Figure 2 - uploaded by Daphne Ngar-yin Mah
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
This paper examines relationships between collaborative governance and technological innovation. Collaborative governance is a key strategy for this form of innovation but remains underresearched. This paper explores how and to what extent collaborative governance can contribute to technological innovation by means of a case study of wind energy in...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... collaborated with its end-users to identify and assess R&D problems, formulate solutions, fine-tune product design and subsequently improve the Furthermore, the SCEC is sophisticated in its internal structure when compared to the NWTC. It has twelve full-time staff members and has established five laboratories, one of which is the Wind Power Generation Technology Office which in effect is Sewind's R&D department (Figure 2). In terms of funding sources, the SCEC is also highly institutionalised as it receives annual public funding of between 100 to 200 million yuan every year from the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai (Shanghai Electric, 2010), and has been expanding its business to include offshore wind turbines. ...
Similar publications
This paper presents the use of GIS techniques in the identification and selection of areas that have potential for use of renewable energy resources from wind, to develop projects of power generation, considering the adoption of restrictive and inclusive conditions, such as existing local infrastructure (power grid and transport routes), proximity...
Artificial This paper proposes a comparative analysis of pitch angle control scheme for a grid connected wind energy conversion system using Doubly Fed Induction Generator (DFIG). The pitch angle control of the wind turbine adjusts the position of aerodynamic blade by folding the blade outward to direction of the wind during below and above rated w...
Atualmente, dentre as topologias de sistemas de conversão de energia eólica (SCEE), as baseadas em conversores de potência plenos estão em crescimento, uma vez que este tipo de conversor permite a operação da máquina em largas faixas de velocidade, o que resulta em um melhor aproveitamento da potência disponível no vento. Para este tipo de aplicaçã...
Citations
... To define and understand the meaning of CG, we will first elaborate on the term "Collaborative" and then move on to "Governance". "Collaborative" describes a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and seek solutions (Mah and Hills 2014;Purdy 2012). "Governance" was first defined in 1992 by the World Bank and referred to as a decision-making process to implement new initiatives and resolve issues (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012;Kapucu 2010). ...
... The first strand concerns the government's approach toward a topic like environmental one related to climate change (Ziervogel, Pasquini, and Haiden 2017). The second concerns the multistakeholder government approach, i.e. public-private-partnership to achieve specific objectives (Mah and Hills 2014), closely related to Malodia et al. (2021). ...
... The peak of the topic 'innovation', which occurred from 2017 to 2020, was in 2019. It is possible to define 'innovation' as intense trial-and-error learning processes to pursue global competitiveness (Mah and Hills 2014). Moving on to the topic "decision making", present only in 2020 in Figure 8, it refers to processes, decision-making and management structures in which one or more people confront each other and make a decision in public, private and civic spheres (Ziervogel, Pasquini, and Haiden 2017). ...
The present research provides a structured literature review of 80 papers on collabora-tive governance (CG) integration with technologies. The modern concept of CG appears strictly related to new technologies since allowing for more advanced and better communication to increase the efficiency of the activities implemented in the governance process. Although the relevant literature has increased scientific production on the topic, there is a gap in the updated framework describing the technologies that can enhance the deployment of CG. Therefore, the present study employs two distinct theoretical frameworks to analyse the results obtained by applying a rigorous method. The relevant results confirm the implementation of CG in different contexts, such as smart cities and healthcare. Consistent with classical theory, it analyses the role of stakeholders as public and private entities, such as companies, organizations, and citizens. In addition, the paper focuses on technologies and stakeholder relationships to implement actions to increase the public value of organizational capacity. Finally, the research proposes a future research agenda to contribute to the emerging argument that sees technologies adopted in the CG approach to support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
... In the context of China, collaborative governance has been analyzed in different policy contexts, such as environmental and climate change governance (Jing, 2015;Yan, Zhang, Zhang, & Li, 2020), fighting against natural disasters (Mah & Hills, 2012;Ye, Chen, Chen, & Ye, 2019), housing regeneration (Liu & Xu, 2018), business innovation (Liu et al., 2020b;Mah & Hills, 2014), social service outsourcing (Teets & Jagusztyn, 2015) and urban community development (Li, Hu, Liu, & Fang, 2019). All these studies highlight the strong leadership role of the state in local governance and interdepartmental collaboration. ...
Country governments and the WHO advocated that the "whole-of-government" and the "whole-of-society" approaches are necessary to fight against the pandemic. However, it is unclear what it means in practice and its implication in the of context of food security and in emergencies. This article examines in the “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach” (WOG-WOS), how the government and non-government stakeholders’ has quickly engaged in collaborative governance to address the community food supply challenges. This research analysed government policies and reports, scanned grey literature and conduced in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in Wuhan working on the frontline of food supply during the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns. The findings contribute to the literature on collaborative governance in emergency management. The case of Wuhan tells the point that the government and society are interdependent in emergencies. For the whole society to achieve its full potential, the government need to focus on the goals, function as an open-minded coordinator and adopt a flexible governing structure.
... Brazilian science parks, therefore, deserve further research because they build a collaborative and innovative environment resulting from the interaction among several actors towards reaching a common interest, which is not necessarily a government interest but rather a collective interest. Accordingly, CG is an effective theoretical lens because it proposes combining public and private efforts to solve public problems by creating new public policies, relying on relational components such as commitment to principles, shared motivation, joint-action capacity, mutual social learning, and interaction between interest groups (Ansell & Gash, 2008;Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015;Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh, 2011;Kallis, Kiparsky & Norgaard, 2009;Mah & Hills, 2014;Purdy, 2012). ...
... Despite the limited research on CG in science parks, studies such as those by Mah and Hills (2014); Saavedra and Budd (2009);and Scott (2015) aimed to understand collaboration in a learning process that included partnerships between universities and research institutes. This collaborative process could provide long-term solutions for environmental issues, such as climate change and technological innovation in the energy market. ...
This study investigates the importance of fundamental elements of collaborative arrangements from the perspective of the actors operating in Brazilian science parks, and assesses whether these collaborative arrangements are found in the parks’ daily practices. Factor analysis identified ten variables considered most relevant, separated into three factors: (i) individual - commitment and motivation among actors; (ii) inter-organizational - interdependence between parties, the participation of all institutions in decision-making, the involvement of various institutions, and trust; and (iii) financial - funding sources and investments. Frequency analysis identified three elements of collaborative governance, although they are not highly prevalent in Brazilian science parks: commitment among actors, participation of all institutions in decision-making, and investment-related issues.
... The entire life-cycle of nuclear power can be problematic. Public acceptance of nuclear risks, the not-in-my-backyard syndrome associated with the siting of nuclear facilities, environmental, and ethical concerns over radioactive waste, economic implications of cost overruns, and public distrust in the nuclear industries and regulators are some examples of non-technical issues, which often result in major public opposition or national political controversies (Mah & Hills, 2014a, 2014bNormile, 2015;O'connor & van Den Hove, 2001;Pidgeon, Lorenzoni, & Poortinga, 2008). In addition, nuclear choices often involve multi-stakeholder decision-making processes that are data-intensive and value-laden in nature. ...
... While traditional participatory practices that rely on information provision have limits in soliciting informed and representative public views (Fishkin, He, Luskin, & Siu, 2010;Mah & Hills, 2014a, 2014b, deliberative participation is regarded as an advanced form of public participation that emphasizes information sharing, dialogue, mutual learning, and debate (Butler & Demski, 2013;Eun, 2016;van de Kerkhof, 2006). Scholars in the field argues that public engagement needs to go beyond knowledge provision to more inclusive processes (Butler & Demski, 2013). ...
Nuclear power has remained a hugely controversial energy technology since the 1970s and became particularly so after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. Engaging citizens in making energy decisions have thus become an increasingly important governing approach to post‐Fukushima energy transitions in many countries. Deliberative participatory processes and learning through social interactions have been increasingly regarded as critical elements of effective public engagement. Yet, little is known about who learns what, how they learn, and what impacts learning has on nuclear governance. Even less is known about the contextual factors influencing social learning. Advancing the literature on nuclear governance, deliberative participation, and social learning, this paper proposes a learning‐oriented framework to evaluate the outcomes of deliberative participation in the context of nuclear governance. We apply this framework in a case study of a national deliberative poll (DP) on energy conducted in Japan in 2012. We critically examine the extent to which and how social learning occurs under the influence of pre‐existing government‐industry‐society relations as a key contextual factor. Mainly based on a qualitative analysis of transcribed materials from a two‐day deliberation over the DP involving 285 citizens, this study has three main findings. First, participating citizens of the DP were able to acquire all of the three orders of social learning through deliberative processes in the DP process. Second, the provision of multiple sources of information, access to diverse perspectives, and the availability of plenty of dialogic processes are identified as factors that were found to facilitate advancement toward higher orders of learning. Third, the “nuclear iron triangle”—a pro‐nuclear coalition—appeared to constrain social learning impacts in the wider socio‐political systems of nuclear governance in Japan.
... The worldview on climate change (global trends, [18]), the Green Growth Vision in South Korea (political and economic ideologies, [18]), and low tariffs, clean air, energy sources, and community energy (public preferences, [34,35]) are some examples; (2) Political power structure, policy traditions, and governance approaches: Referencing the "horizontal understanding of power" and highlighting the dynamics of actors' engagement with resources, structures, and systems through reinforcive, innovative, and transformative power [36,37], political power structure, policy traditions, and governance approaches are proposed in this study to understand such dynamics. Political power structure refers to, e.g., the relatively democratic nature of state power, political and industrial networks (in particular, the nature and intensity of government-industry linkages) [38][39][40], social networks between governments and civil society [12], and the role of political media (e.g., [29]); policy traditions include the "developmental state" in east Asia [41]; governance approaches refer to, e.g., authoritarian policy-making in China, technocratic policy-making in France [42,43], and participatory approaches in the UK [44], and key governance issues include public trust [12]; (3) Physical availability of energy resources, national capacities for technological innovation, and national (energy) infrastructure development: These elements constitute the core building blocks of sociotechnical systems transitions [45]. Energy self-reliant rates and power grid networks are some instances [39,46,47]; (4) Electricity market reforms and market features: These features determine regime and niche actors' incentives/disincentives [48] and constitute the social groups from production and functional/user sides of socio-technical systems transitions [45]; and (5) Visioning and leadership, and national energy plans and policy frameworks: Visioning relates to visions of how energy transitions might unfold over time under the political processes, and the role that specific technologies could play in the process [49]; leadership refers to the ability of political and community leaders to articulate a vision and inspire people to act in order to achieve concrete results [50]; energy policy frameworks relate to clear policy objectives, policy frameworks, and specific policies such as RE feed-in tariff (REFIT) policies to guide technological searches [26,51]. ...
The complex dynamics between technological niches and regime “lock-in” are critical in determining the pace and outcomes of energy transitions. The socio-technical transitions literature has received growing scholarly attention, but it lacks consideration of the broader political and economic contexts. This paper aims to advance understanding of socio-technical transitions by conceptualizing niche–regime dynamics from a political economic perspective, with reference to a case study of solar in Seoul. Based on in-depth face-to-face interviews with 18 key stakeholders, we have three findings. Firstly, the politico-economic contexts have created an embedded environment in which five factors have a clear influence on niche–regime dynamics. Secondly, the politico-economic contexts created conducive conditions for niche developments on the one hand, but, on the other hand, have created inhibitive conditions that have cancelled out the positive forces and reinforced “lock-in”. Thirdly, the processes occur at multi-scalar levels: Community solar niches in Seoul are conditioned by the broader politico-economic contexts at city and national levels. We conclude that sufficient policy attention should be given to the political economy of a national energy system in order to create conducive conditions for community-led niches to realize the full potential that they could offer in energy transitions.
... One of the main objectives of the economic growth of many countries, including Russia and China, is to ensure the sustainable economic development of the Arctic and remote regions [1,2,3]. The solution of this problem is impossible without the provision of such regions with energy resources. ...
Renewable resources are of particular importance in decentralized power systems typical of the Arctic and remote areas of a number of countries. One of the fastest growing renewable energy sources is kinetic wind energy used for power generation. Over the past two decades alone, the installed capacity of wind turbines in the European Union has increased hundreds of times, with a significant reduction in the cost of generation. The article discusses some aspects and features of wind power development in Northern and remote areas. In some areas of the Arctic coastal and remote areas, the wind speed has a fairly large value; on the one hand, it is considered highly favourable conditions for the economically efficient use of wind energy. On the other hand, wind speed exceeding certain limits can cause significant loads to be placed on wind turbines components and parts, resulting in the destruction of the device as a whole. The article discusses the possibilities of improving the reliability and durability of wind turbines operating under extreme loads. In addition, as a rule, wind farms are used where the wind speed is characterized by appropriate values, in places with low terrain and a shortage of natural resources. On the basis of methods of multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, fuzzy modelling, the article investigates the possibilities for determining the most suitable, from the point of view of economic efficiency, places for installation of wind farms with optimization of schemes of their joint application. The technique of determining the wind characteristics and taking into account these characteristics to identify regions with the most favourable conditions for the use of wind turbines and the development of wind power in general are shown.
... In seeking to confront these problems, the influence of non-governmental actors in public management has grown and gained space in the literature in the debate about public governance (Bache & Flinders, 2004;Bovaird, 2005). Scholars suggest that public governance can be understood as a change in the traditional hierarchical model towards a system of creating values which are the fruit of mutual social learning and engagement and interaction with interest groups (Kallis, Kiparsky, & Norgaard, 2009;Mah & Hills, 2014;Provan & Kenis, 2008). Despite this theoretical evolution in governance proposals, there has not been a perceived valorization of this learning process, and there has been a lack of creation of the structures and processes needed for collective decision making (Bryson et al., 2015). ...
... One of these streams of thought argues for state leadership as an instrument of social and economic progress (Bielschowsky, 2012;Furtado, 2000). On the other hand, when talking about CG and new designs for public policies, the main element indicated in the literature is the union between various public and private actors, who possess a variety of resources and information shared during collaboration (Ansell & Gash, 2008;Emerson et al., 2012;Howlett, 2014;Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015;Mah & Hills, 2014;Siddiki et al., 2015;Sullivan et al., 2006). This multiplicity of actors enriches the decision making process and the possibilities of acting within a collaborative network (Choi & Robertson 2014a;Foster-Fishman et al., 2001). ...
... An inclusive deliberative process is intrinsic to CG and democratic principles and can be understood as much more than inviting everyone involved to take part in the process (Choi & Robertson, 2014a, 2014bElias & Alkadry, 2011;Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015;Purdy, 2012). This is because deliberation should be inclusive to the extent that it recognizes the capacity of various opinions in influencing the process of constructing decisions (Ansell & Gash, 2008;Foster-Fishman et al., 2001;Freeman, 1997;Johnston et al., 2010;Mah & Hills, 2014;Newman et al., 2004;Weber & Khademian, 2008). Therefore, "all citizens have vital information, especially in terms of their experiences in local governance processes" (Elias & Alkadry, 2011, p. 879). ...
Resumo Pode-se dizer que os esforços do gerencialismo não conseguiram apresentar grandes mudanças nos padrões das relações entre Estado centralizador e sociedade. Com isso em vista, o objetivo desta pesquisa foi propor uma abordagem analítica, a partir das aproximações entre governança colaborativa (GC) e teoria da ação comunicativa (TAC), para investigar práticas de colaboração comunicativa (CC) entre Estado e sociedade. Na busca pelas intersecções entre os pressupostos teóricos da GC e da TAC, identificaram-se quatro constructos teóricos para um cenário colaborativo: a) multiplicidade de atores; b) interdependência; c) processo deliberativo inclusivo; e d) busca pelo consenso. Os achados do estado da arte da GC e das obras clássicas habermasianas demonstraram que os pressupostos de uma CC viabilizam ambientes propícios a uma participação social inclusiva. Discute-se que é possível construir espaços propícios a uma CC entre Estado e sociedade, onde haja igualdade de participação entre os interessados, na busca por um entendimento compartilhado capaz de apontar soluções práticas para problemas públicos.
