Deliverable 1.1: Literature Review

Ewan Ferlie (King’s College, London) Andreja Pegan (University of Northumbria at Newcastle) Irene Pluchinotta (King’s College London) Keith Shaw (University of Northumbria at Newcastle)

August 2019

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 770591.

The opinions expressed in this document reflect only the author’s view and in no way reflect the European Commission’s opinions. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Co-Production and Co-Governance: Strategic

Management, Public Value and Co-Creation in the

Renewal of Public Agencies across Europe

Ref. Ares(2019)5468615 - 29/08/2019

2

Partners

Edition information

Version Edition Date Modification

Final August 2019 Review Meeting Revision 1 January 2019 Submission to European Commission

Project Details

Grant Agreement Number: 770591 Project Acronym: COGOV Project website: www.cogov.eu Project Full Title: Co-Production and Co-Governance: Strategic Management, Public Value and Co-Creation in the Renewal of Public Agencies across Europe Project Start Date: May 2018 (42 months)

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................5

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6

2. Methods ................................................................................................................................. 8

3. Public Value ......................................................................................................................... 11

Key Ideas in Public Value Theory .............................................................................................. 11

Moore’s Original Work ............................................................................................................. 12

Adapting Generic Strategic Management Models and Tools ..................................................... 13

The Nature of the ‘Authorizing Environment’ ........................................................................... 14

Worked Case Studies ................................................................................................................ 15

Public Value and ICTs ............................................................................................................... 15

Some Applications to Public Administration in EU Countries .................................................... 16

Broader Questions and Implications ......................................................................................... 16

Public Value in Operation ......................................................................................................... 17

The Ladder of Public Value ....................................................................................................... 17

Moving Public Value ‘Downstream’ into Public Policy and Management .................................. 18

Key Conclusions and Implications for Later COGOV Work Packages .......................................... 19

4. Network Governance ........................................................................................................... 22

The Context ............................................................................................................................. 22

From Inter-Organisational to Policy 'Networks' ........................................................................ 23

From Government to Governance ............................................................................................ 24

Network Governance or Governance Networks? ...................................................................... 24

Analysing Governance Networks .............................................................................................. 25

Governing Networks - Contributions to the COGOV programme .............................................. 28

5. Co-creation and Co-production ................................................................................................ 30

Context .................................................................................................................................... 30

Defining co-production and co-creation ................................................................................... 30

Actors in co-creation and co-production ................................................................................... 32

Practices of Co-production and Co-creation .............................................................................. 32

Drivers and Barriers ................................................................................................................. 33

Co-destruction of public value .................................................................................................. 34

Co-creation and Co-production and ICTs ................................................................................... 35

The implication for the COGOV project ..................................................................................... 36

6. Collaborative forms of public leadership .................................................................................. 38

Collaborative leadership as an answer to ‘wicked’ policy problems .......................................... 38

Key aspects of collaborative leadership .................................................................................... 39

Collaborative leadership principles and operational competences ........................................... 40

Legitimacy ................................................................................................................................ 41

Conclusions – links to COGOV ................................................................................................... 42

7. Conclusions and Implications ................................................................................................... 43

8. Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 47

4

Tables

Table 1: Public Administration in OPA, NPM and NPG ............................................................................. 7 Table 2: Key search terms per theme ..................................................................................................... 8 Table 3: CABS 2018 journal ranking in the public sector .......................................................................... 9 Table 4: Number of titles per stream ..................................................................................................... 10

Figures

Figure 1: Methodology for the selection of the literature ........................................................................ 8

5

Executive Summary

COGOV is the EU Horizon 2020 project, ‘Co-Production and Co-Governance: Strategic Management, Public Value and Co-Creation in the Renewal of Public Agencies across Europe’. It aims to explore and assess the strategic leadership efforts of local governments and other public agencies to transform themselves from ‘bureaucratic authorities’ - treating citizens as legal subjects - and ‘service providers’ - treating citizens as customers - into ‘arenas for co-creation’.

In the latter context, citizens are recognised as experts in their own life and capable of providing useful inputs (in terms of resources, ideas and energy) into the process of public governance. COGOV examines the extent to which such ‘co-created’ public innovation may not only provide more effective services and policies, but could also enhance the responsiveness of the public sector.

Given this focus, the 10 partner, six-country study will both collect data from a large pan-European survey and from 15 detailed case studies. The latter will involve a number of in-depth, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with senior civil servants, strategic managers and professionals (at national, regional and local levels), and from representatives of a range of external stakeholders - including business and the voluntary and community sector. The study will also explore how citizens influence these organisations through analysing data collected in the WP 2 case studies and the cross-national survey (WP 3).

This report is the first deliverable for Work Package (WP) 1 and comprises a structured literature review. Experience has shown that this structured review method yields quicker results and identifies more high quality material more rapidly than a full scaled systematic review. The review focuses on ‘downward-facing’ models of public administration and consider the potential implications for the strategic management of public service organisations. In particular, the review will concentrate on four literature streams, namely: Public value; Network governance; Co-creation and co-production (combined with digital era governance); and Collaborative leadership.

In particular, the review examines these literature streams through the prism of exploring the implications for the possible democratic revitalisation and strategic renewal of local government and other public agencies at the local or regional levels. We take a broad view of both of what constitutes a public service organization and of the level at which it operates. We are interested in promising practices more or less, where they occur and in a range of organisational forms - there are now more novel forms or hybrids including publicly funded NGOs or social enterprises - and at various geographic levels of government. We should be broadly open to these pluralist developments. This early literature review (Deliverable 1.1.) identifies key concepts, arguments, drivers and barriers, as well as emerging gaps and lacunas in the extant knowledge. It also enables the team to build a new and integrated theoretical framework which both reflects these challenging debates and which can then guide subsequent COGOV Work Package deliverables, including WPs 2-6 (for details of the other WPs see: www.cogov.eu)

More specifically, the review will directly inform the second deliverable in WP 1, an outward-facing repository drawing on the policy literature review to highlight a number of promising practices of strategic and ‘downward-facing’ renewal of public services developed by public organisations across Europe. It is also central to the development of the WP 2, both in terms of the criteria for case study selection, and the questions to be devised for interviews. While four of the partners led on the production of this review, all other partners were involved in designing the framework for the literature review and commented on an earlier draft of the review.

6

1. Introduction

This report reviews ‘downward-facing’ models of public administration and a number of related schools of thought namely: public value; network governance; co-production co-creation (combined with digital era governance), and collaborative leadership.

In broad terms, the implementation of ‘downward-facing’ models in the public sector means that a variety of stakeholders are involved and work together in relation to policy- making and public service delivery. These stakeholders are, for example: citizens; communities: civil society organisations; the private sector: and other either public and government organisations that are affected by, or users of, public policy and services. Thus, by public services, we mean both those that are delivered by elected and non-elected components of the national, regional and local state and by quasi-private or voluntary bodies where public agencies continue to exercise a significant role via regulation, co-governance or resourcing. Our definition is necessarily broad to accommodate the very different administrative and political contexts of the countries being investigated.

‘Downward-facing’ models of public administration stand in opposition to top-down (hierarchical) processes of policy-making and public service delivery known under the labels of Old Public Administration (OPA) and New Public Management (NPM). A key question for COGOV is whether public agencies (broadly defined) are experiencing a strategic renewal (a broad and deep form of change) from OPA/NPM forms towards more participative and co-productive forms in contrast to the renewal or reanimation through OPM/NPM approaches which are more top-down. We are here also focussing on change across the organization rather than an isolated micro practice so we use the word strategic. The connection between such change processes and different models of strategic management is another distinctive insight of the proposal. It is argued that to develop policies to tackle cross-cutting societal problems in today’s rapidly changing environment, ‘downward-facing’ models and NPG are likely to diffuse and become the leading paradigm for the organisation of the public sector. Strategic management is understood to be a critical aspect of this change (Ferlie and Ongaro, 2015). Strategic management is concerned with complexity arising out of ambiguous and non-routine situations with organisation-wide rather than operation-specific or day-to-day implications (Johnson et al., 2009). Downward-facing models mean that public sector organisations learn from the environment, include private stakeholders, and citizens, and use all possible resources to solve problems. Strategy on the other hand, allows organisations to mobilise external capabilities and resources, anticipate and respond effectively to major challenges. Evidence suggests that strategic management by public-sector organizations leads to better performance by these organizations (Bryson, 2018). Hence, the assumption is that strategic management may be seen as a key feature of the successful implementation of downward facing models. ‘Downward-facing’ models have been studied within several different narratives. These include: New Public Governance (NPG) (Osborne, 2006); New Public Services (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000; Osborne et al., 2013); New Public Value (Bryson et al., 2014); Public Value Management (Stoker, 2006); New Governance (Rhodes 1996; Bingham et al., 2005); Digital Era Governance (Dunleavy et al., 2006); and Collaborative Public Management (O’Leary and Vij, 2012). Here, the review will use New Public Governance as the general term for models of governance that developed as a response to the downstream implementation of public policies and services, and the growth of knowledge and institutional capacity enabled by digitalisation and technology in post- industrialist societies. Table 1 (below) summarises the main differences in the organisation of the public sector between OPA, NPM and NPG models. Briefly, NPG is tasked to strengthen the legitimacy of government and public actions - and solve complex problems - by extending the number of stakeholders involved in problem solving and service delivery.

7

Table 1: Public Administration in OPA, NPM and NPG

Old Public Administration New Public Management New Public Governance

The legal authority model of public administration

The efficient service provider model of public administration

Network governance, the co- production and co-creation arena model of public administration

Theoretical premises are rooted in Weber’s rational-legal model of decision-making.

Theoretical premises are rooted in public choice and rational choice theory.

Theoretical premises are rooted in sociological institutionalism and the democratic theory of citizenship.

Late 19th century to late 1970s and early 1980s

Mid-1970s, 1980s to present 1990s to present (Interest in mid- 1970s and early 1980s in the USA wanes in the 1980s)

Public interest results from politics, i.e. the deliberation between democratically elected politicians. Public interest is embodied in laws.

Public interest results from the pursuit of private interests and the desire to maximise utility.

Public interest results from deliberations and dialogue among stakeholders, including the government, business, non-profit and community sectors, and (formally unorganised) citizens.

Overloaded state, big government: large bureaucracies, expanding agendas and public action with growing public expenditures.

Hollowed-out state: the rise of market ideology in the management of the public sector and public services (privatisation and contracting out).

Congested state: networked relationships between public, private, voluntary and community actors that have a multi-layered dense and largely impenetrable structure of public action.

Informational relationship: The role of the state is to provide goods, information, and services in an authoritative, regulatory relationship with citizens based on laws (“top-down”, hierarchical relationship, “rowing” role of PA)

Transactional relationship: The role of the state is to facilitate individual choice using market techniques. The relationship between the state and citizens is transactional and exchange orientated (“steering” role of PA)

Collaborative relationship: The role of the state is to facilitate participation and to collaborate with citizens and the community sector (“bottom-up”, “serving” role of PA). Government-citizens relationships become more deliberative and dialogic rather than regulative and based on authority.

Direct government production (Providing state)

Privatisation and contracting out Co-production (Enabling state)

Public officials and experts and are crucial in policy and service delivery. They are motivated by pay, benefits and civil status.

Politicians are less willing to rely only on the advice of their officials. Public officials are entrepreneurs motivated by the efficiency goal to reduce the size and function of public service.

The public employee strengthens his/her role as a manager and facilitator. Public employees help citizens rediscover elements of substantive democracy. They are motivated by a desire to serve the public and contribute to society.

Citizens are insulated from politicians and public officials. They are clients and constituents.

Citizens are clients and customers.

Citizens are partners, co- producers and co-creators

Sources: Pollitt, 1993; Rhodes, 1997; Kaboolian, 1998; Skelcher, 2000; Box et al, 2001; Denhardt and Denhardt, 2003; Alford, 2009; Osborne, 2007; Brainard and McNutt, 2010; Ferlie and Ongaro, 2015.

8

2. Methods

In choosing the literature, a selective and structured method - following Webster and Watson (2002) - was utilised. Figure 1 provides an overview of the method.

Figure 1: Methodology for the selection of the literature

At the outset, partners in the COGOV consortium were invited to brainstorm on the terms identifying public value, network governance, co-creation and co-production and collaborative leadership (Table 2).

Table 4: Key search terms per theme

Theme/Stream Search/key terms

Public value theory “Public value*”, “Public principle*”, “Public interest*”, “Public benefit*”, "common good*", "social value*", “Public purpose*”

Network governance “Policy network*”, “Partnership* network*”, “Network governance”, “Multilevel governance”, “multilevel co-ordination”, “multilevel coordination”, “partnership* governance”

Collaborative public leadership “Collaborative public leadership*”, “collaborative public management”, “Collaborative public administration”, “collaborative leadership”

Co-creation1

“Co production”, “co-production”, "co creation", “co-creation”, “joint production”, “citizen* participation”, “collaborative governance”, "citizen* engagement", "co producer*", "coproducer*", "citizen* involvement”, “citizen* consultation*”, “crowdsourcing”, “co-innovator*, “coinnovator*”

1 Within the literature of co-creation, the aim was also to address the topic of digitalisation, i.e. the use of ICTs in the inclusion of non-government stakeholders in public policy and services. To verify the representation of the digitalisation literature within the co-creation literature, we searched for co-creation terms together with the following terms: "digital*", "e-gover*", "online", "web*", "virtual", "internet" and "digital* technolog*. Twenty titles were added to the co-creation corpus based on material with the highest citation.

9

Secondly, the terms were searched via Scopus and Web of Science between 2000 and 2018. We have chosen the year 2000 as a starting point of exploration, keeping in mind that the publications dating earlier would be identified in the pool of publications between from 2000 onwards and by our partners (see Step 5 in Figure 1). To maintain the focus on public administration, while still preserving the broadness of the literature across disciplines, we performed two separate searches:

• A general search (independent of journal rankings), where the key-terms appeared in sources on

the following topics: "public administration*", "public service*", "public sector", and "governance".

• A journal-specific search based on the ranking of public sector journals published by the Chartered

Association of Business Schools (CABS) in 2018 (Table 3). Only the journals with a ranking of 3/3* and more were included in the search. This created an initial pool of journals, which was later extended to the disciplines of Political Science, Operational Research and Sociology in Step 5 (see Figure 1).

Table 3: CABS 2018 journal ranking in the public sector

Journal titles

1. Public Administration Review 2. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory 3. Public Administration: An International Quarterly 4. American Review of Public Administration 5. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 6. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions 7. Health Services Research 8. International Review of Administrative Sciences 9. Journal of European Public Policy 10. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11. Milbank Quarterly 12. Policy and Politics 13. Public Management Review 14. Regulation and Governance

Source: CABS (2018)

All titles with one or more citations were exported. The retrieved lists per stream were merged and duplicate entries were removed. The results of this process are four literature lists or corpuses: public value (1838 titles), network governance (1657 titles), co-creation (2028 titles) and collaborative leadership (71 titles) (Table 4). Thirdly, to obtain a manageable number of titles a cut-off point was applied. Hence, the selection of all the titles that fell in the top five per cent of most cited literature. This 5 per cent cut-off point was selected because it gave size-comparable corpuses, where the least cited title per corpus had at least 65 citations. Since the collaborative leadership literature is considerable smaller than the other three literature corpuses (only nine titles had been cited more than 65-times) an alternative cut off point, which approximates to the ones used for in public value, network governance and co-creation, has been used. Table 4 presents the result of this process.

10

Table 4: Number of titles per stream

Stream Search engine output (≥ 1 citations)

Cut-off point Corpus size

Public value 1838 titles Top 5 % of the retrieved material based on the highest number of citations

91 titles

Network

governance

1657 titles Top 5 % of the retrieved material based on the highest number of citations

81 titles

Co-creation 2028 titles Top 5 % of the retrieved material based on the highest number of citations

102 titles

Collaborative

leadership

71 titles Material with more than 9 citations and those published in 2016-2018

61 titles

Fourthly, the review involved reading the articles and then ‘snowballed’ to references in the material (pursing references of references), which added new titles to the literature review and guaranteed that literature published before 2000 was included. The oldest publications that we took into consideration date were from the 1970s (Dye, 1972; Ostrom 1972; Rittel & Webber, 1973; Wright, 1974; Anderson, 1975; Jenkins, 1978; Beer, 1978; Checkland, 1978; Ackoff, 1979). We also considered publication from the 1980s: (Parks et al., 1981; Benson, 1982; Harmon, 1986; Gray, 1989) and the 1990s: (Rhodes, 1990; Kenis & Schneider, 1991; Marin & Mayntz, 1991; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Rhodes & Marsh, 1992; Kooiman, 1993; Pollitt, 1993; Chrislpi & Larson, 1994; Provan and Milward, 1995; Rhodes, 1996; Cropper, 1996; O’Toole, 1997; Kickert et al, 1997; Rhodes, 1997; Shriberg et al, 1997; King et al., 1998; Kaboolian, 1998; Stoker, 1998; Bramwell & Sharman 1999; Jamal & Getz, 1999). Snowballing also helped to identify grey literature (reports from government institutions, EU institutions and think tanks) and some key authors (notably Moore, Alford, Rhodes, Osborne) who had written books and these books were then sourced and read. Fifthly, partners were then asked to provide suggestions on additional relevant literature. The majority of suggestions were titles published more recently, which - due to selection of the literature based on citations - were previously excluded. This step also allowed us to include in the literature review perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe (e.g. Jelovac, 2010; Jukic et al., 2017; Kovač, 2016; Kovač & Gajduschek, 2015; Kovač et al., 2016; Kovač & Pevcin, 2017; Mabić & Gašpar, 2018; Ropret et al., 2018). A separate report, which is not part of the official COGOV deliverables, was produced on the French literature and is published on the COGOV website (Soldo et al., 2019). Moreover, a conference paper on central European literature was presented at the 2019 NISPAcee conference by COGOV researchers (Jukic et al. 2019).

