Street-level collaboration: perception, power, and politics on the frontlines of collaboration

• Published date: 06 April 2020
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0194
• Pages: 461-476
• Date: 06 April 2020
• Author: Harish P. Jagannath
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management

Street-level collaboration:

perception, power, and politics on

the frontlines of collaboration

Harish P. Jagannath

School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, Canada

Abstract

Purpose –To examine the implementation processes and outcomes of collaborative governance initiatives

through the lens of bureaucratic politics.

Design/methodology/approach–An in-depth single case study research design with 28 embedded cases to

study the implementation of a collaborative governance initiative. This paper uses the analytical technique of

process tracing to explicate necessary and sufficient conditions to uncover causal mechanisms and confirm

descriptive and causal inferences.

Findings –This study finds that when street-level bureaucrats perceived the collaborative initiative as a

health intervention (and not as a collaborative initiative), it resulted in low levels of stakeholder participation

and made the collaborative initiative unsuccessful. This paper finds that bureaucratic politics is the causal

mechanism that further legitimized this perception resulting in each stakeholder group avoiding participation

and sticking to their departmental siloes.

Research limitations/implications –This is a single case study about a revelatory case of collaborative

governance implementation in India, and findings are analytically generalizable to similar administrative

contexts. Further research is needed through a multiple case study design in a comparative context to examine

bureaucratic politics in implementing collaborative initiatives.

Practical implications –Policymakers and managers need to carefully consider the implications of

engaging organizations with competing institutional histories when formulating and implementing

collaborative governance initiatives.

Originality/value –This study’s uniqueness is that it examines implementation of collaborative governance

through a bureaucratic politics lens. Specifically, the study applies Western-centric scholarship on

collaborative governance and street-level bureaucracy to a non-Western developing country context to push

the theoretical and empirical boundaries of key concepts in public administration.

Keywords Case study, Policy implementation, Collaborative governance, Bureaucratic politics, Development

administration, Street-level bureaucracy

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Governments are constantly devising administrative mechanisms to spur collaboration

between multiple stakeholders and sectors. Public administration scholars have rightly

underscored the boundary-spanning function of government (Bingham and O’Leary, 2008;

Radin, 2007;Kettl, 2006;McGuire, 2006), and a rich body of scholarship on collaborative

governance—broadly defined as multiple stakeholders across the public and private sectors

working toward a shared goal—has emerged (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015a;Emerson et al.,

2012;Thomson et al., 2009;Ansell and Gash, 2008;Huxham, 2003). Now that the field has

better conceptual and theoretical clarity on the topic of collaborative governance, scholars are

Street-level

collaboration

461

I am thankful to the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University for

supporting my field work in India through several research grants. I am thankful to all my dissertation

committee members who helped guide me throughout the process. Finally, I will be eternally grateful to

all those respondents and informants who participated in my study and the individuals who guided me

throughout the field work in India—without their cooperation and blessings this research, my doctorate

degree, and this paper would never have been a reality.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-3558.htm

Received 29 July 2019

Revised 24 December 2019

Accepted 21 February 2020

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 33 No. 4, 2020

pp. 461-476

© Emerald Publishing Limited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0194

calling for implementation studies that focus on managers, processes and outcomes

(Cristofoli et al., 2017;Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015a;Weber and Khademian, 2008;Bryson

et al., 2006;Agranoff, 2006;Thomson and Perry, 2006).

Overall, the literature on collaborative governance tends to assert that collaboration—if

done well—leads to better outcomes. However, scholars also caution against this celebratory

tone (O’Leary et al., 2009;Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015a), pointing to the paradoxical nature

(O’Leary and Bingham, 2009) and dark side of collaboration (O’Toole and Meier, 2004).

This caution notwithstanding, May and Winter (2007b) point out that the beneficial nature of

collaboration is taken as a “truism,”at least in part because of the challenges in measuring

outcomes (see also Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015a;Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015b).

Furthermore, collaborative governance is understood to unfold in a realm where power is

shared, diffused and exercised horizontally rather than through vertical hierarchies. Thus,

while much of the literature celebrates the power of collaboration, several scholars have also

called for the study of power in collaboration (Pells, 2015;Taylor, 2007;Agranoff and

McGuire, 2001;McCann and Gray, 1986).

There is limited research on examining collaboration “failure”or “divergence”—

particularly in the context of frontline implementation of collaborative governance

initiatives. Given these gaps in the literature, this paper examines two research questions:

(1) How do frontline workers perceive a collaborative initiative (initiated by individuals in

positions of power and authority)? (2) How do these perceptions shape the implementation

process and outcomes? To answer these questions, this paper examines the implementation

of an unsuccessful collaborative initiative (within a provincial/subnational government in

India) aimed at improving maternal and child health outcomes. The central puzzle being

investigated is that in spite of a favorable perception toward the initiative’s overarching

goals, frontline workers chose not to participate—making street-level collaboration

unsuccessful.

This paper is organized into five sections. First, policy implementation literature is

surveyed to explicate lessons for the street-level implementation of collaboration. Second, it

describes the case study context. Third, the methodology is discussed, including the

technique of process tracing for case study research. Fourth, findings and analysis are

presented. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion connecting street-level

bureaucracy’s theoretical insights to the confluence of perception, power and politics on

the frontlines of collaboration.

Literature review

The implementation conundrum

The classic implementation narrative has focused on the “top-down”versus “bottom-up”

approaches. In the top-down approach, any deviation by street-level bureaucrats from the

stated goals and policies is seen as problematic because they may result in outcomes different

from those envisioned by officials in positions of power and authority (Sabatier and

Mazmanian, 1979,1980 Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984), whereas in the bottom-up approach,

street-level bureaucrats are hailed as heroes for their use of discretion to meet local needs and

serving their clients in more meaningful ways (Lipsky, 2010). As Hupe and Hill (2007) discuss,

accountability in the context of governance, and particularly on the frontlines of service

delivery, is “multi-dimensional and multi-layered”with street-level bureaucrats held

accountable “bottom-up and well as top-down, but also ‘sideways.’” The authors conclude

that “within the web of these multiple accountabilities which produce contradictory action

imperatives, street-level bureaucrats constantly weigh how to act.”

Given this tangled web, implementation research has become preoccupied with the control

of street-level discretion and has sought to understand what influences street-level discretion

and to what effect. The influence of policy elites and managers on frontline staff is one

IJPSM

33,4

462