foundations of public administration - university of alaska
TRANSCRIPT
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
1
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
The Foundations of Public Administration Series is a collection of articles written by experts in 20
content areas, providing introductory essays and recommending top articles in those subjects.
Collaborative Public Administration Michael McGuire, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Robert Agranoff, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Chris Silvia, Department of Public Administration, University of Kansas
Introduction
This essay provides an overview of what is
known about collaborative public manage-
ment. It draws extensively, though not exclu-
sively, from articles published in Public Admin-
istration Review since the journal’s creation in
1940. Two of the authors of this essay first
defined collaborative public management as a
“concept that describes the process of facilitat-
ing and operating in multiorganizational ar-
rangements for solving problems that cannot
be achieved, or achieved, or achieved easily, by
single organizations” (Agranoff and McGuire
2003). Managing collaborative arrangements
involves more than just the requisite “getting
together” across multiple organizations; insti-
tutions are created and specific actions are tak-
en to solve problems through collaborative
mechanisms. As public management has in-
creasingly externalized through grants, con-
tracts, partnerships, regulatory activity, and the
like, collaboration among govern-ments and
between governments and non-governmental
organizations has moved to the core of prac-
tice.
Michael McGuire, Ph.D. is a Professor, School of Public
and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University‐
Bloomington. His research focuses on public manage‐
ment in networks and collaboration, and has been pub‐
lished widely in public administration and policy jour‐
nals, including Public Administration Review, Public Ad‐
ministration, The Leadership Quarterly, and Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory.
Robert Agranoff, Ph.D. is a Professor Emeritus, School
of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana Universi‐
ty‐Bloomington, U.S.A., and Professor, Government
and Public Administration Program, Instituto Universi‐
tario Ortega y Gasset, Madrid, Spain. He specializes in
public and intergovernmental management and in col‐
laborative and network management. Among his re‐
cent books are Managing Within Networks (Georgetown,
2007) and Local Governments and Their Intergovernmental
Networks in Federalizing Spain (McGill‐Queen’s, 2010).
Also, his recent research has appeared in Public Admin‐
istration, The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy,
Contemporary Public Administration, and Governance and
Intergovernmental Relations in the European Union and the
United States.
Chris Silvia is an assistant professor in the Department
of Public Administration at the University of Kansas.
Chris received his MPA from Brigham Young Universi‐
ty and his Ph.D. from Indiana University. He has pub‐
lished articles in Public Administration Review, The Lea‐
dership Quarterly, and Public and Performance Manage‐
ment Review. His research focuses on collaborative go‐
vernance, public service delivery, and leadership.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
2
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
The essay is presented in four sections. First, we ad-
dress the “traditions” of interorganizational relation-
ships. These traditions include vertical intergovernmen-
tal relationships, coordination, and local level horizon-
tal relationships. The second section examines the de-
velopment of the concept of collaborative public man-
agement by looking at four basic elements of such
management, including organizational interdependence,
structural forms, managerial process, and actor roles.
The third section addresses what the literature tells us
about the practices that work best in collaborative situ-
ations. The final section offers concluding comments
about the future direction of collaborative public man-
agement research.
One must not begin the quest for solving the riddles of
collaborative public management without understand-
ing some basics about the American administrative sys-
tem. A way to start is with Kettl’s (2006) brilliant article
on “Managing Boundaries in American Administra-
tion.” He underscores the importance of ever changing
boundaries related to mission, resources, capacity, re-
sponsibility, and accountability, that, when subjected to
today’s interorganizational service networks, vastly
complicate administration. The U.S. system of federal-
ism and political culture manifest such boundaries, and
as such define what organizations are responsible for
doing and what powers and functions lay elsewhere.
The author argues that “the basic dilemma of American
public administration for the 21st century… [is] devising
new strategies to bring public administration in sync
with the multiorganizational, multisector operating real-
ities of today’s government. It requires a ‘collaborative,
network-based approach’” (17). However, these reali-
ties conflict with the imperatives of American politics
(symbolism, reorganization, restructuring of systems).
The “boundaries that served us so well in the past can no longer
solve either our administrative or political needs” (17, emphasis
added).
Interorganizational Traditions
Although the conscious study of collaborative public
management is characteristic of recent decades, the
practice goes back to the U.S. federal system’s earliest
days. In Daniel Elazar’s The American Partnership (1962),
he found evidence of federal-state cooperation at the
management stage in several programs, ranging from
informal contacts to formal program agreements. He
asserts that, “A substantial share of American govern-
ment has been the search for such methods to provide
for the necessary collaboration among the various units
in the system” (305). And the system does engender
great need for cooperation for two reasons. First, as
Stephen Skowronek’s (1982, 21) study of the emer-
gence of bureaucracy American style indicates, “sove-
reignty was to be shared between the new central gov-
ernment and the old regional units of government,
which retained their revolutionary designation as
‘states,’” ensuring their integrity and legal codes. For
most of the nineteenth century, he concludes, the na-
tional government was passive and left substantive go-
verning to states and through them loyalties, leading to
a “distinctive sense of statelessness in the political cul-
ture” (23).
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
3
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Second, in a United States with subnational govern-
ments, as Frank Goodnow (1900) noted early on, ad-
ministrative officials had inherited from England that
allegiance is owed to the law, not the hierarchy
represented by the crown and later some distant execu-
tive of another organization. “The result was to make
impossible any state administrative supervision over the
main body of officers entrusted with the execution of
the law...control which could be exercised in the inter-
est in producing coordination between the functions of
expressing and executing the will of the state had to be
found in the power of the legislature to regulate in de-
tail the duties of officers entrusted with the execution
of the law” (101). Enforcement was largely by the
courts as statutes were interpreted.
Coordinating federal-state, federal-local, and state-local
programs has provided a venerable stream of findings
on intergovernmental, collaborative program manage-
ment. One stream that emanates from the federal setup
is that of the kind of cooperative federalism Elazar
(1962) identified as existing in the 19th century. Simi-
larly, Jane Perry Clark (1938) recognized the federal
opportunities for “political and economic” experimen-
tation. Her study included the many modes of intergo-
vernmental administration—informal cooperation, in-
tergovernmental agreements and contracts, exchange of
personnel, interdependent legal action, grants-in-aid,
and tax policy. Clark described such cooperation as dis-
tinctly experimental and routine:
Much of the cooperation between the federal and state gov-ernments has been found in the sea of governmental activity without any chart, compass, or guiding star, for cooperation has been unplanned and uncorrelated with other activities of
government even in the same field. Nevertheless, a certain number of patterns may be traced in the confusion. Coopera-tion has frequently been a means of coordinating the use of federal and state resources, of eliminating duplications in ac-tivity, of cutting down expenses, of accomplishing work which could not otherwise be carried out, and in the federal system of the United States move more smoothly than would be oth-erwise possible (7).
Clark’s view of collaborative federalism was highly op-
timistic regarding officials’ problem-resolution ability.
Closer examination of collaboration arose because of
the federal-state grants programs of the Depression era.
Although they were supportive of cooperative federal-
ism in principle, studies were not always sanguine about
their success. V. O. Key, Jr., (1937) identified a “gap
between policy determination and the task of adminis-
tration” because the expenditure of money and per-
formance of function have been under the supervision
of state agencies “operating in a sphere of and tradition
of freedom from central control,” (228). Another well-
known study by John Gaus and Leon Walcott (1940) of
the programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
examined the role of cooperating governments. The
Department of Agriculture recognized the need to have
strong functioning units outside of Washington that
could participate in federal programs, but questioned
the operating capacity of many (particularly small) gov-
ernments to be cooperative partners. Regulations and
administrative supervision as a whole tend to be greatly
modified in practice by the ideas and prejudices of local
officials. The result of state supervision of local gov-
ernments is largely determined by a meeting of the
minds of state and local officials (Weidner 1944, 233).
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
4
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Not all collaborative management across levels of gov-
ernment in the first part of the twentieth century was
recognized as being problematic. For example, William
Anderson (1955) found relatively harmonious relations
in the day-to-day administration of federal programs
among administrative officials, many of whom were
from similar professional backgrounds. “They usually
worked together in trying to get changes in standards,
rules, budgets and personnel requirements to advance
the service” (201). He reported an absence of “crack-
down” orders from federal to state agencies; indeed,
state and local officials welcomed the presence, advice,
and help of federal field officials. Durisch points to
many “new federal-local relationships” (1941, 326) due
to the Tennessee Valley Authority’s “program inte-
grated on the basis of place or territory.” These author-
ities included dozens of signed memoranda of under-
standing, legal contracts, special municipal ordinances,
multiple conferences regarding the impact of the influx
of construction workers on local services, liaisons with
local law enforcement agencies, state-local consulta-
tions regarding highway relocations and access roads,
land acquisition issues, water supply-sewage disposal-
other public facility readjustments, property tax loss
adjustments, and several administrative improvements
in local governments. These changes emanated from a
recognition of the need for sound local governments
and the “cooperative nature” of the undertaking, as
well as the “grassroots approach to which the Authori-
ty is committed” (334).
Such a non-centralized approach was fundamental to
the Tennessee Valley Authority managerial experience
of David Lilienthal (1939). The essence of coordination
in the field involved:
1) The greatest number of decisions by operatives made in the field.
2) The active participation of the effected citizens, working with state and local agencies.
3) Coordination of the work of state and local gov-ernments, aiming toward common objectives.
As Waldo (1948, 149) observes, Lilienthal saw this de-
centralized collaborative strategy as essential for the
preservation of democracy in a large bureaucratic state
in order to overcome the drawbacks of centralization.
A cooperative approach was also observed at the state
level. Vieg (1941) analyzed federal, state, local, and pri-
vate organization cooperation in Iowa’s agricultural
programs in four areas: research, education, planning,
and programming. He suggests that different interests
work “physically side by side” forging out “a rational
division of labor and clear understanding of authority
and responsibility all the way around; there must be
close agreement on all questions…” (142).
During World War II, extensive program coordination
was required for heavily congested production areas.
The President’s Committee for congested areas facili-
tated all types of public services in these local areas,
after consultation with all levels of government and
non-governmental officials. The Committee, according
to Gill, provided common meeting ground for “across
the table discussion of common problems” (1945, 32).
How does one manage through the maze of multiple
interacting governments? Noncentralization and a sort
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
5
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
of federal matrix is the established order in the federal
system. Daniel Elazar (1984) observes the U.S. noncen-
tralized nature, owing to de jure and de facto jurisdictional
constitutional diffusion and sharing of powers. As a
result, units have a propensity to operate independent-
ly. “The model for federalism is the matrix, a network
of arenas within arenas” (3). These arenas are distin-
guished by being larger or smaller rather than higher or
lower. This phenomenon of achieving federal goals
through state and local action involves coordination
with both the federal government and state and local
governments. Pressman and Wildavsky’s landmark
study, Implementation (1973), indicated the myriad steps,
negotiations, and tradeoffs in a single federal program.
