¿Qué mueve a confiar en la gobernanza colaborativa? Análisis de un programa gubernamental en el País Vasco

  1. Barandiarán, Xabier 1
  2. Canel, María José 2
  3. Bouckaert, Geert 3
  1. 1 Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa
  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

  3. 3 KU Leuven, Public Governance Institute
Montrer des affiliations +
Revue:
Revista española de ciencia política

ISSN: 1575-6548

Année de publication: 2022

Número: 60

Pages: 251-275

Type: Article

DOI: 10.21308/RECP.60.09 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

D'autres publications dans: Revista española de ciencia política

Résumé

Collaborative governance constitutes an aspiration in both the study and practice of public management. In this endeavour, trust is an intangible resource that gets of special relevance, because it is assumed that in order to foster the participation of different actors in public policies it is necessary to acknowledge the value of their contributions. While the literature on citizen trust on collaborative government programs is large, works about both intra-organizational trust (between politicians and civil servants) and inter-organizational trust (from the latter to societal organizations) are scarce. This article explores the dynamics of trust between actors (politicians, civil servants and citizens) who participate in a governmental program of collaborative governance (Etorkizuna Eraikiz, Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa), and it focuses on the sources or drivers of trust.Based on the grounded theory for the thematic analysis of in depth semi-structured interviews with actors involved in the program (politicians, civil servants and civil organizations), the article explores the sources and drivers of trust by applying a typology that distinguishes formal sources (structures and rules) from informal ones (interactions). The analysis reveals that the spaces of interaction created by collaboration develop normative frameworks with strongly shared values that suggest the existence of some typical group orientation leading to trust. Based on these findings, some challenges are identified for the advancement of the study and practice of collaborative governance.

Références bibliographiques

  • Citas Barandiarán, Xabier, Anne Murphy y María José Canel. 2022. «¿Qué aporta la escucha al Capital Social? Lecciones de un proceso de aprendizaje de líderes públicos», Gestión y Política Pública, 31 (1): 1-30. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.29265/gypp.v31i1.1011.
  • Batory, Agnes y Sara Svensson. 2019. «The fuzzy concept of collaborative governance: A systematic review of the state of the art», Central European Journal of Public Policy, 13 (2): 28-39. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2019-0008.
  • Bianchi, C., Greta Nasi y William C. Rivenbark. 2021. «Implementing collaborative governance: models, experiences, and challenges», Public Management Review, 23 (11): 1581-1589. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1878777.
  • Bouckaert, Geert. 2012. «Trust and public administration», Administration, 60 (1): 91-115.
  • Bouckaert, Geert y Steven Van de Walle. 2001. «Government performance and trust in government». Paper for the Permanent Study Group of Productivity and Quality in the Public Sector at the EGPA Annual Conference.
  • Bourgon, Jocelyne. 2011. A new synthesis of public administration: serving in the 21st century. Vol. 81. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.
  • Bovaird, Tony y Elke Loeffler. 2010. «User and community co-production of public services and public policies through collective decision-making: the role of emerging technologies», en Taco Brandsen y Marc Holzer (eds.), The future of governance. Nueva Delhi: National Center for Public Performance.
  • Bovaird, Tony y Elke Loeffler. 2012. «From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value», Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23 (4): 1119-1138. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6.
  • Bovaird, Tony, Gregg Ryzin y Elke Loeffler. 2015. «Activating citizens to participate in collective co-production of public services», Journal of Social Policy, 44 (1): 1-23. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727941400056.
  • Bowden, Jana, Vilma Luoma-Aho y Kay Naumann. 2016. «Developing a spectrum of positive to negative citizen engagement», en Roderick Brodie, Linda Hollebeek y Jodie Conduit (eds.), Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues and Challenges. Singapur: Routledge.
  • Brandsen, Taco y Marlies Honingh. 2015. «Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions», Public Administration Review, 76 (3): 427-435. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465.
  • Brandsen, Taco, Trui Steen y Bram Verschuere. 2018. Co-production and Co-creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204956.
  • Braun, Virginia y Victoria Clarke. 2012. «Thematic analysis», en Harris Cooper (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology. American Psychological Association. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004.
  • Canel, María José, Xabier Barandiarán y Anne Murphy. 2022. «What does learning by listening bring to citizen engagement? Lessons from a government program», Public Relations Review, 48, 102132. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102132.
  • Canel, María José y Vilma Luoma-aho. 2019. Public Sector Communication. Closing gaps between organizations and citizens. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119135630.
  • Canel, María José, Vilma Luoma-aho y Xabier Barandiarán. 2020. «Public Sector Communication and publicly valuable intangible assets», en Vilma Luoma-aho y María José Canel (eds.), Handbook of Public Sector Communication. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119263203.ch6.
  • Carpini, Michael X. Delli. 2004. «Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life», en Linda Lee Kaid, (ed.), Handbook of Political Communication Research. Londres: LEA.
  • Carpini, Michael X. Delli, Fay Cook y Laurence Jacobs. 2004. «Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature», Annual Review of Political Science, 7: 315-344. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630.
  • Cooper, Terry. 2005. «Civic Engagement in the Twenty‐First Century: Toward a Scholarly and Practical Agenda», Public Administration Review, 65 (5): 534-535.
  • Coursey, David, Kaifeng Yang y Sanjay Pandey. 2012. «Public service motivation (PSM) and support for citizen participation: A test of Perry and Vandenabeele’s reformulation of PSM theory», Public Administration Review, 72 (4): 572-582. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.111/j.1540-6210.2012.0.
  • Crosby, Barbara, Paul Hart y Jacob Torfing. 2017. «Public value creation through collaborative innovation», Public Management Review, 19 (5): 655-669. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192165.
  • Fledderus, Joost. 2015. «Building trust through public service co-production», International Journal of Public Sector, 28 (7): 550-565. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2015-0118.
  • Frazier, M. Lance, Paul Johnson y Stav Fainshmidt. 2013. «Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale», Journal of Trust Research, 3 (2): 76-97. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2013.820026.
  • Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press.
  • Fung, Archon. 2015. «Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future», Public Administration Review, 75 (4): 513-522. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361.
  • Glaser, Barny y Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Londres: Aldine Publishing Company.
  • Head, Brian W. 2008. «Community engagement: participation on whose terms?», Australian Journal of Political Science, 42 (3): 441-454. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140701513570.
  • Kim, Seok-Eun. 2005. «The role of trust in the modern administrative state. An integrative model», Administration and Society, 37 (5): 611-635. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399705278596.
  • Klijn, Erik H., Jurian Edelenbos y Bram Steijn. 2010. «Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes», Administration and Society, 42 (2): 193-221. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710362716.
  • Lansisalmi, Hannakaisa, José-María Peiró y Mika Kivimaki. 2004. «Grounded theory in organizational research», en Catherine Cassell y Gilliam Symon (eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Sage.
  • Lúquez, Petra y Otilia Fernández. 2016. «La teoría fundamentada: precisiones epistemológicas, teórico-conceptuales, metodológicas y aportes a las ciencias», Cumbres, 2 (1): 101-114.
  • Murphy, Anne, María José Canel y Xabier Barandiarán. 2020. «How do public leaders learn from society? A reflexive analysis of action learners», Action Learning: Research and Practice, 17 (2): 172-185. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2020.1732868.
  • Nabatchi, Tina, Alessandro Sancino y Mariafrancesca Sicilia. 2017. «Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction», Public Administration Review, 77 (5): 766-776. Disponible en: https://doi.org/ 10.1111/puar.12765.
  • Oomsels, Peter. 2016. Administrational Trust: An empirical examination of inter-organisational trust and distrust in the Flemish administration. Lovaina: KU Leuven.
  • Oomsels, Peter y Geert Bouckaert. 2014. «Studying Interorganizational Trust in Public Administration: A Conceptual and Analytical Framework for Administrational Trust», Public Performance and Management Review, 37 (4): 577-604. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576370403.
  • Oomsels, Peter, Marloes Callens, Jolien Vanschoenwinkel y Geert Bouckaert. 2019. «Functions and dysfunctions of interorganizational trust and distrust in the public sector», Administration and Society, 51 (4): 516-544. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716667973.
  • Quandt, Thorsten. 2012. «What’s left of trust in a network society? An evolutionary model and critical discussion of trust and societal communication», European Journal of Communication, 27 (1): 7-21. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323111434452.
  • Rousseau, Denise, Sim Sitkin, Robert Burt y Colin Camerer. 1998. «Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust», Academy of Management, 23 (3): 393-404. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617.
  • Sanders, Karen y María José Canel. 2015. «Mind the gap: Local government communication strategies and Spanish citizens’ perceptions of their cities», Public Relations Review, 41 (5): 777-784. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev. 2015.06.014.
  • Sirianni, Carmen. 2010. Investing in democracy: Engaging citizens in collaborative governance. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  • Smith, Neale. 2010. «The public administrator as collaborative citizen: Three conceptions», Public Administration Quarterly, 34: 238-262.
  • Stacks, Down W. 2016. Primer of Public Relations Research. Nueva York: Guilford Publications.
  • Sztompka, Piotr. 1999. Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Thomas, John C. 2013. «Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management», Public Administration Review, 73 (6): 786-796. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.1210.
  • Van de Walle, Steven y Frederique Six. 2014. «Trust and distrust as distinct concepts: Why studying distrust in institutions is important», Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 16 (2): 158-174. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2013.785146.
  • Wang, XiaoHu y Montgomery W. Wart. 2007. «When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers’ perceptions», Public Administration Review, 67 (2): 265-278. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00712.x.
  • Yang, Kaifeng y Kathe Callahan. 2005. «Assessing citizen involvement efforts by local governments», Public Performance y Management Review, 29 (2): 191-216. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2005.11051865.
  • Yang, Kaifeng y Kathe Callahan. 2007. «Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality», Public Administration Review, 67 (2): 249-264. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00711.x.
  • Yang, Kaifeng y Sanjay K. Pandey. 2011. «Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes?», Public Administration Review, 71 (6): 880-892. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02417.x.
La source de données: Dialnet