Collaborative Governance: Qualitative Integration of the Latest Prior
Research in the U.S. and Development of a Conceptual Framework
Dr. OGAWA, Yamato
Professor, Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan
Senior Coordinator, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Government of Japan

ABSTRACTCollaborative governance is increasingly significant in public policy and management, drawing global academic
interest. Numerous studies have explored collaborative governance, but many focus on case studies, lacking
comprehensive frameworks. In the U.S., existing frameworks are outdated and do not incorporate recent researchfindings. This study addresses this gap by updating extends an existing U.S. framework for collaborative governanceby incorporating the latest research implications. Specifically, it transforms “A Model of Collaborative Governance”
by Ansell and Gash (2008) into a New Collaborative Governance Model. To achieve this, a systematic review of
117 U.S. papers published since 2009, or after the publishment of the Model of Collaborative Governance, wasconducted using the PRISMA statement and NVivo software for qualitative data analysis. The integrated researchfindings informed the updates to the original model. The New Collaborative Governance Model offers bothacademic significance and practical guidance for practitioners, enhancing the success of collaborative governanceinitiatives.

KEYWORDS: New Collaborative Governance Model, Overall framework, Systematic review,
Collaborative Innovation

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION - OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND
2 THEORETICAL MODELS IN PREVIOUS STUDIES
2.1. Simple Process Model (Phase 1)
2.2. Generic and Comprehensive Process Model (Phase 2)
2.3. Process Model for this Study: Collaborative Governance Model
3 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
3.1. Latest Research (Phase 3)
3.2. Systematic Review
4 NEW COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE MODEL
5 CONCLUSION

11. INTRODUCTION - OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND
Collaborative governance is increasingly significant in public policy and management, attracting
growing academic interest globally. Recently, "collaborative innovation," which integrates ideas
generated from diverse groups, and "digital collaboration," which involves collaboration on digitalplatforms, have become prevalent.
Numerous studies on collaborative governance have been conducted worldwide. In Japan,"Collaboration," "Co-production," and "Partnership" studies are influential in this research field. This
article is based on the “Collaboration” study initiated by Barbara Gray’s 1989 work, Collaborating.
Collaborative research has evolved through three phases:
1. Phase One: Recognition of collaboration’s usefulness among diverse actors as an alternative to
traditional governance, characterized mainly by case studies and simple frames.
2. Phase Two: Use of collaboration as a practical tool for public management and policy, withcomprehensive frameworks like "A Model of Collaborative Governance" by Ansell & Gash(2008) and "An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance" by Emerson et al.
(2012).
3. Phase Three: Statistical demonstration of the second-phase frameworks’ components,
examination of their applicability to other countries, and in-depth consideration of previously
overlooked issues.
However, existing studies have shortcomings. In the U.S., where collaboration research isadvanced, current frameworks do not incorporate the latest research findings. This study aims toaddress this gap by developing an updated overall framework that integrates the latest research resultsof the third phase into the second-phase frameworks.
The specific research question is: "What kind of overall framework can be developed by integrating
the latest third-phase research findings into the second-phase framework?"
To answer this, the study extends an existing U.S. framework for collaborative governance,transforming Ansell and Gash’s 2008 "A Model of Collaborative Governance" into the New
Collaborative Governance Model. This involves a systematic review of 117 U.S. papers publishedsince 2009, using the PRISMA statement and qualitative integration of findings with NVivo software.
This paper is structured as follows:• Section 2: Outlines existing theoretical models (Phase 2) and the theoretical model used inthis study.
• Section 3: Presents a systematic review of the latest collaboration research (Phase 3).
• Section 4: Introduces the New Collaborative Governance Model, describing its components
and sub-components.
• Conclusion: Provides final insights and implications.

2. THEORETICAL MODELS IN PREVIOUS STUDIESCollaboration research can be divided into three phases. This section presents the theoreticalmodels developed so far and the model on which this study is based.
2.1. Simple Process Model (Phase 1)
The first phase, around 1990-2010, saw collaborative governance in its pilot stage. Case studies
demonstrated collaboration in parts of projects rather than entire projects. Selin & Chavez (1995:
191) modeled the collaborative process in natural resource management, which Bentrup (2001) latermodified. Plummer & Fitzgibbon (2004: 879) also presented a process model for natural resources
co-management. These models, limited to the natural resource and environmental sectors, hadrelatively few components.
22.2. Generic and Comprehensive Process Model (Phase 2)
Around 2010, U.S. researchers integrated Phase 1 research into generic and comprehensive models.
Ansell & Gash (2008) and Emerson et al. (2012) developed two major models through meta-analysisof over 100 studies. These models identify components and relationships in the collaborative
governance process, making them applicable to any policy area or region.
2.3. Process Model for This Study: Collaborative Governance Model
Both models emphasize public and private actors working together, with socio-political context,
institutional design, trust-building, and leadership being crucial for success.
The most significant difference is the scope that "collaborative governance" captures. The
Collaborative Governance Model (Figure 1, below) focuses on formal, government-driven
collaboration between state and non-state stakeholders. The Integrative Framework for Collaborative
Governance includes myriad forms of collaboration in the public, private, and civic sectors, includingintergovernmental collaboration, public-private partnerships, community-based collaboration, andcivic engagement, and the scope captured by "collaborative governance" is broader than the
Collaborative Governance Model. Therefore, the Integrative Framework for Collaborative
Governance is composed of more abstract elements. This study assumes collaboration that includes
the government as the main actor, but the Integrative Framework is too broad in scope as it includes
collaboration among all actors. This study, aiming for practical application, is based on the
Collaborative Governance Model.
In 2008, Ansell & Gash (2008) analyzed 137 cases of government-citizen collaboration in various
fields (public health, education, social security, international relations, natural resources, etc.), using
the sequential comparison method to derive common variables promoting collaboration and theircausal relationships, constructing a process model of collaborative governance.
Institutional Design
Starting Conditions
Power-ResourceKnowledge
Asymmetries

Collaborative Process- Participatory Inclusiveness,- Forum Exclusiveness,- Clear Ground Rules,- Process Transparency

Trust Building
Committment to Process

Incentives for andConstraints on
Participation- Mutual recognition of interdependence- Shared Ownership of Process- Openness to Exploring Mutual Gains

Outcomes

Shared Understanding

Prehistory of
Cooperation or Conflict(initial trust level)
Influences- Clear Mission- Common Problem Definition- Identification of Common Values

Intermideate Outcomes- Small Wins
- Strategic Plans- Joint Fact-Finding

Face to Face Dialogue- Good Faith Negotiation

Facilitative Leadership(including empowerment)
A Model of Collaborative Governance (Ansell & Gash 2008: 550)

Figure 1: A Model of Collaborative GovernanceIt states that collaboration repeats three processes: the “Starting Condition,” the “Collaborative
Process,” and the “Outcome,” and that the "Leadership" by the collaborative leader and the"Institutional Design" of the collaboration determine its success or failure. The following is a slightly
3

longer quotation, but since this is the base model for this study, the paper would like to summarize
the explanation of each component of the Collaborative Governance Model.
2.4. Model Components
2.4.1. Starting Conditions
Two conditions influence collaboration at the start: a history of blame or hostility between
collaboration participants, and a history of mutual respect or cooperation. These can be further divided
into:• Power/Resources/Knowledge Asymmetries: If some collaborative participants do not havethe same capabilities, organizational background, status, resources, as other participants,
the collaborative process tends to be dominated by the more powerful participants. This
problem of power imbalance becomes more apparent especially when key participants do
not have the infrastructure to represent the organization, and when some participants wholack skills/expertise cannot keep up with highly technical discussions.
• Incentives for and Constraints on Participation: Since participation in collaboration
depends largely on self-motivation, it is important to understand their incentives forparticipation. Incentive to participate increases when (1) concrete and meaningful results
can be expected and (2) the cooperation of other participants is necessary to achieve one's
own goals. Conversely, incentive to participate is reduced when (1) there is an asymmetryof power/resources/knowledge, (2) collaboration is perceived as merely formal, and (3)one's goals can be achieved alone or by alternative means.
• Prehistory of Cooperation or Conflict: “Prehistory of Cooperation/Conflict”
promotes/prevents collaboration. Past cooperation creates a virtuous circle of collaboration
by forming social capital, high level of trust, etc. On the other hand, past conflict creates a
vicious circle of collaboration by forming distrust, low commitment, insincere
communication, etc. However, when collaborative participants are highly interdependent,a high degree of hostility conversely forms a motivation for participation.
2.4.2. Facilitative Leadership“Facilitative Leadership” brings collaborative participants together, forms ground rules, builds trust,facilitates discussions, explores mutual interests, and empowers weaker participants. The required
leadership type depends on the situation, such as being an “Honest Broker” when mistrust exists.
2.4.3. Institutional Design“Institutional Design” ensures procedural legitimacy. Key aspects include the broad inclusion of
all stakeholders, clear ground rules, and process transparency. Conversely, the exclusion of key
stakeholders, even if they are troublesome, can be a major factor in collaborative failure. Whenparticipants can achieve their own goals through alternative means, their incentive to participate is
reduced. Thus, if the collaborative forum is exclusive (only selected people can participate),
participants' motivation to participate will increase. Collaborative participants are sensitive to fairness
and perceive procedural legitimacy by whether their voices are equally reflected in the results. Clear
ground rules make collaborative participants aware that the process is fair and equal. Processtransparency means that discussions are conducted in an open forum and are not based on private
commitments in back rooms.
2.4.4. Collaborative Process
The collaborative process includes:• Trust Building: Essential among collaborative participants as it facilitates the collaborative
process and increases commitment. Lack of trust among participants is a common conditionat the beginning of a collaboration. If there is a history of conflict among the participants,
4

