Public Administration Assignment

COLLABORATIVE
GOVERNANCE
A review of “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice” authored
by Chris Ansell and Alison Gash (2007), published in Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, in collocation with the Weberian
Model of Public Administration

MAY 20, 2019

ARJUN ANAND; MPP/195/2018

National Law School of India University
 Overview
This paper will attempt to provide the readers with a comprehensive review of the paper
“Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice”, authored by Chris Ansell and
Alison Gash of the University of California, Berkley. A thorough attempt will be made
to introduce to the readers the terms, nuances and models which form constituent parts
of ‘Collaborative Governance’.

The exposition of the paper will be guided according to a metric of comparison.

The paper is held against the theories and ideas proposed by the (colloquial) Weberian
Model of Public Administration. The exercise of this paper will be to highlight, in
comparative analysis, consolidation or negation of Weberian ideas by the paper being
reviewed.

Collaborative Governance
The paper defines collaborative governance as:

A governing arrangement where one or multiple public agencies engage directly

with non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal,
consensus-oriented and, deliberative with the purpose to make or implement public
policy or manage public programs or assets. (Ansell and Gash 2007)

The authors explain the operative and procedural terms given in the definition, in
the subsequent paragraphs. They include all public institutions (executive branch,
legislature, courts, local level bodies) in the encompassing term of ‘public agency’. The
authors use the term ‘stakeholders’ to refer to the participation of citizens and the
participation of organised groups. Collaboration, according to the authors, implied a
two-way communication and influence between the public agencies and the
stakeholders, along with the opportunity for the stakeholders to interact with each other.
Here, the stakeholders also have a real responsibility towards the policy outcome. The
term ‘formal’ implies an explicit and public strategy of organising the influence which
comes with every agency or stakeholder. The formal arrangement implies organisation
and structure. Finally, collaborative governance concentrates on issues of the public. It
is beyond the scope of private conflicts on inter-party mediation. Collaborative
governance concerns itself with the governance of public affairs.1

The paper attempts to distinguish between two other alternatives of policy making:
adverserialism (a winner-takes-all form of interest intermediation) and managerialism
(unilateral decision-making; closed decision process). Thus, collaborative governance
is not only seen as a model of public administration but also concerns itself with the
larger question of mediation and policy-making process.

Model of Collaborative Governance

The authors reviewed various journals, exemplary sectors of Collaborative Governance
(henceforth referred to as CG), theories and definitions. They encountered different
definitions with different operative terms but, found it difficult to standardise the
definition and model of CG. Very few studies could prove CG to be a better mode of
policy-making than the adversarial or managerial model. However, the collation of the
various facets of research led to a model, as illustrated in the below figure.

Figure 1: Ansell,Chris, and Alison Gash. 2007. "Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice."
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 543-571.

1
For more, see Ansell and Alison (2007)
 The remainder of the paper defines each variable in more details, highlighting their
implications for such a model of CG.

Starting Conditions

The authors narrowed the critical starting conditions down to three broad variables:
resource/power asymmetry between stakeholders, incentives of stakeholders to
collaborate and, history of conflict or cooperation among the stakeholders. The authors
draw the below-presented conclusion for the three variables.

Resource/Power Asymmetry: The presence of a significant resource/power

asymmetry between stakeholders will impede meaningful participation from important
stakeholders. Thus, CG requires a commitment to encourage participation for the
empowerment and representation of weaker or disadvantaged stakeholders.

Incentives to Participate: CG must render the stakeholders to perceive themselves

to be highly interdependent, for an alternative avenue to pursue interest unilaterally is
in dissonance to the principles of CG. However, the interdependence is conditional
upon the advance work of the sponsors to get forums (courts, legislatures, executive) to
respect and honour the outcome of the collaborative process.

History of Conflict and Cooperations: If there existed a history of conflict among

stakeholders, then collaborative governance is unlikely to succeed unless there is a
presence of high interdependence and positive steps to remedy the trust deficit and
social capital among the stakeholders.

