Developing a Data Base Framework for Collaborative Governance Cases

I propose to present on six cases of collaborative governance (from Canada, Mexico and the United States) that represent three types of what Emerson and Nabatchi (2015) refer to as collaborative governance regimes (CGRs):... [ view full abstract ]

I propose to present on six cases of collaborative governance (from Canada, Mexico and the United States) that represent three types of what Emerson and Nabatchi (2015) refer to as collaborative governance regimes (CGRs): self- initiated, independently convened, and externally directed. Each type, as illustrated by the cases, have different characteristics and prevailing conditions that shape their formation and likely collaboration dynamics. The primary conditions that vary across types are the nature of the policy challenge (being acute, complex, or extensive) and the determining authorities (diffuse, mixed or concentrated). The key distinguishing characteristics include differences in the initiating leadership, the initial CGR structure, participant volition, and group autonomy.

The cases span several policy arenas, including community development, emergency planning, state education policy, local noise abatement, groundwater management, and natural resource protection. They also vary by number of participants, from 14- 150, and by scale from local, to regional and national. From these illustrative cases and the typology come suggestions for how to manage the strengths and limitations of each CGR type.

The Consortium for Collaborative Governance in Denver (USC, UA, UWash, Syracuse and UC-Denver) recently met in Denver to discuss both theoretical and empirical needs for advancing the study and practice of collaborative governance. Supporting a collaborative datae base development was among those issues discussed and will be reported on in this presentation. In addition, I will draw on lessons learned, when I was director of the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, from developing a national case data base built on a collaboratively-developed evaluation system for federal agencies. Some research came of this (Emerson et al   and Orr et al  and a reporting mechanism still operates by which US federal agencies report to OMB and the Council on Environmental Quality of cases they have worked on each year (. There were plenty of challenges and many we were able to overcome, so I could lend to the discussion of the strategic and logistical challenges of such an endeavor.

References

Emerson, Kirk and Nabatchi, Tina. Collaborative Governance Regimes. 2015. Georgetown University Press.

Emerson, Kirk, Tina Nabatchi, and Stephen Balogh. (2012). “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance.” Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory. 22(1). 1-29.

Emerson, Kirk, Patricia Orr, Dale Keyes and Kathy McKnight. 2009. Understanding Environmental Conflict Resolution: Evaluating Performance Outcomes and Contributing Factors. Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 27(1). 27-64.

Office of Management and Budget and President’s Council on Environmental Quality, Memorandum on Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution, https://udall.gov/documents/Institute/OMB_CEQ_Memorandum_2012.pdf

Orr, Patricia, Kirk Emerson, and Dale Keyes. 2008. Environmental Conflict Resolution Performance and Practice:  An Evaluation Framework. Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 25(3). 2008. 287-302.