Description
Unformatted Attachment Preview
General Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via the
allocated folder.
Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
Students are advised to make their work clear and well-presented; marks may be reduced
for poor presentation. This includes filling in your information on the cover page.
Students must mention the question number clearly in their answers.
Late submissions will NOT be accepted.
Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other
resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
All answers must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No
pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.
Learning Outcomes:
1. Define the fundamental theories of public sector management. (LO1.1)
2. Describe the simple and complex issues pertaining to public management (LO1.2)
Assignment Question(s)
(Marks 10)
1. “Changing regional aspirations is creating a large number of problems in
establishing effective intergovernmental relationships”. Discuss the public
policy formulation and implementation of the government to meet these
aspirations. (5 Marks)
2. Please go through the following article on intergovernmental relations:
https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/research/journals/apssr/2019March-vol19-4/5-intergovernmental-relations-in-a-world-of-governance-aconsideration-of-international-experiences-challenges-and-new-directions.pdf
Write a summary of this article in about 400-500 words (5 Marks)
Answers
1. Answer2. Answer3. Answer4. Answer
Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 19(4) 2019, pp. 44–55
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Intergovernmental Relations in A World of
Governance: A Consideration of International
Experiences, Challenges, and New Directions
Grichawat Lowatcharin,1* Charles David Crumpton,2 and Sittipol Pacharoen3
1
Khon Kaen University, Thailand
2
University of Maryland, USA and Federal University of Goiás, Brazil
3
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Japan
*[email protected]
Abstract: The concept of intergovernmental relations (IGR) primarily focuses on the interactions among different levels
and types of governments. With the proliferation of the concept of governance that calls for more actors in the public affairs
arena, the traditional focus of IGR is challenged. The objectives of this article are to perform a fresh review of the concept of
IGR and the practice of IGR research and to address contemporary challenges to them. We find that although the pervasive
concept of governance has played an important role in IGR, it is confronted with a number of crucial questions, one of which
is related to its inadequate consideration of democratic accountability and legitimacy. We further assess that in getting to
questions of accountability and legitimacy of governance approaches, the IGR literature has inadequately considered the
implications of organizational complexity typically found in governance arrangements. Applying theoretical and analytic
lenses of organizational complexity, we offer two suggestions for the future of IGR to make it analytically more robust and
better capable of answering questions regarding accountability and legitimacy dimensions of governance. First, we argue that
the urban regions of the world should receive more attention as dynamic IGR laboratories from students of IGR. Second, we
suggest that hybrid organizational analysis can be a powerful addition to the analytic toolbox of IGR to explore the impact
of organizational complexity on governance arrangements.
Keywords: central-local relations, hybrid organization, intergovernmental relations, multilevel governance, urban governance
Intergovernmental relations (IGR) came to the attention of public administration scholars in the 1930s
(Wright, 1974) as an important issue of concern for any
political and administrative system, federal or unitary
(Lan, 2003). As comparative public administration
has transited through New Institutionalism (NI), New
Public Management (NPM), New Public Governance
(NPG) and other movements in practice and research,
IGR across the world have confronted challenges
in addressing the implications for public policy and
service problems (Lan, 2003; Nagai, Mektrairat &
Funatsu, 2008; Kapucu, Arslan, & Collins, 2010;
Hague, 2010). An enduring concept across these
emphases in comparative public administration study
concerning IGR is the importance of governance and
the search for “good governance” (Andrews, 2008;
Copyright © 2019 by De La Salle University
Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance:
45
Gisselquist, 2012). Some studies have argued that,
although the pervasive concept of governance may be
key to addressing many current problems of IGR, it also
poses new challenges for practice and research (Peters
& Pierre, 2003; Wright, 2003; Laffin, 2009; Kapucu et
al., 2010; Dolinar, 2010). The concept of governance
calls for blending inputs of the private and voluntary
sectors with the government in the policy arena and
provision of public services; thus, challenging the
democratic accountability and legitimacy notions of
the traditional IGR study (Chan & Rosenbloom, 2010).
The objective of this article is to review central
concepts of IGR in light of contemporary challenges
that it faces in understanding the implications of
governance. IGR is considered in four directions. First,
we review general ideas and fundamental elements
of IGR, including definitions, key elements, and
development. Second, examples of IGR theory and
practice in selected countries are illustrated. Third,
a discussion of emerging trends of IGR is offered.
Finally, we offer suggestions regarding how IGR can
better address the challenges of governance in the
future through a focus on the governance of urban
regions and the application of an organizational
complexity lens. We argue that the governance of
urban regions and the “organizational engineering”
that occurs in this context serves as an underutilized
laboratory for the IGR study.
levels and units of subnational government; and the
interstitial activities, relationships, and organizations
that arise between levels and units. Each of these areas
has been studied from a variety of perspectives—
from administrative to fiscal, legal to political, and
economical to sociological (Painter, 2003). That IGR is
firmly established as a field of study is seen in important
textbooks dedicated to it (for example, see O’Toole
& Christensen, 2012; Welborn,1989; Steinberg &
Hamilton, 2018).
IGR is an important issue of concern for any
political and administrative system, either federal
or unitary (Lan, 2003). However, the term IGR
originated in the United States and has been most
frequently used in federal systems contexts (Wright,
1974; Cameron, 2001; Painter, 2003; Kapucu et al.,
2010). There are other terms that connote similar
meanings (Peters, 2001; Lan, 2003; Thomas, 1990).
For instance, in unitary systems such as in the United
Kingdom and China, the term central-local relations
is more commonplace to identify independent and
interdependent relations between the central or
national government and subnational entities (Peters,
2001; Laffin, 2007; Lan, 2003;). Intergovernmental
management is another word choice adopted by some
public administration scholars who emphasize the role
of public administrators in IGR (Cho & Wright, 2004;
Radin, 2003).
Despite terminological choices and diverse
definitions, IGR comprises distinctive features
(Anderson, 1960 as cited in Wright, 1974; Cameron,
2001; Laffin, 2009). First, it recognizes all types and
levels of government, central departments, and local
authorities. Second, such governmental organizations
are, at the same time, independent and interdependent.
Third, it is largely formulated from the formal and
informal relations and behavior of governmental
officials. Fourth, the relations are not one-time,
occasional occurrences: they are, rather, continuous,
and cumulative. Fifth, it comprises roles played by
all public administrators. Last, it strongly focuses on
policy issues.
Defining IGR
As a concept, IGR originated more than seven
decades ago in the United States (see, e.g., Culver,
1940) and has been periodically defined and redefined,
gradually gaining more conceptual and analytic
clarity (Wright, 1974, 1992). It refers to “an important
body of activities or interactions occurring between
governmental units of all types and levels” (Anderson,
1960, as cited in Cho & Wright, 2004, p. 451).
Such activities or interactions require not only
coordinated effort but also creativity to successfully
address the needs associated with national and subnational issues of public policy and service (Kapucu
et al., 2010).
As a field of study, IGR originated in the 1960s
(Wright, 1992). It encompasses a wide range of
dimensions, including the division of powers and
functions among levels and types of government;
the administrative and political relations between
Relations of Conflict and Collaboration
IGR is also about conflict-collaboration
contemporaneity, a struggle for proper spheres of
powers among national and subnational governments
(Li, 2010; Haque, 2010). According to this
46
conceptualization, coordination in IGR is an attempt
to optimize coherence and consistency of political
decisions across levels of government, policies,
and actors to find solutions to problems of common
interest to multiple stakeholders (Wollmann, 2003).
IGR has thus far relied on three types or patterns
of coordination—that is, hierarchy, network, and
market—which have been widely accepted by public
administration scholars (Wollmann, 2003; Rodríguez,
Langley, Béland, & Denis, 2007; Kapucu et al., 2010).
A traditional form of coordination, hierarchy moves
the decision from the top, most authoritative position,
down through the ranks of the organization (Kapucu
et al., 2010). It is instrumental for the politically
accountable government to make sure that the lower
levels of government carry out the policies in a
coordinated manner (Wollmann, 2003). Networks
are loosely formed voluntary associations among
organizations (Kapucu et al., 2010). Based on shared
values, trust, solidarity, or consensus, network
coordination is related to mechanisms like bargaining
and negotiation, in which the actors find themselves
basically in a parity or equal footing situation
(Wollmann, 2003). Market coordination has emerged
with the proliferation of new public management,
and arguably replaced that of hierarchy. Its basic
assumption is that coordination can be achieved
through the market economy and the self-interest of
the participants in policymaking and implementation
(Wollmann, 2003).
An additional approach that has not been reflected
in IGR scholarship, but that we argue could offer
conceptual and analytic contributions to the field,
is that of the hybrid organizational perspective.