•

•

•

•

trust building is the most important aspect of the initial phase of the collaboration. Trustbuilding is a time-consuming process and requires a long-term commitment.
Commitment to Process: The degree of commitment is a key factor and is influenced by theoriginal motivation at the time of participation in the collaboration. Therefore, if thecollaborative participants recognize their interdependence and their motivation increases,
their commitment will increase. Commitment is also fostered when the sense of ownership(the sense that one is partly responsible for decision-making) deepens, when trust is builtwith other participants (that one's ideas and interests are respected) in the search for mutual
benefits, and when procedures are perceived as clear, fair, and transparent. Whencollaboration is forced, there is less incentive to participate and a lower degree ofcommitment.
Shared Understanding: Collaborative participants need to foster a “Shared Understanding”
of what they will accomplish together (in other words, what is the common mission). Thisrequires the establishment of common tasks and the identification of common values.
Shared understanding is fostered through a process of collaborative learning and directcommunication.
Intermediate Outcomes: When the "Small Wins" from collaboration (i.e., small outcomes
obtained during the collaborative process rather than the final outcome) are concrete,tangible, achievable, and predictable, collaboration tends to be initiated in a positive mannerand continued rather than ending in failure. Since collaborations often last for a lengthy
period of time, the commitment of participants decreases based on the final outcome alone.
Repeated achievement of small wins in a brief period of time is a driving force forcollaboration, and also creates a virtuous cycle of trust building and commitment cultivation.
As an intermediate outcome, it is important to establish small wins, develop strategic plans,
and find facts jointly.
Face to Face Dialogue: Direct communication is necessary for exploring mutual interestsand building consensus and central to the process of building trust, mutual respect, sharedunderstanding, and commitment to the process. Good faith negotiation is important tofacilitate face-to-face dialogue.

This paper outlines existing theoretical models (Phase 2), reviews recent collaboration research(Phase 3), introduces the New Collaborative Governance Model, and provides a conclusion.

3 SYSTEMATIC REVIEWIn this section, the author updates the model in the second phase by reflecting the latest findings
extracted from the literature in the third phase. Specifically, this paper systematically reviews 117
articles published in the U.S. since Ansell & Gash (2008) presented the Collaborative Governance
Model. It qualitatively integrates the implications derived from these articles and develops the New
Collaborative Governance Model by adding new elements and further exploring existing ones.
3.1. Latest Research (Phase 3)
In the third phase, based on the second-phase model, the applicability to various situations is
examined through three major research categories: 1) demonstrating the individual elements that
constitute a generic and comprehensive model and pursuing further versatility, 2) verifying themodel’s applicability and usefulness in other countries, and 3) researching downstream issues notcovered previously.
The collaborative governance process typically involves: 1) recruiting participants, 2) initiatinginteractions, 3) defining the issue, 4) selecting solutions, 5) implementation solutions, 6) evaluating
outcomes, and 7) accountability.
5While Phases 1 and 2 focused on upstream issues from 1–4, Phase 3 has many studies on
downstream issues from 5–7, highlighting keywords like Legitimacy, Accountability, Public Value,
Performance Evaluation, and Collaborative Innovation.
Table 1: Historical Development of Collaborative Governance Research
Phase
PeriodPositioning
Activities and Results
Phase 11990s - 2010

Phase 2

2008, 2012

Phase 3Since 2010

Counterproposal to
traditional
decision-making bygovernment
agencies
Effective
andpractical
publicpolicy method-Broad agreement on collaboration as a theory-Simpleprocessmodel
fornaturalresources/environment-Generic and comprehensive model(Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012)

Appliedto (Study 1) Statistical demonstration of model
individual cases
elements(Study 2) Verification in other countries(Study 3) Research on downstream issues
Source: Created by the author

3.2. Systematic Review
3.2.1. Collection and Selection of Literature
The systematic review relies on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses) Statement for transparency.
3.2.2. Objectives
A comprehensive review of Phase 3 papers on collaborative governance aims to: i) Integrate andsummarize the latest findings, ii) Add new elements not in the original model, and, iii) Develop the
New Collaborative Governance Model.
3.2.3. Eligibility Criteria
Original articles in "Public Administration" with "Collaboration" or "Collaborative" in the title,
published in English in the U.S. from 2009 to 2023 (as of July 31), are eligible.
3.2.4. Article Database and Search Process (Information Sources & Search Process)
The Web of Science Core Collection was used to find 479 articles. Key journals included: Public
Management Review, Public Administration Review, The American Review of Public Administration,
and Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, (which are the top American journals inpublic administration with the most articles on "collaboration" and "collaborative governance"
research), resulting in 159 articles.
Google Scholar was used to find additional articles, and references from previously surveyed
articles were also included, resulting in 194 eligible papers. After reviewing abstracts, 117 papers
were fully reviewed.

6

Table 2: Criteria for Literature in the Systematic Review
Item
Criteria(PRISMA)
Objectives
Comprehensive review of Phase 3 papers, integrating findings, adding newelements, developing the New Collaborative Governance Model, adding thelatest findings
Eligibility Criteria -Published in English in the U.S. from 2009 to 2023 (as of July 31); Originalarticles in "Public Administration" with "Collaboration" or "Collaborative" inthe title; Both quantitative and qualitative studies
Information
Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, reference lists
Sources & Search
Process
Source: Created by the author
3.2.5. Collection and Selection Results
A search using the criteria and methods above resulted in 194 eligible papers. The author thenreviewed all of the abstracts of those papers and excluded those not relevant to the components of the
Collaborative Governance Model. As a result, a total of 117 relevant papers were identified andreviewed for full text. The selection process is visualized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 2).
In terms of number of paper by year, 2007 had 1 paper, 2009 had 3 paper, 2010 had 4 papers, 2011
had 4 papers, 2012 had 5 papers, 2013 had 8 papers, 2014 had 3 papers, 2015 had 7 papers, 2016 had
9 papers, 2017 had 11 papers, 2018 had 7 papers, 2019 had 12 papers, 10 papers in 2020, 18 papers
in 2021, 6 papers in 2022, and 9 papers in 2023.

7

Identification of literature by other methods

Initial conditions

Identification of literature through databases (Web of Science Core Collection)

Number of literature matching thesearch criteria(n =14,555)

screening

Number of references matching thesearch criteria(n = 479)

Number of references matching thesearch criteria(n = 159)<search criteria>
The title must include the word
Collaboration or Collaborative, and2009-2023, andEnglish, andUnited States of America<search criteria>
Research area
Administration

limitedtoi) Search by Google Scholar(n = approx. 18,500)
ii) Extracted from reference lists ofsurveyed papers

Public<search criteria>
Limit publications to the following four
Public Management Review (n = 62)
Public Administration Review (n = 27)
The American Review of Public
Administration (n = 25)
Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory (n = 45)

Number of literature matching thecriteria(i)＋(ii) (n = 35)i) Removed duplicates of the top
searched articles from the databaseii) Papers in the reference lists thatderive significant results

Extractionof target documents

Number of all eligible references(n = 194)
Reviewed abstracts of all eligible
literature and excluded literature not
relevant to the components of the
Collaborative Governance Model
Number of references reviewed withfull text identified(n = 117)

Figure 2: PRISMA Flow Diagram
8

Source: Created by the author

3.2.6. Literature Compilation and Analysis:
A list of general information (author, title publication journal, year of publication) of the 117
publications were organized, and the contents were then analyzed using NVivo software. Key steps
included coding keywords, reviewing frequently cited papers, and developing a matrix of codes andpapers, in the following manner:(i) After reviewing the titles and abstracts of all articles and extracting keywords that could beelements of a collaborative governance model, all extracted keywords were coded and sub-codedin NVivo (creation of a coating list).

