Explaining Institutional Change in Tough Cases of Collaboration: “Ideas” in the Blackfoot Watershed

Authors

  • Edward P. Weber

    Corresponding author
    1. Washington State University
      Edward P. Weber is the director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service and the Edward R. Meyer Distinguished Professor of Public Administration and Policy at Washington State University. He is the author of Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation (1998), Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities (2003), and numerous articles examining the growing use of innovative regulatory, accountability, and public management frameworks.
      E-mail: weber@wsu.edu
    Search for more papers by this author

Edward P. Weber is the director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service and the Edward R. Meyer Distinguished Professor of Public Administration and Policy at Washington State University. He is the author of Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation (1998), Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities (2003), and numerous articles examining the growing use of innovative regulatory, accountability, and public management frameworks.
E-mail: weber@wsu.edu

Abstract

Current theories of community-based collaborative governance arrangements rely on the presence (or absence) of certain antecedent community conditions as well as incentives for institutional change deriving from the sociopolitical and economic environment. The combination of antecedent conditions and incentives is helpful in understanding why collaboratives emerge and succeed in “easy” cases (strong incentives, conducive antecedent conditions). Yet the combination is of little help in understanding the institutional change puzzle for collaboratives in “tough” cases (strong incentives, poor antecedent conditions). Examination of a “tough” case in the Blackfoot watershed (Montana), which eventually blossomed into a successful collaborative, shows the importance of a particular set of new ideas, or shared norms, around which participants coalesced. These new ideas for understanding public problems, the community itself, and the relationships among stakeholders, became a broad conceptual framework for guiding stakeholder interaction as they attempted to manage the many public problems facing the watershed.

Ancillary