Decision-Making in Collaborative Governance Networks: Pathways to Input and Throughput Legitimacy

Abstract

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.

Private citizens, stakeholder groups, or governments? Perceived legitimacy and participation in water collaborative governance

“…Scharpf (1999) makes an important contribution to the literature in distinguishing between input-oriented sources of legitimacy (legitimacy derived from participation, inclusion, transparency, and accountability; Hogl et al, 2012a) and output-oriented sources (legitimacy derived from effectiveness). Subsequent work has emphasized that input and output legitimacy are closely interrelated, and both are needed in parallel to achieve and maintain legitimacy (Hogl et al, 2012a;Mosley & Wong, 2021;Wolf, 2002). Input and output legitimacy can be further broken down into component parts, as several more recent studies have explored (Edwards, 2016;Hogl et al, 2012b;Leach, 2006;Mosley & Wong, 2021;Orr et al, 2016).…”

“…Subsequent work has emphasized that input and output legitimacy are closely interrelated, and both are needed in parallel to achieve and maintain legitimacy (Hogl et al, 2012a;Mosley & Wong, 2021;Wolf, 2002). Input and output legitimacy can be further broken down into component parts, as several more recent studies have explored (Edwards, 2016;Hogl et al, 2012b;Leach, 2006;Mosley & Wong, 2021;Orr et al, 2016). In the specific context of CG arrangements, Hogl et al (2012b) identify three main characteristics that they hypothesize to contribute to both input-and output-oriented legitimacy: enhanced participation of non-state actors; improved coordination among governance participants; and greater integration of scientific and local expertise.…”

“…Several studies have shown that input-oriented legitimacy and output-oriented legitimacy, in the ability of the institution to achieve its stated goals, must co-exist (Hogl et al, 2012b;Mosley & Wong, 2021;Wolf, 2002). This understanding reflects Suchman's definition of legitimacy, highlighting that an institution must both have goals that are considered "desirable, proper, or appropriate" (1995, p. 574) (established through a process with input legitimacy), and must be able to take action to achieve those goals in a way that does not unduly waste time and resources (Weatherford, 1992).…”

“…However, the literature on CG in the US has typically explored the engagement of organized interest groups with the policy process rather than of average citizens. As a result, much of the existing scholarship is concerned with internal perceptions of legitimacy between the direct participants in the CG process, rather than external perceptions of the legitimacy of CG arrangements by the general public (Ansell & Gash, 2008;Birnbaum, 2016;Kallis et al, 2009;Mosley & Wong, 2021). Participation is seen as relevant to internal legitimacy through the ability of the CG structure to convene and give voice to all relevant stakeholders (Gray, 1989).…”

“…In contrast, scholarship in the "New Institutional" field, more commonly applied in European contexts, has focused more on the external legitimacy of CG arrangements and suggested that the participation of non-governmental actors may erode perceptions of legitimacy founded on democratic norms and elected representation for the general public (Birnbaum, 2016;Mosley & Wong, 2021;Sørensen & Torfing, 2016;van Buuren et al, 2012). Particularly in the case of environmental management, delegation of authority to unelected officials or interested stakeholders and bureaucratization of policymaking may erode perceived legitimacy in terms of the accountability and representativeness of the policy decisions enacted (Lemos & Agrawal, 2006;Newig et al, 2018;Plummer et al, 2013).…”