The Nature and Scope of Interactive Governance: Mapping a Systemic Conceptual Landscape

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Public Administration, Imam Hossein (AS) University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Governmental Management, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Department of Judicial Management, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran.

4 Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Studies, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Interactive governance, as an emerging and growing approach to public administration, emphasizes extensive interaction between government and a broad spectrum of other actors, including citizens and the private sector. Its primary objective is to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, and legitimacy of decision-making through active participation and constructive engagement among diverse stakeholders. The concept centers on networked collaboration among varied public and private actors to achieve shared goals, particularly in addressing complex societal challenges. This study aims to delineate a comprehensive, systematic conceptual landscape of the “interactive governance” literature, examining its nature and scope, with a particular focus on articles published between 2013 and 2023. It addresses the central research question: Given the nature and scope of interactive governance in scholarly and empirical literature, what is its systemic conceptual landscape? The adopted methodology enables the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data, incorporating statistical analyses and visualizations of keyword co-occurrence networks to yield a deep, integrated understanding of this dynamic field. This facilitates responses to the sub-questions: How is the nature of interactive governance—including definitions, procedural characteristics, and models of initiation and implementation—explicated in scholarly and empirical literature? What are the evolutionary trends, knowledge domains, and key works in interactive governance literature? How are the outcomes (both positive and negative) and evaluation criteria of interactive governance articulated in scholarly and empirical sources? To address these questions, a conceptual review method was employed. Initially, 2,141 primary sources were identified via the Scopus database. Their keyword and citation data were imported into VOSviewer software to generate co-occurrence maps (for conceptual relationships) and co-citation maps (for scholarly structures). Subsequently, the full text of 75 accessible articles was analyzed, culminating in the development of an integrated conceptual-theoretical model of interactive governance. The analyses indicate that research interest in interactive governance has grown significantly over the past decade, fostering more intricate conceptual networks that underscore cross-sectoral interactions. Furthermore, the systemic model of the interactive governance process—which includes inputs, processes, outputs, feedback loops, and environmental factors—serves as an integrated framework for effective analysis and implementation of this approach. This model deepens our understanding of how theoretical principles of interactive governance translate into executive practices and everyday interactions, offering a holistic strategy for tackling societal complexities and advancing equitable, sustainable governance in modern societies.

