Unit 9 - Collaborative Governance and Governing Through Networks

Networks (New Governance)

1980s

New governance arrangements distinct from state hierarchy and markets.

A shift in the role and authority of the state into a mutual dependency among state and non-state actors, emerging in cooperation and negotiation as new governing forms.

This started to appear in the late 1980s.

Network Governance

3 Key Areas

Government and civil society actors engaging in institutionalized and sustained relationships of policy planning and decision making.

Provide a place for the development and nurturing of brokerage relations. Allow for opportunities for persuasion and policy learning. Key features include:

1. Deliberation and an ethic of information exchange;

2. Horizontal relations (across, balanced);

3. Distinct from the rules, procedures and hierarchy in traditional bureaucracies.

Institutionalized

Something has become an established, formal, structured part of a system, often through rules, procedures, laws, or long-standing practices.

Challenges in Network Governance (That Prompt The Need)

Homelessness, immigrant settlement, the labour market, economic development, urban First Nations governance, and even health care.

• These challenges span across multiple levels of governance and areas, and are complex issues.

Michael Howlett Discovery

Research by Canadian political scientist, Michael Howlett (2002) discovered a link between network structure and types of policy change.

Those sectors with networks that are more open to new actors and ideas are more likely to produce change in policy goals and programs.

Second Generation Network Studies

2 Components

Studies that are characterized by an attempt to assess the performance of the institutionalized governance networks across normative criteria, including equity, democracy, goal attainment, productivity stability, conflict resolution, and learning capacity.

Two key components related to its performance:

• Institutionalization

• Inclusiveness

Institutionalization of a Governance Network

(Second Generation)

Captures role in policy process, its meeting frequency and its level of integration with relevant decision makers in the broader policy community (e.g. policy advisory or semi-autonomous, a policy implementation body).

Inclusiveness of Governance Network

Degree of inclusiveness of diverse actors and organizations from both government and civil society.

Importance of Network Governance

Working on issues that not one department, policy or minister can answer to alone.

• For example, homelessness spans over various portfolios such as health, housing, addictions, skills development, and employment.

• Each of these different portfolios has a vested interest in finding solutions to this problem, and therefore must work together to do that. This can be inclusive of various levels of government, agencies, departments and organizations (Siloam Mission, Main Street Project).

Case Study: Homelessness in Vancouver and Toronto

Government of Canada provided funding through a specific stream (National Homelessness Initiative, then the Homelessness Partnering Strategy) and required a governance network consisting of diverse civil society and government actors to collaborate.

This would enable them to create a community plan to address homelessness and fund homelessness programs. Mandates the creation of local governance networks to prioritize and allocate government monies.

• Communities Plan were to be aligned with the broader initiatives of the federal government.

• Two different entities with the same guidelines and parameters can operate completely differently. Vancouver was much more innovative, institutionalized and inclusive than Toronto.

Case Study: Toronto

Pushed homelessness onto the agenda of Toronto City Council Agenda. This was in response to homeless people dying on the streets. The Co-Chair was a city councillor at different times (Jack Layton, Jane Pittfield, and Sylvia Wastson).

• Created the Community Reference Group (CRG) (similar ideas to the RSCH).

• But it does not play a role in the allocation of funding.

• Meets only twice per year, and has a low public portfolio.

• Post-decision sounding board, rather than a governance network.

• Priorities approved would come from pre-existing municipal policies and processes.

• Funds were not for innovation, but rather to enhance existing new initiatives.

• Closed hierarchical system of governance. Policy priorities and allocations were driven by the city bureaucracy and formally approved by Toronto City Council.

Case Study: Vancouver

Coordinated to be able to find shelter for homeless people in the winter. They received funding from different levels of government (federal, provincial and sometimes municipal). However, they undertook the grassroots work themselves and coordinated and administered the appropriate resources and response.

• Created the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee (RSCH) as required by the NHI.

• RSCH created the Greater Vancouver Regional Homelessness Plan, which makes funding decisions on behalf of the federal government for the region.

• Meet regularly with different levels of government, and has decision-making and strategic planning functions. Therefore, it is considered a governance network.

• More innovative, leading and independent from the local government than Toronto.