*These codes and subcodes were added to the New Collaborative Governance Model as new components or new
subcomponents (of existing components) in the end, although there was some consolidation and elimination in theprocess of analysis.

(ii) Papers with a high number of references (10 or more) were extracted from the “summary” ofeach code and subcode and the paragraphs before and after the relevant parts (reference section)of each paper were checked. Subsequently, the author derived implications for the developmentof the Collaborative Governance Model from the key research findings.
(iii) Repeating the process described in (i) and (ii), the author created a huge matrix (codes x papers)with all codes and subcodes on the vertical axis and 117 papers on the horizontal axis. Thus, thecodes and subcodes were organized into a listable form, indicating which implication related towhich code or subcode can be derived from which paper, and which code is related to most papers,
amongst others.
(iv) For each code and subcode, a full-text, semi-structured narrative review was conducted on therelated papers. Specifically, the author extracted from each paper: 1) objectives; 2) researchmethods, subjects, and data; 3) main research results; and, as a reference, explanatory sections
on theories, to precisely understand the research results. A Japanese-U.S. bilingual translation
was then prepared.
(v) The main research findings, extracted from each paper, are the partial implication tied to eachcode and each subcode. They were collected and qualitatively integrated by code, and a summary
was prepared to comprehensively organize the implications.
(vi) After organizing the relationships among the codes, all the codes were connected and integrated
to develop the New Collaborative Governance Model.
3.2.7. Results of Qualitative Integration:
The integrated research findings for each component of the New Collaborative Governance Modelare summarized, though detailed results are omitted owing to page limitations.

4 NEW COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE MODEL
Based on the systematic review results, the elements and sub-elements of Ansell & Gash’s (2008)
Collaborative Governance Model were expanded and restructured into the New Collaborative
Governance Model. Each element and sub-element are described below (Figure 3).

9Starting condition
Power/resources/knowledge
asymmetries

Incentives for andconstraints on participation- Common ground- Dispersion of power resources- Institutional roles- Structural positions

Collaborative
structure
Participant- Size (Representativeness:
inclusiveness, small size, etc.)- Composition (Diversity,
similarity)- Characteristics (Innovative
assets, gender, etc.)

Network- Position (Centrality, betweenness)- Strength (Strength of cohesion,
directness and indirectness)- Density (Number of ties, coalitions)- Characteristics (Formal and informal,
vertical and horizontal)

Prehistory ofcooperation/conflict

Collaborative process- Formal and informal mechanisms- Conflict resolution

Collaborativeinteraction

Collaborative
capacity

Trust building- Interaction attitude(Open-mindedness,
responsiveness,
promptness)- Sufficient time in the initial
phase of collaboration

Commitment
to process- Interdependency andautonomy- Ownership- Mutual gain (Especiallyfinancial)- Attitude of the organization(Positive or negative)- Legal authority

Learning- Mutual learning- Cognitive and relational
learning- Transformative andinstrumental learning- Knowledge management

Resources- Internal and external
connections- Social capital

Sharedunderstanding
Culture- Clear mission- Common agenda
setting- Identification of sharedvalues- Sensitivity to the othercultures- Communication
languageTechnology- Digital infrastructure- Digital technology
and knowledge

Deliberation- Willingness toadjust preferences

Institutional design

Leadership(Internal legitimacy)- Facilitative leadership- Eco-leadership- Fairness and transparency of rules- Scope of participants (Representativeness,
citizen participation)- Set up (Digital) platforms, summits, forums

10

Start of collaboration

Antecedent factors- Complexity, specificity, and severity of the issue- Uncertainty of the situation- Interests of external parties (Higher-level government, core cities, citizens, etc.)- Relationships with other local governments (Competitive, friendly, etc.)- Culture, capacity, size of own organization- Evolution of collaborative governance itself- Project outcomes (Efficient and effective implementation, problem solving(Innovation, public value)- Democratic values (Participatory democracy, democratic legitimacy)

Joint solutions,design, decisionmaking,implementation(Intermediateoutcomes)

OutcomeAccountability(Evaluation, external
legitimacy)- Small Wins
- Strategic plans- Joint fact-finding- Formal, vertical and hierarchical accountability- Informal and horizontal accountability- Clarification and sharing of responsibility androle in achieving the goals- Establishment of evaluation strategy(Including evaluation criteria)- Performance information disclosure (Online)- Monitoring- Social media- System, procedures, eligibility

Adaptation(Sustainability)

External factors
Figure 3: New Collaborative Governance Model
Source: Created by the author
11

