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.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.