THE CASE FOR
COLLABORATION:
A ROAD-MAP BASED ON
THE CARMELITE PROJECT IN ISRAEL AND SOME LESSONS FOR REVITALIZING DEMOCRACIES[1]
Eran Vigoda-Gadot
Department of Political
Science
Abstract
The paper elaborates on the importance of
collaboration in public administration and on its meaningful theoretical and
practical advantages for modern societies. Our goal is to present a program on
how collaboration can be implemented in local governance and integrated with
the idea of urban democracy. It is argued that collaboration can and should be
fostered as the new managerial and social paradigm in the years to come which
may prove useful to the problematic Middle-East region. The paper focuses on
the local government level and provides a useful map for increasing citizenship
involvement in public projects. Based on a unique experience of citizenry
involvement in one ambitious Israeli project we attempts to develop a broader
theoretical framework on the idea of urban democracy and collaboration with
public administration. We argue that such collaboration is possible and
essential, and that it may revitalize urban democracy and trust among parties
of modern society. Moreover, in the context of the Middle-East and following
the end of the war in Iraq we further suggest that collaboration may have an
even greater potential for rebuilding citizens' trust in governance and
initiating mutual cooperation that crosses feasible and cultural borders.
Finally, the paper summarizes lessons and implications of the specific project
in the context of the more general framework and tries to provide a look into
the future of collaboration and at the vision of better managing local-level
and national-level partnerships in modern as well as developing democracies.
Introduction
We live in an era of
great challenges for modern societies. The 21st century will
necessitate enormous changes in our conventional perceptions of governmental
activities and responsibilities. It will similarly require reformation of the
meaning of citizenship and a redefinition of the role of citizens, businesses
and private sector firms, the third sector, the media, and academia. All these
players, and others, will need to collaborate. Most importantly, they will need
to collaborate with public administration as its impact grows, in order to
provide the people with better services and high quality goods. They will have
to collaborate since the economic, social, and human potential of “doing
together” is much more extensive and profitable than the option of “doing
alone”.
What is the meaning of collaboration? Theoretically, collaboration draws
substance from various disciplines and fields of knowledge, wider even than
those mentioned when dealing with the eclectic nature of public administration.
Actually it would be unreliable and incomplete to treat collaboration solely
from an economic, political, sociological, or even psychological point of view.
Rational choice theory, the conflict resolution approach, communitarianism, and
real-politics analysis provide additional theoretical tools that should be
applied in a useful manner if one seeks higher understanding of the
collaborative process as well as its chances to endure. The literature is
preoccupied with close but different terminologies for mutual effort by social
players. In this sense, collaboration is only one concept that needs to be
assessed, in relation to others such as partnership, cooperation, integration,
or joint ventures. Thus, and according to Cigler (1999)“collaborative actions
involve strong linkages among stable membership in specific and often complex
purposes, and usually are long term” (p. 86).
However, the most prominent questions in this
regard are different: Could it be that we are presenting a utopian approach, unlikely
to function in a competitive environment and a free-market society? Perhaps
collaboration should be left as an unrealistic prototype for the ideal society
we all seek, but can never attain? Frankly, I must admit that I have no
definitive answers to these questions. Indeed, it is possible that talking
about a “spirit of collaboration” in public administration will in the end
remain an unreachable goal, at least in the near future. However, as will be
demonstrated here, encouraging experiences of collaboration exist that have
demonstrated a certain level of success. Since the goal of leaders and the
leadership cadre in public administration is to create vision and pave ways,
the idea of collaboration seems adequate for inclusion under the concept of vision.
Hence, this paper will try to stimulate broad thinking on the meaning and
potential of collaborative administration, and to illustrate its enormous
potential in the local governance arena.
