Collaborative Governance Between Local Government Units (LGUs) and People’s Organizations in Panabo City

This paper aims to identify the issues that hinder meaningful cooperation between Local Government Units (LGUs) and People's Organizations (POs) in Panabo City. The study will undertake the following objectives: To look into the mechanisms and processes through which Local Government Units (LGUs) and People Organizations (POs) initiate and maintain collaborative governance, identify the possible challenges that might hamper successful collaboration between LGUs and POs in Panabo City, and evaluate the lessons and best practices as a result of the cooperation of LGUs and POs in Panabo City. This qualitative research attempts to understand LGU-PO collaboration in the Philippines and how it functions in Panabo City, particularly by using the searchlight of a selection of 12 stakeholders who are interviewed (6 LGU officials, and 6 PO leaders). Thematic analysis pointed to four enablers of successful collaboration, including capacity-building programs that could enable POs to overcome role-hybridization and help align goals with LGUs, scheduled meetings with a healing capacity that represented transparent conversation, outreach activities that improved the profile of POs and provided them with solidarity, and formal conflict-resolution institutions that were able to maintain organizational harmony. But such setbacks as lack of LGU funds, red tape system and the loss of member interest, among others, mitigate the very potentials. Conclusion: The results are an indication that LGUs should focus on trust building, simplifying processes, and depoliticizing resource distribution, whereas POs require consistent work strategies, that urges institutional reforms of enhancing collaboration initiatives in local governance.

Collaborative governance, local government units (LGUs), People’s Organizations (POs), participatory development, Capacity Building.

1. Abubakar, A. H. (2024). Evaluating the Impact of Training and Skill Development Programs on Employee Performance in Banking Sector / Financial Institutions. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ahmed, S. K. (2024). The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aktar, S., & Alam, M. M. (2021). Workers' Satisfaction with Grievance-Handling Procedure: A Study on the Selected Garment Factories in Bangladesh. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alberca, R. N., & Salapa, A. (2024). Civil society organizations (CSOs) in Panabo City: A baseline study. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Arai, Y., Maswadi, Oktoriana, S., Suharyani, A., Didik, & Inoue, M. (2021). How Can We Mitigate Power Imbalances in Collaborative Environmental Governance? [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Balouch, M. A., Alamu, O., & Marcos, Z. A.-S. (2024). Sustainable project management: Transforming futures through eco-conscious practices. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Benedikt, A., Susło, R., Paplicki, M., & Drobnik, J. (2020). Mediation as an Alternative Method of Conflict Resolution: A Practical Approach. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bhagavathula, S., Brundiers, K., Stauffacher, M., & Kay, B. (2021). Fostering collaboration in city governments’ sustainability, emergency management and resilience work. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Besana, M. D., Palmares, K. D. P., & Diocos, C. B. (2025). Capacity building and organizational development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bünte, M., & Weiss, M. L. (2023). Civil Society and Democratic Decline in Southeast Asia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Capuno, J. J. (2010). Incumbents and innovations under decentralization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Cayabyab, B. A. G., Quimbo, M. A. T., Serrano, & Calalo, F. C. (2024). Effectiveness of application of knowledge of agricultural training among farmer-scientist training participants in the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2021). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2021). Collaborative governance regimes. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Haas, N. (2023). Be Explicit: Identifying and Addressing Misaligned Goals in Collaborative Research Teams. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hennink, M. M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kamarudin, K. A., Kassim, S., & Ghazali, R. (2023). Dynamics of power in collaborative governance: Insights from local governments. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kim, S. (2016). The workings of collaborative governance: Evaluating collaborative community-building initiatives in Korea. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lah, O. (2025). Breaking the silos: Integrated approaches to foster sustainable development and climate action. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2022). Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable design. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Sage handbook of qualitative research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lisao, G. M., Nuñez, K. D., Lopez, J. M., Huelva, R., More, N., Pelaez, I., & Jardin, R. (2024). Roles of NGOs and Local Government Units: The Case of Pasil, Cebu City. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Luna, A. M., Dizon, J. T., Corpuz, J. T., Flordeliza, M. A., & Espiritu, P. J. S. (2023). Beyond COVID-19: The future of festivals in Calabarzon, Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2014). Localizing development: Does participation work? [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mashuri, F., Sarib, M. R., Alhabsyi, A., & Ruslin. (2022). Semi-structured interview: Methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. McGrath, R. (2021). Journalling and memoing: Reflexive qualitative research tools. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. McKim, C. (2023). Meaningful member-checking: A structured approach to member-checking. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Min, B., Arima, E., Backer, D., Hicken, A., Kollman, K., & Selway, J. (2023). Local partisan biases in allocations of foreign aid: A study of agricultural assistance in India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Morelos, L. P. C., & Ybañez, R. P. (2025). Challenges encountered in business permit approval for SMEs in Dumaguete City. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Munthali, G., & Kandasamy, L. (2024). Prospects and challenges of budgeting in project management: An explorative review of CCEI Malawi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Noardo, F., Guler, D., Fauth, J., Malacarne, G., Ventura, S. M., Azenha, M., Olsson, P.-O., & Senger, L. (2022). Unveiling the actual progress of Digital Building Permit: Getting awareness through a critical state-of-the-art review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Nyataya, I. P. K. (2020). Conflict mediation committees spurring development of communities in Rwanda. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Oliveira, R. (2021). Cultural festivals and community cohesion in rural Brazil: The case of Festa Junina. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Ong, D. U., & Gabriel, A. G. (2018). Linking Transparency and Accountability to Local Legislative Performance in the Province of Nueva Ecija in the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Rutagand, E. P. (2024). The role of cultural festivals in promoting social cohesion and cultural understanding. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Rutledge, P. B., & Hogg, J. L. C. (2020). In-depth interviews. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Scott, I., & Gong, T. (2021). Coordinating government silos: Challenges and opportunities. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Shaikh, S., Hasan, M., & Khan, A. (2022). Trust and governance: A study of stakeholder collaboration in community development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Sivashankar, P., & Malkanthi, P. (2021). Impact of agricultural training on farmers’ technological knowledge and crop production in Bandarawela agricultural zone. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Teehankee, J. (2014). The Study of Politics in Southeast Asia: The Philippines in Southeast Asian Political Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Thatchenkery, S., & Piezunka, H. (2024). Competition in collaboration: The problem of (mis)aligned perception. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Ubungen, R., Ramos, V., & Casimiro, R. (2020). Analyzing Bottom-Up Budgeting and Assistance to Disadvantaged Municipalities Program: Toward Participatory Budget Implementation in the First Legislative District of Nueva Ecija in the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Uvarova, S. S., Orlov, A. K., & Kankhva, V. S. (2023). Ensuring efficient implementation of lean construction projects using building information modeling. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Wiles, R. (2022). Managing ethical challenges in qualitative research: Reflexive and ethical practice. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Zid, C., Kasim, N., & Soomro, A. R. (2020). Effective project management approach to attain project success, based on cost–time–quality. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Decadal Overview of Welfare Schemes in Telangana (2014–2024)
• Ubuntu and the Missed Development Goals in the Global South: Rethinking MDGs and SDGs through an African Philosophical Lens
• Exploring the Factors of Obesity: Insights from Johor State Civil Servants
• Navigating the Nexus: Challenges Faced by Part-Time Postgraduate Government Employees in Malaysia
• The Lived Experiences of Skilled Filipino Women Immigrants in Denmark