Strengthening the rule of law in collaborative governance

Abstract

Due to the incomplete legal foundation for collaborative governance, which leads to a set of problems, it is significant to promote the legal framework. Promoting the legal framework starts by enhancing ‘the rule of law’ in collaborative governance. This conceptual paper provides a framework for understanding the enhancement of the rule of law in collaborative governance. The enhancement of four important principles of the rule of law in key arenas of power in a collaboration is discussed. These four principles include predictability of the law, accessibility of the law, supremacy of the law, and equality before the law. Similarly, the arenas of power in a collaboration include participant selection in the antecedent phase of collaboration, process design and content selection in the process phase of collaboration, and performance measurement in the outcome phase of collaboration. This framework will shed light on the enhancement of the rule of law and the management of power relationships in collaborative governance.

Keywords:

• The rule of law
• arena of power
• collaborative governance

Notes

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Ansell and Gash, “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice,” 543–571.

2 Ansell and Gash, “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice,” 543–571; Emerson et al., “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance,” 1–29; Huxham et al., “Challenge of Collaborative Governance,” 337–358.

3 Lowndes and Skelcher, “Dynamics of Multi‐Organizational Partnerships,” 313–333.

4 Huxham, “Theorizing Collaboration Practice,” 401–423.

5 Bryson et al., “Design and Implementation of Cross‐Sector Collaborations,” 44–55.

6 Huxham et al., “Challenge of Collaborative Governance,” 337–358.

7 See not 1 above.

8 Bingham, “Collaborative Governance,” 269–236.

9 Purdy, “Assessing Power in Collaborative Governance Processes,” 409–417.

10 See note 5 above; Emerson et al., “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance,” 1–29.

11 See Gray, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems; Ansell and Gash, “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice,” 543–571; Warner, “Multi-Stakeholder Platforms,” 15–35.

12 See note 1 above.

13 See note 8 above.

14 Ibid.

15 Amsler, “Collaborative governance: Integrating management, politics, and law,” 700–711.

16 Fallon, “The Rule of Law in Constitutional Discourse,” 1–56; See Lautenbach, Rule of Law and the European Court of Human Rights.

17 See note 9 above; Ring and Van de Ven, “Developmental Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships,” 90–118; Thomson and Perry, “Collaboration Processes,” 20–32; Wood and Gray, “Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration,” 139–162.

18 Fallon, “The Rule of Law in Constitutional Discourse,” 1–56.

19 Chesterman, “An International Rule of Law,” 331–362.

20 Ibid.; Dworkin, Law's Empire; Raz, “Rule of Law and Its Virtue,” 195–211.

21 See note 9 above.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Altheide, “Mediating Cutbacks in Human Services,” 339–355; See note 9 above.

25 See note 9 above.

26 See note 5 above; Provan and Kenis, “Modes of Network Governance,” 229–252.

27 Suchman, “Managing Legitimacy,” 571–610.

28 See note 26 above.

29 McGuire and Agranoff, “Limitations of Public Management Networks,” 265–284; Thomson et al., “Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaboration,” 23–56.

30 Agranoff, “Inside Collaborative Networks,” 56–65; Hirst, “Democracy and Governance,” 13–35.

31 See note 8 above; Bingham, “The Next Generation of Administrative Law,” 297–357.

32 See note 8 above.

33 Summers, “Principles of the Rule of Law,” 1691–1712.

34 See Hayek, The Road to Serfdom; Tamanaha, “History and Elements of the Rule of Law,” 232–247.

35 Weingast, “Why Developing Countries Prove So Resistant to the Rule-of-Law,” 28–51.

36 Van Buuren and Nooteboom, “The Success of SEA in Dutch Planning Practice,” 129.

37 Ibid., 127–135.

38 See Chrislip and Larson, Collaborative Leadership.

39 Thomson and Perry, “Collaboration Processes,” 20–32.

40 Agranoff and McGuire, “Big Questions in Public Network Management,” 295–326; Emerson and Nabatchi, “Evaluating Productivity of Collaborative Governance,” 717–747; See Kettl, The Next Government of the United States.

41 Emerson and Nabatchi, “Evaluating Productivity of Collaborative Governance,” 717–747; Provan and Milward, “Do Networks Really Work,” 414–423.

42 Emerson and Nabatchi, “Evaluating Productivity of Collaborative Governance,” 717–747.

43 Emerson and Nabatchi, “Evaluating Productivity of Collaborative Governance,” 717–747; McGuire and Agranoff, “Limitations of Public Management Networks,” 265–284.

44 Popelier, “Legal Certainty and Principles of Proper Law Making,” 321–342.

45 See Lautenbach, Rule of Law and the European Court of Human Rights.

46 Kochenov and Pech, “Monitoring and Enforcement of the Rule of Law,” 512–540.

47 Ibid.

48 See note 45 above.

49 Bingham, “Reflections on Designing Governance to Produce the Rule of Law,” 67–89.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Gray, “Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration,” 911–936.

54 Bingham, “Collaborative Governance,” 269–236; Purdy, “Assessing Power in Collaborative Governance Processes,” 409–417.

55 Bingham, “Collaborative Governance,” 269–236; Bryson et al., “Designing and Implementing Cross‐Sector Collaboration,” 647–663.

56 See note 1 above.

57 See note 9 above, 412.

58 See note 9 above.

59 O’Toole, “Rational Choice and Public Management of Interorganizational Networks,” 241–263; Powell, “Neither Market nor Hierarchy,” 295–336; Thomson and Perry, “Collaboration Processes,” 20–32.

60 Head, “Assessing Network-Based Collaborations,” 733–749; Provan and Kenis, “Modes of Network Governance,” 229–252; Provan and Milward, “Do Networks Really Work,” 414–423; Ran and Qi, “Contingencies of Power Sharing,” 836–851.

61 See note 5 above.

62 Bryson et al., “Design and Implementation of Cross‐Sector Collaborations,” 44–55; Thomson and Perry, “Collaboration Processes,” 20–32.

63 Letourneur and Drago, “The Rule of Law in France,” 147–177.

64 Møller and Skaaning, “Systematizing Thin and Thick Conceptions of the Rule of Law,” 136–153; See Tamanaha, On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory.

65 See Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 183.

66 Chen, “Toward a Legal Enlightenment,” 125–165.

67 Johnston et al., “Managing the Inclusion Process,” 699–721; Thomson and Perry, “Collaboration Processes,” 20–32.

68 Bingham, “The Next Generation of Administrative Law,” 297–357.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid.

71 See note 9 above.

72 Ibid.

73 Brummel et al., “Social Learning in a Policy-Mandated Collaboration,” 681–699; Rodríguez et al., “Governance, Power, and Mandated Collaboration,” 150–193.

74 Rodríguez et al., “Governance, Power, and Mandated Collaboration,” 150–193.

75 Bryson et al., “Design and Implementation of Cross‐Sector Collaborations,” 44–55; Purdy, “Assessing Power in Collaborative Governance Processes,” 409–417.

76 Thomson and Perry, “Collaboration Processes,” 20–32; Thomson et al., “Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaboration,” 23–56.

77 See note 39 above.

78 Gray, “Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration,” 911–936; Thomson and Perry, “Collaboration Processes,” 20–32.

79 See note 39 above.

80 See note 9 above.

81 See note 29 above.

82 See Tamanaha, On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory.

83 Miguel, “Equality Before the Law and Precedent,” 372–391.

84 Craig, “Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law,” 95–115; Miguel, “Equality Before the Law and Precedent,” 372–391.

85 Craig, “Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law,” 467–487; See Marshall, Constitutional Theory.

86 Kelsen, “What is Justice,” 1–26.

87 See not 83 above.

88 Agbodzakey, “Collaborative Governance of HIV Health Services Planning Councils,” 107–126.

89 Ibid.

90 See note 53 above.

91 Emerson et al., “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance,” 1–29.

92 Kenis et al., “Towards an exogenous theory of public network performance,” 440–456.

93 Ansell and Gash, “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice,” 543–571; Fallon, “The Rule of Law in Constitutional Discourse,” 1–56; Lawrence et al., “Institutional Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration,” 281–290.

94 Adams and Davis, “Decentralized Trust-Based Access Control System for Collaboration,” 317–324; Pennington et al., “The Role of System Trust,” 197–226.

95 Ibid.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Huiting Qi

Huiting Qi is a doctoral candidate of the PhD program in public administration from the School of Public Affairs, Penn State Harrisburg. Her research interests include collaborative governance networks, behavioral public administration, and organizational theory. Her latest publication is “The Entangled Twins: Power and Trust in Collaborative Governance” (Administration & Society, 2018).