Antecedents, process, and equity outcomes: A study about collaborative governance

Tonelli, Dany Flávio; Sant’Anna, Lindsay; Abbud, Elenice Barcelar; de Souza, Suelen Aparecida Article Antecedents, process, and equity outcomes: A study about collaborative governance Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Tonelli, Dany Flávio; Sant’Anna, Lindsay; Abbud, Elenice Barcelar; de Souza, Suelen Aparecida (2018) : Antecedents, process, and equity outcomes: A study about collaborative governance, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 5, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/206068 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ MANAGEMENT | REVIEW ARTICLE Antecedents, process, and equity outcomes: A study about collaborative governance Dany Flávio Tonelli 1 *, Lindsay Sant’Anna 2 , Elenice Barcelar Abbud 1 and Suelen Aparecida de Souza 3 Abstract: The purpose of the present study is to draw a general structure, based on a scoping literature review, to better understand the collaborative governance, as well as their elements and complexity. After defining the search meshes and selecting the criteria to apply, 35 papers about were found in the Web of Knowledge®database. The analysis identified its central elements and features, in terms of Antecedents, Collaboration Process, and Equity Outcomes, each of them with its properties. The study highlights the properties of each category, and it provides the possibility to improve the quality of the decision-making processes in collaborative arrangements. Subjects: Political Studies; Community Planning and Planning Techniques; Business, Management and Accounting Keywords: public–private partnerships; collaboration process; scoping review; public policy management ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dany Flávio Tonelli is a Professor of Public Administration in the Department of Administration and Economics of the Federal University of Lavras (DAE-UFLA), vice dean of Extension and Culture (PROEC-UFLA), and Coordinator of Technological and Social Development (CODETS-UFLA). Tonelli’s research focuses on the (i) innovation in the public sector and innovation policy; (ii) technology-based entrepreneurship in the context of public research institutions; (iii) collaborative arrangements and public management technologies; and (iv) other topics relating science, technology, innovation, and society. The present paper related to the collaborative arrangements, specifically with the project Science Parks in Brazil: Guidelines for a model of collaborative management. The co-authors Lindsay Sant’anna, Elenice Abbud and Suelen Souza are participants of the research group which investigated the theoretical approach of collaborative management applied to Science Parks. Besides this effort, the group continues working on empirical applications of the model developed in the present paper. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT The public administration structure is not able to deliver alone all the services that the society demands. This aspect is crucial in the current world, which requires efforts to approximate the public and the private organizations to solve the critical problems of the society. The collaborative governance is a way to provide mechanisms of relationships between different organizations, including the public and private sectors. However, the literature is extensive, challenging the use of the concept in the day-to-day, which motivated to elaborate the following question: What are the principal elements of collaborative governance? To answer this question, the authors immersed in the literature to enumerate central elements and to order then in an input, process, and outputs model. We think that the model will help the decision-making process based on the collaborative governance. Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 © 2018 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Received: 12 February 2018 Accepted: 22 April 2018 First Published: 10 May 2018 *Corresponding author: Dany Flávio Tonelli, Department of Administration and Economy, Federal University of Lavras –Brazil, Universidade Federal de Lavras – UFLA, Departamento de Administração e Economia, Campus Universitário, Caixa Postal, Lavras, MG 3037, Brazil E-mail: [email protected] Additional information is available at the end of the article Page 1 of 17 1. Introduction A new governance approach has taken place within the State and non-State relationship contexts. Such approach concerns the temporary arrangements between the public and private actors responsible for collective decision-making processes applied to public demands (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Ulibarri, 2015; Van Oortmerssen, Van Woerkum, & Aarts, 2014). According to Bingham (2010) and Purdy (2012), the collaborative governance emerges from public policies focused on replacing traditional commands and control approaches. Purdy (2012) and Siddiki, Carboni, Koski, and Sadiq (2015) highlight that participation makes the collaborative processes more responsive to complex situations and the acceptance of public deliberations more comfortable in comparison to the traditional governance procedures. Many studies about the topic above do not use to provide functional analyses about the performance of collaborative processes, despite the literature contributions to the development of a collaborative governance approach Bingham (2010), for instance, highlights the lack of consensus in the literature about the best collaborative practices. Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012) and Sullivan, Barnes, and Matka (2006) emphasize that, although the efforts of presenting many interactive components of collaborative governance regimes, it is not necessary using all of them, all the time, and in the same degree of extent. There is a noticeable gap in the literature, which is expressed through the need of better understanding how to analyze the collaborative governance regimes and how to assess the essential elements in each scenario. Bingham (2010) affirms there is no consensus about how to construct the best practices in collaborative governance. Beyond, Emerson et al. (2012) emphasize there is the need for future investigations to identify what components are essential to a successful collaborative process and how to identify the level of the collaboration. By presenting a bibliographical revision and proposing a structure to attribute an organized comprehension about the issue, this paper searches to fulfill part of the gap. The current study aims to contribute to broadening the understanding of collaborative governance through the identification of the central elements of collaborative arrangements. Thegoal,basedonascopingliteraturereview,isto propose a theoretical structure that makes it possible understanding the collaborative arrangements, as well as their elements and complexity. The central question is: what are the main topics and tendencies of the collaborative governance field? Such effort can be useful for practitioners and scholars in the development of appropriate institutional arrangements, such as the core aspects of the collaborative phenomenon. The second part of the current study regards the phenomenon of the collaborative governance from the literature. The third one justifies the choice made for the herein adopted research method and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Next, the findings are presented in such a way that the understanding of the collaborative governance regimes and their properties gets more clarified. The discussion about the study implications and the conclusion offer some reflections necessary for future improvements in research and public management. 2. Collaborative governance in public administration The collaborative governance locus and focus was defined in a view to attribute a plain sense to it. The locus is the space where the government relationship with other social actors takes place. Besides the State participation, the public management system often demands broader civil society and market participation (Agrawal & Lemos, 2007). Governance is not limited to the administrative machine or the State apparatus in the state sector, but it consists of multiple interactions between State and society (Kissler & Heidemann, 2006). Accordingly, relatively new perspective premises that governments can be as entities inserted in an intricate techno-political process comprising other social actors, such as companies, non-profit organizations, and civil society. A broad discussion about public governance and its variations emerged in the late 1980s (Bovaird, 2005), and the influence of non-governmental actors on public management Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 Page 2 of 17 networks grew ever since (Bache & Flinders, 2004; Bovaird, 2005). Public policies are no longer limited to governmental entities since they are shaped by and become relevant to the management of networks composed of different actors; although, each of these actors has its interests, resources, and expertise (Crosby, 1999). Regarding focus, governance is like a set of laws and management practices limiting and allowing the public provision of assets and services (Lynn and Hill, 2001). It also concerns changes in the traditional sense of government or in the way each society is ruled (Peters, 1997; Rhodes, 1996). According to Stoker (1998), the convergence point among scholars lies in the concept of governance as the development of a style showing no distinct edges (in and outside the public and private sectors). Brown, Gong, and Jing (2012) highlight that this movement launches an alternative perspective because the uncertain boundaries between the public and private entities open a window of opportunities to actors who practice collaborative activities focused on different purposes. Many terminologies, such as collaborative process (Ansell & Gash, 2008), institutionalized participation (Freeman, 1997), collaborative capacity (Goodman et al., 1998; García-Ramírez, Paloma, SuarezBalcazar, and Balcazar (2009), coalition and collaborative partnership (Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, and Allen (2001), collaborative governance regime (Emerson et al., 2012), horizontal management (Fierlbeck, 2010), and teamwork and partnership (Sullivan et al., 2006)standoutin relevant studies about collaborative governance and help to understand the complicated interaction process that takes place among multiple actors (Mah & Hills, 2014). Bingham (2010) and Emerson et al. (2012) understand collaborative governance as a set of issues, such as civic engagement, deliberative democracy, collaborative public management, conflict solving, negotiations, and other deliberative and consensual means found in the political process, although it is not limited to them. Some of the leading collaborative governance approaches present collaborative arrangement characteristics (Ansell & Gash, 2008), assume collaborative governance as an ideal normative model (Freeman, 1997), offer the necessary conditions for collaborative partnership development (Foster-Fishman et al., 2001), address networks as governance structures and conditions to collaborative capacity building (Sullivan et al., 2006; Weber & Khademian, 2008; Weber, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2007), explore the political acceptance and the avoidance of social movements (Newman, Barnes, Sullivan, & Knops, 2004), intend to understand collaboration as a collective learning process (Mah & Hills, 2014; Saavedra & Budd, 2009;Scott,2015), and emphasize knowledge management to collaboration construction (Weber & Khademian, 2008). 3. Methodology The scoping review is an example of bibliographical study (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005), and its stages are as follows: identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The scoping reviews often present a broad question of research, may or not involve data extraction, and are more based on qualitative and typically not quantitative (Armstrong, Hall, Doyle, & Waters, 2011). As the aim of this research, Arksey and O’Malley (2005, p. 21) affirms that a reason to undertake scoping reviews is to provide “a mechanism for summarizing and disseminating research findings to policymakers, practitioners, and consumers who might otherwise lack time or resources to undertake such work themselves.” Following the protocols of scoping reviews (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005), the mesh “collaborative governance”was searched in the Web of Science (ISI) database to collect pre-reading papers. Twelve studies presenting the expression “collaborative governance”in the title proved to be relevant to the aims of the present study. Keywords, such as integrative leadership (Page, 2010), adaptive collaborative governance (McDougall & Banjade, 2015), deliberative collaborative governance (Gollagher & Hartz-Karp, 2013), collaborative capacity (Emerson & Gerlak, 2014), adaptive capacity (Cheng, Gerlak, Dale, and Mattor (2015); Emerson & Gerlak, 2014), and Consensus-building Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 Page 3 of 17 (Buuren & Nooteboom, 2010; Newman et al., 2004; Purdy, 2012) were selected after reading and analysing the 12 preliminary papers. A second search in the Web of Science database applied these keywords as meshes, what resulted in 555 documents. Figure 1shows all the steps of the research. A first filter after the 555 documents delimited them regarding fields of research. Considering the focus of the investigation, we elected the following fields: “Public Administration”OR “Government Law”OR “Sociology”OR “Social Sciences other topics.”This proceeding resulted in 97 papers (62 in Public Administration, 21 in Government Law, 7 in Sociology, and 7 in Social Science other topics). The second filter was the relevant analysis. We considered relevant analysis the papers published in periodic journals (peer-reviewed papers), which presented the expression “collaborative governance” in their abstracts. We discarded 62 documents. First, we discarded book reviews, conference papers, proceeding papers, and some papers with too specific discussion, for instance, some papers about public health. After exclusion, we choose 35 more cited papers (Table 1), which evidences the quality of the addressed approaches and to reach the number suitable to apply the content analysis. A content analysis inspired by the Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 2008) was adopted to define the categories and properties of the most relevant collaborative elements. The open line-byline coding process started after the papers in the final sample were selected; it was done to Figure 1. Research steps. Table 1. Sample of research 35 Papers more cited 1-Ansell e Gash (2008); 2-Choi e Robertson (2014a); 3-Emerson, Nabatchi, e Balogh (2012); 4-Emerson e Nabatchi (2015); 5-Foster-Fishman et al. (2001); 6-Freeman (1997); 7-Howlett (2014); 8-Mah e Hills (2014); 9Purdy (2012); 10-Siddiki et al. (2015); 11-Sullivan, Barnes e Matka (2006); 12-Tang e Tang (2014); 13-Ulibarri (2015); 14-Robertson e Choi (2012); 15-Weber, Lovrich e Gaffney (2007); 16-Johnston et al. (2011); 17-GarciaRamirez, et al.