Institutionalizing cross-sectoral linkages: The ‘Sectoral Corridor’ approach for strengthening social economy ecosystems

Abstract

Governments, private enterprises, civil society organizations and social economy (SE) actors increasingly recognize the importance of structured cross-sector partnerships. While existing tri-sector and collaborative governance frameworks have advanced our understanding of cross-sector relationships, they tend to focus primarily on actor interactions and governance arrangements. This study proposes the “Sectoral Corridor” framework as a heuristic lens for examining how policy programmes can structure and support connections between sectors. Drawing on the island biogeography metaphor to organize and interpret public policy instruments that structure cross-sectoral relationships involving the SE, this study analyses the sectoral relationship between the SE and other sectors and develops the analytical framework of the Sectoral Corridor public policy to examine government interventions aimed at institutionalizing and sustaining cross-sectoral collaboration between the SE and other sectors. The research shifts the focus from temporary, project-based partnerships to policy-driven, long-term intersectoral relationships. It highlights how Sectoral Corridor policies function as bridges that embed the SE into broader social, economic and policy frameworks, thereby promoting sustainability.

Keywords

Social economy inter-sectoral collaboration public policy ‘Sectoral Corridor’Quebec

Introduction

In the face of growing economic, social and environmental challenges, cross-sector collaboration has become a critical strategy for fostering sustainable development (Bühring and Simeone, 2024; Pache et al., 2022; Van Tulder et al., 2016). Governments, private enterprises, civil society organizations and social economy (SE) actors increasingly recognize the need for structured cooperation to address complex societal issues (Clarke and Crane, 2018; Gigauri and Damenia, 2020; Gray and Purdy, 2018; Selsky and Parker, 2005). Existing tri-sector theoretical frameworks on cross-sector collaboration provide important insights into cross-sector collaboration but tend to emphasize governance arrangements and actor interactions (Boyer, 2019; Tello-Rozas et al., 2015; Vogel et al., 2022). Similarly, existing SE studies have examined sectoral interactions, but they frequently focus on short-term collaborations, voluntary partnerships, isolated policy, or country case studies rather than the long-term policy mechanisms that shape and reinforce intersectoral linkages (Lekan et al., 2021; Sadabadi, Rahimirad & Nikijoo, 2024).

To address this gap, this study introduces an analytical framework of “Sectoral Corridor” policy. Instead of viewing collaboration as an outcome of informal partnerships or market-driven interactions, this approach highlights the role of structured policy pathways in institutionalizing long-term cooperation (Parrado and Reynaers, 2020; Tooher et al., 2017). It provides a lens to understand how public interventions create and maintain strategic linkages among sectors, ensuring continuity, scalability and resilience in cross-sector initiatives (Seo, 2024a; Vogel et al., 2022).

Drawing on the island biogeography theory (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967), this study posits that the SE may evolve into an isolated ‘island’. Similar to an island, the SE operates within distinct boundaries, characterized by its own set of values, principles and economic practices (Amodeo, 2001; Catala et al., 2023; Hudson, 2009; Novkovic et al., 2022). Conversely, the ‘other islands’ represent the private sector, public sector and civil society. The relationships among islands in nature are interactive and dynamic, fostering biodiversity and enhancing island ecosystems, strengthening their survival and resilience. In a similar vein, the SE can thrive by engaging with various sectors, drawing upon resources, knowledge and opportunities while maintaining its unique identity and values (Fonteneau et al., 2010). The Sectoral Corridor public policy, which we discuss in detail below, bridges the different sectors and promotes interaction, collaboration and cooperation.

In this study, the SE refers to a hybrid sector of organizations that pursue social objectives while engaging in economic activities, including cooperatives, mutuals, associations and social enterprises. We apply this framework to the case of Quebec (Canada). In Quebec, the SE sector includes entities such as community housing cooperatives, social service associations and training enterprises, which interact with government, private and civil society actors to address social needs. Quebec's SE sector has flourished without strict divisions between sectors, embracing aspects of the labour movement, civil society, women's movements, community movements and solidarity finance (Arsenault, 2016; Bouchard et al., 2017; Charron, 2012; Koschmann et al., 2012; Lévesque and Ninacs, 2000; Mendell, 2008). Historically rooted in periods of dialogue and compromise, such as the ‘Quiet Revolution’ (Bélanger et al., 2000), there exist indirect policy measures that support and sustain this inter-sectoral collaboration. The Quebec government has traditionally positioned itself as an intermediary, actively supporting the SE through co-construction of policies.

This study explores several research questions: (a) what is the relationship between the SE and other sectors in Quebec; (b) how does the government commit to their implementation? and how are they structured; and (c) what are the key insights and implications of the Sectoral Corridor policy?

To address these questions, this study employs interviews with SE experts, document analysis and a comprehensive review of policy measures in Quebec. Drawing on the island biogeography metaphor, it adopts a typological framework of three Sectoral Corridor policy types to examine how public programmes structure and support cross-sectoral linkages.

