From Hierarchy to Collaboration: How Collaborative Governance Overcome Legitimacy Issues

         In present day, determining public policy within an increasingly complex and interconnected world has become increasingly challenging. The traditional hierarchical governance approach, which emphasized the electoral chain of command and control central to representative model of governance, is increasingly inadequate for addressing many these issues effectively (Haesevoets et al., 2024, p. 712). This stems from the perception that the state has failed to work properly ‘in partnership’ with voluntary sectors, welfare users, and the private users to respond increasing demand for services (Rummery, 2006, p. 293). Moreover, modern public sector leaders face complex and cross-cutting challenges within the ‘inter-organisational domain’ that cannot be resolved by any organisation acting alone (Huxham, 2000, p. 338). On the other side, collaborative governance regime has gained prominence following the numerous reports of government and market failure (Torfing, 2005, p. 305). This essay examines how collaborative governance is superior to traditional hierarchical governance in addressing legitimacy challenges and enhancing capability in complex, multi-stakeholders’ issues. In the first section, the essay outlines the key features of each governance framework, then followed by discussion on how each collaborative governance overcome legitimacy issues before proposing metagovernance as strategy to effectively steer the network governance. 

 From Hierarchical Governance to Collaborative Governance

         Hierarchical governance, which implies a ‘monocentric system’ with a power center governing a civil service system, was dominant model in public administration during the 1950s and 1960s before it began to evolve in the 1970s (Meuleman, 2008, p. 21). The Weberian model is characterized by five key principles: a defined division of tasks; authority that is impersonal and rooted in rules governing official conduct; recruitment based on demonstrated or potential competence; secure employment with salaries, promotions based on seniority or merit; and a disciplined hierarchy where officials are accountable to their superiors (Meuleman, 2008, p. 22). Although traditional top-down government structures still exist, the increasing involvement of network of interdependent actors in public governance has raised critical concerns about traditional governance, which is often seen as too rigid and slow to respond to change (Sørensen and Torfing, 2009, p. 236). 

         Moreover, state actors are often clumsy, bureaucratic, and path dependent, leading to inferior performance, while private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, tends to be more effective (Peters and Pierre, 1998, p. 225). In other words, hierarchy loses much of its significance when policymaking is viewed as a co-production of interdependency policy centers within and outside the civil service (Meuleman, 2008, p. 23), due to the changing nature and scope of public and community sectors resulting from technological advancements, flatter organizational structures, and the push for greater innovation and responsiveness (Keast and Mandell, 2014, p. 10). 

         Traditional hierarchical government model, with its rigid and inward-focused bureaucracies, is insufficient to address the demand of the complex and rapidly changing era (Goldsmith and Eggers, 2004, p. 7). To address complex issues that need cooperation among multiple groups, such as improving regional economic, responding to major disaster, or dealing with complicated health and social services, it isn’t sufficient for each organisation to just focus on its own goals; these challenges demand collective action and coordinated efforts from all involved (Provan and Kenis, 2007, p. 231). The concept of network governance, known as “joined-up government” in United Kingdom, has evolved to break down the silos in hierarchical structures by facilitating agencies to coordinate their effort and share information better (Goldsmith and Eggers, 2004, p. 15). 

        

        Collaborative governance, presented as a “higher order form of network governance (Keast, 2022, p. 489), provides a comprehensive approach to tackle the myriads of problems and challenges facing contemporary society (Keast and Mandell, 2014, p. 11), and is considered more effective than hierarchical or market-based model in addressing “wicked” issues (Ayres, 2019, p. 281). Collaborative governance is defined as “the process and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people across boundaries of public agencies, level of government, and/or the public, private, and civic spheres to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015, p. 18). In state-centered approach, six key criteria are identified in its definition: (1) the forum that is initiated by institutions or public agencies; (2) participants include non-state actors; (3) participant are actively engaged in decision making processes rather than merely being consulted by public agencies; (4) the goal of the forum is to reach decision through consensus; and (5) the collaboration focuses on public management or public policy (Ansell and Gash, 2008, p. 545). Moreover, collaborative governance serves a “set tool” for addressing complex public challenges such as joint-powers agreement, public-private partnership, service-sharing contract, city consolidations, regional intergovernmental authorities, participatory planning, stakeholder advisory group and deliberative forums (Scott and Thomas, 2017, p. 192). This governance model provides stakeholders with opportunities for the pooling of knowledge and information, mutual gains, enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in coordination, improved understanding among stakeholders, and improved legitimacy of decision. (Ansell, 2012, p. 500). 