Drawing from concepts and research in institutional
theory and organization study, as well as practical
examination of the organizational complexity found
in American metropolitan governance, the hybrid
organization perspective looks beyond hierarchies,
networks, and markets to consider how multiple
governmental stakeholders blend their institutional
authority, purposes, goals, and resources to address
problems in IGR. The hybrid organization takes into
account organizational complexity that is common
in modern public administration and policy. It
recognizes the inter-organizational/inter-sectoral
public service problem-solving that characterize the
New Public Management (NPM) and New Public
Governance (NPG) perspectives. According to
G. Lowatcharin, C. D. Crumpton & S. Pacharoen
this conceptualization, organizational resources of
multiple stakeholders are essentially re-engineered
to address social, economic, and political problems
in shared organizational environments found
in national and subnational public economies.
The organizational products of this blending
of organizational interests and resources range
from temporary informal arrangements to new
organizational forms with identities distinct from the
source organizations that created them. Sometimes,
these inter-organizational arrangements result
in new organizational entities that represent the
hybridization of the purposes, objectives, structures,
and processes of the organizations that link together
to form them. Hybridization is particularly notable
in dense organizational governance settings such
as urban regions, wherein multiple jurisdictions,
private companies, and NGOs are linked together
to produce public services (Crumpton, 2008). The
current study is framed by the arguments that the
addition of the hybrid organization perspective to
analyze organizational complexity—particularly in
the world’s urban regions—should be added to the
theoretical and analytic repertoire of IGR.
IGR Settings in Federal and Unitary States
Relations between different levels and types of
government exist not only in federal states but also in
unitary states where decentralization is regarded as a
key ingredient to national development. The difference
between federal and unitary states might be seen as
a division of authority and decision-making power
(Hague, Harrop, & McCormick, 2016). According to
this framing, federal states are based on “the principle
of sharing sovereignty between central and state
(or provincial) governments” (Hague et al., 2016,
p. 202). By contrast, in unitary states, “sovereignty
lies exclusively with the central government; subnational authorities, whether regional or local, may
make policy as well as implement it but they do so by
permission of the centre” (Hague et al., 2016, p. 208).
As the form that IGR takes varies across countries, the
following discussion considers its variation in seven
selected federal and unitary countries: United States,
Canada, Germany, Australia, United Kingdom, China,
and Thailand.
IGR in the Federal States
The United States. The United States is a federal
Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance:
47
system in which the federal level, as well as the
individual states, exercise significant legislative and
executive functions in their own right (Wollmann,
2003). IGR in the U.S. is often described as a complex,
varying structure, constituting layered relations
between federal, states, local general service, local
limited service, and even tribal governmental bodies
(Wollmann, 2003; Steinman, 2004). IGR in the United
States is unavoidably characterized by two contrasting
phenomena: conflict and collaboration (Wright, 2003;
Cho & Wright, 2004). There are always tensions
in defining the proper sphere of powers between
and among federal, state, and local governments,
especially in terms of fiscal issues (Thomas, 1990;
Donahue, 1997; Gillette, 2001; Greenblatt, 2002;
Oates, 2008). Over the past decade, cities have become
laboratories for alternative governance approaches.
The conventional division of labor between federal and
state governments is challenged by the state government
performing better than the federal government in the
prevention of and in response to security incidents
(Tepperman, 2016). Reform strategies and methods
developed at the local level have been adopted by state
and federal governments. This has raised an important
question regarding a diminishing role for hierarchical
coordination (Peters, 2001). This is exemplified in
research promoted by the Advisory Commission
on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). This work
demonstrated the extent to which collaboration among
local jurisdictions has served as a laboratory for IGR
solutions to shared local level public policy and
service problems. For instance, in their examination
of the St. Louis and Pittsburgh metropolitan areas on
behalf of ACIR, Parks and Oakerson (1993) found
a variety of bilateral and multilateral responses to
public policy and service problems among local
jurisdictions in the fragmented local government
settings that typify American metropolitan areas. Parks
and Oakerson (1993) offered evidence regarding how
organizationally dense metropolitan areas function as
public economies substantially apart from federal and
state hierarchies in which local jurisdictions seek IGR
solutions to public policy and service problems.