Overall, snowballing and consultations with partners enabled us to deal with the limits of our literature search, which was based on 2000 to 2018 chronology, and a search in the main titles in public administration research. As a result, our corpus includes also titles in political science such as: American Journal of Political Science (Schneider et al., 2003), American Political Science Review (Beer, 1978); European Journal of Political Research (Rhodes & Marsh, 1992); Australian Journal of Political Science (Head, 2007); Political studies (Jordan et al., 2005; Marinetto, 2003; Rhodes, 1996); European Political Science (Sørensen, 2005); Scandinavian Political Studies (Sørensen and Torfing, 2005a). In the process of interpretation, the report authors tried to construct an overall narrative covering this extensive literature, being mindful to produce precise research questions and clear implications for later COGOV Work Packages. One organizing device used in constructing this interpretation was to cluster papers into discrete topic areas (e.g. ICTs; the smart city). Another was to review the academic controversies that have been evident within this literature stream. A third was to follow the work of one highly influential author (e.g. Mark Moore) over time, to consider how it has evolved. This report thus captures the main points raised in the literature.

11

3. Public Value

The Public Value School was first developed by Mark Moore (1995, 2013) at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Its core notion of ‘public value’ broadens the doctrine of shareholder value in the private sector. It is potentially an alternative to previously dominant New Public Management (NPM) ideas (Kelly et al., 2002; O’Flynn, 2007, Talbot, 2009, 2011), although it has also been strongly critiqued (Rhodes and Wanna, 2007) for being too managerialist. The Public Value School emphasises the broader role of government in producing value for service users and society at large and in enhancing trust and legitimacy in public decision making through democratic dialogue. The emphasis on public value outcomes goes against NPM goals of output maximization and search for value for money. However, in its emphasis on the key role of public managers in orchestrating public value creation, the Public Value school echo’s NPM. New interpretations link public value production closer to collaborative governance within networks (Stoker, 2006; Bryson; 2011; Bryson et al., 2017; Crosby et al., 2017).

This review will firstly outline key Public Value writing and ideas – seeking to establish themes and debates, including the controversy about the utility of the Public Value framework. The section then reviews how these ideas moved ‘downstream’ in the work of some public service orientated ministries and think tanks. Finally, it draw outs some implications and questions for future COGOV Work Packages.

Key Ideas in Public Value Theory

Public Value theory goes beyond NPM style output measures (e.g. efficiency, productivity and value for money) to bring in broader themes of building trust in government, ensuring its legitimacy and the strengthening of collective democratic dialogue. There is a recognition of the distinctiveness of the public sector vis-à-vis the private sector that implies it cannot be run simply as a private firm as suggested by NPM.

Bryson et al. (2014) see public value theory within a wider cluster of ‘New Public Service’ texts that emphasise democratic engagement (going beyond the citizen being cast narrowly as voter or poll responder), deliberative processes and cooperative problem solving. Stoker, (2006) similarly suggests Public Value ideas echo Network Governance reforms, which similarly emphasise ‘networks of deliberation and delivery’ (also see Section 4 of this review). Public Value ideas also stress consistent dialogue with citizens, trying to increase its responsiveness to popular ‘refined preferences’ (Coats, and Passmore, 2006).

Moore’s original American-centred work has been adopted by British (Bennington and Moore, 2010; Talbot, 2009, 2011) and Australian researchers (O’Flynn, 2007; Alford and Hughes, 2008; Alford and O’Flynn, 2009) so there has been international impact, albeit mainly in Anglo Saxon jurisdictions, including New Zealand, (Alford and O’Flynn, 2008).

Moore’s work has evolved over time and has attracted controversy, with both fierce critics (Rhodes and Wanna, 2007) and adamant defenders (Alford, 2008; Alford and O’Flynn, 2009). There is now a substantial stream of literature (see review by Williams and Shearer, (2011). It proved of practical interest to UK public agencies, such as the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, (Williams and Shearer, 2011; the UK Cabinet Office, Kelly et al, 2002) interested in exploring new approaches to public management. The recent Danish Ledelseskommission (2018) (Leadership Commission) also recognizes that public leadership is ultimately about creating value for the citizens and society at large. However, it has not proved easy to operationalise public value ideas, despite some attempts (explored later). Nor is it clear how widely PV ideas have been adopted in practice and how enduring any legacy is.

12

Moore’s Original Work

Moore's foundational text (1995) advances the heuristic of the ‘strategic triangle’ (Benington and Moore 2010, p. 3). Moore argues government should not only act as a service provider or rule setter but also produce public value through socially valuable innovation. Government managers are not seen as passive bureaucratic clerks but as stewards of public assets with ‘restless value seeking imaginations’ with the desire and capacity to innovate. The (non-controversial) example is given in Moore (1995) of a librarian in a small town in New England who brought forward ideas to improve services for local children in need. This typically case-based mode of argumentation signals that Moore is interested in what public managers really do - and what they could do better - rather than abstract theory building.

Moore (1995) links to literature on public services entrepreneurs who Klein et al. (2010, p. 4) see as propelling ‘creative political innovations which depend crucially on windows of opportunity’. Given they work within embedded policy communities, public entrepreneurs may display less bias towards bold strokes and the pursuit of novelty than their private sector equivalents and be more inclined towards incremental innovations or to wait ‘until the time is ripe’.

The capacity of public managers to produce public value is in Moore’s model shaped by operational capacity (such as adequate resources and infrastructures, sufficiently skilled managerial capacity and experienced employees). Intriguingly, the third core dimension of ‘an authorising environment’ (p. 4) provides the legitimacy and support needed for public managerial proposals to achieve desired outcomes. Public managers need to build a coalition of stakeholders from the public, private and third sectors to gain support and legitimacy. This coalition includes elected politicians and appointed overseers as major elements, but is wider. The authorizing process means that, ultimately, it is democratic political debate (rather than narrow administrative cost-benefit calculations) that shape public sector outcomes.

Public value theory contests some important traditional notions of American public administration (notably separation of policy and administration; the doctrine of elected politicians as principals and public managers as agents). It is argued: ‘this doctrine produces a characteristic mind-set among public sector managers: the mind-set of administrators or bureaucrats rather than of entrepreneurs, leaders or executives. Their orientation is downward toward the reliable control of organizational operations, rather than either outward toward the achievement of valuable results, or upward towards renegotiated policy mandates. Instead of viewing their task as initiating or facilitating change, they see it as maintaining a long term institutional perspective in the face of ‘fickle political whims’ (Moore, p. 17, 2005)

Public value theory links to entrepreneurial and less bureaucratic approaches to public management (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). From a participatory governance perspective, however, Moore (1995) is ambiguous. The move away from a strong internal/hierarchical focus could be welcomed, as is greater emphasis on service innovation. Yet the focus on entrepreneurial managerial leadership could be constructed in highly individualist (‘management must manage’) rather than in collective distributed leadership forms.

There is both emphasis here on managing outwards (requiring participatory working with external stakeholders) but also on managing upwards to political principals to secure enlarged mandates. Might such upwards management activity overwhelm outwards facing, as the search for agency resources may be critical and such control of resources typically lies at the top of the political system?

The public value literature has evolved from Moore’s early 1995 text. Alford and O’Flynn (2008) discuss emerging meanings of public value. They see it as characterised variously: as a post-NPM paradigm of public management reform; as a misleading managerialist rhetoric that provides cover for bureau-maximization projects (and an over active state), and also as a broad assessment tool to benchmark

13

the performance of public agencies.

Adapting Generic Strategic Management Models and Tools

Moore, (1995) suggests that originally private sector orientated strategic management (e.g. strategic positioning or Porterian models) may be useful in public agencies if adapted to the new and different sectoral context. Again using vivid case studies, Moore (2013) considered the operationalization and measurement of basic public value concepts by adapting private sector orientated models. Thus, the public value scorecard (echoing the balanced scorecard of Kaplan and Norton, 1996) is seen as a useful assessment tool.

The linkage between public value discourse and its wider political and economic context should also be considered. Public value doctrine assumes a strong public realm. Clarke, (2004) suggests that a strong macro level shift that moves towards neo liberalism – such as the rise of NPM doctrines and reforms – may erode the public domain. So, do public value initiatives struggle in NPM rich jurisdictions?

At a regional level, the creation of new quasi jurisdictions and special zones may restrict pluralistic decision making (despite a superficial pro-public interest rhetoric), as in the waterside redevelopment mega project in Toronto, Canada (Lehrer and Laidley, 2009). MacLeod, (2011) writes of a ‘post democratic city’ created in a post political mode specifically designed to foster high economic growth (e.g. Business Improvement Zones) and to marginalise critical voices.

Moore has of course written American orientated texts and care may be needed in translating them to a European context, where there are larger governments (Blaug et al 2006). Moore’s cases (2013) are also typically drawn from local government settings rather than central ministries.

Public value ideas have broader implications for public services governance. Moore and Hartley, (2008) build a typology of major innovations in public governance:

(i) Creating network based production systems; (ii) Tapping new pools of financing, material resources and human energy; (iii) Exploiting government’s capacity to shape private rights and responsibilities; (iv) Redistributing the right to define and judge the value of what is being produced; and (v) Broadening evaluative criteria to include justice, fairness and community building alongside efficiency and effectiveness.

This typology tends to view the public value perspective as a lever for mobilizing private sector resources and thus links it to the literature on co-production (see section 5). Therefore, clients of public agencies may co-produce public value. Alford, (2010) explores such co-production e.g. housing tenants participating in neighbourhood renewal efforts.

Additionally, Sørensen and Torfing, (2018) suggest that public value is the 'game changer' that widens the range of public and private actors that contribute to the production of public value outcomes. A broad range of relevant and affected actors may participate in the co-creation of public value to benefit both individual actors and society as a whole. A similar argument to this is also found in Agger, Tortzen and Rosenberg (2018).

14

The Nature of the ‘Authorizing Environment’

The nature of the ‘authorising environment’ in the strategic triangle has been a key area for debate. An early literature review (Blaug et al., 2006) found divergent views from authors on the rightful relationship between elected politicians and public managers. Arguably, political science scholars may well emphasise the steering role of politicians as principals; while public management scholars – directly or indirectly influenced by NPM or new public service ideas - may accord a leadership role to senior public managers. At least, the responsibility for developing new public value propositions to be authorized is seen as lying with public managers.

As political scientists, Rhodes and Wanna (2007) critique the Public Value school for its supposed over reliance on public managers cast as ‘platonic guardians’ of the benign state. The consensual rhetoric of public value may cloak old fashioned bureau-maximizing behaviour. Nor does public value take account of the dark or more coercive state, including for example, the post 9/11 ‘security state’. Public value theory further underestimates - in their view - the rightful leadership role of elected politicians, especially senior Cabinet ministers, in top down Westminster orientated political systems (it is conceded that American local government may be a different case). Such politicians may be risk averse and nervous about public managerial ‘adventurism’ that could rebound on them. However, for a rejoinder on their supposed misreading of Moore, and their failure to recognise how elected politicians are still seen a major element of the authorising environment, see Alford, (2008).

Certainly, some vignettes in Moore, (1995) display the presence, leadership and high impact of individual senior public managers who form and ‘sell’ a vision for their agencies with a secondary role for elected politicians. However, the case studied in Moore, (2013) include local mayors as elected political leaders, as well as local public managers.

Benington and Moore (2010, p. 6) concede that formal mandates from political principals are needed to authorise public service innovation but more broadly:

‘to achieve these goals it may also be necessary to win the support of other individuals, organizations and stakeholders, and to negotiate a coalition of different interests and agencies (from across the public, private, voluntary and informal community sectors) to support them in achieving their goals. This has to mobilise sufficient authorisation to achieve the desired public outcomes, but does not necessarily imply a complete consensus by all parties’.

So, the authorising environment is populated by different stakeholder groups between which there may be contestation. Such debate then has to be brokered by public managers (as well as politicians) to create political legitimacy needed to support service innovations.

Moore and Benington, (2010) suggest present day democratic government suffers from a legitimacy deficit only partly resolved through national elections. A key goal may therefore be to deepen democracy through designing new forms of collective deliberation. They argue (p. 272): ‘the single most important contribution of public value theory in the future may be its potential to redirect attention to the critical role that democratic politics and public management can play in helping to shape a sense of communal identity and public purpose’. Attempts to shape an articulate and engaged public voice – even to call a public voice into existence - may be a fundamental task for politicians and public managers.

The participation of public and private actors in authorizing public value propositions does not guarantee their involvement in the actual production of public value outcomes. In the original formulation, (Moore, 1995), the production of public value outcomes is primarily the responsibility of public service organizations where service users are reduced to more or less active co-producers in the last link in the long stretched value chain.

15

Yet Moore and Benington (2010) later suggested (p.267) that successful achievement of socially valued outcomes implies the ‘active assistance of actors and stakeholders who operate outside the boundaries of government agencies – that public value is typically ‘co produced’. For example, the success of schools 'often depends on contributions from parents…’.

Other literature devotes attention to how the ‘authorising environment’ can be assessed. Bryson, (2004) advocates the stakeholder analysis as a strategic management technique. Fung, (2015) analyses forms of public participation that move beyond traditionally restricted mechanisms of the public hearing or town hall meetings. Innovations in participatory governance (which need to be mapped) help create new ‘mini publics’.

Worked Case Studies

Case-based studies illuminate interesting experiments in public value creation in concrete settings. Moore’s later book (2013) presents empirical USA based case studies of public value creation ‘in action’. Other illustrations include:

• Baiocchi, (2003) analyses participatory budgeting in two poor districts in the Brazilian city of

Porto Alegre (underlying notions of the democratic state, social movements and a ‘progressive city’ are important). These decision processes produced strong popular participation, a broadening of the public sphere and strengthening collective capacity within ‘open ended public minded discussions’ (p 58).

• Karunasenaand and Deng, (2012) investigated the relationship between e-government and

contributions to public value in Sri Lanka in an empirical and quantitative study. Factors important in producing public value included: the quality of information; delivery of e-based services; a user orientation; high efficiency and responsiveness and an awareness of environmental sustainability.

• Lowndes et al’s, (2006) comparative study of attempts to reinvigorate various English local

government sites drew attention to local and informal decision making ‘rules in use’ which varied by locality. Some councils were outwards facing; others inwards focussed. This broad orientation was associated with elected political leadership styles and from senior public managers as important brokers. While councils were on path dependent tracks, important but rare moments of transition were discerned (e.g. with a political breakpoint, or a sustained change of political control or regime) when ‘opening out’ occurs. For example, they found in the London Borough of Sutton (p. 551): ‘over the years, Sutton developed a sustained period of consultation involving informal conventions and formal routes’ such as area forums, surveys, ward level work, open meetings and e-enabled participation. By contrast, the style in the City of Hull was seen as dominated by a disengaged and uninterested controlling political elite.

Public Value and ICTs

The relationship between rapidly developing ICTs and public management reform strategies is considered in Cordella and Bonina, (2012). Taking a socio-technical perspective, they argue that ICTs- enabled reform, historically, has often been closely aligned with NPM values of cost reduction, efficiency and productivity. They explore how ICTs could support an alternative and broader public value reform model (p. 516): ‘to enable a more trustful and responsive government to make key, relevant and reliable information available to citizens… ICT has been implemented to enhance participation and democracy, by opening new and innovative channels such as e-mailing, public deliberation on the internet and e-voting systems.’

Meijer and Rodriguez Bolivar’s (2015) systematic review analysed the recent literature on knowledge intensive urban eco-systems or ‘smart cities’ (e.g. the Amsterdam Smart City). As well as a premium

16

on knowledge and innovation, digitalised forms of citizen participation appear to be an important strand.

Harrison et al. (2012) explore the Obama administration’s 2009 Open Government (OG) directive. They see the directive as very different from previous IT change programmes in American government orientated to cost compression and productivity improvement (p84): ‘the goal of the OG initiative is to make information and decision making processes accessible to citizen examination and input’. The basic goals were: transparency, participation and collaboration. They further explicitly commend Moore’s Public Value model as a useful impact assessment framework.

Some Applications to Public Administration in EU Countries

It will be interesting to explore in the COGOV programme how public value ideas have been applied within public administration in various EU countries.

For example, Kovač and Pevcin, (2017) noted that Slovenia has faced similar dilemmas as other Central Eastern European countries in the process of transformation of Public Administration values. This has been most evident in the context of determination of the proper scope of minimal vs. strong state with the appropriate level of de/regulation or non/marketization and the development of democratic over technocratic values. Eventually, this process produced a balance between - on the one hand - the so-called “Weberian” elements (the state as the main facilitator of societal problems and highly developed/ traditional principles of administrative law) and “neo” elements (a shift from internal self-satisfaction of PA towards citizens’ and business orientation and rationalization of resources through their management), on the other (Kovač and Pevcin, 2017).

Hence, public value(s), within the Slovenian context has been predominantly approached from the position of looking at the transformation of the public sector from the previous socialist system. Jelovac, (2010) analyses the historical and cultural factors shaping (and making resilient) public administration values in Slovenia. Jelovac is, in particular, interested in the transformation of the old values dating back to socialist times and their replacement with the new values featuring the idea of public administration within the context of liberal democracy and capitalist economy. Jelovac concludes that at a legislative and normative level the new values enjoy wide acceptance, while practical implementation lag behind. As the main obstacle to the transformation of the values of the Slovenian public administration, Jelovac (2010) identified “the people working in it”, i.e. the civil servants with a ‘socialistic mentality’.

Similarly, Kovač and Pevcin, (2017) conclude that good governance is a goal only declaratively (and not practically) pursued in the Slovenian context. However, instead of pointing at the civil servants as the main culprit, they recognize post-2008 fiscal pressures as the main reason for this setback. Hence, future reforms should tackle issues of ‘openness, participation, and accountability of PA in order to upgrade to a stage of participative democracy in the European sense’ (Kovač and Pevcin, 2017).

Broader Questions and Implications

O’Flynn (2007) argues that the post-NPM paradigm of Public Value may require distinct accountability systems (broader than managing to a contract). So, developing ‘softer’ and outwards facing leadership skills amongst public managers within the steering of broader consultation, communication and deliberative processes becomes critical.

17

Alford and O’ Flynn’s (2008) overview addresses important critiques of public value writing. A first question is whether the model is empirical or normative (Rhodes and Wanna, 2007). Alford and O’Flynn, (2008) respond that it is both as it enables public managers with ‘value seeking imaginations’ to diagnose their situations and then to act to increase alignment between their public value proposition, the authorizing environment and their organizational capability.

