244 9: Th eories of Governance
Beyond theoretical developments, collaborative governance scholarship
tends to be defi ned by a focus on who is included in the policy process and
how; this is generally referred to as stakeholder analysis. Without agreement
among stakeholders, collaboration simply doesn’t exist and scholars have di-
rected considerable attention to how various stakeholders are included in the
governing process. Johnston et al. (2011) use multiagent modeling to determine
the conditions under which stakeholders are likely to develop and maintain
strong ties throughout the policymaking process. As those authors fi nd, initial
cooperation is critical to the creation and maintenance of strong ties. Lee, Lee,
and Feiock (2012) show that, in the case of economic development, reciprocity,
not necessarily economic incentives, are key to facilitating collaboration, and
that nongovernmental organizations are more important than governmental
organizations.
Despite attempts at the development of a unifying theory of collaborative
governance, there seems to be tacit recognition that collaborative governance is
likely to be context specifi c. As examples, collaborative governance theory has
been applied to such issues as education reform (Heinrich 2010), conservation
practices (Tang and Tang 2014), and economic development policy (Lee, Lee, and
Feiock 2012). But in each case, the nature of collaboration, the relevant actors,
and strengths of relationships between actors varied, oft en throughout the col-
laborative process. Th e variable nature of such relationships and the uncertainty
over who will be a relevant actor creates problems for theoretical advancement in
the fi eld. As with global governance theory, identifying the relevant actors a priori
may not be feasible and the perception of what constitutes a quality outcome will
likely vary by participant.
Ultimately, collaboration requires a shared sense of urgency and a willingness
to cooperate with other jurisdictions in an area where rules and authority cur-
rently do not exist (Frederickson 2007). Similar groups with similar desires, if ca-
pable of coordinating, will take collective action. But the “sphere of collaboration”
outlined by Frederickson (2007) requires trust and a willingness of participants to
engage in relationships where no hierarchy exists and potentially where there is
competition for scarce resources. Collaborative governance theory, while useful,
has yet to fully defi ne issues surrounding accountability, how relationships are
measured, and signifi cantly, how trust is developed between actors (see Johnston
et al. 2011). Tang and Tang’s (2014) study of conservation practices in Taiwan
shows that trust can ebb and fl ow throughout the collaboration process, and ac-
tors who are initially opposed to one another may fi nd agreement in later stages.
Yet, even when we recognize the limits and preliminary nature of empirical
support, Frederickson’s work on governance theory, Koppell’s analysis of global
governance organizations, and recent work on collaborative governance, all pro-
vide solid theoretical and practical foundations for future research on gover-
nance. Th e confusing jumble of the increasingly fragmented state is proving to
be fertile ground for original thinking in public administration, and shows how