西南交通大学学报

第 56 卷 第 6 期 Vol. 56 No. 6
JOURNAL OF SOUTHWEST JIAOTONG UNIVERSITY Dec. 2021
2021 年 12 月

ISSN: 0258-2724 DOI：10.35741/issn.0258-2724.56.6.58

Research article

Social Sciences

COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

PERSPECTIVE

公共行政視角下的協作治理

Choirul Saleh *, Elisa Hendrik, Soesilo Zauhar, Muhammad Nuh

University of Brawijaya Malang
MT Hariyono Street No: 163, Malang City, East Java, Indonesia, chоirulsаleh@ub.ac.id, kurube2021@gmаil.cоm,
soesilozauhаr2021@gmail.cоm, muhаmmadnuh656@gmail.cоm

Received: September 24, 2021 ▪ Review: October 23, 2021

▪ Accepted: November 21, 2021 ▪ Published: December 24, 2021

This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Abstract
This study aims to analyze and describe collaborative governance from public administration, where
the dynamics of collaborative governance have involved multi-stakeholders in the policymaking process
for the public interest. Collaborative governance has become an important publicity concept for
academics. It is designed to respond to implementation failures, high costs, and the politicization of
public sector regulations. This study used a systematic literature review technic in the field of public
administration in order to obtain concepts relevant to the study of collaborative governance. Data
collection techniques by searching from various sources and the latest literature, both from government
documents and reports from print and electronic mass media, journals, and books related to public
administration and government cooperation. The results showed that the complexity of the relationship
between actors in public policy gave birth to a new concept called Collaborative Governance. In short,
collaborative governance is a process and structure that involves multiple parties across organizational
boundaries. Collaboration describes formal, active, explicit, and collectively oriented public management
and policy cooperation. Its basic values are consensus orientation in decision making (goals), collective
leadership in institutions (structure), multi-way communication in human relations (interaction), and
sharing of resources in action (process). These basic values become a unified whole at every stage of
public policy.

Keywords: Public Policy, Government, Collaborative Governance, Stakeholder, Public Administration

摘要 本研究旨在從公共行政的角度分析和描述協同治理，其中協同治理的動態涉及多方利益相關
者參與公共利益的決策過程。協同治理已成為學術界重要的宣傳理念。它旨在應對實施失敗、高
成本和公共部門法規的政治化。本研究採用公共行政領域的系統文獻綜述技術，以獲得與協同治
 Saleh et al. Collaborative Governance in Public Administration Perspective, Vol. 56 No. 6 Dec. 2021
656
理研究相關的概念。通過從各種來源和最新文獻中搜索數據收集技術，包括政府文件和印刷和電
子大眾媒體的報告、與公共行政和政府合作相關的期刊和書籍。結果表明，公共政策中行動者之
間關係的複雜性催生了一個名為協同治理的新概念。簡而言之，協作治理是一個涉及跨組織邊界
的多方參與的過程和結構。協作用於描述公共管理和政策中正式的、積極的、明確的和麵向集體
的合作。其基本價值觀是決策（目標）中的共識導向、制度中的集體領導（結構）、人際關係中
的多方溝通（互動）以及行動中的資源共享（過程）。這些基本價值觀在公共政策的每個階段都
成為一個統一的整體。
关键词: 公共政策, 政府, 協同治理, 利益相關者, 公共管理
I. INTRODUCTION
Collaborative frame working governance
provides a meaning that is more than just
governance. Collaborative governance is a
concept in public policy that has developed in the
last few decades. In principle, the collaboration is
different from the network and partnership
(partnership).
There is the abasic value attached to it.
Henceforth it becomes part of its characteristics.
The end of critical thinking about the NPM (new
public management) paradigm and reinventing
government is the implementation of good
governance or good governance. The NPS (new
public service) considers that NPM NPM (new
public management) and OPA (old public
administration) place too much emphasis on
efficiency and neglect society as the target of
public policy. Governance refers to the
relationship between the government /state and
its citizens to enable various policies and
programs to be devised, implemented, and
evaluated.
The shift from government to governance is
intended to democratize public administration.
The government refers to government institutions,
especially with policymaking. Meanwhile,
governance refers to non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), interest groups, society,
and government institutions managing public
interests, especially formulating and
implementing public policies. Various policies
and programs are directed to meet the interests of
citizens and are conducted through collective
action and collaborative processes.
According to [1], public governance contains
the following five strands:
1. Socio-political governance: concerning
the relationship between institutions in society.
2. Public policy governance: how the elite
in making policies and their networks interact in
making and implementing public policies.
3. Administrative governance: concerning
the effectiveness of the application of public
administration and its repositioning to deal with
government problems.
4. Contract governance: concerning the
implementation of NPM, it is deemed necessary
to have an agreement contract in the delivery of
public services (an agreement between public
service providers and service recipients). Public
organizations in modern countries are responsible
for providing a good public service system.
5. Network governance: is a network of
independent cooperation between government
organizations or without government
organizations in public service providers.
In the last few years, collaborative governance
(governance) has become a publicity concept that
has begun to be essential to academics.
Collaborative governance is designed to respond
to the failure of implementation, high costs, and
politicization of public sector regulations [2]. The
focus is on every stage of public policy.
Collaborative governance is a new paradigm in
understanding the existence of multi-stakeholders
in public affairs. There are certain characteristics
in actor relationships, so it is important to
conduct a collaborative study [3].
Based on the background described above,
this study examines how the dynamics of
collaborative governance in public policy studies
are related to the basic values from the "new
public governance" perspective. This study
focuses not on qualitatively and quantitatively
measurement but describes and factually the
dynamics of collaborative governance despite the
policy stage process.
II. METHOD
This study uses a systematic literature review
technic in the field of public administration in
order to obtain concepts relevant to the study of
collaborative governance.
Data collection techniques by searching from
various sources and the latest literature, both
from government documents and reports from
print and electronic mass media, journals, and