“We have learned one important lesson from the [Eco-
nomic Development Administration] experience in
Oakland: implementation should not be divorced from
policy” (12-13). Initial design and reaching agreements
were easy, but the later so-called “technical questions”
did not resolve themselves as the program went along
and proved to be “the rocks on which the program
eventually foundered” (13).
Mosher (1980) paints a rather complete picture of the
extension of the federal government beyond its own
operations into how the “the nooks and crannies of our
economic, social, cultural and even personal lives seems
almost unlimited” (543). He documents that “the prob-
lems that the federal government is now called upon to
address and try to resolve are more numerous, more
complex, more interrelated than ever before in history”
(545). Operationally, this means a greater reliance upon
indirect administration through third parties; more re-
liance upon negotiations, collaboration inducements,
persuasion, and less on immediate direction and con-
trol; and greater concern and involvement on the roles
of organizations outside immediate federal government
control. He uses a tools (he calls these “devices”) ap-
proach to demonstrate the rise of federal external pro-
gramming through income support, grants, contracts,
regulations, tax expenditures, loans and loan guaran-
tees, and quasi-federal agencies. He concludes by stat-
ing the importance of top public executives, which in-
cludes personnel who are paid by the U.S. government
but work for organizations outside of federal control,
bringing to their work “an understanding of the rela-
tions and interdependence of the public sector and the
private, and of one level of government with others,
both above and below” (547).
This need to coordinate throughout comes about,
Sundquist and Davis explain (1969, 2), because in the
U.S. federal system programs are based on “goals or
objectives that are established by the national govern-
ment, through the actions of other governments, state
and local, that are legally independent and may be even
hostile” (12). Thus, coordination becomes almost “any
change in organization, relationships, policies, practices,
projects or programs that will resolve whatever conflict
or hiatus in the federal-state-local chain of relation-
ships…” (19). It is, he concludes, a matter of mutual
adjustment rather than that of central coordination.
Similarly, successful federal government supervision of
state enforcement activity amounts to the use of com-
munication, financing authority, and organization tools,
rather than top-down authority (Crotty 1988). Agranoff
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
6
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
and McGuire (2001a) identified four extant models for
facing these multiple transactions and multiple instru-
ments of management:
1) Top-down legally based control and interaction over law.
2) Donor-recipient, that is, interjurisdictional bar-gaining.
3) Jurisdiction-based strategic adjustments that support various managers’ strategies.
4) Networking for adjustment and joint-action among interdependent governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Although the first two models are long-standing, as
demonstrated in the aforementioned studies, and the
latter two are emergent, all four reflect the managerial
realities of collaborative public management.
Complicating the governmental mix is the movement
since the 1960s to engage non-governmental organiza-
tions and local off-budget authorities to deal with fed-
eral and state programs, which Kettl (1981) identifies as
the “Fourth Face of Federalism.” These bring on new
ties and the need for coordinative administration and
new partnerships with federal, state, and local govern-
ments in the pursuit of national policy goals. Lovell’s
(1979) study of “Coordinating Federal Grants from
Below” depicts effective local government linkages
among various federal grants with state grant programs
and with local governments’ own programs and private
endeavors. Three principal methods were used: orches-
tration by jurisdiction leaders, self-linking among func-
tional specialists, and meshing by community-based
organizations. Agranoff and McGuire’s (2003) study of
intergovernmental management revealed a variety of
activities that ranged far beyond those of grant-seeking
and regulation supervision:
Collaboration is more than seeking and managing grants or complying with regulations. Financial assistance in economic development also includes arranging loans, negotiating inter-est-rate adjustments, attempting to forge sale-leaseback ar-rangements, and a host of other financial transactions. It in-volves seeking relevant operating information, asking about interpretations related to running a program, seeking guid-ance regarding a proposed course of action on a program, as well as applying for technical assistance. Dealing with inter-governmental regulation does indeed include those activities related to compliance, but not every regulated government complies in every case. Some manage by seeking discretion. They do this by one of several means of “tweaking the sys-tem,” learning how to ask for, negotiate, and perhaps bar-gain for greater measures of discretion. These managers have attempted some basic regulatory or statutory adjustments, sought a policy change, or tried another way to “loosen up” the compliance game. Many local managers are actually out there “working the system” to adapt federal and/or state programs to jurisdictional needs (154).
One mechanism for linking federal and state programs
that serve similar clients at the operating level is servic-
es integration. Hagebak (1979) describes the problems
of non-integrated human services and argues for inte-
gration that is accomplished at the local level, is volun-
tary, and which recognizes the autonomy of each par-
ticipating agency. In the debate over connecting dispa-
rate grant-induced categorical services at the local level,
Terrell (1980) found that in six different program
areas—welfare, health, mental health, community ac-
tions, model cities, and community mental health cen-
ters—local agency executives generally supported fed-
eral efforts to consolidate programs through block
grants, and increased local discretion was supported by
revenue sharing as alternatives. Those areas that de-
pended directly on federal programs, for example,
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
7
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
model cities and community mental health, wanted less
grant consolidation and more decentralization. Such
decentralization, where administration and service deli-
very were consolidated in Florida, facilitated discretio-
nary action by service workers at the delivery level
(Immershein and Polivka 1986). In a systems look at
community-based care for the elderly, Myrtle and Wil-
bur (1994) discuss the elusiveness of comprehensive
systems. They argue that unless policy makers and ad-
vocates begin to focus on the dynamics of relationships
among organizations, interorganizational fields, and
service delivery networks, integrating services will re-
main elusive.
The long-standing and emerging challenges of services
integration are delineated by Agranoff (1991), who
overviews the historical integration movement in public
administration, along with four key dimensions: conso-
lidating departments, improving policy, linking agen-
cies, and adapting direct services. He observed that the
“grand designs” around these issues in the 1960s-1980s
have given way to more focused, problem-oriented de-
signs, for example in youth employment, welfare-to-
work, or adapting disabled persons in their communi-
ties. “These challenges require a new form of transor-
ganizational management, that places operational em-
phasis on where the managerial task bridges the struc-
tural components of the single organization authority
structure” (540). The federal system and its multiple
arrangements have definitely challenged integration
management activities at the local level.
Coordinated management across boundaries is, of
course, a product of administrative complexity. But
such complexity is explained not by commonly as-
sumed public choice, interest group liberalism, or social
control theories. To James Q. Wilson (1992), it is a re-
sponse to the proliferation of interest groups who see
that activity is increasingly focused on the executive
branch. “They obtain that recognition by seeing to it
that agencies are organized in such a way that interest
group demands are institutionally preserved” (213).
American bureaucracies differ from Western European
bureaucracies, which are in greater control; group pres-
sure and court judgments lead to rules and regulations
that constrain them and make them work across lines.
Program coordination is one of the cornerstones of
classical public management. In Gulick and Urwick’s
(1937) classic papers on administration, James Mooney
defined coordination as the determining principle of
organization. He defines it as “...concerted action, ani-
mated by common purpose, responding to recognized
signals and utilizing practical skills...both a process and
a goal” (93). Cross-program coordination thus occurs
both by informal contacts to break “the long time
frames for messages to reach counterparts across lines,
because they are on the formal record, they preclude
exploration of new ideas, and working staff may want
to expose their ideas to superiors initially” (Downs
1967, 116). Thus, mechanisms are needed to overcome
interbureau communication and operation. Colin
Campbell (1988, 63) suggests three remedies to over-
come these problems: merging units so similar activities
come under unified direction, reliance on collective
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
8
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
cross-department decision bodies, and devising coordi-
nating secretariats. The problem arises because of the
“complex and bewildering array of institutions adminis-
tering an almost bewildering array of programs” (55).
Of course, Campbell’s observation relates to a single
set of government agencies that may have multiple tiers
but are not independent in the sense that U.S. state and
local governments are in the federal system.
Interest in administrative cross agency collaboration
goes back as far as the 1930s in the public administra-
tion texts. Leonard White’s (1939; first edition 1926)
introductory text called for co-located administrative
districts, whose functions were interrelated and inter-
dependent. “The coordination of districts by joint use
of the same district, by building larger units from
smaller, by consolidating the number of separate boun-
dary lines, and by relating administrative districts to
units of government would tend toward simplicity, the
convenience of citizens, and better coordination of dif-
ferent phases of administration itself” (193-94). Admin-
istrative procedures regulations also generate collabora-
tive interactions. Charles Hyneman (1950) points out in
his Bureaucracy in a Democracy that the Administrative
Procedures Act of 1946 required that, “Interested par-
ties must be given an opportunity to say what they
think about the specific changes which he (executives)
proposes, and what they say must be given considera-
tion” (465). This means that the agency head must en-
gage in “coordinating administrative policies” (466).
Coordination between agencies and with the public,
however, is not an easy task. Through several editions,
Harold Seidman and later with Robert Gilmour (1986),
equated the search for coordination as equivalent to the
search for the philosopher’s stone. “If we can only find
the right formula for coordination, we can reconcile the
irreconcilable, harmonize competing and wholly diver-
gent interest, overcome irrationalities in our govern-
ment structures, and make hard policy choices to which
no one will dissent” (219). However, they also caution
that because so much criticism and emphasis is put on
improvement of coordination we create the false im-
pression that it rarely occurs:
This is by no means the case. Without informal or so-called lateral coordination, which takes place at almost every stage in the development and execution of national programs and at every level within the federal structure, the government probably would grind to a halt. Skilled bureaucrats develop their own informational networks. Managers who are moti-vated by a desire to get something done find ways and means of bridging the jurisdictional gaps. Informal coordination is greatly facilitated when people share the same goals, operate from a common set of legal authorities and information as-sumptions, agree on standards, have compatible professional outlooks, and can help each other. Where these conditions exist, there is no need for the intervention of third parties to secure harmonious action (225).
Thus, informal and less visible means of collaboration
are often overlooked as efficacious.
Informal modes of bridging departmental and jurisdic-
tional gaps have thus been recognized for some time.
In a compilation of lectures on British public adminis-
tration, S. E. Finer (1950) recognized the presence of
functionally aligned programs in ministries, interde-
partmental committees and conferences, and policy
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
9
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
review committees. The key unifying element in British
administrative structure, however, is the habit of mind
of civil servants, their tradition of “civility.” The admin-
istrative corps is small but is the most homogenous
corporation in the Isles. “The long term cumulative
effect of informal collaboration—ringing up, chatting
at lunch, ‘dropping in to see’—is prodigious. Least visi-
ble publicly, it is the most powerful cement in the
whole executive structure” (68).
