When Collaboration Produces Activity Rather Than Impact: Explaining Procedural Collaboration In Drug Prevention Services
Abstract
Collaborative governance is widely promoted as an effective approach for addressing complex public problems, yet stronger collaboration does not always produce better public service outcomes. This study examines why collaborative governance generates extensive administrative activity but limited service impact in local drug prevention services. Using a qualitative single-case study of the National Narcotics Agency in Gorontalo City, Indonesia, the study draws on interviews, observations, focus group discussions, and institutional documents to reconstruct the mechanisms linking collaborative governance and service outcomes. The findings show that collaboration remains predominantly procedural, characterized by sustained coordination, stakeholder participation, and administrative compliance without equivalent development of collective ownership, adaptive problem-solving, and integrated action. Consequently, collaboration strengthens administrative outputs but contributes only partially to long-term behavioural change and community resilience. The study extends the Collaborative Governance Regime by introducing procedural collaboration as an explanatory mechanism connecting collaborative dynamics with service impact, shifting collaborative performance evaluation from coordination intensity toward public value creation.
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.10072208
Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2015). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858472
Berardo, R., & Lubell, M. (2016). Understanding what shapes a polycentric governance system. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 738–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12532
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2017). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12745
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Crosby, B. C., Hart, P., & Torfing, J. (2017). Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192165
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601
Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315887098
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461
Osborne, S. P., Powell, M. G. H., Cui, T., & Strokosch, K. (2022). Value creation in the public service ecosystem: An integrative framework. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 634–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13474
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00045
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021). Radical and disruptive answers to downstream problems in collaborative governance? Public Management Review, 23(11), 1590–1611. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879914
Torfing, J., & Ansell, C. (2021). Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through collaborative governance. Public Management Review, 23(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1730942
Voets, J., Brandsen, T., Koliba, C., & Verschuere, B. (2021). Collaborative governance. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1419
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900203
Contact Person +6282139474255
Email : ijevss@citakonsultindo.or.id / editor.ijevss@gmail.com
