The study applies a communicative qualitative methodology to explore collaboration between public administration and third sector organizations in the Basque Country. This collaboration is increasingly influencing the current economic model. Ten diverse organizations were selected through a two-step process (random identification plus willingness to participate), and data were gathered via a focus group, ten in-depth interviews, and five follow-up interviews, all recorded and systematically coded. Analysis focused on barriers and enabling factors, developing a four-stage management framework of collaboration: initial support, co-creation, temporal co-participation, and enduring co-participation. Results show a mature yet evolving hybrid governance system, where stable forums, shared values, and flexible instruments allow the third sector to move from subsidized service provision to co-responsible welfare governance, especially in health, housing, and social inclusion.
Across Europe, collaboration between public administration and third sector organizations has become a central lever for addressing complex social risks in fields such as health, housing, and social inclusion (
Its unique administrative structure, high quality of life, and culture of collaboration (
To strengthen the third sector’s impact, we must analyze its functioning, reinforce its positive mechanisms, and build public trust. The article aims to develop and empirically ground a management framework for collaboration between public administration and the third sector in the Basque Country. In this study, an “management framework” refers to a set of institutional, relational, and operational mechanisms that enable collaborations to evolve from
Theoretically, the article contributes to debates on collaborative governance (
In this article, we do not present barriers and examples of collaboration as isolated observations; rather, we use them as analytical building blocks to develop a grounded management framework for effective public–third sector cooperation. By examining both the obstacles and the mechanisms that organizations use to overcome them, the study identifies the conditions under which collaboration emerges, stabilizes, and produces social value. Political participation is not specifically studied in the article, but cooperation is described in a declarative manner, as it is mentioned in the fieldwork findings. The empirical insights collected, therefore, serve as the basis for articulating the management framework proposed in this paper.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. The next section outlines the theoretical framework on public administration–third sector collaboration and situates the Basque case within Spanish and European debates on welfare governance. The subsequent section presents the methodology, including the communicative approach and the empirical design based on ten third sector organizations. The findings section introduces the four-stage management framework derived from the data and illustrates it through empirical cases and the main barriers and enabling factors identified. The final section discusses the implications of the conceptual framework for theory and practice and concludes with recommendations for strengthening public–third sector collaboration in contexts facing complex social risks.
The relationship between the state and third sector organizations has long been a subject of study, with scholars like
Recent literature on nonprofit collaboration further deepens the theoretical basis of this study.
In countries like Spain, the social economy is broadly defined, encompassing the third sector.
There is also a resilience feature important to highlight in times of crisis. Third sector organizations excel in crisis response due to their adaptive yet value-driven nature. The Mondragon cooperative exemplifies this: during economic downturns, it has preserved jobs and stabilized its community, making its home region the highest per-capita-income area in Spain even during crises (
In the Basque Country context, scholars such as
Recent scholarship on the welfare state and third sector governance in Spain further strengthens this theoretical foundation.
On a general level, to provide context, it’s important to explain how the Basque Country functions within Spain. Located in the north of the country, the Basque Country is one of Spain’s 17 Autonomous Communities. It has a population of around 2 million people
Economic data from the Basque region consistently show a higher quality of life compared to other parts of Spain and even much of the European Union. According to the Basque Institute of Statistics (
The Regional Competitiveness Observatory (
Regarding the social spending and public services in the Basque Country, in 2025, 31.4% of the total government budget was allocated to current transfers and subsidies. Of this, approximately 14% went to families and non-profit organizations that support households, which includes the third social sector entities operating in the Basque Country (
The third social sector in the Basque Country is governed by Law 6/2016, passed on May 12, which defines and regulates the organizations that make up this sector. These are primarily social initiative entities whose main goal is to promote social inclusion, development cooperation, and the effective exercise of rights for individuals, families, groups, or communities facing vulnerability, exclusion, inequality, lack of protection, disability, or dependency (
According to the White Book of the Third Sector of Euskadi (
In recent work,
Complementing this,
This manuscript explores the relationship between public administration and the third sector in the Basque Country, aiming to develop and empirically ground a management framework for collaboration between the two. It will examine several core aspects: models of public collaboration, traditional approaches, time and commitment requirements, the shift from participation to co-creation, the evolving role of public administration, and common challenges and limitations—as well as potential strategies to overcome them.
Before engaging with third sector organizations to identify the drivers and barriers to successful collaboration, researchers highlight the importance of strengthening this relationship to better address social needs. For instance, scholars of public-sector governance (
As for the empirical component, third sector organizations were selected at random, with priority given to those that expressed interest in participating. In other words, participants were identified through a two-step process in which organizations were first randomly selected from the broader third sector landscape, and then priority was given to those that expressed interest and willingness to participate, ensuring the methodological rigor but also the stakeholder engagement. The initial contact was made via email, which included an explanation of the study’s objectives. A follow-up was conducted (either by email or phone) to schedule the interviews. The interview and focus group scripts were designed in alignment with the objectives of the SOLIDUS project, mentioned below. This project, funded by the European Commission, aimed to analyze actions of solidarity across European Societies, searching for positive experiences. As a partner of the project, the University of Deusto was managing interview and focus group scripts, focused on collecting achievements and challenges faced by participating organizations in the Basque Country, along with the strategies they employed to overcome these obstacles.
The selected organizations reflect the diversity of third sector activities in the Basque Country. Each organization was asked to nominate a representative for the interview, all of which took place at the university. Interviews lasted between 30 min and one hour, and participants were asked for permission to record the sessions. The recordings were then used to translate and systematically extract the key points of each discussion.
As part of this study, a focus group was conducted with ten participants, each representing a different third sector organization. In addition to the group discussion, individual in-depth interviews were carried out with all ten participants. Later, five of them were selected for follow-up one-on-one interviews. The table below provides an overview of the participating organizations and their main characteristics.
The ten participating organizations represent a broad cross-section of mission areas within the Basque third sector, including employment and labor-market insertion (Koopera, Gizatea, Peñascal, Bultz-lan), entrepreneurship and cooperative development (Momentu, Deusto Social Entrepreneurship), social inclusion and community participation (Bolunta, EDE Foundation), public health and humanitarian action (Médicos del Mundo), and mental health advocacy and support (AVIFES). Together, they reflect the sector’s diversity, ranging from organizations focused on economic empowerment to those addressing social rights, community development, and health-related vulnerabilities.
This study employed a communicative methodology to collect and analyze data (
In line with this methodology, the data were coded according to the dimension of barriers—understood as actions or mechanisms that obstruct the achievement of collaborative goals. Particular attention was given to identifying barriers that hindered cooperation between third sector organizations and public administration.
According to the barriers, the following indicators were established:
Barriers raised regarding the public administration
Different languages, different objectives
Different times
Sectoralization (competition, crisis, social cuts)
Barriers encountered regarding the third sector
Professionalization—temporary co-participation
The remoteness of citizen movements
In addition to coding the data according to barriers and enabling factors, the analysis followed an iterative, inductive process consistent with the communicative methodology. Interview transcripts and focus group notes were reviewed multiple times to identify recurring themes, divergences, and illustrative examples across organizations. Emerging categories were continuously refined through comparison between cases, allowing us to distinguish sector-wide patterns from organization-specific dynamics. To improve the robustness of the findings, preliminary interpretations were contrasted with participants’ own reflections during the communicative process, ensuring that the final analytical categories were empirically grounded and validated through dialogue.
Given the potential sensitivity of the information discussed and the personal testimonies of administrators, all data in this study were handled with the highest standards of confidentiality and care. Interviews were conducted in a respectful, comfortable, and welcoming environment to ensure participants felt at ease. Organizational representatives facilitated participation by arranging access to the interview locations and sharing relevant contact information. All participants were fully informed of the study’s objectives and understood how their input would contribute to it. Importantly, each interviewee was given the option to pause or withdraw from the interview at any time.
This study presents its findings in two main sections. First, the empirical findings are presented (sections 5.1–5.3). Second, it introduces a four-part management framework developed from the data collected (section 5.4).
