Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Developing a Framework for Analyzing Partnerships for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM):
An Institutional Analysis of Watershed Partnerships in the U.S.
Mark T. Imperial, Ph.D.Master of Coastal & Ocean Policy (MCOP) Program
Master of Public Administration (MPA) Program
University of North Carolina [email protected]
http://people.uncw.edu/imperialm
Presented at the conference “Design and Dynamics of Institutions for Collective Action” at Utrecht University, Netherlands November 29 – December 1, 2012
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Central Arguments• While participants in IWRM should think about
problems holistically, they should act strategically to build and manage partnerships
• Unfortunately, research tends to examine what partnerships “do” without examining the structures that shape and constrain their processes
• Getting the rules, routines, and processes right takes time and the partnership’s “structure” is likely to evolve as it confronts different challenges
• Building robust theory requires understanding partnership structure and developmental processes
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Framework for Comparative Analysis• Policy space that the partnership operates in can be
framed in terms of a set of strategic choices– Consistency of how problems are framed, comprehensiveness
(space, actors, issues, time), and the level of aggregation associated with making these choices
• Partnership structure is defined in terms of the configuration of three sets of rules– Strategic choices about the boundary, decision, and
coordination rules• 4 stage- life-cycle model draws attention to the
clusters of challenges at each developmental stage– Entrepreneurial, collectivity, formalization and control, and
elaboration of structure
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Data & Methods• Extends analysis of data collected by Imperial &
Hennessey (2000) as part of study for the NAPA– Comparative analysis of partnerships in six longitudinal case
studies of watersheds in the U.S.– More than 200 field interviews, archival records– Grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis
• Builds on wide range of theory– Framework is consistent with approach to institutional analysis
advanced by Elinor Ostrom (1990) and her colleagues– Draws on research in organizational theory, networks, and
collaboration
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Policy Space & Partnerships• Choices about what it is and what it should do
– Space (geographic scale), actors, issues, and timeframe– Typically they are organized around one or more focal
problem(s) that motivate collective action
• Who makes decisions? How are decisions made? – Need some process for aggregating preferences and making
decisions over some period of time
• What will it do? How will it get done?– How will joint actions be coordinated– Where will the resources come from– Horizontal consistency may be easier to achieve than vertical
consistency
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Dimensions of Policy Space• Consistency of Policies
– Horizontal: organizations at a particular level pursue the same policy for the same issue
– Vertical: organizations at different levels pursue the same policy for the same issue
• Comprehensiveness is viewed in terms of– Space (geographic scale), actor (proportion of actors involved),
issue (proportion of interdependent issues), and time (long range view of the consequences and ability to solve problems)
• Aggregation of Policy Preferences– Extent to which problems and policy alternatives are framed
from an “overall” perspective rather than from a particular actor
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Describing the Structure of a Collaborative Partnership
• The “structure” is produced by the configuration of 3 interrelated sets of rules (formal and informal)– Boundary: member and strategy rules– Decision: preference aggregation, distribution of power,
distribution of roles or responsibilities, and distribution of participation rules
– Coordination: exchange, monitoring, dispute resolution, and enforcement rules
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Boundary Rules• Configuration of member and strategy rules that
determines the boundary distinguishing the partnership from other organizations
• Member Rules– Who can or cannot be a member– Different types of members (member, associate member, ex
officio)– Members are organizations but individuals might be included– Voluntary participation or required by a higher-order set of rules
(e.g., state statute)– Rules pertaining to expansion or expulsion of members
• Selection of members will influence and constrain the strategic options for the partnership
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Boundary Rules• Strategy Rules
– Specify shared definitions of a problem or set of problems within the domain of the partnership
– Specify the responses to problems that are legitimate or illegitimate – what can or cannot be done
– Specify its roles, functions, or processes– Specify how it will acquire resources needed to accomplish
these tasks– Specify the relationship between the partnership and other
network members – relationship to the “turf” of network members
• Strategy will influence the membership structure of the partnership
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Decision Rules• Determine how members interact and make decisions
– Rules are likely to evolve towards formality and complexity and may have a path-dependent quality
• Preference Aggregation Rules– Consensus and Robert’s Rules of Order are common but other
complex voting systems may exist• Distribution of Power Rules
– Equality, voting vs. nonvoting, creation of executive boards, centralized vs. decentralized
• Distribution of Roles/Responsibility Rules– Officers, sub-units, work groups, specialization of functions
