The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 39 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance
Abstract
Collaborative governance draws from diverse realms of practice and research in public administration. This article synthesizes and extends a suite of conceptual frameworks, research findings, and practice-based knowledge into an integrative framework for collaborative governance. The framework specifies a set of nested dimensions that encompass a larger system context, a collaborative governance regime, and its internal collaborative dynamics and actions that can generate impacts and adaptations across the systems. The framework provides a broad conceptual map for situating and exploring components of cross-boundary governance systems that range from policy or programbased intergovernmental cooperation to place-based regional collaboration with nongovernmental stakeholders to public-private partnerships. The framework integrates knowledge about individual incentives and barriers to collection action, collaborative social learning and conflict resolution processes, and institutional arrangements for cross-boundary collaboration. It is presented as a general framework that might be applied to analyses at different scales, in different policy arenas, and varying levels of complexity. The article also offers 10 propositions about the dynamic interactions among components within the framework and concludes with a discussion about the implications of the framework for theory, research, evaluation, and practice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
65 Own interpretation · 10 No full text of the sources · 7 Not checked yet · 4 Sources not found · 2 Own result · 1 Partly supported · 1 No basis given
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The final driver, uncertainty, is a primary challenge for managing ''wicked'' societal problems (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004;Rittel and Webber 1973).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Koppenjan and Klijn 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Rittel and Webber 1973 source
Section 1 says wicked problems cannot be definitively formulated because the information needed depends on the proposed solution. Section 4 adds that their full consequences cannot be assessed in advance. Together, these passages support uncertainty as a central challenge in addressing wicked societal problems. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another common challenge we encountered with these frameworks is a lack of generalizability, that is, their inapplicability across different settings, sectors, geographic and temporal scales, policy arenas, and process mechanisms.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proposition One: One or more of the drivers of leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, or uncertainty are necessary for a CGR to begin.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Interdependence, or when individuals and organizations are unable to accomplish something on their own, is a broadly recognized precondition for collaborative action (Gray 1989;Thomson and Perry 2006).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gray 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thomson and Perry 2006 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collective uncertainty about how to manage societal problems is also related to the driver of interdependence.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Uncertainty that cannot be resolved internally can drive groups to collaborate in order to reduce, diffuse, and share risk.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This external system context creates opportunities and constraints and influences the general parameters within which a CGR unfolds.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > General System Context
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, such incentives (positive or negative) must exist to induce leaders and participants to engage together.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The more drivers present and recognized by participants, the more likely a CGR will be initiated.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In contrast, and consistent with Ansell and Gash (2008) and Thomson and Perry (2006), we view the stages within collaborative dynamics as cyclical or iterative interactions.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Collaborative Dynamics
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 47
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In comparing these frameworks, we found expected overlap and considerable variation.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This system context generates opportunities and constraints and influences the dynamics of the collaboration at the outset and over time.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, our framework separates the contextual variables from essential drivers, without which the impetus for collaboration would not successfully unfold.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, it can also be applied to or used to inform participatory governance and civic engagement, although we recognize that the extent of involvement by citizens and the public in collaborative governance can vary considerably.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE: SCOPE AND ORIGINS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The form and direction of the CGR is shaped initially by the drivers that emerge from the system context; however, the development of the CGR, as well as the degree to which it is effective, is influenced over time by its two components: collaborative dynamics and collaborative actions.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Collaborative Governance Regime
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Unlike the Ansell and Gash definition, our definition does not limit collaborative governance to only formal, state-initiated arrangements, and to engagement between government and nongovernmental stakeholders.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE: SCOPE AND ORIGINS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ansell and Gash 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The system context is represented in this framework, not as a set of starting conditions but as a surrounding three-dimensional space because external conditions (e.g., an election, economic downturn, extreme weather event, or newly enacted regulation) may influence the dynamics and performance of collaboration not only at the outset but at any time during the life of the CGR, thus opening up new”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > General System Context
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These drivers include leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three components of collaborative dynamics work together in an interactive and iterative way to produce collaborative actions or the steps taken in order to implement the shared purpose of the CGR.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collaborative dynamics, represented by the innermost box with dotted lines, consist of three interactive components: principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Through principled engagement, people with differing content, relational, and identity goals work across their respective institutional, sectoral, or jurisdictional boundaries to solve problems, resolve conflicts, or create value (Cahn 1994;Cupach and Canary 1997;Lulofs and Cahn 2000).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Principled Engagement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cahn 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Cupach and Canary 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Lulofs and Cahn 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From this system context emerge drivers, including leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty, which help initiate and set the direction for a CGR.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These dynamics and the actions they produce over time constitute a CGR.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Collaborative Dynamics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“our definition of collaborative governance is broader than what is commonly seen in the literature”
- Also stated in: § DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE: SCOPE AND ORIGINS · plain
“Thus, it is broader than the definition proposed by Ansell and Gash (2008, 544)”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ansell and Gash 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE: SCOPE AND ORIGINS · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Essential drivers energize or induce the convening of participants by reducing the initial formative costs of collective action and setting the collaborative dynamics in motion.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Collaborative Dynamics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The form and direction of the CGR is shaped initially by the drivers that emerge from the system context; however, the development of the CGR, as well as the degree to which it is effective, is influenced over time by its two components: collaborative dynamics and collaborative actions.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Collaborative Governance Regime
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The variations stem, in part, from the different research traditions, policy arenas, and scales in which these scholars work.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There can also be individual uncertainty about the extent to which conventional avenues for solutions or satisfaction (sometimes referred to as the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement in conflict management literature) can be relied on to produce the intended result.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, collaborative dynamics and actions shape the overall quality and extent to which a CGR is developed and effective.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The actions of the CGR can lead to outcomes both within and external to the regime; thus, in the figure, arrows extend from the action box to demonstrate impacts (i.e., the results on the ground) and potential adaptation (the transformation of a complex situation or issue) both within the system context and the CGR itself.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, our definition encompasses ''multipartner governance,'' which can include partnerships among the state, the private sector, civil society, and the community, as well as joined-up government and hybrid arrangements such as public-private and private-social partnerships and co-management regimes (Agrawal and Lemos 2007).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE: SCOPE AND ORIGINS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Agrawal and Lemos 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the drivers identified in the framework explain why collaboration might emerge but do not yet explain how specific drivers might affect the nature of the CGR differently or if and how the drivers continue to sustain the CGR as it evolves over time.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of practice, the framework offers public managers and collaboration and conflict resolution practitioners a conceptual map by which to navigate the various dimensions, components, and elements of collaborative governance.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, understanding that a CGR is likely, if not expected, to adapt over time further enables the development of innovative learning systems for government and reflective practice (Argyris and Schon 1974;Schon 1971).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Argyris and Schon 1974
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schon 1971
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The regime is influenced by surrounding conditions and initiated by specific drivers, and the regime produces impacts affecting those surrounding conditions, as well as the regime itself and its collaborative dynamics.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the most basic level, the generic nature of the framework should enable comparative analyses of CGRs across different system contexts and policy arenas.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“For example, table 1 suggests a way in which to view the integrative framework as a logic model that can be used to test intermediate outputs (actions) and end outcomes (impacts and adaptation) and become the basis for case evaluation and performance evaluation for program management (Thomas and Koontz, 2011).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thomas and Koontz, 2011 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Inclusion and diversity are valued not only as normative organizing principles but also for instrumental reasons-they give voice to multiple perspectives and different interests, allowing the development of more thoughtful decisions that take a broader view of who will benefit or be harmed by an action (Beierle and Cayford 2002;Sirianni 2009).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Principled Engagement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Beierle and Cayford 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Sirianni 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the framework specifies the components of the CGR in a way that integrates a range of factors identified in research into an operational system and suggests some general and very specific causal linkages.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, it examines collaborative governance broadly and treats it as an emergent system, a new kind of regime for cross-boundary governance.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through this iterative process, collaboration partners develop a shared sense of purpose and a shared theory of action for achieving that purpose.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Principled Engagement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In doing so, it encompasses a wider range of collaborative initiatives than other definitions and extends beyond the typical focus on the public sector and the public manager to include the myriad of collaboratives initiated in the public, private, and civic sectors.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There can be little argument that the notion of collaborative governance is attracting considerable attention as a new paradigm in public administration.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION · plain
“It is the subject of a growing number of books, articles, and monographs.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The study of collaborative governance lacks conceptual clarity and consistency, notwithstanding the term's popularity in research and claims of its widespread practical use.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proposition Two: Principled engagement is generated and sustained by the interactive processes of discovery, definition, deliberation, and determination.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION · plain
“We posit that the principled engagement is generated and sustained by these four elements”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Principled Engagement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, without at least one or some combination of the other drivers (consequential incentives, interdependence, and/or uncertainty), a CGR is unlikely to continue.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Working to articulate the targeted outcomes and coproduce a shared theory of action to affect those outcomes and the criteria by which to assess effective outcomes can enable participants to sharpen their sights and their pencils.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, collaborative governance demands and cultivates multiple opportunities and roles for leadership (Agranoff and McGuire 2003;Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Capacity for Joint Action
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Agranoff and McGuire 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We propose that one or more of these four drivers must be present to start a CGR and that the presence of more drivers increases the likelihood that such a regime will be initiated (Proposition 1).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The four drivers—leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty—are the relevant drivers that generate energy for initiating a collaborative governance regime.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we believe that the integrative framework can be applied usefully at different scales, in diverse policy arenas, and various levels of complexity.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The depth of the framework, from the dimensions to individual elements, lends itself to thick description in individual or comparative case studies.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Drawing attention to the elements within principled engagement, shared motivation, and the capacity for joint action can stimulate a shared perspective on needed strategic directions and on progress made to date.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our preliminary thought on this is that leadership is an essential driver, without which collaborative regimes would not be initiated.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, although the framework encompasses many interactive components and elements, we do not mean to suggest that all are necessary all the time or at the same level of quality or to the same extent.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The set of drivers provide useful considerations for deciding whether and when to invest in a CGR.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the framework goes beyond others in distinguishing actions from impacts and tracing the potential for adaptation of the system context and the CGR itself.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It should be noted that increasing diversity in participation may have undesired consequences as well.In some situations, more diversity can generate higher levels of conflict and erode principled engagement, whereas in other situations, less diversity can lead to different, though not necessarily inferior actions and accomplishments (Korfmacher 2000;Schlager and Blomquist 2008;Steelman and Carmin”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Principled Engagement
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, the framework also situates the CGR in the broader context with which it interacts.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The breadth of the framework enables efforts to gather more consistent data on a range of indicators from a large set of cases to test the propositions or specific hypotheses relating to the components, their elements, and their interactions.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the framework itself improves upon existing frameworks for collaborative governance in several ways.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The propositions derived from the framework begin to build a general predictive theory for collaborative governance through an instrumental systems approach, as opposed to a prescriptive theory based on normative assumptions.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although several frameworks acknowledge the iterative and dynamic nature of collaboration, this framework more explicitly builds that vibrant nature into its construction.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Making the collaborative dynamics dimension explicit with participants at the outset can assist with the codesign of the most effective and appropriate CGR.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Power can also be viewed as a resource and, like other resources, is almost always distributed unevenly across participants (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006;Huxham and Vangen 2005).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Capacity for Joint Action
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Huxham and Vangen 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The definition of collaborative governance in the public administration literature remains amorphous and its use inconsistent.
“Collaborative governance has become a common term in the public administration literature, yet its definition remains amorphous and its use inconsistent.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The variation in the scope and scale of perspectives on collaborative governance restricts researchers' ability to develop and test theory.
“Moreover, the variation in the scope and scale of perspectives on collaborative governance restricts the ability of researchers to further develop and test theory.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The four drivers—leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty—are the relevant drivers that generate energy for initiating a collaborative governance regime.
“Emerging from this system context are drivers, including leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Shared motivation consists of four elements: mutual trust, understanding, internal legitimacy, and commitment.
“We define shared motivation as a self-reinforcing cycle consisting of four elements: mutual trust, understanding, internal legitimacy, and commitment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Capacity for joint action consists of four necessary elements: procedural and institutional arrangements, leadership, knowledge, and resources.
“In our framework, capacity for joint action is conceptualized as the combination of four necessary elements: procedural and institutional arrangements, leadership, knowledge, and resources.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-boundary engagement must generate returns for partners to justify their continued involvement to their own organizations and constituents.
“because cross-boundary engagement must generate ''returns'' for partners to justify their continued involvement to their own organizations and constituents.”
The paper relies on this without support.
If needed changes are not made, the low costs of exiting the regime will lead to low participation or departure.
“If needed changes are not made, the low costs of exiting the regime will lead to low participation or departure.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The purpose of collaboration is to generate desired outcomes together that could not be accomplished separately.
“The purpose of collaboration is to generate desired outcomes together that could not be accomplished separately.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The study of collaborative governance lacks conceptual clarity and consistency, notwithstanding the term's popularity in research and claims of its widespread practical use.
“Despite the popularity of the term in research, and claims of its wide-spread use in practice, the study of collaborative governance continues to suffer from a lack of conceptual clarity and consistency.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Indeed, institutional mechanisms need to be calibrated to facilitate appropriate and accountable collaborative governance of public, civic, and private entities connected through algorithmic decision-making (cf.Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh 2012).”
From Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decision-Making: Six Threats and the Need for a Calibrated Institutional Response (2022) · cites this paper as Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“ICT remains peripheral in foundational collaborative governance frameworks despite its potential, revealing a critical conceptual gap in understanding its role.”
From Redefining Collaborative Governance in the Digital Age: insights from an integrative systematic review on the role of ICT in collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Emerson et al. (2012)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Mainstream collaborative governance literature places significant emphasis on face-to-face communication as the foundation of trust-building and collaboration.”
From Redefining Collaborative Governance in the Digital Age: insights from an integrative systematic review on the role of ICT in collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Emerson et al. (2012)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In their model, ICT is a contextual influence and not part of the inner workings of collaboration.”
From Redefining Collaborative Governance in the Digital Age: insights from an integrative systematic review on the role of ICT in collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Emerson et al. (2012)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Trust among participants is a core element of successful governance arrangement (Emerson et al., 2012).”