4.1. Antecedent factors"Antecedent factors" are preconditions for forming collaborative governance among actors. In the
New Model, these sub-elements are: (i) Complexity, specificity, and severity of the issue, (ii)
Uncertainty of the situation, (iii) Interest of external parties (higher-level government, core cities,
citizens), (iv) Relationship with other local governments (competitive, friendly), (v) Culture, capacity,and size of the organization. Complex and severe issues push organizations to engage in collaborative
governance to overcome their limitations and benefit from economies of scale. Uncertainty andexternal interest also drive collaborative efforts, particularly among organizations with flexible
cultures and friendly relations.
4.2. Starting condition"Starting condition" involves initial like "Power/resources/knowledge asymmetries" and"Prehistory of cooperation/ conflict" among participants. These factors influence participants’motivations and can promote or hinder collaboration.
4.2.1. Power / resource / knowledge asymmetries:
Collaborative governance assumes imbalances among participants. If unchecked, these imbalances
can lead to monopolized decision-making. Mitigating these asymmetries through "Dispersion of
power resources," "Institutional roles," and "Structural positions" (centrality and betweenness) is
crucial for successful collaboration.
4.2.2. Incentives for and constraints on participation:
No changes were made to Ansell & Gash’s (2008) original components and subcomponents.
4.2.3. Prehistory of cooperation or conflict:Previous cooperative or conflictual interactions among actors establish trust or distrust. The New
Model emphasizes fostering "Common ground" to facilitate shared understanding, goals, anddeliberations.
4.3. Collaborative structure"Collaborative structure" includes "Participants," "Network," and "Culture.” It describes the
dynamic process of network-building and cultural formation within the collaborative governanceregime. It is also the result of this process. The term "Culture" refers to the backbone of the
networking among participants: the personal culture based on individual identity, the organizational
culture of the organization to which one belongs, and the culture of the collaborative governanceregime as a whole that is generated as a result of the networking.
4.3.1. Participants
Sub-elements are "Size" (representativeness, inclusiveness, small number), "Composition"(diversity, similarity), and "Characteristics" (innovative assets, gender). A balanced approach toparticipant size and composition is necessary to ensure efficiency, legitimacy, and innovation.
Innovative resources and participant characteristics, such as education and gender, significantly
impact collaboration dynamics. If the number of participants is not changed from the beginning(stability), collaborative governance will operate smoothly, but it will be difficult to respond flexibly
to changes caused by external factors. Alternatively, if the number of participants is increased asneeded (flexibility), the possibility of unstable management due to conflicts and differences of
opinion among participants will increase. Representativeness can be categorized into
representativeness as an individual, an organization/function, as a whole of the collaborative
governance regime, respectively and each should be within an appropriate range.
“Composition" of participants: When participants with diverse backgrounds and identities are12invited (diversity), the possibility of collaborative innovation through the fusion of various ideas will
increase, but there is also a possibility that conflicts and differences of opinion among participants
may lead to instability in collaborative governance. Conversely, when participants with similar
backgrounds and identities are invited to participate (similarity), there is less likelihood of majordifferences in opinion and the possibility of relatively easy consensus-building increases, but thepossibility of innovative ideas being generated is low. It has also been shown that participants are lesslikely to leave a collaboration if the group is highly similar.
The "Characteristics" of individual participants are, for example, the presence or absence ofinnovative resources, such as education level, skills, and resources, as well as gender differences. It
has been proven that participants with innovative resources are more likely to engage in collaborationand generate innovative ideas actively and continuously. It has also been reported that the formationand development of collaborative governance differs depending on the gender of the collaborative
participants. It has also been noted that the presence of difficult participants may inhibit collaboration
under certain conditions.
There is no correct answer to the "Size," "Composition," and "Characteristics" of these participants,
and they should be designed to maintain an appropriate balance between the poles, depending on theconditions at the time. Therefore, it is also important to determine who will be the subject of thedesign of participation.
4.3.2. Network"Network" refers to connections among participants. Sub-components are "Position” (centrality,
betweenness), "Strength” (cohesion, directness/indirectness), "Density” (number of ties, coalition),and "Characteristics” (formal/ informal, vertical/ horizontal). Central and bridging positions influence
leadership and connectivity. Strong cohesion aids consensus, while density affects interaction
frequency. Formal and informal networks, along with vertical and horizontal structures, play distinct
roles in collaborative governance.
Also, if several participants play roles in strengthening the connections between some participants,
they increase the strength of the ties in the network and may contribute to the development of the
network from different perspectives (Bonding Position). The "Strength" of the network indicates
whether, overall or in part, the cohesion of the individual connections is strong or weak, direct, or
indirect. The stronger the unity, the easier it is to unify opinions (consensus-building). Alternatively,
if the network is only partial, there is a possibility that it will be exclusive to the opinions of otherparticipants. If there is a direct connection with an influential participant, there is a greater possibility
that the power, resources, knowledge, information possessed by that participant can be utilized(accessibility), but there is also a risk that a hierarchical relationship may be created. Indirectconnections reduce the likelihood of such risks, but they also reduce the likelihood of being able toleverage power and other resources.
The "Density" of a network indicates whether there are more or fewer individual connections,overall or in part. Larger numbers in collaboration indicate greater density, and thus more frequentcollaborative interactions among participants, which has a positive impact on the collaborative
process, and thus on the outcome thereof. Conversely, if the number of participants is small incollaboration, the density will be low, and therefore collaborative interactions among participants will
decrease. Additionally, individual participants do not always act independently, but may form
alliances with others who share interests, to increase their influence.
“Characteristics" of a network indicate whether it is a network based on formal agreements(Formal), mandated by law (Mandated), or informal (Informal, Voluntary), based on the participants'
spontaneity. These factors are synergistic, and an informal network can be formed as a spin-off froma formal network, or an informal network can evolve into a formal network. Both networks areimportant, but the factors and characteristics of their formation are different, and it is necessary to
promote collaborative governance by using both appropriately, depending on the conditions at the13time and other factors. It is also important to distinguish between vertical networks and horizontal
networks. These networks are often used to describe network relationships outside of a collaborative
governance regime, rather than networks within the regime. For instance, a vertical network is avertical network of upper and lower level governments, while a horizontal network is a horizontal
network of local governments at the same level of hierarchy.
4.3.3. Culture"Culture" includes national, organizational, and professional. Sensitivity to cultural backgrounds
and fostering a common culture are vital for mutual understanding and trust. Shared culture reducescollaborative inertia and interpersonal discord.
4.4. Leadership
The New Collaborative Governance Model identifies "Facilitative leadership" and "Ecoleadership." Collaborative leaders facilitate processes, connect participants, empower individuals,
and ensure fair participation. Collaborative leaders are expected to promote collaborative governancethrough a wide range of roles, including providing resources, knowledge, technology, information,and support through their skills, experience, and expertise.
Collaborative leaders need to bring together the interests of multiple stakeholders and integrate
diverse participants with different backbones and identities. Therefore, instead of the traditional
leadership styles of autocratic or visionary leaders who lead their members with authority and vision,
one should be an Integrative Leader or Facilitative Leader that can smoothly deepen relationships
among stakeholders and successfully coordinate diverse ideas. Therefore, participants who have
network centrality and strong connections with a larger number of participants should, from thisperspective, become collaborative leaders.
Another leadership style is eco-leadership. This is a leadership style in which influence is shared
among multiple participants in a decentralized manner. Clear role division is essential for ecoleadership. For example, when there are multiple coalitions in a network, collaborative governancecan run more smoothly by sharing influence among participants in leadership roles in each coalition,or when there is no one particular influential individual and it is more stable to balance influenceamong multiple participants.
4.5. Institutional design (Internal legitimacy)"Institutions" encompass principles, rules, conventions, and statutory frameworks for managing
collaborative governance. Sub-elements include "Fairness and transparency of rules," "Scope ofparticipants” (representativeness, citizen participation), and "Set up of (digital) platforms, summits,forums." Institutions are strongly related to the effectiveness and internal legitimacy of collaborative
governance. Fair decision-making processes enhance legitimacy. Representation and appropriate
stakeholder participation are crucial.
External legitimacy involves fulfilling accountability, responsiveness, and legal compliance,
discussed further in "Explanation (Evaluation/ external legitimacy)." Institutions also facilitate
collaborative processes through platforms and forums, considering digital collaboration.
4.6. Collaborative process
The "Collaborative process" consists of "Collaborative interaction" and "Collaborative capacity.”
Collaborative interaction is a cycle of processes in which trust is built through deliberation between
the public agency and collaborative participants, or among participants, commitment to process,shared understanding, and achievement of intermediate outcomes. Collaborative capacity involves
individual or group "Learning," access to individual "Resources," and the use of "Technology" toenhance the capacity of the collaborative governance regime.
Based on the research findings in the reviewed literature, the sub-elements of the collaborative14

process are: "Formal mechanism," "Informal mechanism," and "Conflict resolution."• Formal mechanisms are processes based on formal agreements, such as meetings andcoordination processes.
• Informal mechanisms are routine communications between participants. Bothmechanisms build mutual trust, commitment, shared understanding, mutual learning,
resource access, and capacity building.
• Conflict resolution addresses conflicts of opinion, disagreements, and distrust among
participants. Effective conflict resolution involves deliberative discussions to reachconsensus, or mediation by a collaborative leader or external actor. . Early resolution of
conflicts is crucial for smooth collaborative processes.
4.6.1. Collaborative interaction:(a) Trust building: "Trust building" refers to establishing trust among participants. It facilitates mutual
understanding, learning, and resources access, balancing asymmetries of influence. Key sub-elements
include "Interaction attitude” (open-mindedness, responsiveness, promptness) and "Sufficient time in
the initial phase of collaboration." It has been shown that these elements facilitate the building of trust
and minimize subsequent risks.
(b) Commitment to process: “Commitment to the process” refers to participants’ dedication to thecollaborative process. In Ansell & Gash's Collaborative Governance Model, the sub-elements are"Mutual recognition of interdependence," "Shared ownership of process," and "Openness to exploring
mutual gains.” The New Collaborative Governance Model continues to include "Interdependency,"“Ownership,” and “Mutual gain” as sub-elements. Additionally, the following sub-elements are newly
included: "Attitude of the organization,” "Legal authority," "Financial incentives," and "Autonomy.”
Higher interdependence perception increases commitment, while autonomy supports goal
achievement.
The "Attitude of the organization (positive or negative)" refers to whether the organization to which
the collaborative participant belongs is positive about their participation in the collaborative, whether
they can obtain necessary support and receive appropriate evaluation of their efforts. Positive meansthat the commitment of the participants in the collaboration will increase, and negative means the
opposite.
“Legal authority" is an aspect of shaping the larger framework of collaborative governance inwhich a particular participant is in a position to design and administer laws and regulations, thusincreasing that participant's commitment.
“Financial incentives" are when there are financial incentives for participating in collaborative
governance, such as increased revenue for the organization, access to grants, then the commitment ofthat participant will increase. Note that "Ownership" and "Mutual Gain" are omitted here because
they are redundant with Ansell & Gash's explanation of the components of the Collaborative
Governance Model.
(c) Shared understanding: “Shared understanding" involves deepening relationships among
participants with different backbones and identities. The Model of Collaborative Governance ofAnsell & Gash lists "Clear mission," "Common agenda setting," and "Identification of shared values"
as sub-elements. The New Collaborative Governance Model continues to include "Clear mission,""Common agenda setting," and "Identification of shared values" as sub-elements.
Additional sub-elements are "Sensitivity to the other culture" and "Communication language,"emphasizing recent increases in cross-national collaboration in a global context. Sensitivity to theother culture means that an individual's culture is influenced by the cultural background of their homecountry (national culture), the cultural background of the organization to which they belong(organizational culture), and the cultural background of the professional (professional culture), andthat a high level of sensitivity to all these cultural backgrounds will help to promote mutual
understanding.
15

