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

Who gets to decide when it comes to Community Amenity Contributions?

This week we're approaching candidates in the upcoming Vancouver municipal election to get their feedback on the city's approach to Community Amenity Contributions (CACs). The Evoke team undertook a case study and research project in this area, and believes these could be better approached. Candidate responses will be posted on this site, meanwhile, here's some background on our perspective. 
The City of Vancouver has a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) policy, officially established in 2004 with their Financing Growth strategy, where all new development and rezoning applications contribute, financially or in-kind, to community amenities. The CACs are extracted from new development and spent upon Council approval in a number of valuable areas such as: affordable housing, child care, amenities, green spaces, community infrastructure and other public goods.
Our research focuses on a key dimension related to CACs; although they are derived from value created within a neighb…

Does an efficient public service destroy community accountability?

New Public Management is an approach to running public service organizations (government services), and civil service generally, focused on service delivery that is efficient, business-like, and that incorporates market based principles. It includes management techniques and practices drawn from the private sector, allowing public servants to contract out services through competitive contracting, and focused on the professionalized delivery of public services.

The problem is...this approach may result in a loss to democratic accountability.

In a previous post we outlined two key dimensions to accountability; 1) understanding and monitoring decisions that are made, and 2) access to trustworthy information. Public administration, and the notion of public service, was traditionally focused on accountability to constituents via centralized control, and reporting to, defined government ministries and departments. This model is far from perfect; centralized bureaucracies are problematic in …