From Redefining Collaborative Governance in the Digital Age: insights from an integrative systematic review on the role of ICT in collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Emerson et al., 2012
Citations
Cites
Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-2454 · Cited by 28,723
Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital
Coleman, J. S. (1988) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/228943 · Cited by 26,975
Kytle, J., & Bandura, A. (1978) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2065952 · Cited by 25,422
Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital
Coleman, J. S. (2000) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7222-1.50005-2 · Cited by 21,751
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Field, B. C., & Elinor Ostrom, B. (1992) · Land Economics · doi:10.2307/3146384 · Cited by 19,100
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338
Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-6408 · Cited by 14,338
Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital
Putnam, R. D. (1995) · Journal of Democracy · doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002 · Cited by 14,037
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400820740 · Cited by 12,946
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 2007, Environment, 49, 36
- 1992, MEASUREMENT AND EDUCATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT, 25, 58
- 2009, OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION, 24, 1
- 1973, ORI RESEARCH BULLETIN, 13, 1
- 2002, VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL, 21, 189
- 2000, American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 548
- 2001, Journal of the Power Division, 127, 378
- 2006, Public administration review, 66, 1
- 1995, JOURNAL OF DEMOCRACY, 6, 65
- 2006, Public administration review, 66, 159
- 2006, Public administration review, 66, 20
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 3,564
Mohammed, A. J., Inoue, M., & Shivakoti, G. P. (2016) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.010 · Cited by 34
Rethinking Democratic Innovation
Hendriks, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848291.001.0001 · Cited by 34
Hermansson, H. (2016) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399716680058 · Cited by 34
Mosley, J. E., & Park, S. (2021) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muab013 · Cited by 43
A threefold perspective: conditions for collaborative governance
Lahat, L., & Sher‐Hadar, N. (2019) · Journal of Management & Governance · doi:10.1007/s10997-019-09465-1 · Cited by 49
Aguilar, M. G., Jaramillo, J. F., Ddiba, D., Páez, D. C., Rueda, H., Andersson, K., & Dickin, S. (2021) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.025 · Cited by 35
“The GCF was selected for this study because it integrates literature on governance and transformation processes including the concepts of governance capacity, adaptive capacity and collaborative governance ( Emerson et al., 2012 ; Gupta et al., 2010 ; Mees and Driessen, 2011 ).”
MethodPrehoda, E. W., Winkler, R. L., & Schelly, C. (2019) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci8010011 · Cited by 33
“…to (a) prevent any one party from exercising power over the others (Chrislip and Larson 1994; Bryson and Crosby 1993; Huxham et al. 2000) and (b) push the collaboration to redistribute and share the resources for the common vision or goal of the group (Emerson et al. 2011; Milward and Provan 2000).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSustainability partnerships and viticulture management in California
Hillis, V., Lubell, M. N., & Hoffman, M. (2018) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.033 · Cited by 37
Shu, Q., & Wang, Y. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18020598 · Cited by 42
“At such times, the efforts of collaborative problem-solving and decision-making that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private, and civic spheres will be crucial [28] to gather all the internal and external forces in the field of public heal…”
BackgroundKowler, L. F., Ravikumar, A., Larson, A. M., Rodríguez-Ward, D., & Burga, C. (2016) · Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooks · doi:10.17528/cifor/006107 · Cited by 33
“This perspective focuses on the “processes and structures of public policy, decision-making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose” (Emerson et al. 2012).”
BackgroundCohen, G. (2018) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074017744659 · Cited by 32
“, Engel, 2001; Mastrofski, Willis, & Snipes, 2002; Van Maanen, 1984). Of particular interest here is the work of Reuss-Ianni (1983), who identified two distinct and competitive subcultures—lower level officers and senior-level officers.”
BackgroundBuilding robustness for rural revitalization: A social-ecological system perspective
Chu, V. H. Y., Lam, W. F., & Williams, J. M. (2023) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103042 · Cited by 40
Collaboration: what does it really mean?
Stout, M., & Keast, R. L. (2021) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781789901917.00012 · Cited by 33
The Rise and Fall of Energy Democracy: 5 Cases of Collaborative Governance in Energy Systems
Berthod, O. T., Blanchet, T., Busch, H., et al. (2022) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-022-01687-8 · Cited by 33
Berliandaldo, M., Chodiq, A., & Fryantoni, D. (2021) · INOBIS Jurnal Inovasi Bisnis dan Manajemen Indonesia · doi:10.31842/jurnalinobis.v4i2.179 · Cited by 32
Cohen, G., & Cohen, N. (2021) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2021.1963824 · Cited by 32
Leading for social change: Waste management in the place of social (ir)responsibility
Esposito, P., Ricci, P., & Sancino, A. (2020) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2078 · Cited by 34
Bodin, Ö., Guerrero, A. M., Nohrstedt, D., Baird, J., Summers, R., Plummer, R., & Jasny, L. (2022) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13518 · Cited by 33
On the frontiers of collaboration and conflict: how context influences the success of collaboration
Schoon, M., Chapman, M., Loos, J., Speranza, C. I., Kelman, C. C., Aburto, J. A., Alexander, S., Baggio, J. A., Brady, U., Cockburn, J. J., et al. (2021) · Ecosystems and People · doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1946593 · Cited by 33
“…collaboration in social-ecological systems has developed across multiple overlapping research arenas – collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012), collaborative management (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996; Koontz and Thomas 2006), adaptive comanagement (Plummer and Armitage 2007;…”
BackgroundThe participating government: Shifting boundaries in collaborative spatial planning of urban regions
Westerink, J., Kempenaar, A., van Lierop, M., de Groot, S., van der Valk, A. J. J., & van den Brink, A. (2016) · Environment and Planning C Politics and Space · doi:10.1177/0263774x16646770 · Cited by 36
Merritt, C. C. (2019) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074019829610 · Cited by 33
Cross‐sector collaboration: management decision and change model
Erakovich, R., & Anderson, T. D. (2013) · International Journal of Public Sector Management · doi:10.1108/09513551311318031 · Cited by 32
“To foster achieving values that embrace collaborative success, there must be awareness of competing objectives, discussion of possible solutions, and jointly planning and evaluating solutions (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundFischer, M., & Maag, S. (2019) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.12310 · Cited by 32
Determined to succeed: Can goal commitment sustain interagency collaboration?
