Institutional determinants of collaboration: an empirical study of county open-space protection.(Survey)

Public administration and management scholars have long recognized the necessity for public managers to interact with entities outside the hierarchical boundaries of their organizations (see Rainey 2003). The growing number of studies on networks (O'Toole 1997; Provan and Milward 1995), public sector contracting (Savas 2000; Sclar 2000), and public partnerships (Brown, O'Toole, and Brudney 1998) illustrates the importance of an organization's environment in contemporary governance. In recent years, studies on public sector collaboration have moved to the forefront in this research tradition. The payoff of collaboration as theoretical lens, as opposed to contracting, for instance, is in its inclusiveness. Agranoff and McGuire (2003) define collaboration as a "purposive relationship designed to solve a problem by creating or discovering a solution with a given set of constraints" (p. 4). This definition casts a wide net. Collaboration can be either formal (mandated by the state) or informal, involve many organizations or few, it can be vertical and/or horizontal, and it can be intra- and interorganizational. A consequence of inclusiveness is that scholars lack the ability to put forward precise predictions, rendering collaboration more a heuristic devise than full-blown theory. Despite this limitation, it is useful to examine how managers from different organizational entities interact and work together when faced with uncertainty and structural barriers.

Management is frequently the focal point of collaboration research in the public sector. Similar to networks, collaboration is said to require a unique managerial skill set (Agranoff and McGuire 2001; McGuire 2002). Bargaining and negotiating skills, for example, are emphasized as mechanisms to bridge adversarial relationships, as well as facilitate cooperative ones. Consequently, the presumption is that managers (and thereby governments) with strong collaborative skills can develop and foster relationships outside the boundaries of the organization by building trust between potential collaborative partners, citizens, and the government (McGuire 2006; Waugh and Streib 2006). Given this focus, collaborative research often de-emphasizes or ignores altogether the role of institutions and structure in forming and maintaining collaborative relationships (see Carpenter 2001; Clingermayer and Feiock 2001; and O'Toole 2000 for notable exceptions). (1) Despite the importance of behavioral skills, institutional structure may also play an important role by enhancing public managers' credibility in collaborative settings--even when trust between the parties is limited or nonexistent.

In this article, I attempt to add to this burgeoning literature by arguing that institutions are an important component of collaboration because they signal to potential collaborative partners a policy commitment by the government. In credibly committing to a policy, governments can reduce uncertainty and gain cooperation without necessarily building trust via managerial behavior (see Feiock, Moon-Gi, and Kim 2003). At the "constitutional level" (Ostrom 1999), governments can signal a general ability to commit via institutional design, or more to the point, by the way the way the government itself is structured. At the local level, for example, the form of county or city government can impact how information is disseminated, perceived, and utilized by potential collaborative partners (see Svara 1990). In addition, governments can influence collaboration via "operational" institutions (rules) or by implementing an administrative commitment in the form of a dedicated department or agency.

To examine the institutional impacts on collaboration, I focus on one policy domain--county open-space protection. Open-space policy provides an excellent window into collaborative relationships since very few local governments have the ability to protect land without the help of outside partners. Specifically, I examine how three institutional variables---form of government, rules governing debt accumulation, and designation of an open-space office--affect the breadth of county government collaboration. I find that each of these institutions has a positive effect on collaboration between the county and active stakeholders. Throughout the article, I assume that county governments are strategic, purposive entities responding to constituent demands; thus, institutional arrangements and design decisions may provide the county with the means to more effectively meet these demands.

The article is divided into six sections. In the first section, I provide a more in-depth discussion of open-space policy and why it is a suitable policy domain to examine collaboration. Second, I discuss the different forms of county government, as well as the different county rules or institutions relevant to open-space protection, and the implications of each. Third, I discuss the theoretical mechanisms underpinning the argument. Fourth, I describe the data and the econometric model used to test my hypotheses. Finally, I discuss the results of the analysis, followed by a brief discussion of the implications and limitations of this research.

OPEN-SPACE POLICY AND COLLABORATION

Congestion and urban sprawl are deep-seated problems facing many cities and counties across the country. Consequently, many communities are grappling with how to mitigate the deleterious effects of congestion by maintaining the intrinsic value of natural lands and open spaces without sacrificing economic vitality. Scientists, urban planners, and policy analysts have consistently asserted that maintaining viable open spaces is important to communities for ecological reasons (Kane 1997). For example, forests, wetlands, and grasslands provide important habitat for sustaining biodiversity, in addition to carrying out important physical processes such as pollution filtration and reducing erosive capabilities of urban and agricultural run-off. Yet open space is also important for psychological reasons (Rubenstein 1997). The positive psychological impact of nature on individuals is well documented. Researchers have found that people respond positively to images of undisturbed nature, especially in juxtaposition to congested urban environments (Ulrich 1979; Wolf 2004). Economically, open space has been found to have a positive impact on adjacent property values (Irwin 2002). What is more, it appears that citizens, in general, recognize the importance of open space for improving quality of life. Indeed, recent public opinion data suggest that the majority of Americans support governments' role in protecting open space through direct acquisition (see Howell-Moroney 2004).