books related to public administration and
government cooperation.
This study draws on several articles from
journals and books published from 2006 to 2021
to minimize bias from the limited sample size.
Therefore, this study obtained a representative
and accurate sample. There are five steps to
conducting a systematic literature review
according to experts [4]: (1) compiling and
formulating subjects; (2) literature search; (3)
data collection and evaluation; (4) data analysis
and interpretation; and (5) present the results and
propose future findings.
This study uses open access articles and
others—all authors' names. The field of study is a
social science. The types of documents are
articles and books. The publication stage is final.
Source titles are all social science journals. The
keywords are public administration and
collaborative governance. Countries/territories
are all countries.
III. THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Public Policy
Public policy has been a central issue for
many parties because public policy involves
many parties, either directly or indirectly, during
the formulation, implementation, or evaluation
process rather than implementation.
Alaslan [5] explained that Public policy is not
easy to understand because, in addition to having
the complexity of the subject matter of policy, it
also concerns the interests of the policymakers
themselves, who have their rationalization and
logic in the policy formulation process. After all,
public policy is understood as a concept of
government intervention on public issues and
must be understood as a process of social
interaction that allows the channeling of a
consensus-building mechanism between the
interests of the government and the community.
Safitri [6] explains that Policy analysis is an
applied social science that uses various
techniques and methods to produce policy-related
information. This policy analysis is very
important to do. The reason underlying the need
for policy analysis is to find out all forms of
feasibility and financing of the policies taken,
which are analyzed through a scientific process
with a scientific approach. Knowing the
feasibility of a policy can be taken into
consideration in producing the policy, and by
knowing the financing can be arranged
strategically and effectively the expenditure to be
used.
657
B. Governance
Governance is a policymaking process in
which these policies are implemented involving
the state (government), the private sector, and
civil society in making and implementing
policies.
Muhamad & Ismatuddin [7] said that there are
5 (five) determinants of the success of
governance, namely: 1) Leaders and leadership,
where individuals are the determinants of change
and an effective leadership style for good
governance is the entrepreneurial style; 2)
Institutions, where the indicators in this factor are
restructuring or changes in the structure of
government institutions affect the success of
governance; 3) modernization of the public sector
wherein realizing good governance is by doing
new ways (innovation) and using technology; 4)
organized civil society, that there must be public
participation and public control to increase the
effectiveness of governance; 5) a democratic
culture or tradition where every change made
must receive positive support and acceptance
from the community, besides that competitive
general elections will also make a major
contribution to good governance. These factors
have a strategic role in transforming government
to answer various public problems properly.
According to the researcher, governance is a
policymaking process carried out by government
officials based on this definition. The policies
established require cooperation between the
relevant parties. This collaboration includes a
collaborative approach that involves the
government, the private sector, and the
community in achieving goals based on
consensus made and the stakeholders involved.
C. Collaborative Governance
To determine the position of collaboration
in public administration, it is done by
examining the concept from various scientific
perspectives. Collaboration is a relationship
between organizations (sociology), relations
between governments (public administration
science), strategic alliances (business
management), and multi-organizational
networks (public management). These four
perspectives diverge on one theme: explaining
interactions and relationships across
organizations.
In the public administration literature, the
terminology of governance is used to describe
the relationship between organizations. The
notion of governance is not simply the
involvement of public institutions in the
formulation and implementation of policies but
 Saleh et al. Collaborative Governance in Public Administration Perspective, Vol. 56 No. 6 Dec. 2021
658

the connection of various organizations to (third) parties, semi- market

conduct public goals. The development of the mechanisms, and consumer
choice.
notion of government itself has several stages. According to this definition,
First, because of a debate about the role of interdependence will be achieved
government in devising and implementing by eroding the role and autonomy
policies since World War II, then rapidly of the state by using
growing from the 1960s to the 1980s. internationalization of production,
Governance as
financial transactions,
Second, in reaction to government failures. 3 International
internationalization of
According to this flow, the government is the interdependence
organizations in the form of direct
supplier of policies in the market. The relationships with state, regional,
government's failure led to pressure to replace or local organizations, and
weakening the capacity of the
the role of public officials with organized nation-state as governor.
interest groups in the form of deregulation. This understanding assumes that
Forms of coordination such as voluntary self- the central actors are limited in
regulation, business association code of ethics, governing, and therefore no sector
co-regulation have been accepted as has full authority. In every policy
arena, many actors are involved.
arrangements and means to overcome There are interdependence and
government weaknesses. The term governance shared goals. The boundaries
is used as “non-hierarchical, non-government between public-private and
coordination. voluntary are blurred because the
action, intervention, and control
Third, the concept of governance emerges are multiple. In this model, the
from the institutional economics literature. Governance as a community life becomes a
Williamson views all coordination mechanisms 4 SocioCybernetic centerless society, and the
as governance, such as markets, hierarchies, System government system becomes a
networks, and informal norms. All of them are polycentric state. In the
polycentric state, the task of the
considered governance mechanisms. government is to empower socio-
Development the term governance political interactions, encourage
continues to change and tends to expand its the growth of various
meaning. Governance not only explains the arrangements in overcoming
problems and distribution of
relationships between organizations but also services by using; independent or
governance as a value. Can be seen from the joint regulation, private-public
six definitions of governance from Rhodes partnerships, joint management,
[21], as shown in the following table: and entrepreneurial ventures
According to this definition,
Table 1. governance is a political and
Six definitions of governance (Adapted from [21]) economic process to coordinate
the activities of economic actors
No. Definition Brief Description in the form of institutional
This definition refers to the way transformations that regulate
companies are managed economic activity in the form of
Governance as a
efficiently, which is then arrangements or rearrangements
5 new political
translated into the public sector in of governance mechanisms
economy
a more efficient form of whether, through markets,
Governance as government management. The hierarchies, obligational networks,
1 Corporate implication of this understanding monitoring, promotional
Governance leads to three principles in public networks, The association has the
organizations; openness or role of the government as a
disclosure of information, the gatekeeper and facilitator.
integrity of public officials, and
the accountability of each role and According to this definition,
action of public officials. governance is institutions and
This definition has two meanings, actors that come from and not
namely (a) the application of only from the government because
corporate management in the the boundaries of government
public sector in the form of responsibility in dealing with
measurable performance, Governance as social and economic issues are
Governance as 6
management by results, value for Networks blurred, but each institution
2 New Public
money, and being closer to depends on one another. There is
management
customers; (b) marketization, no command authority from the
namely, the application of government.
incentive structures or patterns in Networks are a general form of
the provision of public services social coordination and
through contracts with external organizational linkage patterns in

the private or public sector and as
a mechanism for coordinating and
allocating resources as a form of
governing, in the same way
markets or bureaucracies do.
Here, networks are an alternative,
not a hybrid of the market and
hierarchy.
Related to the description of governance as
networks, Loffer further explains the notion of
governance in several meanings. First, the
ways take holders to interact to influence
policy outcomes. Second, the patterns or
structures that emerge in the socio-political
system as a joint result or output of
intervention efforts - all the actors; Third,
formal and informal coordination, namely the
interaction between the public and the private
sector; Fourth, a concept or theory, reflecting
the coordination of a social system and the role
of the state init.
The state's role in old governance was more
of a steering role in determining economic and
community policies, so that it was called a
centric state. Meanwhile, modern governance
is more community-centric, focusing on
coordination and self-governance.
Bauer argues that governance is a
coordination mechanism that involves various
task units and organizational levels.
“A broad spectrum of alternative
coordination mechanisms is available to solve
coordination tasks. They involve different
levels of central planning and range from
reliance on norms and traditions,
decentralized market decisions, networks, and
networked organizations, a form of self-and
co-regulation, to forms of government
intervention and regulation.”
Bovairs and Loffer suggest that the most
important element in governance relates to the
scenario of various stakeholders when joint
problems cannot be solved solely by public
authorities. Here, the cooperation of other
players (citizens, businesses, NGOs) is needed
employing mediation, arbitration, and self-
regulation, which is more effective than direct
government action.
Networks as governance or vice versa have
several characteristics. First, the
interdependence of organizations that include
non-state actors such as private and voluntary.
Second, continuous interaction between
network members is caused by the need for
resources or the exchange of resources and
negotiations in developing common goals.
659
Third, game such as interactions, rooted in
truth, stands governed by rules of the game that
are negotiated, agreed upon, and approved by
the participants. Fourth, networks as an
institutional setting are relatively autonomous
(self-organizing) because they are irresponsible
to the state. However, the state can indirectly
control the networks.
Based on the explanation above, it can be
concluded that the networks and collaboration
area concept that explains the relationship
between organizations. The relationship
between these organizations occurs in activities
that manage or handle a particular problem and
depend on each other. Relations are regulated
in the form of governance known as
governance.
Furthermore, the concept of collaboration in
public administration can be explained by
institutional building. This concept emerged in
the 1960s along with the concept of
development administration. The concept
relates to efforts to design an organizational
arrangement for more favorable purposes
relating to public administration effectiveness
and managerial issues.
Fredericks emphasized that the term public
administration itself is often used to describe
the government administration. As a result, the
study only focuses on politics, budget,
personnel, and service provision issues.
However, the broader definition of the public
includes public functions, including
government. The subject also shifted from just
government administration to all types of
organizations such as voluntary, non-profit,
business, and government organizations
functioning and interacting.
This extension of the term has
consequences for the notion of public
administration not only covering public
organizations. The scope extends to the
functions of non-public organizations that have
a public dimension. Feredericskon stated this:
“Modern public administration is a network
of vertical and horizontal linkages between
organizations (publics) of all types -
government, non-governmental and quasi-
governmental; profit, non-profit and
voluntary. ... It this reason that core value or
spirit of public administration includes
knowledge of a commitment to public in a
general sense, as well as responsiveness to
both individual and groups of citizens in the
specific sense.”
Based on the explanation above, public
administration studies include government
 Saleh et al. Collaborative Governance in Public Administration Perspective, Vol. 56 No. 6 Dec. 2021
660

