This article utilizes a comparative cross-case analysis of six watershed programs to examine how collaboration is used to enhance governance of networks where problem-solving capacity is widely dispersed and few organizations accomplish their missions by acting alone. A conceptual framework that illustrates how collaboration occurs at the operational, policy-making, and institutional levels is presented. Understanding these structural relationships is important and can help public managers design effective collaborative processes. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications for future research and advice for public managers using collaboration as a strategy for enhancing network governance.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295-326.
2.
Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (1991). The comparative case study approach in public administration. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Research in public administration (Vol. 1, pp. 203-231). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
3.
Aldrich, H., & Whetten, D. A. (1981). Organization-sets, action sets, and networks: Making the most of simplicity. In P. C. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Adapting organizations to their environments (Vol. 1, pp. 385-408). New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
Alexander, E. R. (1995). How organizations act together: Interorganizational coordination in theory and practice. Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach.
5.
Amburgey, T. L., Kelly, D., & Barnett, W. P. (1993). Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 51-73.
6.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
7.
Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
9.
Bardach, E. (2001). Developmental dynamics: Collaboration as an emergent phenomenon. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(2), 149-164.
10.
Blomquist, W. (1992). Dividing the waters: Governing groundwater in Southern California. San Francisco: ICS Press.
11.
Born, S. M., & Genskow, K. D. (2001). Toward understanding new watershed initiatives—A report from the Madison watershed workshop. Madison, WI: Madison Watershed Workshop.
12.
Bressers, H., O’Toole, L. J., Jr., & Richardson, J. (1995). Networks as models of analysis: Water policy in comparative perspective. In H. Bressers, L. J. O’Toole, Jr., & J. Richardson (Eds.), Networks for water policy: A comparative perspective (pp. 1-23). London: Frank Cass.
13.
Bruderl, J., & Schussler, R. (1990). Organizational mortality: The liabilities of newness and adolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 530-547.
14.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Busenberg, G. J. (1999). Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy. Policy Sciences, 32, 1-11.
16.
Chisholm, D. (1995). Problem solving and institutional design. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 451-491.
17.
Cropper, S. (1996). Collaborative working and the issue of sustainability. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 80-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Rational ecology. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
19.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 660-679.
20.
Elazar, D. (1987). Exploring federalism. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
21.
Elmore, R. F. (1985). Forward and backward mapping: Reversible logic in the analyses of public policy. In K. Hanf & T. A. J. Toonen (Eds.), Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems: Questions of analysis and design (pp. 33-70). Boston, MA: Maartinus Nijhoff.
22.
Finn, C. B. (1996). Utilizing stakeholder strategies for positive collaborative outcomes. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 152-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Frederickson, H. G. (1996). The spirit of public administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Freeman, J., Carrol, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48, 692-710.
25.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
26.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
27.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problems of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
28.
Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 619-652.
29.
Hall, T. E., & O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (2000). Structures for policy implementation: An analysis of national legislation, 1965-1966 and 1993-1994. Administration and Society, 31, 667-686.
30.
Hennessey, T., & Imperial, M. T. (2000). Rhode Island’s salt ponds: Using a special area management plan to improve watershed governance. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
31.
Himmelman, A. T. (1996). On the theory and practice of transformational collaboration: From social service to social justice. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 19-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Hjern, B., & Porter, D. (1981). Implementation structures: A new unit of administrative analysis. Organization Studies, 2, 211-227.
33.
Huxham, C. (1996). Collaboration and collaborative advantage. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Imperial, M. T. (1999). Analyzing institutional arrangements for ecosystem-based management: The institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management, 24, 449-465.
35.
Imperial, M. T. (2000a). Delaware Inland Bays Estuary Program: Using a nonprofit organization to implement a CCMP. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
36.
Imperial, M. T. (2000b). The Tampa Bay Estuary Program: Developing and implementing an interlocal agreement. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
37.
Imperial, M. T. (2001). Collaboration as an implementation strategy: An assessment of six watershed management programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
38.
Imperial, M. T., & Hennessey, T. (2000). Environmental governance in watersheds: The importance of collaboration to institutional performance. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
39.
