell) ?
? Public Participation (1990s; observe, tell, ask) ?
? Collaborative Governance (2000s; observe, tell, ask, collaborate)
Comparing institutional forms: traditional versus
market-based versus contracting versus
collaborative governance
Institutional forms
? Traditional, authority-based institutional structure
versus
? Contracting-focused institutional structure
versus
? Collaborative governance institutional structure
versus
? Market-based institutional structure
Collaborative Governance as an Institutional Form:
Traditional versus Market-Based
? Traditional, authority-based form
? Command and control
? Government agencies perform the public service
? Public sector creates and enforces regulations.
versus
? Market-based form
? Market-only driver of which services to provide and the provision of those
services.
Collaborative Governance as an
Institutional Form: Contracting versus Collaborative Governance
? In-between the traditional, authority-based form and the market-based
form are two intermediary institutional forms
? The first, is contracting.
? Authority-based in that the state retains its command-and-control
structure, determines which public services are to be delivered. But
where contracting differs is that portions of the service delivery
previously undertaken by the state are now delivery by non-state actors
(e.g. corporate actors, NGO actors). The decision to contract out remains
with the state, however.
? The second, is collaborative governance.
Collaborative Governance as Institutional Form: Contracting versus
Collaborative Governance
? The second, is collaborative governance.
? But this collaboration is not just at the point of delivery, or
implementation.
? Collaborative governance brings external actors into the
government act, itself.
? The entire public policy process becomes open to collaborative
influence.
? If done well, collaborative governance can lead participants to
sense that they have created a better, more thorough, more
Collaborative governance as an
institutional form
Collaborative Governance as an Institutional Form:
Understanding its variation
? Within the collaborative governance institutional form, significant variation
exists.
? The degree of “publicness” or portions of policies or project run by, run
through, or dependent upon the state may vary.
? This “publicness” variation may depend upon state and bureaucratic
cultures, non-state actor capacities, and public expectation of service
delivery.
Collaborative Governance as an Institutional Form:
Understanding its variation
? Formality
? Variance between a “gentleman’s agreement” to a formal contract.
? Duration
? Variance between enduring relationship to an ad hoc relationship which
disappears upon conclusion of the initiating crisis or concern.
? Focus
? Variance between single concern to multiple concerns.
? Institutional Diversity
? Variance between two actors for a bilateral discussion (one public and
one non-public entity) to diverse multiplayer discussions.
Collaborative Governance as an Institutional Form:
Understanding its variation
? Stability versus Volatility
? Variance between shared views amongst involved stakeholders
to diverse interests amongst the stakeholders. The assumption is
that diversity may lead a more volatile interaction.
? Initiative
? This is more than just which actor initiated the collaborative
attempt. Who initiates the definition of goals? Initiates
assessment construction and its measurement?
? Problem-driven versus Opportunity-driven
? Variance between defense collaboration (to solve a problem
impacting all) and offensive collaboration (to pursue an
opportunity)
Integrative framework for
collaborative governance?
Integrative framework for collaborative
governance?
But are the aforementioned variations all that exist?
? If organizations, as we established earlier in the course are open systems which
reflect interactions with external actors (including the political system), then perhaps
collaborative governed arrangements are also open systems?
? In a collaboratively governed relationship, there may be multiple layers of
interaction:
? Collaboration Dynamics: “three interactive components: principled engagement,
shared motivation, capacity for joint action” (Emerson, et al, 2011, p. 6).
? Collaborative Actions: “the steps taken to implement the shared purpose of the CGR
[collaborative governance regime].” CGR actions lead to actions and impacts (Emerson,
et al, 2011, p. 6).
? System Context: The legal, political, social system surrounding the particular
collaborative governance act.
Collaborative Best Practices
Recommendations from the Association for Conflict Resolution
Future Research
Directions and
Questions
Case Study: New Zealand and
the Land and Water Forum
Creating Collaborative Governance in New
Zealand’s water management
? Identified Public Policy Problem: Protect New Zealand’s freshwater sources and
encourage sustainable land use.
? Objective: Reform New Zealand’s freshwater management.
? Process: Bring 60+ stakeholders into discussion with the Ministers and civil servants to
the side. Allow the stakeholders to identify reforms to New Zealand’s freshwater
management.
? Output: First Forum report (2010): Fresh Start for Freshwater, ongoing interactions with
Environment Ministers, with involved stakeholders. Third report published in
November 2012.
? Outcome: Improved freshwater management, more consultative process.
? For more information, see: www.landandwater.org.nz/Site/default.aspx
Gathering Stakeholders
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Farms
Foresters
Fonterra (corporate dairy company)
NGOs (recreation-focused)
NGOs (environment-focused)
Miners
Tourism operators
Power generators
Irrigators
Academics
Scientists
Iwi (M?ori)
Realization & Process which arose…
? Freshwater was a strategic asset of New Zealand. It needed to be protected.
Increased contamination of New Zealand freshwater.
? Convening 60 stakeholders…
From Eppel (2013)
The process which arose…
? Chicken and egg problem
? Wanted Government support for the process but did not want the
Government to dictate its support.
? Wanted government to support the Forum outcome but not dictate the
Forum output.
? Needed government financial support to fund a small Secretariat for the
Forum but did not want this financial support to translate into policy
dictation.
? Needed to finish their consultation process (and give it the time it takes
to get multiple competing actors to agree) but without bowing to
government pressure to finish consultations early.
The process which arose…
? Original plenary of 58 stakeholders.
? Created group of 21 to write report involving all 58 stakeholders.
? The group of 21 had six local and national government observers.
? Created rules of engagement, concept document, project plan.
? Iterative process (three iterations of this process):
?
?
?
?
?
Small group discussed agenda topics ?
Papers prepared for sub-groups and then discussed ?
Sub-groups reported back to groups ? three iterations of this cycle
Informal discussions, conversations, in-between.
Transparency (list of meetings and their meeting minutes):
www.landandwater.org.nz/Site/Meetings/Past_meetings.aspx
Keys to the process…
? Organic process, bottom-up.
? Agreement was the objective… “Everyone had to agree enough not to say
they disagreed”
? All stakeholders needed to benefit from the outcome, not just the most
powerful.
? This threat of veto power (by an unhappy stakeholder) puts pressure on all
stakeholders to find a way forward.
? Skilled facilitator and Chair
? Chair who is viewed as independent of the process, i.e. not a government
civil servant or politician, NGO leader, or corporate actor.
Keys to the process…
? Chair who feels as if he or she is a “servant of the process”.
? Chair who is able to listen… “each of the participants has to think that you have
listened to them enough, for the final statement to have addressed their concerns”
? Chair to have faith in the process… in other words, “the group is more likely to reach
agreement is there is an expectation that they will”
? Government commitment to the process not just financially but also to assure the
stakeholders (who often paid for their own costs) that no one is wasting their time.
? Government willingness to “step aside” and let stakeholders come to agreement.
? Government willingness to support the Forum output through revised government
actions and policies.
References
? Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An
integrative framework for collaborative governance.
Journal of public administration research and theory,
22(1), 1-29.
? Eppel, E. (2013). Collaborative governance case
studies: The land and water forum. Victoria University
of Wellington, Institute for Governance and Policy
Studies.
? Tang, S.-Y., Mazmanian, D.A. (2010). Understanding
Collaborative Governance from the Structural Choice
Politics, IAD, and Transaction Costs Perspectives. Los
Angeles CA: University of Southern California.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment