Participants may lose faith in collaborative governance processes if they do not perceive internal decision-making processes to be legitimate. Yet, understanding how to assess internal legitimacy, and what network characteristics are associated with it has been an enduring challenge. In this paper, we propose conceptualizing internal legitimacy as multi-vectored, contrasting input legitimacy—the degree of openness and access that participants experience in their attempt to offer voice—with throughput legitimacy—the quality of the decision-making process itself. Using data from a comparative case study of 18 different HUD-mandated Continuums of Care, we assess this framework with a mixed methods approach, combining thematic analysis of interview data (n=145) with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to show (1) differences in how participants experience input and throughput legitimacy, (2) the nature of the relationship between input and throughput legitimacy, and (3) what specific network characteristics are associated with positive assessments of each. Our findings indicate that input and throughput legitimacy are distinct but related—throughput legitimacy is harder to achieve and dependent on positive assessments of input legitimacy. Some network characteristics, particularly large size and commissioner-style network management, pose challenges, but a focus on in-person engagement can help ameliorate them. We conclude that distinguishing between input and throughput legitimacy can help managers identify where and how to intervene in order to improve the legitimacy of decision-making processes in collaborative governance networks.

No abstract

, and WissenschaftsZentrum Berlin for excellent questions and suggestions. We are particularly grateful to Chris Bidner for an excellent discussion of an earlier version of the present manuscript.

No abstract

We study how donors decide which charity to give to. To this end, we construct a theoretical model that clarifies the conditions in which the stand-alone benefit from giving, price of giving, and cost of information acquisition inform giving decisions. The model shows that giving decisions are affected by a price-cost trade-off -a condition where donors care about the price of giving because they want their donations to maximise charitable output, but dislike searching for the price of giving because it is costly. The literature is then reviewed to test the explanatory power of the theoretical model: it seems to support the conjecture that a price-cost trade-off informs donors' giving decisions.