Decentralization without autonomy
Multilevel governance gaps in Indonesia’s borderland development
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22436298 |
|---|---|
| Authors | R Siti Zuhro (Agence Nationale de la Recherche), Nyimas Latifah Letty Aziz (Agence Nationale de la Recherche), Yusuf Maulana (0000-0002-3251-3885, Agence Nationale de la Recherche), Dini Rahmiati (Agence Nationale de la Recherche), Syahrir Ika (The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration), Badrun Susantyo (0000-0003-0015-7828, Social Welfare Department, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Publication date | 2026-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Political Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2673-3145 • E-ISSN: 2673-3145 |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/fpos.2026.1807463 |
| OpenAlex | W7166818198 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 23 |
Background Indonesia’s border regions are strategically important for national sovereignty but remain underdeveloped despite decentralization reforms since 2001. Border governance is constrained by institutional fragmentation, weak coordination, and fiscal dependency. This study examines why decentralization has not translated into effective border development by identifying multilevel governance gaps across Indonesia’s border provinces. Methods This study applies a comparative qualitative design across seven border provinces: North Kalimantan, West Kalimantan, East Nusa Tenggara, North Sulawesi, Riau Islands, Maluku, and Aceh. Data were collected through field observations, 35 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at multiple governance levels, and policy documents from the National Border Management Agency (BNPP) and regional agencies. The data were thematically analyzed using the United Nations Public Administration Network (UNPAN) seven-gap framework and interpreted through Bolleyer and Thorlakson’s multilevel governance typology. Results The findings reveal a decentralization paradox: although Indonesia formally adopts decentralization, border governance operates through an interdependent-centralized model. Key failures appear in fiscal dependency, policy-objective misalignment, territorial constraints, limited institutional capacity, and weak accountability. The National Border Management Agency (BNPP) and Regional Border Management Agency (BPPD) remain constrained by unclear authority distribution and weak executive coordination. Conclusion Decentralization in Indonesia’s borderlands has produced institutional dependency rather than substantive autonomy. Regulatory harmonization, fiscal sustainability, stronger institutional capacity, and improved intergovernmental coordination are essential to transform borderlands into more inclusive development regions.
Accountability · Corporate governance · Decentralization · Multi-level governance · Sovereignty · Coastal and Marine Management · Cross-Border Cooperation and Integration · Local Government Finance and Decentralization
Reimagining Professional Associations in Disrupted Research Systems
Integration, functional differentiation and problem‐solving in multilevel governance
From centralisation to new ways of multi-level coordination
Rescuing state capacity
Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations
Beyond Decentralization--The Comparative Study of Interdependence in Federal Systems
Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |