Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:38:02.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Public and Nonprofit Administration

Contingent Collaboration

When to Use Which Models for Joined-up Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2022

Rodney J. Scott  and
Eleanor R. K. Merton
Rodney J. Scott
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney

Summary

The question of how agencies can work together has been central to the field of public administration for several decades. Despite significant research, the process of collaboration can still be a fraught endeavour for practitioners. Nevertheless, agencies keep trying to work together because it is the only way to make progress on the biggest challenges facing public administrators. This Element reveals the deeply contingent nature of collaboration, rejecting the idea that collaboration can be reduced to a universal best practice. The New Zealand government has implemented such a contingent approach that maps different collaborative methods against problem settings and the degree of trade-off required from the actors' core or individual work. This Element provides a detailed case study of the New Zealand approach, and 18 embedded elements or 'model' collaborative forms for joined-up government. It explains how New Zealand public servants approach the important question: 'when to use which models?'.
Get access

Keywords

collaborationcontingencyjoined-up governmentpublic administrationNew Zealand
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Public and Nonprofit Administration
Online ISBN: 9781009128513
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 14 July 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agranoff, R. (1991). Human services integration: Past and present challenges in public administration. Public Administration Review, 51(6), 533–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agranoff, R. (2004). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Agranoff, R. (2017). Crossing boundaries for intergovernmental management. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Inside the matrix: Integrating the paradigms of intergovernmental and network management. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(12), 1401–22.Google Scholar
Alford, J. (2002). Why do public-sector clients coproduce? Toward a contingency theory. Administration & Society, 34(1), 32–56.Google Scholar
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–71.Google Scholar
Axelsson, R., & Axelsson, S. B. (2006). Integration and collaboration in public health – a conceptual framework. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 21(1), 75–88.Google Scholar
Baehler, K. (2003). ‘Managing for outcomes’: Accountability and thrust. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(4), 23–34.Google Scholar
Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bardach, E. (2001). Developmental dynamics: Interagency collaboration as an emergent phenomenon. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(2), 149–64.Google Scholar
Bevir, M. (2012). Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bingham, L. B., & O’Leary, R. (2006). Conclusion: Parallel play, not collaboration: Missing questions, missing connections. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 161–167.Google Scholar
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid.: The key to leadership excellence. Gulf.Google Scholar
Bogdanor, V. (Ed.). (2005). Joined-up government. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public Management Review, 11(1), 15–33.Google Scholar
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (1996). Public management: The New Zealand model. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowman, A. O. M., & Parsons, B. M. (2013). Making connections: Performance regimes and extreme events. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 63–73.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B., & Hewstone, M. E. (2004). Self and social identity. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, K., & Keast, R. (2003). Citizen-government engagement: Community connection through networked arrangements. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 25(1), 107–31.Google Scholar
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. (2015). Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–63.Google Scholar
Carey, G., & Crammond, B. (2015). What works in joined-up government? An evidence synthesis. International Journal of Public Administration, 38 (13–14), 1020–29.Google Scholar
Carey, G., & Harris, P. (2016). Developing management practices to support joined‐up governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(1), 112–18.Google Scholar
Charters, C., Kingdon-Bebb, K., Olsen, T. et al. (2019). He Puapua: Report of the working group on a plan to realise the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Technical working group on a plan to realise the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Auckland.Google Scholar
Chen, B. (2010). Antecedents or processes? Determinants of perceived effectiveness of interorganizational collaborations for public service delivery. International Public Management Journal, 13(4), 381–407.Google Scholar
Christensen, M., & Yoshimi, H. (2003). Public sector performance reporting: New public management and contingency theory insights. Government Auditing Review, 10(3), 71–83.Google Scholar
Corbett, J., Grube, D. C., Lovell, H., & Scott, R. J. (2018). Singular memory or institutional memories? Toward a dynamic approach. Governance, 31(3), 555–73.Google Scholar
Corbett, J., Grube, D. C., Lovell, H., & Scott, R. J. (2020). Institutional memory as storytelling. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cordes, C. (2015). Our Customer Research. Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington. https://www.digital.govt.nz/blog/our-customer-research/Google Scholar
Craft, J., & Halligan, J. (2020). Advising governments in the Westminster tradition: Policy advisory systems in Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cristofoli, D., Trivellato, B., & Verzillo, S. (2019). Network management as a contingent activity: A configurational analysis of managerial behaviors in different network settings. Public Management Review, 21(12), 1775–800.Google Scholar
Darlington, Y., Feeney, J. A., & Rixon, K. (2005). Interagency collaboration between child protection and mental health services: Practices, attitudes and barriers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(10), 1085–98.Google Scholar
Davies, J. S. (2002). The governance of urban regeneration: A critique of the ‘governing without government’ thesis. Public Administration, 80(2), 301–22.Google Scholar
Davies, J. S. (2009). The limits of joined‐up government: Towards a political analysis. Public Administration, 87(1), 80–96.Google Scholar
Davies, J. S. (2012). Network governance theory: A Gramscian critique. Environment and Planning A, 44(11), 2687–704.Google Scholar
Davis, K. (2019). Building closer partnerships with Māori: Proactive release of Cabinet paper and MCR-19-MIN-0004. New Zealand Government, Wellington.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1981). In defence of selfish genes. Philosophy, 56(218), 556–73.Google Scholar
Diaz-Kope, L., Miller-Stevens, K., & Morris, J. C. (2015). Collaboration processes and institutional structure: Reexamining the black box. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 607–15.Google Scholar
Diaz-Kope, L. M., & Morris, J. C. (2019). Organizational motivation for collaboration: Theory and evidence. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Doberstein, C. (2016). Designing collaborative governance decision-making in search of a ‘collaborative advantage’. Public Management Review, 18(6), 819–41.Google Scholar
Donadelli, F., & Lodge, M. (2019). Machinery of Government Reforms in New Zealand. Policy Quarterly, 15(4), 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donahue, J. (2004). On collaborative governance. Corporate social responsibility initiative working paper 2. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1982). Introduction to grid/group analysis. Routledge.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public Money & Management, 14(3), 9–16.Google Scholar
Elston, T., & Dixon, R. (2020). The effect of shared service centers on administrative intensity in English local government: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 113–29.Google Scholar
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 22(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Eppel, E., Gill, D., Lips, M., & Ryan, B. (2013). The cross-organizational collaboration solution? Conditions, roles and dynamics in Zealand, New. In: O’Flynn, J., Blackman, D., & Halligan, J. (Eds.), Crossing Boundaries in Public Management and Policy (pp. 67–83). Routledge.Google Scholar
Eppel, E., & O’Leary, R. (2021). Retrofitting collaboration into the new public management: Evidence from New Zealand. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed)., Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149–90). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fiedler, F. E. (1993). The contingency model: New directions for leadership utilization. In: Matteson, M. T. & Ivancevich, J. M. (Eds.), Management and Organizational Behavior Classics (pp. 333–45). Richard D Irwin.Google Scholar
Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 65–77.Google Scholar
Getha-Taylor, H. (2019). Partnerships that last: Identifying the keys to resilient collaboration. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Getha-Taylor, H., Grayer, M. J., Kempf, R. J., & O’Leary, R. (2019). Collaborating in the absence of trust? What collaborative governance theory and practice can learn from the literatures of conflict resolution, psychology, and law. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(1), 51–64.Google Scholar
Government Legal Network (GLN). (2014). About the network. www.gln.govt.nz/about-the-network/Google Scholar
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Ranson, S. (1975). Contingency theory and the organization of local authorities. Part I: Differentiation and integration. Public Administration, 53(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. (2006). Theoretical faith and practical works: De-autonomizing and joining-up in the New Zealand state sector. In: Christensen, T. and Lægrid, P. (Eds.), Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State (pp. 137–61). Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Gregson, B. A., Cartlidge, A. M., & Bond, J. (1992). Development of a measure of professional collaboration in primary health care. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 46(1), 48–53.Google Scholar
Hagebak, B. R. (1979). Local human service delivery: The integration imperative. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 575–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halligan, J. (2004). Civil service systems in Anglo-American countries. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2012). Channeling change: Making collective impact work (pp. 56–78). FSG.Google Scholar
Hattori, R. A., & Lapidus, T. (2004). Collaboration, trust and innovative change. Journal of Change Management, 4(2), 97–104.Google Scholar
Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., & Strosahl, K. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1152.Google Scholar
Head, B. W. (2013). The collaboration solution? Factors for collaborative success. In: O’Flynn, J., Blackman, D., & Halligan, J. (Eds.), Crossing Boundaries in Public Management and Policy (pp. 162–77). Routledge.Google Scholar
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1969). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (p. 84). Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hinings, C. R., Greenwood, R., & Ranson, S. (1975). Contingency theory and the organization of local authorities: Part II contingencies and structure. Public Administration, 53(2), 169–94.Google Scholar
Hipkins, C. (2019a). Organisations of the public service. Cabinet Paper CPC-19-SUB-0011. New Zealand Government, Wellington.Google Scholar
Hipkins, C. (2019b). A unified public service. Cabinet Paper CPC-19-SUB-0007. New Zealand Government, Wellington.Hipkins, C. (2019c). Announcement of Public Service Reforms, Speech delivered at Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, on 26 June 2019. www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/announcement-public-service-reformsGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (2000). Paradoxes of public-sector managerialism, old public management and public service bargains. International Public Management Journal, 3(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Horwath, J., & Morrison, T. (2007). Collaboration, integration and change in children’s services: Critical issues and key ingredients. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(1), 55–69.Google Scholar
Hovik, S., & Hanssen, G. S. (2015). The impact of network management and complexity on multi-level coordination. Public Administration, 93, 506–23.Google Scholar
Hughes, P. & Scott, R. J. (2021). High-autonomy and High-alignment: Coordinating a more unified public service. In: Richardson, J. & Mazey, S. (Eds.) Policy-making Under Pressure: Rethinking the policy process in Aotearoa New Zealand. Canterbury University Press. 170–179.Google Scholar
Huxham, C., & Macdonald, D. (1992). Introducing collaborative advantage: Achieving interorganizational effectiveness through meta-strategy. Management Decision, 30(3), 50–6.Google Scholar
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), 1159–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society, 37(3), 281–320.Google Scholar
Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(4), 371–84.Google Scholar
Ingram, J. K. (1888). A history of political economy. The Macmillan Company. (Reprint, Augustus M. Kelley, 1967.)Google Scholar
Blavatnik School of Government. (2019). International Civil Service Effectiveness Index.Google Scholar
JenningsJr, E. T., & Krane, D. (1994). Coordination and welfare reform: The quest for the philosopher’s stone. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 341–8.Google Scholar
Jensen, K., Scott, R. J., Slocombe, L., Boyd, R., & Cowey, L. (2014). The management and organisational challenges of more joined-up government: New Zealand’s Better Public Services reforms. New Zealand Government, Wellington.Google Scholar
Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911–45.Google Scholar
Juillet, L., & Rasmussen, K. (2008). Defending a contested ideal: Merit and the public service commission, 1908–2008 (p. 264). University of Ottawa Press/Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. FSG.Google Scholar
Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and strategies. International Public Management Journal, 10(1), 9–33.Google Scholar
Keast, R., Mandell, M., & Brown, K. (2006). Mixing state, market and network governance modes: The role of government in ‘crowded’ policy domains. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 9(1), 27–50.Google Scholar
Kettl, D. F., & Kelman, S. (2007). Reflections on 21st century government management. IBM Business of Government.Google Scholar
Koppenjan, J. F. M., & Klijn, E. H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks: A network approach to problem solving and decision making. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, E. L. (2005). A transaction costs explanation of inter-local government collaboration. University of North Texas.Google Scholar
Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, S. W., & Feiock, R. C. (2010). Overcoming the barriers to cooperation: Intergovernmental service agreements. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 876–84.Google Scholar
Laan, A., Noorderhaven, N., Voordijk, H., & Dewulf, G. (2011). Building trust in construction partnering projects: An exploratory case-study. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17(2), 98–108.Google Scholar
State Services Commission. (2017)c. Leadership Success Profile. Wellington.Google Scholar
Lee, E., Esaki, N., & Greene, R. (2009). Collocation: Integrating child welfare and substance abuse services. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 9(1), 55–70.Google Scholar
Lee, M., & Scott, R. J. (2019). A contingency theory of collaboration: When to use which methods? In: International Research Society for Public Management Conference, Wellington.Google Scholar
Litmus. (2019). Implementation and emerging outcomes evaluation of the Place-Based Initiatives.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 23–39.Google Scholar
Lodge, M., & Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post‐NPM in New Zealand. Governance, 24(1), 141–66.Google Scholar
Lonti, Z., & Gregory, R. (2007). Accountability or countability? Performance measurement in the New Zealand public service, 1992–2002. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 468–84.Google Scholar
State Services Commission. (2018). Machinery of government: Toolkit for Shared Problems. Wellington.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (2014). A contingency theory of accountability. In: Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford University Press. 55–68.Google Scholar
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.Google Scholar
Marrett, C. (1971). On the specification of interorganizational dimensions. Sociology and Social Research, 56(1), 83–9.Google Scholar
Marsh, D., & McConnell, A. (2010). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Administration, 88(2), 564–83.Google Scholar
McGrandle, J. (2017). Understanding diversity management in the public sector: A case for contingency theory. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(6), 526–37.Google Scholar
McGuire, M. (2002). Managing networks: Propositions on what managers do and why they do it. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 599–601.Google Scholar
McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 33–43.Google Scholar
Memon, A. R., & Kinder, T. (2017). Co-location as a catalyst for service innovation: A study of Scottish health and social care. Public Management Review, 19(4), 381–405.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice. (2021). About the justice sector: The justice sector leadership board. www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/about-the-justice-sector/#boardGoogle Scholar
Noonan, P. M., Morningstar, M. E., & Gaumer-Erickson, A. (2008). Improving interagency collaboration: Effective strategies used by high-performing local districts and communities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(3), 132–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, R., & Gill, D. (2011). Restructuring: An over-used lever for change in New Zealand’s state sector? In: Ryan, B., & Gill, D. (Eds.), Future State: Directions for Public Management in New Zealand (pp. 262–80). Victoria University Press.Google Scholar
O’Flynn, J. (2013a). Crossing boundaries in public management and policy: An introduction. In: O’Flynn, J., Blackman, D., & Halligan, J. (Eds.), Crossing Boundaries in Public Management and Policy (pp. 3–10). Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Flynn, J., Blackman, D., & Halligan, J. (Eds.). (2013). Crossing Boundaries in Public Management and Policy. Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Flynn, J., Buick, F., Blackman, D., & Halligan, J. (2011). You win some, you lose some: Experiments with joined-up government. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(4), 244–54.Google Scholar
O’Leary, R. (2014). Collaborative governance in New Zealand: Important choices ahead. Fulbright New Zealand.Google Scholar
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), 507–22.Google Scholar
O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. (2004). Public management in intergovernmental networks: Matching structural and behavioral networks. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 14(4), 469–94.Google Scholar
Oliver, A. (2019). Reciprocity and the art of behavioural public policy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2021). Government at a Glance. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.Google Scholar
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Addison.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–48.Google Scholar
Page, S. (2004). Measuring accountability for results in interagency collaboratives. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 591–606.Google Scholar
Page, S. B., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2015). Public value creation by cross‐sector collaborations: A framework and challenges of assessment. Public Administration, 93(3), 715–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallott, J. (1999). Beyond NPM: Developing strategic capacity. Financial Accountability & Management, 15(3–4), 419–26.Google Scholar
Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5–22.Google Scholar
Perry, J. L. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(2), 181–97.Google Scholar
Perry, J. L., & Hondeghem, A. (2008). Building theory and empirical evidence about public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of public sector coordination. University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. (1998). Managing Horizontal Government: The Politics of Co‐Ordination. Public Administration, 76(2), 295–311.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–43.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Continuity and change in public policy and management. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Prentice, C. R., Imperial, M. T., & Brudney, J. L. (2019). Conceptualizing the collaborative toolbox: A dimensional approach to collaboration. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 792–809.Google Scholar
Provan, K., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–52.Google Scholar
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public‐sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414–23.Google Scholar
Public Service Act 2020. Parliament of New Zealand.Google Scholar
State Services Commission. (2017a). Better public services result 10 – SmartStart makes it easy for parents. New Zealand Government. www.publicservice.govt.nz/resources/bps-result10-cs3/Google Scholar
State Services Commission. (2017b). Government legal network: A pathway for shared success. New Zealand Government. www.publicservice.govt.nz/resources/bps-spotlight-gln/Google Scholar
Ren, W., Beard, R. W., & Atkins, E. M. (2005, June). A survey of consensus problems in multi-agent coordination. In: Proceedings of the 2005, American Control Conference (pp. 1859–64), IEEE.Google Scholar
State Serives Commission. (2011). Report of the Better Public Services Advisory Group. New Zealand. www.publicservice.govt.nz/assets/Legacy/resources/bps-report-nov2011_0.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–64.Google Scholar
Sadoff, C. W., & Grey, D. (2005). Cooperation on international rivers: A continuum for securing and sharing benefits. Water International, 30(4), 420–7.Google Scholar
Schick, A. (1998). Why most developing countries should not try New Zealand’s reforms. The World Bank Research Observer, 13(1), 123–31.Google Scholar
Schick, A. (2001). Reflections on the New Zealand model. State Services Commission, Wellington.Google Scholar
Schmidt, W. H., & Tannenbaum, R. (1960). Management of differences. Harvard Business Review, 38(6), 107–115.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, G. C. (2001). Public sector management in New Zealand: Lessons and challenges. Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. (2017). Interagency collaboration to reduce crime in New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand School of Government.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. (2019). Public service motivation and social identity. In: International Research Society for Public Management Conference, Wellington.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., & Bardach, E. (2019). A comparison of management adaptations for joined‐up government: Lessons from New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 78(2), 191–212.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., & Boyd, R. (2016). Results, targets and measures to drive collaboration: Lessons from the New Zealand Better Public Services reforms. In: Butcher, J., & Gilchrist, D. (Eds.), The Three Sector Solution: Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business (pp. 235–57). Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., & Boyd, R. (2017). Joined‐up for what? Response to Carey and Harris on adaptive collaboration. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(1), 138–44.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., & Boyd, R. (2020). Determined to succeed: Can goal commitment sustain interagency collaboration? Public Policy and Administration (April). http://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720905002Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., & Boyd, R. (2022). Targeting commitment: Interagency performance in New Zealand. Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., Donadelli, F., Merton, E. R. K. (Forthcoming). Administrative Philosophies in the Discourse and Decisions of the New Zealand Public Service: Is post-NPM still a myth? International Review of Administrative Sciences.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., & Macaulay, M. (2020). Making sense of New Zealand’s ‘spirit of service’: Social identity and the civil service. Public Money & Management, 40(8), 579–88.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., Macaulay, M., & Merton, E. K. (2020, 5–6 December). Drawing new boundaries: Can we legislate for administrative behaviour? In: Public Administration Review Symposium – Decision-Making in Public Organisations: The Continued Relevance of Administrative Behaviour, London.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., & Merton, E. R. K. (2021). When the going gets tough, the goal-committed get going: Overcoming the transaction costs of inter-agency collaborative governance. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1640–1663..Google Scholar
Sedgwick, D. (2017). Building collaboration: Examining the relationship between collaborative processes and activities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 236–52.Google Scholar
Shelton, L. (2013). Al Morrison Leaving Conservation Dept, joining State Services Commission. Wellington Scoop. http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=54803Google Scholar
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2016). Theories of democratic network governance. Springer.Google Scholar
State Services Commission (2001) Report of the Advisory Group on the Review of the Centre. New Zealand Government, Wellington. https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/assets/Legacy/resources/review_of_centre.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2017). Working across boundaries: Collaboration in public services. Macmillan International Higher Education.Google Scholar
Sullivan, H., Williams, P., & Jeffares, S. (2012). Leadership for collaboration: Situated agency in practice. Public Management Review, 14(1), 41–66.Google Scholar
Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The consensus-building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93.Google Scholar
Talbot, C., & Talbot, C. (2013). The structure solution? Public sector mergers in the United Kingdom. In: O’Flynn, J., Blackman, D., & Halligan, J. (Eds.), Crossing Boundaries in Public Management and Policy (pp. 67–83). Routledge.Google Scholar
Takahashi, L. M., & Smutny, G. (2002). Collaborative windows and organizational governance: Exploring the formation and demise of social service partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(2), 165–85.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, H. S. (1957). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 95–101.Google Scholar
Taylor, F. W. (2004). Scientific management. Routledge.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. F. (2014). Responsibility for failures of government: The problem of many hands. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(3), 259–73.Google Scholar
Thomson, A. M. (2001). Collaboration: Meaning and measurement. Indiana University.Google Scholar
Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (1998). Can AmeriCorps build communities? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(4), 399–420.Google Scholar
Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, D. (2018). Professionalising Whitehall: Responsibilities of the Head of Function for Digital, Data and Technology. Institute for Government. www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/professionalisingwhitehall-responsibilities-head-function-digital-data-and-technologyGoogle Scholar
The Treasury (2006) Review of Central Agencies’ Role in Promoting and Assuring State Sector Performance. New Zealand Government, Wellington. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2007-11/tsy-exgrev-ca-sep06.pdfGoogle Scholar
Treasury, The. (2021). Internal controls. www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/state-sector-leadership/guidance/internal-controlsGoogle Scholar
Tschannen‐Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308–31.Google Scholar
Ulibarri, N., Emerson, K., Imperial, M. T. et al. (2020). How does collaborative governance evolve? Insights from a medium-n case comparison. Policy and Society, 39(4), 617–37.Google Scholar
Van Huyck, J. B., Battalio, R. C., & Beil, R. O. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. The American Economic Review, 80(1), 234–48.Google Scholar
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorganizational collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 5–31.Google Scholar
Vitalis, H., & Scott, R. J. (2015). Joint ventures in the public sector: Translating lessons from the private sector to New Zealand government departments. In: Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference, Queenstown.Google Scholar
Verhoest, K., & Bouckaert, G. (2005). Machinery of government and policy capacity: The effects of specialization and coordination. In: Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (Eds.), Challenges to State Policy Capacity (pp. 92–111). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Verweij, S., Klijn, E. H., Edelenbos, J., & Van Buuren, M. W. (2013). What makes governance networks work? A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of 14 Dutch spatial planning projects. Public Administration, 91(4), 1035–55.Google Scholar
Waardenburg, M., Groenleer, M., deJong, J., & Keijser, B. (2020). Paradoxes of collaborative governance: Investigating the real-life dynamics of multi-agency collaborations using a quasi-experimental action-research approach. Public Management Review, 22(3), 386–407.Google Scholar
Walter, U. M., & Petr, C. G. (2000). A template for family-centred interagency collaboration. Families in Society, 81(5), 494–503.Google Scholar
Weber, C., Haugh, H., Göbel, M., & Leonardy, H. (2021). Pathways to lasting cross-sector social collaboration: A configurational study. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04714-yGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–61.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. (Ed.). (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Public organizations and mission valence: When does mission matter? Administration & Society, 43(1), 22–44.Google Scholar
Wuichet, P. A. (2000). How resources affect and stimulate collaboration. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2000(28), 67–84.Google Scholar
Yui, M., & Gregory, R. (2018). Quakes and aftershocks: Organisational restructuring in the New Zealand state sector, 1960–2017. Policy Quarterly, 14(3), 25–32.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Contingent Collaboration
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Contingent Collaboration
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Contingent Collaboration
Available formats
×