Enhancing Legitimacy through Collaborative Governance

         Scharpf (1999) identifies two types of legitimacy in democratic theory, namely Input-oriented legitimacy, also known as “government by the people”, and output-oriented legitimacy, referred to as “government for the people”. Political decisions are deemed legitimate when they effectively advance the common welfare of the constituency (Scharpf, 1999, p. 6). Later, Schmidt (2020) explores the concept of throughput legitimacy, which encompasses everything that occurs within the “black box” of governance. Throughput legitimacy emphasizes the procedural quality of policymaking that can be assessed through its transparency, accountability, efficacy, inclusiveness, and openness (Schmidt, 2020, pp. 40–50). Haesevoets et al. (2024) offer a more practical explanation of legitimacy though six items of measurements: (1) allowing as many points of view and interest as possible; (2) providing opportunities for citizens from all walks of life to be heard; (3) offering everyone a clear view of how decisions are made; (4) ensuring a fair decision-making process; (5) delivering a solution that will work; and (6) providing an efficient solution (Haesevoets et al., 2024, p. 717). 

         Traditional hierarchical governance structures often face legitimacy challenges, particularly when institutions are perceived as closed, insufficiently inclusive, deterministic, and expert driven (Taylor, 2019, p. 215). Using Schrapf-Schmidt framework of input-throughput-output legitimacy, Taylor (2019) examines the legitimation process by comparing postwar development of regional institution in Portland, Oregon, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, which considered among the most institutionally advanced in American context. According to this examination, American regional constitutions share similarities with the EU constitution in their weak input legitimacy, stemming from the lack of direct electoral accountability to the public. Public preferences are conveyed through indirect representation by local actors who “wear two hats” and frequently prioritizing local concerns over broader interests. Furthermore, like in the EU, American metropolitan institutions demonstrate weak output legitimacy (low level), as metropolitan planning bodies do not directly deliver service to the public. The long term and diffuse nature of planning bodies makes it difficult for public to directly attribute outcomes to regional institutions. In contrast, the throughput legitimacy of regional planning institutions is mostly better (mid-level) due to their engagement with the public through walking tours, meetings, and focus groups, while also forming committees composed of elected municipal officials and state agency representatives when developing regional planning strategies (Taylor, 2019, p. 228). 

         On the other hand, collaborative governance can improve legitimacy by giving standing to all relevant interest in decision-making (Scott and Thomas, 2017, p. 195). Stakeholder involvement can improve the effectiveness of the governance process in several ways: (1) contributing to the development of understanding policy problems; (2) exploring and assessing feasible policy options; (3) formulating policy strategies and goals; (4) mobilizing resources for effective policy implementation, and (5) reflecting on lessons learned to drive continuous improvement (Peters et al., 2022a, p. 122). In other word, the involvement of more actors means more actors are monitoring the outcomes, which can lead to positive results and better performance and contribute to stronger legitimacy (Cristofoli et al., 2022, p. 711). Additionally, collaborative governance can reduce the risk of implementation resistance (Torfing, 2005, p. 310) and help resolve conflict while facilitating cooperation among public agencies, interest groups, and citizens (Ansell, 2012, p. 498). In some case, legitimacy and accountability can be reach simultaneously within collaborative arrangements (Cristofoli et al., 2022, p. 710). 

         A prominent example is how South Korea responded the COVID-19 pandemic, which is widely recognized as a global model for effective pandemic management (Choi, 2020, p. 432). The success of the South Korean government in containing the virus without imposing a full mandatory lockdown, as seen in most countries, demonstrates the power of collaborative governance. The approach employed involves multiple actors, including the central government, local authorities, public and private health actors, businesses, NGOs, and the public (Choi, 2020, p. 435). The inclusion of these actors contributes to input legitimacy (Cristofoli et al., 2022, p. 697). Additionally, the government’s decision to provide information through daily briefings led by experts and scientists, rather than politicians, enhances public trust (Choi, 2020, p. 435). Transparency and openness of the process established by Korean government are crucial elements in fostering public trust and accountability, which are key components of throughput legitimacy (Schmidt, 2020, p. 39). Furthermore, output legitimacy is evident in the low transmission rates and fatality rates due to COVID-19 in South Korea, which are among the lowest in the world (Choi, 2020, p. 431). 