The definition of ‘public value’ has not always been easy or precise. Despite similarities with the well- known notion of the ‘public interest’, defined as ‘the public sector must not serve special interests, it must serve society as a whole; the public sector is there for everybody, it is not the extended arm of a particular class or group’ (Jørgensen and Bozeman, 2007, p. 361), it is broader and more active. Some scholars explored the plurality of public values empirically (Jørgensen and Bozeman, 2007; Jørgensen and Andersen, 2010; Andersen et al., 2012), in order to reveal what public value is.

Alford and O’Flynn, (2008, p. 176) argue that public value is indeed broader, more subjective so it must have meaning for those enjoying it and it is more active: ‘an active sense of adding value, rather than a passive sense of safeguarding interests’. Meynhardt, (2000, p. 205) argues simply that: ‘public value is anything that people put value to with regard to the public’. Therefore, it must be seen through ‘the eyes of the beholder’ and its meaning to the individual citizen is important.

There may be a dilemma inherent in the notion of public value since what has value for individual service users may not have value for society as a whole. It is indeed valuable for students to get high grades, but if all students are given high grades, potential employers cannot discern which have the best qualifications. Hartley, (2010) aims to square the circle by defining public value as what is valuable for the public and what the public values.

Public Value in Operation

Is the public value concept too broad to be easily operationalised? Some literature has addressed this question. As early as 2003, Moore (cited in Talbot, 2006) developed a ‘public value scorecard’ that derived operationalised indictors (still at a broad level) to measure performance in relation to the three core domains of the strategic triangle (Moore, 1995).

Talbot, (2006) argues that this formulation failed to address the basic problem of the contradictory (or at least paradoxical) co-existence of multiple and contested values within public management. Talbot supports the Competing Values Framework with four alternative quadrants (e.g. 'clan culture') to model such co-existence. It is interesting to note the importing and adaptation of a model originally developed within the private sector strategic management literature, common within the public value school). While public agencies might historically be thought to be strongest in the 'control' quadrant, a public value perspective suggests rebalancing the mix (Kovač and Pevcin, 2017; Ministry of Public Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, 2015).

The Ladder of Public Value

Rhodes and Wanna’s (2007) heuristic of the ladder of public value is an interesting model to explore further. They suggest that smaller and more incremental service changes, perhaps located in the service improvement mode (Hartley, 2010), may be best suited to this public value approach as they pose less uncertainty and risk for political principals. By contrast, larger scale and transformational change exercises may be poorly suited to PV-style approaches as they pose too many risks.

At what level may public value be best created? Moore’s case examples (1995, 2003) are narrowly drawn from single local or national public agencies. An interesting exception is the discussion of the Oregon progress board that focussed on state-wide corporate objectives, including many problems that cut across conventional agency boundaries (Moore, 2003). So, public value could be created in more complex organizational settings than the single agency.

18

Agranoff’s (2006) study of 14 American public policy networks suggests that they may add ‘collaborative public value’ especially when agencies need to work together to tackle important ‘wicked problems’ beyond single agency-based silos. Some value creation may lie in processes of organizational learning and knowledge mobilization across traditional agency boundaries. However, network based forms of governance were found not to be a panacea and could exhibit dysfunctional characteristics of their own.

Mahoney et al. (2009) advance the concept of ‘global sustainable value creation’ at the intersection of the private and public sectors, importantly paying attention to the hard to quantify interests of currently disenfranchised actors.

Abbott, (2012) argues the pursuit of ‘global public interest’ (analogous to a public value view but at a higher level of analysis) may take place in multi-level arenas but including at the transnational level and multi-sectorally. In the case of climate governance, for example, UN agencies play an important role, as do non-state actors. In this domain, standard setting is an important public policy related activity.

Moving Public Value ‘Downstream’ into Public Policy and Management

Some ‘grey literature’ has sought to move the public value academic literature ‘downstream’ and to think about concrete implications for public policy and management practice. These ideas assumed prominence in the UK during New Labour governments (1997-2010), when there were (admittedly limited and ambiguous) attempts to row back from earlier NPM reforms and retrieve a broader role for government. One major criticism, for example, of NPM business like corporate governance reforms was that it created a ‘democratic deficit’ in public agencies with a subsequent erosion of government legitimacy, especially when taking difficult decisions.

Writing within the UK’s Cabinet Office (equivalent to the ministry of public administration), Kelly et al. (2002) explored a public value perspective as a post-NPM model of public services reform, which pays more attention to dialogue, trust and legitimacy. They present vignettes and mini case studies. They noted that UK government’s prior exercises in public engagement had mixed results with the danger that the public was overloaded with requests for participation or that feedback received was not acted on. There needed in their view to be more reflection and learning about ‘what works’ in public engagement. They conclude with a policy agenda to take a public value agenda forward, notably more work on techniques of public engagement, issue selection and appraisal.

The Work Foundation (a London based think tank) sponsored a major programme about implications of the public value perspective in 2006, sponsored by a consortium of key UK public agencies (e.g. the BBC). Many papers were produced, including Talbot’s 2006 use of the competing values framework, to model the balance between different organizational cultures which might be found within public agencies.

Coats and Passmore, (2006) argued that a public value approach suggested that public agencies should change their work practices to:

(i) Create a public value orientated commissioning process (with implications for private sector service deliverers); (ii) Build a better evidence base;

19

(iii) Pilot new models of service delivery which involved citizens fully; (iv) Build a responsive and outwards looking work culture; and (v) Develop public managers’ outwards facing and communications skills.

The final report (Horner et al., 2006) noted three key dimensions to consider: (i) public value authorization; (ii) public value creation and (iii) public value measurement (strongly emphasised in a performance management orientated UK public management culture but which crowded out wider concerns). They also proposed a set of concrete indicators for each dimension. They noted that many public agencies have found it difficult to engage citizens within deliberative democracy and that in practice interest in this area may be difficult to sustain or even waning.

A search of think tank websites suggests little recent work in the UK has been undertaken on the policy implications of a public value agenda. Has national level interest peaked? Alternatively, are less visible local experiments still occurring?

The recent government sponsored Leadership Commission in Denmark (Ledelseskommissionen, 2018) brought researchers and public and private leaders together in a high-impact think-tank. It recommends less rule and target based steering and more value based leadership that actively involves public employees, citizens and stakeholders in the production of public value outcomes. Public leaders must work to ensure that their employees are oriented towards the service users and support their efforts to do so. These ideas find support in blogs by Danish researchers on denoffentlige.dk and in recent grey literature such as Bourgon and Dahl’s book Den nye syntese for offentlig værdiskabelse i det 21. århundrede (2017) exploring how public authorities, citizens and civil society can collaborate to produce public value while lowering costs. Also, Majgaard, (2014) focuses on the creation of public value based on result-orientation, digital platforms and governance networks. Finally, Pedersen and Renard, (2014) provide case-based examples of how public leaders create public value.

Key Conclusions and Implications for Later COGOV Work Packages

This concluding section details key ideas and topics from this literature review to inform future COGOV WPs. The suggestions advanced at this stage are numerous and will necessarily be further refined as the project progresses.

1. COGOV needs to explore further, how public leaders and managers have operationalised the

public value concept in real world innovations in EU countries. For example, the core values in the Slovenian PA development strategy are: accountability, transparency, rule of law, cooperation, equity and inclusiveness, consensus-building, innovation, effectiveness and efficiency (Ministry of Public Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, 2015). Critical analysis and assessment of the quality of their balance, as well as the quality of the measures foreseen for their achievement is needed. Do they access public value ideas in this context? Moore, (2013) represents a useful American repository of public value cases; but we lack an EU wide equivalent.

2. How have sites, within the heuristic device of the strategic triangle, operationalised public

value ideas? What is the public value content of the innovations and who defines it? What are the key internal capabilities needed for public value creation (which might include public managerial capability and the construction of collaborative platforms and arenas)? A critical issue is how is the wider authorising environment constructed and by whom? It certainly includes elected politicians, but is it also broader and downwards as well as upwards facing? If so, which local groups are included and with what influence and power? How is any collective deliberative process around public value creation constructed and who does it? For example, Haddow et al. (2007), used focus groups within the Scottish health care system to elicit a more informed public opinion to develop a wider benefit sharing model in the

20

commercialisation of DNA data bases which might otherwise be captured privately.

3. Critically, what is the respective role of public managers and of elected political leaders in steering public value orientated innovations? Is there a balance between the two roles or is one role dominant? Do they work as a team or is there a degree of open or perhaps hidden conflict between them? In addition, we ask whether public value production is primarily driven by public leaders or best pursued by multi-actor collaboration, thus linking public value to co-creation.

4. What is the leadership role and style of public managers within public value innovations? Is it

consultative or directive? How procedurialised is it (e.g. in procurement processes) or are traditional procedures thinned out? Is public value leadership bounded within the single agency or more networked? Is it focussed on one public entrepreneur who projects a visionary mission, as in the entrepreneurial school of strategic management (Mintzberg et al., 2009), or is it more networked, team based or multi layered?

5. Is there any link between public value innovations and the digitization of public service

delivery and consultation processes?

6. Do public value innovations cluster in a particular place? Some articles referred to ‘smart cities’, cities or regions with high social capital and a well-developed civil society or a history of participatory political leadership. What is the unit of organizational analysis in public value creation efforts? To what extent does it move beyond the single public agency or ministry and involve wider consortia, inter agency and multi-level collaborations or even diffuse networks? How is public value in these complex settings defined and promoted?

7. Moore, (1995) and other public value authors (Talbot, 2006) import and adapt generic

strategic management models (e.g. strategic positioning school, balance scorecard, the competing values framework) for public value efforts within public agencies, and indeed have been criticised for doing that (Rhodes and Wanna, 2007). Are similar processes evident in sites in our study?

8. Can the ladder of public value assessment tool be used to map the level of ambition and

extensiveness of public value innovations (Rhodes and Wanna, 2007)? Do they mostly lie in the incremental/small scale box (as they suggest) or are they more synoptic and transformational? If the latter, then how is a higher level of political risk handled?

9. The process whereby public value ideas ‘move downstream’ from national or global centres

to local sites is of interest. Do influential ‘knowledge brokers’ such as national ministries, think tanks, management consultants or academic programmes and texts diffuse these ideas (Ferlie et al., 2016)? How do actors in the sites first encounter, absorb or translate such public value ideas?

10. What is the relationship between Public Value and other fundamental models of public

administration, as revealed in concrete case studies? Does it echo some principles of NPM, if a core leadership role is still accorded to senior public managers (‘managers must manage’)? Or, does its emphasis on building wide support from various stakeholders make it closer to Network Governance (as many would expect)? If in practice, the need to win support from elected politicians as key resource controllers is still overwhelming, it is that different in the end from Old Public Administration?

In summary, the public value literature is of great importance in current public management scholarship, admittedly attracting critics as well as defenders (Jelovac, 2010; Kovač and Pevcin, 2017).

21

There is a need for more empirical investigation of the extent to which it has had broad and enduring impact across the EU. This review then finally suggested analytical themes to be usefully followed up in later COGOV Work Packages.

22

4. Network Governance

This section of the review identifies the different approaches taken to understanding the inter- relationship between networks and governance in the study of public administration. It aims to both provide an overview of the origins of the terms and to clarify the key features of more recent studies - which locate an understanding of networks within a shift from government to governance. The development of relevant typologies is then followed by a critical assessment of the effectiveness of this approach to governance and the challenges this poses for both democracy and effective public management. It concludes by considering the most appropriate terminologies and applications for the COGOV project and the challenges posed by a focus on networks and governance.

The Context

Reviewers of this concept face a voluminous literature that has its origins as far back as the late 1970s (for a through overview of the emergence of this literature, see for example, Hanf and Scharpf, 1978; Marin and Mayntz, 1991; Kennis and Schneider, 1991; Rhodes and Marsh, 1992; Kooiman, 1993; Sørensen and Torfing, 2000).

More recently, overarching theoretical and analytical contributions on networks and governance (see for example, Klijn and Edelenbos, 2007; Klijn and Koppenjan, 2014; Klijn, and Koppenjan, 2016; Sørensen and Torfing 2005a, 2006, 2007; Marcussen and Torfing, 2007) have now been joined by studies applying the network governance frame across a range of policy sectors. These include studies of: climate change (Bulkely, 2010); crime (Klerks, 2001; Torfing and Krogh, 2013); disaster management (Bodin and Nohrstedt, 2016); employment policy (Torfing, 2004; Bogason and Zølner, 2007; Damgaard and Sørensen, 2011); health (Greenaway et al, 2007); spatial planning (Verweij et al, 2013); and urban regeneration (Van Bortel and Mullins, 2009).

At its most basic level, Network Governance can be seen as 'requiring the modern state to steer society in new ways based on the development of complex networks and the growth of more bottom-up approaches to decision-making' (Stoker, 2006, p 41). More specifically, the term has been applied across a number of different scales:

- As an overarching, macro-level, narrative to depict the defining feature of governance (Rhodes, 1997) or a core component of a new management paradigm such as Public Value Management (Stoker, 2006) or New Public Governance (Osborne, 2006) to replace New Public Management.

- As part of a meso-level focus on multi-level governance – in which policy networks, for example, are viewed as a form of co-ordination between national and sub-national scales (Bache and Flinders, 2004; Enderlein, Wälti and Zürn, 2010; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2013)

- As micro-level approaches that describe and analyse forms of networks i.e. that look at the internal characteristics of individual networks themselves – their structure, composition, membership, linkages and resourcing (Sørensen and Torfing, 2000; Powell et al, 2005; Marcussen and Olsen, 2007).

The term network governance has also been used: as an empirical framework for analysing the effectiveness of networks in public management and service delivery (Klijn et al 2010); as a normative framework to promote more democratic governance (Klijn and Skelcher, 2007; Sørensen and Torfing, 2007); or, more critically, as a development potentially serving to erode democratic governance (Raab and Milward, 2003; Sørensen and Torfing, 2005a; Benz and Papadopoulos, 2006; Papadopoulos, 2007).

23

However, when confronting the literature further, attempts to concisely define the term ‘Network Governance’ also face the challenge that the two components of the term have increasingly been configured in a number of differently-worded – yet often closely-related - combinations. These include: Policy Networks; Network Governance; Networked Governance; Governing Networks; The Governance of Networks; and Managing Networks (Sørensen and Torfing, 2007; Torfing et al, 2012).

To overcome such a plethora of terms - and to clarify the precise application that could be best be utilised within the COGOV project - it is useful to consider, initially, the roots of the term i.e. the rise of interest (during the 1970s) in the concept of inter-organisational networks and then how this travelled into the growing debates on the shift from government to governance in the 1980s and 1990s (Rhodes, 1990, 1997; Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjan, 1997).

From Inter-Organisational to Policy 'Networks'

As Rhodes, (1990) points out, the political application of the idea of networks has its origins partly in the political science literature on inter-governmental relations. According to Wright, such an approach focuses on ‘…the multiple, behavioural, continuous and dynamic exchanges occurring between various officials in the political system’ (Wright, 1974, p 4). In a federal system – such as the USA – this has been accompanied by the growing influence of professional bureaucrats as specialists in key areas of policy-making where there is a need to co-ordinate across different levels of government (Beer, 1978).

Other key contributions to the emergence of public policy debates on inter-organizational networks comes from sociology - which focuses on the internal structure and characteristics of networks, the roles played within them and the relationship between them. From organisational analysis comes a focus on the growing pressures for individual organisations to co-operate due to increasing resource interdependences (Provan and Milward, 1995), and the need to deal with increasingly complex, ‘wicked issues’ that necessitate a multi-organisational response (Van Buren et al, 2003). Such a focus on networks differed significantly from traditional perspectives in public policy and administration as it downplayed the central control possibilities of policy and decision-making processes and instead emphasized the complexity of these processes. Similarly, Benson, (1982), refers to ‘complexes of resource dependencies’ and how understanding networks calls for an examination of both the formal administrative features and the dominant interests and ‘rules of the game’ structuring network operations.

This early work was then built upon by Rhodes in his seminal focus on policy networks, which he described as, ‘Sets of formal and informal institutional linkages between governmental and other actors structured around shared interests in public policy-making and implementation. These institutions are interdependent. Policies thus emerge from the bargaining between the network’s members’ (Rhodes, 2007, p 1244).

Thus, the emerging themes of the rapidly-growing literature on policy networks were:

• high-levels of inter-dependence; • co-operation to tackle complex problems; • semi-autonomy from the state; • interactions rooted in trust; and • fuzzy lines of formal authority

(Marin and Mayntz, 1991; Scharpf, 1994, 1997: Schneider et al, 2003 p 143-144).

24

Crucially, such networks are also at the core of what has been seen as the shift from government to governance (Kooiman, 1993; Rhodes, 1997).

From Government to Governance

While political scientists traditionally treated governance as a synonym for government - in relation to the capacity to guide, direct and steer society (Marinetto, 2003; Stoker, 1998, p 17; Jordan et al, 2008, p 479), more recently, the term governance has been seen as analytically distinct (Kovač et al. 2016; Kovač and Gajduschek, 2015; Peters and Pierre, 2000; Torfing et al, 2012). Rhodes has defined this as a ‘new process of governing; or a changed condition of ordered rule or the new method by which society is governed’ (Rhodes 2007, p 1246).

In addition, Kovač et al. (2016) understand good governance in terms of theories and issues of social coordination, which place less emphasis on ‘hierarchy and the state’ and more on ‘markets and networks’. Hence, Kovač et al. (2016) rely on a definition of good governance as a manner in which public officials and institutions acquire - and exercise - the authority to shape public policies and provide public goods and services. Others have also debated whether it is a distinct mode in itself, or more of a hybrid - a combination of aspects of both hierarchical and market form of co-ordination (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Ropret et al., 2018). The problem, according to Ropret et al. (2018), is that public governance models remain overly idealistic too general or partial, or do not give enough details as to why (and how) any of them would ensure the protection of the stakeholders’ interests.

Whatever the specific significance of the shift, there is agreement (Jordan et al, 2008) that its causes relate to:

• The decline in central government’s ability to steer society as control is lost upwards (to supra-

national bodies), downwards (to local and regional bodies) and sideways to private, voluntary and hybrid bodies (Pierre and Peters, 2000);

• The formal authority of the central state is replaced by the informal authority of self-steering networks, which not only ‘influence government but take over the business of government’ (Stoker, 1998 p 23).