(2009); 18-Gazley (2010); 19-McDougall et al. (2013); 20-Van Oortmerssen, Van Woerkum, e Aarts (2014); 21-Newman et al. (2004); 22-Richie, Oppenheimer e Clark (2012); 23-Gazley (2010); 24-Richie, Oppenheimer e Clark (2012); 25-Shrestha (2013); 26-Buuren (2009); 27-Emerson et al. (2012); 28-Weber e Khademian (2008); 29-Garcia-Ramirez, et al. (2009); 30-Scott (2015); 31-Richie et al. (2012); 32-Bingham (2010); 33-Saavedra & Budd, (2009); 34-Fierlbeck (2010); 35-Brown, Gong e Jing (2012). Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 Page 4 of 17 extract the concepts and to reveal their properties (see Strauss and Corbin (2008) for more details about the coding process and the identification of properties and their dimensions). The collaborative governance categories were set to bring sense to identified properties, as well as to organize the content addressed in a broader, more didactic and synthetic way, as expected in scoping studies. Studies focused on broadening the meaning of collaborative arrangements can be very useful for practical analysis. Ulibarri (2015), for instance, identifies specific collaborative dynamic elements from empirical cases. These cases based on the analysis of small, medium, and high collaboration levels linked to each of the identified collaborative governance assumptions. Differently, from Ulibarri (2015), the idea in the present study is not to explore the low, medium, and high collaborative dimensions in each property, but to identify and characterize the properties, and to fit them into explanatory categories that allow their subsequent use in empirical studies. 4. Processual view of collaborative governance The collaborative arrangement categories and their properties were extracted and identified through a content analysis applied to the selected papers. These features were analyzed and determined to allow finding the collaboration process and its antecedents, as well as the expected equity outcomes. Table 2summarizes the structure used to help to understand the collaborative arrangements. One of the highlights of the analyzed papers is the evidence a processual approach. For example, Howlett (2014) says the collaborative arrangements link to a policy designing process, and Ansell and Gash (2008 p. 544) explore “a collective decision-making process.”Emerson, Natatchi, and Balogh (2012, p. 2) highlight the “public policy making and management processes and structures”; and Gazley (2010 p. 654) states that a co-labor is “a process to facilitate and operate multiorganizational arrangements able to solve effort-requiring problems.”Other authors evidence a dialogic process (Johnston, Hicks, Nan, & Auer, 2011); and a process that can be monitored for equity outcomes (McDougall, Jiggins, Pandit, Thapa Magar Rana, & Leeuwis, 2013). It is the reason for putting the processual view in the center of the structure for explaining the literature about the issue. 4.1. Antecedents The antecedents are the collaboration process inputs, which can be the values and ideas of residents engaged in a community (Page, 2010) or of stakeholders involved in a collective decision-making process (Ulibarri, 2015). However, these inputs are the basis from where the collaborative process lies on and produces results. 4.1.1. Multiple actors The main collaborative governance feature lies on the grouping of many public and private agents who have different skills (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015; Emerson et al., 2012; Mah & Hills, 2014; Siddiki et al., 2015; Sullivan et al., 2006; Tang & Tang, 2014; Ulibarri, 2015). Such multiplicity of actors enriches the decision-making process and broadens the possibilities of having actions taken through collaborative networks (Choi & Robertson, 2014a; Foster-Fishman et al., 2001). Howlett (2014) explains that, although these actors have different interests, resources, knowledge and information, the new design for public policy orientation concerns their interaction throughout time. Besides, Freeman (1997) pinpoints that the presence of multiple actors reinforces the collaborative process legitimacy, since the grouping of different perceptions may lead either to the best solutions and rules or the construction of accountability instruments. Such multiplicity of actors is so essential that the interaction between them may happen before the formal collaboration construction because they define the initial collaborative process project. 4.1.2. Common goals Although the actors have different interests, they must have a common focus, awareness, and goals to accomplish the successful collaboration (García-Ramírez et al., 2009;Mah&Hills, 2014;Weber&Khademian,2008; Weber et al., 2007). They must have shared goals so that Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 Page 5 of 17 Table 2. Properties for collaborative governance based on the scoping study Stages Properties The influence over the quality/nature of: Authors Antecedents Multiple actors Decision-making process; resources access Ansell and Gash (2008); Choi and Robertson (2014a); Emerson et al. (2012); Emerson and Nabatchi (2015); FosterFishman et al. (2001); Freeman (1997); Howlett (2014); Mah and Hills (2014); Purdy (2012); Siddiki et al. (2015); Sullivan et al. (2006); Tang and Tang (2014); Ulibarri (2015). Common goals Collective gains; and power balanced Ansell