arbiter
JournalsAccount

Motivations for collaborative governance in China: a systematic review of the literature

Jie Wang & Nícola Ulibarrí

International Review of Public Administration2025https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2025.2454057review
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.44

Abstract

This article highlights the role of political context in shaping motivation of actors from the public sector, the private sector, and civil society to work together collaboratively. Most studies on motivations for collaborative governance come from Western, democratic contexts, and a comprehensive assessment of motivations in authoritarian contexts is missing. We bring political context in by investigating what motivates state and non-state actors to collaborate in China, a classic example of an authoritarian state. By conducting a systematic review of 264 empirical studies on collaborative governance in China published from 2006 to 2021, this paper reveals prevalent motivators including vertical commands, material-resource dependence, rules and regulations, legitimacy, economic benefits, and political resources; and uncommon motivators including asset specificity and share beliefs for both state and non-state actors in Chinese cases. We conclude by reflecting on the ways common theoretical frameworks, including transaction cost theory, resource dependence theory, the advocacy coalition framework, and social capital theory, explain motivations in China.

3 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2025.2454057

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jie2025,
  title        = {{Motivations for collaborative governance in China: a systematic review of the literature}},
  author       = {Jie Wang & Nícola Ulibarrí},
  journal      = {International Review of Public Administration},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2025.2454057},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Motivations for collaborative governance in China: a systematic review of the literature

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.44

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.32 × 0.4 = 0.13
M · momentum0.57 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.