... Many terminologies, such as collaborative process (Ansell & Gash, 2008), institutionalized participation (Freeman, 1997), collaborative capacity (Goodman et al., 1998;García-Ramírez, Paloma, Suarez-Balcazar, and Balcazar (2009), coalition and collaborative partnership (Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, and Allen (2001), collaborative governance regime (Emerson et al., 2012), horizontal management (Fierlbeck, 2010), and teamwork and partnership (Sullivan et al., 2006) stand out in relevant studies about collaborative governance and help to understand the complicated interaction process that takes place among multiple actors (Mah & Hills, 2014). Bingham (2010) and Emerson et al. (2012) understand collaborative governance as a set of issues, such as civic engagement, deliberative democracy, collaborative public management, conflict solving, negotiations, and other deliberative and consensual means found in the political process, although it is not limited to them. ...
... Bingham (2010) and Emerson et al. (2012) understand collaborative governance as a set of issues, such as civic engagement, deliberative democracy, collaborative public management, conflict solving, negotiations, and other deliberative and consensual means found in the political process, although it is not limited to them. Some of the leading collaborative governance approaches present collaborative arrangement characteristics (Ansell & Gash, 2008), assume collaborative governance as an ideal normative model (Freeman, 1997), offer the necessary conditions for collaborative partnership development (Foster-Fishman et al., 2001), address networks as governance structures and conditions to collaborative capacity building (Sullivan et al., 2006;Weber & Khademian, 2008;Weber, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2007), explore the political acceptance and the avoidance of social movements (Newman, Barnes, Sullivan, & Knops, 2004), intend to understand collaboration as a collective learning process (Mah & Hills, 2014;Saavedra & Budd, 2009;Scott, 2015), and emphasize knowledge management to collaboration construction (Weber & Khademian, 2008). ...
... The main collaborative governance feature lies on the grouping of many public and private agents who have different skills (Ansell & Gash, 2008;Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015;Emerson et al., 2012;Mah & Hills, 2014;Siddiki et al., 2015;Sullivan et al., 2006;Tang & Tang, 2014;Ulibarri, 2015). Such multiplicity of actors enriches the decision-making process and broadens the possibilities of having actions taken through collaborative networks (Choi & Robertson, 2014a;Foster-Fishman et al., 2001). ...
The purpose of the present study is to draw a general structure, based on
a scoping literature review, to better understand the collaborative governance, as
well as their elements and complexity. After defining the search meshes and
selecting the criteria to apply, 35 papers about were found in the Web of
Knowledge® database. The analysis identified its central elements and features, in
terms of Antecedents, Collaboration Process, and Equity Outcomes, each of them
with its properties. The study highlights the properties of each category, and it
provides the possibility to improve the quality of the decision-making processes in
collaborative arrangements.
... Many terminologies stand out in relevant studies about collaborative governance, and they help understanding the complex interaction process that takes place among multiple actors (Mah & Hills, 2014). For example: collaborative process (Ansell & Gash, 2008); institutionalized participation (Freeman, 1997); collaborative capacity (Goodman, 1998;Garcia-Ramirez, Paloma, Suarez-Balcazar & Balcazar (2009); coalition and collaborative partnership (Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson & Allen (2001); collaborative governance regime (Emerson et al., 2012); horizontal management (Fierlbeck, 2010); and team work and partnership (Sullivan et al., 2006). ...
... Some of the main collaborative governance approaches: present collaborative arrangement characteristics (Ansell & Gash, 2008); assume collaborative governance as an ideal normative model (Freeman,1997); present the necessary conditions to the development of collaborative partnerships (Foster-Fishman et al., 2001); address networks as governance structures and conditions to the development of collaborative capacity (Sullivan et al., 2006;Weber & Khademian, 2008;Weber, Lovrich & Gaffney (2007); explore the political acceptance of and the avoidance for social movements (Newman, Barnes, Sullivan & Knops (2004); suggest elements for a governance regime (Emerson et al., 2012); intend to understand collaboration within a collective learning process involving universities and research institutions to find long-term solutions for issues such as climate change and technological innovation (Mah & Hills, 2014;Saavedra & Budd, 2009;Scott, 2015); and emphasize knowledge management to collaboration construction (Buuren, 2009;Weber & Khademian, 2008). ...
