IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v41y2023i5ne12693.html

Blind spots and spotlights in bureaucratic politics: An analysis of policy co‐production in environmental governance dynamics in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Alif K. Sahide
  • Micah R. Fisher
  • Nurhady Sirimorok
  • Fatwa Faturachmat
  • Ahmad Dhiaulhaq
  • Ahmad Maryudi
  • Karno B. Batiran
  • Supratman Supratman

Abstract

Motivation There has been growing interest in recent years in a better understanding of knowledge/science and policy co‐production in environmental governance. Purpose We aim to shed more light on the politics among the numerous actors shaping ideas that drive environmental policy in Indonesia. We focus our theoretical engagement on a framing of bureaucratic politics, which is a research tradition that has made various strides in explaining the formal and non‐formal processes that influence environmental governance outcomes. Methods and approach Building from a wide range of case studies drawn from deep engagement of participatory research in policy‐making in Indonesia, we established a simple typology that helps explain eight categories that emerge when bureaucracies, knowledge institutions, and publics come together to shape environmental governance outcomes. Findings The bureaucratic politics specifically clarified the features of cases that have clear fragmentation of bureaucracy but clear explanation variables from the formal and informal interest of bureaucracy. Potential uncovered by bureaucratic politics framing means that, if the metapolitical works alter, the bureaucracy works smoothly or makes it impossible for bureaucracy to operationalize their formal and informal interest in capturing the dynamics of macro and micro politics. In terms of form of knowledge, knowledge produced “from below” can also be used in policy co‐production. It can be produced by non‐expert actors, or from dialogue among them and sympathetic experts that occur below the bureaucracy's radar (people‐driven). Policy implications Our ideal policy co‐production implication is where the three actors have a strong foundation of “common consciousness” and interact equally to address a particular environmental policy agenda, with enough working space to jointly commit to creating the knowledge base to shape policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Alif K. Sahide & Micah R. Fisher & Nurhady Sirimorok & Fatwa Faturachmat & Ahmad Dhiaulhaq & Ahmad Maryudi & Karno B. Batiran & Supratman Supratman, 2023. "Blind spots and spotlights in bureaucratic politics: An analysis of policy co‐production in environmental governance dynamics in Indonesia," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(5), September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:5:n:e12693
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12693
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12693
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12693?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sahide, Muhammad Alif K. & Fisher, Micah R. & Maryudi, Ahmad & Dhiaulhaq, Ahmad & Wulandari, Christine & Kim, Yeon-Su & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "Deadlock opportunism in contesting conservation areas in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 412-424.
    2. van der Hel, Sandra, 2016. "New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 165-175.
    3. John Robinson & James Tansey, 2006. "Co-production, emergent properties and strong interactive social research: the Georgia Basin Futures Project," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 151-160, March.
    4. Putnam, Robert D., 1988. "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 427-460, July.
    5. Plehwe, Dieter & Neujeffski, Moritz & Krämer, Werner, 2018. "Saving the dangerous idea: austerity think tank networks in the European Union," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 37(2), pages 188-205.
    6. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    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. Sahide, Muhammad Alif K. & Fisher, Micah R. & Supratman, Supratman & Yusran, Yusran & Pratama, Andita A. & Maryudi, Ahmad & Runtubei, Yubelince & Sabar, Adrayanti & Verheijen, Bart & Wong, Grace Y. & , 2020. "Prophets and profits in Indonesia's social forestry partnership schemes: Introducing a sequential power analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    2. Fatem, Sepus M. & Awang, San A. & Pudyatmoko, Satyawan & Sahide, Muhammad A.K. & Pratama, Andita A. & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2018. "Camouflaging economic development agendas with forest conservation narratives: A strategy of lower governments for gaining authority in the re-centralising Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 699-710.
    3. Livia Fritz & Claudia R. Binder, 2018. "Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-29, August.
    4. Halušková, Lenka & Nousiainen, Daniela & Hujala, Teppo & Malovrh, Špela Pezdevšek & Uhan, Zala & Machoň, Miloslav & Jarský, Vilém & Burns, Sarah L. & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2025. "Navigating the international forest policy labyrinth: Domestic drivers of participation in the UNFF from Czechia, Finland, Slovakia, and Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    5. Garcia, Rocío M. & Burns, Sarah L., 2022. "Bureaucratic politics in protected areas: The voided power projection efforts of conservation vis-à-vis forest bureaucracies in Patagonia, Argentina," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    6. Sahide, Muhammad Alif K. & Fisher, Micah & Nasri, Nasri & Dharmiasih, Wiwik & Verheijen, Bart & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2020. "Anticipating a new conservation bureaucracy? Land and power in Indonesia’s Essential Ecosystem Area policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Victoria Wibeck & Tina‐Simone Neset, 2020. "Focus groups and serious gaming in climate change communication research—A methodological review," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    8. Jacob Wood & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2015. "International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 537-556, October.
    9. Ethan B Kapstein, 2006. "Architects of stability? International cooperation among financial supervisors," BIS Working Papers 199, Bank for International Settlements.
    10. Patrick James & John R. Oneal, 1991. "The Influence of Domestic and International Politics on the President's Use of Force," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 307-332, June.
    11. Alberto Alesina & Guido Tabellini, 2003. "Bureaucrats or Politicians?," Working Papers 238, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    12. Lenka Halušková, 2022. "The Slovak forest policy arrangement: Post-1989 residues and changes," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(10), pages 395-412.
    13. Carlo Carraro & Carmen Marchiori & Alessandra Sgobbi, 2005. "Applications of Negotiation Theory to Water Issues," Working Papers 2005.65, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    14. Balint, T. & Lamperti, F. & Mandel, A. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2017. "Complexity and the Economics of Climate Change: A Survey and a Look Forward," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 252-265.
    15. Moeliono, Moira & Brockhaus, Maria & Gallemore, Caleb & Dwisatrio, Bimo & Maharani, Cynthia D. & Muharrom, Efrian & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2020. "REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    16. Eising, Rainer, . "Interest groups in EU policy-making," Living Reviews in European Governance (LREG), Institute for European integration research (EIF).
    17. Sackey, Ransford & Brobbey, Lawrence Kwabena & Kumeh, Eric Mensah & Ameyaw, Joana Akua Serwaa, 2025. "Environmentality and the making of compliant subjects: Insights from collaborative forest management innovations in Southwestern Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Kari Irwin Otteburn, 2023. "All in favour? Indian business interests and the India-EU FTA," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 311-329, September.
    19. Daniel Muth & Mathieu Blondeel & Philipp Pattberg, 2025. "The Architecture of Global Carbon Pricing Governance: Institutions, Functions and Policy Pathways," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 16(5), pages 811-828, November.
    20. Thomas König & Xiao Lu, 2020. "Should I stay or should I go? British voter you got to let me know! Prime Ministers, intra-party conflict, and membership referendums in the British Westminster model," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(4), pages 557-581, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:5:n:e12693. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    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.