IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v53y2016i16p3547-3565.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The workings of collaborative governance: Evaluating collaborative community-building initiatives in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Sangmin Kim

Abstract

The topic of local and community governance has garnered increasing attention from researchers in recent years, with the resulting assessments generally identifying both the advantages and obstacles. On the positive side, collaborative community governance is often viewed as a new participatory space facilitating democratic practices with favourable social and relational outcomes. Conversely, the issues of power imbalances and the continued hierarchical influence of the central government are often cited as obstacles to genuine public engagement and horizontal collaboration among diverse actors. In particular, numerous studies argue that the governance structure and initial motivation exert significant influence over the governance processes and outcomes due to the different prioritisation of goals and strategies. Such considerations demonstrate the need for additional comparative studies in diverse contexts. In addition to addressing the limitation of the existing process-focused evaluations, this study proposes an analytic framework of collaborative community governance that identifies the multiple relationships between institutional setting, governance process and outcomes, and examines two community-building initiatives in Korea. The findings demonstrate that collaborative community governance worked as an experiential incubator for individual transformation, social and relational resource building and political empowerment. The comparative analysis of two different collaborative forms reveals that differences in structure and the mode of communication resulted in building different types of relational capital (bonding vs bridging). The lack of preliminary discussions and arrangement for institutional design is highlighted as a source of problems such as excessive dependency on particular communication modes, opaque system of representation and asymmetrical development of relational resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Sangmin Kim, 2016. "The workings of collaborative governance: Evaluating collaborative community-building initiatives in Korea," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(16), pages 3547-3565, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:53:y:2016:i:16:p:3547-3565
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098015613235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098015613235
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098015613235?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Huxham, 2003. "Theorizing collaboration practice," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 401-423, September.
    2. Sarah Connick & Judith Innes, 2003. "Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applyxsing Complexity Thinking to Evaluation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 177-197.
    3. William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark Lubell & Adam Douglas Henry & Mike McCoy, 2010. "Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 287-300, April.
    2. Eberhard, Rachel & Johnston, Nathan & Everingham, Jo-Anne, 2013. "A collaborative approach to address the cumulative impacts of mine-water discharge: Negotiating a cross-sectoral waterway partnership in the Bowen Basin, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 678-687.
    3. Anders Melander & Tomas Mullern & David Anderssson & Fredrik Elgh & Malin Löfving, 2022. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap in Collaborative Research—in Dialogues We Trust," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 655-677, October.
    4. Sonal Shree & Yogesh Brahmankar & Ardhendu Shekhar Singh, 2020. "Inmates as Labour Pool: A Case of Inter-organizational Collaboration," South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, , vol. 9(2), pages 259-272, August.
    5. McNamara Madeleine W., 2011. "Processes of Cross-Sector Collaboration: A Case Study of the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-22, November.
    6. J. Rommel & J. Christiaens, 2007. "Blocking and Accepting Steering from Ministers and Departments. Coping Strategies of Agencies in Flanders," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 07/431, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    7. Christopher Cvitanovic & Marie F Löf & Albert V Norström & Mark S Reed, 2018. "Building university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Maria Fjellfeldt, 2022. "Developing Long-Term Sustainable Collaborations between Welfare Providers That Support and Promote Child and Youth Mental Health in Sweden—A Qualitative Interview Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-13, June.
    9. Axel Marx, 2008. "Limits to non‐state market regulation: A qualitative comparative analysis of the international sport footwear industry and the Fair Labor Association," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 253-273, June.
    10. Ya Li & Zhichang Zhu & Catherine M. Gerard, 2012. "Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity to Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 209-220, March.
    11. Kimberly Pugel & Amy Javernick-Will & Matthew Koschmann & Shawn Peabody & Karl Linden, 2020. "Adapting Collaborative Approaches for Service Provision to Low-Income Countries: Expert Panel Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-26, March.
    12. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    13. Budiarso & Utomo Sarjono Putro & Yos Sunitiyoso & Rachma Fitriati, 2022. "Constructing the collaborative Working Relationships in one of the Big Four Firms," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 679-709, October.
    14. Eunok Im, 2015. "The Effects of Interlocal Collaboration on Local Economic Performance: Investigation of Korean Cases," ERSA conference papers ersa15p1391, European Regional Science Association.
    15. Porter, Madeleine & Franks, Daniel M. & Everingham, Jo-Anne, 2013. "Cultivating collaboration: Lessons from initiatives to understand and manage cumulative impacts in Australian resource regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 657-669.
    16. Roth, Alyssa P. & de Loë, Rob C., 2017. "Incorporating Outcomes from Collaborative Processes into Government Decision Making: A Case Study from Low Water Response Planning in Ontario, Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 169-178.
    17. Verburg, René & Selnes, Trond & Verweij, Pita, 2016. "Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 186-197.
    18. Alex Burfitt & Stewart Macneill, 2008. "The Challenges of Pursuing Cluster Policy in the Congested State," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 492-505, June.
    19. John Selsky & Barbara Parker, 2010. "Platforms for Cross-Sector Social Partnerships: Prospective Sensemaking Devices for Social Benefit," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 21-37, July.
    20. Alexandru Ionut ROJA & Marian NÃSTASE, 2013. "Leveraging Organizational Capabilities through Collaboration and Collaborative Competitive Advantage," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(3), pages 359-366, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:53:y:2016:i:16:p:3547-3565. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.