The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative Governance Regimes: A Performance Matrix
Abstract
Experiments in collaborative governance over the last several decades have transformed the way the public’s business is getting done. Despite growing interest, empirical research on the performance of cross-boundary collaboration continues to be limited by conceptual and methodological challenges. This article extends previous research to develop a performance matrix for assessing the productivity of collaborative governance regimes (CGRs). Three performance levels (actions, outcomes, and adaptation) are addressed at three units of analysis (participant organizations, the CGR itself, and target goals), creating a performance matrix of nine critical dimensions of CGR productivity. This performance matrix is illustrated with a case study of a CGR operating on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Ostrom, E. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511807763 · Cited by 20,653
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Field, B. C., & Ostrom, E. (1992) · Land Economics · doi:10.2307/3146384 · Cited by 18,859
The Science of “Muddling Through”
Lindblom, C. E. (1959) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.2307/973677 · Cited by 8,513
Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032 · Cited by 8,256
ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 · Cited by 5,814
Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector
Weiss, J. A., Osborne, D., Gaebler, T., & Review, N. P. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258896 · Cited by 4,540
Case study research: principles and practices
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-1530 · Cited by 4,167
Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mum015 · Cited by 4,006
An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mur011 · Cited by 3,637 · cited 5×
“…the concept of a collaborative governance regime (CGR), defined as “the particular mode of, or system for, public decision making in which cross-boundary collaboration represents the prevailing pattern of behavior and activity” (Emerson et al., 2012, p. 6; see also Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Cited by
What drives the perceived legitimacy of collaborative governance? An experimental study
Lee, S., & Esteve, M. (2023) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2022.2026692 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T.
- Venue
- Public Performance & Management Review
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-06-15
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 717-747
- ISSN
- 1530-9576 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-9271
- OpenAlex
- W1525756008
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 75
- FWCI
- 42.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative Governance Regimes: A Performance Matrix. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031016
- The paper
- Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative Governance Regimes: A Performance Matrix. Public Performance & Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