Scott, R. J., & Boyd, R. (2020) · Public Policy and Administration · doi:10.1177/0952076720905002 · Cited by 33
Understanding public agency communication: the case of the Swedish armed forces
Deverell, E., Olsson, E., Wagnsson, C., et al. (2014) · Journal of Public Affairs · doi:10.1002/pa.1552 · Cited by 32
Boundaries of collaboration – the case of a temporary housing complex for refugees in Sweden
Brorström, S., & Diedrich, A. (2020) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2020.1846767 · Cited by 32
Escaping the politics trap: exercising collective power
Laffan, B. (2024) · Journal of European Public Policy · doi:10.1080/13501763.2024.2353856 · Cited by 32
“The Union is also capable of mobilising the capacities of the member states, a component of its ‘ power with ’ , under certain conditions as EU actors are embedded in a dense network of institutional ties and collaborative governance structures in the EU (Emerson et al ., 2012; Scharpf, 1997).”
Avoyan, E., & Meijerink, S. V. (2020) · International Journal of Water Resources Development · doi:10.1080/07900627.2019.1707070 · Cited by 34
“…(Bryson et al., 2015), consisting of six system context conditions: public resource or service conditions; policy and legal frameworks; socio-economic and cultural characteristics; network characteristics; political dynamics and power relations; and the history of con fl ict (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFrancesch‐Huidobro, M. (2015) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.045 · Cited by 33
Networks of Networks? Toward an External Perspective on Whole Networks
Nowell, B., Hano, M., & Yang, Z. (2019) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvz005 · Cited by 28
Molenveld, A., Verhoest, K., & Wynen, J. (2020) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11077-020-09379-y · Cited by 35
A Collaborative Governance Approach to Partnerships Addressing Public Problems with Private Data
Susha, I., & Gil-García, J. R. (2019) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2019.350 · Cited by 33
“To answer our research question, we use the collaborative governance framework proposed by Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh [24].”
InfluentialToepler, S., & Abramson, A. J. (2021) · VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations · doi:10.1007/s11266-021-00331-z · Cited by 32
Cross-sector challenges in Ethiopian forest and landscape restoration governance
Wiegant, D. A., Mansourian, S., Eshetu, G. Z., et al. (2023) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2023.02.003 · Cited by 32
Durant, R. F., & Ali, S. B. (2012) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02646.x · Cited by 32
Action and inertia in collaborative governance
Kossmann, C. M., Behagel, J. H., & Bailey, M. (2016) · Marine Policy · doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.007 · Cited by 32
Eaton, W. M., Burnham, M., Robertson, T., Arbuckle, J. G., Brasier, K. J., Burbach, M. E., Church, S. P., Hart-Fredeluces, G. M., Jackson‐Smith, D. B., Wildermuth, G. A., et al. (2022) · Socio-Ecological Practice Research · doi:10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8 · Cited by 32
“While JEDI is woven throughout classic and contemporary conceptual frameworks for doing and researching engagement (Arnstein 1969; Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012), more work examining the intersection of JEDI with stakeholder engagement in working landscapes is needed (Dobbin and Lubell 2021).”
Closing integrative gaps in complex environmental governance systems
Fried, H. S., Hamilton, M., & Berardo, R. (2022) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-12996-270115 · Cited by 38
“Future studies could test other actor attributes, such as resource capacity (Emerson et al. 2012), perceptions of responsibility in protecting the public good (O’Brien et al. 2009), relative experience (Lubell et al. 2017b), or leadership skills (Olsson et al. 2007, Emerson et al. 2012).”
BackgroundExploring the Role of Public–Private Partnerships in Forest Protection
Widman, U. (2016) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su8050496 · Cited by 31
“Several of the interview responses and referrals also identified the government’s lack of capacity to create the conditions necessary for successful institutionalization as a problem [26].”
BackgroundInfluentialManaging Incentive Dynamics for Collaborative Governance in Land and Ecological Conservation
Tang, C., & Tang, S. (2014) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12190 · Cited by 31
van Erp, J., Wallenburg, I., & Bal, R. A. (2018) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12518 · Cited by 31
“Network and collaborative governance theories indicate how governments ‘take a step back’ in order to create room for manoeuvre for different public and private actors operating with some degree of autonomy from central government (Skelcher et al. 2005; Provan and Kenis 2008; Emerson et al. 2012; Ansell and Gash 2018).”