organizations, organizations outside independently. The relationship is between two

government, or their interaction as something
complementary (complementary). This
complementary is a collaboration, namely a
mutually strengthening relationship between
government and citizens in producing social
goods and services.
Gordon White et al. state that state and
community collaboration in the provision of
social services includes three basic processes,
namely co-determination (jointly determining
what and how), co-financing (determining co-
financing and payment methods), and co-
production (commitment of time and resources
in the production process agreed in the
determination stage). Based on these three
basic processes, six possible relations between
the state and community organizations emerge
as seen in the following table:
Table 2.
Forms of state relations with community organizations
(Adapted from [8])
Relationship Form Descriptions
The government provides funds for an
already running activity, but citizen
Devolution
organizations determine how the
activity is conducted and the
procedure for using what
Society determines the money.
they are
Pressured Provision
Need and the government provides it.
The government determines the
Enforced provision services provided, and citizens must
pay for them.
The government charges a fee for a
Fee for service service and its people. The service
pays for it.
The government determines what
Delegation`
services are provided but leaves the
responsibility. Entirely to the
community (such as public toilets).
The government provides funds to
produce many types of services, but
Contracting/ Granting civil society organizations make the
provision through competitive
tenders.
Gordon White's presentation places more
emphasis on providing social services.
However, in general, the form of the
relationship he puts forward can be used to
discuss cooperation between organizations in
managing an entity that involves relations
between organizations.
Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff citing the
opinion of Coston, Najam, and Gidron et al.,
stated that the relationship between
government, market, and non-profit institutions
has been seen in stereotypes. However, the
relationship between the three is a solution
when a single sector cannot handle it
possibilities: repressive, rivalry, and
competitive (in a resistant government and
monolithic) and a cooperative relationship,
complementary and collaborative (in a
government that is accommodative to
differences).
Najam put forward the model of the relation
in the acronym 4C. First, cooperation (non-
profit governments sharing ways and goals to
be achieved). Second, confrontation (both are
opposed in both ways and objectives). Second,
complementary (the same purpose, but
different ways). Fourth, co-optation (if both
take the same way but have different goals or
motives.
Gidron et al., more specifically, propose
four models of relations between the
government and non-profit institutions. First,
the dominant government bears all the
financing and allocations. Second, the third
sector is dominant if the main responsibility is
left to a non-profit organization. Third, dual, if
both work in different spheres, with minimal
interaction. Fourth, collaborative if the two
work complementary, overlap at a high level
and intensity.
Goddard, citing the Lyon category, suggests
four models of government relations with the
third sector organizations, particularly in
funding in social services. (1) The
philanthropist model, in which the government
provides support for a project after being
approached by community organizations; (2)
Submission model, the government provides
sufficient funds for a project and the third
sector organization determines the location of
services; (3) Planning model, here the
government fully determines the project plan
and location; (4) Competitive tendering model,
where the government determines the rules and
standards and simultaneously monitors the
provision of services (conducted by third
sector organizations).
Next, Goddard outlines five key
government partnership relationships with
third-sector organizations. First, shared aims,
in which the level of interest of the two
organizations is equal or interdependent. This
relationship requires a sense of trust, equality,
and reciprocity; Second, trust, organizations or
participants trust each other to achieve their
respective goals jointly; Third, reciprocity, all
partners benefit from the relationship;
Fourthly, equity, relationship management
guarantees the creation of equitable justice to
ensure that all partners have a voice and share