This research carries several significant implications. Firstly, it contributes to existing theoretical discussions by introducing a public policy concept that helps to analyse and organize cross-sectoral relationships. It engages with debates in network governance, institutional theory and polycentric governance by using an ecological metaphor as a heuristic lens within social science research (Chaves and Monzón, 2018; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Rhodes, 2006). Secondly, it bridges a research gap by examining how policies can facilitate relationships between the SE and various sectors. Building on existing collaborative governance research, this research emphasizes the pivotal role of government intervention for inter-sectoral partnerships within the SE (Emerson et al., 2012; Page et al., 2015; Seo, 2024b). Lastly, the case study of Quebec's SE sector serves as a compelling model of harmonious collaboration across diverse societal realms, since it has prospered by embracing inclusivity without rigid sectoral boundaries (Arsenault, 2016; Lévesque, 2013).

Literature review

Network theory and governance theory, and institutional polycentrism

Previous research on the policy regarding cross-sectoral partnerships involving the SE has largely been developed through the lenses of network and governance theory (Lima et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2025; Steelyana and Kinanti, 2023). Policy network theory examines the relationships among government, private sector and nonprofit actors, focusing on resource exchanges, power dynamics and network stability (Provan and Kenis, 2008; Rhodes, 2006). While this perspective is valuable in understanding cross-sector interactions, it primarily addresses static network structures rather than dynamic policy-driven processes. And the governance theory has extensively explored the interplay between public sector and private actors in decision-making and policy implementation (Ansell and Gash, 2008). While it provides valuable insights into the dynamics of cross-sector collaboration, comparatively less attention has been paid to how specific policy programmes can help structure and sustain these linkages.

In addition, previous research has explored multi-sector collaboration through institutional polycentrism, which examines how multiple decision centres coordinate under shared rules (Aligica and Tarko, 2012; Ostrom and Parks, 1973). While these studies address cross-sector collaboration, they do not focus on how public policies actively shape and sustain institutionalized relationships for the SE.

Business ecosystem and island biogeography

Since Moore's (1993) pioneering work on entrepreneurial ecosystems, there have been numerous studies on the concept of ecosystem (Isenberg, 2010; Scaringella and Radziwon, 2018). Within the SE ecosystem, research on SE ecosystem-level dynamics has been limited (Bouchard et al., 2025; Lévesque, 2016). Research efforts have been made, primarily within the context of social entrepreneurship (Roundy, 2017). Only a few researchers, such as Fontan and Lévesque (2023), provide insights into the SE ecosystem from two perspectives: (a) institutional and informal conditions; and (b) organizational factors. Furthermore, Catala et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of balancing economic objectives with the creation of social value and innovation within SE ecosystems. There remains a noticeable research gap in the SE ecosystem regarding the interactions between SE and other key sectors.

To bridge the gap, this study applies the island biogeography theory (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967). It explains species diversity on islands based on factors such as distance from the mainland and habitat size, which affect immigration and extinction processes (Matthews and Triantis, 2021; Wilson and Willis 1975). Species migration to islands increases ecosystem richness but can also lead to higher competition and extinction rates. Smaller, fragmented islands are particularly vulnerable due to limited populations. To preserve ecosystems and biodiversity, strategies involving the establishment of corridors such as linear habitat strips, stepping stones and landscape corridors have been proposed to enhance structural connectivity (Anderson and Jenkins, 2006; Kramer-Schadt et al., 2011). This theory sheds light on species diversity and the balance between colonization and extinction on islands. Island biogeography theory has been applied in the social sciences to study isolated business development (Deguchi, 2016; Flávio, 2014). However, it has not been used to address isomorphism and self-fragmentation in the SE sector, despite its potential to deepen understanding of the SE sector's dynamics with other sectors. This study is built on the premise that the exchange of resources among diverse sectors can enhance the diversity and sustainability of the SE, mitigating self-isolation and the risk of institutional and commercial homogeneity.

Sectoral relationship of the SE

Previous studies have examined tri-sectoral collaboration, particularly in the context of wicked problems. In addition, these studies highlight the importance of including diverse perspectives and engaging multiple actors (Agranoff, 2012; Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004). The current study examines how public policies actively structure and sustain cross-sectoral relationships in the SE, complementing and extending existing frameworks.

While our study draws on multiple theoretical perspectives, the primary analytical focus is on the Sectoral Corridor framework and its application to cross-sectoral relationships in the SE. Other concepts serve to contextualize the analysis rather than form the basis of empirical testing, ensuring that readers can follow the core argument without being overwhelmed. Rather than a new explanatory model, the framework we propose here offers an organizing concept focusing on ecosystems that work alongside existing governance and policy theories. What it emphasizes is the intentional policy design approach that governments use when creating intersectoral relationships and connections over extended timeframes.

Research framework

Drawing upon island biogeography theory, this study develops a conceptual framework that defines sectors within the institutional context. The sectors are categorized into the public sector, private sector, civil society and the SE. The public sector comprises governments and publicly controlled entities (Dube and Danescu, 2011). On the other hand, the private sector encompasses organizations whose primary objective is profit-seeking through business activities, as defined by Di Bella et al. (2013). Finally, civil society refers to voluntary associations among individuals and to networks formed based on family, faith, interests and ideologies (Walzer, 1998). The SE, as defined by various organizations such as the International Labour Organization, encompasses entities and initiatives that prioritize people and social or environmental objectives over profits. While there may be some ambiguity in distinguishing the SE sector, in many countries, such as Mexico, Ecuador, France and Spain, they are distinct entities underpinned by the SE Act. In this sense, the SE sector refers to organized entities meeting the criteria defined in SE legislation or international guidelines.

This research presents the SE sector as an ‘island’ interacting with ‘other islands (other sectors)’ through inter-sectoral resource exchanges, as illustrated in Figure 1. Policies aimed at promoting interactions among sectors are termed Sectoral Corridor policies, which could either strengthen existing interactions or create new ones. Government intervention could significantly contribute to fostering and promoting collaboration between the SE sector and other sectors, leading to mutual benefits and synergistic outcomes (Evans, 1996).

Figure 1.

Sectoral relationship of the social economy: inter-sectoral exchange of resources.

The notion of Sectoral Corridor public policy for the SE, coined by this study, refers to a strategic approach aimed at fostering collaboration between the SE sector and other sectors within a specific geographical or thematic area. It involves the development and implementation of policy programmes and initiatives that facilitate cooperation, resource sharing and mutual support between SE enterprises and organizations from other sectors. Those policies are designed to create or promote existing pathways or corridors for sustainable development, ultimately aiming to enhance the social, economic and environmental impact of the SE sector within the broader context of regional or sectoral development.

Sectoral Corridor policy is categorized into three types: “Linear Corridor,” “Landscape Corridor” and “Stepping Stones” initiatives, as presented in Figure 2. The Linear Corridor emphasizes direct policy measures bridging two sectors by public procurement, investments, coordinated government actions and institutional framework revisions. Moreover, the sectoral interactions, such as between the private sector and SE, are driven by mutual needs but also entail tensions and competition, necessitating conducive environments and the removal of institutional barriers. Thus, creating a social and institutional landscape conducive to sectoral interactions is primarily required. The Landscape Corridor involves such activities, including social finance mechanisms, research and knowledge initiatives, support for leading organizations, committee participation, raising awareness and municipal training programmes.

Figure 2.

Categorization of Sectoral Corridor policies into three types.

Finally, the corridor policy of ‘Stepping Stones’ focuses on the initiatives, such as subsidies for SE services, financial relief, funding for cultural citizen actions and support for community-SE projects. The Sectoral Corridor policies represent diverse approaches to fostering synergy between the SE sector and other sectors.

While the three corridor types identified may resemble established categories in the policy instruments literature, such as direct, indirect, or enabling instruments (Hood, 1983; Howlett, 2000; Howlett and Ramesh, 2003; Salamon, 2002), the objective of the Sectoral Corridor framework is not to propose a new taxonomy of policy instruments. Rather, the framework provides an analytical perspective for examining how policy programmes create connections between the SE and other sectors. It focuses more on their role in structuring cross-sector connections.

Data and methodology

This study adopts two distinct strategies. Firstly, to understand the context of SE in Quebec, identify the actors involved and begin to explore the role of public policies, we conducted 10 semi-structured expert interviews in-person using snowball sampling. The 10 key persons, possessing over fifteen years of extensive experience in the SE field, encompass diverse areas, as illustrated in Figure 3. Interviewees are anonymized by role. Following the completion of semi-structured interviews, interview data were analysed using NVivo with a hybrid deductive–inductive coding strategy. Initial codes were informed by the Sectoral Corridor framework and existing literature, while additional themes emerged through iterative coding. The analysis focused on policy functions, sectoral interactions and resource flows. Figures 4–7 visualize patterns identified through NVivo-based qualitative coding of interview data, complemented by document analysis to show empirically observed sectoral relationships. This information was enriched by the analysis of some publications that have documented the experience of Quebec.

Figure 3.

Composition of interviewees.

In addition, in order to understand public policies in detail, the study employs document analysis by analysing official documents from the provincial government of Quebec and the representative body of SE organizations, published from 1996 to 2023, as shown in Table 1. The abbreviations shown in parentheses are used in Tables 2–4 to indicate the source policy documents for the listed policy programmes.

Table 1.

List of policy plans for the social economy (SE) of Quebec (1996−2005).

Policy plans for the SE	Number of policy programmes
Support measures for SE businesses (SMSB, 1996–2001)	11
The government action plan and economic policy (GAPE, 2002)	5
Public policies to democratize the economy (PPDE, 2003)	22
SE: for more united communities government action plan for collective entrepreneurship (SEMCGAPCE, 2008)	20
SE Act (SEA, 2013)	3
Sustainable development action plan (SDAP, 2015–2020)	2
Government action plan in the SE (GAPSE, 2015–2020)	24
Government action plan in the SE (GAPSE, 2020–2025)	25

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Quebec government policy documents.

A total of 112 policy programmes for the SE were meticulously extracted from relevant legislative texts, focusing specifically on supportive policies rather than definitions. Among these measures, 38 Sectoral Corridor public policies were identified and categorized using category contents analysis into three groups: Linear Corridor, Landscape Corridor and Stepping Stones types, defined in the previous section. Each policy programme was assigned to a single category only. Coding was based on the policy's dominant objective in cases where a policy could plausibly fit multiple corridor types.

Out of the concurrent 38 Sectoral Corridor policy measures, those mentioned by the interviewees were coloured in the pertinent tables. This study does not assess policy implementation, budget execution, or effectiveness. Rather, it examines policy design, stated objectives and institutional architecture through which cross-sectoral collaboration is intended to be structured.

Results

The relationships between the SE and other sectors

Interviews bring to light the relationship between the SE and other sectors in the Quebec context. We first explored relationships with the public sector, then with the private sector and finally with civil society.

In the first case, we observed that the relationship between the SE and the public sector is multifaceted and changes over time. As shown in Figure 4, initially, the public sector played a crucial role as the guardian of the SE sector through institutionalization, regulation and the provision of resources for SE growth. It served as an interlocutor in social dialogue and a policymaker for the SE at both provincial and municipal levels. The analysis highlights the government's contributions to SE growth, including recognizing the SE's impact, implementing supportive policies, engaging in social dialogue and facilitating public−private partnerships in SE development (Vaillancourt, 2017). However, challenges in working together with the public sector were also emphasized during our interviews. These challenges include the need to redefine the linkages between SE and public policies to foster innovation, a lack of public understanding of the SE's dynamics, navigating bureaucratic rules and so on (Mendell and Neamtan, 2010).

Figure 4.

Social economy’s relationship with the public sector.

The relationship between the SE and the private sector constantly evolves. As seen in Figure 5, positive dynamics arise from collaborative efforts and mutual support, fostering co-existence and shared growth. Collaborative financial initiatives, such as investments or trade union partnerships, further strengthen these positive bonds. However, there remain competitive scenarios that could lead to negative interactions, such as conflicts over market share or regulatory issues.

Figure 5.

Social economy’s relationship with the private sector.

The relationship between the SE and civil society is paramount, with civil society being the most important sector for the SE in Quebec. Historically, civil society's advocacy for SE public policies has been crucial. As illustrated in Figure 6, they also play a vital role as buyers of products and services from SE enterprises and contribute significantly to addressing social and environmental issues. According to the interviewees, for the SE to maximize its impact, collaboration with civil society is essential. When they work together, they may rebuild society and foster solidarity.

Figure 6.

Social economy’s relationship with civil society.

However, at certain times, there has been a tensional relationship between the SE and civil society since the SE was criticized by some civil actors for adapting and justifying the capitalist economy system, or the SE sector's taking resources such as jobs and policy initiatives that were previously expected to be allocated to the civil movement.

It is noted that civil society's influence extends broadly and plays a foundational role for both the SE and community organizations, as presented in Figure 7. In the context of Quebec, it significantly influenced policy-making related to the SE, guiding directives from the central government to local and municipal levels. And the central government further supports the SE sector by enacting regulatory frameworks and legal protections. Notably, the SE shares common ground with community organizations, particularly in Work Integration Enterprises, where the two sectors intersect. Additionally, funding from foundations, often established by private enterprises, supports community organizations. More recently, the SE highlights their interconnectedness and reliance on external financial support.

Figure 7.

Intersectoral influence among the public, private sectors, civil society, and social economy.

In this context of multiple relationships between the SE and other sectors, we explore public policies in detail using our analytical framework.

The composition of the Sectoral Corridor policy programmes

Out of the 112 public policies for Quebec's SE, 38 policies, amounting to 34%, were identified as Sectoral Corridor public policies, which will be further elaborated below. The policies are categorized as follows: Linear Corridor type, comprising 24% (9 cases); Landscape Corridor type, accounting for 58% (22 cases); and Stepping Stones type, occupying 18% with 7 cases (see Figure 8).

Figure 8.

The composition of the Sectoral Corridor policy programmes of Quebec.

Linear Corridor

The ‘Linear Corridor’ policy measures involve public procurement of products and services, including investments, purchases and outsourcing. These initiatives establish direct channels through which Quebec's government connects the public sector and the SE. Table 2 presents the list of Linear Corridor public policy programmes, with coloured policy programmes exemplifying the Linear Corridor policy, as indicated by interviewees.

Table 2.

List of Linear Corridor policy programmes of Quebec.

Number	Type	Policy programmes
1	Public investment	Public investments in the form of subsidies and coverage of part of the mortgages for the construction of 9000 collective housing units (PPDE, 2003)
2	Procurement	Government pilot project for purchases from SE enterprises (PPDE, 2003)
3	Procurement	Governmental advertising placement policy in community media (4%) (PPDE, 2003)
4	Procurement	Reiterate the government policy statement requesting that its departments, agencies and businesses make at least 4% of their annual advertising placement expenditures with community media (SEMCGAPCE, 2008)
5	Procurement	Identify the SE organizations likely to provide goods and services to Hydro-Québec and make sure procurement applicants and consultants know about them (SDAP, 2015–2020)
6	Revision of framework	Establish an interministerial working group on the integration of social criteria into the frameworks governing public calls for tenders (GAPSE, 2015–2020)
7	Procurement	Developing a new awareness strategy for public buyers regarding procurement from SE enterprises (GAPSE, 2015–2020)
8	Procurement	Support the deployment of the strategy to raise awareness among government and municipal public buyers about procurement from SE enterprises (GAPSE, 2020–2025)
9	Coordination	Coordinate government action with respect to the SE (SEA, 2013)

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on analysis of Quebec SE policy programmes.

Landscape Corridor

Table 3 showcases Landscape Corridor policy programmes, with coloured policy programmes exemplifying Landscape Corridor public policy, as identified by interviewees. The pivotal role of hub organizations such as Chantier de la économie sociale and Conseil québécois de la coopération et de la mutualité in fostering multisectoral partnerships within the SE was emphasized unanimously among interviewees (Mendell, 2008). Additionally, the inclusion of hybrid funds, combining private and public resources for the SE, was recognized as a key aspect of Landscape Corridor policies. The majority of interviewees also emphasized the crucial role of researchers in the evolution of the SE in Quebec (Fontan, 2013). Government funding for research organizations to disseminate knowledge and information on the SE was highlighted as it enhances the visibility of the SE and facilitates indirect multi-sectoral interactions between the SE sector and other sectors.