The "Communication language" is the language of diverse nationalities. It is a question of how todevelop a language of communication within a collaborative governance regime with participantsfrom diverse nationalities, and a viewpoint of efforts to refine a common language and consideration
for minority groups. However, it is also implied that the unique language that emerges fromorganizational culture and customs is also effective in promoting mutual understanding. Note that
"Clear mission," "Common agenda setting," and "Identification of shared values" are omitted here,
as they are redundant with Ansell & Gash's explanation of the components of the Collaborative
Governance Model.
(d) Deliberation: "Deliberation" is a dialogue process where participants communicate, listen, modify
their positions, and reach consensus. In Ansell & Gash's Collaborative Governance Model, thecomponent is "Face to Face Dialogue" and its sub-component is "Good Faith Negotiation.” In
subsequent studies, however, the term "Deliberation" has been increasingly used to refer to consensus
building, in light of the growing advocacy of deliberative democracy. Therefore, the New
Collaborative Governance Model uses the term "Deliberation."
The sub-element "Willingness to adjust preferences" highlights the importance of participants’flexibility in resolving conflicts. In doing so, it refers to the extent to which participants are willingto adjust their own intentions and opinions (preferences) and modify them as alternatives. If thewillingness of participants to adjust their preferences is low, even after repeated deliberations,conflicts of opinion will be noticeable, and no progress will be made in reconciliation.
4.6.2. Collaborative capacity(a) Learning: “Learning" involves acquiring knowledge necessary for problem-solving, innovation,
and adaptation. The New Model includes the sub-elements “Mutual learning,” “Cognitive learning,”“Relational learning,” “Transformative learning,” “Instrumental learning,” and “Knowledge
management.” Mutual learning refers to the fact that participants have diverse expertise, skills, andexperience, and thus, not only do individuals and groups acquire knowledge through literature,materials, and the Internet (individual and group learning), but also there is an aspect of mutual
exchange of knowledge among participants (mutual learning).
Cognitive and relational learning refers to cognitive learning, in which collaborative participants
modify or transform their existing knowledge through interaction with other participants. In
collaborative governance, the existing knowledge possessed by individuals needs to be modified andadapted to the overall regime. Relational learning refers to the acquisition of knowledge related torelationships with other participants (knowledge about other participants themselves). Sinceinteraction among participants is an important process in collaborative governance, it is important toacquire relational knowledge and deepen mutual understanding.
Transformative learning and instrumental learning refer to the acquisition of knowledge and tools
necessary for collaborative innovation. Instrumental learning is learning from the aspect thatcollaborative participants change the environment by actively acquiring knowledge.
Knowledge management refers to the accumulation of knowledge acquired by individual
participants throughout the regime and its transfer to other participants. Since collaborative
governance involves a wide range of participants and a prolonged period of time, uniformity, andtransfer of knowledge among participants is an essential element.
(b) Resources: “Resources" refer to human resources, financial resources, knowledge, information,
data, and physical resources (budget, time, support, power, and other facilities). For example, anorganization with limited labor and funds can cooperate with the labor of other organizations byforming collaborative governance and co-funding to implement larger projects. Or, if an organization
does not have its own facilities, it can use facilities owned by other organizations to hold joint events.
Collaborative governance increases scale or bridges asymmetries among participants. The New
Collaborative Governance Model describes as sub-elements "Internal & external connections" and"Social capital" enhancing access to resources.
16

(c) Technology: “Technology" refers to information technology (ICT) used for communication andlearning. The New Model includes the sub-elements of "Digital infrastructure" and "Digitaltechnology & knowledge.” Examples include social media accountability and digital collaboration.
4.7. Joint solution design, decision-making, implementation
This process involves cycling through participant/network structures, building relationships
through interaction, building capacity, and then designing, making, and implementing solutions
necessary to achieve shared goals. Effective joint solution design, decision-making, andimplementation depend on fulfilling the elements of the "Collaborative structure," "Collaborative
process," "Institutional design," and "leadership."
4.8. Intermediate outcomes"Intermediate outcomes" recognize the importance of small, strategic achievements in long-term
collaborative processes. Ansell & Gash's Collaborative Governance Model includes the sub-elements"Small Wins," "Strategic Plans," and "Joint Fact-finding" as sub-elements.
The New Model continues to include "Small wins," "Strategic plans," and "Joint fact-finding” as
sub-elements.
4.9. Outcome"Outcome" in collaborative governance result from the collaborative structure, process,institutional design, and leadership. Key outcomes include:• Resolution of Essential Issues: Efficient and effective project implementation.
• Collaborative Innovation• Democratic Value• Evolution of Collaborative GovernanceSub-elements are "Evolution of Collaborative Governance Itself," "Project Outcomes” (efficientand effective implementation, problem-solving, innovation, public value), and "Democratic Values”(participatory democracy, democratic legitimacy). However, it is difficult to assess whether these arepositive or negative outcomes. One reason for this is that the criteria for each outcome are presented
from a variety of perspectives. For example, in the case of democratic values, while there is a positive
aspect of citizens being able to participate more in policy decision-making (development ofparticipatory democracy), there is also a negative aspect of participation by unelected citizens withrelatively weak democratic legitimacy (decline in democratic legitimacy), and the evaluation depends
on which perspective is more important.
4.10. Accountability (Evaluation, external legitimacy)"Accountability” (Evaluation/ external legitimacy) ensures external legitimacy by providing
performance information and achieving transparency. Accountability involves multiple perspectives
and may involve formal settings (e.g., resident briefings) or informal methods (e.g., social media).
Sub-elements include “Formal, vertical, and hierarchical accountability,” “Informal, horizontal
accountability,” “Clarification and sharing of responsibility and role in achieving goals,”“Establishment of evaluation strategy,” “Performance information disclosure,” “Monitoring,” and“Social media.” Specifically, it asks for performance information, whether and to what extent pre-set
goals are achieved, and why, and by fulfilling this, external legitimacy is ensured. The higher the levelof transparency, the more desirable it is. The degree of transparency is defined by openness, which
includes "when” (timing of disclosure), "what and to what extent” (scope of disclosure), "to whom”(subject of disclosure), and "how” (method of disclosure).
Accountability is a particularly complex issue for collaboration. This is because it is often unclear
to whom and to what the collaboration is accountable. The evaluation of a collaboration involves theperspective of the participants themselves (is the collaboration successful for them?), the perspective17

of their organization (is the collaboration successful for their organization?), the perspective of thecollaboration itself (is the collaboration itself successful?), and the perspective of the outcomesproduced by the collaboration (are the outcomes produced by the collaboration successful?). This
makes the subject matter and content of accountability multilayered.
There are two criteria for participants in a collaboration: similarity and diversity. Similarity is thebelief that there are many similarities in backgrounds, attributes, and beliefs among the participantsin a collaborative, and therefore less conflict and collaborative governance operates more smoothly.
Diversity is the diversity of backgrounds, attributes, and beliefs among participants, which allows forthe fusion and sublimation of various ideas and opinions, and the emergence of collaborative
innovation. Both are generally regarded as positive for collaborative governance, but they are also
contradictory concepts, and in such cases, it is important to strike a balance between the two.
There are many other concepts in such tension in collaborative governance, such as flexibility
versus stability, interdependence versus autonomy, efficiency versus inclusiveness, and traditionalversus innovative. In the New Model, the sub-elements are “Formal, vertical and hierarchicalaccountability,” “Informal, horizontal accountability,” "Clarification and sharing of responsibility androle in achieving the goals," "Establishment of evaluation strategy (including evaluation criteria),”"Performance information disclosure (online),” “Monitoring,” “Social media,” “System, procedure,”and “eligibility.”“Formal, vertical, and hierarchical accountability" refers to accountability in formal settings (e.g.,
resident briefings) to the central government, (which is the higher-level government of the local
government), to interested vertical external stakeholders (such as the board of directors of theorganization to which it belongs), and to citizen representatives.
Conversely, "Informal and horizontal accountability" refers to accountability to other relevant local
governments, and coalition partners on the same network, amongst others. Informal accountability
refers to informal accountability to horizontal external stakeholders. The more "Clarification andsharing of responsibility and role in achieving the goals" among the participants in the collaboration,
the greater the commitment of such participants to achieving them.
It is also important to establish an “Evaluation strategy” (including evaluation criteria) in advanceto determine whether the goals can be achieved or not, and to "Monitor" progress to ensure theachievement of these goals. A combination of various methods is utilized to fulfill accountability,
ranging from in-person meetings to public disclosure on a web page. Recently, it has become common
to use "Social media" instead of mass media to directly hold accountable a wide range of audiences.
In order to enhance transparency, it is also necessary to define the "System, procedures, andeligibility," for such accountability.
4.11. External factors"External factors" include politicians, central government, related local governments, andorganizational boards. These stakeholders may exert coercive power, seek isomorphism, eliminate
divergence, or intervene to resolve conflicts.
4.12. Adaptation (Sustainability)“Adaptation (Sustainability)” refers to the ability to adapt to changes and sustain the collaborative
governance regime. It requires learning and flexibility to build and maintain collaborative processes
and improve performance. Sustainability needs different elements, at different stages of collaboration.

5 CONCLUSION
The author summarizes the entire paper, dividing "Collaboration" research into three phases andupdating the overall frame by incorporating the latest research from the third phase, while grounding
it in the second phase’s framework. In Chapter 3, the author systematically reviewed 117 papers
18

published in the U.S. since 2009 (Phase 3), based on the "Collaborative Governance Model" from2008 (Phase 2). This paper aims to construct a "New Collaborative Governance Model" by
qualitatively integrating insights derived from the latest Phase 3 papers.
As a result, based on the reviewed literature, the following components were added to theCollaborative Governance Model: 1) "Antecedent factors"; 2) "Collaborative structure” and its
components (i) "Participants" (ii) "Networks" (iii) "Culture"; 3) "Collaborative capacity" and its
components (i) "Learning" (ii) "Resources" (iii) "Technology”; 4) "Collaborative solution design,decision-making, and implementation"; 5) "Explanation (Evaluation/ external legitimacy)"; 6)"External factors"; and 7) "Adaptation (Sustainability)." Sub-components for each main component
were also significantly added.
The significance of these additions lies in addressing upstream issues, such as structuring
collaboration and cultivating capacity, while the earlier Collaborative Governance Model focused
mainly on trust-building among collaborative actors. This paper highlights the importance ofparticipants’ characteristics, network structure, required capacities and resources, and the use of newtechnologies in collaborative governance, marking a key achievement.
Additionally, the New Collaborative Governance Model incorporates downstream issues,
identifying outcomes such as the evolution of the collaborative governance regime, collaborative
innovation, public value, and democratic value. It also addresses the external accountability andlegitimacy requirements and the need for sustainable adaptation and development of the regime.
These areas have been underexplored in previous models, representing another significant
contribution of this work.
Collaboration is a complex concept and a crucial tool for policy innovation. While there are manydifferent ways to cut through innovation, such as technology (e.g., digital in the current context) andeducation, collaborative innovation is an aspect of innovation that sublimates diverse humanconnections and the ideas generated from them. It can be assumed that the importance of innovation
will increase in the future, and that one means of innovation, collaborative innovation, will become
even more significant. This paper contributes to the development of collaborative governanceresearch and practice, identifying factors that determine the success or failure of collaborative
innovation.
There are limitations in this paper. Opinions may vary on the comprehensiveness and validity ofthe elements and sub-elements, their categorization and relationships, and their overall optimality.
Additionally, the varying local government systems in the USA and their relationship to thetheoretical framework may be questioned. Future research should elaborate on and deepen theseperspectives.
* This research paper has been published in Japanese as part of my book since March 31, 2024. There
are no plans to publish it in any other language except as a paper for European Group for Public
Administration.
* This paper is edited by Editage for English language proofreading.

19

REFERENCES
Ansell, Chris. and Gash, Alison (2008). "Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice." Journalof Public Administration Research and Theory Vol. 18(4): 543-571.
Bentrup, Gary (2001). "Evaluation of a Collaborative Model: A Case Study Analysis of Watershed
Planning in the Intermoutain West." Environmental Management Vol. 27(5): 739-748.
Emerson, Kirk; Nabatchi, Tina and Balogh, Stephen (2012). "An Integrative Framework for
Collaborative Governance." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Vol. 22: 1-. 29.
Gray, Barbara (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multi-party problems. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Plummer, Ryan and Fitzgibbon, John (2004). "Co-Management of Natural Resources: A Proposed
Framework," Environmental Management Vol. 33(6): 876-885.
Selin, Steve and Chavez, Deborah (1995). "Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental
Planning and Management," Environmental Management Vol. 19 (2): 189-. 195.

SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEWAbouAssi, K., Z. Bauer and J. M. Johnston (2019). "Collaboration, Venus, and Mars: TheGender
Factor in Intersectoral Relations," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29(1):18-31.
Amsler, Lisa B. (2016). "Collaborative Governance: Integrating Management, Politics, and Law,"
Public Administration Review 76(5): 700-711.
An, B. Y. and S.-Y. Tang (2023). "When Agency Priorities Matter: Risk Aversion for Autonomy andTurf Protection in Mandated Collaboration." Journal of Public Administration Research andTheory 33(1): 106-121.
Ansell, Chris (2012). "Collaborative Governance." The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford
University Press: 498-511.
Ansell, C. and A. Gash (2018). "Collaborative Platforms as a Governance Strategy." Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 28(1): 16-32.
Barrutia, J. M. and C. Echebarria (2018). "Drivers of exploitative and explorative innovation in acollaborative public-sector context." Public Management Review 21(3): 446-472.
Bell, E. V. and T. Olivier (2022). "Following the Paper Trail: Systematically Analyzing Outputs toUnderstand Collaborative Governance Evolution." Journal of Public Administration Research andTheory 32(4): 671-684.
Bitterman, P. and C. J. Koliba (2020). "Modeling Alternative Collaborative Governance Network
Designs: An Agent-Based Model of Water Governance in the Lake Champlain Basin, Vermont."
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 30(4): 636-655.
Bryer, Thomas A. (2009). "Explaining Responsiveness in Collaboration: Administrator and Citizen
Role Perceptions. "Public Administration Review 69(2): 271-283.
Bryson, John M., Fran Ackermann and Colin Eden (2016). "Discovering Collaborative Advantage:
The Contributions of Goal Categories and Visual Strategy Mapping." Public Administration
Review 76(6): 912-925.
Buuren van, Arwin (2009). "Knowledge for Governance, Governance of Knowledge: Inclusion
Knowledge Management in Collaborative Governance Processes." International Public
Management Journal 12(2): 208-235.
Callens, C. (2023). "User Involvement as a Catalyst for Collaborative Public Service. Innovation."
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 33(2): 329-341.
Callens, C., K. Verhoest and J. Boon (2021). "Combined effects of procurement and Collaboration on
innovation in public-private-partnerships: a qualitative comparative analysis of 24 infrastructure
20

projects." Public Management Review 24(6): 860-881.
Chen, J. (2020). "Governing collaborations: the case of a pioneering settlement services partnershipin Australia." Public Management Review 23(9): 1295-1316.
Chen, X. and A. A. Sullivan (2023). "Should I Stay or Should I Go? Why Participants Leave
Collaborative Governance Arrangements." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
33(2): 246-261.
Cheng, Antony S., Andrea K. Gerlak, Lisa Dale and Katherine Mattor (2015). "Examining theadaptability of collaborative governance associated with publicly managed ecosystems over time:insights from the Front Range Roundtable, Colorado, USA." Ecology and Society, 20(1): 35.
Choi, I. and D. Moynihan (2019). "How to foster collaborative performance management? Keyfactors in US federal agencies," Public Management Review 21(10): 1538-1559.
Choi, Taehyon and Peter J. Robertson (2013). "Deliberation and Decision in Collaborative
Governance: A Simulation of Approaches to Mitigate Power Imbalance." of Public Administration
Research and Theory 24(2): 495-518.
Choi, Taehyon and Peter J. Robertson (2019). "Contributors and Free-Riders in Collaborative
Governance: A Computational Exploration of Social Motivation and Its Effects. "Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 29(3): 394-413.
Clark, J. K. (2020). "Public Values and Public Participation: A Case of Collaborative Governance ofa Planning Process." The American Review of Public Administration 51(3): 199-212.
Cohen, G. and N. Cohen (2021). "Understanding street-level bureaucrats' informal collaboration:evidence from police officers across the jurisdictional divide." Public Management Review 25(2):224-242.
Conner, Thaddieus W. (2015). "Representation and Collaboration: Exploring the Role of Shared
Identity in the Collaborative Process." Administration Review 76(2): 288-301.
Cristofoli, D., et al. (2021). "Having it all: can collaborative governance be both legitimate andaccountable?" Public Management Review 24(5): 704-728.
Crosby, Barbara C., Paul't Hart and Jacob Torfing (2016). "Public Value Creation throughCollaborative Innovation." Public Management Review 19(5): 655-669.
Doberstein, Carey (2015). "Designing Collaborative Governance Decision-Making in Search of a'Collaborative Advantage', " Public Management Review 18(6): 819-841.
Dockx, E., et al. (2022). "Bringing together unlikely innovators: do connective and learning capacities
impact collaboration for innovation and diversity of actors?" Public Management Review 25(6):1104-1127.
Douglas, S. and C. Ansell (2021). "Getting a Grip on the Performance of Collaborations: Examining
Collaborative Performance Regimes and Collaborative Performance Summits." Public
Administration Review 81(5): 951-961.
Douglas, S. and M.-J. Schiffelers (2021). "Unpredictable cocktails or recurring recipes? Identifying
the patterns that shape collaborative performance summits." Public Management Review 23(11):1705-1723.
Dupuy, C. and S. Defacqz (2021). "Citizens and the legitimacy outcomes of collaborative governanceAn administrative burden perspective." Management Review 24(5): 752-772.
Elston, T. and G. Bel (2022). "Does inter-municipal collaboration improve public service resilience?
Evidence from local authorities in England." Public Management Review 25(4): 734-761.
Elston, T., M. MacCarthaigh and K. Verhoest (2018). "Collaborative cost-cutting: productive
efficiency as an interdependency between public organizations. "Public Management Review
20(12): 1815-1835.
Emerson, Kirk and Andrea K. Gerlak (2014). "Adaptation in a Collaborative Governance Regime."
Environmental Management 54(4): 768-781.
Emerson, Kirk and Tina Nabatchi (2015). "Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative GovernanceRegimes: A Performance Matrix. "Public Performance & Management Review 38(4): 717-747.
21

