IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v140y2024ics0264837724000024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why did the common objective be biased in the execution collaborative governance program? The case from Dayak Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Haridison, Anyualatha

Abstract

This study uses a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software approach with the help of the NVivo v.12 software. The approach is used to obtain an overview of members’ views on the collaboration of customary land certification programs and factors determining failure in achieving a common objective process. In general, the findings show that collaboration programs fail, and members have a negative view of collaboration programs, namely the law infringement, conflict, and hidden agenda. The conflict between indigenous and leadership interests is referred to as a determination of the common objective bias of collaborative programs. The interpretation is that the collaboration on customary land certification programs is taken as a means of politicizing indigenous peoples to maintain power at the regional level. In addition, there are regional counter-regulations with the central government, giving rise to uncertainty about recognizing indigenous peoples in the regions. This study criticizes several previous studies that saw that the success of the collaboration process was largely determined by the strength of leadership in influencing members so that one vision was achieved, but this study found other aspects of abuse of power authority.

Suggested Citation

  • Haridison, Anyualatha, 2024. "Why did the common objective be biased in the execution collaborative governance program? The case from Dayak Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:140:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724000024
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724000024
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107050?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uda, Saritha Kittie & Schouten, Greetje & Hein, Lars, 2020. "The institutional fit of peatland governance in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Jansen, Louisa J.M. & Kalas, Patrick P. & Bicchieri, Marianna, 2021. "Improving governance of tenure in policy and practice: The case of Myanmar," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
    4. Chris Huxham, 2003. "Theorizing collaboration practice," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 401-423, September.
    5. Christopher S. Hayter & Muhammad Azfar Nisar, 2018. "Spurring Vaccine Development for the Developing World: A Collaborative Governance Perspective on Product Development Partnerships," International Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 46-58, January.
    6. Jacob Torfing & Christopher Ansell, 2017. "Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through the expansion of collaborative forms of governance," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 37-54, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sangmin Kim, 2016. "The workings of collaborative governance: Evaluating collaborative community-building initiatives in Korea," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(16), pages 3547-3565, December.
    2. Eberhard, Rachel & Johnston, Nathan & Everingham, Jo-Anne, 2013. "A collaborative approach to address the cumulative impacts of mine-water discharge: Negotiating a cross-sectoral waterway partnership in the Bowen Basin, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 678-687.
    3. Jacob Torfing & Eva Sørensen, 2019. "Interactive Political Leadership in Theory and Practice: How Elected Politicians May Benefit from Co-Creating Public Value Outcomes," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Batory Agnes & Svensson Sara, 2019. "The fuzzy concept of collaborative governance: A systematic review of the state of the art," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 28-39, December.
    5. Anders Melander & Tomas Mullern & David Anderssson & Fredrik Elgh & Malin Löfving, 2022. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap in Collaborative Research—in Dialogues We Trust," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 655-677, October.
    6. Sonal Shree & Yogesh Brahmankar & Ardhendu Shekhar Singh, 2020. "Inmates as Labour Pool: A Case of Inter-organizational Collaboration," South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, , vol. 9(2), pages 259-272, August.
    7. McNamara Madeleine W., 2011. "Processes of Cross-Sector Collaboration: A Case Study of the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-22, November.
    8. Mark Lubell & Adam Douglas Henry & Mike McCoy, 2010. "Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 287-300, April.
    9. J. Rommel & J. Christiaens, 2007. "Blocking and Accepting Steering from Ministers and Departments. Coping Strategies of Agencies in Flanders," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 07/431, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    10. Fernando Filgueiras & Pedro Palotti & Graziella G. Testa, 2023. "Complexing Governance Styles: Connecting Politics and Policy in Governance Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    11. Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna & Maraseni, Tek & Pathak, Bhoj Raj, 2022. "Navigating policy debates of and discourse coalitions on Nepal's Scientific Forest Management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    12. Maria Fjellfeldt, 2022. "Developing Long-Term Sustainable Collaborations between Welfare Providers That Support and Promote Child and Youth Mental Health in Sweden—A Qualitative Interview Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-13, June.
    13. Axel Marx, 2008. "Limits to non‐state market regulation: A qualitative comparative analysis of the international sport footwear industry and the Fair Labor Association," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 253-273, June.
    14. Ya Li & Zhichang Zhu & Catherine M. Gerard, 2012. "Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity to Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 209-220, March.
    15. Kimberly Pugel & Amy Javernick-Will & Matthew Koschmann & Shawn Peabody & Karl Linden, 2020. "Adapting Collaborative Approaches for Service Provision to Low-Income Countries: Expert Panel Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-26, March.
    16. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    17. Han Wang & Yueli Xu, 2024. "Achieving Neighborhood-Level Collaborative Governance through Participatory Regeneration: Cases of Three Residential Heritage Neighborhoods in Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    18. Budiarso & Utomo Sarjono Putro & Yos Sunitiyoso & Rachma Fitriati, 2022. "Constructing the collaborative Working Relationships in one of the Big Four Firms," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 679-709, October.
    19. Porter, Madeleine & Franks, Daniel M. & Everingham, Jo-Anne, 2013. "Cultivating collaboration: Lessons from initiatives to understand and manage cumulative impacts in Australian resource regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 657-669.
    20. Louisa J. M. Jansen, 2020. "Improving Governance of Tenure in Policy and Practice: Monitoring in a Space for Multiple Views," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:140:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724000024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.