Local food system governance increasingly occurs in collaborative venues at the local, state, and regional levels. Prominent examples of such are food policy councils (FPCs). FPCs take a systemic approach to improve local food systems by including diverse stakeholders to advise on policy development. Th e authors study public FPCs to understand how policies structure the stakeholder composition and goals of FPCs and how FPCs' stakeholder composition facilitates and/or impedes performance. Data come from a content analysis of policies that mandate the structure and functions of public FPCs and interviews with FPC representatives. Findings indicate that FPCs connected to a broader array of food policy actors in their communities produce more diverse policy outputs, but this outcome is tempered by whether council members represent personal or organizational interests. Practitioner Points• Collaborative governance can be an eff ective strategy when public problems are reframed to account for new information or failures of traditional governance approaches. • Collaborative policy-making eff orts in food system governance should include participants who serve as liaisons to a broader array of community stakeholders. • Diverse governance structures are more productive when members have latitude to leverage individual expertise in policy making rather than simply serving the interests of organizations they represent. • Local communities interested in addressing a wide range of food-related policy issues should consider creating food policy councils or similar collaborative policy-making eff orts.part of the policy process (Ansell and Gash 2008).

No abstract

Representation is a hallmark of democratic governance. Widely studied within traditional modes of governance, representation is less studied in alternative governance settings, such as collaborative governance arrangements. Collaborative governance arrangements are specifically designed to encourage inclusion and participation among a diverse array of stakeholders in some part of the policy process. Our research contrasts different forms of representation observed in a collaborative governance arrangement and identifies factors contributing to observed patterns in representation therein. We analyze descriptive representation (i.e., "representation in form") or substantive representation (i.e., "representation in practice") and look for inconsistencies between them. Our case study is a regional food policy council located in the Western United States. Among our findings is that discrepancies between descriptive and substantive representation can be explained by shared goals, local norms, organizational structure, and heterogeneity in member capacity. We conclude our article with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of this research.

No abstract

With the United States grappling with the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, questions are emerging about whether outsourcing contributes to the instability of government service production. In this article, the authors explore systemic risk in privatized service implementation networks. Reliance on networks of private agents for service production contributes to the disarticulated and fragmented state and increases the potential for systemic crisis if shocks to the network occur, putting vulnerable clients at risk. Government must focus on understanding systemic risk in networked governance arrangements and building resilient networks to avoid crises, the authors argue. Finally, potential research on systemic risk in networked governance arrangements is discussed. In public administration as governance, it is essential that we do not diminish our institutions to such an extent that we lose our capacity to support the development of sound public policy, as well as our ability to effectively implement that policy.