Eriksson, E., et al. (2019). "Collaborative public management: coordinated value Propositions among
public service organizations." Public Management Review 22(6): 791-812.
Gerlak, Andrea K. and Tanya Heikkila (2011). "Building a Theory of Leaning in Collaboratives:
Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program." Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 21(4): 619-644.
Getha-Taylor, H., et al. (2018). "Collaborating in the Absence of Trust?" in What Collaborative
Governance Theory and Practice Can Learn From the Literatures of Conflict Resolution,
Psychology, and Law." The American Review of Public Administration 49(1): 51-64.
Heikkila, T. and A. K. Gerlak (2014). "Investigating Collaborative Processes Over Time: A 10-Year
Study of the South Elorida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force." The American Review of Public
Administration 46(2): 180-200.
Huang, C., W. Chen and H. Yi (2020). "Collaborative networks and environmental governanceperformance: a social influence model." Public Management Review 23(12): 1878-1899.
Ingold, Karin and Philip Leifeld (2014). "Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence
Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks In Decision Making
and Implementation." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26(1): 1-18.
Johnston, Erik W., Darrin Hicks, Ning Nan and Jennifer C. Auer (2010). "Managing the Inclusion
Process in Collaborative Governance. "Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
21(4): 699-721.
Kalesnikaite, V. and M. I. Neshkova (2021). "Problem Severity, Collaborative Stage, and Partner
Selection in US Cities," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 31(2): 399-415.
Karimo, A., et al. (2023). "Shared Positions on Divisive Beliefs Explain Interorganizational
Collaboration: Evidence from Climate Change Policy Subsystems in 11 Countries." Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 33(3): 421-433.
Kattel, R., V. Lember and P. Tõnurist (2019). "Collaborative innovation and humanmachine networks.
"Public Management Review 22(11): 1652-1673.
Ki, N. (2023). "Competition and Local Government's Choice Between Informal and Formal
Collaborative Mechanisms: Measuring Dyadic Intercity Competition Through the Lens ofBusiness Trade-Offs." The American Review of Public Administration 53(3-4): 134-158.
Kim, Saerim and Andrew Sullivan (2023). "Connecting the composition of collaborative governancestructures to community-level performance in homeless services, " Public Administration Review
83(4): 734-749.
Kim, Sangmin (2016). "The working of collaborative governance: Evaluating collaborative
community-building initiatives in Korea. "Urban studies 53(16): 3547-3565.
Kinder, T., et al. (2021). "Relational leadership in collaborative governance ecosystems," Public
Management Review 23(11): 1612-1639.
Krogh, A. H. (2020). "Facilitating collaboration in publicly mandated governance networks." Public
Management Review 24(4): 631-653.
Lægreid, P. and L. H. Rykkja (2021). "Accountability and inter-organizational collaboration within
the state. "Public Management Review 24(5): 683-703.
Leach, William D., Christopher M. Weible, Scott R. Vince, Saba N. Siddiki and John C. Calanni(2013). "Fostering Learning through Collaboration: Knowledge Acquisition and Belief Change inMarine Aquaculture Partnerships, " Journal of 262 Public Administration Research and Theory
24(3): 591-622.
Lee, David. and Chia Ko. Hung (2021). "Meta-Analysis of Collaboration and Performance:
Moderating Tests of Sectoral Differences in Collaborative Performance, " Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 32(2): 360-379.
Lee, David, Michael McGuire and Jong Ho Kim (2017). "Collaboration, Strategic Plans, andGovernment Performance: the Case of Efforts to Reduce Homelessness." Public Management
Review 20(3): 360-376.
22

Lee, S. (2021). "When Tensions Become Opportunities: Managing Accountability Demands in
Collaborative Governance." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 32(4): 641-655.
Lee, S. and M. Esteve (2022). "What drives the perceived legitimacy of collaborative An experimental
study." Public Management Review 25(8): 1517-1538.
Lemaire, R. H. and K. G. Provan (2017). "Managing Collaborative Effort: How Simmelian Ties
Advance Public Sector Networks," The American Review of Public Administration 48(5): 379-394.
Lindsay, C., et al. (2017). "Collaborative Innovation, New Technologies, and Work Redesign." Public
Administration Review 78(2): 251-260.
Lindsay, C., et al. (2020). "Collaborative Innovation in Labor Market Inclusion," Public
Administration Review 81(5): 925-934.
Liu, Y., et al. (2021). "Under what conditions do governments collaborate? A qualitative comparative
analysis of air pollution control in China." Public Management Review 23(11): 1664-1682.
Mandell, Myrna, Robyn Keast and Dan Chamberlain (2016). "Collaborative networks and the needfor a new management language," Public Management Review 19(3): 326-341.
Maor, M., R. Sulitzeanu-Kenan and M. Balmas (2023). "The reputational dividends of collaboratingwith a highly reputable agency: The case of interagency collaboration between the U.S. FDA Public
Administration Review 83(3): 639-653.
McDougall, Cynithia and Mani Ram Banjade (2015). "Social capital, conflict, and adaptive
collaborative governance: exploring the dialectic," Ecology and Society, 20(1): 44.
Mehdi, Q. and T. Nabatchi (2023). "Saving the Salmon: Examining the Cost-Effectiveness ofCollaboration in Oregon. "Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 33(3): 498-511.
Milward, H. Brinton, Keith G. Provan, Amy Fish, Kimberley R. Isett and Kun Huang (2009).
"Governance and Collaboration: An Evolutionary Study of Two Mental Health Networks." Journalof Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (Supplement 1): i125-i141.
Min, N., K. H. Lee and K. Yang (2020). "Multidimensional Publicness and Collaboration forCommunity Benefits: the Case of U.S. Hospitals." Administration Review 80(3): 381-390.
Mischen, Pamela A. (2013). "Collaborative Network Capacity. "Public Management Review 17(3):380-403.
Morse, Ricardo S. (2010). "Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create public
value," The Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 231-. 245.
Mosley, J. E. and J. Wong (2021). "Decision-Making in Collaborative Governance Networks:
Pathways to Input and Throughput Legitimacy." Journal of Public Administration Research andTheory 31(2): 328-345.
Mosley, J. E. and M. Jarpe (2019). "How Structural Variations in Collaborative Governance Networks
Influence Advocacy Involvement and Outcomes. "Public Administration Review 79(5): 629-640.
Mosley, J. E. and S. Park (2022). "Service Providers' Influence in Collaborative GovernanceNetworks: Effectiveness in Reducing Chronic Homelessness." Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 32(1): 130 -149.
Mu, R., M. de Jong and J. Koppenjan (2018). "Assessing and explaining interagency Collaboration
performance: a comparative case study of local governments in China." Public Management
Review 21(4): 581-605.
Nowell, Branda, Anne M. Izod, Katherine M. Ngaruiya and Neil M. Boyd (2016). "Public Service
Motivation and Sense of Community Responsibility: Comparing Two Motivational Constructs inUnderstanding Leadership Within Community Collaboratives." Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 26(4): 663-676.
Oortmerssen, Van, Lise A., Cees M.J. van Woerkum, and Noelle Aarts (2013). "The Visibility ofTrust: Exploring the Connection between Trust and Interaction in a Dutch Collaborative
Governance Boardroom. ." Public Management Review 16(5): 666-685.
Papadopoulos, Yannis (2012). "The Democratic Quality of Collaborative Governance." The Oxford
Handbook of Governance, Oxford University Press: 512-526.
23