Canada. IGR in Canada is less institutionalized
than the United States (Bolleyer, 2006). The relations
have long been influenced and shaped by the concept
of “executive federalism” or “federal-provincial
diplomacy,” in which most interactions rest upon a
limited number of political or permanent bureaucratic
executives (Cameron & Simeon, 2002; Bakis, Baier, &
Brow, 2009). The limited number of actors involved in
IGR brings about advantages as well as disadvantages:
at times, it helps reach agreements more easily; other
times, it fails to acknowledge the needs of many other
actors (Bakis et al., 2009). Therefore, the executive
federalism prism has come under increasing stress
in recent years from a number of forces that have
affected the nature and conduct of federalism and
IGR in the country. Executive federalism has not been
displaced, but it has been increasingly criticized by a
set of more open, collaborative practices (Cameron
& Simeon, 2002). Pelletier (2013) has considered
Canadian IGR in terms of constitutional barriers to
IGR innovation and the potential for pursuing extraconstitutional alternatives. As in the United States,
interesting attention to challenges in IGR in Canada has
addressed the governance of the nation’s metropolitan
areas. For example, Spicer (2013, 2014) has compared
the circumstances under which provincially-imposed
regional schemes, inter-local agreements, and
annexation or consolidation have been deployed to
address governance problems in Canada’s metropolitan
regions.
The Federal Republic of Germany. Since
the Second World War, Germany has pursued a
decentralization policy. Its IGR is unique. The federal
government possesses most of the legislative powers,
whereas the executive and administrative functions
lie almost entirely with lower levels of government
(Wollmann, 2003). Since the Unification in 1990, the
existing system has been challenged and gradually
developed into a more “asymmetric” federal system,
highlighting the multilevel scenario (Auel, 2014). The
practice of and experience gained from Germany’s
IGR led to the development and implementation of
multilevel governance in many European countries
(Dolinar, 2010). German IGR is characterized by a
maze of vertical and horizontal relationships (Arnold,
2013). In response to greater European Union
integration, in Germany, greater federal-Länder and
Länder-Länder cooperation emerged (Goetz, 1995). As
in the United States and Canada, a useful examination
of problems in IGR has been conducted concerning
governance within German urban regions. For instance,
Blätter (2017) has argued that Germany’s urban regions
have developed bottom-up policy and administrative
approaches to the problems of urban governance that
involve crossing jurisdictional boundaries and that
48
vary substantially among urban regions. Benz and
Meinecke (2007) have also examined the variety of
inter-jurisdictional arrangements that have emerged
at the sub-Länder level to address urban regional
governance challenges that are shared by fragmented
local jurisdictions.
Commonwealth of Australia. The elements of
cooperation and competition among Australia’s tiers of
government and the problems of coordination have had
a major bearing on the development of the country and
its constituent cities and regions. The balance between
the powers of the national and state governments has
undergone major changes over the last century (Stilwell
& Troy, 2000). Tension usually arises because the
state governments are responsible for broader state
development beyond the metropolitan areas (Stilwell
& Troy, 2000). Due to highly fragmented local
government systems, in recent decades, Australian
states have promoted extensive amalgamation of
local authorities. Although amalgamation produced
beneficial outcomes in some limited local governments,
in other cases, it faced council resistance and failed
to reduce costs. Australian states, thus, have shifted
their focus to council cooperation as an alternative
way forward (Dollery, Byrnes, & Crase, 2008).
Demonstrating the portability of IGR lessons learned
in the laboratory of metropolitan governance, Dollery
and Johnson (2005) have applied Oakerson’s work in
the U.S.’s jurisdictionally complex metropolitan areas
to local governance fragmentation in Australia. IGR
research in Australia has also been pursued regarding
specific policy domains such as environmental
protection (Hollander, 2015). Carroll and Head (2010)
found that, as a product of national regulatory reform, a
variety of national-subnational relationships emerged,
including new coordinating bodies. In an examination
of regulatory reform, Collins (2015) compared IGR in
Australia with that found in Canada and argued that,
although Canada favors horizontal arrangements,
vertical relations are found more frequently in
Australia.