• Distribution of Participation Rules– Width: degree each member participates in each decision– Depth: degree each member can influence a specific decision
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Coordination Rules• Coordination rules define mutual exchange rights
among members• Exchange Rules
– Set up the operating procedures that govern resource exchanges between the member and the collaborative organization or between members
• Monitoring Rules– Created to govern exchange process and ensure that members
follow through on commitments• Dispute Resolution Rules
– Specify how conflicts among members will be resolved• Enforcement Rules
– Sanctions for noncompliance or rewards for compliance
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Life Cycles of Collaborative Partnerships• Little research
– Some case studies point out that there is often an evolutionary character to the development of these partnerships
– A sequence of different partnerships when viewed over time
• Draw on literature of organizational life-cycles– Rely on a simple four-stage summary model– Adopt a less controversial view that stages represent clusters of
issues and problems that the organizational system must confront
– Time spent at each stage could vary considerably and process is not necessarily sequential
– Birth, death, and decline are explained by different theories– Liability of “newness” exists when partnerships form
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Entrepreneurial Stage• Boundary Rules
– Goals are initially hard to distinguish from founding members– Potential members come an go as they explore utility of joining– Marked by innovation and lots of ideas related to strategy– Distinct strategy soon emerges to attract members and resource
• Decision & Exchange Rules– Frequent changes: try and abandon organizational forms until a set of
workable rules takes hold– Emphasis on trust and relationships among founding members– Need for opinion leaders, champions, and entrepreneurs
• Success– Survival– Resource acquisition, growth, flexibility– Resources focus on partnership creation
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Collectivity Stage• Boundary Rules
– Membership is now stable and there is a commitment to strategy• Decision & Exchange Rules
– Marked by high cohesion among founding members– Cycles of exchange are now reproducing themselves– Not that it has survived testing period, investments in relation-specific
assets becomes possible– Emphasis begins shifting to improving decision and exchange rules– Need for coordinators, facilitators, and fixer/brokers
• Success– Perception that partnership is effective enough to justify
continued/increased investments– Resources needed to reproduce the structure are relatively secure– Emphasis on survival gives shifts to reliable and efficient processes
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Formalization & Control Stage• Boundary Rules
– Identify in policy space is recognized outside the partnership– High member commitment because investments in structure now lost
• Decision & Exchange Rules– Shift to efficiency, productivity, and organizational maintenance– Investments in relation-specific assets are common, but lost if
partnership dissolves– Emphasis on efficient processes and accountability leads to new rules
and their institutionalization• Success
– Organizational maintenance is overarching goal– Efficient internal processes– Effectiveness gauged in terms of goal attainment, production,
efficiency, and stability and control of internal processes
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Elaboration of Structure Stage• Boundary Rules
– Respond to threats and opportunities by boundary modifications• Decision & Exchange Rules
– Marked by new multi-purpose subsystems and decentralization to sub-units to improve reliability and efficiency
– On-going investments in relation-specific assets requires continued focus on accountability and efficiency of internal processes
– Scope of rule change is relatively small with changes in periphery more common than changes in core rules and routines
• Success– Continued emphasis on goal attainment, production, efficiency, and
stability/control– Renewed emphasis on boundary expansion leads to importance of
measures like resource acquisition, growth, and expansion
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
What does other literature say about successful rule configurations and
partnership life-cycles
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Enduring Partnerships• Leach & Pelkey (2001)
– Meta-analysis of 37 studies, that identified, 210 “lessons” learned, that share 28 themes (7 have +/- are opposites)
– 8 factors are resource-related but causal process is unclear• Do resources allow partnerships to form or do rules require
resource exchanges?– While only 3 studies used the IAD framework, 18 theses are
related to boundary, decision, and coordination rules– Seemingly contradictory findings reflect reality that no single
structure will always be most effective and the changing nature of success measures during different developmental stages
• Need to better understand role of structure and developmental processes
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Some interesting paradoxes and possible limitations for IWRM emerge from the framework
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Stability vs. Change• Stability in organizational structures when
viewed over time– Inertia is not a symptom of “bad” management but is actually a
by-product of an well designed organizational system– Changes in core strategies, structures, and processes will be
more difficult to achieve than minor changes at the periphery– Changes associated with CEM may prove beneficial over the
long term but disruptive aspects can also have dire consequences
– As CEM partnership matures, it is likely to focus on maintaining its resources
– Is “adaptive management” of natural resource systems is possible or desirable?
