LIST OF PANELS

General Objectives, Research Questions and Scientific Relevance

Inclusive governance refers to a system in which the governing process actively engages and serves all segments of society (OECD 2020). It plays crucial roles in enhancing social welfare and equalizing public services. Key instruments for achieving inclusive governance include public involvement in decision-making, equitable resource allocation and intergovernmental collaboration.

Interlocal collaboration—collaboration between two or more local governments to address shared challenges—has gained popularity in recent years. By transcending administrative and geographical boundaries, interlocal collaboration can be particularly effective in tackling disparities in public services for marginalized populations, regional welfare gaps, and power imbalances across regions (Blåka et al. 2023; Elston et al. 2018; Jing and Savas 2009; Lee and Liu 2024). Interlocal collaboration promotes inclusive governance through mechanisms, such as pooling resources for resource-constrained organizations, fostering trust via information sharing, and enhancing adaptability through communication networks (Ki et al. 2020; Yi et al. 2018).

Despite its growing popularity, the role of interlocal collaboration in promoting inclusive governance remains underexplored. First, most studies tend to approach interlocal collaboration primarily from a cost-reduction perspective, while its value in promoting inclusive governance has not been fully acknowledged. For example, although shared services among neighboring regions are often viewed as a way to reduce costs through economies of scale, recent studies also highlight their ability to improve service accessibility for floating populations (Chen et al 2019; Chen 2021; Wang and Fan 2024). During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries adopted cross-regional cooperative agreements to help migrant workers access public services provided by local governments at their destinations, despite travel restrictions (International Labour Organization 2020). Furthermore, interlocal collaboration is not limited to Western developed countries; it is also gaining traction in nations of the Global South (Consciência Silvestre et al. 2019; Luna-Reyes 2007). Comparative studies are therefore needed to fully understand its development across diverse institutional contexts.

The panel invites papers that explore the value of interlocal collaboration in advancing inclusive governance, addressing the following questions:

1. How can interlocal collaborative be introduced to foster inclusiveness in different institutional contexts and policy domains?

2. What challenges do practitioners face at various stages of interlocal collaboration (e.g., entering collaboration, selecting partners and implementing agreements), and how do these challenges affect the outcomes?

3. What forms and arrangements of interlocal collaboration exist to promote inclusive governance, and what factors influence its successful implementation?

4. How do practitioners balance interlocal collaboration with other policy instruments when promoting inclusive governance?

5. In multi-level governance systems, what roles do different actors (central/local governments, citizens, social organizations and enterprises) play in collaboration, and what strategies do they employ?

6. What are the outcomes (both expected and unintended) of interlocal collaboration, and are these outcomes consistent across institutional settings?

7. How can classic public management and policy process theories be applied to gain insights into interlocal collaboration?

8. What methodological innovations, given recent advances in big data, computational social sciences, and experimental methods, can be applied to the study of interlocal collaboration?

References

Blåka, S., Jacobsen, D. I., & Morken, T. (2023). Service quality and the optimum number of members in intermunicipal cooperation: The case of emergency primary care services in Norway. Public Administration, 101(2), 447–462.

Chen, B., Ma, J., Feiock, R., & Suo, L. (2019). Factors Influencing Participation in Bilateral Interprovincial Agreements: Evidence from China’s Pan Pearl River Delta. Urban Affairs Review, 55(3), 923–949.

Chen, J. (2021). Governing collaborations: The case of a pioneering settlement services partnership in Australia. Public Management Review, 23(9), 1295–1316.

Consciência Silvestre, H., Cunha Marques, R., Dollery, B., & Moraes Correia, A. (2019). Shared services in Brazilian local government: Urban development in small counties. Public Administration, 97(3), 686–702.

Elston, T., MacCarthaigh, M., & Verhoest, K. (2018). Collaborative cost-cutting: Productive efficiency as an interdependency between public organizations. Public Management Review, 20, 1815–1835.

International Labour Organization. 2020. “Protecting Migrant Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations for Policy-Makers and Constituents.” Policy Brief. Accessed 25 Oct 2024. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/labour-migration/publications/WCMS_743268/lang–en/index.htm

Jing, Y., & Savas, E. S. (2009). Managing Collaborative Service Delivery: Comparing China and the United States. Public Administration Review, 69, S101–S107.

Karimo, A., Wagner, P. M., Delicado, A., Goodman, J., Gronow, A., Lahsen, M., Lin, T.-L., Ocelík, P., Schneider, V., Satoh, K., Schmidt, L., Yun, S.-J., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2023). Shared Positions on Divisive Beliefs Explain Interorganizational Collaboration: Evidence from Climate Change Policy Subsystems in 11 Countries. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(3), 421–433.

Ki, N., Kwak, C., & Song, M. (2020). Strength of Strong Ties in Intercity Government Information Sharing and County Jurisdictional Boundaries. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 23–35.

Lee, H., & Liu, Y. (2024). All hands on deck: The role of collaborative platforms and lead organizations in achieving environmental goals. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(3), 331–348.

Luna-Reyes, L. F., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Cruz, C. B. (2007). Collaborative digital government in Mexico: Some lessons from federal Web-based interorganizational information integration initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 808-826.

OECD (2020), "What does "inclusive governance" mean? Clarifying theory and practice", OECD Development Policy Papers, No. 27, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Sapat, A., Esnard, A.-M., & Kolpakov, A. (2019). Understanding Collaboration in Disaster Assistance Networks: Organizational Homophily or Resource Dependency? The American Review of Public Administration, 49(8), 957–972.

Wang, X. & Fan, Z. (2024). Understanding Interlocal Collaboration for Service Delivery for Migrant Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Guangdong, China. Public Management Review, 26(4): 863-883.

Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2009). Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy Subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 195–212.

Yi, H., Suo, L., Shen, R., Zhang, J., Ramaswami, A., & Feiock, R. C. (2018). Regional Governance and Institutional Collective Action for Environmental Sustainability. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 556–566.

Call for Papers

Onsite: in-person and virtual presentations

The panel welcomes theoretical, empirical, and methodological research exploring how interlocal collaboration can make governance more inclusive. To guide prospective contributors, we offer the following directions and guiding questions:

Public Policy and Administration Studies

We welcome studies focusing on the design and implementation processes of interlocal collaboration. We encourage the use of diverse empirical methods to demonstrate how governments and various organizations facilitate interlocal collaboration, and to explain why it is preferred over alternative approaches such as privatization. In addition, revealing the collaborative beliefs and strategies of different stakeholders during the collaboration process is also crucial, especially in the context of changing political and institutional environments.

Comparative Studies

Given the popularity of interlocal collaboration in different domains and settings, we encourage researchers to adopt a comparative perspective when analyzing aspects such as the rationales behind partner selection, the availability of policy instruments, and the interaction patterns among multiple collaborators. Considering the differences in institutional and resource constraints, as well as cultural values across various contexts, highlighting these nuances is essential.

Policy Evaluation Studies

Although interlocal collaboration is believed to generate numerous benefits; policy evaluation studies with rigorous empirical designs are still insufficient. We therefore call for studies that employ diverse causal inferences strategies to assess the effects of interlocal collaboration on various objectives, particularly its implications for inclusive governance.

Other Studies in a Broader Sense

We also welcome studies on interlocal collaboration that may fall outside the specific categories above.

Submissions are not restricted by specific areas of public policy, with preference given to topics of broad significance that advance interlocal collaboration for inclusive governance. Following the session meeting, authors may be invited, if interested, to submit their work to Global Public Policy and Governance, a Q2 journal in political science and international relations, and undergo the peer review process.