Trust in Mandated Collaboration: From Command-and-Control To Collaborative Emergency Governance

• In Event: International Crises

Abstract

Mandated collaboration has received increasing attention as a strategy for promoting cross-boundary collaboration to solve complex problems across various policy domains, especially in emergency management (Sullivan et al., 2024). Although collaborative ties (i.e., relationships and interactions) can naturally emerge among voluntary actors who recognize the potential and actual benefits of collaboration through repeated interactions and cumulative learning experiences over time, achieving an effective network only through ad-hoc emergency processes during emergencies is a daunting task, due to the inherent challenges of collaboration during catastrophic events that span multiple domains and jurisdictions—such as high uncertainty, rapid change, and blurred lines of responsibility (Hu et al., 2014). In response, governments across the globe often require agencies and municipalities to work together within and across levels of government and sectors to deal with problems arising during emergencies, often through legal reforms that establish committees, councils, task forces, and work groups (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015). These mandates seek to foster interdependence among organizations and reduce uncertainty about the costs, risks, and benefits of collaboration, typically backed by sanctions or incentives to ensure compliance. However, debates persist among researchers regarding (1) whether these mandated ties can evolve into genuine collaboration or remain primarily compliance-driven relationships. Relatedly, there remains a significant knowledge gap in understanding (2) how these top-down collaborative mandates can foster the trust necessary for developing both “reciprocal collaborative ties” and “broader clusters of collaboration” within communities. This study aims to answer these questions, building on theories of institutions, collaborative governance, and networks.

Using Exponential Random Graph Models and Average Marginal Effect analyses of South Korea’s emergency response network—as a network of networks comprising a mix of formal and informal ties among governmental and nongovernmental organizations—formed during an epidemic, this study provides evidence that both the direct (bureaucratic) and indirect (trust) effects of the government’s legislative mandates affected collaborative tie formation. The findings also demonstrate that reciprocity and transitive local clustering play out differently in mandated versus voluntary contexts. While both trust-based mechanisms were found to underpin ties in the overall network, only reciprocity mediated the mandate effects, suggesting that mandates may foster direct mutual interdependence between organizations but have no meaningful effects on developing broader clusters of collaborative ties in communities. Based on these findings, this paper examines the type of trust that emerges from protections provided by governance mechanisms—referred to as ‘governance trust’ by Barney and Hansen (1994)—in relation to ‘principled trust,’ which stems from a shared history of exchanges, common beliefs, and cultural values among actors.

References

Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic management journal, 15(S1), 175-190.

Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.

Sullivan, A. A., Yeo, J., & Kim, S. (2024). Am I My Brothers’ keeper? A critical review of mandated collaboration research. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(4), 323-336.

Author

• Minyoung Ku, Florida State University
  Presenting Author