and Gash (2008); Foster-Fishman et al. (2001); Emerson and Nabatchi (2015); Emerson et al. (2012); GarcíaRamírez et al. (2009); Mah and Hills (2014); Purdy (2012); Weber and Khademian (2008); Weber et al. (2007). Facilitative leadership Achieving results; solving conflicts; including motivating actors Ansell and Gash (2008); Buuren (2009); Choi and Robertson (2014a); Emerson et al. (2012); Foster-Fishman et al. (2001); Page (2010); Purdy (2012); Richie et al. (2012); Robertson and Choi (2012); Weber and Khademian (2008); Weber et al. (2007); Ulibarri (2015). Preliminary rules Behavior and role of actors; the relationship between actors Ansell and Gash (2008); Foster-Fishman et al. (2001); Freeman (1997); Gazley (2010); Richie et al. (2012); Shrestha (2013); Siddiki et al. (2015); Ulibarri (2015). Interdependence perception Skills; information access Ansell and Gash (2008); Choi and Robertson (2014a); Freedman (1997); Emerson et al. (2012); Newman et al. (2004); Robertson and Choi (2012); Siddiki et al. (2015); Tang and Tang (2014); Weber et al. (2007). Initial investment Tangible and intangible resources Emerson and Nabatchi (2015); Emerson et al. (2012); Foster-Fishman et al. (2001); Gazley (2010); Mah and Hills (2014); Purdy (2012); Scott (2015); Tang and Tang (2014); Weber and Khademian (2008); Weber et al. (2007). (Continued) Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 Page 6 of 17 Table 2. (Continued) Stages Properties The influence over the quality/nature of: Authors Collaboration Process Inclusive deliberative process Democratic process; active participation; legitimacy of the decision-making processes Ansell and Gash (2008); Choi and Robertson (2014a); Choi and Robertson (2014b); Elías and Alkadry (2011); Emerson and Nabatchi (2015);Foster-Fishman et al. (2001); Freeman (1997); Johnston et al. (2011); McDougall et al. (2013); Mah and Hills (2014); Newman et al. (2004); Purdy (2012); Richie et al. (2012); Robertson and Choi (2012); Sullivan et al. (2006); Weber and Khademian (2008); Ulibarri (2015); Van Oortmerssen et al. (2014). Commitment to the process Maintenance of collaboration and coalition perception; permanent motivation; innovation Ansell and Gash (2008), Emerson et al. (2012); Foster-Fishman et al. (2001); Johnston et al. (2011); Sullivan et al., 2006; Weber et al. (2007). Trust building Active collaboration; collaboration experiences; motivation of actors Ansell and Gash (2008); Johnston et al. (2011); García-Ramírez et al. (2009); Gazley (2010); McDougall et al. (2013); Sullivan et al. (2006); Weber et al. (2007); Van Oortmerssen et al. (2014); Ulibarri (2015). Internal and external relationships Co-creation; social capital; improving collaboration potentials; networking Ansell and Gash (2008); Bingham (2010); Saavedra and Budd (2009); Emerson et al. (2012); Foster-Fishman et al. (2001); Freeman (1997); García-Ramírez et al. (2009); Siddiki et al. (2015); Shrestha (2013); Sullivan et al. (2006); Weber and Khademian (2008); Van Oortmerssen et al. (2014). Consensus building Communication; equity of interests; shared understanding Ansell & Gash, 2008; Buuren, 2009; GarcíaRamírez et al., 2009; Robertson & Choi, 2012; Weber et al. (2007). Knowledge management Sharing of information; network performance Buuren (2009); Newman et al. (2004), Rogers and Weber (2010); Weber and Khademian (2008). (Continued) Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 Page 7 of 17 the collaboration with other actors becomes crucial to succeeding (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Therefore, the intention to state that there will be no different goals between members is untrue, but mutual understanding is worth even in the face of adversities. Participants must keep the focus on collaboration since the very beginning (Emerson et al., 2012). Therefore, the actions resulting from partnerships set through collaborative regime must align with the goals leading to collaboration (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015). Divergent interests impair longlasting cooperation and cause instability in the network (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Thus, the dedicated parts need to feel like belonging to the process and trust that the results will reflect the many gains of the network rather than the achievements of particular actors (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Thus, collaboration depends on the results to pursue; therefore, it is quite relevant avoiding power unbalance and guiding members in case of possible divergences (Purdy, 2012). 