... Achieving results; solving conflicts; and including and motivating actors. (Ansell & Gash, 2008;Emerson et al., 2012;Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015;Mah & Hills, 2014;Siddiki et al., 2015;Sullivan et al., 2006;Tang & Tang, 2014;Ulibarri, 2015) enriches the decision-making process and the possibilities of having actions taken through collaborative networks (Choi & Robertson, 2014a;Foster-Fishman et al. 2001). Besides, Freeman (1997) pinpoints that the presence of multiple actors reinforces the legitimacy of the collaborative process, since the grouping of different perceptions may lead either to the best solutions and rules, or to the construction of accountability instruments. ...
The aim of the current paper is to contribute for expanding the understanding about collaborative governance by means a schematic way to identify elements for different collaborative arrangement levels. From a scoping literature review, the main goal is to propose a theoretical estructure to better understand the collaborative arrangements and their elements and complexities. After defined the search terms and applied the criteria selection, we found 35 relevant studies about this theme in the Web of Science database. This corpus was submited to content analysis, when it was possible to identify different levels of maturity and its respective properties. We categorize the properties as basic (interdependence between multiple actors, trust, inclusive deliberative process, clear rules, facilitative leadership, common goals, and initial investment); intermediate (search for consensus, commitment to the process, internal and external relationships); and advanced (knowledge management, multiple investment sources, accountability, discourse and practice, and investment in new competences). We believe that the present study may be useful to practitioners and policymakers for either to help understanding the intensity of the collaborative processes or to apply a more enlightened intervention to them. It highlights the properties that still need to be developed in a certain arrangement and those that may help the processes, as well as those that can boost governance evolution.
... In this view, the scholarly work on university-industry collaboration (UIC) triple helix model (Calvert & Patel, 2003)is of particular relevance. Much has been said about the motivations and mechanisms for promoting UIC (Rasmussen & Sørheim, 2012;Temel & Glassman, 2013) as well as patterns and performance of UIC ( Al-Ashaab et al., 2011;Ngar-yin Mah & Hills, 2014). Yet, little has been said about how technological convergence is shaping UIC and development of the next cohort of human capital. ...
Wisdom of the crowds, Technological capabilities and Functional alignment, which when recognised and utilised in innovation processes, can unlock the ability to source, develop and commercialise ideas at rapid pace. The phenomenon is known as technological convergence. By definition, technological convergence is described as the process by which Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) converge towards new and more unified markets. This convergence often leverages the three dimensions of innovation – economic, technical and functional. On the economic side, the focus of a focal firm is on maximising profits with minimal costs under resource constraints brought about in-part by liberalisation of markets. In this regard, open innovation which involves harnessing wisdom of the crowds at the fuzzy front-end of the innovation process has increasingly been promoted as a pragmatic mechanism for accessing widely distributed knowledge (Thanasopon, Papdopoulos & Vidgen, 2016), in large firms (Brunswicker & Chesbrough, 2018) and SMEs (Vanhaverbeke, Frattini, Roijakkers & Usman, 2018). On the technical side, the main driver has been the rise of enabling technologies, at times revolutioning social behaviour but mostly brought about through incremental shifts in technical abilities. Finally, convergence is realised through functional alignment, characterised by integration of computational, behaviour and communication factors in a unique value-proposition delivered through new product or new service (Canals, Torres & Borés, 2001). The growing prominence of technological convergence means firms can no longer afford to work in silos or rely on proprietory waterfall solutions to achieve competitive advantage and influence societal progress. Here, we build on our July 2018 editorial which emphasised the cumulative importance of management research and management practice working together for societal progress. W-T-F is offered here as the fundamental trilogy that both managers and researchers need to address to survive and thrive in an increasingly digitised and globally-connected world. (...)
