Suchergebnisse

Global diseases require collaboration at multiple scales – from local to global. This article examines the experience of three international global public health partnerships – UNAIDS, the Stop TB Partnership and the Roll Back Malaria Partnership. These partnerships must be understood as compound collaborations. Such collaboration can often exhibit a marked tension between loose and tight coupling. Strategically designed to be loose or flexible in order to build initial support, loose institutional arrangements can also render these partnerships ineffective. Focal institutions, however, can help to align and facilitate the contributions of different partners operating on different scales.

Drawing together work in comparative politics, public administration, organization theory, and economic sociology, this article describes a distinctive form of modern polity‐the 'networked polity'. In the networked polity, states are strongly embedded in society and pursue their objectives by operating through networks of societal associations. Both state agencies and societal associations take the form of 'network' or 'organic' organizations‐decentralized, team‐based organizations with strong lateral communication and coordination that crosses functional boundarieswithin and between organizations. These organizations are then linked together by means of cooperative exchange relationships around common projects. The role of the state is to empower stakeholders and facilitate cooperation among them. The concept is illustrated through an examination of regional development strategies in Western Europe.

Describes the term "networked polity", focusing on relationships between state agencies and societal organizations, organizational structure, role of state, and regional economic development strategies. Modern polity that is functionally and territorially disaggregated, but linked together and to society through a web of interorganizational and intergovernmental relationships.

AbstractInteractive routines such as collaborative performance summits are thought to help collaborating organizations assess and improve their performance. However, there is little systematic evidence to substantiate this claim. This study leverages a longitudinal dataset to examine the summit process and identify the difference between summits that have an impact on performance and those that do not. The study explicates the assumed causal process and traces 18 partnerships as they prepare, conduct, and follow‐up a summit. The analysis provides evidence for the positive impact of summits, but also shows that the process unfolds differently than expected. Neither the range of performance issues that actors bring to the summit nor the intentions for change they formulate at the end of the meeting are key differentiators. The hallmark of impactful summits emerges to be a large share of participants gaining comprehensive insights. These findings have implications for collaborative performance management research and practice.

AbstractCollaborative governance is popular among practitioners and scholars, but getting a grip on the performance of collaborations remains a challenge. Recent research has made progress by identifying appropriate performance measures, yet managing performance also requires appropriate performance routines. This article brings together insights from collaborative governance and performance management to conceptualize collaborative performance regimes; the collection of routines used by actors working together on a societal issue to explicate their goals, exchange performance information, examine progress, and explore performance improvement actions. The concept of regimes is made concrete by focusing on the specific routine of organizing a collaborative performance summit; a periodic gathering where partners review their joint performance. Such summits are both manifestations of the performance regime and potential turning points for regime change. Using three local public health collaborations as illustration, this article offers a framework for understanding collaborative performance regimes, summits, and the dynamics between them.

Modern societies are increasingly faced with "unknown unknowns," Black Swans, and mega-crises. Both public and corporate leaders find it deeply challenging to respond to these crisis events. Existing approaches and tools to cope with crisis-induced uncertainty are of little help in these dynamic environments. This article explores how the principles of Pragmatism may provide the building blocks for a theory of effective strategic crisis management. We argue that these principles, formulated by a group of American philosophers in a time of deep uncertainty, provide a way of thinking that will help practitioners prepare for, and deal with, emerging risks, crises, and disasters.

Scale is an overlooked issue in the literature on interactive governance. This special issue investigates the challenges posed by the scale and scaling of network and collaborative forms of governance. Our original motivation arose from a concern about whether collaborative governance can scale up. As we learned more, our inquiry expanded to include the tensions inherent in collaboration across scales or at multiple scales and the issue of dynamically scaling collaboration to adapt to changing problems and demands. The diverse cases in this special issue explore these challenges in a range of concrete empirical domains than span the globe.