Deliberation and Decision in Collaborative Governance: A Simulation of Approaches to Mitigate Power Imbalance

Choi, Taehyon; Robertson, Peter J.

doi:10.1093/jopart/mut003

Cited by 79 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From a social-structural perspective, however, perceived influence depends on direct and, possibly, indirect connections with others (Smith et al 2014), and on the location in the overall network rather than rules and institutions (Ibarra 1993;Wellman and Berkowitz 1988). An important insight from policy process theory (Howlett and Ramesh 1995;Laumann and Knoke 1987) and neo-institutionalism (Mayntz and Scharpf 1995) is that the two perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive: institutions (formal, informal, and operational rules; see Kiser and Ostrom 1982) and structures can influence one another (see also Choi and Robertson 2013;Novell and Steelman 2014;Park and Rethemeyer 2012).…”

Section: Structures and Institutions As Sources Of Influence Reputationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This relational exchange is organized in policy networks (Laumann and Knoke 1987). Although it is widely acknowledged that final decision control is the most important resource in policy-making, authors largely agree that this control can be exchanged for influence resources such as information, public support, or technical expertise (Coleman 1986;Choi and Robertson 2013;Henning 2009;Knoke et al 1996;Leifeld and Schneider 2012;Henning 1999, 1998). The possession of these influence resources considerably facilitates direct access to decision making and policy design and increases actors' reputational power (Beyers and Braun 2013;Heaney 2014;Raub and Weesie 1990).…”

Section: Structural Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies emphasize the potentially complementary impact of the two modes of power (see also Feiock et al 2003) : Choi and Robertson (2013) distinguish between formal, "processual," and "structural" modes of power that might be able to mitigate power imbalances among actors, and thus impact upon decision outcomes in a group of stakeholders. Park and Rethemeyer (2012) analyze the explanatory value of actors' resource dependence for the structure of policy networks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Ingold

Leifeld

2014

JOPART

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central assumption in the literature on collaborative networks and policy networks is that political outcomes are affected by a variety of state and nonstate actors. Some of these actors are more powerful than others and can therefore have a considerable effect on decision making. In this article, we seek to provide a structural and institutional explanation for these power differentials in policy networks and support the explanation with empirical evidence. We use a dyadic measure of influence reputation as a proxy for power, and posit that influence reputation over the political outcome is related to vertical integration into the political system by means of formal decisionmaking authority, and to horizontal integration by means of being well embedded into the policy network. Hence, we argue that actors are perceived as influential because of two complementary factors: (a) their institutional roles and (b) their structural positions in the policy network. Based on temporal and cross-sectional exponential random graph models, we compare five cases about climate, telecommunications, flood prevention, and toxic chemicals politics in Switzerland and Germany. The five networks cover national and local networks at different stages of the policy cycle. The results confirm that institutional and structural drivers seem to have a crucial impact on how an actor is perceived in decision making and implementation and, therefore, their ability to significantly shape outputs and service delivery.

show abstract

Section: Structures and Institutions As Sources Of Influence Reputationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Structural Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Ingold

Leifeld

2014

JOPART

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Choi and Robertson (2014) argue that processes such as deliberation seem to be more important than decision rules (e.g., a majority rule), in terms of generating desired outcomes in collaborative governance. Deliberation processes create opportunities to enhance mutual understanding and appreciation for others' preferences (Choi & Robertson, 2014). As a result, stakeholder attitudes toward others' preferences and interests evolve.…”

Section: Agents Learn and Adapt From Each Other Retaining Rules Thatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Social Welfare Fraud from a Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective

Kim

Maroulis

2015

Administration & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite efforts to control fraud in public assistance programs, the perception and realities of the problem persist. Serious barriers related to data collection and research methods impede the understanding of how and why fraud occurs, thereby limiting options for improving program integrity. This article argues that based on a complex adaptive systems (CAS) perspective, social welfare fraud can be understood as a collective outcome emerging from repeated interactions among stakeholders during the routinized business processes of public assistance programs. While dealing with fraud, great attention must be paid to how it occurs and persists, not just how serious the problem is or who commits these crimes.

show abstract

“…Research collaboration is an effective method of linking distributed knowledge and skills into new ideas and research results (Choi & Robertson, 2013). Working across multiple organisations is in contrast to 'within institutional' collaboration, which by its nature has until just recently not extended more widely than immediate colleagues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research projects and collaboration: Lessons for Learning Advisors?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ehara taku toa I te toa takitahi. Engari to te toa takitini.Success is not the work. It is the work of many. AbstractSince its inception in 2008, Ako Aotearoa (Ako), the National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence, has funded numerous research and development projects, nationally and within the three Regional Hubs: Northern, Central and Southern. Many of the Association of Tertiary Learning Advisors of Aotearoa New Zealand (ATLAANZ) members have been involved at some level: as team leaders, members, participants and reviewers. Their experiences and insights have been the subject of a number of conference presentations and papers. There is a natural link between Ako Aotearoa and ATLAANZ as both are focused on improving outcomes for students and fostering excellence in tertiary teaching and learning. A further endorsement of this close alignment of purpose can be seen in Ako Aotearoa's sponsorship of the annual ATLAANZ conference over the last few years. This research project is concerned with the underlying processes that contribute to the success of inter-institutional collaborative relationships within projects funded by Ako Aotearoa. This type of research is unprecedented in that firstly, it comprised of a national inquiry across all three regional hubs, and secondly, it was concerned with the strengths and sustainability of the collaborations themselves, rather than project outcomes and outputs. The survey of forty-four completed projects identified the key factors which participants believed had created 'good shelf-life', that is, where the relationship between team members had outlasted the project which brought them together in the first place. These findings have strong relevance for Learning Advisors, whose practice often calls for team initiatives and cross-disciplinary endeavours and whose access to students and inclusion in decision-making may rely on effective networking and professional connections.

show abstract

Deliberation and Decision in Collaborative Governance: A Simulation of Approaches to Mitigate Power Imbalance

Cited by 79 publications

References 42 publications

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Rethinking Social Welfare Fraud from a Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective

Research projects and collaboration: Lessons for Learning Advisors?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About