IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i7p2387-d157032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Conditions, in Combination, Drive Inter-Organizational Activities? Evidence from Cooperation on Environmental Governance in Nine Urban Agglomerations in China

Author

Listed:
  • Rui Mu

    (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China)

  • Junting Jia

    (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China)

  • Wancong Leng

    (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China)

  • Maidina Haershan

    (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China)

  • Jiwei Jin

    (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China)

Abstract

This study investigates what conditions, in combination, drive varying levels of intensity of inter-organizational activities regarding cooperation on environmental governance in nine urban agglomerations in China. This article distinguishes strong and weak inter-organizational activities; and through a literature review, the article distills five conditions influencing inter-organizational activity, including vertical meta-governance, horizontal meta-governance, leadership, autonomous capacity disparity and environmental status disparity. While these conditions are clearly unique, it is unclear if any of these conditions are necessary or sufficient and how they work collectively, for varying degrees of inter-organization activities. Through the method of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), the article examines this question. The findings suggest that strong horizontal meta-governance and strong leadership are both necessary conditions for strong inter-organizational involvement in joint environmental governance. Small disparities in autonomous capacity and environmental status are sufficient conditions for strong inter-organizational activities. Strong vertical meta-governance is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition. The QCA results reveal that local authorities should put energy in developing their formal structures favorable for cooperation and that local leaders should develop skills to facilitate joint actions between member cities in an agglomeration.

Suggested Citation

  • Rui Mu & Junting Jia & Wancong Leng & Maidina Haershan & Jiwei Jin, 2018. "What Conditions, in Combination, Drive Inter-Organizational Activities? Evidence from Cooperation on Environmental Governance in Nine Urban Agglomerations in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2387-:d:157032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2387/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2387/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rui Mu & Wouter Spekkink, 2018. "A Running Start or a Clean Slate? How a History of Cooperation Affects the Ability of Cities to Cooperate on Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Fritz Sager & Yvan Rielle, 2013. "Sorting through the garbage can: under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Myrna Mandell & Robyn Keast & Dan Chamberlain, 2017. "Collaborative networks and the need for a new management language," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 326-341, March.
    4. Joop Koppenjan, 2008. "Creating a playing field for assessing the effectiveness of network collaboration by performance measures," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 699-714.
    5. Claudia U. Ciborra, 1996. "The Platform Organization: Recombining Strategies, Structures, and Surprises," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 103-118, April.
    6. Myrna Mandell & Robyn Keast, 2008. "Evaluating the effectiveness of interorganizational relations through networks," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 715-731.
    7. Zhu, 2014. "Mandate Versus Championship: Vertical government intervention and diffusion of innovation in public services in authoritarian China," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 117-139, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mateusz Naramski & Adam R. Szromek, 2019. "Configuring a Trust-based Inter-organizational Cooperation Network for Post-industrial Tourist Organizations on a Tourist Route," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Marcin Flieger, 2021. "Network Rent as a Determinant of Collaborative Advantage for Public Organizations: A Case Study," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 715-734.
    3. Jiao, Jian-ling & Zhang, Xiao-lan & Tang, Yun-shu, 2020. "What factors determine the survival of green innovative enterprises in China? -- A method based on fsQCA," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rui Mu & Wouter Spekkink, 2018. "A Running Start or a Clean Slate? How a History of Cooperation Affects the Ability of Cities to Cooperate on Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Davide Consoli & Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2011. "Complexity and the Coordination of Technological Knowledge: The Case of Innovation Platforms," Chapters, in: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 8 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Krzysztof Opolski & Piotr Modzelewski & Agata Kocia, 2019. "Interorganizational Trust and Effectiveness Perception in a Collaborative Service Delivery Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-27, September.
    4. Sabine Saurugger & Fabien Terpan, 2016. "Do crises lead to policy change? The multiple streams framework and the European Union’s economic governance instruments," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(1), pages 35-53, March.
    5. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    6. Witell, Lars & Gebauer, Heiko & Jaakkola, Elina & Hammedi, Wafa & Patricio, Lia & Perks, Helen, 2017. "A bricolage perspective on service innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 290-298.
    7. Krzysztof Bartczak & Stanisław Łobejko, 2022. "The Implementation Environment for a Digital Technology Platform of Renewable Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-16, August.
    8. ter Bogt, Henk & Tillema, Sandra, 2016. "Accounting for trust and control: Public sector partnerships in the arts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 5-23.
    9. Xiaohan Li & Yang Lv & Md Nazirul Islam Sarker & Xun Zeng, 2022. "Assessment of Critical Diffusion Factors of Public–Private Partnership and Social Policy: Evidence from Mainland Prefecture-Level Cities in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, February.
    10. Tobias Kretschmer & Aija Leiponen & Melissa Schilling & Gurneeta Vasudeva, 2022. "Platform ecosystems as meta‐organizations: Implications for platform strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 405-424, March.
    11. Angela Rocha & Vítor Corado Simões & Renato Cotta Mello & Jorge Carneiro, 2017. "From global start-ups to the borderless firm: Why and how to build a worldwide value system," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 121-144, June.
    12. Weixing Liu & Hongtao Yi, 2020. "What Affects the Diffusion of New Energy Vehicles Financial Subsidy Policy? Evidence from Chinese Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, January.
    13. repec:dau:papers:123456789/15200 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Jialei Li & Wei Wang, 2024. "From Renting Economy to Sharing Economy: How Do Bike-Sharing Platforms Grow in the Digital Era?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 8097-8117, June.
    15. Maryam Alavi & Dorothy E. Leidner, 2001. "Research Commentary: Technology-Mediated Learning—A Call for Greater Depth and Breadth of Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, March.
    16. Power, Michael, 2022. "Theorizing the economy of traces: from audit society to surveillance capitalism," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112167, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. repec:dau:papers:123456789/8820 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Annette Quayle & Johanne Grosvold & Larelle Chapple, 2019. "New modes of managing grand challenges: Cross-sector collaboration and the refugee crisis of the Asia Pacific," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(4), pages 665-686, November.
    19. Hadi Karimikia & Narges Safari & Harminder Singh, 2020. "Being useful: How information systems professionals influence the use of information systems in enterprises," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 429-453, April.
    20. Dietmar Offenhuber, 2019. "The platform and the bricoleur—Improvisation and smart city initiatives in Indonesia," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(8), pages 1565-1580, October.
    21. Mélodie Cartel & Eva Boxenbaum & Franck Aggeri, 2014. "Policy making as bricolage: the role of platforms in institutional innovation," Post-Print hal-01089462, HAL.
    22. Youngjin Yoo & Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Ann Majchrzak, 2012. "Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1398-1408, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2387-:d:157032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.