4.1.3. Facilitative leadership Leaders are mediators; they are neutral citizen aiming at achieving the best collaborative governance results rather than good results for themselves or the engaged groups. According to Ansell and Gash (2008), the mediator role played by the leaders makes them crucial for trust building. Weber and Khademian (2008) state that leaders do not necessarily have to be public managers, they can be community leaders, businessmen or any other person who can transparently mediate and communicate with other actors. Leaders must be able to collaborate with andtoencourageinnovation,aswellastomotivate the development of alternative ways of solving problems (Weber & Khademian, 2008). Accordingly, Buuren (2009) emphasizes that the ability to solve complex problems is not found just in governmental authorities who know and deal with bureaucracy, it is also found in different actors, as far as they have unique organization skills. On the other hand, there are times when leadership is in the hands of governmental bodies responsible for setting and strengthening democratically constructed rules established by the group (Purdy, 2012; Richie, Oppenheimer, & Clark, 2012). According to Purdy (2012), the authority within the collaborative governance process is flexible and shared with other participants. Leadership also plays a significant role in the “inclusive deliberative process”and “trust building.”Robertson and Choi (2012) state that the leader may either wish to set an agenda that reflects the majority’s preferences to make deliberation easier or take the minority’s preferences into account to encouraging the debate. Such choices may lead to more flexible and acceptable alternatives. Table 2. (Continued) Stages Properties The influence over the quality/nature of: Authors Equity outcomes Multiple investment sources New programs; autonomy of the network; reputation. Emerson and Nabatchi (2015); Foster-Fishman et al. (2001); Shrestha (2013); Tang and Tang (2014); Weber et al. (2007). Accountability Transparency; responsibility of actors; access to the information Bingham (2010); Fierlbeck (2010); Freeman (1997); McDougall et al. (2013); Weber and Khademian (2008). Discourse and practice Coherence between discourse and behavior Purdy (2012); Weber et al. (2007). Development of new competencies (skills) Solving the new demanding challenges Emerson et al. (2012); Foster-Fishman et al. (2001); García-Ramírez et al. (2009). Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 Page 8 of 17 problems in promoting all the potential of “knowledge management.”Practices that do not to accomplish “preliminary rules”legitimated by the parts have severe difficulties in further all the potential of “knowledge management.”All of these dynamics influence the continuities or discontinuities of “trust building”and the alignment between “discourse and practice.”In the same way, the attempt to have consensus becomes impossible due to the absence of a deliberative process in which all members are equal and have the equity as expectation resulting from the collective action. The present study highlights the properties to develop in a particular arrangement and the ones that may contribute to the process, as well as those able to boost governance practices. The limitations of the study relate to its general format achieved by the chosen methodology. Scoping review depends on the researcher choices since the database to use to the documents to include. Quality criteria were implicit in the quality of the base and the journals where the papers figured. It was not an exhaustive investigation trying to answer all the question involved or propose a new theoretical approach. Instead, the objective was modest but widely significant for contributing to synthesize and promote the understanding of contemporary issue for public administration field. There are many possibilities for new research from the processual structure presented in this work. The main point to highlight is the potential to generate a model of analysis which a survey or a qualitative study can empirically test. The empirical investigation can help understanding the collaborative arrangement and identify the necessary elements to accomplish a high performance and to explore the relationship between them better. Another way to follow is to focus the attention on each property separately. Detailed research about the processual view and its properties is appropriate since little is empirically explored about collaborative governance, especially considering the equity outcomes resulting from collaboration regimes involving public and private agents. Funding This work was supported by the FAPEMIG –Foundation of Research Support of Minas Gerais State [CSA - APQ02728-16]. Author details Dany Flávio Tonelli 1 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4307-6430 Lindsay Sant’Anna 2 E-mail: [email protected] Elenice Barcelar Abbud 1 E-mail: [email protected] Suelen Aparecida de Souza 3 E-mail: [email protected] 1 Department of Administration and Economy, Federal University of Lavras –Brazil, Universidade Federal de Lavras –UFLA, Departamento de Administração e Economia, Lavras, Brazil. 2 Department of Administration and Economy, Federal University of Lavras –Brazil, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Departamento de Administração e Economia, Lavras, Brazil. 3 Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Brazil. Citation information Cite this article as: Antecedents, process, and equity outcomes: A study about collaborative governance, Dany Flávio Tonelli, Lindsay Sant’Anna, Elenice Barcelar Abbud & Suelen Aparecida de Souza, Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381. References Agrawal, A., & Lemos, M. C. (2007). Greener revolution in the making? Environmental governance in the 21st century. Environment,49(5), 36–45. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,18(4), 543–571. doi:10.1093/ jopart/mum032 Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,8(1), 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 Armstrong, R., Hall, B. J., Doyle, J., & Waters, E. (2011). ‘Scoping the scope’of a cochrane review. Journal of Public Health,33(1), 147–150. doi:10.1093/pubmed/ fdr015 Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (2004). Multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bingham, L. B. (2010). The next generation of administrative law: Building the legal infrastructure for collaborative governance. Wisconsin Law Review,2, 297–356. Bovaird, T. (2005). Public governance: Balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences,71(2), 217–228. doi:10.1177/0020852305053881 Brown, T. L., Gong, T., & Jing, Y. J. (2012). Collaborative governance in mainland China and Hong Kong: Introductory essay. International Public Management Journal,15(4), 393–404. Buuren, A. V., & Nooteboom, S. (2010). The success of SEA in the Dutch planning practice how formal assessments can contribute to collaborative governance. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,30(2), 127–135. doi:10.1016/j. eiar.2009.05.007 Cheng, A. S., Gerlak, A. K., Dale, L., & Mattor, K. (2015). Examining the adaptability of collaborative governance associated with publicly managed ecosystems over time: Insights from the Front Range Roundtable, Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 Page 15 of 17 Colorado, USA. Ecology and Society,20(1), 35. doi:10.5751/ES-07187-200135 Choi, T., & Robertson, P. J. (2014a). Caucuses in collaborative governance: Modeling the effects of structure, power, and problem complexity. International Public Management Journal,17(2), 224–254. doi:10.1080/10967494.2014.905 398 Choi, T., & Robertson, P. J. (2014b). Deliberation and decision in collaborative governance: A simulation of approaches to mitigate power imbalance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,24(2), 495–518. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut003 Crosby, B. C. (1999). Leadership for global citizenship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Elías, M. V., & Alkadry, M. G. (2011). Constructive conflict, participation, and shared governance. Administration & Society,43(8), 869–895. doi:10.1177/ 0095399711422495 Emerson, K., & Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Adaptation in collaborative governance regimes. Environmental Management,54(4), 768–781. doi:10.1007/s00267014-0334-7 Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes: A performance matrix. Public Performance & Management Review,38(4), 717–747. doi:10.1080/ 15309576.2015.1031016 Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur011 Fierlbeck, K. (2010). Public health and collaborative governance. Canadian Public Administration,53(1), 1–19. doi:10.1111/(ISSN)1754-7121 Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology,29(2), 241–261. doi:10.1023/ A:1010378613583 Freeman, J. (1997). Collaborative governance in the administrative state. UCLA Law Review,45(1), 1–98. García-Ramírez, M., Paloma, V., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., & Balcazar, F. (2009). Building international collaborative capacity: Contributions of community psychologists to a European network. American Journal of Community Psychology,44(1–2), 116–122. doi:10.1007/s10464-009-9247-7 Gazley, B. (2010). Linking collaborative capacity to performance measurement in government-nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,39(4), 653–673. doi:10.1177/ 0899764009360823 Gollagher, M., & Hartz-Karp, J. (2013). The role of deliberative collaborative governance in achieving sustainable cities. Sustainability,5(6), 2343–2366. doi:10.3390/su5062343 Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., . . . Wallerstein, N. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education and Behavior,25(3), 258–278. doi:10.1177/109019819802500303 Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’to the ‘new’policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences,47(3), 187–207. doi:10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0 Johnston, E. W., Hicks, D., Nan, N., & Auer, J. C. (2011). Managing the inclusion process in collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,21(4), 699–721. doi:10.1093/jopart/ muq045 Kissler, L., & Heidemann, F. (2006). Governança pública: Novo modelo regulatório para as relações entre Estado, mercado e sociedade? Revista de Administração Pública,40(3), 479–499. doi:10.1590/ S0034-76122006000300008 Lynn, L. E., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2001). Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press. Mah, D. N. Y., & Hills, P. (2014). Collaborative governance for technological innovation: A comparative case study of wind energy in Xinjiang, Shanghai, and Guangdong. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,32(3), 509–529. doi:10.1068/ c11101 McDougall, C., & Banjade, M. R. (2015). Social capital. Conflict, and adaptive collaborative governance: Exploring the dialectic. Ecology and Society,20(1), 44. McDougall, C., Jiggins, J., Pandit, B. H., Thapa Magar Rana, S. K., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). Does adaptive collaborative forest governance affect poverty? Participatory action research in Nepal’s community forests. Society & Natural Resources,26(11), 1235–1251. doi:10.1080/ 08941920.2013.779344 Newman, J., Barnes, M., Sullivan, H., & Knops, A. (2004). Public participation and collaborative governance. Journal of Social Policy,33, 203–223. doi:10.1017/ S0047279403007499 Page, S. (2010). Integrative leadership for collaborative governance: Civic engagement in Seattle. The Leadership Quarterly,21(2), 246–263. doi:10.1016/j. leaqua.2010.01.005 Peters,G.(1997). Shouldn’tr ow,can’tsteer:What’sa government to do? Public Policy and Administration,12(2), 51–61. doi:10.1177/ 095207679701200205 Purdy, J. M. (2012). A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public Administration Review,72(3), 409–417. doi:10.1111/ j.1540-6210.2011.02525.x Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies,44(4), 652– 667. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x Richie, L., Oppenheimer, J. D., & Clark, S. G. (2012). Social process in grizzly bear management: Lessons for collaborative governance and natural resource policy. Policy Sciences,45(3), 265–291. doi:10.1007/ s11077-012-9160-z Robertson,P.J.,&Choi,T.(2012). Deliberation, consensus, and stakeholder satisfaction a simulation of collaborative governance. Public Management Review,14(1), 83–103. doi:10.1080/ 14719037.2011.589619 Rogers, E., & Weber, E. P. (2010). Thinking harder about outcomes for collaborative governance arrangements. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(5), 546–567. doi:10.1177/0275074009359024 Saavedra, C., & Budd, W. W. (2009). Climate change and environmental planning: Working to build community resilience and adaptive capacity in Washington State, USA. Habitat International,33(3), 246–252. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.004 Scott, T. (2015). ‘Does collaboration make any difference?’ Linking collaborative governance to environmental outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(3), 537–566. doi:10.1002/pam.21836 Shrestha, M. K. (2013). ‘Internal versus external social capital and the success of community initiatives’:A case of self-organizing collaborative governance in Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 Page 16 of 17 Nepal. Public Administration Review,73(1), 154–164. doi:10.1111/puar.2013.73.issue-1 Siddiki, S. N., Carboni, J. L., Koski, C., & Sadiq, A.-A. (2015). How policy rules shape the structure and performance of collaborative governance arrangements. Public Administration Review,75(4), 536–547. doi:10.1111/puar.12352 Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. (Governance issue). International Social Science Journal,50(155), 17–28. doi:10.1111/issj.1998.50. issue-155 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Pesquisa qualitativa: Técnicas e procedimentos para o desenvolvimento de teoria fundamentada (2nd ed.). Porto Alegre: Artmed. Sullivan, H., Barnes, M., & Matka, E. (2006). Collaborative capacity and strategies in area-based initiatives. Public Administration,84(2), 289–310. doi:10.1111/ padm.2006.84.issue-2 Tang, C.-P., & Tang, S.-Y. (2014). Managing incentive dynamics for collaborative governance in land and ecological conservation. Public Administration Review,74(2), 220–231. doi:10.1111/puar.2014.74. issue-2 Ulibarri, N. (2015). Tracing process to performance of collaborative governance: A comparative case study of federal hydropower licensing. Policy Studies Journal,43(2), 283–308. doi:10.1111/psj.12096 Van Oortmerssen, L. A., Van Woerkum, C. M. J., & Aarts, N. (2014). The visibility of trust: Exploring the connection between trust and interaction in a Dutch collaborative governance boardroom. Public Management Review,16(5), 666–685. doi:10.1080/ 14719037.2012.743578 Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review,68(2), 334–349. doi:10.1111/ puar.2008.68.issue-2 Weber, E. P., Lovrich, N. P., & Gaffney, M. J. (2007). Assessing collaborative capacity in a multidimensional world. Administration & Society,39(2), 194– 220. doi:10.1177/0095399706297213 © 2018 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a CreativeCommons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share —copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt —remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution —You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: •Immediate, universal access to your article on publication •High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online •Download and citation statistics for your article •Rapid online publication •Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards •Retention of full copyright of your article •Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article •Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Tonelli et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1469381 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469381 Page 17 of 17