RESEARCH GROUPS

The PSG  XV on Collaborative Governance and Social Innovation invites scholars, researchers, professionals, and policymakers to submit their contributions to the EGPA Conference 2026, hosted by Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, from 24 to 27 August 2026. In line with the EGPA Conference theme, “Public  Governance for the Common Good: Human Intelligence Serving the Global  Community”, the PSG XV focuses on how collaborative governance and social innovation contribute to ethical, inclusive, and human-centred forms of public governance capable of addressing complex, transboundary, and polycrisis challenges.

Collaborative  governance is understood not merely as a managerial arrangement or organizational model, but as an institutional expression of human intelligence in governance. It encompasses public judgment, ethical discernment, collective sense-making, and the capacity of diverse actors to co-create public value. While early scholarship emphasized horizontal relationships, trust-building processes, and voluntary coordination among actors (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012), more recent research has demonstrated that collaborative governance often unfolds “within the shadow of hierarchy”, where hierarchical interventions, regulatory mandates, performance evaluation mechanisms, and coordinative involvement shape collaborative dynamics and outcomes (Sørensen & Torfing, 2009; Zhou & Dai, 2023). This perspective calls for a more nuanced understanding of how collaboration is initiated, structured, formalized, and sustained within institutional and bureaucratic contexts. Rather than opposing hierarchy and networks, contemporary research increasingly explores their interaction, examining how meta-governance strategies, institutional design, and varying degrees of formalization influence accountability, commitment, and long-term public value creation.

In the context of contemporary polycrisis and digitally interconnected governance systems, collaborative arrangements have become central mechanisms for involving public authorities, private actors, third-sector organizations, and citizens in co-designing and co-delivering public services (Agranoff, 2006; Klijn, 2008; Isett et al., 2011). Yet significant questions remain regarding leadership, coordination, performance, and legitimacy in complex networked settings (Cristofoli, Meneguzzo, & Riccucci, 2017). The digital transformation of government further reconfigures these dynamics, not merely by introducing new technological tools, but by reshaping institutional architectures, accountability mechanisms, and the distribution of authority among actors. Emerging concepts such as Government as a Platform signal a shift in how hierarchical steering, network coordination, and ecosystem governance intersect in digitally mediated environments (Cordella & Paletti, 2019).

Social  innovation provides a pathway for transformative change and mobilizes critical resources to address polycrisis dynamics (Montgomery & Mazzei, 2021). It is widely understood as a novel mode of collaboration among public sector organizations, citizens, third-sector actors, and businesses aimed at creating public value (Caulier-Grice et al., 2012). Governments worldwide increasingly engage in multi-stakeholder collaboration to address complex societal challenges (Brandsen et al., 2016) and use social innovation as an instrument to co-produce public value and respond to public sector retrenchment (Sinclair & Baglioni, 2014). However, social innovation originally emerged both as a response to public sector deficiencies and as a grassroots reaction to neoliberal policy trajectories (Fougère et al., 2017). This dual origin has generated a persistent paradox between path continuity and path discontinuity in the role of public actors, who may simultaneously enable and constrain the development of social innovation initiatives (Avelino et al., 2019). In this regard, particular attention is devoted to how social innovation operates within the public sector, examining the evolving roles of public authorities as facilitators, regulators, coordinators, or strategic stewards, and assessing how hierarchical interventions may enable, structure, or constrain collaborative processes.