Despite the encouraging factors discussed earlier, organizations consistently emphasize significant barriers to achieving true co-creation with the public sector. The main element highlighted by the discussants is the fundamental disconnect in objectives and communication styles between the two sectors:
This gap is not only linguistic but also conceptual—each sector operates with distinct priorities, values, and ways of framing issues. These differences make meaningful collaboration difficult.
Another major barrier is the misalignment of timeframes and priorities. Participants pointed out that social policies are often not sufficiently integrated into broader public policy frameworks, particularly in areas like public health. There is also a perception that political agendas, tied to short legislative cycles, hinder the continuity and depth of social interventions.
Participants noted that the divergence in goals between public institutions and third sector organizations is often tied to political pressures. The public sector tends to focus on immediate social assistance, driven by voter demands and media influence, rather than on long-term, preventive strategies. For instance, viral images or social media posts can trigger temporary public concern, prompting swift but superficial governmental responses that fail to address the root causes of social issues.
This mismatch also affects how each sector perceives timelines and project cycles. Third sector organizations often need to adapt or redesign projects as new needs emerge. However, these adjustments rarely align with the rigid deadlines and procedures of public institutions. This misalignment can obstruct the implementation of multi-year programs and limit the development of sustainable, long-term solutions.
In addition, slow legislative processes further hinder the public sector’s responsiveness to evolving social challenges. Political cycles and electoral considerations can diminish the commitment of public officials, especially at the local level, where the success of many initiatives depends heavily on municipal leadership. Even when there is political will, the lack of training or personal motivation among civil servants can become a significant obstacle, at the local level, where some projects depend primarily on their promotion by the City Hall or local institutions.
Participants also emphasized the excessive centralization of public action as a major obstacle. They pointed out that the lack of cross-sector coordination within public administration hinders the integration of social concerns across different policy areas, making it harder to respond effectively to citizens’ needs. Because the public sector operates through various departments—often led by different political parties—coordinated responses to complex, cross-cutting social issues are difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Another significant barrier identified is the limited space for dialogue, communication, and collaboration between the public sector and third sector organizations. When politicians or public servants do not actively create opportunities for participation, third sector contributions are excluded from decision-making processes. This lack of engagement also extends to insufficient mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring social interventions, which limits learning and improvement.
In addition, participants highlighted the long-lasting effects of the economic crisis and subsequent cuts in social spending. These austerity measures, combined with a perceived decline—or even dismantling—of the welfare state, have severely restricted the public sector’s ability to address social needs comprehensively. While support for entrepreneurship has remained a priority, many social inclusion policies (particularly those focused on multidimensional support and accompaniment of individuals) have been reduced or eliminated. This shift reflects a broader transformation in how the public sector approaches social protection, with significant implications for vulnerable populations.
One of the main challenges facing the third sector is the issue of professionalization. While professionalization has previously been identified as a key driver of efficiency, it also introduces significant barriers. In particular, the need to compete with private enterprises forces many third sector organizations to shift their focus from their original social missions toward sustaining service delivery. This market-driven pressure often results in organizations having to scale back or alter their founding objectives. Participants referred to this phenomenon as the “domestication” of the third sector. Faced with the choice between preserving their core values and ensuring the survival of their organizational structure and workforce, many organizations have opted for the latter. This shift, however, can lead to a loss of public trust and support, as their social impact becomes less visible or diluted.
The sector itself is also undergoing structural changes. Traditional associations, once built on voluntary participation and civic engagement, are increasingly being replaced by foundations and cooperatives. These newer forms require professional staff with more strategic and specialized expertise to meet the evolving demands of service delivery and organizational sustainability. Participants expressed concern that these growing professional requirements may undermine the spirit of volunteerism that once defined the third sector. The emphasis on formal qualifications and technical skills can create barriers to volunteer involvement, limiting opportunities for civic participation and weakening community ties.
Consequently, other citizenship movements, non-formally organized, are quicker in providing answers to social concerns; they are more active at the civic engagement level and have gained part of the space left by other third sector organizations. Discussants underline that their entities should remember their role regarding civic engagement. Instead, they need to adapt their cycles to more flexible social demands. Convergence between both social movements, non-formally organized and formally organized, is required. Summarizing, one of the discussants affirms:
Representatives of third sector organizations agree on the need to eliminate the barriers discussed earlier and to strengthen the drivers of effective collaboration. To achieve this, they offer several key recommendations. From the perspective of third sector organizations, it is crucial to preserve their independence and unique point of view. While collaborating with the public sector in service delivery, these organizations must continue to pursue their broader mission of driving societal change through political engagement and advocacy. On the side of the public sector, participants emphasize the need to extend the duration of intervention efforts. Programs should receive adequate support and long-term funding to ensure meaningful impact, particularly in promoting social inclusion. As one participant noted in a quote before, political agendas should not be limited to a specific government or depend on it.
In addition, the public sector must improve its responsiveness to emerging social needs, primarily through faster legislative adaptation. This would allow for more timely and effective interventions. Participants also recommend fostering a more integrated approach—enhancing inter-sectoral and inter-departmental collaboration, as well as embedding a social perspective across all areas of policy and governance. To bridge the existing gaps in language, expertise, goals, and timelines between sectors, participants suggest identifying a “common denominator” that both sides can share and work toward. Furthermore, they advocate for increasing the influence of third sector ideas within public institutions. This could be achieved by modernizing public administration and offering targeted training programs that promote greater openness and understanding.
The interview data show that collaboration between public administration and the third sector in the Basque Country concentrates around three core social areas: health (especially community-based and preventive care), housing and homelessness, and rights-based support for vulnerable groups such as people with mental health conditions, migrants, and women in precarious situations. These areas are precisely those where “wicked problems” emerge—problems that cut across sectors, require coordination, and cannot be solved by one actor alone—making them a critical testing ground for the hybrid management framework developed in this article.
Scholars such as
Housing and homelessness constitute a second key area where collaboration becomes both necessary and contentious. Research on social innovation, such as
Concerning social inclusion and rights-based advocacy, particularly in relation to mental health, gender equality, migration, and labor-market insertion, three organizations are highlighted.
The AVIFES case shows how legal milestones (such as the 1986 General Health Law and the deinstitutionalization process) enabled the creation of organizations that now act as interlocutors between individuals, communities, and public institutions. Their work illustrates two crucial dimensions of the management framework: first, how legal frameworks create opportunity structures for third sector action; and second, how organizations translate these frameworks into lived rights, for example by promoting community-based services, participatory governance (including users on boards), and anti-stigma campaigns.
Here are some quotes from Elena, the AVIFES representative:
Elena also highlighted the organization’s growing concern with mental health issues affecting children and young people. This concern naturally extends their work into the educational sphere. Engaging with education also means entering an institutional network, further embedding the organization within public systems. As projects and organizations become more established, and the experience of collaboration deepens, third sector organizations call for greater public sector involvement. At this more advanced stage, especially when politicians or public officials are sympathetic to the initiative, partnerships evolve into co-creation.
In parallel, organizations such as the EDE Foundation or those working in employment and equality demonstrate how collaboration extends into education, corporate social responsibility, and labor policies, reinforcing the article’s thesis that public–third sector collaboration is a structural component of welfare governance rather than a marginal supplement. The EDE Foundation is an organization inherently built around collaboration and working in networks with other entities. As Marta explained:
“
This emphasis on collaboration, whether through formal partnerships or more informal networks, has been a key driver in bridging the third sector and public institutions. These collaborative spaces can be informal meeting points or fully institutionalized frameworks. The EDE Foundation highlights how its mission includes engaging socially responsible companies to strengthen their impact and support vulnerable populations:
“
The Foundation EDE also describes how its work complements both public services and other third sector organizations:
AVIFES demonstrate the powerful outcomes of cross-sector collaboration. One example is their initiative “Happy to Talk to You,” a program that brings together diverse stakeholders:
Elena emphasizes that while formal agreements are important, what truly drives transformation is the creation of ambassadors—individuals who return to their communities, workplaces, and networks empowered and committed to advocating for rights and social change.