Facilitative Leadership

This component provides some guidelines for how leadership can facilitate the process
of collaboration among stakeholders. To conclude this-

Leadership is seen as an honest broker that stakeholders accept and trust. The
broker can be a professional mediator, where conflict is high and trust is low among a
symmetrical set of stakeholders.

However, an organic and strong leader is required when there persists an

asymmetry in power distribution among stakeholders. The emergence of such a leader
is contingent on local circumstances and generally emerge within a community of
stakeholders.

Institutional Design

It refers to basic protocols and rules required for collaboration, which are critical for
the procedural legitimisation of any collaborative process. It requires broad and active
participation in the collaborative process. The institutional design must be such that the
stakeholders are discouraged in finding alternative routes to further interests.
Transparency of the collaborative process is an important factor in the CG model.

Collaborative Process

The authors conclude to identify important components in the collaborative process-

Face to Face Dialogue: Since it is a consensus-oriented process, communication

allowed by direct face-to-face dialogues between stakeholders is necessary to identify
areas of mutual gain. It is considered imperative for the process of trust-building,
mutual respect, shared understanding and, encouraging the collaborative process.
However, the authors argue that this is necessary yet not a sufficient condition.

Trust Building: The authors conclude that policy-makers or stakeholders should

keep aside time or effective remedial trust building if there existed prehistory of highly
antagonistic relations. Such is required to embark on a collaborative journey.

Commitment to the Process: The authors believe that even if an issue requires a
collaborative process, it is important to achieve the real commitment and “buy-in” of
stakeholders in the collaborative process. The process requires strategies that are tailor-
made for situations that require ongoing cooperation from stakeholders. This can be
achieved through high interdependence amongst stakeholders.

Shared Understanding: At a certain point in the process, the stakeholders must

share a common understanding and agreement on the core values of the issue at hand
or, come at a shared understanding of the problem formulation for an issue.

Intermediate Outcomes: The authors conclude here that if the stakeholders shared
a history of prior antagonism and require a commitment to trust-building, the
intermediate outcomes relate to ‘small wins’ which are crucial for any collaborative
process.
 Using these broad themes of the paper, a broad review in juxtaposition with the
Weberian Model of Public Administration can be embarked upon, to understand the
CG model better.

Review: In Juxtaposition with Weberian Model of Public

Administration
If we are to compare the model of CG as given in the paper with the Weberian model
of Public Administration, there persist stark differences. What is noticeable is the focus
of the CG model on principles of neo-liberalism, public management, libertarianism. In
contrast, the Weberian model of bureaucracy places a heavy weight on the shoulders of
bureaucracy as the ultimate “agents of development”. The Weberian models are based
on the principles of the erstwhile- liberalism, individualism, rational-choice and, the
Protestant Spirit. A comparison of two very stark models will also highlight the
development and trends in the administration arena- from highly concentrated power to
a more neo-liberal dispersion of power.

The Weberian legitimisation of authority placed the power of decision-making in

the hands of the ruling elite. The class differentiation was such that only a leader or
elected leader is capable of any decision-making. Weber further discussed three forms
of legitimate authority: traditional authority, charismatic leadership and, legal-
rational model. In CG, the decision-making entails bringing every stakeholder onboard.
Since the model follows neo-liberal values, it places a position of import to private
stakeholders (corporates) in the policy-making process. The model further ensures that
the sponsors (elected officials, appointed officials) ensure the legitimacy of these
stakeholders in other forums. Thus, we see a shift from the “ultimate agency of
development” title placed on the bureaucracy to a more collaborative approach that
must ensure participation from non-governmental entities.

Max Weber believed that bureaucracy promoted a ‘rationalist’ way of governance

and helps “…the development of professional experts”. (Deva 1977) This has also
reserved the position of a bureaucrat to a member of a privileged stratum, one with
higher education. Thus, there is an influence of the system of recruitment in any
bureaucracy or state administrative machinery. The Weberian model in developing
societies place faith in a ‘cultivated human’ than a ‘specialist’. The ‘cultivated human’
is a generalist who is entrenched in the position of power (owing to recruitment
standards), even though the accepted narrative is that a ‘specialist’ is the most useful.

Weber’s bureaucracy acquires a lot of power, to go hand-in-hand with technical

superiority and expertise. The power of bureaucracy plays a significant role in the
process of development. Bureaucracy assumes, in the Weberian model, a larger role in
policy-making (related to both formulation and implementation), even at the risk of
being inconsistent with the principles of democracy. Weber also points out that one of
the instruments of bureaucratic power is the power of “official secrets”. The
bureaucracy mindfully keeps facts from the public or even the parliament- to
consolidate the ignorance of all these stakeholders with the purpose of advancing the
bureaucracy interest.

A CG model is not very cognizant of the ‘privilege’ accorded to the bureaucracy.

It seems the bureaucracy as an agent or sponsor for any public issue. Although the CG
Model has a broader conception of the term ‘leadership’ we can appropriate the term to
‘bureaucracy’ for the consonance in responsibilities and convenience in comparison.
The CG model seeks collaboration from ‘specialist’ in the field, to reach an agreement.
The administrative officials comprising the bureaucracy are seen as mere
“implementing” bodies, as implied by the paper. The bureaucrat is seen as a critical
agent in bringing parties to the table and for steering them through the “rough patches
of the collaborative process.” (Ansell and Gash 2007) The bureaucracy helps in
maintaining the ground rules, addressing the trust deficit among the stakeholders and
facilitating dialogue. The bureaucracy here also differs from the Weberian conception
of a power-hungry bureaucracy. The bureaucracy instead, in the CG model, empowers
and represents the weaker section

If we are to focus our attention to the decision-making and institutional design

aspect, in contrast to a Weberian bureaucratic model, we see that CG is a more
consensus-oriented exercise. The CG model here strives to get all stakeholders on
board, to ensure broad inclusivity and active participation. The bureaucratic model
consists of, to some extent, a highly secretive and non-inclusive arena for policy-
making. Such can't be the case in the CG model as it threatens to undermine the
legitimacy of the collaborative outcomes.
 In comparing the two models, we see a different sort of concentration of decision-
making powers among the citizenry. The CG model, although does hold a citizen to be
an active stakeholder, are still rendered with a tone of ‘corporatism’ in dealing with
issues. Many times, the CG model cannot be a truly collaborative exercise since citizens
may be ignorant or excluded from the collaboration process. Here, the lacuna is filled
with public-policy consultancies, corporates, the administration and, specialist in their
respective fields. Special interest groups form an important part of the collaborative
process. However, the strength in relation to other stakeholders is a major variable to
consider. Moreover, in a democracy with competing interests, the powerful often
hijacks such collaborative processes.

The concentration of power in the bureaucratic model is with the upper stratum
ruling elites who do not involve the above-mentioned stakeholders. To maintain this
isolation of power and decision-making, secrecy is a fundamental instrument in the
bureaucracy's repertoire.

Conclusion
As we see from above, a comparison between Collaborative Governance and Weberian
Model is to highlight the journey from post-feudal capitalist state organisations to a
neo-liberal cooperative organisation. The future of Collaborative Governance is a
steady one. This is because of the current importance being placed on a specialist within
fields to help ascertain the issues and problems that require a policy resolution.
Relationship between the State and other stakeholders (corporate, private, social) if far
from waning.

However, the progress of Collaborative Governance should be entertained with

caution. The arena of administration is still seen as a highly specialised area which
remains in isolation from the masses. In the current phase of globalisation and entry of
corporate in the field of public policy formulation, the process of collaboration may
involve only stakeholders with power and money. Any sort of factor that can hijack a
collaborative process or taint it with partialism is in direct conflict with the idea and
principles of Collaborative Governance.
 Bibliography
Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2007. "Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice." Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 543-571.

Deva, Satya. 1977. "The Relevance of Max Weber's Ideas to Public Administration in Developing
Societies." The Indian Journal of Political Science 345-356.