power (shared power); The fifth is shared
funding, there is a commitment to share many
things such as administrative costs, workers
and resources transparently.
Goddard proposes three partnerships based
on rational differences in the same paper,
citing Macintosh's opinion. (1) The synergy or
added value model, to increase more value
than what the organization can achieve
independently; (2) Transformation model,
emphasizing changes in the goals and culture
of partner organizations and the organization's
ability to convince other partners of the values
and goals it holds; (3) The budget-swelling
model emphasizes the ability to obtain and
attract large budgets that influence policies or
solving social problems.
Stewart summarises the various
characteristics and categories outlined above in
the facilitation, coordination, and
implementation models. Facilitation deals with
agreeing on content or issues in a partnership
from various perspectives. This category is
parallel to the transformation model, in which
partners engage in negotiations with different
perspectives and result in acultural change.
The parallel coordination and synergy
models with constituent members have the
same perspective and commitment. The
implementation model is related to the budget
overruns model, which emphasizes ensuring
the availability of the required resources.
The last is the model proposed by Stoker
with three types of partnerships. First, the
principal-agent relationship, in which there is a
buyer-provider relationship like a contract,
which is similar to a competitive and best-
looking tender. Second, inter-organizational
negotiations in which there is bargaining and
coordination between parties through the
pooling of capacities. Third, system
incoordination, by planting mutual
understanding, building a vision and
cooperation that directs a network to organize
automatically.
Based on many explanations above,
Goddard concluded that there had been a shift
from a formal administrative, bureaucratic
framework to a collaborative model in the
relationship between government and the third
sector organizations. Collaboration is a
complementary relationship concept,
particularly between government and non-
profit organizations, third sector organizations,
and other social organizations. Based on this,
collaboration is part of public administration
studies.
661
Collaboration occurs with a common vision,
goals, strategies, and activities between the
parties but has the authority to make decisions
independently and has the authority to manage
the organization, even though they are subject to
a mutual agreement [9]. Collaborative
Governance emphasizes six criteria, namely: (1)
this forum is initiated by a public institution or
institution, (2) participants in the forum include
private actors, (3) participants are directly
involved in decision making and not only as
service providers by public agencies, (4)
organized, (5) forums make decisions by
consensus and (6) the focus of the collaboration
is on public policy public management [2].
Keumala & Pribadi [10] explained that
Innovation Governance had become a common
concept in many countries to influence public
sector reform. Government policy has also
attracted the attention of academics as a modern
government concept. The main issues in
innovation governance; are the public, actors,
politics, policies, and institutions. He said
innovations in government could be used for
decision-making and organizational capacity
building. Besides that, it can also improve
democratic institutions and improve
organizations. First, the government's practical
innovation is determined by the model of public
policy, government policy on innovation, and
public management. Second, government
innovation in policymaking and implementation
depends on technology, policies, and society.
Third, the enforcement of government innovation
should be considered in the technological and
policy processes, especially in urban areas of the
general population. Fourth, government
innovation is an effective tool in decision-making,
implementation, and policy assessment in various
fields and contexts. Finally, the political system
must be reorganized to create democratic
institutions to deal with collective decision-
making problems to create innovative governance.
Torfing [11] explained why we must
transform the public sector in order to spur co-
creation, how strategic management and digital
platforms can support this transformation, and
why we must bring together and synthesize
different bodies of theory when studying the
complex processes of co-creation and their
drivers, barriers, and outcomes. The expansion of
the scope and significance of co-creation in
public policy and governance prompts the
integration of different theoretical strands that
can help us illuminate the antecedent conditions,
the processes of multi-actor collaboration, the
creation of innovative solutions, and the
 Saleh et al. Collaborative Governance in Public Administration Perspective, Vol. 56 No. 6 Dec. 2021
662
assessment of their public value. Exploring the
affinities and complementarities of relevant
perspectives such as theories of co-creation,
public value management, public innovation,
collaborative governance, network governance,
strategic management, and digital era governance
may foster a more comprehensive framework for
studying the co-creation of public value
outcomes such as needs-based services, effective
governance, and democratic legitimacy.
According to researchers, collaborative
governance is an activity in the related parties
based on this definition. The party is a partner
and work partner to achieve a goal by mutually
beneficial terms and agreements to produce
goods and services.
IV. DISCUSSION
According to Ansell and Gash [2], the
network is used to describe the form of
government-community collaboration that is
more plural, informal, and implicit in scope. The
partnership is used to describe cooperation that is
more orientated towards coordination than
consensus in decision making. Collaboration is
used to describe the formal, explicit, and
collectively orientated cooperation in decision-
making. Collaboration involves managing
relationships to manipulate regulations and
systems, while the network only talks about
implementing civil works [12]. A partnership
occurs when private agents almost replace the
role of the public, whereas collaboration occurs
when public and private agents perform active
functions [13].
Collaborative governance as a form of new
public governance has basic values. In other
words, this basic value becomes an important
emphasis on understanding to make it easier to
analyze a phenomenon and create a new theory
about administration and public policy. There
needs to be enlightenment to understand whether
the existing phenomenon is collaborative
governance or not. Do not let any mistakes occur
in theoretical and empirical studies. Through this
paper, four basic values of collaborative
governance are explained, namely:
A. Consensus Orientation: The Goals of
Collaborative Governance
[2] in his writing entitled 'Collaborative
Governance in Theory and Practice,' the criterion
for collaboration is consensus. The agreement is
based on mutual interests. Consensus must be
based on commitment. The content of
commitments related to escorting promises or
agreements. Without a high commitment, it is
difficult to realize the unity of the promise.
Besides, what determines a consensus
depends on the symbiosis of mutualism (mutual
benefit). If there are disadvantaged parties, the
chances of not reaching a consensus are countless.
So, it is important to put forward mutual
commitment and mutual benefit so that
orientation can be achieved properly. It is not
easy to reach a mutual agreement because there
are many interests in collaborative governance.
Different organizations sometimes have different
interests.
B. Collective Leadership: The Form of
Collaborative Governance Institutional
Structure
One of the main themes in collaborative
practice, according to Osborne [14], is leadership
(leadership). [15] added that leadership is part of
the capacity for collective action in collaborative
governance practices. Collaborative leadership is
more of a network than a hierarchy. This means
that each party is in the same position. The
relationship between the parties involved is more
of a coordination function than a command. In
contrast to hierarchical patterns that usually
prioritize command. The position of the actors in
the same structurally. Nothing is above or below.
The coordinating lines are not vertical. Each of
them has a different task but is in the same
position. Duties and responsibilities are
conducted regularly.
The understanding of leadership in
collaboration is directed at collective leadership.
All individual actors, groups, or organizations
involved have the status of leaders without
exception. The term collective leadership agrees
with the term distribution of leadership as
suggested by [16]. Even though it is directed to a
collective model, the presence of a coordinator is
still recommended to facilitate the direction. At
least, it becomes the center of the stages of public
policy to determine progress, results, and impacts.
Network-based collective leadership is one of the
basic values. Collective leadership forms the
distribution of power among stakeholders,
according to Johnston [17].
C. Multi-Directional Communication: The
Interaction between Actors in the
Collaborative Governance Process
[18] states that communication is a subsystem
of policy implementation. In collaboration, multi-
directional communication is required. Multi-
directional communication involves more than
two parties, continuously with high intensity.

