Across the OECD and beyond, collaborative governance is becoming increasingly essential. The concept of “co-production,” where public services and policies are designed together with communities and civil society, demonstrates that reforms are more durable, legitimate, and effective when built through partnerships. Countries such as Canada, Finland, and New Zealand leverage civil society to reshape healthcare, environmental policy, education, and local governance. In Ukraine, digital governance reforms persisted and expanded during wartime because NGOs, tech experts, and public institutions collaborated in ways that would have been unprecedented a decade ago.
This underscores a broader truth: public administration alone cannot address today’s complex challenges, and civil society cannot drive meaningful change without institutional partners. The two are complementary—public institutions provide stability, legal mandate, and institutional memory, while civil society contributes creativity, flexibility, trust, and direct insight into citizens’ needs. When adversarial, both are weaker; when collaborative, they can achieve significant results even amid occasional tension.
The notion of the “death of the NGO sector” is misleading. What is fading is the old model of isolated, donor-driven NGOs disconnected from local communities and state institutions. The emerging model embeds civil society within broader networks that include public administration, universities, businesses, and citizen groups. Organizations now act as knowledge producers, watchdogs, implementers, and mediators simultaneously, maintaining independence while engaging more deeply in policy processes.
The Serbia–Kosovo normalization process illustrates this shift. When political leaders stalled on technical agreements, civil society kept them alive. It provided data, analysis, and public pressure when public administration lacked guidance. It amplified community concerns when implementation lagged and offered reliable information to international partners. These interactions fostered a cautious but meaningful level of trust, enabling data to flow more freely, civil society to join working groups, and citizens’ needs to remain central despite shifting political narratives.
Meaningful progress is rarely linear or dramatic; it emerges from quiet cooperation, sustained engagement, and a willingness to operate in the gray zone between politics and policy. Governance in divided societies requires relationships, trust, knowledge, and persistent engagement from actors who may not always agree but recognize a shared responsibility for the public good.
The key lesson is clear: neither public administration nor civil society can function effectively in isolation. NGOs are not disappearing—they are evolving into a collaborative, embedded role. The real risk lies in the illusion that the state and civil society can operate separately. The future of governance in the Balkans and beyond will depend on how well institutions and communities share responsibilities and build systems that reflect their combined capacities. The Serbia–Kosovo process demonstrates that genuine change begins when actors refuse to accept stagnation as inevitable, highlighting a roadmap for meaningful, sustained progress.