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Reliability & Institutionalization• Modern world favors organizations that demonstrate
a capacity for reliable performance – Partnerships have to reproduce their structure consistently– Do this by institutionalizing rules, routines, and procedures
• Institutionalization is a “two-edged sword” – Institutionalization lower the transaction costs and promotes
stability that enables the CEM partnership to endure – It also makes it resistant to change because changes disrupt
internal routines and external linkages, which reduces reliability– This suggests another set of obstacles to adaptive approaches to
natural resource systems
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Accountability• Modern world favors organizations that
account rationally for their actions– CEM partnership must document how resources are used and
reconstruct the series of decisions, rules, and actions associated with outputs or outcome
• Accountability is also a “two-edged” sword– Too much emphasis on accountability or poorly designed
monitoring systems can create disincentives for joining and/or contributing resources to a partnership
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Legitimacy• Legitimacy is needed to acquire the resources (e.g.,
membership, public or political support, money, etc.) needed to survive– Membership can influence legitimacy– Enhance (or reduce) legitimacy through choices related to
membership, strategy, decision, or coordination rules – As partnership ages, it should develop stronger exchange
relationships, become part of the hierarchy, and have their actions endorsed by powerful actors
– If adaptive management results in information that suggests the policy is not working, that could reduce legitimacy
– Easier to attract resources to win-win situations but what if the “problem” inherently involves win-lose dynamics?
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Summary & Conclusions• Think holistically, but IWRM is inherently a
strategic endeavor– Need to understand the ecology of the governance system –
lots of opportunities for partnerships but not all will bear fruit– Practical limits to how much any collection of policies and
programs can or should be “integrated” and a little conflict can also produce policy innovation and change
– Prospective gains of any institutional change must be weighed against the potential costs of change
– Sub-optimum level of integration may be intentional or desirable because the transaction costs to move to an alternative institutional arrangement may be too high
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Summary & Conclusions• Getting the rules right takes time and involves a wide
range of implicit and explicit strategic choices– Little thought is given in advance to what the “structure” should
be. Structure becomes the by-product of choices (implicit and explicit) made along the way
– There is a path dependent quality to these choices, which can sometimes make them hard to undo
– There is unlikely to be one “best” way to organize the interactive processes associated with these partnerships
– However, certain structures impose clear limits on what can be done and how things are done
– It is important to give a lot of thought to the rules that provide structure to the partnership because they can be hard to change
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Summary & Conclusions• There is a need to understand the developmental
process of these partnerships– Different challenges and measures of “success” during each
stage of their life-cycle– Lots of research but it is often focused on early part of
formalization and control shortly after some plan or “process” has completed
– Need much greater understanding of factors in later stages of partnership life-cycles
– Very poor understanding of what is needed to improve productivity and performance
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Questions?
