This article examines the community as a new arena in which political–administrative relations unfold, and it investigates how, within the context of collaborative governance, the involvement of societal organizations in policymaking influences the trust-based interactions between politicians and administrators that underpin complementarity. The study is based on qualitative interviews conducted with politicians, civil servants and societal organization representatives participating in a government programme in the Basque Country (northern Spain). Our findings suggest that closer ties with citizens may shape complementary relationships between politicians and civil servants by broadening the basis for trust. More specifically, the study identifies responsiveness − alongside ability, benevolence and integrity − as a predominant trust driver that also influences the others. Perceptions of effective complementarity between politics and administration appear to hinge on responsiveness, a key vector of trustworthiness that supports and sustains collaborative governance.
Points for practitioners
−in collaborative governance, openness to citizens’ participation may shape perceptions of competence, benevolence and integrity;
−conversely, lack of responsiveness may lead to the perception that competence, benevolence and integrity are also lacking;
−a responsive administration can enhance trustworthiness;
−this depends also on a constructive relationship between politicians and civil servants; and
−effective collaborative governance also depends on the perception of an effective complementarity of politics and administration.
AmbroseGSiddikiS (2024) Assessing drivers of sustained engagement in collaborative governance arrangements. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory34(4): 498–514.
2.
AnsellCGashA (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18(4): 543–571.
3.
Audette-ChapdelaineM (2016) Sensemaking and the political–administrative interface: the challenges of strategically steering and managing a local public service. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(3): 454–471.
4.
BarandiaranXCanelMBouckaertG (2023) Building Collaborative Governance in Times of Uncertainty: Pracademic Lessons from the Basque Gipuzkoa Province. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
5.
BarandiaránXMurphyACanelMJ (2022) Qué aporta la escucha al Capital Social? Lecciones de un proceso de aprendizaje de líderes públicos. Gestión y Política Pública31(1): 1–30.
6.
BianchiCNasiGRivenbarkWC (2021) Implementing collaborative governance: models, experiences, and challenges. Public Management Review23(11): 1581–1589.
7.
BouckaertG (2025) Which futures for the public sector? In: BouckaertGHondeghemASteenT, et al. (eds) Futures for the Public Sector. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 381–395.
8.
BouckaertGHondeghemASteenT, et al. (2025) Futures for the Public Sector. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
9.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
10.
Braun V and Clarke V (2012) Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H (ed.) Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 57–71.
11.
BrentonSBouckaertG (2020) The distinctiveness and diversity of leading public museums: assessing logics of consequences and appropriateness. Public Administration Review81(4): 715–727.
BrorströmSNorbäckM (2019) Keeping politicians at arm’s length’: how managers in a collaborative organization deal with the administration–politics interface. International Review of Administrative Sciences86(4): 657–672.
14.
CanelMJBarandiaránXMurphyA (2022) What does learning by listening bring to citizen engagement? Lessons from a government program. Public Relations Review48(1): 102132.
15.
CanelM-JLuoma-ahoV (2019) Public Sector Communication: Closing Gaps Between Organizations and Citizens. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
16.
CanelMJLuoma-ahoVBarandiaránX (2020) Public sector communication and publicly valuable intangible assets. In: Luoma-ahoVCanelM-J (eds) Handbook of Public Sector Communication. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, 100–114.
17.
CardilloE (2021) Dichotomy and complementarity between politicians and managers in strategic and operational planning. Analysis of an Italian local authority. Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Studies4(5): 366–375.
18.
ChristensenI (2024) Understanding tradeoffs in the institutional design and leadership of collaborative governance. Public Performance & Management Review47(2): 263–290.
19.
CutlerA (2004) Methodical failure: the use of case study method by public relations researchers. Public Relations Review30(3): 365–375.
20.
EdwardsPKO’MahoneyJVincentS (2014) Studying Organizations Using Critical Realism: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
EmersonENabatchiT (2015) Collaborative Governance Regimes. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
22.
EmersonKNabatchiTBaloghS (2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22(1): 1–29.
23.