The
idea of collaboration in public administration has close linkage with the New
Public Management (NPM) doctrine or the "new managerialism". This
doctrine has put serious pressure on state bureaucracies to become more
responsive to citizens as clients and to direct citizens’ lives with maximum
sensitivity to the voices from the field. In many respects NPM has become the
“religion” and responsiveness the “law”. Bureaucracies have also been urged to
advance beyond responsiveness and engage in collaboration with other social
players such as private businesses and third-sector organizations as well as
citizens. Without doubt, these are important advances in contemporary public
administration, which finds itself struggling in an ultra-dynamic marketplace
arena. Like any other call for reform it was caused by a necessary change in
the minds and hearts of the parties involved. To bring collaboration into the
corridors of public administration, many old perceptions and attitudes need to
be revised and reframed.
Despite
its evident advantages, the idea of collaboration also attracts heavy fire from
those who believe that it is merely a utopian idea with minimal impact on the
administrative process. At most, opponents suggest that collaboration is a
welcome change in theory building and in practical culture reconstruction, but
they add that modern societies still encounter an increase in citizens’
passivism; they tend to favor the easy chair of the customer over the sweat and
turmoil of participatory involvement (Vigoda, 2002).
Revitalizing urban
democracy: Towards a strategic process of collaboration in local government
Despite the growing
number of collaborative ventures in government and the knowledge that has
subsequently accumulated, only slight regard has been given so far to the need
to develop a comprehensive strategy for collaboration in and around public
administration. As suggested by Cigler (1999), collaborative actions frequently
emerge from disastrous events that trigger fiscal stress or perceived stress.
In light of this inconsistent approach to collaboration it is easier to
understand why the literature lacks a more strategic orientation to the field.
The potential advantages of collaboration as a strategic apparatus for public
agencies are many. It can contribute to the mutual power of public programs, increase
players’ commitment to a specific idea or initiative, stimulate productivity
and performance by people and institutions, enhance players’ image and
legitimacy of in citizens’ eyes, augment trust in government, and secure
democratic values (Nye, Zelikow, & King, 1997).
Like any other
administrative or managerial strategy, our suggestion also rests on several
assumptions. The first is that public administration, its agencies, and its
personnel should seek higher levels of collaboration with other social players
wherever possible and wherever the public interest may benefit. Another
assumption, as will be explained below, is that the local government arena is a
good habitat for such experiences, at least in their first steps. However,
beyond the first two assumptions, which are normative, the third is much more
realistic. It argues that rationalism as rooted in human nature permits
collaboration only in a limited, albeit rising number of public ventures, and
that collaboration is best described as a complex process with advantages but
also drawbacks.
Figure 1: A strategic map of an
effective collaboration process as demonstrated in the local government arena.
There are also several
preconditions for a strategic approach to collaboration. Generally we adopt
Cigler’s (1999) suggestion of nine such preconditions: (1) a disastrous event,
(2) fiscal stress or perceived fiscal stress, (3) a political constituency for
cooperation, (4) supportive capacity building, (5) early and continued support
by elected local officials, (6) visible advantages of cooperation for
participating government, (7) existence of a policy entrepreneur, (8) early
focus on visible effective strategies, and (9) emphasis on collaborative skill
building. These conditions set the stage for a collaborative venture and make
it a relevant mechanism to deal with a public issue.
A better understanding
of the collaborative process is based on systematic analysis platforms. One
such platform is presented in Figure 1, where a general map for collaboration
between public administration and others in the local government arena is
suggested. This map is based on five main stages and checkpoints in the
process: (1) deciding on a fitting issue for collaboration, (2)
characterizing the issue by “what and where” inquiries, (3) finding out who
is involved, (4) finding out how to implement, (5) launching implementation,
(6) evaluating the process. These stages are broadly developed below.
While collaboration can be analyzed from
various perspectives, we decided to focus on the local government level. Beyond
the global, regional, and even the national levels, a local governance view is
the most applicable and realistic for practical and theoretical reasons. To
date, most collaborative projects reported in the scientific literature have
been conducted in this environment, so our present knowledge relies heavily on
such experiences. Moreover, as suggested by Sobel (1993) and Etzioni (1994,
1995), the local/communal level is ideal for increasing citizens’ involvement
in government. It has the potential of bringing together individuals, groups of
citizens, private and third-sector organizations, and public agencies, and
helping them cooperate in a microcosm. The outcomes of collaborative programs in
local government are manifested directly to the people. The results are more
clearly observed by public stakeholders, who also develop a sense of
attachment, concern, and criticism towards these programs. In the longer run
these endeavors may evince relevancy and compatibility in national or federal
domains.
