By Alexander L. Q. Chen & Oda Hustad
Collaboration in cross-sectoral networks is proliferating in response to different public policy issues such as climate change, public health crises, economic inequality and urban renewal. These collaborative networks are typically characterised as horizontal partnerships, where public, private, and civil society actors have equal power, and work together to achieve shared goals. Yet, some form of governance is necessary for collaborative networks to succeed as they otherwise risk becoming inefficient. But how can power be exercised in the governance of collaborative networks without undermining the capacity of these networks to solve collective problems? This is the question we asked in our article recently published in Policy & Politics, entitled “Metagoverning collaborative networks: A cumulative power perspective”.
Metagovernance is a suitable way of governing collaborative networks, as it relies on a complementary mix of subtle governance mechanisms to indirectly steer collaborative networks towards achieving their goals. In our article, we developed a new framework to understand how power is exercised in collaborative networks through metagovernance. Our framework outlines three types of metagovernance (outputs, inputs, and process) that can be used at different stages of the collaborative process:
- Metagoverning outputs: issuing formal project output requirements (legal, financial, administrative) or expressing informal expectations about the project outputs
- Metagoverning inputs: selectively enlisting and excluding actors as participants or normatively framing the values, interests, and identities of project participants
- Metagoverning processes: steering the conceptual content of the collaborative process toward predefined output goals, for instance by controlling access to resources such as time and knowledge.
Metagovernors can gradually steer collaborative networks towards specific goals based on these three collaborative stages, where power can be exercised repressively or constructively. To show how these insights unfold in practice, we encourage you to read our full article where we present an illustrative case study of the development of a sustainable and socially inclusive craftsmanship dormitory in Denmark. This project was developed in a collaborative network involving teams of architects, artists, students, and consultants (metagovernors), showcasing both the constructive and repressive aspects of power exercised through metagovernance.
Due to the subtleness of metagovernance, there is often a tendency to underestimate the magnitude of power that is exercised. In response to this observation, our framework calls attention to two issues related to collaborative networks and the use of metagovernance:
- Firstly, we propose a cumulative power perspective, emphasising the importance of evaluating the overall effects of metagovernance and its exercise of power, rather than focusing on isolated instances that might seem negligible. A cumulative perspective will often show how, in aggregation, metagovernance can also involve the substantial use of power.
- Secondly, we make a distinction between the repressive and constructive use of power. The former refers to when metagovernance is leveraged to favour the interests of some network participants, while marginalising those of others. In contrast, the latter refers to when metagovernance is leveraged to empower participants to make informed decisions and enable their participation in collaborative networks.
The findings of this research are important because they show how metagovernors can improve their awareness of how to balance constructively and repressively exercising and distributing power in collaborative networks, by understanding the power dynamics entangled in the different types of metagovernance.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Chen, A. L., & Hustad, O. (2024). Metagoverning collaborative networks: a cumulative power perspective. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000040
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Becker, P., Sparf, J., & Petridou, E. (2024). Identifying proactive and reactive policy entrepreneurs in collaborative networks in flood risk management. Policy & Politics, 52(2), 298-320 from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000006
Carlier, N., Aubin, D., & Moyson, S. (2024). The relative effects of diversity on collective learning in local collaborative networks in Belgium. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000007
Seibicke, H. (2024). Investigating stakeholder rationales for participating in collaborative interactions at the policy–science nexus. Policy & Politics, 52(3), 477-500 from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000010
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 