Comparer des méthodes

	Collaborative Governance Assessment	Policy Implementation Analysis
Domaine	Public Administration	Public Administration
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	2008	1973
Auteur d'origine	Chris Ansell & Alison Gash	Jeffrey Pressman & Aaron Wildavsky
Type	Process-based governance assessment framework	Process-tracing policy analysis
Source fondatrice	Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.	Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN: 9780520053311
Alias	Collaborative Governance Analysis, Ansell-Gash Governance Framework, Multi-Stakeholder Governance Assessment	Implementation Studies, Top-Down Implementation Analysis, Implementation Gap Analysis
Apparentées	4	4
Résumé	Collaborative governance assessment is a framework for analysing arrangements in which public agencies and non-state stakeholders deliberate together to make or implement public policy by consensus. Synthesised by Chris Ansell and Alison Gash in their 2008 article from a meta-analysis of over a hundred cases, it identifies the starting conditions, institutional design and facilitative leadership that feed into an iterative collaborative process and ultimately shape outcomes. The framework treats collaboration not as a single event but as a cycle of face-to-face dialogue, trust-building, shared understanding and intermediate commitments. Its purpose is to explain why some multi-stakeholder partnerships succeed while others stall or collapse.	Policy implementation analysis studies what happens between the moment a policy is decided and the moment it reaches its intended effect, asking why outcomes so often fall short of stated objectives. The field was founded by Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky's 1973 study of a federal employment program in Oakland, which showed how a long chain of required agreements and clearances steadily eroded great expectations. The method traces the implementation chain — the actors, decision points and conditions through which a policy must pass — to locate where and why it succeeds or fails. Its central object is the implementation gap between policy as legislated and policy as delivered.