Urban
democracy in action: The Carmelite project as a model for regional
collaboration across communities and religions
Background
The
idea of urging deeper and more intensive involvement by citizens has taken an
interesting course in the Carmelite project as planned in the city of
Moreover,
the committee was authorized to suggest changes in the plan in keeping with the
opinions of citizens and professionals. The entrepreneurs had to agree to this
condition in order to move ahead with the formal request for approval by the
city authorities. In any case, the entire public involvement process was
designed to be activated and completed prior to the discussion in the regional
Planning and Building Committee, whose task is to examine and formally approve
or reject such plans. Note however that the public involvement process was not
intended to replace or adversely affect the right of vested opposition by the
public as sanctioned by the Israeli planning and building law (The Carmelite
plan, 2001; p.7). The process was aimed at bringing citizens and city
residents closer to decision-making centers on the local community level,
providing them with the opportunity of sounding an organized voice, and
stimulating a collaborative process among private, public, and third-sector
organizations as well as individual citizens.
Steering
committee and process
As
noted, the committee consisted of 12 members who directed, supervised, and
accompanied the public involvement process. Of these members five were
municipal representatives from various relevant departments such as the city
engineering branch, the mayor’s office, and the ombudsman’s branch; two
represented the forum of environmental organizations, which are basically
third-sector bodies; three were academic professionals in the field of urban
planning; one was an independent architect; and one was a lawyer representing
the entrepreneurs. Members of the committee were Jews and non-Jews who also
discussed relevant religious-related issues of the project. In addition, two
academic experts were involved in the active process of analyzing public
opinion regarding the project. The committee worked for a year and submitted
its recommendations to the mayor and the entrepreneurs, and also publicized the
conclusions for the citizens of
(1)
Preliminary briefing; a step in which announcements were issued to
inform to the public of the preparation of the Carmelite project and of the
intended public involvement process. The announcements were published in
several languages (principally Hebrew, Arabic, and Russian) in local and
national newspapers and on local television and radio. The announcements were
also distributed to neighborhood committees in areas located around the
geographical borders of the Carmelite project. High school pupils assisted in
this activity and did the rounds of placing the materials in residents’
mailboxes. In addition, a detailed exhibition of the project was mounted in
City Hall, with information on the public involvement process presented there
and in some of the municipality’s main departments. All the information was
also made available on a special Internet site created for this purpose.
(2)
Presenting the project to the public: two public meetings
were held to present the project to the public. An open invitation was
distributed to all city and non-city residents, and some 450 people attended
both meetings. At these gatherings the project was presented by the
entrepreneurs and by city officials, and feedback from the public was obtained
and recorded. In addition, the public received information on the involvement
process, its rationale, and its goals.
(3)
Feedback from the public: two major methods were applied to
obtain feedback from the public. First, the comments, concerns, questions, and
answers voiced during the meetings were recorded and summarized in a separate
document. Second, a detailed questionnaire was distributed among all those
present at the meetings. This questionnaire included two major sections, one
referring to the Carmelite project itself and the other to the public
involvement process, its strengths and weaknesses. It is important to mention
that despite previous suggestion by the professionals, who were especially
engaged to conduct the public opinion survey, the committee chose to use a
convenient sample of residents rather than a more extensive and representative
sample. As a result, many residents who were unable to attend the meetings for
various reasons obviously had no reasonable chance to make themselves heard.
Finally, a total of 145 completed questionnaires were returned and analyzed.
The participants were also asked to indicate if they were interested in further
discussion of the project in smaller “discussion groups”.
(4)
Focus/discussion groups: An additional phase of hearing the
public voice was accomplished through five discussion groups. These forums were
composed of independent interested citizens, about 25 in each group, around a
hundred in all, who had the chance to review the details of the projects, to
ask questions, raise concerns, and suggest alternatives and emendations of
various parts in the project. Note also that steps 3 and 4 were both managed by
professionals and expenses were covered entirely by the entrepreneurs as well
as being monitored by the steering committee. Participating citizens came from
various religions and communities and represented the heterogeneous
(5)
A summary document of public opinions: the entire public
involvement process, as well as public attitudes, questions, and concerns, were
summarized in a comprehensive paper. This summary was brought to the attention
of the entrepreneurs, who were asked to revise their suggestion in accordance
with the recommendations. The summarizing document was also made public through
the media and presented to the local Planning and Building Committee together
with the revised Carmelite plan.
(6)
Response by the entrepreneur – feedback to the public: The entrepreneurs
examined the possibilities of making changes and revisions in the project. They
were also asked by the steering committee to present a document in which they
would include comments on and responses to public concerns. This document was
distributed to the public in ways similar to those described above.
Lessons
Most
importantly, this final step closes a circle in the process of public
involvement and collaboration among public administration agencies, private
entrepreneurs, citizens, and third-sector organizations. It depends on the idea
that the revised Carmelite plan will better meet the expectations of the city
residents as individuals, interest groups of private or non-profiting citizens,
and the entrepreneurs. The process and its results are also expected to reduce
the natural resistance to change in city urban planning and development. Being
a first experience in the Israeli environment, this collaborative process is
also expected to suggest a practical model and guidelines for future similar
ventures and decisions on both the local and national government level.
The
case study of the Carmelite project is thus an example of higher levels of
citizens’ involvement in the community, and of a potential step towards
stronger urban democratic culture in our modern society. It may thus show the
road to greater collaboration in and around Middle-East countries and
especially calls for citizens' involvement in various policy decisions. All in
all, the collaborative process has provided the following five advantages:
(1)
An
increased sense of participation by city residents and by third-sector
organizations (Green environment movements and other voluntary groups in the
community). This is a symbolic contribution by the project but it is of prime
importance due to the potential to increase citizens’ trust and partnership
with public authorities in similar future projects.
(2)
An
early understanding by city authorities and by entrepreneurs about the
difficulties that the program entails and about potential ways to adjust it to
become more coherent with the public interest.
(3)
Better
understanding by public officials that citizens are interested and willing to
share knowledge, time, effort, and other resources for the purpose of building
quality community life. This advantage contradicts common criticism on
citizens’ passivism and lack of interest in local-level and national-level
affairs.
(4)
As
a result of this, public officials identified considerably lower levels of
resistance to change in city planning. The experience has stimulated a more
effective and efficient managerial process of piloting a city construction
program through the halls of bureaucracy and public administration.
(5)
Encouraging
a more efficient strategy of policymaking and policy implementing based on
relevant public inputs into the process from its very early stages. In this process, citizens of various
religions and communities worked together to accomplish a collective goal of better
quality of life engaged with higher economic development.
Conclusions and implications
The end of the second
Gulf War in
In
this conflict, as in other socially oriented conflicts and dilemmas, it is
public administration that has the prime role and responsibility to provide
answers to the new needs. For this purpose, public administration means a vast
collection of governmental agencies that take care of our internal and external
security, welfare, economy, education, and other services that citizens of
modern civilizations use. Today, more than ever before the most important goal
of our governments and leaders is to enhance collaboration among various social
players, and as all agree, to protect democracy by this mutual effort. We have
always expected national and federal institutions to do so, and for many good
reasons we expect them today to become even more energetic and involved in such
trends and developments.
Today,
there are several reasons for our ongoing dependence on the government and on
its executive branches. First, we simply have no other institution or body to
turn to when our basic rights and needs are endangered. Second, in the last
century governments and the public sector have become larger than in any other
time in the past, and they have heightened citizens’ dependence on the services
and goods they provide. Third, the public sector and its administrative heads
provide more services and goods than ever in the past, and they do that for
larger, increasingly demanding, heterogeneous populations. In sum, we lean on
governments and on public administration bodies since we believe that they hold
the answers to our questions and the remedies for our needs. Putting it other
way, citizens of modern states largely trust the systematic order and action of
governments as well as their executive branches. If they can’t do the right
things for us, then who actually can? However, against the new and
unconventional threats of terror, they need not be alone, but need to
collaborate to as great a degree as possible. Collaboration is thus a
political, social, and more importantly managerial craftsmanship that public
administration needs to improve. It is an important tool that stands against
brutality and extremism from the outside, but it can also be effectively used
to fight internal fragility and intra-national social problems.
Hence, this paper creates
fresh thinking on the potential of collaboration and the way to put it in the
service of our states and communities, despite anticipated obstacles. Scholars’
efforts should be directed at portraying a rational and realistic map that
fosters collaboration among public administration and dominant social players
such as the private sector, citizens (as individuals and as groups), media, and
academia. Our map, as presented here, is only one way of responding to this
challenge in the local government level. In our view, such collaboration should
not be considered an option for our democracies; it needs to be our bright
shining choice.
This
paper contributes to the growing theme of collaboration in public
administration, and possibly also a future collaboration among various Middle-East
countries, by focusing on one example from the Israeli context. The Carmelite
project and the method it followed are studied as one way of creating effective
collaboration in the local government level. It is evident today that no
renewal or real progress of a democratic nation, state, or society can be made
without minimal level of collaboration among social, political and private
sector parties. This paper has focused on the local level but in the same time
it may serve as a good starting point for cultural socialization into the topic
of collaboration that can latter be upgraded to the national and perhaps
international level. However, one should bear in mind that the Carmelite
project is only one case study that should be compared with other experiences
from across the world. Like many other case studies it has its advantages (for
example, pointing to a unique policy problem and the detailed way to resolve
it) as well as weaknesses (for example,
the problem of generalization and external validity to other cases, across time
and cultures) and thus should be treated with caution.
Recent
works on collaboration have encouraged public administration agencies and
leaders to adopt new models of alliances among diverse groups and individuals
in society. Similarly, collaboration has become a necessity in local governance
owing to its growing responsibilities and the continuous devolution of central
government, which transfers more tasks to local authorities. A process of
reinvention in local government has thus been inspired by the increasing need
to enhance collaboration. Alliances have become strategies for institutions of
governance to do more with less, to create leadership systems based on steering
not rowing, and to treat citizens as customers (Grubbs, 2000) or even partners
equal to state and local authorities (Vigoda, 2000; 2002). It has been pointed
out that the future of modern public administration depends heavily on joint
forces and improved patterns of collaboration among various social players.
Citizens’ needs and demands, increasing complexity of public programs, and
magnification of different social problems serve as main accelerators that
bring citizens, public and private sector bodies, and third-sector/nonprofit
organizations together. This process reflects self-derived interests but also a
collective viewpoint of win-win alternatives.
For
this purpose, a strategic agenda of collaboration needs to be rebuilt. Its
power may draw substance from theory-anchored models and from practical and
empirical experience as presented here. A core assumption of the strategic
approach is that public administration can no longer settle for a limited level
of cooperation among sporadic players, and thus tends to collaboration. Public
agencies, both governmental-political and organizational-administrative, will
need to adopt a culture of mutual effort and to put more energy into joint
ventures that are inclusive and long-term. The strategic platform as presented
in this paper may contribute to the development of such an interdisciplinary
orientation and increase the impact of public-private-nonprofit alliances, both
instrumentally and symbolically (Grubbs, 2000).
This paper also
identifies a theoretical gap in contemporary administrative and political
science literature, which frequently classifies collaboration as another
technique of conflict management or conflict resolution programs (Fredericksen,
1996). The first goal of this paper is therefore to treat collaboration as an
individual phenomenon, one that deserves its own theoretical attention separate
from other writings on straightforward conflict management theory. We have
argued that the option of collaboration is becoming highly relevant to public
administration of our times, and that it proves useful in a number of local
government issues. In line with this, our second goal was more clearly to set a
strategy for collaboration, one that may serve as a road map for the future,
both theoretically and practically.
The importance and
relevance of collaboration for public administration and for citizens in our
era are not disputed. While there are equivocal attitudes on the best way to
implement collaboration there is consensus on its necessity. As it progresses,
public administration will have to collaborate with a variety of participants
and integrate various attitudes and interests to accomplish its future
challenging tasks. Traditional, albeit effective techniques of participation in
decision-making or negotiation management are expected to grow and mature into
a more extensive strategy of collaboration. Ambitious projects and programs for
larger groups of citizens will have to rely on collaboration and support the
communal “we” rather than an alienated “they” spirit in society. This is a main
track that can lead public administration on its way forward.
References
Arsenault,
J. (1998). Forging Nonprofit Alliances.
Bardach,
E. (1999). Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial
Craftsmanship.
Bianchi,
G. (1997). Training in Skills for Coping with Democracy. Annals of the
Blau,
P.M. (1964). Power and Exchange in Social Life.
Bryson,
J.M., & Crosby, B. (1992). Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling
Public Problems in a Shared Power World.
Cigler,
A.B. (1999). Pre-Conditions for the Emergence of Multicommunity Collaborative
Organizations. Policy Studies Review. 16, 87-101.
Cole,
Coleman,
J. (1989). The Dynamics of Community Controversy. In: Warren, R. & Lyon, L.
(Eds.), New Perspectives on the American Community.
Crook,
R. (1996). Democracy, Participation and Responsiveness: A Case Study of
Relations between the Ivorian Communes and Their Citizens. Public
Administration, 74, 695-720.
Etzioni,
A. (1994). The Spirit of Community.
Etzioni,
A. (1995). New Communitarian Thinking: Persons, Virtues, Institutions, and
Communities.
Fisher,
R., & Ury, W. (1983). How to Fight Dirty Tricks in Negotiations.
Marketing Times, September-October, 36-40.
Fredericksen,
J.P. (1996). Community Collaboration and Public Policy Making. American
Behavioral Scientist, 39, 552-569.
Gardner,
J. (1991). Building Community.
Gidron,
B., Kramer, R.M., & Salamon, L.
(1992). Government and the Third Sector: Emerging Relationship in the
Welfare State.
Golembiewski,
R.T., & Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational Innovation and the Science/Craft
of Management, In M. A. Rahim, R.T. Golembiewski, & K.D. Mackenzie (Eds.), Current
Topics in Management, Vol. 5, pp. 263-280, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Grubbs,
W.J. (2000). Can Agencies Work Together? Collaboration in Public and Nonprofit
Organizations. Public Administration Review, 60, 275-280.
Kermit,
P.C. (1994). Collaborative Genius: The Regional Planning Association of
Nye,
J.S., Zelikow, P.D., & King, D.C. (Eds.) (1997). Why People Don’t Trust
Government.
O’Tool,
L. (1995). Rational choice and policy implementation: Implications for
interorganizational network management. American Review of Public
Administration, 25, 43-57.
Ostrom,
E. (1986). An Agenda for the Study of Institutions. Public Choice, 48,
2-25.
Ostrom,
E. (1993). A Communitarian Approach to Local Governance. National Civic
Review, 82, 226-232.
Peters,
G.B. (1996). Models of Governance for the 1990s. In D.F. Kettl and H.B. Milward
(Eds.), The State of
Pfeffer,
J., & Salancik, G. (1979). The External Control of Organizations.
Roberts,
N., & Bradley, R. (1991). Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 209-227.
Sarason,
S.B. & Lorentz, E.M. (1998). Crossing Boundaries: Collaboration,
Coordination, and the Redefinition of Resources.
Snavely,
K. & Desai, U. (2000). Municipal Government Nonprofit Sector Collaboration
in
Sobel,
R. (1993). From Occupational Involvement to Political Participation: An
Exploratory Analysis. Political Behavior, 15, 339-353.
The Carmelite Plan (2001).
Thompson,
D. (1983). Bureaucracy and Democracy. In G. Duncan (Ed.), Democratic Theory
and Practice.