Responses and responses are made to all
parties involved in various ways of
communicating (oral or written). The ideal
collaborative governance should include at least
three parties. There are representatives of the
government, private sector, and society.
Communication is done face to face directly.
Communication through the media is conducted
only to help establish intensive communication.
Multi-directional communication is one of the
basic values to illustrate that there is more to the
relationship between actors in collaboration.
Furthermore, the most serious issue in
communication is the content. The thing that
becomes the message is at least related to
brainstorming and sharing information. [19]
makes communication an indicator to assess the
level of collaboration. Tirrel and Clay divided the
level of collaboration into 5, namely, exploration,
formation, growth, maturity, and the end. In short,
all parties must communicate directly to
strengthen collaborative governance practices.
D. Sharing of Resources: The Processes that
Occur During Collaborative Governance
Actions
Their sources in question are human and
financial resources and other resources that can
strengthen collaborative activities in public
policy. [15] placing resources as part of the
capacity variable. Collaborative capacity can be
seen in the extent to which resources are shared
and divided. The hope is that each collaborator
can strengthen each other's strengths and cover
up weaknesses and be equally active in this way.
Mutually reinforcing and covering each other is,
in fact, the essence of collaborative activity.
A collaborative approach is taken to facilitate
solving public problems. It must be admitted that
the government has strengths and weaknesses
and the private sector, the media, and non-
governmental organizations. Collaboration is
here to answer the lack of resources. Often lack
of resources is the reason for not implementing a
solution to the problem.
Institutional performance is strongly
influenced by its resources [20]. Collaborative
governance used as a governance strategy must
pay attention to resources to strengthen public
policy. The existence of a division, as stated,
would certainly be a strength in itself.
Additionally, knowledge is also something that
must be shared. When resource needs are met,
the impact of collaborative action will be more
pronounced. The strength possessed by
collaboration is certainly better than partial
activities. The United something and joined has
663
its strength. Collaboration forums are the joint
property of all parties. Therefore, there is no
reason not to share the resources that are owned.
A good result will increase the parties' reputation,
whereas a bad result will decrease. Collaboration
is here to provide better color. Various resources
are one of the supports.
V. IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY
The results of this study support and
strengthen the theory of collaborative governance
and public administration as an integrated social
science unit. This study also suggests the
importance of policy analysis, governance
innovation, and supporting factors for successful
governance that will play a strategic role in
transforming government so that it can answer
various public problems properly and to create
democratic institutions in dealing with collective
decision-making problems, which in the end will
have implications for the innovation of the
government paradigm to rearrange a more
democratic political system based on needs-based
public values.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Public policy is not easy to understand
because, in addition to having the complexity of
the subject matter of policy, it also concerns the
interests of the policymakers themselves, who
have their rationalization and logic in the policy
formulation process. After all, public policy is
understood as a concept of government
intervention on public issues and must be
understood as a process of social interaction that
allows the channeling of a consensus-building
mechanism between the interests of the
government and the community. Public policies
must be made based on policy analysis to
determine all forms of feasibility and financing to
produce strategic and effective policies.
This research suggests the need for innovation
and development within the scope of government
and the importance of co-creation in public
policy, which will encourage the integration of
different strands of the theory that together can
