Skip to main content

Collaborative Governance in Action

Government: one participant amongst many

In a previous post we highlighted the need to go beyond voting for robust democratic participation. But if that's the case then the question becomes - how? Where do we create places for collaboration, discussion, and dialogue surrounding key issues facing our communities?

One possibility is to set up opportunities for collaborative governance. Now remember, governance is distinct from government; governance refers to decision-making practices and structures, and also the broader systems in which decisions about our communities are made. A government is a specific entity endowed with decision-making authority over something.

Collaborative governance simply refers to decision-making where multiple different organizations are involved. In these forums, governments are one of the participants amongst many, as opposed to being the sole arbiter over final decisions. Decision-making takes place between both state and non-state entities, and authority is shared horizontally across all participants, whether they're government participants or not.
Where these collaborative tables are set up, they enable information sharing and coordination over complex policy areas. Notably, community issues that impact multiple organizations, and that are beyond the scope of any single entity, can be tackled collectively by multiple partners.

Examples of collaborative governance in the lower mainland of BC include:
All of the above efforts are collaborative tables with a wide range of participants, created to tackle complex problems. For example, Our Place is a collaboration of residents, community-based organizations, and service providers committed to ensuring that Vancouver's inner city children have every opportunity for success.

For these to work, participants have to demonstrate a high level of trust, and even some degree of vulnerability so that open sharing and dialogue can take place. Where these forums are effective the results can be powerful. One study found that 50% of the policy decisions made by a collaborative effort produced decisions that would never have been put forward in an alternative, conventional, bureaucratic approach

This finding goes beyond effectiveness. It suggests that, for some issues, the development of effective policy approaches requires places for collaborative governance to happen. 

Are there places in your community where collaborative governance is happening? If so let us know in the comments, or by email: evokebc@gmail.com
We want to support these efforts - and share the successes and challenges! 


Comments

  1. Some examples from similar efforts in the US. http://www.governing.com/commentary/col-cities-long-term-citizen-engagement.html?utm_term=Citizen%20Engagement%20for%20the%20Long%20Haul&utm_campaign=State%20Efforts%20Stall%20to%20Bring%20Back%20Obamacare%27s%20Individual%20Mandate&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email

    ReplyDelete

Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

Democracy doesn't mean you get your way - Part 1

Open Houses and Public Hearings:  Public Deliberation, not Delegated Decision-Making Unfortunately, and contrary to popular belief, showing up at an open house or public hearing does not mean you get to veto issues that are going forward to council. Quite often, participants in municipal consultation events are frustrated and disheartened that their feedback does not lead to obvious and explicit policy change. "But I live in the neighbourhood! I should be able to say what gets built, and what doesn't!" These sentiments are common, especially at the municipal level when rezoning applications are put forward, or communities are reviewing their Official Community Plans (OCP's) to accommodate new and different developments. Which begs the question - why bother holding open houses or public hearings at all? Making decisions democratically is not always straight forward. Once we get beyond foundational elements of a democratic society (rule of law, freedom

Why democracy doesn't mean you get your way - Part 2

If you do an online search of the word "democracy", you'll come across references to things like 'majority decision-making' or 'control by a majority'. Majority decision-making, and voting, are often assumed to be key features of a democracy. However: neither voting, nor control by a majority, are necessary for democratic decision-making. This may come as a shock, but there are ways for groups of people to make decisions that do not involve voting. Voting leaves very little room for nuance, for the exploration of alternatives, or for compromise between disparate perspectives. Majority decision-making, for its part, can lead to a tyranny of the majority, the oppression of minority perspectives, the polarization of opinions, and, by definition, a portion of participants whose preferences are ignored. So what's the alternative? If you're part of a group that is empowered to make a decision on some issue (a board, community group, committ

Including rational thought in decision-making: novel idea?

The post last week brought up the idea that we need to think about what concepts and ideas are put forward in the public realm. From pop music to sports to local community events, our approach to decision-making is influenced by commonly understood cultural practices. Meaningful democratic decision-making requires that we think about the practices, ideas, and values that percolate throughout society. More specifically, when it comes to engaging a group of people to get together and go through a democratic decision-making process, practitioners need to think about how participants are being, or have been, educated. By definition, democratic decision-making is not limited to specialists. "Rule by the people" means everyone gets to participate in decision-making, even about issues where we are not experts. This does not mean, however, that democratic decision-making should be approached from a place of ignorance.  Robert Dahl  emphasized the importance of  enlight