{"title":"Adaptability of Governance Arrangements in Response to COVID-19: Effectiveness of Hierarchy Market or Collaborative?","authors":"Dayashankar Maurya, A. K. Rathore","doi":"10.1080/15309576.2023.2226660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The need for agile and adaptable health systems to cope with disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic is well established. Developing countries’ health systems are a mix of market, hierarchy, and collaborative arrangements. Collaborative arrangements are considered superior in responding to a crisis, but a comparative assessment of the three modes in the face of a crisis needs to be improved. Further, very little is known about the adaptation of collaborative arrangements that existed before the crisis, as extant research has primarily examined arrangements that emerged in the wake of the crisis. We assess the response of three governance modes to the COVID-19 pandemic in India. A mixed-method approach has been adopted: structured interviews with the domain experts, secondary data, and Twitter analytics framework. Both hierarchy and markets demonstrated adaptability, but market arrangements were mal-adapted to exploit the situation. Contrary to expectations, hierarchy arrangements responded with agility and delivered services substantially. Preexisting collaborative arrangements had limited adaptability due to non-convergence of expectations and reduced dependence, leading partners to choose alternative venues rather than engaging in bargaining and negotiation. The findings contribute to the limited literature on the comparative assessment of modes of governance and adaptability of preexisting collaborative arrangements.","PeriodicalId":47571,"journal":{"name":"Public Performance & Management Review","volume":"224 1","pages":"1318 - 1353"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Performance & Management Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2226660","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract The need for agile and adaptable health systems to cope with disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic is well established. Developing countries’ health systems are a mix of market, hierarchy, and collaborative arrangements. Collaborative arrangements are considered superior in responding to a crisis, but a comparative assessment of the three modes in the face of a crisis needs to be improved. Further, very little is known about the adaptation of collaborative arrangements that existed before the crisis, as extant research has primarily examined arrangements that emerged in the wake of the crisis. We assess the response of three governance modes to the COVID-19 pandemic in India. A mixed-method approach has been adopted: structured interviews with the domain experts, secondary data, and Twitter analytics framework. Both hierarchy and markets demonstrated adaptability, but market arrangements were mal-adapted to exploit the situation. Contrary to expectations, hierarchy arrangements responded with agility and delivered services substantially. Preexisting collaborative arrangements had limited adaptability due to non-convergence of expectations and reduced dependence, leading partners to choose alternative venues rather than engaging in bargaining and negotiation. The findings contribute to the limited literature on the comparative assessment of modes of governance and adaptability of preexisting collaborative arrangements.
期刊介绍:
Public Performance & Management Review (PPMR) is a leading peer-reviewed academic journal that addresses a broad array of influential factors on the performance of public and nonprofit organizations. Its objectives are to: Advance theories on public governance, public management, and public performance; Facilitate the development of innovative techniques and to encourage a wider application of those already established; Stimulate research and critical thinking about the relationship between public and private management theories; Present integrated analyses of theories, concepts, strategies, and techniques dealing with performance, measurement, and related questions of organizational efficacy; and Provide a forum for practitioner-academic exchange. Continuing themes include, but are not limited to: managing for results, measuring and evaluating performance, designing accountability systems, improving budget strategies, managing human resources, building partnerships, facilitating citizen participation, applying new technologies, and improving public sector services and outcomes. Published since 1975, Public Performance & Management Review is a highly respected journal, receiving international ranking. Scholars and practitioners recognize it as a leading journal in the field of public administration.