Hybridity and integration in local collective action: an analytical framework
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852317747371 |
| Author | Gérard Divay,Youssef Slimani |
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Special issue on Making connections: Hybrid networks and public action, Guest editors: Nassera Touati and Deena WhiteSpecial Issue Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of
Hybridity and integration
Administrative Sciences
2018, Vol. 84(3) 435–451
!
in local collective action:
The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
an analytical framework
DOI: 10.1177/0020852317747371
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
Ge´rard Divay
ENAP (Ecole Nationale d’Administration Publique/National
School of Public Administration), Canada
Youssef Slimani
ENAP (Ecole Nationale d’Administration Publique/National
School of Public Administration), Canada
Abstract
Can an integrated territorial approach successfully do away with the silo structure that
marks public action through the hybridisation of sectoral logics? Drawing from various
strands of research, as well as an assessment of multiple studies on the impact of
integrated territorial approaches on local social development, this article develops an
analytical framework to address this question. We argue that integration takes place
according to four regimes, whose dynamics range from the simple juxtaposition of
sectoral organisations to a hybridisation of their organisational logics. The regimes
we identify are operational networking, interstitial effervescence, collaborative accom-
modation and institutional convergence. Each emerges from an interaction between the
specific dynamics of each experience in a given milieu and supra-local socio-institutional
processes, which generate new ways of conceiving and organising the coordination of
public and collective action at the local level.
Points for practitioners
This article puts into perspective the virtues of the integrated approach as an antidote
to public administration silos. An integrated approach to local action only produces the
expected effects if each public agency agrees to transform its organisational culture and
to direct its action according to the evolution of local ecosystem processes of change in
the milieu as a whole.
Corresponding author:
Ge´rard Divay, 4750 Henri Julien, Montre´al, Quebec H2T3E5, Canada.
Email: gerard.divay@enap.ca
436
International Review of Administrative Sciences 84(3)
Keywords
evolution process, intersectoral collaboration, local environment
Introduction
The stigma associated with a silo culture is prompting decision-makers to embrace
integrated approaches in their policies, especially where sustainable development
(Nordbeck and Steurer, 2016) and social problems in an urban context (Bolt et al.,
2012) are concerned. Indeed, the neighbourhoods and communities targeted by
these policies are often disadvantaged and underprivileged. Integrated approach
policies seek to mobilise all local actors, are referred to as being ‘intersectoral’ and
lead to the creation of a kaleidoscope of organisational forms in which different
types of actors interact. At first glance, therefore, they appear to be fertile ground
for studying hybridity and integration.
The aim of this article is to propose an analytical framework that better unites
integration and hybridity within policies that touch upon local issues in order to
better observe hybridity processes in the intersectorality of experiences of an inte-
grated territorial approach (ITA). This framework is informed both by theory and
by empirical evidence. It draws from several strands of research and uses second-
ary data from several studies focused on examples of integrated approaches in
Quebec. First, a brief overview of the literature is presented to shed light on the
relationship between integration and hybridity. Second, we briefly describe exam-
ples of ITA that relate to social development in Quebec. Third, we show how the
intersection of the dimensions of integration and hybridity in their local manifes-
tations characterise the shape of the different regimes of local integration. Fourth,
we trace the main processes that drive the trajectory of these regimes, as they take
shape, by observing the supra-local socio-institutional evolution, as well as the
partnership dynamic related to each local ITA. The last section explores some of
the challenges associated with ITA policies and the organisation of local collective
action.
Is hybridity inherent to integration?
While hybridity and integration in public policy are discussed in a number of
publications, the relationship between them has not thoroughly been examined.
In policy analyses (Christensen and Lægreid, 2011), hybridity is used to charac-
terise various forms of organisations that do not fit into the usual sectoral cate-
gories, as well as to identify their capacity to generate innovation – an added value
that is not achievable in a pure sectoral setting. The use of the term in empirical
analyses raises two questions. First, how do we determine where each sector
crosses over into another, and how do we confirm that the hybrid has creatively
combined sectoral specificities. Sectors can refer to the division of society
Divay and Slimani
437
according to three main orders – the state, the market and civil society (Kooiman,
2016) – or the main fields of public administration, that is, education, health and
social services. However, hybridity does not stem from an intersectoral configura-
tion alone. It cannot be reduced to a juxtaposition or adding up of sectors; it
emerges from the combination of various institutional sectoral logics, which
forge new identities. Skelcher and Smith (2015) identify four categories of
hybrid organisations (and one of exclusion) depending on how these institutional
logics are combined: segregated, fragmented, assimilated and blended. We can
group these categories in different pairs depending on two underlying processes:
multi-sectoral overlapping, or stratification, which maintains original sectoral
lines; and intra-sectoral transformation, which produces a new configuration
that integrates different aspects of the original sectoral logics. This second process,
which resembles an organisational genetic manipulation, takes place at various
levels. Drawing from the main strands of analysis, Denis et al. (2015) propose
four perspectives: the structure; the institutional dynamics; the agency and prac-
tice; and the roles and identity.
For its part, the theme of integration is found in several strands of literature, the
most relevant of which for ITAs touching on health (Couturier et al., 2016;
Goodwin, 2016), environmental policies (Hogl et al., 2016) and urban analysis
(He´gron, 2016). The notion of integration points to the presence of cohesion in
a system, or at least the belonging of various elements to the same group demar-
cated by a unit of orientation, or even command. Integration sometimes describes
the state of a system and sometimes designates the processes that unify it. From
both perspectives, integration can be seen from the point of view of aggregation, or
that of interaction, to use Diani’s (2015) distinction. From the point of view of
aggregation, the process involves some form of coordination or subordination to a
central authority in a hierarchical structure. From the point of view of interaction,
the process of unification follows more complex paths in a tangle of multi-stake-
holders’ interfaces – which can be informal or explicitly concerted – that try to
decipher the strands of collaborative management or collaborative governance.
Beyond the multitude of forms in which hybridity and integration unfold and
take place – which several syntheses help to classify – a certain analogy can be
made about their modus operandi. Hybridity can be stratified or transformative,
while integration can be additive or interactive. The intersection of these patterns
shows that hybridity is very much a part of integration, but in variable forms and
intensity. This gives rise to a typology made up of four scenarios (see Table 1) that
Table 1. Four local integration systems.
Integration
Hybridity
Additive
Interactive
Stratified
A. Operational networking
B. Interstitial effervescence
Transformative
C. Collaborative accommodation
D. Institutional convergence
438
International Review of Administrative Sciences 84(3)
help detect hybridity within the experiences of the ITA in Quebec, and structure
the proposed analytical framework. This analytical framework identifies the var-
iables and their interrelations in specific cases, but without going as far as to
formulate precise theoretical assumptions (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015).
Experiences of the ITA in Quebec
In Quebec, the term ‘integrated territorial approach’ applies specifically to local
experiences funded through the National Poverty Reduction Strategy:
The ITA is characterised by stakeholder consultation and intersectoral intervention
that makes the improvement of the situation of the community members the nub of a
global action and that improves the capacity of action of both the communities and
individuals who compose them. (Government of Quebec, 2014: 26, own translation)
Several other local initiatives are said to be part of a ‘social development’ move-
ment – an expression enshrined in the official discourse but only an emerging field
in its structuration. They are part of the sweeping current of empowerment of
individuals and local milieus within community development (Parent et al.,
2013). In varying proportions and depending on the case, they are the product
of both a state impulse and local milieu initiatives, mirroring many other similar
experiences abroad (Clarke, 2016). Their analysis must therefore take into account
a dynamic of multi-level governance that is not restricted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial