Rethinking Perspectives of Power in Collaborative Governance

Abstract

Power is an important concept in understanding collaborative governance, however, the existing research is largely dominated by the functional and critical perspectives of power. Aided by a conceptual content analysis of power used in collaborative governance literature in the top public administration journals, we viewed power as a family resemblance concept that should be conceptualized through four perspectives: functional, critical, social construction, and pragmatic. We provide elaboration of each of these four perspectives and propose counterarguments to assumptions that have arisen due to the reliance on a functional or critical perspective of power. We conclude that viewing power as a family resemblance concept with at least four perspectives offers collaborative governance researchers the ability to adopt the best perspective that is the most useful for their analysis and most helpful for public administrators to understand power in their collaborative efforts.

Using Collaborative Governance to Regulate Sober Living Facilities: Structures and Strategies for Mitigating the Influence of Powerful Actors in Multi-Sectoral Networks

“…They include having inadequate administrative capacity (Andrews & Entwistle, 2010; Varda et al, 2012) or ill-defined purposes for collaborating (Hill & Lynn, 2003; Shortell et al, 2002), excluding important stakeholders (Ansell & Gash, 2008), and only symbolically seeking policy advice (Bevir, 2011). Another commonly cited, yet understudied concern is the effect of power dynamics or group overrepresentation within the collaborative network (Hafer et al, 2022; Purdy, 2012; Ran & Qi, 2018).…”

“…Other scholars have used different conceptualizations of power. Drawing on structuration theory (Crosby & Bryson, 2005), family resemblance concepts (Hafer et al, 2022), and the contingency framework (Ran & Qi, 2018), scholars have examined the different ways that power can be understood within collaborations. While differences exist on how power is conceptualized and the factors influencing power in this context, researchers agree that power in collaborations is multidimensional and complex (Hafer et al, 2022; Purdy, 2012) and that power imbalances need to be addressed within collaborative governance (Huxham et al, 2000; Provan & Milward, 2001; Purdy, 2012; Ran & Qi, 2018, 2019; Stout & Keast, 2021).…”

Issue Introduction

“…Our final research article offers a variety of perspectives of power and its role in understanding collaborative governance. Specifically, Hafer et al (2022) analyzed the content of articles recently published in the top 48 public administration journals to determine how such research views the concept of power. The authors find that extant research conceptualizes power from functional and critical perspectives, which is somewhat limiting our understanding of power dynamics and potential imbalances.…”

Rethinking Civil-Military Collaboration: A Relational Practice Approach to Total Defense in Sweden

“…On the latter, it is argued that stakeholder skills, experiences, interests and resources are distributed unevenly (Agranoff 2018:143;Purdy 2012;Ran & Qi 2019), and that therefore collaboration runs the risk of becoming an arena for conflict and power struggle (Gray 2004;Purdy 2012). However, power is often treated as an observable resource that can be manipulated to remove power imbalances that are assumed to be harmful to collaboration (Bryson et al 2006;Hafer, Ran & Hossain 2022;McGuire & Agranoff 2011;Purdy 2012). Doing so risks oversimplifying the particularities of how power operates relationally in and through practice beyond its mere "existence among actors" (e.g.…”

“…This chapter analyzes another major relational dynamic of the total defense field that shapes civil-military collaboration: the struggle over symbolic capital. In previous research on the prerequisites for civil-military collaboration, power is often treated as a resource or capability that can be manipulated to remove power imbalances which are assumed to be harmful to collaboration (Bryson et al 2006;Hafer, Ran & Hossain 2022;McGuire & Agranoff 2011;Purdy 2012). Doing so risks oversimplifying the particularities of how power operates relationally in and through practice beyond its mere "existence among actors" (e.g.…”