Along a similar line, Herbert Kaufman’s (1967) The For-
est Ranger, concludes that while rangers have considera-
ble field discretion, including the propensity to coordi-
nate while out in the field in the woods, they are held
together by a common understanding of programs and
core values held commonly. Thus, rangers have the
flexibility in the field to engage in collaborative man-
agement but are effectively “controlled,” that is, core
premises are maintained “without extensive use of
close supervisory and enforcement procedures…which
gives every indication of decentralization…” (23).
Holding such common value premises open up the
possibility for staff in a hierarchical organization to op-
erate collaboratively in the field.
A series of three articles on coordinating welfare and
employment and training programs involving Jennings
(1994), Jennings and Krane (1994), and Jennings and
Ewalt (1998) looks at the impact of policy goals and
design on enhancing linkages. Jennings (1994) examines
efforts by the states to engender coordination without
concentrated authority and clear lines of command and
control. His findings suggest that leadership, accep-
tance of the legitimacy and worth of multiple programs,
and the degree of effort put into coordination are criti-
cal. In a study of welfare reform, Jennings and Krane
(1994) find that the “Quest for the Philosopher’s
Stone” in coordination means to look at how systems
were created to link welfare and work. Although several
barriers exist, effective managers, expert leadership, and
interpersonal contacts, combined with a vision of client
service and agreement over the functional division of
service responsibility, leads to success coordination.
The link between coordination and policy performance
is examined in Jennings and Ewalt (1998), using job
training placement rates and wages. It is one of the first
assessments of coordination employing objective as
well as subjective measures of performance. Their evi-
dence indicated that both coordination and administra-
tive consolidation lead to higher levels of performance
along these dimensions.
In a profound and early study, Coordination without Hie-
rarchy, Donald Chisholm (1989) asserts that in situa-
tions where components of an organizational system
are functionally interdependent, the resulting uncertain-
ty creates pressures for coordination. Linkage becomes
the alternative to consolidation and integration into a
new whole, and as informal adaptations meet that need,
“…informal organization permits the continued exis-
tence of formally autonomous organizations in the face
of mutual interdependence, it can achieve other values,
such as reliability, flexibility, and representativeness,
that would otherwise be precluded or substantially di-
minished under formal consolidation” (17-18). Chi-
sholm’s study of coordination in public transit led to
the working decentralized system of an independent
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
10
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
organization, the Bay Area Rapid Transit System in
Northern California.
Interlocal cooperation or horizontal relations has been
part of the collaborative agenda for some years (Martin
1965; Walker 2000), but empirical testing is more re-
cent. Befuddling interlocal cooperation is the growth
and proliferation of special units of government, as
Stephens and Wikstrom (1998) document. Most impor-
tant, they find district growth to be in those states
where general purpose governments are less centralized
in services delivery, which increases the issues of coor-
dination and accountability. Thurmaier and Wood
(2002) researched interlocal agreements in one metro-
politan area, looking at their value in connecting actors
and how they broker through exchange relationships.
They find that a culture based in a “norm of reciproci-
ty” predominates an economiz-ing value as the ratio-
nale for service-oriented policy connections. But inter-
local agreements are not simply managerial concerns;
city council also views such agreements as politically
important (Zeemering 2008). Collaborative connections
increase when managers participate in a regional associ-
ation or council of governments, and when they are
united by common professional norms, but it does not
necessarily increase formalized cooperation (LeRoux et
al. 2010). Interlocal collaboration, however, can be in-
creased by taking advantage of face-to-face interaction.
Examining interlocal cooperative agreements in eco-
nomic development, Feiock et al. (2009) draw on a
theory of “institutional collective action” that focuses
on transaction problems, including bargaining, infor-
mation, agency, enforcement, and division problems.
Predictive evidence to support this model is presented
that increase the prospects for cooperation, particularly
through informal connections. In a survey of Florida
local officials, Caruson and McManus (2006) found
such connections to have strengthened the intergo-
vernmental system through mandated interlocal colla-
boration.
Some research emphasizes the informal aspects of in-
tersectoral relationships, as opposed to the all-too-
frequent formal agreements in typical contracting re-
search. For example, Gazley completed an empirical
study of government-nonprofit partnerships in Georgia
and finds that these more relational forms of relation-
ships are based on trust, shared control, and reputation
where “the strength of a handshake is enough and so-
cial pressure cements relationships” (149). One of the
primary findings is that among the most active intersec-
toral partnerships reported by public and nonprofit ex-
ecutives in the state of Georgia, only half involve con-
tractual arrangements.
Collaborative horizontal connections can also be for-
mal. Government by contract involves collaboration
that is legally bound but remains as an interactive
process among parties. This concern is laid out well by
Van Slyke (2007), where he contrasts principal agent
and stewardship models of contracting. Heyman’s con-
cern with contracting predates the concern for the
“hollow state” by more than 30 years (1961). He refers
to the large number of federal employees that are be-
coming “invisible” as a result of the use of contracts,
grants, and other “instruments” (59). After looking at
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
11
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
the benefits and problems of contracting, he concludes
that the presumed government/non-government di-
chotomy no longer exists. Providing additional evi-
dence of the prevalence and relevance of contracting,
Brown (2008) examined a large scale survey of gov-
ernment-to-government contracting in the low-risk pol-
icy area of public works and transportation, and high-
risk health and human services. Governments, seeking
to deal with the complexity of such services, are more
likely to use other governments for high-risk services.
Brown et al. (2006) offer operational advice for practi-
tioners of contracting, including important values to
maintain, tools-resources-constraints, and service main-
tenance of markets. They usefully put this framework
into action, as they cover “make-or-buy” decisions,
contract specifications, and contract management. Pub-
lic-private competition, what the British call compul-
sory competitive tendering (CCT), is examined by Mar-
tin (1997). He looks at anti-competitive practices, as
well as impacts on organization structure, services costs
and quality, management and organization, among oth-
ers, as potential lessons for U.S. governments.
The collaborative literature is also replete with studies
of public-private partnerships. Koppenjan and Ense-
rink (2009) review the literature on partnerships and
identify the governance practices that hinder or help
private sector participation in urban infrastructure
projects designed to promote urban sustainability.
Leach’s (2006) look at governance in 76 western wa-
tershed partnerships concludes that seven normative
ideals—inclusiveness, representativeness, impartiality,
transparency, deliberativeness, lawfulness, and empo-
werment—permeate most partnerships. Teisman and
Kiln (2002) examine ambiguity in partnerships, balanc-
ing new governance approaches with governmental
procedures and restrictions. Governments continue to
rely on “self-referential” organizational decisions. In a
broad look at public-private partnerships on a global
scale, Hodge and Greve (2007) focus on long-term in-
frastructure contracts. They find contradictory results
of their success and suggest that evaluations need to be
designed independent of their “policy cheerleaders.” In
an article that lays out the nature and operation of pub-
lic-private partnerships, Forrer et al. (2010) look at the
accountability of public-private partnerships, that is,
their ability to provide goods and services consistent
with public sector goals along six dimensions: risk,
costs and benefits, political and social impacts, exper-
tise, collaboration, and performance measurements.
Developing the Concept of Collaborative Pub-
lic Management
The development of the concept of collaborative pub-
lic management can be traced back, in general, to the
interorganizational traditions elucidated in the previous
section. However, the research suggests four elements
of the collaborative concept that provide a cause for its
inclusion in the field of public management: (1) inter-
dependence, (2) structural types, (3) process, and (4)
roles. Each of these is addressed in the following sec-
tions.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
12
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Organizational Interdependence
In a very basic sense, collaborative public management
involves establishing and facilitating interorganizational
connections. The need for collaboration emanates from
the inability of single organizations to deal with socie-
ty’s most difficult problems, giving rise to states of in-
terdependence. Parties then explore their concerns
through collaboration. In a ground breaking work on
the process, a veritable manual of how to collaborate,
Barbara Gray (1989, 5) explains that “Collaboration is a
process through which parties who see different as-
pects of problem can constructively explore their dif-
ferences and search for solutions that go beyond their
own limited vision of what is possible.” Beverly Cigler
(2001, 78-81) identified nine preconditions for collabo-
ration:
1) Approaching a serious problem.
2) Conditions of fiscal dependence.
3) Availability of external capacity/technical assis-tance.
4) Internal collaborative skill-building expertise.
5) The existence of locally based policy lead-ers/entrepreneurs.
6) Engaging in building a political constituency for cooperation.
7) Securing early elected official support.
8) Promotion of the advantages of coordination.
9) Focusing on reachable strategies.
Her empirical research demonstrates how these condi-
tions helped move along multisector cross-community
projects in small towns and rural areas. In the era of
contracting, government and its interlocutors are highly
interactive and interdependent. As Romzek (2006) con-
cludes, public manager intervention is necessary “in
contracts involving complex networks of contractors
and subcontractors. For their internal workings, people
in public agencies tend to operate hierarchically; in
building and maintaining relationships with contractors,
those people are obliged to work through complex ho-
rizontal interdependencies” (167).
Early examinations of interdependence placed the locus
for such study in American metropolitan areas. In the
middle of the twentieth century, Grant (1954) be-
moaned the fact that studies of federal-city relations
exist “side by side” with studies that describe the go-
verning of metropolitan areas. He looks at the areas
and devices for federal influence upon metropolitan
integration, including consultation, federal spending,
contracts, and promotion of interstate compacts,
among others. This is one of the early attempts at ar-
guing for the theoretical and empirical study of the in-
tersection of vertical and horizontal relationships.
There is no mention of collaboration per se, but it em-
phasizes the coordination of metropolitan aspects of
city-federal relationships. Like Grant (1954) before
him, Beckman (1966) discusses federal and state actions
that can affect metropolitan government. However, he
takes a more critical tone toward the fragmentation of
local governments in metropolitan areas, citing “un-
even allocation of fiscal resources among the local gov-
ernments in a metropolitan area, disparities in levels of
service among central city and suburban jurisdictions,
economically inefficient scale of operations, excessive
spillover of costs and benefits, and unresolved areawide
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
13
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
problems” (96). His remedy is to look more carefully at
how the vertical dimension of intergovernmental rela-
tions can strategically meet the needs of metropolitan
governance and create “a unity” between federal-state
activities and commonly accepted objectives for local
government (106).
In “A Lesson in Cooperation,” Berger (1956) describes
the multi-jurisdictional Bay Area Salary Survey, which
started in 1948 as a means to involve “federal, state,
and local agencies in a unified effort toward a common
goal”: providing a uniform personnel classification and
pay structure for the metropolitan area (188). He notes
graphically that an air traveler arriving over San Fran-
cisco would not see the “crazy quilt of cities, counties,
special districts, with an overlay of federal and state
activities covering everything” (187). Berger describes
essentially what Frederickson (1999) would much later
refer to as “administrative conjunction,” or the fact that
the provision of governmental services has little rela-
tion to the jurisdictional boundaries in a metropolitan
area. Similarly, Beaumont Hagebak (1979), a practition-
er with what was then the U.S. Public Health Service,
opens his article with a story about how, in the 1970s,
the Texas Governor’s Interagency Health and Human
Resources Council attempted to cross-index 196 state
programs that addressed human services. He notes that
“the resulting matrix…revealed an unmanageable 1,100
overlapping areas of joint agency participation in pro-
gram implementation. At the local level, federal human
service funds eventually reach[ed] some 28,000 local
units of government and an estimated 140,000 local
non-governmental agencies directly involved in service
delivery” (575).
Emergency management is one program area where the
interdependence of various organizations is par for the
course. For example, there are several obstacles to
overcome in coordinating medical responses: resistance
of physicians, autonomy and turf protection by health
care organizations, planning difficulties posed by in-
volving multiple local government jurisdictions, lack of
attention to prior planning, and isolation of plans from
other community emergency planning efforts (Tierney
1985). Rubin and Barbee’s (1985) look at disaster re-
covery and hazard mitigation cases found there to be
four critical concerns of interconnectedness:
1) Government’s ability to act strategically and technically, coupled with organizational flexibil-ity and adaptiveness.
2) Establishing a community direction with regard to its values and protecting and expanding its economic base.
3) Knowing what tasks to undertake;.
4) Understanding and using political support.
Looking at emergency management in the Hurricane
Katrina context, Comfort (2007) looks at the process as
a complex adaptive system that includes, among other
forces, self-organization and mobilization of a collec-
tive, community response system that is based on cog-
nition, communication, coordination and control.
Using several case reports from the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, O’Toole and Montjoy (1984)
found that as interorganizational interdependence in-
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
14
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
creased with regard to the number of units involved in
program implementation, chances of success increased,
contrary to conventional wisdom. Crossing boundaries
in public administration is now prevalent, bringing on a
need for “indirect management,” which is based on
four major conditions: partial accountability, differing
objectives by implementers, program continuity, and
exchanges across organizational boundaries. Evaluating
and managing programs under such conditions creates
an environment in which administrative difficulties ab-
ound.
Collaborative Structures
How does one organize for collaboration? The struc-
tures through which collaborative public management
is practiced have evolved over time. Charles R. Wise
(1990) argues that interorganizational analysis “can
provide a framework for policy makers to understand
what they are trying to do and what is and is not possi-
ble” (145). He raises four “design” standards to deter-
mine what type of organization structure is appropriate
in a given situation:
1) Where the existing public organization(s) fits within the interorganizational field.
2) What the policy maker wants the interorganiza-tional field to produce.
3) What configuration of the organization net-work is most likely to produce the outputs.
4) What configuration of public organizations within the jurisdiction is more likely to facilitate the desired change in the relevant organization-al field.
Management is thus both institutional (single organiza-
tion) and transorganizational (across organizational
boundaries). He notes that the interorganizational field
of any activity of the public sector consists of a wide
variety of different types of organizations, public and
private. Wise accurately predicted that “public service
configurations” will be more rather than less complex
in the future, portending the recent increase in the sig-
nificance of collaborative public management.
Internal maximum flexibility allows for facilitating work
externally. Quinn’s Beyond Rational Management (1988)
calls for flexible models or the principle of “adhocra-
cy,” where the emphasis is on innovation and creativity.
“Here people are not controlled but are inspired” (40).
Saint-Onge and Armstrong (2004) similarly define Con-
ductive Organization, where each organization is posi-
tioned internally to also work across boundaries in or-
der to enhance its internal performance. As such, ad hoc
structures evolve. Agranoff (2007) found that Quinn’s
adhocracies slowly shift into some combination of de-
mocratically organized structures that change and adapt
with challenges and circumstances that he calls self-
managed “collaborarchies,” or counterpart structures
that are continuously readjusted to facilitate cross-
organization process (123). Thus, in some cases, colla-
borative public management involves informal linkages
and ad hoc adjustments to meet some agreed upon need.
In other cases, structures emerge out of the deliberative
process. For example, Agranoff’s (2007) study of 14
networks found that each evolved toward some form
of self-organized, adapted entity that fell somewhere
between the nonprofit organization voluntary elected
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
15
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
board and bureaucratic task force or committee. Each
had some form of communication system (electronic
and face-to-face), internal power structure, along with
internal arrangements, for reaching agreements. Draw-
ing on their ongoing experiences in their agencies and
in nonprofit organizations, with internal teams, task
forces and workgroups, plus models provided by non-
profit organizations with boards and committees, col-
laborarchies are organized to facilitate the kind of
knowledge-based, multi-interest, multidisciplinary
problems that are so vexing that they require cross-
organization action. Thus, they are non-hierarchically
structured.
Short of organized collaborarchies are less formal
structures that are often used to promote collaborative
public management, namely communities of practice
and the epistemic communities that they often lead to.
The former are self-organizing systems that share the
capacity to create and use knowledge through informal
learning and mutual engagement (Wenger, 2000). Most
communities are self-organized and bring in new know-
ledge bearers when needed, from wherever they can be
found. Maintenance of communities of practice re-
quires efforts to keep different types of knowledge
bearers in, by challenging busy people with solving im-
portant public problems, and by calling on their expe-
rience and know how in an interdisciplinary manner.
Epistemic community can be facilitated by mobilizing a
multiagency group of professionals from different dis-
ciplines because they often share common outlooks
and similar solution orientations. Hass (1992, 3) sug-
gests that these persons can represent a variety of dis-
ciplines and share normative and principled beliefs
which provide a value-based rationale for action. They
also tend to share causal beliefs, notions of validity, and
a common policy enterprise. An epistemic community
normally produces consensual knowledge. Even in the
face of anomalous data the community may suspend
judgment in order to maintain their scientific legitima-
cy, maintaining for the moment its consensus as a
power resource (Haas 1990, 55). Epistemic communi-
ties can be important knowledge sustainers, as they can
have a disproportionate effect on organized learning
and behavior, and even though epistemic community
members may not constitute the most powerful agency
decision makers, they “are well situated to provide a
driving logic for cooperation” (Thomas 2003, 41).
Bringing together these communities for enhanced de-
liberation is among the emergent collaborative tasks of
public management. Both communities of practice and
epistemic communities in such areas as environmental
management, mental disabilities programming, com-
munity and economic development, and development
in third world countries regularly emerge as structures
between more ad hoc commissions and task forces, on
the one hand, and on the other hand, more organized
situations.
Perhaps the most visible collaborative structure (and
the most studied recently) is the network. The devel-
opment of the collaborative public management con-
cept is based in part on the emergent relevance of pub-
lic management networks. O’Toole’s (1997) now se-
minal article on networks is viewed as the beginning of
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
16
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
a serious discussion in the U.S. about how to address
the increasing importance of public management net-
works and their management through collaborative
means. O’Toole suggests numerous reasons why net-
works are likely to be more relevant in the future. He
then sets out four research agendas for the public man-
agement field: the practical agenda, the conceptual and
descriptive agenda, the agenda for empirical theory, and
the normative agenda. Quoted and cited extensively,
the article calls on researchers to study public manage-
ment networks as a normal and salient part of adminis-
trative conduct.
However, usage of the term “network” in the public
administration context preceded O’Toole’s treatment
by several years. Kettl (1981) was among the first scho-
lars to use the term, arguing that there were network-
like changes to American federalism brought on by two
block grants from the Nixon era: the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act (CETA) and the Com-
munity Development Block Grant [CDBG]. Although
there are many implications of these programs for local
administration, Kettl’s study of Richmond, Virginia,
highlights the degree of contracting out of the direct
administration of dozens of projects to non-city agen-
cies. He notes that the “complicated administrative net-
works that manage CETA and [CDBG] have simulta-
neously streamlined and muddied the problem of ac-
countability” (371, emphasis added). The use of the
term networks predates its common usage in the 21st
century.
Gage (1984) offers a prescient look at the role of net-
works in administering federal programs. While pre-
sented as a critical analysis of the creation and demise
of Federal Regional Councils (FRC), he observes that
the positions of actors/organizational units can be
represented pictorially as nodes, or “junctions when
there are multiple interconnections” (137). He empha-
sizes the role of politics in networking, and the necessi-
ty of formulating strategies, bargaining, and negotiating
in administration across governmental levels. His in-
depth depictions of national and local FRCs offer some
of the first such representations of network structures
in the public administration literature.
Rhodes (2003) cautions us that the term network holds
different meanings for each respondent who partici-
pates in empirical research. So while theorists sort out
the meaning of the term, so too do practitioners have
various conceptions of a network. Furthermore, not all
networks are alike. Agranoff’s (2007) typology of net-
works indicates that some networks have no authority,
even to jointly program; they merely exchange informa-
tion. Other types of networks also undertake education
that enhances the ability of the member organizations
to implement solutions, again at the individual organi-
zation rather than network level. Another network type
is involved in problem solving approaches, albeit indi-
rectly, as they blueprint strategies that are used by net-
work members as these members directly approach
client agencies. The most extensive type of network is
known as an action network. Unlike the other three
network types, action networks engage in collective ac-
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
17
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
tion by formally adopting network-level courses of ac-
tion and often delivering services.
Myrtle and Wilber (1994) offer strategies for improving
service coordination by examining interorganizational
networks. They argue against vertical integration and
“rationalization” of the delivery of services through
interorganizational networks, but acknowledge that one
plausible solution is the creation of an organizational
structure to facilitate cross-network activities. This is
consistent with the findings of Provan and Milward’s
research on mental health networks (1995) and later
work on “hierarchical networks” for emergency man-
agement (Moynihan 2008). Interorganizational com-
plexity must be increased and an appropriate strategy
would be explore methods for creating collaborative
alliances between organizations within these networks
(251).
Managerial Processes
The “black box” of collaboration and management is
addressed in a great deal of scholarship, emphasizing
that the process of management is just as important, if
not more so, than the structure. Although framed with-
in the context of managing intergovernmental pro-
grams, Agranoff and Lindsay (1983) provide the empir-
ical foundation for the concept of collaborative public
management by examining the process of such man-
agement. Their study of six intergovernmental bodies
showed that the private sector must be considered
partners with government agencies, that joint actions
by managers—a “mutually carrying out of agree-
ments”—are necessary, and that, fundamentally, inter-
governmental administrative activities involve develop-
ing solutions to intergovernmental problems “instead
of contrived means of cooperation” (236). In a later
paper, Agranoff (1991) argues that mere program
coordination is no longer the answer for overcoming
managerial barriers. Instead, a type of “transorganiza-
tional management” is needed that places emphasis on
the development and integration of services. He con-
cludes that “a new paradigm must be invoked, where
the managerial task bridges the traditional structural
components of the single organization authority struc-
ture” (540) and involves forging directions by “joint
decisionmaking, engaging in goal-directed planning and
programming, and in developing operating agreements
executed by the mutual actions of disparate parties”
(541).