Table 3.

List of Landscape Corridor policy programmes of Quebec.

Number	Type	Policy programmes
1	Social finance	Supporting Quebec Social Investment Network (SMSB, 1996–2001)
2		Supporting FILACTION (SMSB, 1996–2001)
3		Supporting Quebec Social Investment Network (PPDE, 2003)
4		Supporting Fondaction, FILACTION and the Cooperative Financing Fund investment in venture capital in Quebec (PPDE, 2003)
5	Revision of framework	Revision of the legal status of social economy (SE) enterprises in the form of non-profit organizations to enable their capitalization (PPDE, 2003)
6	Research, knowledge	Financial support for research activities of the University−Community Research Alliance in social economy (SE) (PPDE, 2003)
7	Supporting leading organizations	Provide financial support for the Chantier de l’économie sociale (SEMCGAPCE, 2008)
8	Committee participation	Participate in the work of the steering committee – SE and cultural communities (SEMCGAPCE, 2008)
9	Social finance	Support the capitalization and operation of the Quebec Social Investment Network (RISQ) (GAPSE, 2015–2020)
10	Social finance	Providing additional interest relief to the Fiducie du Chantier de l’économie sociale (GAPSE, 2015–2020)
11	Social finance	Examine solutions in order to implement new forms of financing (GAPSE, 2015–2020)
12	Research, knowledge	Support the liaison and transfer organization Innovative Territories in Social and Solidarity Economy (GAPSE, 2015–2020)
13	Enhancing Indigenous−SE linkage	Support the establishment of a SE hub for First Nations (GAPSE, 2015–2020)
14	Municipal training	Supporting training in the SE within municipalities and their economic development authorities is essential to enable them to effectively intervene with collective enterprises. (GAPSE, 2015–2020)
15	Supporting leading organizations	Financially support Chantier de l’économie sociale (GAPSE, 2015–2020)
16	Supporting leading organizations	Renew the Partnership Agreement for the Development of Cooperatives (GAPSE, 2020–2025)
17	Social finance	Extend provision of additional interest relief to the Fiducie du Chantier de l’économie sociale and invest the recapitalization amount of $10 million granted in 2019 (GAPSE, 2020–2025)
18		Develop financial tools adapted to the revival of SE businesses through RISQ (GAPSE, 2020–2025)
19		Put in place initiatives to deepen and experiment with participatory financing tools with a view to diversifying the sources of financing for SE enterprises (GAPSE, 2020–2025)
20	Supporting leading organizations	Provide financial support to the Chantier de l’économie sociale (GAPSE, 2020–2025)
21	Social finance	Renew the two memorandums of understanding relating to the operation of student funds between the government of Quebec, the Quebec Workers’ Solidarity Fund and the Quebec Federation of Workers (GAPSE, 2020–2025)
22	Research, knowledge	Support the liaison and knowledge transfer activities on the SE of the organization Innovative Territories in Social and Solidarity Economy (GAPSE, 2020–2025)

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on analysis of Quebec SE policy programmes.

Stepping Stones Corridor

In terms of the Stepping Stones public policy, the initiatives encompass various programmes, including financial relief, subsidies for individuals purchasing products and services from SE, enhancing indigenous−SE linkage, and financing joint projects between SE and Regional Development Cooperatives for community development, among others. As indicated in Table 4, interviewees highlighted policy examples focusing on subsidies and financial relief for individuals.

Table 4.

List of Stepping Stones policy programmes of Quebec.

Number	Type	Policy programmes
1	Subsidies for services of SE	Financial contribution from the state for the purchase of childcare services in a CPE (Centres de la petite enfance, public daycare centre) (PPDE, 2003)
2	Financial relief	Financial exemption programme for domestic help services. (PPDE, 2003)
3	Subsidies for services of SE	The programme covers a portion of the cost of services offered by a perinatal resource centre, paid by the parents (PPDE, 2003)
4	Financial relief	The annual budget for the financial exemption programme for domestic help services has been increased from 32 to 36 million dollars (GAPE, 2002)
5	Enhancing Indigenous−SE linkage	Provide concrete support to Inuit communities wishing to establish SE businesses (SEMCGAPCE, 2008)
6	Culture citizen action funding	Provide financial support for carrying out work relating to citizen action in culture (SEMCGAPCE, 2008)
7	Supporting community-SE project	Introduce a new support measure which will finance pilot collaboration projects between SE centres and the Regional Development Cooperatives to establish needs and accelerate the emergence of projects in communities (GAPSE, 2020–2025)

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on analysis of Quebec SE policy programmes.

Tables 2 –4 present lists of policies corresponding to each corridor type, allowing a preliminary observation of temporal patterns. The number of Landscape Corridor policies increased from 2 in 1996–2001 to 7 in both 2015 and 2020, suggesting a growing emphasis on enabling and indirect instruments over time. Linear Corridor policies appear intermittently, with peaks in 2003 and 2015 and additional occurrences in 2008, 2013 and 2020, reflecting periods of targeted, direct policy interventions. Stepping Stones policies remain relatively limited across the observed periods, indicating that demand-side or intermediary support mechanisms were used more selectively. Overall, these patterns illustrate how the composition of policy instruments evolved over time, providing context for understanding shifts in the SE policy landscape.

Discussion and conclusion

This article's primary contribution lies in introducing empirical insights into previous theories and studies on the government's role and function in promoting the intersectoral collaboration between the SE and other sectors. Traditional cross-sector collaboration studies primarily focused on one-time or project-based interactions between sectors (Boyer, 2019; Page et al., 2015). And the majority of research on cross-sector partnerships, including that grounded in institutional theory, has primarily focused on collaborations involving only two intersectoral logics (Vogel et al., 2022): ‘who is connected to whom;’ and ‘how the interplay between public and private actors affects decision-making and policy implementation’.

However, the Sectoral Corridor policy shifts, highlight ‘how these connections are structured and sustained through policy mechanisms’. This analytical perspective offers a heuristic approach for a more dynamic analysis of policy networks, particularly in terms of how public policies could serve as enablers of sustained intersectoral collaboration (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2016). It is particularly valuable for policymakers and researchers looking to support the long-term sustainability of the SE by identifying which policy interventions and institutional structures best facilitate it (Santos, 2012).

In this sense, the Sectoral Corridor framework may provide a useful analytical lens for examining how public policy can structure sustained cross-sector collaboration in diverse institutional contexts. Although Quebec provides a particularly supportive institutional context − characterized by the legacy of the ‘Quiet Revolution’, traditions of co-construction and strong intermediary organizations − the Sectoral Corridor framework may also be applicable in other jurisdictions. In contexts where institutional arrangements support collaboration between public authorities, civil society and SE actors − such as those with established co-construction traditions, recognized intermediary organizations, or formal policy frameworks for SE development − similar policy approaches could help structure cross-sectoral cooperation and strengthen the role of the SE. In more fragmented or market-oriented institutional contexts, the framework may serve as a heuristic lens for identifying gaps in cross-sector linkages rather than as a directly applicable model.

The analysis shows predominance of Landscape Corridor policies, reflecting Quebec's long-standing approach to supporting the SE through framework-enabling and coordination-oriented instruments rather than direct intervention. Given the relatively high level of organizational maturity and autonomy of SE actors in Quebec, governments have tended to prioritize indirect tools − such as financing infrastructure, capacity building and intermediary support − that preserve sectoral autonomy while facilitating cross-sector interaction (Bouchard et al., 2017; Mendell, 2008). This pattern also suggests political and institutional constraints, as Landscape Corridor instruments allow governments to promote collaboration without imposing rigid mandates or distorting market and civil society dynamics. In this sense, the observed policy mix reflects path dependence in state–civil society relations and a strategic preference for enabling rather than steering cross-sectoral collaboration.

Our study highlights also the diversity of Sectoral Corridor policy measures across sectors, emphasizing that no single type dominates; instead, a mixed approach prevails. It underscores the necessity of tailoring Sectoral Corridor public policy to the evolving dynamics and sectoral landscape rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all strategy. Recognizing the dynamic nature of relationships − sometimes marked by tensions − between the SE sector and the public sector, the private sector and civil society is crucial (Lévesque, 2016; Vaillancourt, 2009).

Finally, this article makes several key contributions to research on the SE ecosystem and SE-related public policy. Existing studies have examined the SE ecosystem primarily through the lenses of social entrepreneurship (Roundy, 2017) or tri-sector relationships among government, business and civil society (Waddell and Brown, 1997). Building on this literature, this study applies insights from island geography theory to the SE context to develop an ecosystem-oriented analytical framework that foregrounds inter-sectoral relationships. By conceptualizing the SE as a hybrid sector exposed to multiple isomorphic pressures, the study highlights the role of public policy in calibrating cross-sectoral distance and sustaining long-term cooperation among SE enterprises, public institutions, civil society and private organizations.

Using the metaphor of island biogeography highlights the diversity of policies that shape a sector, in this case, the SE. It is important to emphasize that this metaphor and the Sectoral Corridor framework are employed as heuristic and analytical tools, rather than as a fully specified causal theory. While the framework helps to organize policy instruments and illuminate ecosystem-level policy design, it does not test causal effects or generate empirically verified propositions regarding policy effectiveness.

We acknowledge that our study has limitations. First, our analysis does not delve into the necessity, flow and scale of resources exchanged during sectoral interactions, leaving room for further research. Second, while this study examines the overall distribution of corridor types, a detailed temporal disaggregation of the policy mix across 1996–2025 could provide deeper insights into path dependence, political windows and instrument learning. Due to space and scope constraints, this analysis is left for future research. Third, the examination of the multi-level interactions and incorporation of detailed case examples to better understand the dynamics of cross-sectoral collaboration involving the SE are needed. Finally, it focuses on government statements and policy programmes without reflecting on budgets, evaluation, or the effectiveness of each Sectoral Corridor public policy programme. Future research could build on this classification to examine causal mechanisms, comparative variation and outcome-based impacts across different contexts.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Jiae Seo

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Jiae Seo is a researcher at a public institution in South Korea with over a decade of experience in the social economy sector. She holds a PhD in Social Economy from the University of Valencia, and her research focuses on social economy policy, social value measurement, and cross-sectoral collaboration.

Sonia Tello-Rozas is Full Professor at ESG-UQAM. Her current research focuses mainly on social and solidarity economy; social innovation and social inclusion methodologies promoted by nonprofit organizations.

References

Agranoff

(2012) Collaborating to Manage: A Primer for the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Aligica

Tarko

(2012) Polycentricity: from Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Polycentricity 25(2): 237–262.

Amodeo

(2001) Be more cooperative to become more competitive. Journal of Rural Cooperation 29(2): 115–124.

Anderson

Jenkins

(2006) Applying Nature's Design: Corridors as a Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation. New York, USA: Columbia University Press.

Ansell

Gash

(2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571.

Arsenault

(2016) The Social Investment State and the Social Economy: The Politics of Quebec’s Social Economy Turn, 1996–2015. PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Bélanger

Comeau

Métivier

(2000) La révolution tranquille [The Quiet Revolution], Montréal, VLB, 316. [In French.]

Bouchard

Fontan

J-M

Lévesque

(2025) Écosystèmes de l’économie sociale et solidaire : éléments d’une recherche exploratoire [Ecosystems of the social and solidarity economy: elements of an exploratory research]. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research / Revue canadienne de recherche sur les OSBL et l’économie sociale 16(1): 1–23. [In French.]

Bouchard

Léonard

Rousselière

, et al. (2017) Impacting social economy ecosystem through solidarity financing: the case of a solidarity finance institution. In: EMES Conferences Selected Papers, 6th EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise. Available at: https://emes.net/content/uploads/Bouchard-Leonard-Rousseliere-Tello-Rozas-ECSP-6EMES-04.pdf (accessed 21 April 2026).

10.

Boyer

(2019) How does public participation affect perceptions of public–private partnerships? A citizens’ view on push, pull, and network approaches in PPPs. Public Management Review 21(10): 1464–1485.

11.

Bühring

Simeone

(2024) New approaches for sustainable growth: advancing cross-sector collaborations, new capability building, and executive leadership development. Journal of Innovation Management 12(2): VIII–XVII.

12.

Catala

Savall

Chaves-Avila

(2023) From entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems to the social economy ecosystem. Journal of Business Research 163: 113932.

13.

Charron

(2012) The Growth of the Social Economy in Quebec Through the Unification of the Movement Since 1996. Quebec, Canada: The Canadian CED Network.

14.

Chaves

Monzón

(2018) The social economy facing emerging economic concepts: social innovation, social responsibility, collaborative economy, social enterprises and solidarity economy. CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa 93(1): 5–50.

15.

Clarke

Crane

(2018) Cross-sector partnerships for systemic change: systematized literature review and agenda for further research. Journal of Business Ethics 150(2): 303–313.

16.

Deguchi

(2016) Globalization, glocalization, and Galapagos syndrome: public interest corporations in Japan. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law 18(1): 5–14.

17.

Di Bella

Grant

Kindornay

, et al. (2013) The Private Sector and Development. Ottawa: North−South Institute.

18.

DiMaggio

Powell

(1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.

19.

Dube

Danescu

(2011) Supplemental Guidance. Florida, USA: The Institute of Internal Auditors.

20.

Emerson

Nabatchi

Balogh

(2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(1): 1–29.

21.

Evans

(1996) Government action, social capital and development: reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Development 24(6): 1119–1132.

22.

Flávio

(2014) Galapagos Syndrome and other cultural aspects embodied in contemporary Japanese graphic design. Blucher Design Proceedings 1(2): 698–708.

23.

Fontan

(2013) The social economy research partnerships. In: Bouchard

(ed.) Innovation and the Social Economy: The Quebec Experience. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 71–95.

24.

Fontan

Lévesque

(2023) The institutional ecosystem. In: Encyclopedia of the Social and Solidarity Economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 443–451.

25.

Fonteneau

Neamtam

Wanyama

, et al. (2010) Social and Solidarity Economy: Building a Common Understanding. Turin: International Training Centre of the International Labour Organization.

26.

Gigauri

Damenia

(2020) Cooperation between social entrepreneurs and government to develop solutions to social problems. Business and Economic Research 10(3): 116–136.

27.

Gray

Purdy

(2018) Collaborating for Our Future: Multistakeholder Partnerships for Solving Complex Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28.

Hood

(1983) The Tools of Government. London: Macmillan.

29.

Howlett

(2000) Managing the “hollow state”: procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration 43(4): 412–431.

30.

Howlett

Ramesh

(2003) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press.

31.

Hudson

(2009) Life on the edge: navigating the competitive tensions between the ‘social’ and the ‘economic’ in the social economy and in its relations to the mainstream. Journal of Economic Geography 9(4): 493–510.

32.

Isenberg

(2010) How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review 88(6): 40–50.

33.

Klijn

Koppenjan

(2016) The impact of contract characteristics on the performance of public–private partnerships (PPPs). Public Money & Management 36(6): 455–462.

34.

Koppenjan

JFM

Klijn

(2004) Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making. London: Routledge.

35.

Koschmann

Kuhn

Pfarrer

(2012) A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review 37(2): 332–354.

36.

Kramer-Schadt

Kaiser

Frank

, et al. (2011) Analyzing the effect of stepping stones on target patch colonization in structured landscapes for Eurasian lynx. Landscape Ecology 26(4): 501–513.

37.

Lekan

Jonas

Deutz

, et al. (2021) Weaving circular ties: Network empowerment for the social enterprise-led development of inclusive circular cities. In 27nd International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, Mid Sweden University, 13–15.

38.

Lévesque

(2013) How the social economy won recognition in Québec at the end of the twentieth century. In: Bouchard MJ (ed.) Innovation and the Social Economy: The Québec Experience. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 25–70.

39.

Lévesque

(2016) Économie sociale et solidaire et entrepreneur social: vers quels nouveaux écosystèmes? [Social and solidarity economy and social entrepreneurship: towards what new ecosystems?]. Revue Interventions Économiques 54. https://doi.org/10.4000/interventionseconomiques.2802 (accessed 21 April 2026). [In French.]

40.

Lévesque

Ninacs

(2000) The social economy in Canada: the Québec experience. In: Social Economy: International Debates and Perspectives, 112–129. Available at: https://praxis.encommun.io/media/notes/note_9535/a77_levesque_and_ninacs_ifdec_the_quebec_experience_19973096.pdf (accessed 21 April 2026).

41.

Lima

Brochado

Marques

(2021) Public−private partnerships in the water sector: a review. Utilities Policy 69(2): 101182.

42.

Liu

Wang

Zhang

, et al. (2025) How risk factors lead to the early termination of public–private partnership projects in China: a multi-case study based on social network analysis and interpretive-structure modeling. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 32(2): 824–846.

43.

MacArthur

Wilson

(1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Monographs in Population Biology, 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

44.

Matthews

Triantis

(2021) Island biogeography. Current Biology 31(19): R1201–R1207.

45.

Mendell

(2008) The three pillars of the social economy: the Quebec experience. In: Amin

(ed.) The Social Economy: International Perspectives on Economic Solidarity. London: Zed Books, 176−207.

46.

Mendell

Neamtan

(2010) The social economy in Quebec: towards a new political economy. In: Mook L, Quarter J and Ryan S (eds) Researching the Social Economy. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 63–83.

47.

Moore

(1993) Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review 71(3): 75–78.

48.

Novkovic

Puusa

Miner

(2022) Co-operative identity and the dual nature: from paradox to complementarities. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management 10(1): 100162.

49.

Ostrom

Parks

(1973) Suburban police departments. In: Masotti

Hadden

(eds) The Urbanization of the Suburbs. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 367–402.

50.

Pache

A-C

Fayard

A-L

Galo

(2022) How can cross-sector collaborations foster social innovation? A review. In: Vaccaro A and Ramus T (eds) Social Innovation and Social Enterprises: Toward a Holistic Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 35–62.

51.

Page

Stone

Bryson

, et al. (2015) Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations: a framework and challenges of assessment. Public Administration 93(3): 715–732.

52.

Parrado

Reynaers

(2020) Agents never become stewards: explaining the lack of innovation in public–private partnerships. International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(3): 427–443.

53.

Provan

Kenis

(2008) Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(2): 229–252.

54.

Rhodes

RAW

(2006) Policy networks. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy 6: 425–447.

55.

Roundy

(2017) Social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems: complementary or disjointed phenomena? International Journal of Social Economics 44(9): 1–18.

56.

Sadabadi

Rahimirad

Nikijoo

(2024) Enhancing cross-sector partnerships in energy saving through social entrepreneurship: a social network analysis approach. Energy Research & Social Science 109(9): 103412.

57.

Salamon

(2002) The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

58.

Santos

(2012) A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics 111(3): 335–351.

59.

Scaringella

Radziwon

(2018) Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: old wine in new bottles? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 136(7): 59–87.

60.

Selsky

Parker

(2005) Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management 31(6): 849–873.

61.

Seo

(2024a) From boom to transformation: assessing the paradigm shift in public policies for the social economy in South Korea. Public Management Review 27(6): 1489–1512.

62.

Seo

(2024b) Unveiling the impact of policy entrepreneurs on South Korea’s social economy: a media analysis. Journal of Asian Public Policy 18(3): 632–649.

63.

Steelyana

Kinanti

(2023) Public private partnership in transportation infrastructure: a review on toll road development. In E3S Web of Conferences (388). EDP Sciences.

64.

Tello Rozas

Pozzebon

Mailhot

(2015) Uncovering micro-practices and patterns of engagement that scale up social-driven collaboration: a practice view of power. Journal of Management Studies 52(8): 1064–1096.

65.

Tooher

Collins

Braunack-Mayer

, et al. (2017) Intersectoral collaboration to implement school-based health programmes. Health Promotion International 32(2): 312–321.

66.

Vaillancourt

(2009) Social economy in the co-construction of public policy. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 80(2): 275–313.

67.

Vaillancourt

(2017) The co-construction of public policy: the contribution of the social economy. In: Mendell M and Lévesque B (eds) Innovation and the Social Economy: The Québec Experience. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 127–157.

68.

Van Tulder

Seitanidi

Crane

, et al. (2016) Enhancing the impact of cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics 135(1): 1–17.

69.

Vogel

Göbel

Grewe-Salfeld

, et al. (2022) Cross-sector partnerships: mapping the field and advancing an institutional approach. International Journal of Management Reviews 24(3): 394–414.

70.

Waddell

Brown

(1997) Fostering intersectoral partnering: a guide to promoting cooperation among governments, business, and civil society actors. IDRC Reports 13(3): 1–27.

71.

Walzer

(1998) The concept of civil society. In: Walzer

(ed.) Toward a Global Civil Society. New York: Berghahn Books, 7–28.

72.

Wilson

Willis

(1975) Applied biogeography. In: Cody

Diamond

(eds) Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 522–534.