FayMJ (2011) Informal communication of co-workers: a thematic analysis of messages. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal6(3): 212–229.
24.
FletcherAJ (2017) Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology20(2): 181–194.
25.
GrimmelikhuijsenSKniesE (2017) Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences83(3): 583–601.
26.
GrønCHSalomonsenHH (2019) Political instability and the ability of local government to respond to reputational threats in unison. International Review of Administrative Sciences85(3): 440–456.
27.
KimS-E (2005) The role of trust in the modern administrative state an integrative model. Administration & Society37(5): 611–635.
28.
KlijnEEdelenbosJSteijnB (2010) Trust in governance networks: its impacts on outcomes. Administration & Society42(2): 193–221.
29.
KlijnEHSierraVYsaT, et al. (2016) The influence of trust on network performance in Taiwan, Spain, and The Netherlands: a cross-country comparison. International Public Management Journal19(1): 111–139.
30.
LawaniA (2021) Critical realism: what you should know and how to apply it. Qualitative Research Journal21(3): 320–333.
31.
LiuY (2024) Public trust and collaborative governance: an instrumental variable approach. Public Management Review26(2): 421–442.
32.
LuhmannN (1988) Familiarity, confidence, trust. In: GambettaD (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 94–107.
33.
MitchellD (2023) Councils, managers … and consultants? Management consulting and complementarity in municipal strategy implementation. Administration & Society55(1): 64–92.
34.
MuñoaI (2023) Communicating for collaborative governance. In: BarandiaránXCanelMBouckaertG (eds) Building Collaborative Governance in Times of Uncertainty: Pracademic Lessons from the Basque Gipuzkoa Province. Leuven: KU Leuven University Press, 139–156.
35.
Øjvind NielsenRSørensenETorfingJ (2024) Drivers of collaborative governance for the green transition. Public Management Review26(12): 3715–3740.
36.
OomselsP (2016) Administrational Trust: An Empirical Examination of Inter-organisational Trust and Distrust in the Flemish Administration. Leuven: KU Leuven.
37.
OomselsPBouckaertG (2014) Studying interorganizational trust in public administration: a conceptual and analytical framework for “administrational trust”. Public Performance & Management Review37(4): 577–604.
38.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022) Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions. Paris: Organiszation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en (accessed 23 October 2025).
39.
OspinaSMEsteveMLeeS (2018) Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research. Public Administration Review78(4): 593–605.
40.
OvereemP (2006) In defense of the dichotomy: a response to James H. Svara. Administrative Theory & Praxis28(1): 140–147.
41.
OvereemP (2021) Public administration and politics: the art of separation. In: BryerTA (ed.) Handbook of Theories of Public Administration and Management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 7–18.
42.
PopelierP (2024) Signs of trustworthiness: parliaments in search of ability, benevolence and integrity. International Journal of Parliamentary Studies4(2): 103–107.
43.
PopescuLF (2014) Public governance and strategic responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law5(5): 144–156.
44.
RanBQiH (2019) The entangled twins: power and trust in collaborative governance. Administration and Society51(4), 607–636.
45.
SiddikiSKimJLeachWD (2017) Diversity, trust, and social learning in collaborative governance. Public Administration Review77(6): 863–874.
46.
SvaraJH (2001) The myth of the dichotomy: complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration on JSTOR. LastNamePublic Administration Review61(2): 176–183.
47.
SvaraJH (2006a) Introduction: politicians and administrators in the political process—A review of themes and issues in the literature. International Journal of Public Administration29(12): 953–976.
48.
SvaraJH (2006b) The search for meaning in political−administrative relations in local government. International Journal of Public Administration29(12): 1065–1090.
49.
TorfingJPayandehRJaliliSM, et al. (2025) A systematic review of conflict within collaborative governance. Policy Press, Early View: 1–24.
50.
ValgarðssonVJenningsWStokerG, et al. (2025) The good politician: competence, integrity and authenticity in seven democracies. Political Studies73(2): 631–656.
51.
Van de WalleSSixF (2014) Trust and distrust as distinct concepts: why studying distrust in institutions is important. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis16(2): 158–174.