According to Thomson and Perry (2006), the black box
of collaboration can be thought of as involving five
dimensions: governance, administration, organizational
autonomy, mutuality, and norms. The concept of colla-
boration is defined in terms of formal and informal ne-
gotiation, joint creation of rules and structures and rela-
tionships, shared norms, and mutually beneficial inte-
ractions. The authors discuss the antecedents to these
dimensions and show that positive outcomes will result
for managers who understand these dimensions and
“manage them intentionally” (20). As Thomson and
Perry imply, the outcomes of collaborative public man-
agement are closely related to process, but the evalua-
tion of interorganizational networks has largely been
neglected in the public administration literature. Provan
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
18
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
and Milward (2001) offer three levels of analysis of ef-
fectiveness: community level, network level, and organ-
ization/participant level. The three-fold analytical di-
mensions reflect the fact that so many stakeholders lay
claim to the outcomes of a network; customers/clients
do not make up the totality of the stakeholders. The
needs of constituents groups in the public sector are
many, and the number of groups is extensive. Further-
more, “network effectiveness of one level does not en-
sure effectiveness at the other two levels” (421).
Based on the examination of multiple case studies, Eu-
gene Bardach (1998) identifies a set of building blocks
in interagency operation that, when combined, build
“interagency collaborative capacity.” One pillar of such
“craftsmanship” involves creative opportunity, intellec-
tual capital, an implementation network, and supportive
advocacy groups. The other platform involves trust,
acceptance of leadership, and a communications net-
work. These platforms then combine to lead to im-
proved steering capacity, an operating subsystem and
continuous learning (274).
Internal process has similarly been identified by Mi-
chael McGuire (2002). He has developed a set of prop-
ositions that point to four key dimensions of managing
collaboratively: activating, mobilizing, framing, and syn-
thesizing. Activating involves identifying participants
for the network and including key stakeholders in the
process. The skills, knowledge and resources of these
potential participants must be assessed and tapped into.
Framing is defined as the behaviors used to arrange and
integrate a collaborative structure by facilitating agree-
ment on participants’ roles, operating rules, and net-
work values. It involves facilitating the internal struc-
ture and position of the participants, as well as influen-
cing the operating rules and the norms of the collabo-
ration. Collaborative managers also must induce indi-
viduals to make and keep a commitment to the net-
work. Mobilizing behaviors are used to develop com-
mitment and support for processes from participants
and external stakeholders. The fourth category of col-
laborative behavior posits that leaders employ synthe-
sizing behaviors intended to create an environment and
to enhance the conditions for favorable, productive
interactions among participants. Leaders try to create
and maintain trust among collaborative participants as a
means to build relationships and interactions that result
in achieving a purpose. McGuire’s four propositions
are based in contingency logic, as a way to test ideas
when, why, and how managers undertake these beha-
viors, as they strategically match behaviors with their
governing contexts. Thus, activation, mobilizing, fram-
ing, and synthesizing in relation to program objectives,
resource allocations, garnering stakeholder support,
resource allocation, and system maintenance are impor-
tant ways to study the manager in collaborative struc-
tures such as networks.
Stephen Page (2008) attempts to measure such capacity
to collaborate by looking at McGuire’s (2002) four
phases. He is concerned with the problems of account-
ing for the collective action issues of capitalizing work
across organizations. The four state human services
programs he studied used client “outcomes and indica-
tors to establish standards, rhetoric, incentives and
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
19
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
communication regarding local collaboration” that
helped managers build the capacity to manage for re-
sults across agencies (158). Page concludes that it is
important for collaborating public agencies to provide
the resources, guidance, discipline and economies of
scale in gathering and analyzing performance data, and
of providing cross-site perspectives that worked in
practice.
Rethemeyer and Hatmaker (2008) extend the applica-
tion of these four collaborative management behaviors
by showing how public managers must be able to per-
form these behaviors “across policy, collaborative, and
fiscal networks within their home system as well as in
adjacent systems” (641). Management is not an explicit
function of just one person, and the actors in a specific
network may also be actors in other networks simulta-
neously. Contrary to McGuire (2002), who offers
propositions regarding the use of these behaviors by
assuming a single manager, the application of such be-
haviors is more complex. Managers must be “flexible
enough to tailor their network management activities”
(Rethemeyer and Hatmaker 2008, 641) to the different
interests of the manager’s home network and other ad-
jacent network systems.
Project success certainly depends on attention to
process during collaboration. Chrislip and Larson
(1994) examined 52 collaborative projects with the help
of the National Civic League. They explain that manag-
ing the process depends on:
1) Good timing and clear need.
2) Strong stakeholder groups.
3) Broad-based involvement.
4) An open and credible process.
5) Commitment of high-level leaders.
6) Political/governmental leadership support.
7) Work at overcoming mistrust and skepticism.
8) Building in small/interim successes.
9) Over time a shift to broader concerns (52-54).
This list from community development collaboration
emphasizes the importance of a) leadership and b) care-
fully orchestrated processes.
Collaboration involves more than reaching agreement;
it is also about enhancing trust among stakeholders and
generating political and social capital (David Booher
2008, 125). Judith Innes (2004) calls for a process that
includes own source ground rules, avoidance of posi-
tional bargaining, respectful dialogue, self-organizing,
fully shared information, consensus based on when all
interests have been explored, explicit and transparent
links to implementation, and public and stakeholder
review of any draft agreement (20). Similarly, John
Forrester (2009) calls for the process to approach the
real differences among parties:
Fostering dialogue can promote understanding and mu-tual recognition between parties, fostering trust and respect, beginning the work of relationship building—even as skeptics may always voice suspicions of this as “just talk.” Moderat-ing debate can sharpen arguments, identify crucial or missing information, and clarify critical differences between parties—even as such sharp argument always risks escalating antagon-isms and undermining relationships between the parties. Me-
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
20
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
diating negotiation, in contrast, crafts agreements to act—signed commitments to give in order to get, to act together to satisfy the represented stakeholders’ interests—even as fur-ther, deeper structural issues require ongoing organizing. So, planners and community leaders must be clear, with them-selves and community members alike, in any given meeting: are we here to foster a dialogue, to moderate a debate between perspectives, or are we here to act, to agree together upon a plan of action (or, of course, do we want to combine these processes in some ways to serve our ends) (152-153)?
In this sense, Forrester concludes that differences in
priorities, interests, values, world views and perspec-
tives, political positions, cultural identities and more
may need to be honored and worked through rather
than ignoring them or sweeping them under the table.
In a seminal study of collaboration, Huxham and Van-
gen (2005) point to the painful and slow process of
erecting “collaborative advantage” to overcome the
many obstacles of “collaborative inertia,” that is, “a
mass of different aims that individuals and organiza-
tions will be aiming to pursue through the collabora-
tion, and that many of these will not be obvious be-
cause they will form parts of hidden agendas” (33).
Their theory of advantage “recognizes that managing
(rather than agreeing) aims is a central, continuous and
inherently difficult aspect of collaboration practice, ra-
ther than a precursory task to be got out of the way…”
(33). In addition, the authors point to the importance
of working processes, resources, communication and
language, commitment and determination, culture,
power, trust, accountability, democracy and equality,
and risk-taking as contributing to collaborative advan-
tage.
Collaborative Roles
The roles played by participants in a collaborative en-
deavor are important to consider. The literature on citi-
zen participation is broad and deep but only some of it
actually involves engagement as collaborative
processes. One stream is that of coproduction, where
citizens are involved in program implementation (Le-
vine and Fisher 1984). In the tradition of Elinor and
Vincent Ostrom’s work on service delivery in metro-
politan areas, Whitaker (1980) elaborates on the role of
citizens in producing—co-producing—and delivering
local services to the public. He explains that citizens
coproduce public services by requesting assistance
from service agents, by cooperating with service pro-
viders in carrying out agency programs, and by nego-
tiating with service agents to redirect activities. Promot-
ing participation and related partnerships, along with
community building and process orientation to man-
agement, are among the changes that have emerged
among local managers, as delineated by Nalbandian
(1999). In this regard, Kathi and Cooper (2005) devel-
op a model of citizen participation that brings neigh-
borhood councils into partnership with city councils
into a collaborative partnership. It is centered on inter-
active process in building trust and creating mutual un-
derstanding and agreement. In terms of city respon-
siveness to neighborhood organization interaction, five
possible determining factors may be at work: organiza-
tional culture, organizational leadership, organizational
rules and structure, dependence on stakeholder de-
mands, and extent of external control placed on the
agency (Bryer and Cooper 2007).
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
21
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Cooper at al. (2006) emphasize the role of the public in
collaborative management processes and advance the
argument that “deliberative and collective action strate-
gies of civic engagement hold the promise in achieving
a public-involving, citizen-centered collaborative public
management” (76). They offer a conceptual model of
civic engagement to demonstrate five basic dimensions
to civic engagement: who is involved, who initiates the
engagement, why citizens are involved, where the en-
gagement takes place, and how citizens are involved.
The authors thus make a case that collaborative public
management processes and structures must necessarily
include citizens in their deliberations. An empirical
study of neighborhood councils in Los Angeles (the
Collaborative Learning Project) focuses on the respon-
siveness of government bureaucracy to citizens in the
collaborative process (Bryer 2009). Seven propositions
for future study derived from three research questions
are raised: whether agency officials rely on their exper-
tise for decision making, whether agency official are
open to partnerships, and what is the benefits to ad-
ministrators. The study’s primary finding is that “ad-
ministrator and citizen perceptions of their own and
the other party’s roles may influence the quality of res-
ponsive behavior in collaborative activity.”
In a similar vein, Fong (2006) looks at collaborative
engagement along three interacting dimensions: who
participates, how participants communicate with one
another and make decisions together, and how partici-
pants are linked with public action. However, one must
be aware of the federal regulations that can place bar-
riers before nonprofits working on social action to
change program and policy (Berry 2005). A number of
citizen-based quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial
processes of engagement have been identified, such as
deliberative democracy, e-democracy, public conversa-
tions, participatory budgeting, citizen juries, study cir-
cles, collaborative policy making and alternative dispute
resolution (Bingham et al. 2005). These best practices
contribute to the processes of collaborative public
management.
The importance of learning together in collaborative
public management is captured by the work of Kop-
penjan and Klijn (2004) in their Managing Uncertainties in
Networks. Joint action by interaction is seen in part as
“searches wherein public and private parties from dif-
ferent organization (levels of) government and net-
works jointly learn about the nature of the problem,
look at the possibility of doing something about it, and
look at the characteristics of the strategic and institu-
tional context within which the problem-solving devel-
ops” (10). Cooperation, then, presupposes structured
learning between actors: “It requires numerous skills,
tacit knowledge of the network and negotiation skills
since the adopted strategies are implemented in a situa-
tion where singular hierarchical relations are lacking.
