Collaborative Governance Th eory 243
- Th ere are no boundaries to the collaboration,
- participation in the collaboration is voluntary,
- a collaboration has only the authority and power lent to it by participants,
- a collaboration has only the permanence that participants give it. (5)
In essence, collaborative governance is the means through which the disartic-
ulated state governs. Th e aforementioned four characteristics allow for a complex
“sphere of collaboration,” according to Frederickson, with crisscrossing jurisdic-
tional relationships based on varying degrees of strength of those relationships.
Collaborative governance theory departs from the Weberian model of bureaucracy
based on hierarchical structure and centralization. Governance is viewed from a
decentralized vantage point, where all actors, including citizens are presumed to
seek out relationships to improve or solve a particular problem. At one extreme is
the work of Wachhaus (2014, 2012), who calls for an anarchistic model of network
governance whereby the framework for governance is decentralized and citizens
are assumed to desire collaboration and group involvement.
Limitless boundaries to collaboration and the number and type of actors
predictably places limits on the likelihood of achieving an overarching theory
of collaborative governance. Kirk Emerson, Tina Nabatchi, and Stephen Balogh
(2012) nevertheless lay the groundwork for what they call “an integrative frame-
work for collaborative governance.” Th e framework presented by Emerson et al.
exists across three dimensions (system context, the collaborative governance re-
gime [CGR], and the actions of the CGR). Below the level of system context, the
drivers of collaborative governance include leadership, incentives, the degree of
interdependence between actors, and the level of uncertainty. Th e “collaboration
dynamics” include three components (principled engagement, shared motivation,
and capacity for joint action) with twelve subcomponents that defi ne, but are not
limited to, nine possible actions by the collaborative governance regime (10). Th e
impacts of the CGR are evaluated and feed back into the collaboration dynam-
ics for adaptation if needed (6). Emerson et al. conclude that the purpose of the
framework, though not parsimonious, is designed to “engender improvements in
the theory, research, evaluation, and practice of collaborative governance.”
Th e work of Emerson et al., while useful, potentially suff ers from the same
dilemmas of the Lynn et al. framework described earlier in the chapter. Th e “logic
model approach to collaborative governance” by Emerson et al. lacks parsimony,
describing actions and outcomes as stemming from the interaction of multiple
contexts, actors, motivations, and potentially unmeasurable factors. Th e frame-
work is also likely to be policy specifi c, and even scholars working in the fi eld of
collaborative governance have acknowledged as much (see Tang and Tang 2014;
Wachhaus 2012). Th e work of Emerson et al. is useful, however, for trying to
understand the development of collaborative governance, how and why collabo-
rative governance may succeed or fail, and will be invaluable for scholars in terms
of generating testable hypotheses about collaborative governance theory.