BackgroundErrichiello, L., & Marasco, A. (2014) · Advanced engineering forum · doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/aef.11.115 · Cited by 31
“These include [8,13, 25, 22]: mutual trust, leadership, commensurability and non-rivalry of needs and interests, complementarity of competences.”
Four lenses on people management in the public sector: an evidence review and synthesis
Ali, A. J., Fuenzalida, J., Gómez, M., & Williams, M. J. (2021) · Oxford Review of Economic Policy · doi:10.1093/oxrep/grab003 · Cited by 38
“In all these instances, forms of horizontal, collaborative and adaptive leadership styles, which are essentially relationship-based, have emerged as critical to the success of collaborative efforts of public organizations (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundVodden, K. M. (2014) · Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · doi:10.1111/cag.12135 · Cited by 31
“Offering support for Emerson et al.’s (2012) suggestion that leadership is an essential driver of collaborative governance and an important aspect of capacity for joint action, interview respondents identified leadership as the most important factor enabling collaborative governance and related outcomes.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Role of Intermediate Collaborative Forums in Polycentric Environmental Governance
Wiechman, A., Vicario, S. A., & Koebele, E. A. (2023) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muad017 · Cited by 35
Governance Systems Analysis (GSA): A Framework for Reforming Governance Systems
Dale, A. P., Vella, K. J., & Potts, R. (2013) · Journal of Public Administration and Governance · doi:10.5296/jpag.v3i3.4385 · Cited by 33
“Now, governance is more often understood to represent a wider set of processes of bargaining and negotiation among differing interests in society, leading to particular system outcomes (Dorcey, 1986; Emerson et al., 2011).”
BackgroundSmit, E. V. T., de Loë, R., & Plummer, R. (2014) · Journal of Environmental Planning and Management · doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.860017 · Cited by 31
“These approaches have grown in importance in numerous policy fields, including the environment (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012).”
BackgroundAmiraslani, F., & Caiserman, A. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10062000 · Cited by 31
“The empirical analysis of governance and interventions provides a useful theoretical frame or a “conceptual map” [7] (p.”
BackgroundZhang, Z., Pan, J., & Qian, Y. (2023) · Land · doi:10.3390/land12071427 · Cited by 31
Aiming for a sustainable future: conceptualizing public open foresight
Schmidthuber, L., & Wiener, M. (2017) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2017.1293145 · Cited by 35
“These partnerships across different levels are built for implementing public policies or managing public programmes or assets such as interstate river basin commissions (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012).”
BackgroundAlblas, E., & van Zeben, J. A. W. (2023) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-13648-280128 · Cited by 31
Agility amid uncertainties: evidence from 2009 A/H1N1 pandemics in Singapore and Taiwan
Lai, A. Y.-H. (2018) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1080/14494035.2018.1519979 · Cited by 30
Baudoin, L., & Gittins, J. R. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111836 · Cited by 33
Yu, L., Zhang, G., Lu, S., et al. (2023) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106140 · Cited by 31
Bozkurt, Y., Rossmann, A., Pervez, Z., & Ramzan, N. (2025) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2025.106528 · Cited by 47
Cross-Sector Collaboration for Public Value Co-Creation: A Critical Analysis
Sancino, A., Rees, J., & Schindele, I. (2018) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s2045-794420180000006003 · Cited by 33
Shulla, K., Filho, W. L., Lardjane, S., et al. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117809 · Cited by 31
“…that the implementation of the SDGs would require alternative governance frameworks, including sustainable governance, horizontal versus hierarchical, meta-governance, or collaborative governancewhich crosses sector boundaries for a successful performance and public engagement (Emerson, 2012).”
BackgroundBio-Ethics and One Health: A Case Study Approach to Building Reflexive Governance
LeBlanc, A. B., Williams–Jones, B., & Aenishaenslin, C. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.648593 · Cited by 31
“Deliberation constitutes a large and every expanding methodological field of study in sociology (69), participatory research (70), management (71), governance (72), etc.”
BackgroundInfluentialde Koning, M. D., Nguyen, T., Lockwood, M., Sengchanthavong, S., & Phommasane, S. (2017) · Conservation and Society · doi:10.4103/0972-4923.201396 · Cited by 35
“We differ at only one point from Ansell and Gash (2008) and follow Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2013) and Emerson et al. (2012) in not requiring the governance arrangement to be initiated and led by one or more government agencies and thereby generalising the Ansell and Gash definition.”
Feist, A., Plummer, R., & Baird, J. (2020) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-020-01337-x · Cited by 32
Riche, C., Aubin, D., & Moyson, S. (2020) · European Policy Analysis · doi:10.1002/epa2.1080 · Cited by 33
Morgan, D. L., Rall, R. M., Commodore, F., et al. (2020) · The Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.1080/00221546.2020.1824885 · Cited by 30
Matarrita‐Cascante, D., Lee, J. H., & Nam, J. W. (2020) · Local Development & Society · doi:10.1080/26883597.2020.1829986 · Cited by 35
A network perspective of human–nature interactions in dynamic and fast-changing landscapes
Bodin, Ö., & Chen, H. (2023) · National Science Review · doi:10.1093/nsr/nwad019 · Cited by 33
“Examples of such capacities are trust building [90], social learning [59], development of a shared vision [91], mutual acknowledgement of different viewpoints [35] and conflict resolution [92].”