         A comparative analysis of South Korea’s collaborative governance in responding COVID-19 and the hierarchical approach in planning by regional institutions in the United States highlights significant differences in legitimacy and outcomes. The South Korean government, which involved multiple stakeholders and emphasized transparency, successfully implemented policies effectively and is regarded as the “global golden standard” (Choi, 2020, p. 432). In contrast, the hierarchical approach in the regional institutions in the US has often criticized for a lack of coordination between institutions, leading to inconsistencies in policy implementation (Taylor, 2019, p. 223). Metagovernance for Effective Collaborative Governance Despite having many advantages, collaborative governance is full of paradoxes (Huxham, 2000, p. 353), embodying inherent contradictory logic such as ‘efficiency vs inclusiveness’, ‘internal vs external legitimacy’; dan ‘flexibility vs stability’ (Provan and Kenis, 2007, p. 242), while also incurring significant inter-organisational cost regardless ‘success’ is achieved (O’Flynn, 2008, p. 189). Collaborative governance may also not be the ideal strategy to implement decisions quickly (Ansell and Gash, 2008, p. 563) due to participating organisations and individuals often pursuing different, sometime hidden, and conflicting interests (Huxham, 2000, p. 350). Additionally, there is tendency for involved actors to focus on protecting their agencies’ boundaries which reduces attention to external issues (Rummery, 2006, p. 296). Furthermore, in some places, officials often express frustration with the lack of tangible outcomes from collaborative process (Newman et al., 2004, p. 214). 

        On the other hand, the success of collaborative governance is determined by several factors such as whether participants are respected by those affected, the expertise of participants, and the group’s authority to make decisions (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015, p. 33). Leadership that incorporates diverse perspectives and interest, along with the ability to facilitate the exchange of views among stakeholders, is crucial to the success of collaborative governance (Ansell, 2012, p. 506). Metagovernance represents a form of public leadership that not only pursues and promotes public value in complex networks, but also extend beyond managerial interventions concerning the most effective way to steer networks (Ayres, 2019, p. 280). 

         Collaborative governance often fails to fulfil its inherent promises and requires a clear public purposes and political direction to unsure that its outcome align with overall policy objective, highlighting the importance of metagovernance or “governance of governance” (Torfing, 2016, p. 525). Metagovernance provides a for governments to grant greater freedom without losing control (Torfing, 2016, p. 531). In other words, public organisations can secure resource, input, and democratic legitimacy without losing power, as exercising the metagovernance enables them to steer the desired direction to achieve the policy objectives (Peters et al., 2022b, p. 61). To be effective, metagovernors have four fundamental tasks: (1) choosing an appropriate mode of governance; (2) designing and adapting the use of a specific mode of governance to bring out strength while mitigating or removing weaknesses; (3) exercising leadership and management to influence the process and results; and (4) ensuring accountability for the action taken by actors (Peters et al., 2022b). However, metagovernance is also prone to fail due to its complexity, being flexible, reflective, and ironically optimistic (Jessop, 2024, p. 16). One of the most effective ways to ways of reducing the risk of metagovernance failure is to make sure metagovernors work in teams and have access to experience partners (Peters et al., 2022b, p. 72). 

 Conclusion 

         This essay demonstrates how collaborative governance is more effective than hierarchical governance in addressing legitimacy issues in complex and interconnected world. By involving diverse actors, collaborative governance enhances input legitimacy through inclusivity, throughput legitimacy through openness and accountability, and output legitimacy by delivering expected outcomes. The South Korean response to COVID-19 pandemic exemplifies this assertion. However, despite its many advantages, collaborative governance faces challenges. Integrating it with metagovernance can strengthen collaborative efforts. 

Written by Kristian Danang Purnomo for Governance Assignment 2

(Score 80)

 References:

Ansell, C. (2012) Collaborative Governance. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0035.

Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008) ‘Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), pp. 543–571. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032.

Ayres, S. (2019) ‘How can network leaders promote public value through soft metagovernance?’, Public Administration, 97(2), pp. 279–295. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12555.

Choi, Y.J. (2020) ‘The Power of Collaborative Governance: The Case of South Korea Responding to COVID‐19 Pandemic’, World Medical & Health Policy, 12(4), pp. 430–442. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.376.

Cristofoli, D. et al. (2022) ‘Having it all: can collaborative governance be both legitimate and accountable?’, Public Management Review, 24(5), pp. 695–719. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1960736.

Emerson, K. and Nabatchi, T. (2015) ‘Collaborative governance and collaborative governance regimes’, in Collaborative Governance Regimes. Georgetown University Press, pp. 3–13. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt19dzcvf.6 (Accessed: 27 July 2024).

Goldsmith, S. and Eggers, W.D. (2004) ‘The New Shape of Government’, in Governing by Network. Brookings Institution Press (The New Shape of the Public Sector), pp. 3–24. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt12879qp.4 (Accessed: 23 August 2024).

Haesevoets, T. et al. (2024) ‘Towards a multifaceted measure of perceived legitimacy of participatory governance’, Governance, 37(3), pp. 711–728. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12800.

Huxham, C. (2000) ‘THE CHALLENGE OF COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE’, Public Management, 2(3), pp. 337–357. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670050123260.

Jessop, B. (2024) ‘Metagovernance’, in pages 106-123, The SAGE Handbook of Governance. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200964.

Keast, R. (2022) ‘Network governance’, in C. Ansell and J. Torfing (eds) Handbook on Theories of Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371972.00052.

Keast, R. and Mandell, M. (2014) ‘The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence’, Journal of Management & Governance, 18(1), pp. 9–28. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-012-9234-5.

Meuleman, L. (2008) ‘Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets : the feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations’. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2054-6_7.

Newman, J. et al. (2004) ‘Public Participation and Collaborative Governance’, Journal of Social Policy, 33(2), pp. 203–223. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279403007499.

O’Flynn, J. (2008) ‘Elusive appeal or aspirational ideal?’, in J. O’Flynn and J. Wanna (eds) Collaborative Governance. ANU Press (A new era of public policy in Australia?), pp. 181–196. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24h315.22 (Accessed: 20 August 2024).

Peters, B. et al. (2022a) How collaborative governance can make political systems more democratic and effective. Edward Elgar Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788117999.00011.

Peters, B. et al. (2022b) ‘Metagovernance’, in How collaborative governance can make political systems more democratic and effective. Edward Elgar Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788117999.00011.

Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J. (1998) ‘Governance without Government? Rethinking Public Administration’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 8(2), pp. 223–243.

Provan, K.G. and Kenis, P. (2007) ‘Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), pp. 229–252. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015.

Rummery, K. (2006) ‘Partnerships and Collaborative Governance in Welfare: The Citizenship Challenge’, Social Policy and Society, 5(2), pp. 293–303. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746405002976.

Scharpf, F. (1999) Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198295457.001.0001.

Schmidt, V.A. (2020) ‘Conceptualizing Legitimacy: Input, Output, and Throughput’, in Schmidt, V. A., Europe’s Crisis of Legitimacy. 1st edn. Oxford University PressOxford, pp. 25–55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198797050.003.0002.

Scott, T.A. and Thomas, C.W. (2017) ‘Unpacking the Collaborative Toolbox: Why and When Do Public Managers Choose Collaborative Governance Strategies?’, Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), pp. 191–214. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12162.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2009) ‘MAKING GOVERNANCE NETWORKS EFFECTIVE AND DEMOCRATIC THROUGH METAGOVERNANCE’, Public Administration, 87(2), pp. 234–258. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x.

Taylor, Z. (2019) ‘Pathways to legitimacy’, Planning Theory, 18(2), pp. 214–236. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218806929.

Torfing, J. (2005) ‘governance network theory: towards a second generation’, European Political Science, 4(3), pp. 305–315. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210031.

Torfing, J. (2016) ‘Metagovernance’, in C. Ansell and J. Torfing (eds) Handbook on Theories of Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782548508.00055.