The previous two typologies

Leach, Pelkey and Sabatier (2002) and Moore and Koontz (2002) both develop typologies of collaboratives. Leach et al use the breadth of the issues being studied as the primary difference. Moore and Koontz use a classic public/private dichotomy. How do they compare? Would the groups defined fall into the same categories in both? Which is most helpful and why?

First, Leach et al's typology includes participants and place in the policy cycle as secondary characteristics of their types that are primarily driven by the breadth of the issues being addressed. The only true overlap that cold be compared between the two is who is included. Looking at the description of participants only the Advisory Committee type does not have to include a government entity, though the project sponsor selects the participants. The remainder use a logical AND for government entities being represented. This is not necessarily different than Moore and Koontz as they focus on who directs the collaborative endeavor, not who is involved.  This is a rather short path nowhere in comparing the groups.

Taking another approach it appears that Moore and Koontz has groups that do not fall into the categories of Leach et al. Citizen directed groups with a focus on policy change do not easily fit into the types described by Leach. It is possible that these groups would fit into the Stakeholder Partnership except for the participant requirement of multiple federal, state and local agencies. The Citizen-directed group would appear to be around for every stage, could involve a wide number of issues but at the same time be excluded on the basis of being too forceful in their methods of pushing for policy change. The differentiation of private versus public directed might suggest another division within the stakeholder partnership type that depends on participants and methods.

Another interesting comparison is that Leach et al's types all appear to be government directed save for the full stakeholder partnership. Public hearings, advisory committees and negotiated rulemaking procedures are all government directed. Public hearings is one group I noted in the last post that questions the use of the concept of "directed" in Moore and Koontz' typologies. Public hearings are collaborative endeavors that are government-directed but do not necessarily involve more than one government. I would need to investigate further but I would venture the guess that public hearings are not the way that governments collaborate with other governments. I would be interested to see if a state hearing was attended by or had an official representative of a county or local government take part through voicing their opinion. I believe there are different forums for that process. That being said there are advisory committees that include representatives from other governments nested within their jurisdiction, such as townships in a county or neighborhoods in a city.

What do we gain from these typologies? First, it is clear that neither is exhaustive. If one had to be picked that was more exhaustive than the other the simpler public/private/hybrid type would be the best. But the other qualification for typologies is that the distinctions are clear. While less exhaustive the use of breadth of issue seems to create a more clear set of distinctions than the "directed" concept.

I gain the notion that both the definition and typology of collaborative are both still up in the air. There are more types that I want to investigate and may come back around to it later.