Unpacking the pluralism paradox: collaborative governance outcomes in jurisdictionally complex environments

Background In collaborative governance, many of the factors that give rise to the need for collaboration are also identified by scholars as undermining its effectiveness. Complex task environments mean that multiple and varied interests are necessary to address problems, but this inherent pluralism may also increase conflict. This suggests a pluralism paradox. Aims Our article advances theory and provides evidence about pluralism associated with jurisdictional affiliation and their relationship to collaborative governance outcomes during wildfires. Methods We analyzed data from 139 jurisdictional leaders from 15 wildfire disasters in the United States that took place in 2017 and 2018. Key results Consistent with extant theory on collaborative continuums, we find evidence to suggest that organizational pluralism associated with jurisdictional affiliation may not be uniformly predictive of different collaborative governance outcomes. Conclusions Evaluations of communication and information management were less likely to reflect differences tied to jurisdictional affiliation when compared with episodic cooperation and incident-level operational strategy, which were more likely to reflect differences in jurisdictional values, signaling an increased likelihood of conflict. Implications In addition to providing empirical evidence about the dynamics of pluralism in collaborative settings, we offer practical insights into opportunities for building collaborative capacity in jurisdictionally complex environments.