Collaborative Governance at Scale: Examining the Regimes, Platforms, and System in the State of Oregon

• Author: Nara Yoon,Katie Fields,Bobby Cochran,Tina Nabatchi
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/02750740221104521
• Published date: 01 August 2022
• Date: 01 August 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Collaborative Governance at Scale:

Examining the Regimes, Platforms, and

System in the State of Oregon

Nara Yoon

1

, Katie Fields

2

, Bobby Cochran

3

and Tina Nabatchi

4

Abstract

This article takes a first step toward analyzing the characteristics of a cross-policy, state-wide collaborative system. Specifically,

using data from the Atlas of Collaboration project, we offer a big-picture analysis of how over 200 externally directed col-

laborative governance regimes (CGRs) are operationalized in a state-level collaborative system consisting of 13 collaborative

platforms operating across five policy areas (economic development, education, health, natural resources, public safety) in

Oregon. We focus on three attributes—geographic scope, collaborative size, and collaborative characteristics—aggregated

at the system level across CGRs, as well as across collaborative platforms and policy areas. The descriptive findings reveal

that collaborative efforts are geographically dispersed across the state, involve thousands of participants representing organi-

zations from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, and vary across multiple characteristics, such as organizational form,

lead organization, funding model, structural roles, staffing, and extent of face-to-face dialogue. These findings lay the ground-

work for future theoretical development and empirical research.

Keywords

collaborative governance, collaborative governance regimes, collaborative platforms, collaborative system

Introduction

Collaborative governance refers to multi-organizational

arrangements in which actors work across boundaries—

whether sectoral, jurisdictional, geographic, or otherwise—

to address public problems that cannot be easily addressed

by a single organization or a single sector alone (e.g.,

Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Ansell & Gash, 2008;

Carlson, 2007; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015a). Over the last

several decades, collaborative governance has surged in

both practice and research. Today, collaborative governance

and other types of collaborative public management

approaches (such as partnerships and networks)

1

are used

at all levels of government and in numerous policy areas

such as environmental conflict resolution (Emerson et al.,

2009; Manring, 1998), management (Bitterman & Koliba,

2020; Brody, 2003; Fisher et al., 2020; Hardy & Koontz,

2008; Hui et al., 2020; Leach, 2006; Koontz & Thomas,

2006; Ulibarri, 2015a), planning (Scott & Carter, 2019;

Singleton, 2002), health and welfare (Doberstein, 2016;

Johnston et al., 2011; Hafer, 2018; Mosley, 2012; Scott,

2011), and emergency and disaster management (Brink &

Wamsler, 2018; Edelenbos et al., 2017; Kapucu, 2014;

Kapucu, Arslan, and Demiroz, 2010; Kapucu, Arslan, and

Collins, 2010), among others.

As calls for and the use of collaborative governance grow,

so too do demands for information about its forms and

evidence about its efficacy; however, the provision of such

evidence faces both conceptual and empirical challenges.

Conceptually, scholars have produced rich and detailed

frameworks about the development and functioning of col-

laborative governance arrangements (e.g., Ansell & Gash,

2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015a),

the conditions that influence collaborative processes (e.g.,

Bingham, 1986; Gray, 1989; Gray & Wood, 1991;

Huxham, 2003; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994; Thomson &

Perry, 2006; Wood & Gray, 1991), and approaches for eval-

uation (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015b; Thomson et al., 2008).

However, these frameworks center on a single collaborative

endeavor and do not explicitly address the use of multiple

1

School of Strategic Leadership Studies, James Madison University,

Harrisonburg, VA, USA

2

National Policy Consensus Center, Portland State University, Portland,

USA

3

Community Resilience and Innovation, Willamette Partnership, Portland,

USA

4

Public Administration, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs,

Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Nara Yoon, School of Strategic Leadership Studies, James Madison

University, 298 Port Republic Rd, Harrisonburg, VA 22807-0001, USA.

Email: yoonnx@jmu.edu

Article

American Review of Public Administration

2022, Vol. 52(6) 439–456

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/02750740221104521

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

collaborative arrangements at a larger scale, for example,

within or across policy fields.

Empirically, scholars have demonstrated that collabora-

tive governance can increase stakeholder engagement and

learning (Gerlak & Heikkila, 2011; Scott & Thomas, 2015;

Scott et al., 2019; Ulibarri, 2015b; Ulibarri & Scott, 2017),

improve outputs and outcomes for environmental quality

(Biddle, 2017; Bitterman & Koliba, 2020; Emerson et al.,

2009; Kalesnikaite, 2019; Mandarano, 2008; Scott, 2015,

p. 2016), and facilitate regulatory processes (Scott et al.,

2020; Ulibarri, 2018). Once again, however, performance

results tend to rely on evidence from a single case study or

a small number of comparative case studies (Emerson &

Gerlak, 2014; Emerson, 2018; Heikkila & Gerlak, 2005)

and do not assess the performance of collaborative gover-

nance on a larger scale.

Recently, scholars have introduced two concepts that

provide useful insights for understanding collaborative gov-

ernance as a policy tool applied to large-scale contexts: (1)

“collaborative platforms,”which refer to organizations or

programs dedicated to helping create and support multiple

collaboratives or ongoing collaborative networks (Ansell &

Gash, 2018), and (2) “collaborative systems,”which refer

to the larger context in which collaborative governance

regimes (CGRs) and collaborative platforms are embedded

(Annis et al., 2020). While these two concepts ameliorate

some of the conceptual challenges associated with exploring

collaborative governance within and across policy fields, no

empirical research about the characteristics of CGRs and

platforms in a cross-policy, the state-wide collaborative

system exists.

This article takes a first step toward filling that gap,

extending the research on CGRs (Emerson et al., 2012;

Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015a), collaborative platforms

(Ansell & Gash, 2018), and collaborative systems (Annis

et al., 2020). It draws on data from the Atlas of

Collaboration project, which aims to gather the multi-site,

multi-scale, systems-level data needed to understand and

support complex collaborative governance ecosystems.

Specifically, the article analyzes how 241 externally directed

CGRs are operationalized across 13 collaborative platforms

in five policy areas (economic development, education,

health, natural resources, and public safety) in the State of

Oregon. The analyses focus on three CGR attributes—geo-

graphic scope (spatial distribution), collaborative size

(number of participating organizations and individuals),

and collaborative characteristics (organizational form, lead

organization, funding model, structural roles, staffing,

extent of face-to-face dialogue)—with analyses aggregated

across platforms, policy areas, and the collaborative system.

This kind of research provides a useful baseline for future

scholarly and practitioner-oriented efforts, including the

identification of key variables that shape collaborative gover-

nance and the conditions under which it is developed at the

platform level and across policy contexts (for an empirical

study of the evolution of collaborative governance, see

Ulibarri et al., 2020). The analyses from this article open

the opportunity for future theory-building efforts by illumi-

nating important CGR, platform, and system characteristics

that may influence collaborative processes, outputs, out-

comes, and impacts. To that end, this article first provides

an overview of collaborative governance and its history in

Oregon. Next, it explains the methods used to collect and

analyze data and presents the analyses. Finally, it offers a dis-

cussion of the findings, identifies avenues for future research,

and concludes with a discussion of implications for practice.

Collaborative Governance

Collaborative governance research has a rich and deep prov-

enance (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015a), but often is traced to

research on intergovernmental relations, where the focus is

on how different levels of government interact with one

another to attain policy goals that benefit and create value

for the public (e.g., Guy Peters & Pierre, 2001; Kirlin,

1996; O’Toole & Christensen, 2012). Kirlin (1996, p. 175),

for example, asserts that given the fragmentation of govern-

mental policy making in the United States, governments

can work to create value for society by changing the design

of complex functional systems and improving the linkages

among levels of government as well as among public,

private, and nonprofit organizations.

From intergovernmental relations research emerged a

focus on “governance”as a concept, theoretical perspective,

and empirical reality that reflected “the collaborative nature

of modern efforts to meet human needs, the widespread use

of tools of action that engage complex networks of public

and private actors, and the resulting need for a different

style of public management, and a different type of public

sector, emphasizing collaboration and enablement rather

than hierarchy and control”(Salamon, 2002, p. vii). As evi-

dence about the usefulness of multi-organizational, cross-

jurisdictional, networked arrangements became well docu-

mented (e.g., Agranoff, 2001; Agranoff & McGuire, 2003;

McGuire, 2006), scholars increasingly became interested in

the collaborative nature of such arrangements, which

prompted research in the area of collaborative governance.

Myriad definitions of collaborative governance exist

(O’Leary & Vij, 2012). At its most basic level, collaborative

governance means “working with others in cross-boundary,

multi-organizational (and often multi-sectoral) arrangements,

in which the actors …determine their working structure and

tasks, including negotiating and setting goals, developing

plans, and taking actions to address a shared problem”

(Nabatchi & Emerson, 2021, p. 386; see also Ansell &

Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Emerson & Nabatchi,

2015a). Two more specificdefinitions have become promi-

nent in the literature. Ansell and Gash (2008, p. 544) define

collaborative governance as “a governing arrangement

where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state

440 American Review of Public Administration 52(6)