Public Management and the End of Geography

Almost all the fundamental concepts of democratic government require one thing -- territory. National sovereignty depends on territory. So do citizenship, the rule of law, elections, office-holding and the exercise of governmental power. The same is true not just for countries but also for cities, counties, states, and other forms of government. When it comes to government, few things are more important than territory and borders. Almost all traditional conceptions of public management simply assume territory and jurisdiction over that territory.

Not any more.

There is a rapidly declining relationship between public management and jurisdiction. This may seem strange because public managers are employed by jurisdictions and the organizations that contract with jurisdictions. How, then, can there be a declining relationship between public management and territorially based jurisdictions?

First, economic activity, which was once at least somewhat locally contained and identified with particular cities, states or nations, is increasingly regional or global. These days, investment, production and consumption are seldom geographically contained -- and this trend is destined to increase. How shall firms be licensed, regulated and taxed in the fuzzy global economy?

Second, the telecommunications revolution has forever altered the meaning of physical space and, thereby, forever altered the meaning of borders as a key element in the idea of jurisdiction.

Third, because of the declining importance of borders, the capacity of cities, states and other jurisdictions to deal with complex social and economic issues has been significantly eroded. Air and water pollution pay no attention to borders. Crime and gangs transcend jurisdictions. Immigrants and a growing number of refugees move across porous borders. Jurisdictions cannot contain epidemics such as HIV/AIDS or bird flu. As the borders and sovereignty of cities and states decline in importance, there is a corresponding decline in the capacity of jurisdictions to contain wicked public policy problems and, therefore, in their ability to manage them.

Fourth, we live in a highly fragmented world of many jurisdictions and public institutions. Think, for example, of the number of cities, counties, school districts, special districts and other governmental entities in a typical American metropolitan area. In such a setting, it is nearly impossible for a single jurisdiction to be effective on its own.

Finally, one of the defining principles of democratic government is a congruent or symmetrical relationship between the governed and those who govern. It is difficult to operationalize democratic government when many important decisions that affect the lives of the represented are often not controlled or even influenced by those who represent them.

How shall public managers respond to the declining salience of jurisdictions and the reduced importance of borders?

The answer is collaboration. Unlike standard organizations or jurisdictions, collaboration has no boundaries, is voluntary, and has only the power, authority and permanence given to it by participants.

In terms of questions and answers, here are a few things we know about effective interjurisdictional and interorganizational collaboration:

How does collaboration differ from simple organization?
Organizations almost always involve divisions of labor, coordination, levels of authority and other forms of hierarchy. Collaborations almost always involve deliberation, negotiation, consensus and support for agreed-upon decisions.

How do participants in collaboration reconcile their accountability to their own organizations and their participation in a collaboration?
Because collaboration is voluntary, partners generally need to justify their involvement in terms of its contributions to their own aims or the aims of the primary organizations or jurisdictions.

What are the conditions that tend to lead to effective collaborations?
Collaboration is more likely when (a) some participants have unique resources needed by other participants (foreign aid, for example); (b) participants share a common view of moral imperatives such as environmental degradation or humanitarian crises; (c) participants share a strong mutual understanding of their interdependence; and (d) participants have homogenous characteristics.

What are the most costly resources in collaboration?
In collaboration, time and energy are dearer than money. Time given to collaboration by participants is time deducted from their home organizations or jurisdictions.

What are the managerial characteristics associated with effective collaboration?
The right managers for collaboration are those who possess policy-making resources -- finances, knowledge, information, expertise, experience, authority and time. It helps if they have team building and mediation skills, are good at interpersonal communication, and are practiced in seeing the big picture.

Through collaboration, public managers work together to reconcile the disconnection between the boundaries that constrain them on one hand and the problems their organizations face on the other. Collaboration is the public management imperative of our time.