The EDE Foundation works closely with public institutions to promote programs related to equality and employment. Marta explains how they engage with governmental bodies to expand their outreach.
This collaboration extends to influencing public policy. Marta highlights the importance of engaging with policymakers:
AVIFES, emphasizes the value of involving the administration in advocacy work, particularly around stigma and mental health:
Elena underscores the importance of focusing on shared goals:
She also notes the evolving role of government in the social sector:
AVIFES provides a practical example of promoting equality through inclusive governance:
Public support is essential, but so are the personal and professional qualities of public officers, which third sector organizations often cite as key drivers of collaboration.
Elena gives an example of effective coordination:
“
Teresa, representing the Lanbide organization, emphasizes their advocacy efforts:
“
Taken together, these affected social areas make visible the “sites” where the management framework acquires concrete meaning. They show that hybrid governance is not an abstract arrangement but a set of practices that reconfigure how health, housing, and social inclusion policies are designed and implemented. Theoretically, this supports the argument that collaborative governance should be analyzed at the intersection of specific policy fields, institutional instruments, and civil society capacities; practically, it indicates where public administrations can prioritize partnership-building to maximize social impact, particularly in contexts marked by crisis, austerity, and complex social risks.
The case of Peñascal and other vocational training initiatives illustrates how the management framework operates under crisis conditions and in relation to employment and education, two core pillars of social inclusion in the Basque Country. Peñascal’s focus on young people who have not completed compulsory education, and its emphasis on “learning through working,” exemplify how third sector organizations create alternative educational pathways for those failed by conventional systems.
The financial crisis has had far-reaching effects across the EU and is considered a critical event with long-term social consequences (
Elena highlights the values-driven motivation that sets third sector organizations apart from the for-profit world:
Projects in the third sector are often initiated by civil society but later involve the public sector—and sometimes private-sector partners as well. This collaborative, multi-sector framework fosters shared responsibility. Initially led by third sector organizations, projects evolve as they draw in public entities. Once public concern and engagement are established, third sector organizations may hand over the execution to the public sector.
Elena from AVIFES offers an example of this process:
She emphasizes the mutual benefits of such arrangements:
At the most advanced level of collaboration, third sector organizations and the public sector form stable, long-term partnerships. In these cases, public sector participation is not only consistent but essential, as some projects can only be realized through genuine co-participation. These collaborations reflect a strong, clearly defined relationship between both sectors, with a shared commitment to addressing complex social challenges.
The proposed management framework for collaboration includes the following stages:
When a new project is launched, public sector involvement is typically limited to providing financial subsidies to third sector organizations. This initial support may also include legal assistance and facilitating connections with key stakeholders and institutions. In some cases, this evolves into more technical support, where public authorities accompany the project more closely.
As projects mature-especially when supported by politicians or public officials who are receptive to third sector initiatives-collaboration deepens. This may result in the co-creation of new services, projects, or even legislation. In some cases, the collaboration becomes so strong that public sector representatives join the governing bodies of third sector organizations. In other cases, both sectors work as equals to design programs or propose legislative reforms.
Some projects initiated by third sector organizations include limited-time collaboration with the public sector. These efforts aim to raise awareness and responsiveness within public institutions to specific social needs. Once this goal is achieved, the third sector organization may withdraw, entrusting the public sector with ongoing implementation.
Some organizations maintain a long-term, stable partnership with the public sector, sometimes also involving private sector actors. These collaborations rely on shared management among the three sectors (public, private, and third sector). In many cases, such co-participation is essential to achieving the project’s objectives, which would not be possible without joint governance.
Taken together, the findings provide clear answers to the three research questions posed in the introduction. First, collaboration between public administration and third sector organizations in the Basque Country is initiated through subsidy-based and
The findings of this study show that collaboration between the public administration and the third sector in the Basque Country cannot be understood as a simple complementary relationship, but as a
First, the Basque case reflects what
Second, the results confirm the complexity and hybridity emphasized by
Third, at the structural level, the Basque third sector exhibits a set
The barriers identified [misaligned timeframes, sectoralization of the public administration, and risks of “domestication” in the third sector] indicate that collaboration remains uneven. However, the enabling factors uncovered in the study demonstrate that progress depends on three interdependent dimensions: (1)
The analysis of specific policy fields (health, housing and homelessness, and social inclusion) shows that hybrid governance gets concrete meaning in “sites” where complex, cross-cutting social risks emerge. In community-based health, organizations such as Médicos del Mundo and AVIFES illustrate how legal frameworks and community attachment translate into rights-based services and anti-stigma initiatives. In housing, mentoring schemes and collaborative programs demonstrate how local authorities provide infrastructure while third sector organizations offer individualized support and proximity, thus operationalizing shared responsibility for preventing homelessness. In employment and vocational training, entities such as Peñascal and Gizatea show how alternative educational pathways and insertion companies can be promoted when public actors commit to co-participation and long-term support.
These sectoral illustrations suggest that collaborative governance cannot be reduced to generic partnership rhetoric; rather, it should be analyzed as the combination of institutional instruments, policy fields, and civil society capacities. The Basque case reveals that collaboration contributes to both effectiveness and rights protection. This calls for further comparative research on how different regional and national contexts configure these dimensions and with what consequences for social outcomes.
This article has examined public administration–third sector collaboration in the Basque Country through a communicative qualitative study that combines focus groups, in-depth interviews, and follow-up conversations with ten diverse organizations. The study develops an empirically grounded four-stage management framework (initial support, co-creation, temporal co-participation, and enduring co-participation) and situates it within contemporary debates on collaborative and hybrid welfare governance. The Basque case emerges as a mature but evolving ecosystem in which third sector organizations increasingly act as co-responsible actors in guaranteeing social rights.
The main contribution of the article is twofold. Conceptually, it advances the understanding of hybrid governance by specifying the mechanisms through which collaboration moves beyond subsidy-based relations toward shared management of welfare policies. Empirically, it offers a detailed mapping of barriers and enabling factors (at institutional, relational, and operational levels) and shows how these elements shape collaboration in key social areas such as health, housing, and social inclusion. Therefore, the management framework proposed has both analytical and practical value as a diagnostic and design tool for policymakers and third sector leaders.
From a policy perspective, the Basque experience suggests that strengthening public–third sector collaboration requires a long-term commitment to institutionalized dialogue, flexible and predictable funding instruments, and the recognition of the third sector as a strategic partner rather than a residual service provider. Key recommendations derived from the participants’ reflections include extending the duration of public interventions, promoting cross-sector and cross-departmental coordination, and accelerating legislative adaptation to emerging social needs. In addition, the public sector should actively foster meaningful social debate, make strategic use of digital tools for participation, and create spaces where civil society organizations can contribute to agenda-setting and policy evaluation.
For third sector organizations, the findings highlight the importance of preserving independence and critical capacity while engaging in co-production with public institutions. This involves maintaining a focus on civic engagement and advocacy, resisting forms of professionalization that erode grassroots connections, and building alliances (formal and informal) that enhance collective influence on public policy. Bridging the gap between formally organized entities and newer, more fluid citizen movements appears essential to avoid a narrowing of the sector’s democratic role.
While the Basque case offers insights that may inspire other regions, transferability must be approached with caution, given the specific institutional, economic, and cultural conditions that strengthen this ecosystem. Future research could deepen and broaden the analysis by conducting comparative studies across territories, examining the long-term effects of different governance instruments on service quality and rights realization, and incorporating the perspectives of service users more systematically into the assessment of collaborative arrangements. Such work would contribute to refining the management framework proposed here and to advancing debates on how public–third sector collaboration can enhance public value, social innovation, and the resilience of welfare systems facing complex social risks.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/
The studies involving humans were approved by European Commission Ethics related to the SOLIDUS Project H2020. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
AM: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Project administration. AE-B: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Software, Resources, Visualization. AV: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at:
Edited by:
Reviewed by:
2.240.113 people by January, 2025.
39,547€ in 2024, higher than the Spanish average (32,590€) and also the European average (35,400€).