help explain the conditions of a more
comprehensive predecessor as a framework to
study creation based on needs-based public
values. That to create democratic institutions in
dealing with collective decision-making
problems, it is necessary to develop innovations
in the governance paradigm where the political
system must be rearranged for the success of
governance which is determined by several
factors, namely: 1) Leaders and leadership; 2)
institutional; 3) modernization of the public
 Saleh et al. Collaborative Governance in Public Administration Perspective, Vol. 56 No. 6 Dec. 2021
664
sector by adopting new ways and using
technology; 4) organized civil society; 5)
democratic culture or tradition, besides that
competitive elections, will also make a major
contribution to good governance. These factors
have a strategic role in transforming the
government to answer various public problems
properly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to express my deep gratitude to
Prof. Dr. Ir. Nuhfil Hanani AR., MS. as the
Chancellor and Drs. Andy Fefta Wijaya, MDA.,
Ph.D. as the Dean of Administrative Sciences at
the University of Brawijaya Malang Indonesia,
especially for sharing their pearls of wisdom with
us during this research.
Finally, we thank all of our colleagues at the
University of Brawijaya Malang Indonesia, who
provided insight and expertise that greatly
assisted the research, for their patient guidance,
enthusiastic encouragement, and useful critiques
of this research work. Moreover, the anonymous
reviewers for the insightful comments
significantly improved the manuscript.
REFERENCES
[1] OSBORNE, S.P. (2010) Introduction the
(New) Public Governance: a suitable case for
treatment? In The new public governance?
Routledge, pp. 17–32.
[2] CH, A., and GASH, A. (2007)
Collaborative governance in theory and
practice. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 18), pp. 548–571.
[3] SILVIA, C. Collaborative Governance
Concepts for Successful Network Leadership.
State and Local Revenues, 43(1), pp. 66–71.
[4] WANG, Y., HU, H., and YANG, X.
(2019) The government R&D subsidies and
China’s regional innovation output: Based on
the Bayesian model averaging (BMA)
method. Chinese Management Studies.
[5] ALASLAN, A. (2021) Formulasi
Kebijakan Publik. Studi Relokasi Pasar,
53(1).
[6] SAFITRI, U., NUARIZAL, A., and
GISTITUATI, N. (2021) Urgensi analisis
kebijakan. Jurnal Riset Tindakan Indonesia,
6(1), pp. 72–76.
[7] KARIEM, M.Q., and ISHMATUDDIN,
N. (2021) Analisis Faktor-Faktor Penentu
Tata Kelola Pemerintahan Di Pemerintah
Kota Surabaya Periode Kepemimpinan Tri
Risma Harini Tahun 2015-2020. Jurnal Ilmu
Pemerintahan, 5(02), pp. 239–248.
[8] MINOGUE, M., POLIDANO, C., and
HULME, D. (1998) Beyond the new public
management. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[9] DWIYANTO, B.M. (2011) Model
peningkatan partisipasi masyarakat dan
penguatan sinergi dalam pengelolaan sampah
perkotaan. Jurusan Ekonomi Pembangunan,
12(2), pp. 239–256.
[10] KEUMALA, S.O., and PRIBADI, U.
(2021) Government Innovation in Social
Sciences: A Literature Review. Journal of
Local Government Issues, 4(2), pp. 170–184.
[11] TORFING, J., FERLIE, E., JUKIĆ, T.,
and ONGARO, E. A theoretical framework
for studying the co-creation of innovative
solutions and public value. Policy & Politics,
49(2), pp. 189–209.
[12] GOLIDAY, A.M. (2010) Identifying the
relationship between network governance
and community action program participation.
Walden University.
[13] BEVIR, M., and RICHARDS, D. (2009)
Decentring policy networks: A theoretical
agenda. Public Administration, 87(1), pp. 3–
14.
[14] KETTL, D.F. (2010) Governance,
contract management, and public
management. In The New Public
Governance? Routledge.
[15] EMERSON, K., NABATCHI, T., and
BALOGH, S. (2011) An Integrative
Framework for Collaborative Governance.
Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 22, pp. 1–29.
[16] GOODIN, R.E., REIN, M., and
MORAN, M. (2006) The public and its
policies. In The Oxford handbook of public
policy. Oxford University Press.
[17] JOHNSTON, E.W., HICKS, D., NAN,
N., and AUER, J.C. (2011) Managing the
inclusion process in collaborative governance.
Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 21(4), pp. 699–721.
[18] MEDVED, C., MORRISON, K.,
DEARING, J., LARSON, S., CLINE, G., and
BRUMMANS, B. (2001) Tensions in
community health improvement initiatives:
Communication and collaboration in a
managed care environment. Journal of
 665

