Collaborative Mechanisms in Interlocal Cooperation

Ulibarri

Regulation & Governance

2018

Regulation increasingly mandates collaborative approaches to increase stakeholder input and streamline approval processes. However, understanding how to maintain stakeholder involvement over the course of a long collaborative process is vital to optimize effectiveness. This paper observes more than 700 stakeholders involved in developing and implementing a dam operating license over 16 years. We use text mining and Bayesian hierarchical modeling to observe meeting attendance and recorded actions in meeting minutes. We find that involvement decreased after the initial planning phase, but steadily increased through license development and implementation. After the regulatory mandate to consult with external stakeholders dissolved, overall attendance declined while attendance stability increased, meaning that the non‐mandatory stage involved a smaller cadre of dedicated actors. This indicates that high‐performing mandated stakeholder involvement processes rely on a constrained group of conveners to sustain interaction and have less turnover than what might be expected given existing evidence from grassroots involvement; assumptions about group dynamics based on involvement in grassroots processes may lead to improper predictions about who will participate, and how, in processes where stakeholder involvement is mandated.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder involvement in collaborative regulatory processes: Using automated coding to track attendance and actions

Ulibarri

Regulation & Governance

2018

The American Review of Public Administration

“…2 The dominance of the metropolitan region in conversations about cross-boundary organizations like RIGOs is unlike discussions of other tools state and local governments exercise to promote collaboration across boundaries. Scholars frequently study interlocal agreements across rural, suburban, and urban areas (Blair & Janousek, 2013;Chen & Thurmaier, 2008;Leroux & Carr, 2007). Explanations for the rapid expansion of special districts also have not been limited to only metropolitan regions (Bollens, 1986;Coyle McCabe, 2000).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regionalism With and Without Metropolitanism: Governance Structures of Rural and Non-Rural Regional Intergovernmental Organizations

Rickabaugh

2020

While prior scholarship has investigated many tools for regional governance across the rural-to-urban spectrum, the literature on regional organizations (councils of governments, planning district commissions, etc.) has been dominated by metropolitan regions. As a result, we know very little about the plethora of these regional organizations serving rural local governments. The omission of rural regions as a control variable from this conversation limits our ability to determine what traits are truly intergovernmental across this spectrum and what traits are specific to metropolitan and rural regions. Using a new, nationwide database of Regional Intergovernmental Organizations (RIGOs) and original governance documents, I present two unexpected empirical similarities between rural and non-rural RIGOs. First, I demonstrate that the quantity and relative dominance of the local governments within the territorial footprint of rural and non-rural RIGOs are nearly identical when population is held constant. Given the smaller populations within most rural RIGOs, this finding raises serious questions about how limited capacity is diffused and the need for multijurisdictional collaboration in rural areas. Second, I demonstrate that rural and non-rural RIGOs do not substantially differ in the way representational rights are apportioned to local governments on RIGO governing boards. Both rural and non-rural RIGOs similarly balance institutional membership with population proportionality in these collective choice arrangements. This evidence supports a broader intergovernmental hypothesis that an individual local government’s representational rights on a RIGO board are more likely to result from relative size differences among members than facets specific to a city–suburb dynamic.

“…B Associate professor T. Tátrai tunde.tatrai@uni-corvinus.hu 1 Department of the Institute of Business Economics, Corvinus University of Budapest, District no. 9, Fővám tér 8, 1093 Budapest, Hungary Eriksson et al (2010) emphasise that cooperative procurement procedures "have positive influence on the performance".…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9, Fővám tér 8, 1093 Budapest, Hungary Eriksson et al (2010) emphasise that cooperative procurement procedures "have positive influence on the performance". 1 Cooperative procurement means the joint development of specifications and selection criteria and the evaluation of soft parameters together. The basic idea of Eriksson et al (2010) is that the relationship between the partners in a cooperative procurement is moderated and mediated by a collaborative approach, in which the partners trust each other and are committed to common success.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint public procurement

Tátrai

2015

ERA Forum

Joint public procurement is an opportunity that first appeared with the new European Public Procurement Directives. The significance of joint public procurement should not be exaggerated, but it is important to explore its advantages, its possible applications and its occasional disadvantages. Joint public procurement can not be managed independently from the decisions or the internal organisational matters of the contracting authorities or entities. There are plenty of potential research questions that widen the scope of understanding of the joint procurement framework system. A better understanding of everyday practice could make it clear that joint implementation of projects does not directly yield cheaper and more efficient public procurement.