Multiorganizational Arrangements for Watershed Protection

Working Better Together

Madeleine Wright McNamara, John Charles Morris

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367486419
• eBook ISBN: 9781000209419
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Politica ambientale ed energetica

With cross-pollination of the public administration and policy implementation literatures, Madeleine Wright McNamara and John Charles Morris present the Multiorganizational Interaction Model as a framework to explore the use of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration between 15 federal/state agencies, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations working together to restore coastal habitats and replenish aquatic resources on Virginia's Eastern Shore.

Content analysis of data collected through interviews and organizational documents allows comparisons to be made regarding the distribution of data across the continuum of interaction. The presence of policy mandates intending to prescribe relationships coupled with strong perceptions of collaboration, create opportunity to explore mandated and voluntary collaboration. Themes regarding mapping relationships within the multiorganizational arrangement, movement on the continuum, and implementation through mid-level personnel are discussed. The combination of theory development and testing provides readers with a theoretical framework through which to think about interorganizational interactions, and a case study to illustrate the ways in which these complex relationships manifest themselves in practice.

Multiorganizational Arrangements for Watershed Protection will be essential for scholars, students, and policy makers.

1 Multiorganizational Interactions for Watershed Protection

Organizations often face implementation challenges compounded by inherently complex and interconnected policy problems (O’Toole, 2000). Increased demands on government, coupled with fewer resources, further exacerbate the inabilities of individual organizations to independently implement public policy. As a result, public organizations work across bureaucratic boundaries to increase government’s capacity for addressing complex problems (Kettl, 2003; Mandell, 1999). Partnerships between public, private, and nonprofit organizations develop and interdependencies form. Multiorganizational arrangements are increasingly used as agencies work together to implement policy by diversifying resources and expertise (Hall & O’Toole, 2004; Keast, Mandell, Brown, & Woolcock, 2004; O’Toole, 1993). Implementation inevitably requires interactions across organizational boundaries (Hjern & Porter, 1981; O’Toole, 1993). Therefore, it is important to expand our understanding of the interactions that take place between organizations when working together to implement policy. This study introduces the Multiorganizational Interaction Model (MIM) to explore the use of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration during multiorganizational policy implementation.

The policy implementation literature identifies two main theoretical approaches to policy implementation: the top-down approach and the bottom-up approach. These two approaches address implementation in different ways and emphasize different values (Schofield, 2001). Much of the implementation research focuses on identifying variables specific to each approach (see, for example, Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1989; O’Toole, 1986). The circuitous debate comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the top-down and bottom-up approaches must be replaced with research identifying the variables most critical to policy implementation (O’Toole, 1986, 2000). The number of variables, wide variation in their perceived importance, and complexity of interactions are problematic for theoretical advancement (Goggin, 1986; O’Toole, 1986, 2000); conceptual clarity remains elusive. Although theorists acknowledge the importance of reconciling both approaches, a synthesized framework based on the combined strengths of the top-down and bottom-up approaches is needed (O’Toole, 2000; Saetren, 2005).

Organizations are often mandated by legislation to implement public policy in support of particular policy goals. Some mandates require two or more organizations to work together during policy implementation (see, for example, Caruson & MacManus, 2006; O’Toole & Montjoy, 1984; Raelin, 1982). In these instances, relationships are likely to develop between organizations. The importance of interaction across organizational boundaries is first acknowledged in Pressman and Wildavsky’s (1973) Implementation, where ignorance of organizational interdependence in complex decision chains ultimately contributes to a mismatch between policy expectations and outcomes. Despite this recognition more than three decades ago, little is done to examine the interactions during multiorganizational implementation empirically. The focus of this research is on the different types of interactions that occur when organizations work together to implement public policy.

A Critique of Traditional Approaches to Multiorganizational Implementation

The policy literature recognizes the importance and complexity of multiorganizational implementation (see, for example, O’Toole, 1986; Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973). However, empirical inquiry emphasizes formalized interactions based on policy mandate, agency rulemaking, or organizational procedures (Caruson & MacManus, 2006; Raelin, 1982). More specifically, the literature focuses on the extent to which policies identify interorganizational partners (Hall & O’Toole, 2004), policy characteristics that induce or constrain interdependence (May, 1995; O’Toole, 1995; O’Toole & Montjoy, 1984), or the structures used in multiorganizational implementation (Mandell, 1994; O’Toole, 1997). Despite a nonhierarchical nature, much of the literature involving implementation networks also emphasizes formalized interactions based on organized efforts (Hall & O’Toole, 2004; Mandell, 1994). The common thread among these different approaches to the literature is that organizations are assumed to work together in a formalized arrangement based on a requirement to do so.

There are three problems with this approach. First, it fails to consider the possibility that multiorganizational implementation may occur outside the boundaries of operational authority. Informal interactions between organizations are important (Keast et al., 2004) and should be examined empirically. Second, legislators are limited in their abilities to foresee and specify the interactions required in complex implementation settings (O’Toole & Montjoy, 1984). It is highly unlikely that policy mandates account for all potential interactions within the implementation settings. Third, the literature appears not to have progressed beyond the top-down/bottom-up debate even though O’Toole (2000) declared its ending nearly a decade ago. Exclusive acknowledgment of formalized arrangements advocates a top-down approach. In the multiorganizational implementation literature, this approach is emphasized under the guise of alternative nomenclature—coordination.

Collective action lies at the heart of multiorganizational implementation (O’Toole, 1991). Researchers use terms such as cooperation, coordination, or collaboration to describe interactions in multiorganizational implementation (Jennings & Ewalt, 1998; Lundin, 2007; O’Toole & Montjoy, 1984). While these terms are often used within the public administration, organization theory, and education literatures (see, for example, Intriligator, 1992; Keast, Brown, & Mandell, 2007; Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, 2001), there is much that still needs to be done to understand empirically the nuances that distinguish these terms from one another.

A lack of conceptual clarity impacts inquiry in three ways. First, there is a tendency to broadly categorize interaction terms with little regard for the definitions that distinguish them from one another (Caruson & MacManus, 2006; Keast, Brown, & Mandell, 2007; Mandell & Steelman, 2003). Without acknowledging and defining each term, theorists cannot properly consider the range of interactions potentially useful in multiorganizational implementation settings. Second, the appropriate application of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration cannot be acknowledged when they are used interchangeably. Misapplication of terms makes it difficult to identify the conditions under which it is appropriate to use a particular type of interaction as an implementation strategy. Third, researchers often assume an interaction occurs even though its presence is not empirically tested (see, for example, Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Imperial, 2001; Jennings & Krane, 1994; Kettl, 2003). The collective impact from these problems further perpetuates theoretical inconsistency. A conceptual model pertaining to the use of different types of interactions during multiorganizational implementation is nonexistent.

The purpose of this book is to explore interactions between organizations when working together to implement policy. More specifically, this research explores the use of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration between government and nongovernmental organizations during implementation of the Virginia Seaside Heritage Program. This study of multiorganizational implementation is important for two reasons. First, a major contribution of this study is the introduction of the Multiorganizational Interaction Model (MIM). The strength of the MIM is that it resolves an earlier model’s ambiguities by clearly distinguishing between operationalizations of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration based on application of the policy implementation and interorganizational theory literatures. These distinctions provide opportunities for consistent theoretical inquiry and improve the model’s transferability for future use in alternative settings.

Second, this is the first time that a model focused on multiorganizational interactions is applied to a public policy implementation setting. Broadening the scope of current inquiry to explore different types of interactions may improve our theoretical understanding of policy implementation in multiorganizational arrangements. A continuum of interactions gives researchers a different way of looking at the top-down/bottom-up debate while moving beyond a narrow reconciliation of the two approaches. This application to public policy expands the use of interorganizational theory and suggests that both literatures may benefit from collective inquiry. For example, empirical research on informal interactions fills a gap in the current policy implementation and interorganizational theory literatures, both of which emphasize formal interactions deliberately configured to attain policy or organizational goals.

With this in mind, this study examines three research questions:

1. 1 Does the MIM help explain interactions in a policy implementation setting?
2. 2 How do administrators perceive the use of cooperation, coordination, or collaboration when working in a multiorganizational arrangement to implement policy?
3. 3 How are multiorganizational interactions initiated?

The first two research questions explore the applicability of the MIM and the perceived use of different types of interactions in a multiorganizational implementation setting. Variables within all four constructs of the model are explored to address these two research questions. The third research question explores whether multiorganizational interactions are initiated formally through legislative mandate or agency rulemaking, informally through street-level experience or common interests, or a combination of both. The impetus for collective action variable within the interorganizational policy objective construct and the formality of the agreement variable within the interorganizational infrastructure construct of the MIM are explored to address this research question.

A Model of Multiorganizational Interaction

The MIM provides the basis for the conceptual framework within this study. A previous version of this model, developed in the health educa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Abbreviations
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Multiorganizational Interactions for Watershed Protection
• 2 The Multiorganizational Interaction Model
• 3 An Empirical Test of the Multiorganizational Interaction Model
• 4 Perceptions and Formality of Administrators Implementing Coastal Resilience Policies
• 5 Implications for Theory and Practice
• Index