Download Typology - Collaboration - Lecture Notes and more Study notes Communication and Presentation Skills in PDF only on Docsity!
Collaborative Planning and Management
#6:Typology
Objectives:
Introduce typology of collaboatives Apply typology to see how it helps explain case
Lecture Overview Timing Topic Sub-topics 5 Introduction (^) 15 Typologies (^) Why they are useful Some examples 15 Margerum Typology (^) Discussion Examples 30 San Diego Case (^) Differences Examples 15 Implications (^) Matrix Discussion 80 1 hr and 20 minutes (^)
I. Introduction
A. Announcements B. Overview
- So far we have covered a) What is collaboration b) Why it has emerged c) Principles
- Today a) Different types of collaboratives b) Ask you to interpret the differences
II. Some Typologies
A. Purpose of Typologies
- Understand similarities and differences
- Helps you understand more about what works where
- Rarely about prediction B. Gray’s Typology
- Helpful for bigger picture of collaboration
- Most of what we discuss falls under: “collective strategies”
- Helps identify cases not about planning and management C. Cheng and Daniels
- Defined by scale a) Regional scale of McKenzie (Them) b) Local scale of Mohawk (Us)
- Problem of scale a) Very small urban watersheds (1) City-led efforts (2) Strong government role b) Very large rural western watersheds (1) Landowner-led (2) A few people make up most of watershed D. Agranoff and McGuire (2004)
- Defined by nature of collaboration a) Collaborative activity b) Collaborative strategy
- Categories of collaborative economic development a) Abstinence: rely on private sector b) Contended: strong growth with limited need for joint work c) Reactive: initiate action in response to specific projects d) Top-down: rely on state administered program e) Donor-recipient: negotiated state support f) Jurisdiction-based: seek opportunities for city action E. Koontz’ and Others
- Focus on who is involved
b) Rogue and Lake Tahoe similar size c) Approach is very different
- Population a) Big populations in small areas b) Small populations in big areas
- Participants (e.g., agency) a) Agency as citizen (e.g., Long Tom) b) Agency as technician c) Agency as administrator
- Types of problems a) Private or public b) Regulation vs. voluntary c) Often hard to pin down
- Problem significance a) Uniqueness b) Iconic value
- Policy and legal context a) Laws raised b) Constitutional issues raised
- Institutional a) Complexity: Denver metro vs. Long Tom b) Informal: Sugar vs. Grazing
- Political culture a) View of government b) View of regulation vs. voluntary F. Typology based on level
- Institutional Analysis a) Action (Operational) b) Organizational (Collective Choice) c) Policy (Constitutional)
- Think of levels of decision making in society—ON BOARD a) People b) Organizations c) Policy
V. Margerum Typology
A. Action collaboratives
- Focused on direct action
- Terms a) Community based collaboratives b) GREM
- Example: Long Tom a) Who: Farmers, City people, Ag, Enviros b) Focus: implementing restoration projects
- Other examples: Landcare groups or Watershed Councils B. Organizational collaboratives
- Focused on organizations
- Terms a) Inter-organizational coordination b) Collaborative public management c) Ecosystem management
- Ex: Rogue Basin a) Who: Organizations—agencies, entities, local gov b) Focus: Coordinating efforts of agencies and watershed councils (1) Watershed councils in turn implement action (2) Focus of Basin group is coordinating the organizations
- Other examples: Trinity Inlet, Rogue Basin C. Policy collaboratives
- Focused on policy and policy stakeholders
- Terms a) Collaborative governance b) ≈Negotiated rulemaking
- Example: CALFED a) Who: Policy makers, elected officials, lobbyists b) Focus: Collaborating about policy and its implementation (1) Agencies in turn implement policies (2) Focus is on developing big picture policies
- Other examples: Murray Darling, Chesapeake, Great Lakes
VI. Optional: Example of a Nested Model (Margerum, p. 28)
A. Murray Darling Basin
- Location
- Context B. Collaboration at Levels
- MD Ministerial Council: Policies
- Catchment committees: agencies and orgs
- Landcare groups: Landowners
VII. How do I tell the difference?
A. Practice is often messy
- May not always be clear
- Some questions may help
VIII. Layzer’s San Diego Case Study
A. Assignment: Mini-Essay #1 (see Margerum Table 2.2) B. Divide into groups of 3- C. Questions
- Where would you place this collaborative along the spectrum?
- What would you reference to support this placement?
