(Course number)
Collaborative Governance is never a neophyte concept. Some sectors call it a public and private partnership. Other people term it government and non-government cooperation. Business-oriented people likewise name it as profit and non-profit coordination. Be it a partnership, cooperation, coordination, or the likes, one thing is certain, that it is collaboration. However, if there is one thing in this idea that should be given more emphasis, it would be the governance since this is the primary goal of the collaboration.
In Chapter 24 of the book The Oxford Handbook of Public Policies, two economists, John Donahue and Richard Zeckhauser, discussed the concept of public-private collaboration (Moran, Rein, and Goodin 496-525). They floated the idea that certain factors, which are likewise the rationale of the notion, push for the collaboration between government and non-government entities, or between public and private sectors of the society. All these endeavors are geared toward a harmonious relationship; but above all, toward meaningful and cost-effective governance (Moran, Rein, and Goodin 505). Accordingly, the reasons why there exists collaboration between a government and non-government agencies are because of the following factors: resources, productivity, information, and legitimacy (Moran, Rein, and Goodin 505-507).
When the government lacks the resources to fund a project or mission, the consequential action is to look for an entity which could finance it. A financial institution has the best capability to do this job. In this way, a partnership is in the offing between the government and such corporation. However, the financier of the projects will not just sit and wait until the funds are fully repaid. The partner of the government will somehow dictate the manner and the terms of the management of the funds. This is how collaborative governance appears in the scene.
Technically, not all departments of the government have the capabilities to produce particular goods, or to deliver peculiar services or to perform highly specialized skills. There are instances where the government has to outsource these services or production from the private sectors which have the competence to do the job. Hence, productivity also contributes to the formation of public-private cooperation.
Researches supply great sources of information that help the government in the systematic management and administration of its affairs. Not having been amply equipped with the necessary facilities and technical expertise, the government resorts to tap research institutes in order to gather the needed knowledge. This is necessary for the advancement of science, technology, health and other fields of interest. So, information does its own part as another contributory factor in forming a collaboration between the public and the private sectors.
Although it rarely happens, legitimacy is considered another cause why the government taps the cooperation of non-government agencies. Seeking the participation of the private sector takes place when it would be improper for the government to enter into an undertaking because it would be illegal, or because the law does not so sanction, or that it would be “inappropriate for government to pursue on its own” (Moran, Rein, and Goodin 507).
This paradigm of collaboration does not move without the attached problems in the administration. Accordingly, one of the problems is “reputational vulnerability” (Moran, Rein, and Goodin 508). Since it is the public’s perception that the government is working through the private agency, any mismanagement, misconduct or failure on the part of the private partner will likely be understood as a breakdown on the part of the government. Needless to say, the fault of the collaborative partner is the fault of the other. This is just one of the downsides which the government has to pay in engaging the private sector in a partnership.
As far as the judiciary or the court is concerned, being a government agency, up to what extent should it be involved in the collaborative governance? Before directly answering this query, a review of the nature and functions of the court is necessary in order to fully understand its ramifications.
Of the three branches of the government, the judiciary, through the courts, is the most passive agency. It cannot take action of its own; instead, it only waits for actions to be filed before it, since it is its very nature. A Court, too, is required by law to be non-partisan. It should be free from the influence of passing politics or any personal interest. Any decision that it renders should be objective and free. If the court should involve itself in any indirect collaborative governance, it loses its non-partisan character. Its reputation will be tarnished; the trust of the public will collapse and its independence will be compromised. Not only that people will start to be apprehensive of the court’s integrity when it comes to those cases that are filed involving its collaborative partner as the party litigant, but its hands are tied in rendering a decision against its partner.
Going back to the issue on the extent of the involvement of the court in the collaborative governance, the wisest and safest stand would be that the court should not participate in the public and private partnership. Although this form of cooperation, which is similar to outsourcing, is becoming a trend, the court should be exempted from joining this drift. Instead, it should concern itself with the rendering of justice where justice is due.
Public and private collaboration maybe useful in some respects, but it is not totally an effective tool for governance.
Works Cited
Moran, Michael, Martin Rein, and Robert E. Goodin. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. 496-525. Print.
