How Communities Benefit from Collaborative Governance: Experimental Evidence in Ugandan Oil and Gas

IF 5.2 1区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Pub Date : 2022-12-17 DOI:10.1093/jopart/muac050
E. Coleman, Bill Schultz, A. Parker, J. Manyindo, E. Mukuru
{"title":"How Communities Benefit from Collaborative Governance: Experimental Evidence in Ugandan Oil and Gas","authors":"E. Coleman, Bill Schultz, A. Parker, J. Manyindo, E. Mukuru","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muac050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper reports the results of a field experiment to assess the collaborative effects of community participation in the Ugandan oil and gas sector. Our research design assesses collaborative impacts as relational between community members and different decision-makers in the sector and measures these impacts from the point of view of local people. Local people often face power imbalances in collaborative governance. Decision-makers are increasingly attempting to mitigate such imbalances to improve outcomes for communities, but little experimental evidence exists showing the impact of such efforts. Using multilevel ordered logit models, we estimate positive treatment effects, finding that encouraging the equitable participation of communities improves collaboration with other actors. Next, we use machine-learning techniques to demonstrate a method for targeting communities most likely to benefit from the intervention. We estimate that purposefully targeting communities that would benefit most yields a treatment effect about twice as large, relative to pure random assignment. Our results provide evidence that interventions mindful of community needs can improve collaborative governance and shows how such communities can be most effectively targeted. The experiment took place across 107 villages (53 treatment and 54 control) and the unit of statistical analysis is the household, where we report outcomes measured from 6,062 household surveys (approximately half at baseline and half at endline).","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac050","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a field experiment to assess the collaborative effects of community participation in the Ugandan oil and gas sector. Our research design assesses collaborative impacts as relational between community members and different decision-makers in the sector and measures these impacts from the point of view of local people. Local people often face power imbalances in collaborative governance. Decision-makers are increasingly attempting to mitigate such imbalances to improve outcomes for communities, but little experimental evidence exists showing the impact of such efforts. Using multilevel ordered logit models, we estimate positive treatment effects, finding that encouraging the equitable participation of communities improves collaboration with other actors. Next, we use machine-learning techniques to demonstrate a method for targeting communities most likely to benefit from the intervention. We estimate that purposefully targeting communities that would benefit most yields a treatment effect about twice as large, relative to pure random assignment. Our results provide evidence that interventions mindful of community needs can improve collaborative governance and shows how such communities can be most effectively targeted. The experiment took place across 107 villages (53 treatment and 54 control) and the unit of statistical analysis is the household, where we report outcomes measured from 6,062 household surveys (approximately half at baseline and half at endline).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社区如何从合作治理中受益:乌干达石油和天然气的实验证据
本文报告了一项实地实验的结果,该实验旨在评估社区参与乌干达石油和天然气部门的协作效果。我们的研究设计评估了社区成员和行业内不同决策者之间的合作影响,并从当地人的角度衡量这些影响。在协同治理中,当地民众经常面临权力失衡的问题。决策者越来越多地试图减轻这种不平衡,以改善社区的结果,但几乎没有实验证据表明这种努力的影响。使用多层有序logit模型,我们估计了积极的治疗效果,发现鼓励社区公平参与可以改善与其他参与者的合作。接下来,我们使用机器学习技术来演示一种针对最有可能从干预中受益的社区的方法。我们估计,相对于纯粹的随机分配,有目的地针对最能受益的社区的治疗效果大约是其两倍。我们的结果提供了证据,表明注意社区需求的干预措施可以改善协作治理,并展示了如何最有效地针对这些社区。实验在107个村庄进行(53个治疗组和54个对照组),统计分析的单位是家庭,我们报告了6062个家庭调查的结果(大约一半在基线,一半在终点)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.90%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory serves as a bridge between public administration or public management scholarship and public policy studies. The Journal aims to provide in-depth analysis of developments in the organizational, administrative, and policy sciences as they apply to government and governance. Each issue brings you critical perspectives and cogent analyses, serving as an outlet for the best theoretical and research work in the field. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory is the official journal of the Public Management Research Association.
期刊最新文献
Procedural Politicking for What? Bureaucratic Reputation and Democratic Governance Will trust move mountains? Fostering radical ideas in public organizations Does enforcement style influence citizen trust in regulatory agencies? An experiment in six countries Deservingness, humanness, and representation through lived experience: analyzing first responders’ attitudes Emotional capital in citizen agency: Contesting administrative burden through anger
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1