Pentahelix collaboration in cultural policy implementation: communication dynamics in regional governance

Abstract

This article examines how the quality of communication among Pentahelix actors shapes the implementation and sustainability of cultural public policy within regional governance, with a focus on the North Sumatra Cultural Park (Taman Budaya Sumatera Utara/TBSU). Using a qualitative case study design, data were collected through in-depth interviews, direct observation, and document analysis, and analyzed using an interactive model combined with thematic analysis. The study conceptualizes communication as a critical mechanism in collaborative governance, highlighting how interaction patterns among government, academia, industry, community, and media actors influence policy implementation processes and institutional performance. The findings reveal that communication practices remain partially hierarchical and fragmented, characterized by limited transparency, weak dialogic engagement, and uneven distribution of trust among stakeholders. Structural, technological, and sociocultural constraints further hinder participatory decision-making and cross-sectoral coordination, reducing the effectiveness of policy implementation. Although Pentahelix collaboration is formally established, the absence of consistent openness, reciprocity, and empathetic communication weakens governance capacity and challenges the long-term sustainability of cultural policy outcomes. This study contributes to the public policy literature by advancing a communication-centered perspective on collaborative governance and demonstrating how communication quality serves as a mediating factor in policy design and implementation within multistakeholder frameworks. The findings offer important governance implications, particularly for strengthening institutional communication systems, enhancing participatory policy processes, and improving cross-sector coordination in regional cultural governance. However, the study is limited to a single institutional context, suggesting the need for comparative research across different governance settings.