IGR in the Unitary States
The United Kingdom. In 1999, the British
government devolved significant powers to the newly
established Scottish Parliament and National Assembly
for Wales (McConnell, 2006; Laffin, 2007). After the
devolution, the research found three key elements
in U.K. central-local relations. First, the Scottish
G. Lowatcharin, C. D. Crumpton & S. Pacharoen
and Welsh cases indicate that devolution does not
inevitably lead to regional centralism and that centrallocal relations at the regional or intermediate levels are
less competitive and more collaborative where a power
balance or symmetry exists between the intermediate
and the local level. Second, the trend towards
governance is not immutable but, at least partly, a
matter of political choice. Third, the post-devolution
policy similarities between the metropolitan center
and the three devolved territories remain pronounced
with a pattern of continued policy tracking, through
which the dominance of the metropolitan center is
maintained indirectly rather than directly (Laffin,
2007). Within the post-devolution frame, McEwen,
Swenden, and Bolleyer (2012) found that, in the face of
inter-party flux, IGR involved both intense conflict and
cooperation, with a preference for bilateral relations
surfacing. In more recent considerations regarding and
central and regional relations, McEwen (2017) has
examined bilateral and multilateral intergovernmental
councils as mechanisms to improve coordination
and collaboration in the devolved governmental
environment. Parry (2012) has reported upon how
senior civil servants have played important roles in
facilitating IGR in the post-devolution U.K. In his
analysis of policy development among the constituent
nations since development, Keating (2012) saw
the development of something akin to competitive
federalism in divergent approaches to policy. As
with the federated states considered above, a robust
literature with IGR implications concerns metropolitan
governance in the United Kingdom. For instance, in
separate studies of the IGR complexity of governance
in the London urban region, Turok (2009) has
considered how individual municipal interests within
the region can conflict with urban regional governance
objectives, whereas Pilgrim (2006) emphasized interlocal collaboration to support regional governance
objectives.
The People’s Republic of China. The evidence
indicates that China’s central-local dynamics are not
as efficient as in many Western nations (Feinerman,
1998; Lan, 2003; Lan & Chen, 2010). Two fundamental
factors hinder such efficiency: first, the instructional
structure in which central government is regarded as
the lord and local ones are the subjects; and second, its
moral philosophy of governance in which the subjects
serve the interests of the master and the master is morally
obliged to the subjects (Lan, 2003). In other words,
Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance:
49
relationships between central and local governments
are not on the basis of co-partnership but more on that
of principal-agent or supervisor-supervisee (Li, 2010).
Within the subnational level of government, Yu, Li, and
Shen (2016) have examined issues of administrative
capacity and policy development in relation to the
devolution of authority from provincial governments
to townships. Cheung (2014) used the collaborative
governance regime framework to study economic
cooperation between Hong Kong and mainland China.
Addressing the vertical relationship between Chinese
central and local governments from a different IGR
perspective, Fang and Pal (2016) argued that vertical
fragmentation in urban policy has contributed to urban
sprawl in the country.
The Kingdom of Thailand. Due to political
instability over the past 80 years, relations between
central and local governments in Thailand are best
described as a tug-of-war between centralization and
decentralization (Chardchawarn, 2008; Lowatcharin,
2014; Wongsekiarttirat, 1999). In the early 1990s,
Thailand reintroduced decentralization as the key
mechanism for providing basic public services
nationwide. There have been a number of challenges
in the move to more local governance (Krueathep,
2004; Haque, 2010; Ree & Hossain, 2010). These
challenges are reflected in at least three critical
issues regarding the relations between Thai central
and local governments. First, fiscal autonomy of
local governments is , and local administrative
organizations (LAOs) have to heavily depend on
decisions of the central government on how much
power is shared or granted (Krueathep, 2004). Second,
in spite of the plan and process stipulated in Thai
national laws and evidence among LAOs of positive
outcomes, many central administration agencies
have shown reluctance to hand over governmental
tasks and responsibilities. And at times, the national
government has implemented recentralization policies,
undermining the decentralization process and plan
(Chardchawarn, 2008). Third, the central government
and its administrative branch—the so-called “regional
administration”—continue to exert direct and indirect
control over the LAOs (Nagai et al., 2008). The
latest coup in 2014 has intensified this situation in
that the military government has ordered a halt to
local elections, and the 2016 constitution downplays
local governments’ roles. With a level of autonomy
not granted to other cities in Thailand, Bangkok is
treated as a special case. Among the IGR issues found
in the Bangkok urban region involved is the fact that
only 60% of the urbanized area of the region is under
Bangkok municipal control, thus presenting inter-local
coordination challenges in controlling urban sprawl
(World Bank Group, 2015).
IGR settings in the above-mentioned countries
provide valuable lessons of some, if not all, major
problems in diverse parts of the contemporary world.
One of the most prominent problems found in this
review is a struggle for the appropriate devolution
of powers between different levels of government.
Problems like this, as argued by various public
administration scholars, can be diminished by the
emerging, yet widely adoptedfr concept of multilevel
governance.
The cross-country evidence briefly considered here
also indicates that a rich area of emerging evidence
regarding IGR responses to governance challenges
is coming from the urban regions of the world. In
the work of Parks and Oakerson (1993) for the ACIR
three decades ago, we see that urban regions have
been important IGR laboratories for many years.
What we also see in the growing body of IGR urban
region governance evidence is the potential value of
applying the hybrid organizational analytic frame to
understand better the nature and consequentiality of
inter-organizational “engineering” that takes place
to make urban regions not just more governable, but
also more competitive in the face of globalization
challenges.
IGR in a Challenging World of Governance
In the 1980s, the term “governance” took hold in
public administration in parallel with the rise of NPM.
Like NPM, NPG looks beyond established paradigms
of governmental production and delivery of public
goods and services for alternative forms within and
outside of governmental hierarchies (Morgan & Shinn,
2014). What public administration students agree upon
is that governance differs from the government: it refers
to something broader than government (Kjaer, 2004;
Dolinar, 2010). Laffin (2009) argued that the concept
of governance not only has changed the structures of
public policymaking and delivery in a more complex
way but also provides room in public policy arena for
non-governmental actors, who play an increasingly
significant role.
G. Lowatcharin, C. D. Crumpton & S. Pacharoen
50
We argue that the broad conceptualization of
governance should also consider the inter-organizational
“engineering” that takes place in organizationally
complex national and sub-national public economies.
Responding to changing conditions, public entities
seek solutions that involve complex linkages of
shared purposes and organizational resources with
other public and non-public entities. The resulting
hybrid organizational solutions range in nature from
temporary arrangements to new organizational forms
with distinct identities (Crumpton, 2008). Building
upon the work of Parks and Oakerson (1993), and
drawing from organizational studies and institutional
theory, Crumpton (2008) has demonstrated how this
works in the organizationally complex settings of
metropolitan areas of the United States. This analytic
approach could be gainfully deployed to examine
urban regions and other governance settings in other
countries as well. We see the hybrid organizational
conceptualization of inter-organizational arrangements
for governance as fitting nicely into this historical arc
of scholarly attention to matters of governance.
The application of hybrid analysis can assist
in measuring the consequentiality of governance
arrangements. The table that follows offers a
hypothetical example of how this might occur in
an urban region setting. It assumes that two local
jurisdictions—one city and one county—collaborate
with private businesses and an NGO to produce two
public services. It compares their levels of objectives
determination, staffing contributions, budgetary
contributions, and operational oversight. In this simple
hypothetical case, the value of hybrid organizational
analysis’ offer of evidence regarding comparative
stakes of the participating “source organizations”
(Crumpton, 2008) is obvious. The potential value of
this approach to support inter-contextual comparisons
also should be obvious.
A number of public administration scholars
argue that theories and practices of IGR have to
move towards those of governance (Peters & Pierre,
2003; Wright, 2003; Laffin, 2009; Kapucu et al.,
2010; Dolinar, 2010). This is largely attributed to the
incapability of contemporary mechanisms to deal with
complexity and diversity. For instance, a study on the
inter-organizational and intergovernmental response
to catastrophic disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita in the United States in 2005 found that the use of
intergovernmental and inter-organizational responses to
coordinate complex operations in multiorganizational
environments of catastrophic disasters was not
successful. Thus, there should be more emphasis on
building up local networks and sub-state partnerships,
an important characteristic of governance (Kapucu et
Table 1
Hypothetical Hybrid Organization Analysis
Source Organization
Service
Service A
Service B
Role
City
County
Private
Business
NGO
Objectives determination
40%
20%
20%
20%
Budget contribution
50%
30%
0%
20%
Staffing contribution
10%
10%
50%
30%
Operational oversight
40%
30%
10%
20%
Objectives determination
30%
30%
10%
30%
Budget contribution
30%
50%
0%
20%
Staffing contribution
15%
15%
40%
30%
Operational oversight
30%
40%
10%
20%
Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance:
51
al., 2010). The hybrid organizational analysis could be
utilized to assess the pre-event conditions that impeded
inter-organizational responses and identify future interorganizational “engineering” that is needed to build a
more responsive institutional framework.
European interest in multilevel governance
(MLG) emerged in parallel with the attention directed
to European