• Fragmentation of public sector in the wake of NPM (Rhodes, 1996; 1997). • The rise of new modes of governance based on a managing an increasingly fragmented system

of multi-level governance (Hooghe and Marks, 2003); and • The complexity of governance problems which necessitate solution requiring multi-actor

governance networks of increasing complexity (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2004).

The difference in emphasis between the initial focus on policy networks and the more recent emphasis on governance networks lies both in the wider set of actors and interests involved in the latter (particularly private organisations, citizens and service users) and the latter’s concern with democracy and legitimacy as well as effectiveness (Klijn and Skelcher, 2007)

Network Governance or Governance Networks?

At its simplest, a network has been defined as a ‘set of social entities linked directly or indirectly by various ties’ which can be used as a particular tool or label for analysing the social structure (Raab and Milward, 2003, p 417). More specifically, and as it applies to public policy and management, the term has been used in conjunction with the attempt to define and analyse the forms of governance involved in societal coordination and to argue for more effective ways of delivering public services in fragmented systems, where public, private and voluntary organisations have to work together to achieve both individual and collective goals (Scharpf, 1994; Provan and Milward, 2001; O’Toole, 1997).

25

One application of the inter-relationship between 'network' and 'governance' is Stoker’s definition of Networked Governance as a ‘particular framing of collective decision-making that is characterised by a trend for a wider range of participants to be seen as legitimate members of the decision-making process in the context of considerable uncertainty and complexity’ (Stoker, 2006, p 41).

However, by way of providing their own definition of governance networks, ‘public policy-making and implementation through a web of relationships between government, business and civil society actors’, Klijn and Skelcher state that the order of the two words is important. Their usage – governance network – emphasizes that the network relationships being studied are specifically those concerned with governance, the articulation, resolution and realization of public values in society. This is in contrast to the other ordering, network governance, which is best viewed as ‘a higher level concept associated with a particular mode of societal organization, which is usually contrasted with market and hierarchy’ (2007, p 587).

Thus, in the literature, a meaningful distinction can be made between two constructions:

• One sees Network Governance primarily as part of overarching (macro) narrative - to depict

the defining feature of governance (Rhodes, 1997) or as a core component of a new management paradigm such as Public Value Management (Stoker, 2006) or New Public Governance (Osborne, 2006);

• The other focuses less on networks as a new and distinctive mode and more on the

management, role and effectiveness of both network members and the networks themselves. Thus, for Sørensen and Torfing, (2007), Network Governance is a societal mode of governance, while Governance Networks refers to a tool of governance.

Analysing Governance Networks

Normative accounts of the benefits of governance networks stress how such a mode brings flexibility, innovation, adaptation and policy-learning to developing solutions to complex problems (Rhodes 1997; Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003; Stoker 2006). In particular, networks aid democracy through increasing participation, offering new structures and spaces for influence and engagement through various stages of the policy-making process (Klijn and Skelcher, 2007 pp 595-596), and by engaging those actors and groups who can challenge existing power structures (Sørensen and Torfing, 2005a, 2009). Pečarič, (2018) recognizes enhanced self-organisation and social networking, as well as greater decentralisation of decision-making, to be the right path towards better effectiveness, accountability and improvement of previous decisions.

More critical accounts of the pluralist assumptions underpinning network governance argue that the existing unequal power structures allow privileged access to policy-making to strategically powerful sectional interests who are able to shape outcomes and dominate service delivery (Lowndes, 2001). As underprivileged social groups are not often sufficiently well-organized to promote their interests, such interests cannot be effectively presented in a deliberative process. Thus, networks may provide an unbalanced and unfair representation of wider society’s needs, wishes and interests (Kovač and Gajduschek, 2015)

In practice, network membership is dominated by those with the connections, resources, expertise and knowledge to manipulate the system, rather than ordinary citizens (Lewis and Marsh, 2012). Within this approach, there is a tendency for managerial and professional discourses to predominate because network governance is driven by an effort to promote governance efficiency and effectiveness (Sørensen, 2002a, 2002b; Bang, 2003; Warren, 2009; Bevir, 2010).

26

In further examining the different analytical frameworks available to assess governance networks, (see for example: Rhodes and Marsh, 1992; Klijn and Skelcher, 2007; Provan and Kenis, 2007; Sorenson and Torfing, 2009; Klijn, et al 2010;), four components seem to be present in the literature.

1. Governance Networks: Typologies. Governance networks may adopt different characteristics in different national, sub-national and policy contexts. Contrasts include those between:

• Self-grown (from below) or mandated and designed (from above); • Formal or informal; • Intra- or inter-organizational; • Open or closed; • Tightly knit or loosely coupled; • Short- or long-lived; • Sector-specific or society-wide; • Preoccupied either with policy formulation or policy implementation (Sørensen and Torfing,

2009 p 237).

Provan and Kenis offer a further typology of governance networks based on two dimensions i.e. the extent to which governance is brokered by single or multi-organisational arrangements and the extent to which the network is a 'participant governed or externally governed' (2007, p 234). These criteria allow for the development of three types of governing network:

• Participant Governed Networks- shared governance by the network members themselves

with no separate and unique governance entity. • Lead-Organisation Governed Networks - centrally governed and brokered through a lead

organisation • Network Administrative Model - the network is externally governed through a separate

administrative entity. The network broker (the NAO) plays a key role in coordinating and sustaining the network (Provan and Kenis, 2007, p 236)

2. Network Effectiveness Building on this typology, Proven and Kenis then argue that the likely effectiveness of a governance network is shaped by four structural contingencies. These are: levels of trust; numbers of participants; consensus over goals; and attaining network-level competencies. These, in turn, help explain variance in network performance: '...as trust becomes less densely distributed throughout the network, as the number of participants gets larger, as network goal consensus declines, and as the need for network- level competencies increases, brokered forms of network governance, like lead organization and NAO, are likely to become more effective than shared-governance network' (Provan and Kenis, 2007 p 237).

Similarly, Sørensen and Torfing (2009 p 242) offer a six-point checklist for measuring network effectiveness, based on the network's capacity to:

1. Produce a clear and well-informed understanding of the often complex and cross- cutting policy problems and policy opportunities at hand;

2. Generate innovative, proactive and yet feasible policy options that match the joint perception of the problems and challenges facing the network actors;

27

3. Reach joint policy decisions that go beyond the least common denominator while avoiding excessive costs and unwarranted cost shifting;

4. Ensure a relatively smooth policy implementation based on a continuous coordination and a high degree of legitimacy and programme responsibility among all the relevant and affected actors, including target groups, client advocacy groups, stake-holder organizations, public administrators and politicians;

5. Provide a flexible adjustment of policy solutions and public services in the face of changing demands, conditions and preferences;

6. Create favourable conditions for future cooperation through cognitive, strategic and institutional learning that construct common frameworks, spur the development of interdependency and build mutual trust.

In terms of variation, they go on to note that, 'not all governance networks can be expected to deliver on all these dimensions. Hence, governance networks that are mainly preoccupied with policy formulation will fail to deliver on criteria 4 – 6. Likewise, governance networks primarily preoccupied with policy implementation and service delivery will fail to deliver on criteria 1 – 3' (Sørensen and Torfing, 2009, p 243)

Governing Networks and Democracy Given the contested debates on the democratic nature of networks, a number of approaches have posed questions relating, for example, to the distribution of power in society, the nature and formulation of the public interest and the role and relationship of unelected public officials and elected politicians (Sørensen, 2006; Klijn and Skelcher, 2007, p 601).

What some writers (see recently, for example, Sørensen and Torfing, 2018) have referred to as the 'democratic anchorage' of governing networks can be achieved through: regular monitoring by elected politicians; private businesses and civic organisations holding their representatives to account; citizen's affected by decisions holding the network to account; and; 're-enacts a series of commonly accepted democratic rules and norms ensuring the broad inclusion of relevant and affected actors, procedural fairness and agonistic respect among actors perceiving one another as legitimate adversaries rather than enemies' (Sørensen and Torfing, 2009, p 244).

The Tools of Network Management There is an extensive literature on network management tools (Kooiman, 1993, 2002; Kickert Klijn and Koppenjan, 1997; Jessop, 1998, 2003; Ansell 2000; Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004; Torfing, 2008; Meuleman, 2008; Torfing and Sørensen, 2007b, 2009, 2012; 2017; Peters, 2010).

As Proven and Kennis argue, while network effectiveness may partly reflect the actions of individual network participants, '..when focusing on collectively generated, network-level outcomes, the form of network governance adopted, and the management of tensions related to that form are critical for explaining network effectiveness' (2007, p 247).

Such management tools, or as Sørensen and Torfing call them, tools of meta-governance, can be divided into four components:

1. Network design: influencing the scope, character, composition and institutional procedures of the networks;

28

2. Network framing: determining the political goals, fiscal conditions, legal basis and discursive story- line of the networks;

3. Network management: reducing tensions, resolve conflicts, empowering particular actors and lowering the transaction costs in networks by providing different kinds of material and immaterial inputs and resources;

4. Network participation; influencing the policy agenda, the range of feasible options, the premises for decision making and the negotiated policy outputs (Sørensen and Torfing, 2009, p 246-247).

Governing Networks - Contributions to the COGOV programme

The specific contribution of governance network theory and research to the COGOV programme is a focus on:

1. Interdependence as a key driver of network formation; 2) Networks as an alternative and supplement to Hierarchies and Markets; 3) The power of self-governance; 4) ‘Hands-on’ and ‘hands-off’ meta-governance as means to govern self-governing networks of actors. Meta-governance involving the shaping of interdependencies and accommodation of self-governance through hands-on network management (See for example, Sørensen and Torfing 2009)

It is proposed within the COGOV research, that the term governance network is utilised within the context of a specific forms of public service design and delivery primarily at the meso and micro levels. Thus the focus will be on analysing, ‘sets of autonomous yet interdependent actors (individuals, groups, organizations) that have developed enduring relationships in governing specific public problems or policy programs’ (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2014, p 61). The focus will, in turn, apply the term governance network to an analysis of the effectiveness of such networks in public management, service design and delivery (Provan and Kenis, 2008) and aim to assess the value of networks in promoting more democratic governance (Klijin and Skelcher, 2007) or effectively widening participation in decision-making.

This, necessarily, brings with it a focus on how governance networks are managed and the specific challenges, competencies and skills associated with managing networks in a complex system, as opposed to hierarchies or single-organizations. This has been defined as, ‘strategic attempts to manage (not control) ongoing interaction processes between the actors in networks. It is concerned with attempts to guide not only the pursuit of goals of individual actors, but rather, influence the interaction between actors’ (Klijn and Edelenbos, 2007 p 200). For others, this focus has been framed as the meta-governance of networks: the 'tools available to politicians and public managers working to enhance the effective and democratic performance of governance networks'. (Sorenson and Torfing, 2009, p 235)

In summary, some key tasks for the different COGOV work packages include:

• Investigating the modes of governance involved in co-production and co-creation • Developing an appropriate analytical framework to assess the role of Governance Networks

in these processes • Identifying how (and under what circumstances) Governance Networks contribute to co-

production and co-creation • Assessing how democratic and inclusive are Governance Networks?

29

• Establishing the nature of the linkage between ‘governing networks’ and ‘strategic management’. For example, is the former a specific type of a strategic management approach?

• Examining the particular contribution of Meta-Governance to network effectiveness • Investigating the roles of elected members and public officials in Network management • Comparing and contrasting variations in the operation of such networks across governance

levels and policy sectors • Comparing and contrasting variations in the operation of such networks across nations and

public administration traditions • Producing new research findings on the strengths and weaknesses of Governance Networks

in furthering co-production and co-creation.

30

5. Co-creation and Co-production

Context

The co-production and co-creation (CC) model of governance in the modern state gained interest in the 1970s and early 1980s in the USA (Ostrom, 1972; Parks et al., 1981). This initial wave of popularity – which mainly concentrated on co-production of public service by volunteers - waned as NPM’s ideas of managerialism prevailed in the 1980s. CC models were revived as a practice of governance in the 1990s (Osborne and Gabler, 1992), with the renewed interest emerging for both normative and practical reasons, such as organisations lacking the resources and capacities to solve ever-evolving problems, the continuous cuts to public budgets, and reduced citizens’ electoral participation (Beierle et al., 2000; Linders, 2012; Box et al., 2001; Roberts, 2004; Mabić and Gašpar, 2018; Ropret et al., 2018).

From a practical point of view, the diffusion of CC models were made possible by the investments in information and telecommunication infrastructure and the spread of digital technology (Kakabadse et al., 2003; Sӕbø et al., 2008; Fung, 2015; Nograšek and Vintar, 2014; Ropret et al., 2018). In practice, the ideas underpinning CC also appeared in governmental programs as evidenced in several national and international think tank and government reports (e.g. DEMOS 2007; UK Cabinet Office 2009; OECD 2011; NESTA 2013; European Commission 2018; Ministry of Public Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, 2015).

Co-creation and co-production are terms relating to governance rather than government as decision- making is bottom-up and non-hierarchical (Coaffee and Healey 2003; Head 2007; Pečarič, 2018). Co- creation can be seen as a mind-set, tool or method that is used when public authorities want to mobilize private sector resources or spur public innovation. However, it may also be seen as a mode of governance based on collaborative governance, or as a constitutive part of New Public Governance that seems to offer an alternative to both classical forms of public bureaucracy and New Public Management (Osborne, 2006, 2010; Torfing and Triantafillou, 2013, 2017).

The promotion of co-creation as a part of a new and promising governance paradigm might help to spur the practical use of co-creation in the public sector. For example in Denmark, a newly founded National Movement for co-creation comprising researchers, practitioners and consultants has published a widely read manifesto for co-creation, organized large-scale conferences, workshops and seminars and launched a web-site in association with denoffentlige.dk that carries well-read blogs abut co-creation. The result is a potential bottom-up transformation of the public sector. There are empirical indications in Denmark that positive experiences with co-creation stimulate governance reform as it offers a viable alternative to top-down government and marketization (Sørensen and Torfing, 2011; Aagaard, Sørensen and Torfing 2014; Agger and Tortzen, 2015; Agger and Andersen, 2018). However, changing forms of governance may also stimulate collaborative innovation and co- creation (Torfing and Triantafillou 2016). Hence, the enhancement of co-creation requires new forms of organization, governance and leadership.

Defining co-production and co-creation

Co-production and co-creation are collaborative, interactive and horizontal approaches to shared decision-making. Unlike public consultation, they are two-way communication processes, where expressed ideas have to be taken on board if the process is to succeed (Fung, 2015). In contrast to lobbying and interest-groups influence, CC are formal and structured processes led by public agencies (Fischer, 2006; Ansell and Gash, 2008). CC are also broader than corporatism and the involvement of stakeholders’ groups because they involve non-organised stakeholders. In broad terms, CC denote the collaboration and participation of non-government actors in a wide range of public policy processes (formulation, implementation and delivery) alongside traditional actors (public administrators and elected politicians). The literature on co-creation and co-production is diverse (Voorberg et al., 2014;

31

Brandsen and Honingh, 2015). This is partly due to the multidisciplinary use of the concepts and their broad policy applicability.

Co-production and co-creation are rarely distinguished. Torfing et al. (2016, p. 8) define co-production as the “interactive process through which the providers and users of public services apply their different resources and capabilities in its production and delivery”. They define co-creation as a

“process through which two or more public and private actors attempt to solve a shared problem, challenge, or task through a constructive exchange of different kinds of knowledge, resources, competences, and ideas that enhance the production of public value in terms of visions, plans, policies, strategies, regulatory frameworks, or services, either through a continuous improvement of outputs or outcomes or through innovative step-changes that transform the understanding of the problem or task at hand and lead to new ways of solving it” (Torfing et al., 2016, p. 8).

Co-creation is different from co-production because it encompasses actors beyond service providers and users (Torfing et al. 2016). The purpose of co-creation is to create public value and new solutions to shared problems (Voorberg et al. 2014). Co-creation, therefore, is not limited to the joint production of already existing services.

Following this definition, a number of researchers tie co-creation to social innovation and thus talk about collaborative innovation (Bason, Knudsen and Toft 2009; Bason, 2010; Bommert, 2010; Sørensen and Torfing, 2011; Ansell and Torfing, 2014; Torfing, 2016; Torfing, Sørensen and Røiseland 2019; Mulej et al., 2008). This literature, which draws on network theory, theories of innovation and design thinking, emphasizes the generative aspect of co-creation i.e. the process through which collaborative interaction spur mutual learning that fosters new and emergent solutions that breaks with common wisdom and standard practices in a particular field.

Osborne and Strokosch (2013) distinguish between three different levels of co-production: consumer co-production; participative co-production; and enhanced co-production, where the latter is similar to co-creation as defined by Torfing et al. (2016). Consumer and participative co-productions empowers individuals and collectives respectively in the improvement of the strategies and systems through which services are produced and delivered. Enhanced co-production is the user-led innovation of services, service systems and - more generally - the public solutions to wicked problems. In enhanced co-production, services are transformed and/or future needs are identified.

Another set of researchers have developed the term collaborative governance (see for example, Ansell and Gash, 2008; Emerson et al. 2011; Newman et al. 2004; Batory and Svensson, 2017: 21-22). Collaborative governance is consensus orientated (Ansell and Gash, 2008). It produces solutions where there is agreement rather than challenging the status quo. The innovation in collaborative governance is about incorporating multiple stakeholders and transforming adversarial relationships into more cooperative ones (Ansell and Gash, 2008). Compared to CC, there is less emphasis on innovation as the output/outcome (Torfing, 2016; Torfing, Sørensen and Røiseland, 2019). In collaborative governance, innovation is understood as the process of collaboration.

To sum up, co-production is about the improvement of existing public services through the active involvement of individual or perhaps collectively organized service users and volunteers, while co- creation is about the transformation of public policy more broadly and involves a plethora of public and private actors.