Imperial, M. T., & Kauneckis, D. (2003). Moving from conflict to collaboration: Lessons from the Lake Tahoe experience. Natural Resources Journal, 43, 1009-1055.
40.
Imperial, M. T., McGee, S., & Hennessey, T. (2000). The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program: Using a state water quality agency to implement a CCMP. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
41.
Imperial, M. T., & Summers, K. (2000). The Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program: Using a performance partnership to implement a CCMP. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
42.
Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22, 911-995.
43.
Kauneckis, D., Koziol, L., & Imperial, M. T. (2000). Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: The evolution of collaboration. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
44.
Khator, R. (1999). Networking to achieve alternative regulation: Case studies from Florida’s National Estuary Programs. Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 66-85.
45.
Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (Eds.). (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Kiser, L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Strategies for political inquiry (pp. 179-222). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
47.
Kraatz, M. S. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 621-643.
48.
Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 281-290.
49.
Leach, W. D. (2002). Surveying diverse stakeholder groups. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 641-649.
50.
Leach, W. D., & Pelkey, N. W. (2001). Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127, 378-385.
51.
Leach, W. D., Pelkey, N. W., & Sabatier, P. A. (2002). Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of Public Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 645-670.
52.
Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J., III. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24, 538-555.
53.
Lynn, L. E., Jr., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 233-261.
54.
Mandell, M. P. (1984). Application of network analysis to the implementation of a complex project. Human Relations, 37, 659-679.
55.
Mandell, M. P. (1989). Organizational networking: Collective organizational strategies. in J. Rabin, G. J. Miller, & W. B. Hildreth (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management (pp. 141-165). New York: Marcel Dekker.
56.
Mandell, M. P. (1990). Network management: Strategic behavior in the public sector. In R.W. Gage & M. P. Mandel (Eds.), Strategies for managing intergovernmental policies and networks (pp. 29-53). Westport, CT: Praeger.
57.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
McCaffrey, D. P., Faerman, S. R., & Hart, D. W. (1995). The appeal and difficulties of participative systems. Organization Science, 6, 603-627.
59.
Menzel, D. C. (1987). An interorganizational approach to policy implementation. Public Administration Quarterly, 11(1), 3-16.
60.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 359-379.
62.
Moore, M. H. (1996). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
National Academy of Public Administration. (2000). environment.gov: Transforming environmental protection for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.
64.
Osborn, R. N., & Hagedoorn, J. (1997). The institutionalization and evolutionary dynamics of interorganizational alliances and networks. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 261-278.
65.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 35-71). Boulder, CO: Westview.
67.
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, & common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
68.
Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., & Wynne, S. (1993). Institutional incentives and sustainable development: Infrastructure policies in perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview.
69.
Ostrom, V. (1989). The intellectual crisis in American public administration (2nd ed.). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
70.
Ostrom, V. (1994). The meaning of American federalism: Constituting a self-governing society. San Francisco: ICS Press.
71.
O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (1986). Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An assessment of the field. Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 181-210.
72.
O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45-52.
73.
O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (2000). Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 10, 263-288.
74.
Park, S. H. (1996). Managing an interorganizational network: A framework of the institutional mechanism for network control. Organization Studies, 17, 795-824.
75.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 223-243.
76.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2000). Interorganizational collaboration and the dynamic of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 23-43.
77.
Powel, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
78.
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61, 414-423.
79.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
80.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
81.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp.117-166). Boulder, CO: Westview.
82.
Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage.
83.
Simonin, B. L. (1997). The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Review, 40, 1150-1174.
84.
Singh, J. V., House, R. J., & Tucker, D. J. (1986). Organizational change and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 587-611.
85.
Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 171-193.
86.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
87.
Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2002). Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric or governance scheme?Public Administration Review, 62(2), 197-205.
88.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464-476.
89.
Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L., & Jones, T. M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 99-116.
90.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.
91.
Wondolleck, J. M.,& Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island.
92.
Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139-162.
93.
Wright, D. S. (1988). Understanding intergovernmental relations (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
94.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
95.
Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 373-392.
