The Broken Bridge of Collaboration: Unpacking Poverty Politics in Eastern Indonesia

Fiko Onga; V. Rudy Handoko; Ayun Maduwinarti

doi:10.58526/jsret.v4i4.969

Authors

Fiko Onga Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya
V. Rudy Handoko Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya
Ayun Maduwinarti Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58526/jsret.v4i4.969

Keywords:

public policy, poverty alleviation, pentahelix, multi-actor participation, collaborative governance

Abstract

This study investigates the implementation of Collaborative Governance in poverty alleviation programs in Bolaang Mongondow Timur Regency, North Sulawesi. Grounded in a constructivist paradigm, the research adopts a qualitative case study approach. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, observations, document analysis, and focus group discussions involving stakeholders from five key sectors: government, business, academia, civil society, and media. The findings reveal that although a formal structure (TKPKD) has been established to facilitate coordination, its effectiveness has been compromised following the issuance of Presidential Regulation No. 163/2024, which dissolved the existing institutional framework without providing operational guidelines for its replacement (BPPK). The study identifies a paradox of collaboration: formal documents and coordination mechanisms exist, yet genuine multi-actor interaction remains limited. The involvement of non-government actors is mainly instrumental and symbolic, with civil society and media often excluded from meaningful deliberation. The research concludes that Collaborative Governance in the region remains characterized by a top-down administrative logic rather than an inclusive, transformative practice. A key recommendation is the institutionalization of regular, deliberative, and open multi-actor forums supported by accurate and transparent data systems. This study contributes theoretically by offering a localized adaptation of the Pentahelix model, enriched by institutional improvisation and contextual wisdom.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Gilardi, F. (2006). Delegation to independent regulatory agencies in Western Europe: credibility, political uncertainty, and diffusion. In Delegation in Contemporary Democracies (pp. 141–161). Routledge.

Hariyoko, Y., Biadi, E. P., & Susiantoro, A. (2021). Pengembangan Objek Wisata Kabupaten Mojokerto Dengan Pendekatan Collaborative Governance (Studi Kasus Pemandian Air Panas Pacet). GOVERNANCE: Jurnal Kebijakan Dan Manajemen Publik, 11(1).

Manara, M., & Pani, E. (2023). Institutional hybrids through meso-level bricolage: The governance of formal property in urban Tanzania. Geoforum, 140, 103722.

May, P. J. (2003). Performance‐based regulation and regulatory regimes: the saga of leaky buildings. Law & Policy, 25(4), 381–401.

Söderlund, J., & Borg, E. (2018). Liminality in management and organization studies: Process, position and place. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(4), 880–902.

Stolze, A. (2021). A meta-ethnography on HEIs’ transformation into more entrepreneurial institutions: Towards an action-framework proposition. Industry and Higher Education, 35(1), 14–27.

Willis, E. M., Morgan, D. D., & Sweet, K. (2021). Managing liminality: Professional care during organizational change. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41(5/6), 735–747.

Xu, H., Xu, M., & Chen, W. (2022). Formation of relational poverty governance and its impacts: How Chinese local governments implement poverty alleviation programs. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 27(2), 295–317.

Zhu, J., Xiao, H., & Wu, B. (2024). From big data to higher bureaucratic capacity: Poverty alleviation in China. Public Administration, 102(1), 61–78.

Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189–221.