BackgroundProcesses of International Collaboration in Management Research
Jonsen, K., Butler, C. L., Mäkelä, K., Piekkari, R., Drogendijk, R. H., Lauring, J., Lervik, J. E., Pahlberg, C., Vodosek, M., & Zander, L. (2012) · Journal of Management Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1056492612464429 · Cited by 32
Metagovernance and policy forum outputs in Swiss environmental politics
Fischer, M., & Schläpfer, I. (2017) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2017.1284981 · Cited by 31
Aoki, N. (2014) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/0020852314541563 · Cited by 30
“But neither these studies nor the collaborative governance literature (Agranoff and McGuire, 2001; Ansell and Gash, 2007; Bingham et al., 2008; Cooper et al., 2006; Emerson et al., 2011; Vigoda, 2002) have paid attention to wide-area collaboration.”
BackgroundThe Other Side of the Coin: NGOs, Rights‐Based Approaches, and Public Administration
Schmitz, H. P., & Mitchell, G. E. (2015) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12479 · Cited by 30
Zambrano-Gutiérrez, J. C., & de Oliveira, J. A. P. (2021) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muab053 · Cited by 34
Mahlangu, P., Goudge, J., & Vearey, J. (2019) · Global Health Action · doi:10.1080/16549716.2019.1617393 · Cited by 30
“Others suggest that collaborations should be judged on whether they produce public value, and that the judgement should be from a perspective of various stakeholders and not just the collaborative itself [6,16,19,24].”
BackgroundInfluentialWho benefits from collaborative governance? An empirical study from the energy sector
Ahn, M., & Baldwin, E. (2022) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2022.2044505 · Cited by 32
“In adopting this definition, we depart somewhat from Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012) who defined collaborative governance to include consensus-oriented forms of decision making; in our cases of ‘regulatory embedded’ collaborative governance, collaboratives generally seek consensus among…”
BackgroundMethodBeran, D., Perone, S. A., Alcoba, G., et al. (2016) · Globalization and Health · doi:10.1186/s12992-016-0156-x · Cited by 30
“’s [17] model as the process of establishing the partnership in this study.”
InfluentialAvoyan, E. (2022) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-022-01642-7 · Cited by 48
“The literature on collaborative governance highlights the importance of leadership in initiating and sustaining collaborative arrangements (Ansell and Gash 2008; Bryson et al. 2006; Emerson et al. 2012) and stimulating transformative learning and creative problem solving (Crosby et al.”
BackgroundCollaborative governance platform for social innovation in Brussels
Temmerman, L., Veeckman, C. M., & Ballon, P. (2021) · Social enterprise journal · doi:10.1108/sej-12-2019-0101 · Cited by 30
“…public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (Emerson et al., 2012, p. 2).”
BackgroundOkeyo, I., Lehmann, U., & Schneider, H. M. (2020) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0508-0 · Cited by 31
Wang, X., Berman, E. M., Chen, D., et al. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.080 · Cited by 30
Voets, J., Brandsen, T., Koliba, C., et al. (2021) · Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1419 · Cited by 30
The implementation of the pentahelix model for the terrorism deradicalization program in Indonesia
Subagyo, A. (2021) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2021.1964720 · Cited by 30
Coping with Value Conflicts in Interorganizational Collaborations
Page, S., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2018) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvx019 · Cited by 33
Community-based initiatives in the urban realm what conditions their performance?
Edelenbos, J., Molenveld, A., Mojanchevska, K., Enseñado, E. M., Ballinas, M. B.-P., Esteban, A., Ruijsink, S., Igalla, M., & Tsatsou, A. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Planning and Management · doi:10.1080/09640568.2020.1837088 · Cited by 33
van Rensburg, A. J., Petersen, I., Wouters, E., Engelbrecht, M., Kigozi, G., Fourie, P., van Rensburg, D. H., & Bracke, P. (2018) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czy017 · Cited by 30
“The primary goal of state and non-state collaboration is to produce outcomes that cannot be achieved by separate actors and sectors (Emerson et al. 2012).”