32

Actors in co-creation and co-production

One section of literature, mostly originating in the USA, emphasises the participation of citizens in their capacity of being empowered, resourceful and affected stakeholders (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004; Ansell and Gash, 2008). There is no consensus as to whether stakeholders are best viewed as individuals or civil society organisations (e.g. Irvin and Stansbury, 2004; Bingham et al. 2005; Roberts, 2004). On the other hand, the literature that has emerged in Europe promotes the idea of inter- and intra- agency collaboration and collaboration between the state and other stakeholders in society, as co-management or co-governance (Edelenbos, 2005; Brandsen and Pestoff, 2006; Pestoff, 2006; Osborne, 2006; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007; also see Alford, 2009 for a non-European view).

Reviewing co-production, Nabatachi et al. (2017) differentiated between state actors (direct or indirect agents of government including non-profit and civil society) and lay actors (people as individuals, part of a group and a collective). It is not clear whether private firms and traditional kinds of interest organizations are included in the notion of stakeholders. The literature tends to talk about stakeholders from civil society, but economic actors also have stakes in public problem solving and may thus constitute a special kind of stakeholder that often have many resources including for example, professional staff.

Practices of Co-production and Co-creation

CC are suitable for addressing complex and community-based issues, such as levels of service provision, land use planning, crime prevention, climate change and infrastructure projects (Head, 2007; Roberts, 2004; Hofstad and Torfing, 2015; Pluchinotta et al. 2019). They are also widely applied and researched in studies of local government and urban governance (e.g. Musso et. al 2000; Coaffee and Healey, 2003; Bickerstaff and Walker, 2005; Edelenbos, 2005; Wagenaar, 2007; King and Cotterill, 2007; Rosol, 2010; Sandoval-Almazan and Gil-Garcia, 2012; McCall and Dunn, 2012; Braun et al. 2013; Bonsón et al. 2015; Meijer and Bolíar, 2016).2

CC are suited to solving problems with cross-scale dynamics such as pollution problems, droughts, diseases outbreaks, and collapsing fish levels (Cash et al., 2006; Wagenaar, 2007). 3. There are examples of CC at the national, supranational and international levels (Beierle et al. 2000; Newman et al. 2004; Cash et al. 2006; Dryzek, 2007; Head, 2007; Ansell and Torfing, 2015; Bryson et al. 2017), but they tend to be less frequent. It should be borne in mind that global goals can be dealt with through co-creation at the local level. The United Nations, for example, commends that its Sustainable Development Goals can only be reached through local collaboration in networks and partnerships (the seventeenth goal).

In the final instance, the prevalence of co-creation at different scales and across scales depends on the formation of platforms and arenas for co-production and co-creation (Ansell and Gash, 2017). Platforms are relatively permanent opportunity structures that support the formation, adaptation and multiplication of arenas for co-creation. The notion of platforms links the research on co-production and co-creation to theories of institutional design.

2 Other topics addressed in the corpus included in this literature review were the environment, climate change, energy and sustainable development, including water management (e.g. Edelenbos et al. 2011; Collins and Ison, 2009; Kallis et al. 2009; Andonova, 2010; Wolsink, 2012; Cvitanovic et al. 2015); social policy and the welfare state (Pestoff, 2006, Newman et al. 2004; Collins and Ison, 2009); healthcare (Martin, 2008; Dunston et al. 2009); and education (McCulloch, 2009). 3 Scale is defined as the “spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions used to measure and study any phenomenon and “levels” as the units of analysis that are located ad different positions on a scale” (Gibson et al. 2000 in Cash et al. 2008; see also Ansell and Torfing, 2015: 317).

33

Drivers and Barriers

The roles of stakeholders CC are multi-actor processes where no single actor has hierarchical control over all the others and where agreeing on shared goals is required (Huxham and Vangen, 2000). Therefore, attention should be paid to stakeholders and how to manage relationships between them. One of the reported barriers to success is stakeholder’s role confusion. CC require that actors are informed about and adopt their (new) roles and functions, in particular, those who were previously solely involved in public services and policy (Coafee and Healey, 2003; Roberts, 2004; Edelenbos, 2005; Head, 2007; Yang and Callahan, 2007; Fung 2015; Torfing et al. 2019).

Public officials are facilitators of CC (Box et al. 2001; Endelenbos, 2005; Fischer, 2006). They use their knowledge and expertise to assist citizens and other stakeholders in understanding complex public policies (e.g. nuclear power, mass-migration and climate change) and how these affect their daily lives. They also help them to acquire the techniques they need to become involved in public policy issues in a non-threatening and open deliberative setting. This, in turn, can increase participation and stimulate individual engagement.

However, accounts are found in the literature of bureaucratic rigidity, within which public administrators and public professionals continue to dominate the decision-making procedure and act as the (sole) experts (Edelenbos, 2005; Head, 2007). When a change in behaviour and mentality does not occur, tensions between stakeholders arise; there is a risk that stakeholders will be alienated and the participation levels will drop. This adds to the already unequal level playing field between public officials and organised interest vis-à-vis citizens. In principle, the latter have fewer skills, various education levels, and less time to devote to collaboration and deliberation than the former (Roberts, 2004: 331).

The inclusion of stakeholders The multiplicity of actors is difficult to manage and can be a barrier to reaching decisions. Co- production and co-creation must seek to include broad participation and in particular the inclusion of minorities who have traditionally been excluded from decision-making processes (Roberts, 2004). When those that are at the fringe of society or are the least active in civic life are included, co- production and co-creation can deliver values, such as social justice (Fung 2015). If not, they risk legitimising the status quo (Gaventa, 2006).

Co-production and co-creation need to include also the most relevant and powerful stakeholders. If these are excluded, there is a risk they will derail the process (for example, by choosing alternative processes of decision-making). While inclusion is important to gain legitimacy, there is often a tension between the concern for securing broad-based participation and the ability to mediate conflicts and get the participants to agree on joint solutions. As such, there is sometimes a difficult decision to be made as to whether to include (and try to neutralize) highly critical and oppositional actors, or whether to exclude them in order to be able to align the other participants interests.

Process and Design Intentional and formal actions are required to start co-production and co-creation. Basic ground rules (on transparency, timetables, procedures and roles) need to be set because they ensure the legitimacy of the process (Emerson et al. 2011; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007; Fischer, 2006; Ferretti et al., 2018). A poorly designed process - where procedures and aims are not set out - risks becoming meaningless for participants and serves to decrease participation (Feng, 2015; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). However, the formality of the process is not sufficient if stakeholders are not socialised into their roles through informal processes, such as the pedagogical cultivation of participation (Fischer, 2006; Pahl-Wostl, 2007; Turnhout et al. 2010) and the existence of a culture of openness and transparency (Edelenbos,

34

2005: 129; Bensón et al. 2014).

While the co-production and co-creation require some formal rules, these need to allow change (Beierle et al. 2000; Edelenbos 2005). For example, the rule on consensus decision-making can be implemented in the beginning, but should be reverted to avoid stalemate and to permit innovation; timetables should be set, but they should be realistic and not limit long-term collaboration (Ansell and Ash, 2008; Kallis et al. 2009). The more stakeholders are involved in decision-making, the more attention should be paid to the process (Bryson and Anderson, 2000; Roberts, 2004).

Many studies report that the lack of institutional frameworks causes significant problems in co- production and co-creation processes (Edelenbos, 2005; Fischer, 2006; Fung, 2015). What is missing are integrative elements between the new-interactive and old-traditional structures and procedures. For example, according to Edelenbos, (2005), it is a mistake to exclude elected representatives because they often take the final formal decision. If politicians are not involved throughout the process (even in the design of rules), co-production and co-creation risks being run in parallel to (or as a stage in) traditional forms of decision-making. This will likely cause the outcomes of collaborative practices to be disregarded and, thus, compromise the collaborative and inclusive essence of co- production and co-creation. All stakeholders need to be involved in decisions over the rules of the process since this creates ownership and stronger commitments (Ansell and Ash, 2008). Formal institutions such as laws, rules, and frameworks, all have had a positive effect on the introduction of co-production and co-creation (Roberts, 2004; Edelenbos, 2005; Newman et al. 2008).

Motivation to co-produce and co-create The early literature on co-production in the 1970s and 1980s emphasised altruism as a motivation to co-produce and co-create. According to Alford (2002; 2009), actors are motivated by intrinsic, sociality and normative motivations. Individuals with intrinsic motivation co-produce and co-create because they find it an enjoyable experience. Sociality (or solidarity) is the reward arising from associating with others, such as social capital or the achievement of status in the community and the feeling of being part of a group. Normative motivation arises from the moral values of individuals on what is right and wrong, which can differ from their self-interest.

To engage actors in co-production and co-creation, public agencies appeal to any of these motivations. In turn, stakeholders will respond because a material benefit is offered, from fear of sanctions (e.g. punishment, fines, material or non-material) or as a matter of habit (socialisation in the behaviour of participation and collaboration). Stakeholders are more likely to participate when outcomes are legally binding for politicians or those who formally adopt decisions. According to Ansell and Gash, (2008), participation is less appealing for those with power and resources than those without since the inclusion of new actors threatens the position of old actors.

Stakeholders’ motivation also depends on the process/institutional designs. CC are further strengthened when stakeholders depend on another (Emerson et al. 2011). Collaborative dynamics, such as trust, mutual understanding, the legitimacy of the process and shared commitments are also factors that positively shape stakeholder’s motivations.

Co-destruction of public value

A growing number of scholars (Plé and Caceres, 2010; Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Brandsen et al., 2018) have drawn attention to the fact that collaborative interaction between public and private actors not only leads to the co-creation of public value, but also has adverse consequences as it may foster the co-destruction of public value. The involved actors may set out to solve social problems, meet socioeconomic challenges and carry out important public tasks through the exchange and pooling of resources, but instead of—or perhaps in addition to—public value creation, they end up destroying public value.

35

There are several sources of the co-destruction of public value. Hence, the involved actors might miss important opportunities to act by being unperceptive or slow to act when the window of opportunity allowed them to climate proof a local neighbourhood or prevent social problems from getting out of control (see Williams et al., 2016). At other times, the actors may be perfectly attentive to the situation, but lacking in competence so that their combined effort to do deal with important problems, challenges or tasks ends up makes everybody worse off. Finally, strong or irresponsible actors may also abuse the power that get when participating in co-creation.

Co-creation and Co-production and ICTs

Digitalisation – understood as the use of new digitalised ICTs – is a facilitative element of co-creation and co-production (Dunleavy et al., 2006; Dawes, 2008). ICTs, in fact, enable the collaborative and interactive nature of CC in addition or in place of face-to-face contacts. For example, Web 2.0 technologies (e.g. social media, blogs, video-sharing, and web applications) have equipped public administrations with accessible and low cost tools which are necessary for interactions between public agencies and citizens (Picazo-Vela et al. 2012; Linders, 2012; for other examples of ICT uses see Linders, 2012: 449; and Sanford and Rose, 2004: 413). Moreover, by referring to the business process reengineering literature, Nograšek and Vintar, (2014) have argued that implementation and realisation of ICTs lead to cost reduction, better efficiency, accountability, transparency and good quality services.

In most cases, public organisations use ICTs for information purposes, such as government to citizens ‘G2C’ or government as a platform (Linders, 2012). Yet, the provision of information through ICTs alone does not end in CC. To deliver CC, ICTs have to be used for the provision and enhancement of services and the engagement with citizens such as e-participation (Sanford and Rose, 2004; Sӕbø et al. 2008).

Electronic government (e-government) - one of the most frequently used term in the literature - is useful to explore the links between co-production and co-creation and ICTs (Pors, 2015). Broadly defined, e-government is an umbrella term for the use of ICTs in the public sector (Bonsón et al. 2014; see Dawes, 2008: S87). Some authors are critical of the use of e-government. Namely, Kunstelj and Vintar (2004) argue that a narrow focus on e-government fails to provide a true overall assessment of the state of affairs. Therefore, e-government needs to include activities in e-administration, the transformation of governmental services by using ICTs, as well as e-democracy - the transformation of democratic political systems by ICTs (Mahrer and Krimmer, 2005; Thomas and Streib, 2005). When e-administration and e-democracy work together, the elements of digital engagement result in citizens’ e-participation, e.g. e-voting, online political discourse, online decision-making, e-activism, e- consultations, e-campaigning, e-petitioning (Sӕbø et al. 2008: 407-410), which in turn promotes democratic values such as openness and active participation, and the legitimacy of the political system.

In addition to enhancing legitimacy, Pečarič, (2018) argues that governments should invest resources into the IT infrastructure, open e-forums and other public forums in order to get the most reliable, objective and accurate information that any country can get from its most important source – its people. The result is a transformation in society, where citizens are informed and engaged, services are tailored to community needs and organisation are fit for purpose (Sanford and Rose 2007; King and Cotterill 2007; Sandoval-Almaza and Gil-Garcia 2012).

36

While promoted as an enabler of CC, the use of ICTs in practice has so far been limited (Musso et al. 2000, Thomas and Streib, 2005; King and Cotterill, 2007; Dawes, 2008; Brianard et al. 2010; Sandoval- Almazan and Gil-Garcia, 2012; Bonsón et al. 2014; Rakar et al., 2016; Mabić and Gašpar, 2018). Notable exceptions are political campaigning and e-voting (Dawes, 2008). While information and services are delivered in new (and more effective) technological ways; they rarely result in the interactive or two- way engagement required in CC. This is because the interactive elements of ICTs that stimulate participation, such as social networks, are rarely implemented (Bonsón et al., 2014; Jukić & Merlak, 2017).

One of the other reasons for the limited use of ICTs in the engagement of citizens is the lack of legislative guidance on ICTs (Mahrer and Krimmer 2005; Dawes 2008; Picazo-Vela 2012). Based on the landscape in the USA, Dawes (2008) concludes that the lack of legislative initiative has led to fragmented and unstructured public policies on the use of ICTs. However, in order to compensate for the lack of legislation, in Denmark, think-tanks and public organizations have published guidelines for digital transformation of the public sector and how such a transformation can be supported by digital leadership (Det Digital Råd, 2012; KL, 2015; Regeringen, Danske Regioner and KL, 2016).

The implication for the COGOV project

The most recent research shows that to achieve theoretical clarity and compare findings, researchers should pay more attention to the definitions and operationalisations of co-production and co- creation. In the COGOV project, it is appropriate to adopt a broad definition of co-production and co- creation: co-production and co-creation are about the involvement of non-government actors as individuals, groups or collectives, in a wide range of public policy processes (formulation, implementation and delivery of public policy), which result in the improvement of services and/or innovation.

Co-creation and co-production are fuzzy concepts. In the academic literature, several definitions are used. Apart from co-creation and co-production, similar “co-“ concepts can be identified in the literature (e.g. co-management, co-design, co-governance, co-prioritization, co-policy-making, co- assessment, co-providing, etc.) and all of them have the potential to include citizens and external users into the public policy and management cycles (Loeffler & Bovaird, 2016). The question for COGOV is how are these concepts understood in practice? To what extent do debates on co-creation and co- production overlap with forms of collaborative leadership and ideas on public value and network governance?

Although extensive research on co-creation and co-production has been carried out. Most of the findings are based on case-studies. This review suggests that there is a need to research co-creation and co-production comparatively and to analyse them across different administrative system contexts and policy arenas. There is also a need for longitudinal studies to understand how co-creation and co- production have diffused over time (if indeed they have).

CC include citizens, organised interests, public and private organisations. Co-creation and co- production are implemented at different scales and on a range of public policy solutions and problems, including design, planning, testing, evaluation, monitoring, managing, and solving. What are the most common uses of co-creation and co-production? Who are the most commonly included actors in co- creation and co-production (citizens, the private sector, public organisations)? What are the variations across Europe and policy sectors?

The literature points out that managers in public organisations play a pivotal role in organising co- creation and co-production and that their resistance to change is a barrier. Less is known on the role of elected officials in co-creation and co-production. What role do elected officials play (do they only

37

rubber stamp outcomes from co-creation and co-production, or are they actively involved in the generation of results)? In addition, how do co-creation and co-production affect the relationship between the public, the private sector, citizens, public officials with politicians, and how can the impact of outcomes from co-production and co-creation be measured?

Co-creation and co-production are ways of conducting policies and are increasingly frequently recognized principles of governing. CC are hailed as means to achieve the revitalisation of democracy. This claim is rarely tested. Yet, the outcomes of co-creations and co-production should be considered when promoting their diffusion. To what extent do co-creation and co-production revitalise citizens’ participation in the civic and political life; do they increase the acceptance and legitimacy of representative democracy? Do co-creation and co-production achieve wide-ranging long-lasting effects, and on what do these effects depend on?

The literature review identified how co-creation aims to transform policy and bring innovation and operationalises innovation in two ways. Innovation can either be considered from the point of the participation process and the involvement of stakeholders as in collaborative governance, or from the point of view of the outputs and outcomes of stakeholders’ participation in collaborative processes. Thus, how is innovation understood in practice? If the definition of co-creation and co-production is based on the involvement of citizens, then the question is how citizens can best be included in co- production and co-creation and how can the quality of their inclusion be measured? What is the relationship between co-creation, co-production, public value, and innovation?

Finally, to what extent are co-creation and co-production strategized? Do public organisations have in place procedures and mechanisms to enhance collaboration with citizens, the private sector and other public organisations? What resources are needed to develop a strategy on co-creation and co- production and put it in place? How do these strategies try to mitigate risks?

38

6. Collaborative forms of public leadership

Collaborative leadership as an answer to ‘wicked’ policy problems

Over the last few decades, government leaders have increasingly utilized collaborative approaches to policy-making in order to improve their programs, creating the need to understand the complexities, ambiguities and driving forces of such a multi-faceted process ((O’Toole, 1997; Howlett et al., 2015). From the point of view of both research and practice (Anderson, 1975; Dunn, 1981; Dye, 1972; Jenkins, 1978), policy making is a long-term public decision-making process facing five major complexities: (i) the use of public resources and commons; (ii) the involvement of several organizations and multiple stakeholders in a “de facto” participative process; (iii) the long time horizon; (iv) the search for legitimation; and (v) the requirements of accountability (De Marchi et al., 2016).