Civil Society Members

Are non-governmental actors who participate in public decision-making. In collaborative governance, they help shape policy alongside governments, not just as observers.

These can include:

• Indigenous governments and organizations (e.g., AFN, MNC, ITK, Treaty organizations)

• Non-profits and advocacy groups (environmental groups, legal aid groups, social services NGOs)

• Community organizations (urban Indigenous centres, local neighborhood associations)

• Business associations / industry stakeholders

• Academic experts

Collaborative Advantage

Means that working together produces better results than working alone. It is the opposite of "competitive advantage." It holds the view that each different entity holds their own expertise, authority, and mutual goals cannot be met only by one entity.

• Canada’s issues (e.g. homelessness, raising cost of living, health care problems) are too complex to be undertake by one government or organization.

Hierarchy in Collaborative Governance

In collaborative governance and network governance, hierarchy refers to the traditional top-down model of government, but is challenged or reduced in these newer approaches.

Done through networks, that are rooted in trust and reciprocity and sustained over the long term, not hierarchies. Governments gain new allies to help address public problems, problems but in the process, government is no longer the central steering actor. How do you balance this and what are the limits of collaboration?

What hierarchy usually means

• Clear chain of command

• Authority concentrated at the top (federal or provincial ministers, departments)

• Rules and decisions flow downward

• Bureaucratic control and little flexibility

Market (Based Mechanism)

Refer to the use of market-based mechanisms, not just the private sector itself. This matters because collaborative governance blends:

• Hierarchy (government authority)

• Networks (collaboration and partnerships)

• Markets (competition, contracting, incentives)

Governments sometimes use market tools to influence policy outcomes or service delivery specifically as it relates to things such as contracting out services, competitive funding models, social impact bonds, regulated markets.

Collaborative Governance

A model where governments share decision-making and policy development with other actors. Done through networks, that are rooted in trust and reciprocity and sustained over the long term, not hierarchies 

Instead of a top-down, purely state-driven process, multiple stakeholders actively work together.

Key features include:

1. Government + civil society + Indigenous governments + private sector + nonprofits.

2. Decisions made through dialogue, negotiation, and co-production.

3.   Focus on shared responsibility, not just consultation.

4. Builds legitimacy, trust, and more effective policies.

5. Reduces reliance on strict hierarchy.

Metagovernance

“Governance of governance.”

Refers to the policy space granted to the network by the government and how the government oversees and regulates governance network activity.

• If too much constraint is placed on network actors stifle their dynamic potential.

• But if it is too flexible it will create instability.

  • It is about finding balance in being able to allow organization to do what they require, without putting too much pressure, or without allowing space for mishandling.

What is the difference between the Public Sector Management and Collaborative Governance?

Public Sector Management

Government acts alone, using hierarchy, bureaucracy, and internal managerial tools to run public programs. Full decision making, implementation and data gathering lies with the government.

Collaborative Governance

Government acts with others, sharing authority and responsibility across networks of partners (Indigenous orgs, nonprofits, private sector, communities). Allowing others to share, and implement their expertise and have more autonomy over decisions.

Difference Between Collaborative Governance and New Public Management

New Public Management

• Uses competition, market tools, and efficiency to improve public services.

• Government contracts out, measures performance, and acts like a business.

• Views the citizen as a customer, and consumer.

• Only parts of NPM have been implemented into Canada.

• More power, and oversight rests with the government.

Collaborative Management

• Uses cooperation, networks, and shared governance to solve complex problems.
  Government works with other governments, communities, and organizations.

• The government (hypothetically) provides the space necessary for the other actors to be able to carry out their work in their respective areas.

Tribunals

A generic term given to agencies, boards, and commissions that possess both policy development and program implementation responsibilities, as well as legal powers to resolve disputes arising from the application of their powers.

Often referred to as quasi-judicial administrative tribunals in that their roles are half administrative and half adjudicative.

• Classic examples are labour relations boards, workers’ compensation boards, and human rights commissions.

• Subject to the rules of administrative law”

• Government establish tribunals when the subject-matter is highly specialized such that there needs to be highly qualified individuals leading the tribunal.

  • (e.g. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Human Rights Commission, etc.).