Collaborative Proxy and Hybrid Institutional Design: Governing the Digital Transformation of Population Administration Services in Remote Areas of Berau Regency, Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59890/ijsr.v4i5.17Keywords:
Collaborative Governance, Digital Transformation, Population Administration, Public Service, Berau RegencyAbstract
Digital transformation of population administration services is frequently treated as a technical matter, yet in geographically fragmented regions its success depends on how actors share infrastructure, authority, and trust. This study analyzes collaborative governance in the digital transformation of population administration services in Berau Regency, Indonesia, focusing on the Si Penyu Beramal mobile application. A qualitative analytic approach within a post-positivist paradigm was employed. Data were gathered through in-depth interviews, observation, and documentation involving officials of the Population and Civil Registration Agency (Disdukcapil), the Communication and Informatics Agency (Diskominfo), sub-district and village heads, a mining company, non-governmental organizations, academics, media, and citizens. The data were coded in NVivo using the four dimensions of Ansell and Gash (2008) and complemented by inductive themes. The findings show that severe resource imbalances, including blank spot areas and low digital literacy, were converted into interdependence through proactive facilitative leadership, open institutional rules, and sustained face-to-face and virtual dialogue. Village officials, legitimized through appointment decrees and stamped integrity pledges, acted as collaborative proxies for citizens without devices or signal.
References
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Georgetown University Press.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432
Cordella, A., & Iannacci, F. (2010). Information systems in the public sector: The e-Government enactment framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2010.01.001
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12347
Dinas Kependudukan dan Pencatatan Sipil Kabupaten Berau. (2022). Laporan kinerja instansi pemerintah (LKj-IP) tahun 2022. Disdukcapil Kabupaten Berau.
Dinas Kependudukan dan Pencatatan Sipil Kabupaten Berau. (2025). Data agregat kependudukan semester II tahun 2025 dan laporan akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah (LAKIP). Disdukcapil Kabupaten Berau.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181
Heeks, R. (2002). Information systems and developing countries: Failure, success, and local improvisations. The Information Society, 18(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240290075039
Klievink, B., & Janssen, M. (2009). Realizing joined-up government: Dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.007
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Purdy, J. M. (2012). A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02525.x
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711418768
Sugiyono. (2018). Metode penelitian kualitatif. Alfabeta.
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorganizational collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886303039001001
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