Initially, policy making has been considered to be a linear path from ‘problem definition’ to ‘options evaluation’ (Mintrom et al., 2016). However, thanks to the increasing awareness of the complexities facing the public sector, this view has been challenged. Specifically, actors with different stakes, problem frames, rationales, and values are brought together in intricate networks to participate in the policy making processes (Fischer et al. 2007, Giordano et al. 2017). As McGuire and Silvia (2010) comment, 'the public manager must regularly and skilfully navigate a multitude of actors and programs in the intergovernmental system' (quoted in Silvia, 2017).

The transition to a collaborative and more inclusive participatory public decision-making process is highlighted in the work of Rittel and Webber, (1973) on wicked societal problems. Instead of a rational selection among given policy alternatives, policy-making becomes the result of negotiations between various actors (Sabatier, 2007) within a collaborative process (Nogueira et al., 2017).

The increasing need for a collaborative policy-making approach mirrors the awareness of complexity as a 'wicked' intertwined problem which is hard to be manage. Agranoff, (2012), suggests that, in dealing with complicated and wicked problems, there is a pressure to innovate through interorganizational cooperation and collaboration. Sequentially, a flourishing set of research and investigations have evolved (Agranoff, 2006, Ansell and Gash, 2008, Emerson et al. 2011, O’Leary et al, 2006, Kerret and Menahem, 2015). Wicked problems are wicked, amongst other reasons, because they cannot be “solved” due to at least two of the ten principles of Rittel and Webber (1973): a) that there is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem, and b) wicked problems have no stopping rule – i.e. there is no way to know your solution is final.

While ‘tame’ problems are characterized by a clear problem definition, a finite solution space, and well-defined criteria against which to compare solutions (Checkland, 1978; Rittel and Webber, 1973), with complex and interconnected systems such as policy making, it became evident that there is no a priori objective way to define a problem (Veldhuis et al. 2015). As a result, in such ‘wicked’ problems, problem formulation itself is the problem (Rittel and Webber, 1973). This creates a ‘messy’ situation in which people might disagree on what the problem is or even whether there is a problem to begin with (Ackoff, 1979). The concepts of ‘wicked’ and ‘messy’ are often used together to describe situations where defining a problem is ultimately a decision made by the actors involved. Influencing such a situation can benefit from problem structuring to facilitate building a shared understanding of the interdependencies involved amongst a multitude of decision makers and stakeholders and creating support for the problem definition and potential interventions (Veldhuis et al., 2015).

In this line of thinking, research and practice call for a shift from managerial roles of public administration to the named collaborative roles to enable administrative systems and processes for effective participation (King et al., 1998). Indeed, adopting adequate leadership roles in collaborative processes for policy making has been proven to be a success factor for public managers: from a collaborative governance perspective, the roles of sponsor, champion, facilitator, and convener are particularly referred to as crucial for effective leadership in direct participation processes (for details see Bryson et al., 2013; Nabatchi and Amsler, 2014).

39

Looking to the wider management research field, collaborative leadership (CL) as a strategic approach has received growing recognition as the most responsive mode for complex information-rich twenty- first century environments (Shriberg et al., 1997; Archer and Cameron, 2008). This is due to its capacity to: increase executive capability; bring together complementary styles, skills and values; facilitate shared and agreed collaborator objectives; promote equal and equitable productivity and efficiency; and enhance legitimacy and action (e.g. Cropper, 1996; Wilson, 2018)

In the past, the emphasis was on collaboration as a remedy for policy implementation failure (Maier et al., 2018). Debates tended to portray agency-collaboration as a response to the consequences of New Public Management style reforms, which furthered specialization of individual administrative units, and increasing complexities, with new policy fields emerging that ignore traditional sector boundaries (Maier et al., 2018). Such efforts to integrate policy frequently demand greater coordination and collaboration (Ansell and Gash, 2008).

The idea of government agencies working together - or with - non-government stakeholders is not new (van den Brink, 2011). However, for public managers’ traditional administrative roles, “the central component of administering is the top-down decision-making” (Harmon and Mayer, 1986, p. 35). This component, clashes with the characteristics of collaborative approaches of power sharing and bottom-up decision-making (Roberts, 2004). Thus, a shift of traditional to CL roles is a difficult endeavour for public managers (Wallmeier et al., 2018).

Working on the assumption that collaborative advantage is not achieved by hegemonic leadership practices, effective collaboration will adopt an equitable model of ownership, control and decision making (Wilson 2018). The 19th century “great man” framework of leadership focusing on “identifying the innate qualities and attributes possessed by great social, political, and military leaders” (Northouse, 2001, p. 15) is giving way to collective, 'boundaryless' and connected leadership across organizations (Swensen et al., 2016).

Key aspects of collaborative leadership

Collaboration is defined as 'a durable relationship that brings previously separate organizations into a new structure with commitment to a commonly defined mission, structure, or planning effort' (Perrault et al., 2011, p. 283). Thus, public managers who work collaboratively find themselves not just unitary leaders of unitary organizations (Maier et al., 2018) but facilitating and operating in multi- organizational arrangements to solve problems that cannot be solved, or solved easily, by single organizations (McGuire, 2006).

Collaboration among public, institutions, civil society, non-profit and private organizations is increasingly relied on to deliver successful policy outcomes (McGuire, 2006; O’Leary et al., 2006, Schneider, 2009). Therefore, CL plays a significant role in setting guidelines for effective collaboration, building trust, facilitating dialogue (Ansell and Gash, 2008) and fostering consensus- building processes (Purbani, 2017). CL is defined as the ability to lead a collective process that fosters trust, respect, openness, conflict resolution, creativity, and responsibility among members (Zakocs et al., 2007). It is a social process to engage institutional and non-institutional stakeholders, individually and in teams, to face challenges, and then work together to advance mission-aligned goals (Swensen et al., 2016).

CL differs from the form of “top-down leadership” typically used to advance organizational goals in a number of ways. While traditional leaders work to inspire and convince followers (e.g. staff, volunteers, institution members) to enact their vision, collaborative leaders find themselves in both the position of leader and follower. Rather than possess or consolidate power, collaborative leaders share and disperse power throughout the network and build capacity by broadening participation. Instead of defining problems and solutions, collaborative leaders emphasize dialogue, build relationships, value and respect diverse viewpoints, and work to find common ground among competing sets of values (Imperial 2016).

Furthermore, van den Brink, (2011) identifies three types of leadership important in public institutions, each emphasising a different aspect of leadership:

40

• Visionary leadership is important to link different time scales and to convince others to anticipate potential future threats, providing long-term visions (Young, 2000).

• Entrepreneurial leadership is necessary to stimulate actions and undertakings, for example to

gain access to the necessary resources for realising adaptation projects (Andersson and Mol, 2002; Termeer, 2009).

• Collaborative Leadership is necessary to bridge gaps, span boundaries and build coalitions,

encouraging collaboration between different actors (Huxham and Vangen, 2000).

Within this context, CL is widely seen as a critical ingredient in bringing parties to the table and nurturing them through the rough patches of the collaborative process (Chrislip and Larson 1994; Huxham and Vangen, 2000; Margerum, 2002; Gunton and Day, 2003; Vangen and Huxham, 2003; Laskerand Weiss, 2003; Frame et al., 2004; Heikkila and Gerlak, 2005; Imperial, 2005; Purbani, 2017). Therefore, an effective CL framework can help mobilize resources, foster dialogues, encourage participation and overcome conflicts between stakeholders (Crosby and Bryson, 2005; Hemphill et al., 2006; Rondinelli, 2009; Talvitie, 2012; Purbani, 2017).

Vangen and Huxham (2003) argue that CL is considered pivotal also to embrace, empower, and involve stakeholders and then mobilize them to move collaboration forward. Chrislip and Larson (1994) describe the collaborative leader as a steward of the process (transforming, servant, or facilitative leadership) whose leadership style is 'characterized by its focus on promoting and safeguarding the process (rather than on individual leaders taking decisive action)'. It is interesting to note that CL is also important for empowering and representing weaker stakeholders. Lasker and Weiss, (2003) argue that facilitative leaders must 'give meaningful voice to participants' and encourage participants to listen to each other. Ozawa (1993), for example, describes 'transformative” techniques of CL in which mediation procedures helps to bring about a 'balance of power' among stakeholders and to explore possibilities for mutual gain.

The leadership problems in collaborative practices are more frequently highlighted in the literature on the power conferred on the leader and its legitimacy. Bramwell and Sharman, (1999) and Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones, (2002) stress the excessive power conferred on the leader both, at the initial phase of the process, when identifying the key stakeholders with a seat at the negotiation table, and when also determining the discussion focus (Almeida et al., 2018). Jamal and Getz, (1999) also stress the caution that should be taken when conferring power not only on the leader, but on the other process managers (the mediator/facilitator) as well as they may promote but also hinder the collaborative process (Amsler and O’Leary, 2017).

Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that the most important factor in establishing CL is to recognize the necessity for interdependence between stakeholders. If the stakeholders can realize that their principles will be implemented only through cooperation, this will help them recognize their problems, establish effective working arrangements and reach agreement through shared understanding (Purbani, 2017).

Collaborative leadership principles and operational competences

Creating public value through collaborative innovation requires a special kind of leadership work (see for example, Bason, 2010; Crosby and Bryson, 2010; Williams, 2012; Ansell and Gash, 2012; ‘t Hart, 2014; Hartley, Sørensen, and Torfing 2013; Crosby et al., 2016). Indeed, CL has been recognized as one

41

of the most critical elements to successful community collaboration (Nowell et al., 2016). Salamon (2002) observes that collaboration and collaborative governance shift the emphasis from the control of large bureaucratic organizations and the administrative way of managing public programs to enablement CL skills. These enablement skills are used to bring people together, to engage partners horizontally, and to bring multiple collaborators together for a common end in a situation of interdependence. Examples include negotiation, facilitation, collaborative problem solving, and conflict management (O'Leary, 2006)

According to Wilson (2018), key collaborative leadership operational competences include: (i) the effective identification and inclusion of relevant stakeholders; (ii) the collaborative identification of a shared goal and concern; iii) equitable ownership, control and decision making. While Markle-Reid et al. (2017) identified other CL characteristics: (i) it emerges from a group of interacting individuals; (ii) it features open boundaries; and (iii) it encourages the distribution of expertise and knowledge across many participants.

Furthermore, Crosby (2005) defines eight CL skills areas:

(i) Leadership in context, i.e. understanding the social, political, economic and technological ‘givens’; (ii) Personal leadership, i.e. understanding self and others; (iii) Team leadership, i.e. building productive work groups; (iv) Organizational leadership, i.e. nurturing humane and effective organizations; (v) Visionary leadership, i.e. creating and communicating shared meaning in forums; (vi) Political leadership, i.e. making and implementing decisions in legislative, executive and administrative arenas, (vii) Ethical leadership, i.e. adjudicating disputes and sanctioning conduct in courts; and (viii) Policy entrepreneurship, i.e. coordinating leadership tasks over the course of policy change cycles

In conclusion, collaboration is dependent on the officials and managers who must have the skills to be effective collaborators (Amsler and O’Leary, 2017). These skills are used to bring people together, to engage partners horizontally, and to bring multiple collaborators together for a common goal in a situation of interdependence. Necessary skills include negotiation, facilitation, collaborative problem solving, and conflict management (Deutsch and Coleman, 2000).

Legitimacy

Crosby et al. (2016) state that, in collaborative settings, public managers still need to act as strategic entrepreneurs, but instead of relying mainly on the ideas and visions and the transformative capacity of their own organization, they must work with (and through) a broad range of relevant and affected actors that hold important innovation assets such as experience, ideas, creativity, courage, authority, and legitimacy.

In collaborative settings, legitimacy is a generalized perception that the actions of a collaborating entity are desirable, proper, or within some system of norms, values, and definitions (O’Leary and Vij, 2012). For a collaboration to exist, work, and achieve its purpose, CL should consider how they would build and manage legitimacy (Milward and Provan, 2006). Legitimacy may help in securing political and financial resources, as well as assuring the perpetuation of organizational activity (Alexander & O’Leary, 2009). On one hand, legally mandated collaborations have a certain degree of granted legitimacy. On the other, legitimacy can also be built through trusting previous relationships and by conforming to the norms of the institutional environment (Bryson et al., 2006). Thus, to ensure the success and longevity of collaborative efforts, public managers are encouraged to establish the collaboration as a legitimate organizational form (Amsler and O’Leary, 2017).

Maintaining transparency also helps to secure legitimacy of, and accountability within, the collaborative process (Bryson et al., 2013; Aschoff, 2017). Collaborative Leaders must act as sponsors,

42

champions, catalysts, and implementers (for more details Crosby et al., 2016). Specifically, sponsors are actors in the authorizing environment (such as mayors, legislators, or agency heads) who have political authority they can deploy to channel resources and add legitimacy to the collaboration and innovative endeavours (Crosby and Bryson, 2005).

In conclusion, collaborative leaders facilitate collaboration by serving as stewards of the collaborative process itself and often of the community they represent. By developing and promoting the legitimacy of collaboration and by ensuring that the process is indeed collaborative, leaders establish the basic framework in which collaboration unfolds. This stewardship role shades into the role of leaders as mediators (Ansell and Gash, 2012)

Conclusions – links to COGOV

Scholars assert that collaborative governance requires CL, emphasizing that the leadership role in collaboration is to establish and encourage public involvement by providing a long-term vision, in order to develop effective policies and participatory skills (e.g. Ryan, 2001; Innes and Booher, 1999; Purbani, 2017). Within this context, this concluding section details some key themes derived from this literature review which can inform the design of future COGOV WPs.

Firstly, there is a need to further explore how CL has been operationalised in collaborative policy making contexts, by studying policy innovations in a portfolio of real-world case studies. Several CL principles and required competences are described in the available literature, however the analysis of best practices is essential for the COGOV project.

Secondly, what are the obstacles to enacting CL in current landscape of public agencies? How important is leadership by itself or are other factors also important (e.g. local history and context)?

Thirdly, the importance of legitimacy to CL needs to be better understood. The literature review highlights the need to build and manage CL legitimacy without analysing its practical attributes and process of attainment. Consequentially, what are the available methodologies for enhancing the CL within a collaborative policy making process? How can a choice be made between individual and collective leadership? Furthermore, it should be further investigated how to elicit the perceived CL legitimacy within the collaborating group in order to enable the collaborative process.

Finally, the presence of ambiguity in framing the problem to be addressed could challenge the effectiveness of the collaborative approach and CL. Thus, what is the most suitable approach for representing different values, goals and knowledge when engaging stakeholders in a collaborative process?

43

7. Conclusions and Implications

The approach followed in this literature review argues that the wholescale renewal, redesign and democratic revitalisation of public agencies and services can most usefully be seen through a New Public Governance strategic management prism (Osborne, 2006). A focus that goes beyond standard Weberian/bureaucratic and New Public Management (NPM) paradigms to display a greater concern for downward-facing themes of public value, co-creation and collaboration, governing and managing through democratic and inclusive networks, as complementary values to those of due process (Weber) or efficient and cost effective service production (NPM). New Public Governance is thus associated with models of governance that developed as a response to the downstream implementation of public policies and services, and the growth of knowledge and institutional capacity enabled by digitalisation and technology in post-industrialist societies. NPG is tasked to strengthen the legitimacy of government and public actions - and solve complex problems - by extending the number of stakeholders involved in problem solving and service delivery.

To this end, the report, necessarily, captures a large and complex body of literature, spanning a number of disciplines and traditions. Each of the four components bringing its own distinctive insights on downward-facing approaches to the design and delivery of public services. Examples include:

• A focus on public value poses questions on the respective role of public managers and of

elected political leaders in steering public value orientated innovations. If local groups are also part of the wider authorising environment, which groups are included and with what influence and power?

• A focus on network governance, brings with it a concern on how such networks are managed

and the specific challenges, competencies and skills associated with managing (not controlling) networks in a complex system, as opposed to hierarchies or single-organizations. How can the pursuit of goals by individual actors be influenced in addition to influencing the interaction between actors?

• A focus on processes of co-creation and co-production highlights their central role in

revitalising citizens’ participation in civic and political life and their ability to increase the legitimacy of representative democracy. The question remains, however, ‘to what extent can co-creation and co-production can be strategized’? Do public organisations have in place procedures and mechanisms to mobilize collaboration with citizens, the private sector and other public organisations?

• A focus on collaborative leadership highlights how this approach facilitates collaboration both

by serving as ‘stewards’ of the collaborative process itself and of the communities they represent. These leads to questions on how the legitimacy of collaboration can be ensured and how such collaborative leaders establish the basic framework within which collaboration unfolds. The question also remains as to whether the search for collaborative governance can actually restrict opportunities for risk-taking and innovation?

The literature review (not surprisingly) also highlights the variety of linkages between the four schools of thought. For example, following Moore's work (1995), wider debates on a Public Value paradigm see the 'governance of the public realm' involving 'networks of deliberation and delivery in pursuit of public value' (Stoker, 2006, p 47). Through such networks between government and a wide range of civil society organisations and stakeholders, a shared understanding of values emerges which goes beyond efficiency and effectiveness to include values upholding collaboration, democracy, participation and legitimacy. There is also a shared emphasis on new forms of trust-based collaborative approaches to service delivery based on inclusivity and greater equality between participants in the decision-making process. Central to this is seeing service users working interactively with government as co-producers during the delivery stage

44

of policy (Meijer, 2011). More recently, a focus on co-creation has further widened this focus to service-user collaboration during the innovative and creative service design stage (Thomsen, 2017). Co-creation theory can thus learn much from the conditions for promoting co-creation from the literature on the meta-governance of networks or ‘collaborative’ platforms (Ansell and Gash, 2018) There are also tensions within, and between the strands of literature. Network governance, co- creation and coproduction, and collaborative leadership are part of the public value stream when they include deliberation, the careful examination of policy issues and the consideration of different views, which produces a public judgment on what represents a common good (Roberts 2004). However, neither network governance nor co-production/co-creation necessarily lead towards public value. The exclusion or inaction of stakeholders can result in the adoption of a consensus that can create new conflicts. At the same time, the expressions of a range of interests can further polarize opinion and deepen existing conflicts. Collaborative forms of governance such as network governance, co- production and co-creation are also ways to deal with conflict, because they accommodate value diversity (Coafee and Healey, 2003). The review also suggests an element of caution when depicting narrative shifts. While key aspects of downward-facing models may suggest a shift towards a New Public Governance, do case studies capture experiences that still echo some principles of NPM, if (for example) a core leadership role is still accorded to senior public managers? If in practice, the need to win support from elected politicians as key resource controllers is still overwhelming, it is that any different (in the end) from Old Public Administration? Following this review, we can also usefully make a distinction between three key terms that are often used inter-changeably, namely, Co-governance, Co- Production and Co-Creation: Co-Governance: Describes a situation in which an institution of government shares - in an equitable manner- effective decision-making with one or more entities (such as community/citizens organizations) in an area in which the institution has hitherto enjoyed the formal decision-making power. Co-production: Describes an interactive process through which the providers and users of public services apply their different resources and capabilities in its production and delivery. It usually does not encompass actors beyond service providers and users and is limited to the joint production of already existing services. Co-creation: Describes the process through which two or more public and private actors attempt to solve a shared problem, challenge, or task through a constructive exchange of different kinds of knowledge, resources, competences, and ideas that enhance the production of public value in terms of visions, plans, policies, strategies, regulatory frameworks, or services, either through a continuous improvement of outputs or outcomes or through innovative step-changes that transform the understanding of the problem or task at hand and lead to new ways of solving it

We can also restate the key intellectual question for COGOV: ‘How can strategic management enable public and quasi-public agencies to exploit the drivers - and overcome the barriers - to the co-production or co-creation of innovative public value outcomes at both organizational and project levels, and which lessons can be shared on undertaking strategically managed co-production and co-creation’?

45

Finally, at the end of each discrete section, the review looks forward to how the debates identified can inform the research undertaken in the COGOV programme of study.

The key opportunities are very much part of the benefits of applied, multi-scalar and comparative research:

• COGOV needs to explore further how public leaders, managers and stakeholders have

operationalised the key concepts in real world innovations in EU countries • COGOV needs to compare, contrast and explain variations across nations and administrative

systems • COGOV needs to compare, contrast and explain variations across governance levels and policy

sectors • COGOV needs to assess whether, and to what extent, innovative approaches cluster in a

particular place • COGOV needs to examine what is the most appropriate unit of organizational analysis: to what

extent does it move beyond the single public agency or ministry and involve wider consortia, inter agency and multi-level collaborations - or even diffuse networks

46

8. Bibliography

Aagaard, P., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, (2017). Samarbejdsdrevet innovation i praksis. Copenhagen: DJØF Forlaget.

Abbott, K. W. (2012). The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 571-590.

Ackoff, R. L. (1979). Resurrecting the future of operational research. Journal of the operational research society, 30(3), 189-199.

Agger, A., & Andersen, C. K. (2018). Stedsans: Samskabelse gennem omverdensinddragelse. Copenhagen: Trafik-, bygge- og boligstyrelsen.

Agger, A., & Tortzen, A. (2015). Forskningsreview om samskabelse. Roskilde: Absalon.

Agger, A., Tortzen, A., & Rosenberg, C. (2018). Hvilken værdi skaber vi med samskabelse?. Roskilde: Absalon.

Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review, 66, 56-65.

Agranoff, R. (2012). Collaborating to Manage: A Primer for the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Alford, J. (2008). The limits to traditional public administration, or rescuing public value from misrepresentation. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(3), 357-366.

Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130-148.

Alford, J. (2009). Engaging public sector clients: from service-delivery to co-production. Springer.

Alford, J., & O'Flynn, J. (2009). Making sense of public value: Concepts, critiques and emergent meanings. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 32(3-4), 171-191.

Alford, J. (2010). Public Value from Co Production by Clients. In Benington, J., & Moore, M.H (eds.) Public value: Theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 144-157.

Allmendinger, P., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2002). The communicative turn in urban planning: Unravelling paradigmatic, imperialistic and moralistic dimensions. Space and Polity, 6(1), 5-24.

Almeida J., et al., (2018). Collaborative approach for tourism conflict management: A Portuguese case study. Land Use Policy, 75, 166–179

Amsler, L.B., & O’Leary, R., (2017). Collaborative public management and systems thinking. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30 (6-7), 626-639,

Andersen, L. B., Jørgensen, T. B., Kjeldsen, A. M., Pedersen, L. H., & Vrangbæk, K. (2012). Public value dimensions: Developing and testing a multi-dimensional classification. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(11), 715-728.

Anderson, J. (1975). Public Policy Making. New York: Praeger Publishing

Andersson, M., & Mol, A. P. (2002). The Netherlands in the UNFCCC process–Leadership between ambition and reality. International Environmental Agreements, 2(1), 49-68.

Andonova, L. B. (2010). Public-private partnerships for the earth: politics and patterns of hybrid authority in the multilateral system. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 25-53.

Ansell, C. (2000). The networked polity: Regional development in Western Europe. Governance, 13(2), 279-291.

47

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2012). Stewards, mediators, and catalysts: Toward a model of collaborative leadership. The Innovation Journal, 17(1), 2.

Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2014). Public innovation through collaboration and design. London: Routledge.

Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2015). How does collaborative governance scale? Policy & Politics, 43(3), 315- 329.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2017). Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 16-32.

Archer, D., & Cameron, A. (2008). Collaborative Leadership: how to Succeed in an Interconnected World. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (2004). Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baiocchi, G. (2003). Emergent public spheres: talking politics in participatory governance. American Sociological Review, 52-74.

Bang, H. P. (2003). Governance as social and political communication. Manchester University Press.

Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. Bristol: Policy Press.

Bason, C., Knudsen, S. S., and Toft. S. (2009). Sæt borgerne i spil. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

Batory, A., & Svensson, S. (2017). Literature and Report Review. Horizon 2020 TROPICO Project. Available at: http://tropico-project.eu/download/work-package-2-deliverable-2-1-literature-and- report-review/?wpdmdl=592 (13/11/2018).

Beer, S. H. (1978). Federalism, nationalism, and democracy in America. American Political Science Review, 72(1), 9-21.

Beierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2000). Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy analysis and Management, 19(4), 587-602.

Benington, J., & Moore, M. (2010). Public Value in Complex and Changing Times’. In Benington, J. and Moore, M.H. (eds.) Public value: Theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-30

Benson, J. K. (1982). A Framework for Policy Analysis. In D. Rogers, D. Whitten and Associates (eds.) Interorganizational Coordination, pp. 137-176. Ames: Iowa

Benz, A., & Papadopoulos, I. (2006). Governance and democracy: comparing national, European and international experiences. Routledge.

Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic Governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bickerstaff, K., & Walker, G. (2005). Shared visions, unholy alliances: Power, governance and deliberative processes in local transport planning. Urban Studies, 42(12), 2123-2144.

Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O'Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547-558.

Blaug, R., Horner, L., & Lekhi, R. (2006). Public value, politics and public management. A Literature Review. London: Work Foundation.

Bodin, Ö., & Nohrstedt, D. (2016). Formation and performance of collaborative disaster management networks: Evidence from a Swedish wildfire response. Global Environmental Change, 41, 183-194.

Bogason, P., & Zølner, M. (2006). Methods in democratic network governance. Springer.

48

Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public Management Review, 11(1), 15-33.

Bonsón, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2015). Citizens' engagement on local governments' Facebook sites. An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 52-62.

Bourgon, J. and Dahl, K. (2017). Den nye syntese for offentlig værdiskabelse i det 21. århundrede. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologforlag.

Bovaird, T. (2004). Public–private partnerships: from contested concepts to prevalent practice. International review of administrative sciences, 70(2), 199-215.

Box, R. C., Marshall, G. S., Reed, B. J., & Reed, C. M. (2001). New public management and substantive democracy. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 608-619.

Brainard, L. A., & McNutt, J. G. (2010). Virtual government–citizen relations: Informational, transactional, or collaborative?. Administration & society, 42(7), 836-858.

Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of tourism research, 26(2), 392-415.

Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction. Public management review, 8(4), 493-501.

Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-production and Co-creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. London: Routledge.

Braun, E., Kavaratzis, M., & Zenker, S. (2013). My city–my brand: the different roles of residents in place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, 6(1), 18-28.

Bryson, J. M., & Anderson, S. R. (2000). Applying large-group interaction methods in the planning and implementation of major change efforts. Public Administration Review, 60(2), 143-162.

Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public management review, 6(1), 21-53.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of Cross-Sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public administration review, 66, 44-55.

Bryson, J. M. (2011). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23-34.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445-456.

Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640-654.

Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the governing of climate change. Annual review of environment and resources, 35, 229-253.

Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 136-154.

CABS (2018) CABS 2018 journal ranking in the public sector. Available at: https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2018/ (15/11/2018).

49

Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and society, 11(2).

Checkland, P. B. (1978). The origins and nature of ‘hard’systems thinking. Journal of applied systems analysis, 5(2), 99-110.

Chrislip, D.D. and Larson, C.E. (1994). Collaborative leadership. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Clarke, J. (2004). Dissolving the public realm? The logics and limits of neo-liberalism. Journal of social Policy, 33(1), 27-48.

Coaffee, J., & Healey, P. (2003). 'My voice: My place': Tracking transformations in urban governance. Urban Studies, 40(10), 1979-1999.

Coats, D., & Passmore, E. (2006). Public Value: The Next Steps in Public Services Reform. London: Work Foundation.

Collins, K., & Ison, R. (2009). Jumping off Arnstein's ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(6), 358-373.

Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government information quarterly, 29(4), 512-520.

Cropper, S. (1996), “Collaborative working and the issue of sustainability”. In Huxham, C. (dd.), Creating Collaborative Advantage. London: Sage Publications.80-100.

Crosby, B.C., & Bryson, J.M. (2005). Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross- sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 211-230.

Crosby, B. C., ‘t Hart, P., & Torfing, J. (2017). Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 655-669.

Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A. J., van Kerkhoff, L., Wilson, S. K., Dobbs, K., & Marshall, N. A. (2015). Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean & Coastal Management, 112, 25-35.

Damgaard, B., & Sørensen, E. (2011). Styr på Beskæftigelsespolitikken. Metastyring af netværk, aktører og processer. Copenhagen: DJØF Publishers.

Dawes, S. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review, 68, S86-S102.

De Marchi, G., Lucertini, G., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2016). From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics. Annals of Operations Research, 236(1), 15-38.

DEMOS (2007) Unlocking Innovation. Collection edited by Parker, S., & Parker, S. Available at: https://www.demos.co.uk/files/Unlocking%20innovation.pdf (15/11/2018).

Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public administration review, 60(6), 549-559.

Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2003). The new public service: An approach to reform. International Review of Public Administration, 8(1), 3-10.

Det Digitale Råd (2012). Digital ledelse. Copenhagen: Det Digital Råd.

Deutsch, M. and Coleman, P.T. (2000). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

50

Dryzek, J. S. (2012). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford University Press.

Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital Era Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dunn, W. (2012). Public policy analysis. Pearson Education

Dunston, R., Lee, A., Boud, D., Brodie, P., & Chiarella, M. (2009). Co-production and health system reform–from re-imagining to re-making. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 39-52.

Dye, T. (1972). Understanding public policy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Echeverri, P., & Skålén, P. (2011). Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 351-373.

Edelenbos, J. (2005). Institutional implications of interactive governance: Insights from Dutch practice. Governance, 18(1), 111-134.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 22(1), 1-29.

Enderlein, H., Walti, S., & Zurn, M. (2010). Handbook on multi-level governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.

European Commission (2018). Co-production. Enhancing the role of citizens in the governance and service delivery. Technical report. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/esf/transnationality/sites/esf/files/news/attachments/technical-dossier-n4- layout-final.pdf (15/11/2018)

Ferretti, V., Pluchinotta, I., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2019). Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes. European Journal of Operational Research, 273(1), 353-363.

Ferlie, E. and Ongaro, E. (2015). Strategic Management in Public Services Organizations. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ferlie, E., Ledger, J., Dopson, S., Fischer, M. D., Fitzgerald, L., McGivern, G., & Bennett, C. (2016). The political economy of management knowledge: management texts in English healthcare organizations. Public Administration, 94(1), 185-203.

Fischer, F. (2006). Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: The cultural politics of discursive space. The American review of public administration, 36(1), 19-40.

Fischer, F., Miller, G., & Sidney, M. S. (2007). Handbook of public policy: theory, politics, and methods. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd

Frame, T. M., Gunton, T., & Day, J. C. (2004). The role of collaboration in environmental management: an evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia. Journal of environmental planning and management, 47(1), 59-82.

Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513-522.

Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: a power analysis. IDS bulletin, 37(6), 23-33.

Giordano, R., Brugnach, M., & Pluchinotta, I. (2017). Ambiguity in problem framing as a barrier to collective actions: some hints from groundwater protection policy in the Apulia Region. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26(5), 911-932.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

51

Greenaway, J., Salter, B., & Hart, S. (2007). How policy networks can damage democratic health: A case study in the government of governance. Public administration, 85(3), 717-738.

Gunton, T. I., & Day, J. C. (2003). The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management. Environments, 31(2), 5-20.

Guy Peters, B., Policy Design: From Technocracy to Complexity, and Beyond. Available at: http://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/5932fa23369d0.pdf

Haddow, G., Laurie, G., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Hunter, K. G. (2007). Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: a modest interdisciplinary proposal. Social Science & Medicine, 64(2), 272-282.

Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harmon, M.M. and Mayer, R.T. (1986). Organization Theory for Public Administration. London, UK: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Harrison, T. M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G. B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N., & Pardo, T. (2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17(2), 83-97.

Hartley, J. (2010). Public Value Through Innovation and Improvement. In in Benington, J., & Moore, M.H. (eds.) Public value: Theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 171-184.

Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 821-830.

Head, B. W. (2007). Community engagement: participation on whose terms?. Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441-454.

Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2005). The formation of large-scale collaborative resource management institutions: Clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions. Policy Studies Journal, 33(4), 583-612.

Hemphill, L., McGreal, S., Berry, J., & Watson, S. (2006). Leadership, power and multisector urban regeneration partnerships. Urban studies, 43(1), 59-80.

Hofstad, H., & Torfing, J. (2015). ‘Collaborative innovation as a tool for environmental, economic and social sustainability in regional governance’. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 19(4), 49-70.

Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Marks, G. W. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Rowman & Littlefield.

Horner, L., Lekhi, R., & Blaug, R. (2006). Deliberative Democracy and the Role of Public Managers – Final Report of the Work Foundation Public Value Consortium. London: the Work Foundation.

Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2015). Weaving the fabric of public policies: Comparing and integrating contemporary frameworks for the study of policy processes. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18 (3), 273–289

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1159-1175.

Imperial, M. T., Ospina, S., Johnston, E., O'Leary, R., Thomsen, J., Williams, P., & Johnson, S. (2016). Understanding leadership in a world of shared problems: advancing network governance in large landscape conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(3), 126-134.

52

Imperial, M.T. (2005). Using Collaboration as Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six Watershed Management Programs. Administration & Society, 37(3), 281-320

Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort?. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.

Jamal, T., & Getz, D. (1999). Community roundtables for tourism-related conflicts: The dialectics of consensus and process structures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3-4), 290-313.

Jelovac, D. (2010). The historical-cultural background of public administration values: the case of Slovenia/Zgodovinsko-kulturno ozadje vrednot v javni upravi: primer Slovenija. Raziskave in Razprave, 3(3), 75.

Jenkins, W. (1978). Policy analysis: A political and organizational perspective. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development. International social science journal, 50 (155), 29-45.

Jessop, B. (2003). Governance and meta-governance: on reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. Governance as social and political communication, 101-116.

Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K., & Zito, A. (2005). The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government?. Political studies, 53(3), 477-496.

Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2009). Fundamentals of strategy. Pearson Education.

Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354-381.

Jørgensen, T. B. and Andersen, L. B. (2010). Værdier og motivation i den offentlige sektor. Økonomi og politik, 83(1), 34-46.

Jukic, T., Verbek, S., Torfing, J., Verbek, S., Pevcin, P., Decman, M., Becina, J. (2019). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: theoretical background and research trends. Available at: http://cogov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Jukic-Vrbek-Nispacee-2019.pdf (31/07/2019).

Jukic, T., & Merlak, M. (2017). The use of social networking sites in public administration: The case of Slovenia. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 15(1), 2-18.

Kaboolian, L. (1998). The new public management: Challenging the boundaries of the management vs. administration debate. Public Administration Review, 58(3), 189-193.

Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agenda for debate. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 44-60.

Kallis, G., Kiparsky, M., & Norgaard, R. (2009). Collaborative governance and adaptive management: Lessons from California's CALFED Water Program. environmental science & policy, 12(6), 631-643.

Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Karunasena, K., & Deng, H. (2012). Critical factors for evaluating the public value of e-government in Sri Lanka. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 76-84.

Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public Services Reform. London: Cabinet Office.

Kenis, P., & Schneider, V. (1991). Policy networks and policy analysis: scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations(pp. 25-59). Campus Verlag.

Kerret, D., & Menahem, G. (2016). Many Hands Make Light Work: The Role of Collaborative

53

Management in Improving Environmental Information Management by Local Authorities. International Public Management Journal, 19(4), 427-452.

Kickert, W. J., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. Sage.

King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 317-326.

King, S., & Cotterill, S. (2007). "Transformational government? The role of information technology in delivering citizen-centric local public services." Local Government Studies 33, no. 3 (2007): 333- 354.

KL (2015). Lokal og digital: Et sammenhængende Danmark, Copenhagen: Kommunernes Landsforening.

Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2010). Toward a theory of public entrepreneurship. European management review, 7(1), 1-15.

Klerks, N. P. (2004). The network paradigm applied to criminal organisations: theoretical nitpicking or a relevant doctrine for investigators? Recent developments in the: Theoretical nitpicking or a relevant doctrine for investigators? Recent. In Transnational Organised Crime. Routledge, pp. 111- 127.

Klijn, E. H., & Edelenbos, J. (2007). Meta-governance as network management. In Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (eds) Theories of democratic network governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199- 214.

Klijn, E. H., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy and governance networks: compatible or not?. Public administration, 85(3), 587-608.

Klijn, E. H., Steijn, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2010). The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88(4), 1063-1082.

Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2014). Complexity in Governance Network Theory. Complexity, Governance & Networks 1 (1):61–70.

Kooiman, J. (1993). Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London: Sage.

