| Abstract [eng] |
**Why Does Cross-Sector Collaboration (Not) Succeed? A Comparative Analysis of State and Non-State Boundary Spanners** This thesis examines the activities, strategies, and experiences of state and non-state boundary spanners in cross-sector collaboration. While academic literature often treats boundary spanners as a relatively homogeneous group, this research argues that sectoral affiliation matters. State and non-state actors operate under different institutional, legal, and political conditions, which shape how they collaborate, what challenges they face, and how they define success. The aim of the thesis is to identify whether, and in what ways, the strategies and experiences of boundary spanners differ depending on the sector they represent. The study addresses the following research question: do the strategies and challenges of state and non-state boundary spanners differ, and if so, how? The empirical analysis is based on 22 semi-structured interviews conducted in Lithuania: 10 with state boundary spanners and 12 with non-state boundary spanners representing business associations and non-governmental organisations. The findings show that state and non-state boundary spanners use broadly similar strategies, including coordination, information processing, expectation management, and conflict resolution. However, important differences emerge in the logic, intensity, and constraints of these strategies. Non-state actors tend to operate closer to citizens, members, and interest groups, frequently crossing external boundaries such as geographical or individual-institutional ones. State actors, by contrast, face their main challenges within the public sector, especially vertical hierarchies and horizontal institutional divisions. The focus of their strategies also differs. State actors mainly coordinate formal collaborative governance processes and manage conflicts among external stakeholders. Non-state actors focus more on internal member coordination, building personal relationships, securing access to institutions, and strengthening their competitive position. Both groups require communication skills, flexibility, and systemic thinking, but non-state actors emphasize reputation and sector-specific expertise, while state actors prioritize analytical capacity and impartiality. The understanding of success also varies. Both groups associate success with policy outcomes and the quality of collaboration. However, state actors define success as collective, state-level change and feel responsible for the overall process. Non-state actors understand success through the realization of specific interests, inclusion in policy-making, and improved organizational standing. Both groups agree that quantitative indicators are insufficient to measure the long-term impact of mediation. The thesis recommends expanding the autonomy of state boundary spanners, creating safe spaces for early-stage dialogue and experimentation, ensuring transparent decision-making on how non-state input is used, and improving internal coordination within the public sector before involving external partners. Overall, the thesis contributes to collaborative governance research by showing that sectoral affiliation is a critical factor in boundary spanning. Successful collaboration depends not only on formal inclusion mechanisms, but also on recognizing and empowering the actors who navigate complex interfaces between sectors. The study also shows that collaboration often fails not because of a lack of external willingness, but because of internal institutional barriers. |