Applied Communication Research, 29(2), pp. 發展經濟學系，12(2)，第 239-256 頁。

137–152. [10] KEUMALA, S.O., 和 PRIBADI, U.
[19] NORRIS-TIRRELL, D. (2012) (2021) 政府社會科學創新：文獻綜述。地
Introduction: Assessing multiple dimensions
方政府問題雜誌，4(2)，第 170-184 頁。
of collaboration. Journal of Health and
Human Services Administration, 35(1), pp. [11] TORFING, J.、FERLIE, E. 、JUKIĆ,
4–10. T., 和 ONGARO, E. 研究創新解決方案和
[20] LEE, S.-Y., and WHITFORD, A.B. 公共價值共同創造的理論框架。政策與政
(2013) Assessing the effects of 治，49(2)，第 189-209 頁。
organizational resources on public agency
[12] GOLIDAY，A.M. (2010) 確定網絡治
performance: Evidence from the US federal
government. Journal of Public 理與社區行動計劃參與之間的關係。瓦爾
Administration Research and Theory, 23(3), 登大學。
pp. 687–712. [13] BEVIR, M., 和 RICHARDS, D. (2009)
[21] RHODES, J.E. (2002) Stand by me: The 去中心化政策網絡：理論議程。公共管理，
risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth. 87(1)，第 3-14 頁。
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard [14] KETTL, D.F. (2010) 治理、合同管理
University Press. 和公共管理。在新公共治理中？勞特利奇。
[15] EMERSON, K.、NABATCHI, T., 和
BALOGH, S. (2011) 協作治理的綜合框架。
参考文:
[1] OSBORNE，S.P. (2010) 介紹（新）公 公共行政研究與理論雜誌，22，第 1-29
共治理：適合治療的案例？在新的公共治 頁。
理？，勞特利奇），第 17-32 頁。 [16] GOODIN, R.E. 、 REIN, M., 和
[2] CH, A., 和 GASH, A. (2007) 理論與實 MORAN, M. (2006) 公眾及其政策。在牛
踐中的協作治理。公共行政研究與理論雜 津公共政策手冊中。牛津大學出版社。
[17] JOHNSTON, E.W., HICKS, D., NAN,
誌，18），第 548-571 頁。
N., 和 AUER, J.C. (2011) 管理協作治理中
[3] SILVIA, C. 成功網絡領導的協作治理
的包容過程。公共行政研究與理論雜誌，
概念。州和地方收入，43(1)，第 66-71 頁。
21(4)，第 699-721 頁。
[4] WANG, Y., HU, H., 和 YANG, X. (2019)
[18] MEDVED, C., MORRISON, K.,
政府研發補貼與中國區域創新產出：基於 DEARING, J., LARSON, S., CLINE, G., 和
貝葉斯模型平均（什麼）方法。中國管理 BRUMMANS, B. (2001) 社區健康改善舉
研究。 措的緊張局勢：管理式醫療中的溝通與合
[5] ALASLAN, A. (2021) 公共政策制定。 作環境。應用傳播研究雜誌，29(2)，第
市場搬遷研究，53(1)。 137-152 頁。
[6] SAFITRI, U. 、 NUARIZAL, A., 和 [19] NORRIS-TIRRELL, D. (2012) 介紹：
GISTITUATI, N. (2021) 政策分析的緊迫性。 評估協作的多個維度。衛生與公共服務管
印度尼西亞行動研究雜誌，6(1)，第 72-76 理雜誌，35(1)，第 4-10 頁。
頁。 [20] LEE, S.-Y., 和 WHITFORD, A.B.
[7] KARIEM, M.Q., 和 ISHMATUDDIN, N. (2013) 評估組織資源對公共機構績效的影
(2021) 2015-2020 特麗絲瑪·哈里尼領導時 響：來自美國聯邦政府的證據。公共行政
期泗水市政府治理因素的決定因素分析。 研究與理論雜誌，23(3)，第 687-712 頁
政府科學雜誌，5(02)，第 239-248 頁。 [21] RHODES, J.E. (2002) 支持我：指导当
[8] MINOGUE, M. 、 POLIDANO, C., 和 今青年的风险和回报。 马萨诸塞州剑桥：
HULME, D. (1998) 超越新公共管理。愛德 哈佛大学出版社。
華·埃爾加出版社。
[9] DWIYANTO, B.M. (2011) 增加社區參
與和加強城市廢物管理協同作用的模型。