The role of the network manager is one of mediator
and stimulator of interaction and not one of central
director. This role is not given a priori to one actor. In
principle, this role can be fulfilled by several actors,
sometimes by even more than one actor at the same
time, both public and private” (11). Thus, learning in
multi-actor situations is crucial, as diverging and often
conflicting perceptions and objections and institutions.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
22
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
As governments increasingly engage externally with
other government entities and with the private sector
through vehicles like grants, contracts, loans, and
through networks, one must maintain a proper pers-
pective on the role of government vis-a-vis nongovern-
mental entities. Dwight Waldo (1948, 211) reminded
public management scholars decades ago that an ade-
quate “theory of organization” must maintain a purpo-
sive perspective on how “to solve the problems of hu-
man cooperation.” Government agencies maintain their
primary authoritative roles, normally including that of
participant in collaborating processes and normally the
ultimate decision-maker.
Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000) conclude in their study
of ecosystem collaboration that the government official
must take new and active roles:
At the same time, government agencies and institutions have a unique role and responsibility in these processes. While they should be capitalizing on opportunities to collaborate, they must recognize that they—and only they—are the final deci-sion makers. Some argue that the role of agency participants in collaborative processes is solely as a facilitator of other par-ticipants’ interactions. However, based on our review of suc-cessful collaborative processes, it is clear that where a group succeeded and was held in high regard by the broader commu-nity, the agency did not step back into a purely facilitative role. Rather, it provided essential leadership that guided the group while simultaneously representing its own interests within the process. It ensured that the side-boards provided by existing law and regulation were in place and understood, and that those individuals present recognized that implemen-tation of decisions could occur only through established ad-ministrative processes, including procedures for public review and comment. It took on the responsibility of ensuring the ac-countability of the process while still promoting collaborative interaction among multiple participants (244).
Despite all of the attention paid to the new collabora-
tive structures like networks, “…each public agency is a
bounded jurisdiction: it maintains day-to-day opera-
tional control over any potential network moves that
involves its programs” (Agranoff 2007, 219). Moreover,
Paul Hirst (2000) reminds us that government remains
the agent that pulls the various forces together, distri-
butes power and responsibilities, is the focus of politi-
cal identity, and is the main instrument of political legi-
timacy.
Practice of Collaborative Public Management
It has been argued that in order to be relevant, “man-
agement research must inform action” (Agranoff and
McGuire 2001b, 322). However, while the literature in
the area of collaborative public management is quite
robust, not all facets of this governance approach are
equally well represented in the literature. Importantly,
one of the areas for which there is an overall dearth of
research and an area that deserves more scholarly atten-
tion is that of the provision of practical guidance for
public managers who are either currently working in or
who are considering working in a collaborative envi-
ronment. In essence, while the field has spent consider-
able effort and made great strides in understanding
networks on an organizational level, the field has largely
ignored the scholarly inquiry of the internal operations
of networks (Agranoff 2006). The result is that there is
little scholarly insight into how collaborative networks
are managed, and thus little normative guidance on
how they should be managed. Of the more than one
hundred articles dealing with collaborative management
that have appeared in PAR, only a handful have either
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
23
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
focused specifically upon providing insights for the
practitioner or even included implications for practice
in the discussion of the articles impact on the field.
This is particularly surprising given that PAR’s in-
tended audience includes both practitioners and aca-
demics.
That being said, there are a few PAR articles that have
included insights for practice. These articles can be ca-
tegorized as either focusing on managing the internal
environment, such as managing the collaborative
process, managing the members of the network, etc., or
focusing on managing the external environment, such
as managing external stakeholders, balancing network
demands with those of the home agency, etc. Carey
(1968) was one of the first to lay out the process by
which collaborative arrangements are, or perhaps
should be, undertaken. The findings in his study indi-
cate that the parties engaged in a collaborative enter-
prise must begin by defining the concept of the venture
and establish norms and ground rules for collaborative
behavior. In order to help ensure that they are jointly
held, the members of the network should negotiate the
vision, norms and rules that will guide the collabora-
tive, abide by what was mutually agreed upon
(DelGuidice 1970) and agree on mechanisms to self-
monitor their adherence to these jointly agreed upon
standards of behavior. However, it has been noted that
the rules must be sufficiently flexible in order to allow
networks to adapt to the complex problems that they
were established to address (Weber and Khademian
2008)
Networks must also be able to effectively manage their
membership in order for the collaborative effort itself
to be effective. Collaborative managers must under-
stand how best to use the resources, skills and efforts
of the members of the collaborative, how to link the
activities of the various members of the network, and
how to create an output that is seen as being of value
by stakeholders. Thomson and Perry (2006) point out
that collaboration does not imply the absence of an
administrative structure. As such, they suggest that it is
critical that collaborative partners clearly define mem-
ber roles and responsibilities. Further, members of the
collaborative effort must see the benefits to working
with others, that the time spent collaborating is not
wasted time, and that the network adds public value
that would not be possible had the members acted in-
dividually (Agranoff 2006). When this occurs, individu-
al members will be more willing to share a portion of
their individual resources (funds, information, etc.) be-
cause they see that the result of the use of those re-
sources by the network provides tangible benefits for
themselves. In other words, in order for the network to
be successful, members must see it as a win-win situa-
tion. As the Thomson and Perry (2006) point out, this
is unlikely without a feeling of trust and reciprocity
within the network.
Leadership is yet another important facet of effective
collaboration. Leadership within networks cannot be
coercive, since member participation in the network is
generally voluntary (Weber and Khademian 2008).
Therefore, the decisions and agreements that are
reached in a collaborative setting are forged by the con-
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
24
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
sensus of partners and not via a leader-follower ex-
change (Agranoff 2006). This certainly does not mean
that collaborative arrangements are without a leader or
leadership. “Authority, or leadership, in networks is
often organic and informal in character, meaning that
leadership is not granted automatically because of for-
mal titles” or the position a network member has in
their own home agency (Weber and Khademian 2008,
342). Instead, leadership in a network is very much tied
to the individual network member’s social capital and
ability to facilitate the collaborative efforts of the net-
work. In other words, “collaborative efforts are facili-
tated by personal familiarity and not just institutional
contact” (Waugh and Streib 2006, 136-137). Such in-
terpersonal relationships can be fostered by providing
great numbers of coordination activities for the net-
work (Jennings 1994).
There is also a great need for the free exchange of in-
formation amongst network members as it has also
been found to be critically important for highly effec-
tive collaborative endeavors (Agranoff 2006). Accord-
ing to Weber and Khademian (2008), sending, receiv-
ing, and integration of knowledge is critical to the func-
tioning of a network and to building its collaborative
capacity. Such communication amongst members is
often best fostered by the leadership (Jennings 1994).
The authority of the governmental agency plays a criti-
cal role in soliciting, sharing and integrating knowledge
among participants in a network.
In addition to the management of the internal envi-
ronment of the collaborative enterprise, a network
must also consider the environment within which it
operates (Petak 1985). Particularly, it must pay atten-
tion to and exert time, effort, and thought in, managing
stakeholders. These external stakeholders not only in-
clude the recipients of the services provided by the col-
laborative, but also include the home agency that the
members of the collaborative enterprise represent and
that home agency’s external stakeholders. Often, this
results in the fact that the collaborative entity operates
in a very complex and complicated external environ-
ment. Since network members not only are part of the
collaborative effort, but are also part of their home
agency, they may be placed in a conundrum as they
may have to choose between serving their individual
agencies’ mission over the mission of the collaborative
(Thomson and Perry 2006). While this can be ad-
dressed by ensuring open channels of communication
and by emphasizing the need for collaboration to ad-
dress the intractable problems that likely spawned their
collaborative effort, reconciling the members’ dual
roles continues to be difficult for many collaborative
efforts (Thomson and Perry 2006). As such, the partic-
ipants of the collaborative endeavor must identify the
needs and desires of those that the collaborative serves
and strive to understand the political environments
within which the collaborative operates (Carey 1968).
It has also been noted that, while reliance collaborative
arrangements for serving the public good has certainly
been increasing, it does not mean that such structures
have replaced the traditional, hierarchical organization.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
25
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Rather, the majority of a public manager’s time is still
spent and work is still most often performed within the
hierarchical structure of the manager’s home agency or
department (Agranoff 2006). And, the collaborative
manager must realize that the collaborative endeavors
occur within the context of the authority relationships,
accountability mechanisms, and the legal and perceived
responsibility that are in place as a result of this exter-
nal environment (Petak 1985). Given that there is finite
time and resources, the individual members of the col-
laborative must balance the demand of their home
agency with the demands of the network as there are
costs associated with the collaborative process. Agra-
noff (2006) identified a number of costs of collabora-
tion, including the opportunity costs to the home agen-
cy since the collaborative manager must take time away
for the home agency in order to collaborate, the time
cost associate with “protracted decision-making
process” (62), cost of inaction due to the inability to
reach an agreement, and the “gravitation toward con-
sensus-based, risk-aversive decision agendas” (62).
Given these costs, the decision for collaborative man-
agers and those who supervise them is to determine the
agency’s interest in the outcomes produced by the net-
work (Campbell and Sacks 1964). Therefore, those
within the collaborative must foster the buy-in of key
stakeholders, particularly those whose power who will
be relied upon to signal support of the collaborative
throughout their home agency (Carey 1968). Similarly,
Jennings (1994) argues that it is critical that those in
leadership roles, particular at the executive level, com-
municate that coordination is important. While this
support may come in the form of the symbolic backing
of the collaborative, there are a number of tangible ac-
tions that home agency supervisors can take to facilitate
the collaborative process. These include the removal of
policies, procedures and practices that establish ob-
stacles to collaboration. Hageback (1979) identified a
number of barriers to collaborative service delivery,
including organization, personal attitude, and vision
barriers. Organizational barriers include regulations and
laws, funding limitations, differing agency structures,
and delivering geographic service areas (576). Barriers
of person include evaluations based upon agency effec-
tiveness in delivering its own services and not on the
manager’s ability to engage in collaboration. Finally,
barriers of vision relate to failure to see the big picture
due to “the blinders of current organizational systems
and personal attitudes” (577). The removal of these
barriers goes both ways. The network must recognize
the autonomy of the home agency and its representa-
tive to the network and recognize that the collaborative
endeavor is often voluntary. As Jennings (1994) noted,
the acceptance of the diversity of the member agencies
and their goals are very most important factors affect-
ing effective coordination.
Activities that move agencies toward integration in-
clude: knowledge base sharing, joint training, integrated
board memberships, jointly staffed action groups, en-
gaging in jointly sponsored public awareness activities,
joint needs assessment, provide incentives/rewards for
joint efforts, establishment of joint outreach sites, joint
case management, joint system negotiation (Hagebak
1979) and the utilization of joint funding and program
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
26
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
administration mechanisms (Jennings 1994). Further,
individual agencies must ensure that their internal rules
and regulations do not confound the collaborative net-
works ability to function optimally (DelGuidice 1970).
However, when home agencies do present barriers to
the collaborative manager, he or she needs to have the
“energy and commitment to overcome resistance from
within their home organizations” (Weber and
Khademian 2008, 344).
Effective collaborative managers also recognize that the
network’s capacity is contingent upon finding ways to
“create and sustain mechanisms for participation for all
stakeholders and finding solutions or processes that
meet the needs of stakeholders across the board”
(Weber and Khademian 2008, 344). In addition to the
focus on the stakeholders in the collaborative mem-
ber’s home organization, the citizenry are also impor-
tant stakeholders of the network. Networks may in
fact work best when citizens are viewed as collaborative
partners (Weber and Khademian 2008). Bryer’s (2009)
research focused on explaining the responsiveness of
the network manager to the citizenry. Findings from
this study suggest that a governance approach in which
stakeholders are seen as partners and the resulting rela-
tionship is expected to be long-term, mutually benefi-
cial, and span problems are more effective than gover-
nance structures in which the relationship is based
upon a customer or client based approach.
Silvia and McGuire (2010) examined collaborative lea-
dership in networks. Their approach was to compare
the leadership behaviors exhibited by public sector
leaders in their collaborative networks to the leadership
behaviors of those same leaders while leading their
home agency. They found that leaders spend more time
on people-oriented behaviors, such as motivating per-
sonnel, creating trust, treating others as equals, main-
taining a close knit group, sharing information freely
amongst group members, etc., while leading their net-
work than while leading their agency. Conversely, lead-
ers spent more time focusing on task accomplishment
while in the agency context. Finally, they found that
behaviors focused on managing the organization envi-
ronment, such as identifying stakeholders and engen-
dering their support, were important in both contexts.
These findings suggest that leadership in networks is
different than leadership in the traditional, hierarchical
agency. Therefore, public managers who find them-
selves in collaborative networks must use different lea-
dership approaches and skills to lead their collaborative
partners.
There has also been some research connecting leader-
ship behaviors to network effectiveness. Using the acti-
vation, framing, mobilization, and synthesizing frame-
work from McGuire (2002), McGuire and Silvia (2009)
found that activation behaviors, while very common
and presumably important, did not have a significant
impact on network effectiveness. It was posited that
this may be the case because such behaviors, which are
aimed at identifying the resources the network needs,
set the groundwork for success, but do not directly lead
to effective networks. Time spent engaging in framing
behaviors, such as creating member buy-in and estab-
lishing roles, rules and norms, were found to take away
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
27
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
from the network’s ability to be effective. Finally, both
mobilizing and synthesizing behaviors were found to
positively impact network effectiveness. This indicates
that leaders of effective networks should focus their
energy on developing external stakeholder support and
creating an environment in which the network mem-
bers can effectively operate.
Conclusion
It is not always the case, or perhaps rarely is the case,
that collaboration can be practiced so easily. Being
faced with incentives to collaborate is not enough to
spur successful collaboration (Weber 2009). Research
into the operations of the Blackfoot Watershed shows
that the transformative character of ideas plays a critical
role in facilitating the transition to, as well as the design
and acceptance of, the formal collaborative institution.
These seven ideas include: a commitment to place, a
common vision of place, an equity-based holistic mis-
sion, a new framework for property rights, the trans-
formation of interpersonal perspectives, a changing
perspective on public problems, and the changed shape
of useful knowledge. Indeed, the environment in which
public managers operate impacts their entry into colla-
borative relationships (McGuire and Silvia 2010).
As public managers find themselves in situations in
which the problems facing their organization are in-
creasingly severe, they commonly reach out to other
entities and agencies. These relationships appear to be
an effort put forth by public managers to collaborate
with other “actors who possess the resources (including
legal authority, funding, organization, expertise, infor-
mation) that local managers need to achieve their
goals” (Agranoff and McGuire 2003, 48). Public man-
agement today is characterized by interdependence
with, interorganizational coordination through, and
leadership by collaboration with these very actors.
However, the relatively recent interest in collaborative
public management belies the fact that, as shown in this
essay, collaboration has existed in the public sector for
many decades. The prevalence of such collaboration
may have increased recently and the relevance of colla-
borative management for achieving public outcomes
may be growing as well, but we do not claim to have
witnessed a new management paradigm for the 21st
century. Research on intergovernmental relations and
management offers, and will continue to offer, specific
propositions concerning operations across levels of
government. Governing by network is presented in
many cases as just an extension of decades-old ideas
about outsourcing and contracting. And public man-
agement has not suddenly and abruptly begun to re-
write the principles that have instead slowly emerged
over time. New theoretical developments on collabora-
tive public management will no doubt emerge, but we
cannot successfully make the case that the field of pub-
lic administration still knows so little about collabora-
tion; there is much to gain from an in-depth examina-
tion of past collaboration research and practice.
Future research on collaborative public management
will no doubt continue to address many of the concep-
tual issues identified in this essay. There are more ques-
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
28
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
tions than answers, and, as shown, the literature pub-
lished in Public Administration Review and other venues
provides many propositions left to be examined empir-
ically. Far from being episodic or occurring in just a
few programs, collaboration in public management is as
common as managing bureaucracies, and perhaps even
more so in such areas as economic and community de-
velopment, the environment, emergency management,
and the entire gamut of social and human services
(McGuire 2006). Government bureaucracy is not going
away; collaboration still complements rather than sup-
plants single organization management. However, the
research reveals that it is common enough to begin ex-
tending the knowledge base that can assist practitioners
in their efforts to plan and deliver public goods and
services.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
29
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
References
Agranoff, Robert. 1991. Human Services Integration: Past and Present Challenges in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 51(6): 533-542.
Agranoff, Robert. 2006. Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 56-65.
Agranoff, Robert. 2007. Managing Within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Agranoff, Robert, and Valerie A. Lindsay. 1983. Intergovernmental Management: Perspectives from Human Services Problem Solving at the Local Level. Public Administration Review 43(3): 227-237.
Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2001(a). American Federalism and the Search for Models of Man-agement. Public Administration Review 61(6): 671-681.
Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2001(b). Big Questions in Public Network Management Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(3): 295-326.
Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Anderson, William. 1955. The Nation and the States, Rivals or Partners? Minneapolis, MN: University of Min-nesota Press.
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Bardach, Eugene. 1998. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Beckman, Norman. 1966. How Metropolitan Are Federal and State Policies? Public Administration Review 26(2): 96-106.
Benson, George S. 1942. The New Centralization. New York: Rinehart.
Berger, Philip R. 1956. A Lesson in Cooperation. Public Administration Review 16(3): 187-191.
Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O'Leary. 2005. The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government. Public Administration Review 65(5): 547-558.
Booher, David E. 2008. Civic Engagement as Collaborative Complex Adaptive Networks. In Civil Engagement in a Network Society, edited by Kaifeng Yang and Erik Bergrud. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Brown, Trevor L. 2008. The Dynamics of Government-to-Government Contracts. Public Performance and Management Review 31(3): 364-386.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
30
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Brown, Trevor L, Matthew Potoski, and David M. Van Slyke. 2006. Managing Public Service Contracts: Align-ing Values, Institutions, and Markets. Public Administration Review 66(3): 323-331.
Bryer, Thomas A. 2009. Explaining Responsiveness in Collaboration: Administrator and Citizen Role Perceptions. Public Administration Review 69(2): 271-283.
Bryer, Thomas A., and Terry L. Cooper. 2007. Challenges in Enhancing Responsiveness in Neighborhood Go-vernance. Public Performance and Management Review 31(2): 191-214.
Campbell, Colin. 1988. The Search for Coordination and Control. In Organizing Governance, Governing Or-ganizations, edited by Colin Campbell and B. Guy Peters. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Campbell, Alan K., and Seymour Sacks. 1964. Administering the Spread City. Public Administration Review 24(3): 141-152.
Carey, William D. 1968. Intergovernmental Relations: Guides to Development. Public Administration Review 28(1): 22-25.
Caruson, Kiki, and Susan A. MacManus. 2006. Mandates and Management Challenges in the Trenches: An In-tergovernmental Perspective on Homeland Security. Public Administration Review 66(4): 522-536.
Chisholm, Donald. 1989. Coordination without Hierarchy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chrislip, David D., and Carl E. Larson. 1994. Collaborative Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cigler, Beverly A. 2001. “Multiorganizational, Multisector, and Multi-Community Organizations.” In Getting Results through Collaboration, edited by Myrna P. Mandell. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Clark, Jane Perry. 1938. The Rise of a New Federalism: Federal-State Cooperation in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
Comfort, Louise K. 2007. Crisis Management in Hindsight: Cognition, Communication, Coordination, and Control. Public Administration Review 67(s1): 189-197.
Cooper, Terry L., Thomas A. Bryer, and Jack W. Meek. 2006. Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public Manage-ment. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 76-88.
Crotty, Patricia M. 1988. Assessing the Role of Federal Administrative Regions: An Exploratory Analysis. Pub-lic Administration Review 48(2): 642-648.
Durisch, Lawrence L. 1941. Local Government and the T.V.A. Program. Public Administration Review 1(4): 326-334.
DelGuidice, Dominic. 1970. The City as a Full Partner. Public Administration Review 30(3): 287-293.
Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown.
Elazar, Daniel J. 1962. The American Partnership: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the Nineteenth Century United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elazar, Daniel, J. 1984. American Federalism: A View from the States, 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
31
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Feiock, Richard C., Annette Steinacker, and Hyung Jun Park. 2009. Institutional Collective Action and Eco-nomic Development Joint Ventures. Public Administration Review 69(2): 256-270.
Finer, S. E. 1950. A Primer of Public Administration. London: Frederick Muller.
Forester, John. 2009. Dealing With Differences: The Dynamics of Mediating Public Disputes. New York: Ox-ford.
Forrer, John, James Edwin Kee, Kathryn E. Newcomer, and Eric Boyer. 2010. Public-Private Partnerships and the Public Accountability Question. Public Administration Review 70(3): 475-484.
Fredrickson, H. George. 1997. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publish-ers.
———. 1999. The Repositioning of American Public Administration. PS: Political Science and Politics 32(4): 701-11.
Fung, Archon. 2006. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 66-75.
Gage, Robert W. 1984. Federal Regional Councils: Networking Organizations for Policy Management in the Intergovernmental System. Public Administration Review 44(2): 134-145.
Gaus, John M. and Leon O Wolcott. 1940. Public Administration and the United States Department of Agricul-ture. Chicago: Public Administration Service.
Gazley, Beth. 2008. Beyond the Contract: The Scope and Nature of Informal Government-Nonprofit Partner-ships. Public Administration Review 68(1): 141-154.
Gill, Corrington. 1945. Federal-State-City Cooperation in Congested Production Areas. Public Administration Review 5(1): 28-33.
Goodnow, Frank J. 1900. Politics and Administration. New York: Macmillan.
Grant, Daniel R. 1954. Federal-Municipal Relationships and Metropolitan Integration. Public Administration Review 14(4): 259-267.
Gray, Barbara. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hagebak, Beaumont R. 1979. Local Human Service Delivery: The Integration Imperative. Public Administration Review 39(6): 575-582.
Hodge, Graeme A., and Carsten Greve. 2007. Public-Private Partnerships: An International Performance Re-view. Public Administration Review 67(3): 545-558.
Hass, Peter M. 1990. Saving the Mediterranean: The Politics of International Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.
_______ 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Or-ganization 46(1): 1-35.
Heyman, Victor K. 1961. Government by Contract: Boon or Boner. Public Administration Review 21(2): 59-64.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
32
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Hirst, Paul. 2000. Democracy and Governance. In Debating Governance, edited by Jon Pierre. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huxham, Chris, and Siv Vangen. 2005. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. London: Routledge.
Hyneman, Charles S. 1950. Bureaucracy in a Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Imershein, Allen W., Larry Polivka, Gordon-Girvin Sharon, Richard Chackerian, and Patricia Martin. 1986. Service Networks in Florida: Administrative Decentralization and Its Effects on Service Delivery. Pub-lic Administration Review 46(2): 161-169.
Innes, Judith E. 2004. Consensus Building: Clarification for the Critics. Planning Theory 3(1): 5-21.
Jennings, Edward T., Jr. 1994. Building Bridges in the Intergovernmental Arena: Coordinating Employment and Training Programs in the American States. Public Administration Review 54(1): 52-60.
Jennings, Edward T., Jr., and Jo Ann G. Ewalt. 1998. Interorganizational Coordination, Administrative Consol-idation, and Policy Performance. Public Administration Review 58(5): 417-428.
Jennings, Edward T., Jr., and Dale Krane. 1994. Coordination and Welfare Reform: The Quest for the Philoso-pher's Stone. Public Administration Review 54(4): 341-348.
Kathi, Pradeep Chandra, and Terry L. Cooper. 2005. Democratizing the Administrative State: Connecting Neighborhood Councils and City Agencies. Public Administration Review 65(5): 559-567.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1967. The Forest Ranger (paperback version). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Kettl, Donald F. 1981. The Fourth Face of Federalism. Public Administration Review 41(3): 366-371.
Kettl, Donald F. 2006. Managing Boundaries in American Administration: The Collaboration Imperative. Pub-lic Administration Review 66(s1): 10-19.
Key, V. O., Jr. 1938. The Administration of Federal Grants to States. Chicago: Public Disputes. New York: Ox-ford.
Koppenjan, Joop F.M., and Bert Enserink. 2009. Public–Private Partnerships in Urban Infrastructures: Recon-ciling Private Sector Participation and Sustainability. Public Administration Review 69(2); 284-296.
Koppenjan, Joop, and Erik H. Klijn. 2004. Managing Uncertainties in Networks. London: Routledge.
Leach, William D. 2006. Collaborative Public Management and Democracy: Evidence from Western Wa-tershed Partnerships. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 100-110.
LeRoux, Kelly W., Paul Brandenburger, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2010. Interlocal Service Cooperation in U.S. Cities: A Social Network Explanation. Public Administration Review 70 2): 268-278.
Levine, Charles H., and Glenn Fisher. 1984. Citizenship and Service Delivery: The Promise of Coproduction. Public Administration Review 44(2): 178-189.
Lilienthal, David. 1939. The T.V.A.: An Experiment in the “Grass Roots” Administration of Federal Programs. Address to Southern Political Science Association, Knoxville, TN. Quoted in Dwight Waldo. 1948. The Administrative State. New York: Ronald.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
33
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Linden, Russell M. 2002. Working across Boundaries: Making Collaboration Work in Government and Non-profit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lovell, Catherine H. 1979. Coordinating Federal Grants From Below. Public Administration Review 39(5): 432-439.
Martin, J. 1997. Workplace Reform: HRM and Enterprise Bargaining. In Australian Local Government: Reform and Renewal, edited by Brian Dollery and Neal Marshall. Melbourne: Palgrave MacMillan.
Martin, Roscoe. 1965. The Cities and the Federal System. New York: Atherton Press.
McGuire, Michael. 2002. Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do It. Pub-lic Administration Review 62(5): 426-33.
McGuire, Michael. 2006. Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 33-43.
McGuire, Michael, and Chris Silvia. 2009. Examining the Effect of Leadership Behaviors on Managers' Perceptions of Network Effectiveness. Public Performance & Management Review 33(1): 34-62.
Mooney, James D. 1937. The Principles of Organization. In Papers on the Science of Administration, edited by Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick. New York: Institute of Public Administration.
Mosher, Frederick C. 1980. The Changing Responsibilities and Tactics of the Federal Government. Public Ad-ministration Review 40(6): 541-548.
Moynihan, D.P. (2008). Combining structural forms in the search for policy tools: Incident command systems in U. S. crisis management. Governance 21(2), 205-229.
Myrtle, Robert C., and Kathleen H. Wilber. 1994. Designing Service Delivery Systems: Lessons from the De-velopment of Community-Based Systems of Care for the Elderly. Public Administration Review 54(3): 245-252.
Nalbandian, John. 1999. Facilitating Community, Enabling Democracy: New Roles for Local Government Managers. Public Administration Review 59(3): 187-197.
O’Toole, Jr. Laurence J. 1997. Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-Based Agendas in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 57(1): 45-52.
O’Toole, Jr. Laurence J., and Robert S. Montjoy. 1984. Interorganizational Policy Implementation: A Theoreti-cal Perspective. Public Administration Review 44(6): 491-503.
Page, Stephen. 2008. Managing for Results across Agencies: Building Collaborative Capacity in Human Services. In Big Ideas in Collaborative Management, edited by Lisa Blomgren Bingham and Rosemary O’Leary. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Petak, William J. 1985. Emergency Management: A Challenge for Public Administration. Public Administration Review 45 (s1): 3-7.
Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Aaron B. Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
34
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Provan, K. G. and H. B. Milward. 1995. “A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Effectiveness: A Com-parative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1, 1-33.
Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 2001. Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review 61(4): 414-423.
Quinn, Robert E. 1988. Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rethemeyer, R. Karl, and Deneen M. Hatmaker. 2008. Network Management Reconsidered: An Inquiry into Management of Network Structures in Public Sector Service Provision. Journal of Public Administra-tion Research and Theory 18(4): 617-646.
Rhodes, R. A. W. 2003. Putting People Back into Networks. In Governing Networks, edited by Ari Salminem. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 9-23.
Rubin, Claire B., and Daniel G. Barbee. 1985. Disaster Recovery and Hazard Mitigation: Bridging the Intergo-vernmental Gap. Public Administration Review 45: 57-63.
Saint-Onge, Hubert, and Charles Armstrong. 2004. The Conductive Organization. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Seidman, Harold and Robert Gilmour. 1986. Politics, Position and Power, 4th ed. New York: Oxford.
Silvia, Chris, and Michael McGuire. 2010. Leading public sector networks: An empirical examination of integrative leadership behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 264-277.
Skowronck, Stephen. 1982. Building A New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capaci-ties 1877 – 1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stephens, G. Ross, and Nelson Wikstrom. 1998. Trends in Special Districts. State and Local Government Re-view 30(2): 129-138
Stone, Clarence, Kathryn Doherty, Cheryl Jones, and Timothy Ross. 1999. Schools, Disadvantaged Neighbor-hoods: The Community Development Challenge. In Urban Problems and Community Development, edited by Ronald F. Ferguson and William T. Dickens. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Sundquist, James M., and David W. Davis. 1969. Making Federalism Work: A Study of Program Coordination. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Teisman, Geert R., and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2002. Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric or Gover-nance Scheme? Public Administration Review 62(2): 197-205.
Terrell, Paul. 1980. Beyond the Categories: Human Service Managers View the New Federal Aid. Public Ad-ministration Review 40(1): 47-54.
Thomas, Craig W. 2003. Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiver-sity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thomson, Ann M., and James L. Perry. 2006. Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 20-32.
Foundations of Public Administration Collaborative Public Administration
Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff and Chris Silvia
35
PAR
(c) 2010 ASPA
Thurmaier, Kurt, and Curtis Wood. 2002. Interlocal Agreements as Overlapping Social Networks: Picket-Fence Regionalism in Metropolitan Kansas City. Public Administration Review 62(5): 585-598.
Tierney, Kathleen J. 1985. Emergency Medical Preparedness and Response in Disasters: The Need for Interor-ganizational Coordination. Public Administration Review 45: 77-84.
Van Slyke, David M. 2007. Agents or Stewards: Using Theory to Understand the Government-Nonprofit Social Service Contracting Relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(2): 157-187.
Vieg, John A. 1941. Working Relationships in Governmental Agricultural Programs. Public Administration Re-view 1(2): 141-148.
Waldo, Dwight. 1948. The Administrative State. New York: Ronald.
Walker, David B. 2000. Rebirth of Federalism: Slouching Toward Washington. New York: Chatham House Pubs. Seven Bridges Press.
Waugh, Willam L., and Gregory Streib. 2006. Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency Management. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 131-140.
Weber, Edward P., and Anne M. Khademian. 2008. Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings. Public Administration Review 68(2): 334-349.
Weber, Edward P. 2009. Explaining Institutional Change in Tough Cases of Collaboration: “Ideas” in the Blackfoot Watershed. Public Administration Review 69(2): 314-327.
Weidner, Edward W. 1944. State Supervision of Local Government in Minnesota. Public Administration Re-view 4(3): 226-233.
Wenger, Etienne. 2000. Communities of Practice: The Key to Knowledge Strategy. In Knowledge and Com-munities, edited by E. L. Lesser, M. A. Fontaine and J. A. Slusher. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Whitaker, Gordon P. 1980. Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery. Public Administration Re-view 40(3): 240-246.
White, Leonard D. 1939. Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan. First published in 1926.
Wilson, James Q. 1992. The Bureaucratization of American Government. In The State of Public Bureaucracy, edited by Larry B. Hill. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Wise, Charles R. 1990. Public Service Configurations and Public Organizations: Public Organizations in the Post-Privatization Era. Public Administration Review 50(2): 141-155.
Wondolleck, Julia M. and Steven L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Zeemering, Eric S. 2008. Governing Interlocal Cooperation: City Council Interests and the Implications for Public Management. Public Administration Review 68(4): 731-741.