Date of Award

5-10-2026

Date Published

June 2026

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Public Administration

Advisor(s)

Saba Siddiki

Keywords

Collaborative networks;Cross-sector collaboration;Intergovernmental collaboration;Policy implementation;Purpose-oriented networks;Watershed management

Subject Categories

Public Administration | Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration | Social and Behavioral Sciences

Abstract

Public policies are increasingly relying on collaborative networks of governmental and non-governmental actors to address complex problems for the achievement of policy goals. Public administrators, therefore, are now often facing critical questions of how to collaborate across boundaries (e.g., sector, jurisdiction) in networks for policy implementation. In this dissertation, I address unresolved questions regarding these networks for cross-boundary (i.e., cross-sector, intergovernmental) collaboration. Specifically, this dissertation’s three essays tackle questions regarding how external factors may influence when and where networks form, how voluntary participation occurs within networks over time, and how network leadership may shape network composition and purpose. The first essay investigates influences in the formation of cross-sectoral networks for collaborative, community-based watershed restoration. I examine the development of project-based networks in Oregon watersheds under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon Plan). Specifically, I assess whether features of networks’ environments, along with interdependencies among networks, are tied to future network creation. I find that greater network formation occurs in watersheds where more resources were contributed to prior networks, where more networks developed in the previous year, and where stakeholders participated in multiple networks within the prior year. Alternatively, I find that network formation is lower in watersheds where previously-formed networks operate for longer durations. Along with providing insights to practitioners and researchers regarding external factors with potential ramifications for the development of collaborative policy implementation networks, this essay also highlights the need for further consideration of networks’ constitutive properties like functional purpose (e.g., policymaking, hands-on policy implementation) and operating duration. The second essay examines how watershed stakeholders voluntarily participate in these networks for collaborative watershed restoration throughout the implementation of the Oregon Plan. The Oregon Plan envisioned cross-sectoral participation in these networks and, notably, used two policy tools – capacity-building, interlocal watershed councils and grant funding – to try to encourage stakeholder participation. Looking at networks within an administrative watershed basin, I use a networks or networks approach to evaluate how stakeholder participation occurs over time and whether their participation aligns with the state policy’s aims. I find that although stakeholders’ participation in these voluntary networks diminishes over time, more cross-sectoral collaboration occurs in these networks – for most of the Oregon Plan’s implementation – than would be expected otherwise. My results also indicate that interlocal watershed councils, actors prescribed key roles in the Oregon Plan’s implementation, participate more extensively in networks than most other types of actors. Additionally, I find that networks receiving grants from the Oregon Plan’s keystone agency attract more voluntary participation than networks without this form of governmental support. Collectively, these findings provide a more complete picture of how voluntary participation in collaborative policy implementation networks occurs and how this participation may be shaped by non-authoritative policy tools. In the third essay, Qasim Mehdi, Tina Nabatchi, and I analyze whether a key feature of network governance – network leadership – is related to network composition and purpose. More specifically, we leverage variation in three characteristics of the leaders of restoration networks occurring under the Oregon Plan – operation as a collaborative governance regime (CGR), sectoral affiliation, and scope of work – to determine if differences in these characteristics are linked to differences in networks’ size, member diversity, and goal multiplicity. Furthermore, through our investigation, we evaluate whether, as network leaders, Oregon watershed councils convene networks with the diverse, cross-sectoral stakeholder engagement that policymakers envisioned for watershed management activities overseen by these councils. Our findings demonstrate that differences exist in the properties (i.e., size, member diversity, and goal multiplicity) of networks led by actors that are CGRs, that have different sectoral affiliations, and that operate with different scopes of work. We find that CGR-led networks are generally larger, more diverse networks that set more goals. Notably, the only CGR-led networks in our study are those led by watershed councils, offering evidence that these councils are leading networks in line with policy expectations. Additionally, we find that network leaders from the public or private sectors typically lead networks that are smaller and less diverse than networks led by actors from the civic sector or those with cross-sectoral affiliations. This study’s results also suggest that when networks are led by actors with scopes of work that are more tailored than broader scopes like statewide jurisdictions and that are more inclusive than narrower scopes like client-based missions, these networks contain more diverse and representative membership.

Access

Open Access

Download

Share

COinS