Keywords

References

Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2022). Handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bang, H. P. (2016). Interactive governance: A challenge to institutionalism. In: J. Edelenbos & I. van Meerkerk (Eds.), Critical reflections on interactive governance (pp. 56–79). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783479078.00009
Carreras, Y. İ. (2017). Decentralization, interactive governance and income inequality: A comparative study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Chuenpagdee, R. (2011). Interactive governance for marine conservation: an illustration. Bulletin of Marine Science, 87(2), pp. 197-211.‏
Conway, S. (2020). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Administration, 68(3),
pp. 63-68.‏
Denters, B., van Heffen, O., Huisman, J., & Klok, P. J. (Eds.). (2003). The rise of interactive governance and quasi-markets (Vol. 8). Springer.        
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3457-8
Denters, S.A., Van Heffen, O., Huisman, J. & Klok, P.J. (Eds.). (2013). The rise of interactive governance and quasi-markets (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business Media.‏
Derkyi, M., Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., Dietz, T., & Kyereh, B. (2012). Interactive forest governance for conflict management in Ghana. International Forestry Review, 14(4), pp. 510–519.
Edelenbos, J. (2000). Process management in complex decision-making: an interactive approach to managing networked decision making on infrastructural problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Edelenbos, J., & van Meerkerk, I. (2016). Introduction: Three reflecting perspectives on interactive governance. In: J. Edelenbos & I. van Meerkerk (Eds.), Critical reflections on interactive governance (pp. 1–28). Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783479078.00005
Fadaei, M., & Ghaffari, S. (2017). Barrasī-yi taʾthīr-i shākhiṣ-hāyi ḥukmrānī-yi khūb va andāzih-yi dawlat bar shākhish-i fisād dar kishvar-hāyi gurūh-i BRICS va Īrān [Examining the impact of good governance indicators and government size on corruption index in BRICS countries and Iran]. Chashmandāz-i Mudīriyyat-i Dawlatī, 8(4), pp. 65–86. [In Persian]
Feys, Y. (2023). Scoping review regarding police decision-making: Methodological outline. In Book title if part of one (pp. 11–19). Springer.               
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22281-8_2
Frey, K. (2004). Governança interativa: Uma concepção para compreender a gestão pública participativa? Política & Sociedade, 3(5), pp. 118–138.
Hadie, S. N. H. (2024). ABC of a scoping review: A simplified JBI scoping review guideline. Education in Medicine Journal, 16(2), pp. 185–197.     
https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2024.16.2.14
Hambleton, R., & Sweeting, D. (2003). Interactive governance: A view from the UK. In B. Denters, O. van Heffen, J. Huisman, & P. J. Klok (Eds.), The rise of interactive governance and quasi-markets (pp. 239–259). Springer.   
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3457-8_12
Hendriks, F., & Tops, P. (2002). The quest for interaction: The reinvention of consensus democracy and its critics. Dutch Crossing: Journal of Low Countries Studies, 26(1),
pp. 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03096564.2002.11730805
Hordijk, M., Miranda Sara, L., Sutherland, C., & Scott, D. (2015). Participatory instruments
and practices in urban governance. In C. Johnson, G. Turok, & S. Parnell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook on cities of the Global South (pp. 127–146). Springer.   
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21272-2_7
Jäntti, A., Paananen, H., Kork, A. A., & Kurkela, K. (2023). Towards interactive governance: Embedding citizen participation in local government. Administration & Society, 55(8), pp.1529–1554. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231176045
Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2022). Interactive learning and governance transformation
for securing blue justice for small-scale fisheries. Administration & Society, 54(7),
pp. 1255–1282. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211069992
Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Mahon, R. & Pullin, R. (2008). Interactive governance and governability: an introduction. Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 7(1), pp.1-11.
Kooiman, J., Jentoft, S., Bavinck, M. & Pullin, R. (2005). Fish for life: interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam university press.‏
Krogh, A. H. (2017). Implementing and Designing Interactive Governance Arenas: A Top-Down Governance Perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 21(3), pp. 63–84.
Litherland, G., Muzacz, A., & Schulthes, G. (2025). Scoping review methodology: A practical guide for counseling researchers. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 16(1), pp. 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2024.2357134
Mahon, R., & McConney, P. (2013). A network perspective on governing interactions. In M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, S. Jentoft, & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Governability of fisheries and aquaculture: Theory and applications (pp. 301–314). Springer.          
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6107-0_16
Malinauskaite, L., Cook, D., Ariza, E., Davíðsdóttir, B., & Ögmundardóttir, H. (2022). Interactive governance of whale ecosystem services: Governability assessment of three case studies in the Arctic. Ecology and Society, 27(2).   
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13141-270202
Namli, Z. (2022). Normative considerations of interactive governance: Effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and innovation. In: C. Ansell & J. Torfing (Eds.), Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 429–444). Edward Elgar Publishing.       
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371972.00047
Nouzari, E., Hartmann, T. & Spit, T. (2019). The usefulness of interactive governance for underground planning. Nature and Culture, 14(2), pp. 147-167.
Nouzari, E., Hartmann, T. & Spit, T. (2022). Organizing support through interactive governance within flood risk management. Water International, 47(3), pp. 400–418.            
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2022.2045859
Nouzari, E., Hartmann, T., & Spit, T. (2019). The usefulness of interactive governance for underground planning. Nature and Culture, 14(2), pp. 147–167.   
https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2019.140203
Nouzari, E., Hartmann, T., & Spit, T. (2020). Interactive governance for satisfaction measurements: Stakeholder involvement in design processes for flood risk management. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12650
Orillard, M. (2009). Socio-cultural design and interactive governance (Working Papers No. halshs-00449539). HAL. https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-00449539.html
Paananen, H. (2022). Poliittinen johtaminen ja kuntien vuorovaikutteinen hallinta [Political leadership and interactive municipal governance]. Hallinnon Tutkimus, 41(3),
pp. 189-208. https://doi.org/10.37450/ht.112108
Rodenberg, J., Wagenaar, P. & Burgers, G.J. (Eds.). (2023). Calling on the Community: Understanding Participation in the Heritage Sector, an Interactive Governance Perspective (Vol. 7). Berghahn Books.‏
Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00296
Santosa, E. B. (2022). Interactive governance framework and its potential for governing protected area landscape. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 976(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/976/1/012017
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.
Sørensen, E. (2013). Institutionalizing interactive governance for democracy. Critical Policy Studies, 7(1), pp. 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.772121
Sørensen, E. (2020). Interactive Political Leadership: The Role of Politicians in the Age of Governance. URL= https://forskning.ruc.dk/da/publications/interactive-political-leadership-the-role-of-politicians-in-the-a.
Torfing, J., Guy Peters, B., Pierre, J. & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. USA: Oxford University Press.
Van Buuren, A., Edelenbos, J. & Klijn, E.-H. (2007). Interactive Governance in the Netherlands: The Case of the Scheldt Estuary. London: Palgrave Macmillan.     
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596283_8
Yao, D., Li, J., Chen, Y., Gao, Q., & Yan, W. (2022). Interactive governance between and within governmental levels and functions: A social network analysis of China’s case against COVID-19. American Review of Public Administration, 52(3), pp. 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740211059534
Yi, C. (2015). Advancing the research on interactive governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), pp. 1310–1314.  
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv014

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics