Institutional Development in Collaborative Dispute Resolution: Contextual Influences and Hierarchical Intervention

Abstract

Institutions are critical to build the capacity for collaborative actions. Anecdotal evidence suggests a critical role of institutions in resolving disputes in collaboration. Nevertheless, very limited is known about why and how some collaborative activities are institutionalized while many others are not. In this thesis I address this gap by theorizing and empirically testing the institutional development through a unique perspective of collaborative disputes in which the process of institutional development is observed through the evolution and resolution of collaborative disputes. I adopt a mixed approach of (a) qualitative content analysis, case study, stakeholder interviews, and (b) quantitative sentiment analysis and statistical modelling. This is supported by two comprehensive databases: 99 collaborative disputes from four cross-border infrastructure projects, and 890 contextual tensions identified in a major cross-border project. The evidence is further supplemented and substantiated by 27 in-depth interviews.

The thesis consists of three key interrelated components. First, I empirically identify and theorize two distinct but interrelated collaborative institutional development processes: political and technical institutionalizations. These two institutional development processes differ in purpose, issue focus, stakeholder roles, process evolution, and other important aspects of collaboration. Second, I focus on a very important, but rarely studied, aspect of collaborative institutionalization—how sociopolitical and economic circumstances shape the contextual tensions, that are closely related to institutional development. This aspect of study is particularly important and relevant due to the dynamic sociopolitical and economic development of the study site and period and the implementation of “One Country, Two Systems” (1C2S) in this region. Third, taking advantage of the unique opportunity presented by the implementation of the 1C2S that highlights the role of central government in regional collaboration, I examine the impacts of hierarchical intervention and its different roles in institutional development that forms a theoretical foundation for this critically important, but hardly studied, topic due to the limitation of existing collaborative governance literature.

This thesis makes significant theoretical and practical contributions to collaborative governance. Theoretically, this thesis introduces a novel, dispute-centric approach to understanding institutional development in collaborative governance. It provides critical evidence that institutions are shaped by evolving sociopolitical environments and hierarchical interventions, operating through two primary pathways: political and technical institutionalizations. Leveraging sensemaking theory, the thesis establishes a Contextual Dynamic Collaboration (CDC) model that theorizes how contextual influences impact collaborative dynamics, thereby advancing the conventional Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) model into a more dynamic and adaptive analytical framework. Furthermore, this research enriches the theoretical discussion of mandated collaborative governance. It highlights mandated institutional development, primarily driven by hierarchical interventions, as a distinct and crucial institutional development form in collaborative governance, diverging significantly from conventional voluntary-based collaborative approaches.

Practically, this thesis demonstrates that collaborative disputes should be viewed not as impediments, but as important diagnostic instruments. Stakeholders should leverage disputes to reveal inefficiencies within existing collaborative structures and procedures, thereby fostering institutional development and strengthening collaborative capacities. Throughout this process, stakeholders should proactively adapt to external environments, leveraging contextual influences as a catalyst for successful institutional development. Concurrently, hierarchical authorities should carefully evaluate the implications of their interventions in collaborative processes. This necessitates intricate institutional and policy designs that effectively facilitate collaboration while simultaneously mitigating potential adverse effects.

Date of Award	2 Sept 2025
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	City University of Hong Kong
Supervisor	Xiaohu WANG (Supervisor), Xiaoling ZHANG (Supervisor) & Wanxin LI (Co-supervisor)