BackgroundNaughton, B. D., Dopson, S., & Iakovleva, T. A. (2023) · Journal of Responsible Innovation · doi:10.1080/23299460.2023.2211870 · Cited by 29
Memperkuat Peran Pemerintah Daerah: Mengelola Pariwisata Lokal Yang Berkelanjutan
Sentanu, I. G. E. P. S., & Mahadiansar, M. (2020) · Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Negara (JUAN) · doi:10.31629/juan.v8i1.1879 · Cited by 29
Cameron, A., Esiovwa, R., Connolly, J., Hursthouse, A. S., & Henriquez, F. L. (2022) · Global Policy · doi:10.1111/1758-5899.13049 · Cited by 29
“Collaborative governance is broadly defined as the processes associated with public policy decisionmaking that involves engagement of stakeholders from public, civic, and private sectors to achieve a purpose (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundXu, S. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111119 · Cited by 29
Kelman, C. C., Brady, U., Raschke, A. B., & Schoon, M. (2023) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2023.2228234 · Cited by 38
“While there are numerous frameworks, models (e.g. Sabatier and Mazmanian 1980, Ostrom 2005, Ostrom 2009a, Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012, Koontz et al. 2015, Newig et al. 2018) and overlapping lists of key factors to aid in the assessment of collaborations – including conditions important to…”
MethodSchipper, D., & Spekkink, W. (2015) · Complexity Governance & Networks · doi:10.7564/15-cgn23 · Cited by 29
Green, poverty reduction and spatial spillover: an analysis from 21 provinces of China
Chu, Q., & Zhang, W. (2022) · Environment Development and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s10668-021-02003-w · Cited by 29
“Cooperation between governments can achieve public goals that a single government cannot achieve (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundUsing big data for evidence based governance in child welfare
Kum, H., Stewart, C. J., Rose, R. A., & Duncan, D. F. (2015) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.09.014 · Cited by 37
“Generally, governance involves the management of activities and services informed by and contributing to the public interest with such management typically undertaken by multiple stakeholders (e.g., Emerson et al., 2011;Hill & Lynn, 2004).”
BackgroundUster, A., Vashdi, D. R., & Beeri, I. (2022) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/02750740221084336 · Cited by 29
Collaborative approaches to local climate change and clean energy initiatives in the USA and England
Pitt, D. R., & Congreve, A. (2016) · Local Environment · doi:10.1080/13549839.2015.1120277 · Cited by 29
Parmaksiz, K., Bal, R. A., van de Bovenkamp, H., et al. (2023) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice · doi:10.1186/s40545-023-00574-9 · Cited by 29
“This includes formalizing procedural and institutional arrangements, such as establishing an organizational structure with clear roles and responsibilities, a clear mandate, standardized and transparent procedures, fair allocation of benefits and no conflict of interest [9, 20, 21].”
BackgroundInfluentialPublic Governance and School Performance
Paletta, A. (2012) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.657838 · Cited by 31
Angelstam, P. K., Bush, T., & Manton, M. (2023) · Land · doi:10.3390/land12051098 · Cited by 40
Ryan White CARE Act and Collaborative Governance Re-Examined: the South Florida Experience
Agbodzakey, J. K. (2016) · Public Organization Review · doi:10.1007/s11115-016-0342-6 · Cited by 28
Waardenburg, M., Groenleer, M., & de Jong, J. (2025) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.1080/15309576.2025.2510973 · Cited by 45
“After all, it is only by committing to mutually beneficial goals and approaches, undertaking joint activities, and reviewing their progress against this, that collaborations can ever hope to perform (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012).”
Zandvoort, M., van der Brugge, R., van der Vlist, M. J., et al. (2018) · Journal of Environmental Planning and Management · doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1409196 · Cited by 30
“This contrasts with an approach based on a full assessment of the different elements in a collaborative governance setting (e.g. Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2011) or collaborative planning (Healey 2007; Innes and Booher 2010).”
BackgroundMethodHall, T., Kakuma, R., Palmer, L. R., Minas, H., Martins, J. S., & Armstrong, G. (2019) · International Journal of Mental Health Systems · doi:10.1186/s13033-019-0328-1 · Cited by 30
Why does network governance fail in managing post-disaster conditions in the Philippines?
Jovita, H., Nurmandi, A., Mutiarin, D., et al. (2018) · Jàmbá Journal of Disaster Risk Studies · doi:10.4102/jamba.v10i1.585 · Cited by 29
Collaborative Policymaking: a qualitative systematic review of advice for policymakers
Cairney, P., & Toomey, C. (2024) · Open Research Europe · doi:10.12688/openreseurope.18440.1 · Cited by 28
“Ideally, participants engage enough to build up mutual trust, then understand and learn from each other, make choices that all accept or respect, and become more committed as the rewards from this process are increasingly clear (Koebele, 2020: 731, citing Emerson et al. , 2012).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Syracuse University (US)
- State University of New York (US)
- Corresponding author
- Emerson, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-05-02
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-29
- ISSN
- 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9803
- OpenAlex
- W2163699426
- Cited by
- 3,637
- References
- 129
- Citations by year
- 2026: 513 · 2025: 372 · 2024: 366 · 2023: 432 · 2022: 317 · 2021: 306 · 2020: 341 · 2019: 230 · 2018: 202 · 2017: 159 · 2016: 140 · 2015: 100 · 2014: 81 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 31
- FWCI
- 155.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Syracuse University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
- Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Local Governance and Planning
- Keywords
- collaborative governance, integrative framework, intergovernmental cooperation, regional cooperation, public-private partnerships, conflict resolution, institutional arrangements, multi-level governance
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