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Collaborative Partnerships• An organization whose membership consists of other
organizations (and in some cases individuals)– When organizations embrace collaborative processes, make joint
decisions, and act as a single entity – new organization – Membership requires duties, obligations, and resource
• Different terms in use– Partnerships, coalitions, alliances/strategic alliances,
consortiums, network broker, network administrative organizations, collaborative organizations
• Different functions– Convener, catalyst for action, conduit for information, advocacy,
organizer, funder, technical assistance provider, capacity builder, partner, dispute resolver, or facilitator
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Collaboration & Networks
• Interorganizational network– Totality of all of the organizations connected by a certain type of
relationship and is typically bounded by a common orientation such as a policy area, type of service, or a geographic area
– Policy space that CEM partnership works within
• Action sets– Groups of organizations that form temporary or permanent
alliances for a limited purpose or common area of involvement– Collaborative Partnership
• Organization set– Set of organizations linked to some other organization (dyads)
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Institutional Analysis• Based on work of Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues
– Institutions are enduring regularities of human action structured by rules, norms, and shared strategies
– Rules and social norms are implicit or explicit attempts to achieve order and predictability among humans
– Rules can be formal (e.g., laws, policies, regulations, etc.) or informal (e.g., shared understandings)
– Rules operate configurationally at different levels for different actors, and occur in nested systems
– Organizational routines and processes are structured by the configuration of rules and provide a “structure” that achieves order and predictability and allow the interactions to reproduce themselves
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Evolutionary DynamicsLife-Cycle Stage Rule Development Objectives/Outcomes
Entrepreneurial Determine policy space Strategy & boundary
rules begin to emerge Some decision rules are
crafted
Attract members and resources Investment of resources exceeds
returns Survival
Collectivity Policy space is clearly established
Strategy & boundary rules are clearly understood
Decision rules are expanded
Need for some coordination rules emerges
Trust and relationships are well established
Attracting required resources Investment in resources may
still exceed returns but eventually comes into balance
Begins “doing something” Increasing focus on reliability
and a reproducible structure
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Evolutionary Dynamics
Life-Cycle Stage Rule Development Objectives/Outcomes
Formalization & Control
Elaboration of decision and coordination rules
Incremental adjustments and enhancements to rule structure
Elements of rules structure are formalized
Returns now exceed resource investments
Stability in resources Less reliance on trust and
relationships and increased reliance on following rules
Emphasis on reliability & reproducibility shifts to emphasis on accountability and legitimacy
Emphasis shifts from acquiring resources to demonstrating what is produced by resources
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Evolutionary Dynamics
Life-Cycle Stage Rule Development Objectives/Outcomes
Elaboration of Structure
Modification to member and strategy rules to expand partnership boundaries
Continued elaboration and minor adjustments to decision and coordination rules
Efficiency Productivity Increased emphasis on
legitimacy and accountability Expanded role inside policy
space
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Leach & Pelkey (2001) Factors
• Policy Space– Appropriate geographic scope– Balanced local/state/federal participation– Community resources
• Member & Strategy (Boundary) Rules– Membership: Limited or broad and inclusive– Scope of activities: Limited/focused or Broad/ambitious– Local bottom-up leadership– Balanced local/state/federal participation
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Leach & Pelkey (2001)
• Decision Rules– Rules: Well defined decision/process rules/flexible rules– Consensus: use consensus based rules/caution against consensus
based rules– Effective leader, coordinator, facilitator– Training in managing collaborative processes
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Leach & Pelkey (2001)• Coordination Rules
– Effective leaders, coordinator, facilitator – Training in managing collaborative processes– Coordinator/facilitator (effective)– Conflict: low or high– Effective communication/data sharing– Agency staff support for partnership– Cooperative and committed participants– Trust– Adequate time– Agencies encourage staff participation– Monitoring/Adaptive management– Enforcement Mechanisms: formal or informal
Master of Coastal & Ocean PolicyMaster of Public Administration
Role of Resources in “Success”• Leach & Pelkey (2001)
– Funding– Cooperative and committed participants– Adequate scientific & technical information– Adequate time– Legislature aids agency participation– Training in collaborative processes– Agencies encourage staff participation– Community resource
• Potential causality problem– If you don’t attract you don’t survive– Providing these may be requirement of membership
Top Related