Explaining Coordination in Collaborative Partnerships and Clarifying the Scope of the Belief Homophily Hypothesis

TLDR

Collaborative governance in environmental policy relies on partnerships of diverse stakeholders who coordinate selectively to pursue individual and shared goals. The study tests three hypotheses—belief homophily, trust, and resource dependence—on how partners decide whom to coordinate with. Data were collected via interviews and questionnaires from ten US marine aquaculture partnerships between 2009 and 2011. Results show that trust and resource considerations outweigh shared beliefs in driving coordination, challenging earlier studies that emphasized belief homophily and prompting a re‑examination of its explanatory limits.

Abstract

The move towards collaborative governance in environmental policy often takes the form of collaborative partnerships involving multiple stakeholders with divergent beliefs and interests. Within such partnerships, stakeholders selectively coordinate with one another to varying degrees to achieve both individual and shared objectives. Using interview and questionnaire data from 10 US marine aquaculture partnerships in 2009–2011, we test three theoretical hypotheses regarding how individuals within collaborative partnerships decide with whom to coordinate. These competing propositions include belief homophily (individuals will coordinate with whom they share beliefs), trust (individuals will coordinate with those whom they trust), and resources (individuals will coordinate with those who hold critical resources). Results suggest that specific aspects of trust and resources are more important than shared beliefs in driving coordination in marine aquaculture partnerships. This finding qualifies previous studies that identified shared beliefs as a driving factor. This study concludes with a theoretical discussion about the explanatory boundaries of belief homophily.