Multiorganizational Arrangements for Watershed Protection: Working Better Together by Madeleine Wright McNamara & John Charles Morris

Author:Madeleine Wright McNamara & John Charles Morris [McNamara, Madeleine Wright & Morris, John Charles]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Public Policy, Environmental Policy, Political Science, Public Affairs & Administration
ISBN: 9781000209419
Google: kqb8DwAAQBAJ
Goodreads: 55783281
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2020-10-29T11:19:46+00:00

In the interorganizational procedures construct, there are elements that are not mentioned or are only mentioned one time throughout interviews and document review. In terms of decision making, the “centralized” element is not mentioned. The absence of this element may be due to the way in which natural resource agencies are structured in Virginia. This structure is described by a participant: “In Virginia, we don’t have a single resource agency. We have a number of agencies within a secretariat of natural resources but each has their own agency head, their own budgets, and their own specific missions.” Virginia’s natural resource agencies have equal representation on the CPT. Since distinct legal authorities guide each agency, no organization has the authority to tell another organization what to do. Therefore, decision making is not structured to be a centralized process. In addition, the very nature of environmental sustainability does not lend itself to centralized solutions. An interviewee suggests that nonregulatory environmental issues, such as sustainability, do not lend themselves to command and control decisions: “Other environmental issues like water quality monitoring, are much more command and control. It is the land-based, nonpoint source sustainable ecosystem stuff that does not have that sort of command and control.” Since the absence of this element may be specific to this case study, it should be further explored before it is removed from the model.

In addition, the “resources allocated by balancing needs of group and individual organizations” element within the resource allocation variable is only mentioned one time in this study. When looking at the other elements within collaborative resource allocation, this element may not be mentioned for two reasons. First, participants may assume that they balance these needs when referring to the “pooled resources” element within this variable. As organizations determine what resources they can contribute to the collective unit, they likely balance their organization’s needs with those of the larger group. Second, a high degree of alignment between organizational missions may make a balancing of needs unnecessary. An interviewee describes mission alignment in the following way: “Most of the projects we are working on are related directly to our agency’s mission.” In this study, each organization’s interests align nicely with the program’s broader goals of habitat conservation and restoration. Therefore, a balancing of needs is unnecessary because both sets of needs are simultaneously fulfilled. This element is combined with the “pooled resources” element within this variable in the final version of the MIM.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.