Park, A. Y. S., R. M. Krause and C. V. Hawkins (2021). "Institutional Mechanisms for Local
Sustainability Collaboration: Assessing the Duality of Formal and Informal Mechanisms in
Promoting Collaborative Processes." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 31(2):434-450.
Park, A. Y. S., R. M. Krause and R. C. Feiock (2019). "Does Collaboration Improve Organizational
Efficiency? A Stochastic Frontier Approach Examining Cities' Use of EECBG Funds." Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 29(3): 414-428.
Peng, S., Y. Liao and J. Lu (2019). "Stay or Exit: Why Do Nonprofits Maintain Collaborations With
Government?" The American Review of Public Administration 50 (1): 18-32.
Picazo-Vela, S., et al. (2017). "Value of inter-organizational collaboration in digital government
projects. "Public Management Review 20(5): 691-708.
Piña, G. and C. N. Avellaneda (2017). "Municipal isomorphism: testing the effects of vertical andhorizontal collaboration," Public Management Review 20(4):. 445-468.
Poocharoen, Ora-orn and Bernard Ting (2013). "Collaboration, Co-Production, Networks: theConvergence of Theories," Public Management Review 17(4): 587-614.
Prentice, C. R., M. T. Imperial and J. L. Brudney (2019). "Conceptualizing the Collaborative Toolbox:
A Dimensional Approach to Collaboration," The American Review of Public Administration 49(7):792-809.
Purdy, Jill M. (2012). "A Framework for Assessing Power in Collaborative Governance Processes,"
Public Administration Review 72(3): 409-417.
Ran, B. and H. Qi (2017). "Contingencies of Power Sharing in Collaborative Governance," The
American Review of Public Administration 48(8): 836-. 851.
Rigg, Clare and Noreen O'Mahony (2012). "Frustrations in Collaborative Working," Public
Management Review 15(1): 83-108.
Robertson, Peter J. and Taehyon Choi (2011). "Deliberation, Consensus, and Stakeholder
Satisfaction: A Simulation of Collaborative Governance. "Public Management Review 14(1): 83103.
Rogers, Ellen and Edward P. Weber (2010). "Thinking Harder About Outcomes for Collaborative
Governance Arrangements." The American Review of Public Administration 40(5): 546-567.
Romzek, Barbara, Kelly LeRoux, Jocelyn Johnston, Robin J. Kempf and Jaclyn S. Piatak (2013).
"Informal Accountability in Multisector Service Delivery Collaborations," Journal of Public
Administration Research. and Theory 24(4): 813-842.
Sapat, A., A.-M. Esnard and A. Kolpakov (2019). "Understanding Collaboration in Disaster
Assistance Networks: Organizational Homophily or Resource Dependency?" The American
Review of Public Administration 49(8): 957-972. The American Review of Public Administration
49(8): 957-972.
Scott, Tyler A. and Craig W. Thomas (2015). "Do Collaborative Groups Enhance Interorganizational
Networks?" Public Performance & Management Review 38 (4): 654-. 683.
Scott, Tyler A. and Craig W. Thomas (2017). "Winners and Losers in the Ecology of Games: Network
Position, Connectivity, and the Benefits of Collaborative Governance Regimes. " Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 27(4): 647-660.
Scott, Tyler A., Craig W. Thomas and J. M. Magallanes (2019). "Convening for Consensus:
Simulating Stakeholder Agreements in Collaborative Governance Processes Under Different
Network Conditions. ." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29(1): 32-49.
Scott, R. J. and E. R. K. Merton (2021). "When the going gets tough, the goal-committed get going:
overcoming the transaction costs of inter-agency collaborative governance. " Public Management
Review 23(11): 1640-1663.
Shrestha, Manoj K. (2012). "Self-Organizing Network Capital and the Success of Collaborative
Public Programs. "Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(2): 307-329.
Siddiki, Saba N., Jangmin Kim and William D. Leach (2017). "Diversity, Trust, and Social Learning24

in Collaborative Governance," Public Administration Review 77(6): 863-874.
Siddiki, Saba N., Jullia L. Carboni, Chris Koski and Abdul-Akeem Sadiq (2015). "How Policy Rules
Shape the Structure and Performance of Collaborative Governance Arrangements," Public
Administration Review 75(4): 536-547.
Silvia, C. (2017). "Evaluating Collaboration: the Solution to One Problem Often Causes Another,"
Public Administration Review 78(3): 472-. 478.
Smith, Craig R. (2007). "Institutional Determinants of Collaboration: An Empirical Study of County
Open-Space Protection." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(1): 1-21.
Song, M., H. J. Park and K. Jung (2017). "Do Political Similarities Facilitate Interlocal
Collaboration?" Public Administration Review 78(2): 261-269.
Sørensen, Eva and Jacob Torfing (2011). "Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector."
Administration & Society 43(8): 842-868.
Sørensen, Eva and Jacob Torfing (2021). "Radical and disruptive answers to downstream problems
in collaborative governance?" Public Management Review 23(11): 1590-1611.
Spekkink, Wouter A. H. and Frank A. A. Boons (2016). "The Emergence of Collaborations," Journalof Public Administration Research and Theory 26(4): 613-630.
Stadtler, L. and Ö. Karakulak (2020). "Broker Organizations to Facilitate Cross-Sector Collaboration:at the Crossroads of Strengthening and Weakening Effects. " Public Administration Review 80(3):360-380.
Stephen, Page (2010). "Integrative leadership for collaborative governance: a civic engagement inSeattle." The Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 246-263.
Sullivan, Helen, Paul Williams and Stephen Jeffares (2011). "Leadership for collaboration: situatedagencies in practice," Public Management Review 14(1): 41-66.
Tang, G. and F. Wang (2020). "What contributes to the sustainability of self-organized A fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis." Public Management Review 24(3): 466-488.
Torfing, Jacob.(2018). "Collaborative innovation in the public sector: the argument." Public
Management Review 21(1): 1-11.
Ulibarri, Nicola and Tyler A. Scott (2017). "Linking Network Structure to Collaborative
Governance," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27(1): 163 -181.
Vangen, Siv (2016a). "Developing Practice-Oriented Theory on Collaboration: A Paradox Lens,"
Public Administration Review 77(2): 263-272.
Vangen, Siv (2016b). "Culturally diverse collaborations: a focus on communication and sharedunderstanding," Public Management Review 19(3): 305-325.
Vangen, Siv and Nik Winchester (2013). "Managing Cultural Diversity in Collaborations: a focus on
management tensions," Public Management Review 16(5): 686-707.
Verweij, S. and S. A. Satheesh (2022). "In search of the collaborative advantage of public private
partnerships: A comparative analysis of Dutch transport infrastructure projects." Public
Administration Review 83(3): 679-690.
Voet van der, J. and B. Steijn (2020). "Team innovation through collaboration: how Visionary
leadership spurs innovation via team cohesion. "Public Management Review 23(9): 1275-1294.
Waardenburg, M., et al. (2019). "Paradoxes of collaborative governance: investigating the real-life
dynamics of multi-agency collaborations using a quasi- experimental action-research approach.
"Public Management Review 22(3): 386-407.
Ward, K. D., et al. (2018). "Institutional Factors and Processes in Interagency Collaboration: the Caseof FEMA Corps," The American Review of Public Administration 48(8): 852-871.
Willem, Annick and Steffie Lucidarme (2013). "Pitfalls and Challenges for Trust and Effectivenessin Collaborative Networks," Public Management Review 16(5): 733-760.
Xu, C. and M. Kim (2021). "Loss or Gain? Unpacking Nonprofit Autonomy- Interdependence
Paradox in Collaborations," The American Review of Public Administration 51(4): 308-324.
Yang, Z. and Y. Lu (2021). "Exploring network mechanisms to organizations' influence reputation: a25

case of collaborative disaster response, " Public Management Review 24(12): 2004-2032.
Zhao, C., et al. (2023). "Influence of external authorities on collaborative frictions," Public
Administration Review 83(3): 603-622.

26