Kooiman J. (2002) Governance. A Social-Political Perspective. In Grote J.R., & Gbikpi B. (eds) Participatory Governance. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks: Public private controversies. Routledge.

Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2015). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge.

Kovač, P. (2016). The requirements and limits of the codification of administrative procedures in Slovenia according to European trends. Review of central and east European law, 41 (3/4), 427- 461.

Kovač, P., & Gajduschek, G. (2015). Contemporary Governance Models and Practices in Central and Eastern Europe: Selected Revised Papers from the 22nd NISPAcee Annual Conference, May 22-24, 2014, Budapest: NISPAcee Press.

Kovač, P., Tomaževič, N., Leben, A., & Aristovnik, A. (2016). Reforming public administration in Slovenia: between theory and practice of good governance and good administration. International Journal of Public Policy, 12(3-6), 130-148.

Kovač, P., & Pevcin, P. (2017). Slovene Public Administration Reform: Europeanization as a Bridge over Traditional and Post-Socialist Legacies. In: Kovač, P. and Bileišis, M. (Eds). Public administration reforms in Eastern European Union member states : post-accession convergence and divergence. Ljubljana: Faculty of Administration; Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University.

54

Ledelseskommissionen (2018), Sæt borgerne først, Available at: https://ledelseskom.dk/files/media/documents/hovedpublikationer/saet_borgerne_foerst_- _ledelseskommissionens_rapport.pdf

Lehrer, U., & Laidley, J. (2008). Old mega-projects newly packaged? Waterfront redevelopment in Toronto. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 786-803.

Lewis, C., & Marsh, D. (2012). Network governance and public participation in policy-making: Federal community cabinets in Australia. Australian Journal of public administration, 71(1), 6-19.

Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446-454.

Loeffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2016). User and Community Co-Production of Public Services: What does the evidence tell us? International Journal of Public Administration 39 (13) 1006–1019.

Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., & Stoker, G. (2006). Local Political Participation: The Impact of Rules-in- Use. Public Administration, 84(3), 539-561.

Lowndes, V. (2001). Rescuing Aunt Sally: taking institutional theory seriously in urban politics. Urban Studies, 38(11), 1953-1971.

Mabić, M., & Gašpar, D. (2018). Open Government, Social Media and Western Balkan Countries. Central European Public Administration Review, 16(2), 23-44.

MacLeod, G. (2011). Urban politics reconsidered: Growth machine to post-democratic city?. Urban Studies, 48(12), 2629-2660.

Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2009). Perspective—The interdependence of private and public interests. Organization science, 20(6), 1034-1052.

Mahrer, H., & Krimmer, R. (2005). Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the notion of the ‘middleman paradox’. Information systems journal, 15(1), 27-42.

Maier, C., & Wirth, K. (2018). The world (s) we live in–Inter-agency collaboration in forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 96, 102-111.

Majgaard, K. (2014). ‘På vej mod et nyt sprog for offentlig værdiskabelse’, Økonomistyring og Informatik, 29(5), 473-492.

Marcussen M., & Olsen H.P. (2007). Transcending Analytical Cliquishness with Second-generation Governance Network Analysis. In Marcussen M., & Torfing J. (eds) Democratic Network Governance in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marcussen, M., & Torfing, J. (2007). Democratic Network Governance in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Margerum, R.D. (2002). Collaborative Planning – Building Consensus and Building a Distinct Model for Practice. Journal of Planning and Education and Research, 21, 237-253.

Marin, B., & Mayntz, R. (1991). Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Campus Verlag.

Marinetto, M. (2003). Governing beyond the centre: A critique of the Anglo-governance school. Political studies, 51(3), 592-608.

Markle-Reid, M., Dykeman, C., Ploeg, J., Stradiotto, C. K., Andrews, A., Bonomo, S. & Salker, N. (2017). Collaborative leadership and the implementation of community-based fall prevention initiatives: a multiple case study of public health practice within community groups. BMC health services research, 17(1), 141.

55

Martin, G. P. (2008). ‘Ordinary people only’: knowledge, representativeness, and the publics of public participation in healthcare. Sociology of health & illness, 30(1), 35-54.

McCall, M. K., & Dunn, C. E. (2012). Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for ‘good’governance?. Geoforum, 43(1), 81-94.

McCulloch, A. (2009). The student as co-producer: learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 171-183.

McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66, 33-43.

McGuire, M., & Silvia, C. (2010). The effect of problem severity, managerial and organizational capacity, and agency structure on intergovernmental collaboration: Evidence from local emergency management. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 279-288.

Meijer, A. J. (2011). Networked coproduction of public services in virtual communities: From a government-centric to a community approach to public service support. Public Administration Review, 71(4), 598-607.

Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392-408.

Meuleman, L. (2008). Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets: The feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations. Springer Science & Business Media.

Meynhardt, T. (2009). Public value inside: What is public value creation?. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 32(3-4), 192-219.

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2003). Managing the hollow state: Collaboration and contracting. Public Management Review, 5, 1-18.

Ministry of Public Administration of the Republic of Slovenia (MJU) (2015). Strategija razvoja javne uprave 2015–2020 (SJU 2020). Ljubljana: MJU.

Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 391-402.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J., 2009. Strategy safari: Your complete guide through the wilds of strategic management. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

Moore, M.H. (1995) Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.

Moore, M. (2003). Public Value Scorecard: A Rejoinder and an Alternative to ‘Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Non Profit Organizations’ by Robert Kaplan’, Working Paper 18, Boston, MA: The Hauser Centre for Non Profit Organizations, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Moore, M., & Hartley, J. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10(1), 3-20.

Moore, M. and Benington, J. (2010). Conclusions: Looking Ahead. In Benington, J., & Moore, M.H. (eds.) Public value: Theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 256-274.

Moore, M.H. (2013). Recognizing public value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Mulej, M., Fatur, P., Knez-Riedl, J., Kokol, A., Mulej, N., Potočan, V., Prosenak, D., Škafar, B, & Ženko, Z. (2008). Invencijsko-inovacijski management z uporabo dialektične teorije sistemov: podlaga za uresničitev ciljev Evropske unije glede inoviranja. Ljubljana: Korona plus.

56

Musso, J., Weare, C., & Hale, M. (2000). Designing web technologies for local governance reform: Good management or good democracy?. Political Communication, 17(1), 1-19.

Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766-776.

Nabatchi, T., & Amsler, L. B. (2014). Direct public engagement in local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(4), 63S-88S.

NESTA (2013). The Challenge of Co-production. Discussion Paper, authored by Boyle, D., & Harris, M. Available at: https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/the_challenge_of_co-production.pdf (15/11/2018).

Newman, J., Barnes, M., Sullivan, H., & Knops, A. (2004). Public participation and collaborative governance. Journal of social policy, 33(2), 203-223.

Nogueira, F., Borges, M., Wolf. J. H., (2017). Collaborative Decision-Making in Non-formal Planning Settings. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26(5):875–890

Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nowell, B., Izod, A. M., Ngaruiya, K. M., & Boyd, N. M. (2016). Public service motivation and sense of community responsibility: Comparing two motivational constructs in understanding leadership within community collaboratives. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 663-676.

O'Flynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian journal of public administration, 66(3), 353-366.

O'Toole Jr, L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public administration review, 45-52.

O ‘Leary, R., Gerard, C., & Bingham, L. B. (2006). Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public management. Public administration review, 66, 6-9.

O’Leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going?. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507-522.

OECD (2011). Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843-en (15/11/2018).

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Reading, Mass.: Adison Wesley Public Comp.

Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377-387.

Osborne, S. P. (2010). The New Public Governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.

Osborne, S. P., & Strokosch, K. (2013). It takes Two to Tango? Understanding the Co-production of Public Services by Integrating the Services Management and Public Administration Perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24, S31-S47.

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135- 158.

Ostrom, E. (1972). Metropolitan reform: Propositions derived from two traditions. Social Science Quarterly, 474-493.

57

Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., & Taillieu, T. (2007). Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and society, 12(2).

Papadopoulos, Y. (2007). Problems of democratic accountability in network and multilevel governance. European law journal, 13(4), 469-486.

Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S. L., Vandivort, M. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Wilson, R. (1981). Consumers as Co-Producers of Public Services: Some Economic and Institutional Considerations, Policy Studies Journal, 9, 1001 – 11.

Pečarič, M. (2017). Can a group of people be smarter than experts?. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 5(1), 5-29.

Pedersen, A. R., & Renard, C. C. 2017. Når ledere skaber offentlig værdi. Copenhagen:. Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne.

Perrault, E., McClelland, R., Austin, C., & Sieppert, J. (2011). Working together in collaborations: Successful process factors for community collaboration. Administration in Social Work, 35(3), 282- 298.

Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens and co-production of welfare services: Childcare in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503-519.

Peters, B. G. (2010). Meta-governance and public management. In Osborne, S.P. (ed) The New Public Governance? Routledge, pp. 52-67.

Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2012). Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government information quarterly, 29(4), 504-511.

Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Plé, L., & Chumpitaz Cáceres, R. (2010). Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co- destruction of value in service-dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6), 430-437.

Pluchinotta, I., Kazakçi, A. O., Giordano, R., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2019). Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes. Group decisions and negotiation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-09610-5

Pollitt, C. (1993). Managerialism and the public services: Cuts or cultural change in the 1990s?. Blackwell Business.

Pors, A. S. (2015). Digital forvaltning i det borgernære bureaukrati. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, 117(4), 617-643Rakar, I., Kozjer, T., & Benčina, J. (2016). Participation in Slovenian urban municipalities - theory and practice. Journal of Modern Science, 4, 297-310.

Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American journal of sociology, 110(4), 1132-1205.

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(2), 229-252.

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative science quarterly, 1-33.

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public- sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423.

58

Raab, J., & Milward, H. B. (2003). Dark networks as problems. Journal of public administration research and theory, 13(4), 413-439.

Regeringen, Danske Regioner and KL (2016). Et Stærkere og mere trygt digitalt Danmark. Copenhagen: Regeringen.

Rhodes, R. A. (1990). Policy networks: a British perspective. Journal of theoretical politics, 2(3), 293- 317.

Rhodes, R. A., & Marsh, D. (1992). New directions in the study of policy networks. European journal of political research, 21(1-2), 181-205.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: governing without government. Political studies, 44(4), 652-667.

Rhodes, R. A. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press.

Rhodes, R. A. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization studies, 28(8), 1243- 1264.

Rhodes, R. A., & Wanna, J. (2007). The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government from the platonic guardians. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 406-421.

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences.4 (2) 155– 169

Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American review of public administration, 34(4), 315-353.

Rondinelli, D.A. (2009). Changing concepts of leadership in a globalizing society. In: D.A. Rondinelli, J.M. Heffron (eds) Leadership for Development: What Globalization Demands of Leaders Fighting for Change. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press, 27-47.

Ropret, M., Aristovnik, A., & Kovač, P. (2018). A Content Analysis of the Rule of Law within Public Governance Models: Old V. New EU Member States. NISPAcee Journal, 2, 2018/19.

Rosol, M. (2010). Public participation in post-Fordist urban green space governance: The case of community gardens in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 548- 563.

Ryan, W. P. (2002). The new landscape for nonprofits. Nonprofit governance and management, 13.

Sabatier, P. (2007). Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government information quarterly, 25(3), 400-428.

Salamon, L. (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. London: Oxford University Press.

Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2012). Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29, S72-S81.

Sanford, C., & Rose, J. (2007). Characterizing e-participation. International Journal of Information Management, 27(6), 406-421.

Schneider, A. L. (2009). Why do some boundary organizations result in new ideas and practices and others only meet resistance? Examples from juvenile justice. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(1), 60-79.

59

Schneider, M., Scholz, J., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., & Edwardsen, M. (2003). Building consensual institutions: networks and the National Estuary Program. American journal of political science, 47(1), 143-158.

Sever, T., Rakar, I., & Kovac, P. (2014). Protecting human rights through fundamental principles of administrative procedures in Eastern Europe. Danube : law and economics review, 5(4), 249-275.

Shriberg, A., Lloyd, C., Shriberg, D.L., & Williamson, M.L. (1997). Practicing Leadership: Principles and Applications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Silvia, C. (2017). Picking the Team: A Preliminary Experimental Study of the Activation of Collaborative Network Members. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 120-137.

Skelcher, C. (2000). Changing images of the state: overloaded, hollowed-out, congested. Public policy and administration, 15(3), 3-19.

Soldo, E., Arezki, D., Carmouze, L., Gourbier, L., Alaux, C., Boutin, N., Dougados, M., Kubler, B., Moustier, E., Tiberghien, B., Turc, E. (2019). Review of the francophone literature. Available at: http://cogov.eu/other/cogov_wp1_review-of-the-francophone-literature/ (31/07/2019).

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2000). Skanderborg på Landkortet – et studie af lokale styringsnetværk og politisk handlekraft. København: DJOEF Publishers

Sørensen, E. (2002a). Democratic theory and network governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 24(4), 693-720.

Sørensen, E. (2002b). Politikerne og netværksdemokratiet. Kopenhagen: DJOEF Publichers.

Sørensen, E. (2005). The democratic problems and potentials of network governance. European Political Science, 4(3), 348-357.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005a). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian political studies, 28(3), 195-218.

Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2005b). Netværksstyring – fra Government til Governance. Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.

Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American review of public administration, 36(1), 98-114.

Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public administration, 87(2), 234-258.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Samarbejdsdrevet innovation i den offentlige sektor. Copenhagen: FJØF Forlaget.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2017). Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(7), 826-839.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2018). The democratizing impact of governance networks: From pluralization, via democratic anchorage, to interactive political leadership. Public Administration.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2018). Public value theory as a game changer for political leadership. Paper presented at the XXII IRSPM Annual Conference 11-13 April 2018, University of Edinburgh (UK).

Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50 (155), 17-28.

Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?. The American review of public administration, 36(1), 41-57.

60

Swensen, S., Gorringe, G., Caviness, J., & Peters, D. (2016). Leadership by design: intentional organization development of physician leaders. Journal of Management Development, 35(4), 549- 570.

‘t Hart, P. (2014). Understanding Public Leadership. London: Palgrave.

Talbot, C. (2009). Public value—The next “big thing” in public management? London: Taylor and Francis.

Talbot, C. (2011). Paradoxes and prospects of ‘public value’. Public Money & Management, 31(1), 27- 34.

Talbot, C. (2006). Measuring Public Value. London: Work Foundation

Talvitie, A. (2012). The problem of trust in planning. Planning Theory, 11(3), 257-278.

Termeer, C. J. (2009). Water professionals and public leadership. Irrigation and drainage, 58(S2), S212-S216.

Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2005). E-democracy, E-commerce, and E-research: Examining the Electronic Ties Between Citizens and Governments. Administration & Society, 37(3), 259-280.

Thomsen, M. K. (2017). Citizen coproduction: The influence of self-efficacy perception and knowledge of how to coproduce. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(3), 340-353.

Torfing, J. (2004). Det stille sporskifte I Velfærdsstaten. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.

Torfing, J. (2008). Strategisk styring af styringsnetværk I kommunerne. In Torfing, J. (ed) Ledelse efter Kommunalreformen. Copenhagen: DJOEF Publishers, pp. 141-162.

Torfing, J. (2012). Governing Networks. In Levi-Faur, D. (ed) The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 7.

Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Torfing, J., & Krogh, A. H. (2013). Samarbejdsdrevet innovation i bandeindsatsen. København: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.

Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2013). What’s in a name? Grasping new public governance as a political- administrative system. International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), 9-25.

Torfing, J. (2016). Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2016). Enhancing public innovation by transforming public governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., & Røiseland, A. (2016). Transforming the public sector into an arena for co- creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Administration & Society, 0095399716680057.

Turnhout, E., S. Van Bommel, and N. Aarts. 2010. How participation creates citizens: participatory governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society 15(4): 26

UK Cabinet Office (2009). Co-production in public services: a new partnership with citizens. Discussion paper, authored by Horne, M., & Shirley, T. Available at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/207033/p ublic_services_co-production.pdf (15/11/2018).

Van Bortel, G., & Mullins, D. (2009). Critical perspectives on network governance in urban regeneration, community involvement and integration. Journal of housing and the built environment, 24(2), 203-219.

61

Van Bueren, E. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of public administration research and theory, 13(2), 193-212.

van den Brink, M., Termeer, C., & Meijerink, S. (2011). Are Dutch water safety institutions prepared for climate change?. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 2(4), 272-287.

Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers. British Journal of Management, 14, S61-S76.

Veldhuis, G. A., van Scheepstal, P., Rouwette, E., & Logtens, T. (2015). Collaborative problem structuring using MARVEL. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 3(3-4), 249-273.

Verweij, S., Klijn, E. H., Edelenbos, J., & Van Buuren, A. (2013). What makes governance networks work? A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of 14 Dutch spatial planning projects. Public Administration, 91(4), 1035-1055.

Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co- production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333- 1357.

Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic participation: How citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 17-50.

Wallmeier, F., & Thaler, J. (2018). Mayors’ leadership roles in direct participation processes–the case of community-owned wind farms. International Journal of Public Sector Management.

Warren, M. E. (2009). Governance-driven democratization. Critical policy studies, 3(1), 3-13.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii.

Williams, B. N., Kang, S. C., & Johnson, J. (2016). (Co)-Contamination as the Dark Side of Co-Production: Public value failures in co-production processes. Public Management Review, 18(5), 692-717.

Williams, I., & Shearer, H. (2011). Appraising public value: Past, present and futures. Public Administration, 89(4), 1367-1384.

Williams, P. (2012). Collaboration in Public Policy and Practice: Perspectives on Boundary Spanners. Bristol: Policy Press.

Wilson, K. (2018). Collaborative leadership in public library service development. Library Management, 39(8/9), 518-529.

Wolsink, M. (2012). The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 822- 835.

Wright, D. S. (1974). Intergovernmental relations: an analytical overview. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 416(1), 1-16.

Yang, K. (2005). Public administrators' trust in citizens: A missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 273-285.

Young, D. R. (2000). Alternative models of government-nonprofit sector relations: Theoretical and international perspectives. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 29(1), 149-172.

Zakocs, R. C., & Guckenburg, S. (2007). What coalition factors foster community capacity? Lessons learned from the Fighting Back Initiative. Health Education & Behavior, 34(2), 354-375.