Policy & Politics Journal Blog

by Christopher K. Ansell, Kevin Orr and Philipp Trein

In their recent article, Between win–win and the manufacturing of consent: collaborative governance as a lightning rod in cannabis policy, authors Christopher Ansell, Kevin Orr and Philipp Trein explore how power operates in collaborative governance processes by analysing the case of cannabis policy in the San Francisco Bay Area. Drawing on interviews, field observations and document analysis, the authors examine how collaborative arenas shaped policy implementation following California’s legalisation of recreational cannabis in 2018. They argue that, while collaboration was formally inclusive and participatory, the dynamics of power often led not to a balanced, negotiated consensus, but to the emergence of a dominant agenda advanced by activist policy entrepreneurs.

Collaborative governance is often celebrated for enabling diverse stakeholders to negotiate mutually beneficial outcomes. But, as the authors show, real-world processes are more complex. They develop two ideal types of consensus building: the “win–win” model, in which stakeholders negotiate equitable agreements; and the “manufacturing of consent,” in which dominant coalitions consolidate power and marginalise alternative voices. In the case of cannabis policy, the authors argue, the collaborative process functioned more like the latter. City officials created formal forums for deliberation, but a historically rooted and politically skilful network of cannabis activists quickly gained discursive legitimacy and agenda-setting influence. Their framing of cannabis reform as a means to redress racial injustice proved powerful in shaping the collaborative agenda.

Drawing on multiple data sources, the article illustrates how activist groups were able to occupy leadership positions within collaborative forums, while public health and law enforcement stakeholders were largely absent or disengaged. The authors suggest that this absence was not due to exclusion but to a lack of mobilisation, which in turn allowed the activists’ perspectives to dominate. The consensus that emerged from the collaborative process aligned closely with the priorities of these well-organised groups, particularly around economic opportunity and social equity. While this alignment may have enabled rapid policy development, it raises important questions about representation, dissent and the boundaries of inclusion.

The article offers a nuanced and theoretically grounded account of how collaborative governance can operate as a channel for politically charged issues. Rather than a neutral space for deliberation, the forums in this case acted as “lightning rods,” transforming explosive debates into actionable policies — but not necessarily by engaging all relevant voices. Instead, consensus was built through a combination of network power, discursive framing, and the institutional design of the collaborative process itself.

This case contributes to a broader research literature exploring how power is expressed, organised and managed within collaborative governance. It challenges the assumption that collaboration always facilitates balanced negotiation and suggests that, under certain conditions, it may serve to entrench dominant perspectives. The article calls for more attention to the role of discourses, agenda control, and coalition-building in shaping outcomes, particularly in historically sensitive policy areas.

…

You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at

Ansell, C. K., Orr, K., and Trein, P. (2025). Between win–win and the manufacturing of consent: collaborative governance as a lightning rod in cannabis policy. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2025), available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2025D000000068>

If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading

Torfing, J., Payandeh, R., Jalili, S. M., and Banafi, M. (2025). A systematic review of conflict within collaborative governance. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2025), available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2025D000000070>

Chen, A. L., and Hustad, O. (2025). Metagoverning collaborative networks: a cumulative power perspective. Policy & Politics 53, 2, 249-272, available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000040>

Carstensen, M. B., and Sørensen, E. (2025). Using bricolage and robustness theory to explain the dynamism of collaborative governance. Policy & Politics 53, 2, 315-337, available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000062>