Principal-Agent Relation in Conserving the Kali Putih Area in the Reconstruction and Mitigation Zone of Merapi Mountain National Park

Main Article Content

Ammy Nurwati Bevaola Kusumasari Agus Pramusinto Ahmad Maryudi


This article aims to observe the dynamics of policy implementation involving various stakeholders in the effort of conserving one of the National Parks in Indonesia, particularly Merapi Mountain National Park (Taman Nasional Gunung Merapi – TNGM). Following the Zoning Policy implemented in the TNGM area, there is a zone that should have been protected from mining activities, namely the reconstruction and mitigation zone. However, in its implementation, the conservation collaboration agreement of one of the areas in the zone, namely the Kali Putih Area, is instead used by some parties to engage in sand mining activities. The principal-agent theory is, thus, employed in this study to examine the extent of the relationship of every party in the zoning policy implementation process of an area designated as a Reconstruction and Mitigation Zone. The qualitative approach is used to gain direct insights pertaining to the implementation of efforts conducted by several relevant parties in conserving the Kali Putih Area in TNGM’s Reconstruction and Mitigation Zone. Study results ultimately show that moral hazard in the principal-agent theory should not only be understood as deviant behaviors enacted by the agent, but the moral hazard performed by the agent may also inϐluence the principal’s decision making process. This research is expected to provide an outlook to the government, which functions as the principal in a policy, to make several considerations prior to entering into any collaborative agreement or making any decision, so that the implementation process of policies can align with what has been previously planned.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
NURWATI, Ammy et al. Principal-Agent Relation in Conserving the Kali Putih Area in the Reconstruction and Mitigation Zone of Merapi Mountain National Park. Policy & Governance Review, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 1, p. 55-67, feb. 2020. ISSN 2580-4820. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 23 feb. 2020. doi:


Bergman, M., & Lane, J. -E. (1990). Public policy in a principal-agent framework. Journal of Theoritical Politics, 2(3), 339-352.

Braun, D., & Guston, D. H. (2003). Principal–agent theory and research policy: An introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302-308.

Chatagny, F., & Soguel, N. (2007). The relevance of the principal-agent model for the analysis of public policies: Do objectives conϐlict?. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary, 2(1): 385-391.

Chatagny, F., & Soguel, N. (2007). The relevance of the principal-agent model for the analysis of public policies: Do the objectives conϐlict? The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2(1), 385-391.

Coats, J. C. (2002). Applications of principal- agent models to government contracting and accountability decision making. Int ernational Journal of Public Administration, 25(4), 441–461.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and re search de sign: Choosing among ϔ ive approaches (2nd ed.). USA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Daru, N. M., & Hudayana, B. (2015). Kajian konϐlik penambangan pasir di Taman Nasional Gunung Merapi (Jurang Jero Kab. Magelang Provinsi Jawa Tengah) Pasca Erupsi 2010. Retrieved from http://etd.repository.ugm.

Getha-Taylor, H. (2007). Collaborative governance: Lessons from Katrina. Florida: The Bureacrat Inc.

Gracia, J. A., Rodriguez-sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2015). The principal-agent problem in peer review. Journal of Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 297-308.

Hodgetts, D., & Stolte, O. (2012). Case-based r esear ch in community and social psychology: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 379–389.

Imbeau, L. M. (2003). Transparency in the budget process of a bureaucratic organisation:A principal-agent model of budgeting. European Public Choice Societ y (p. 6). Aarhus: Denmark.

Jiang, Y., & Peng, M. W. (2010). Principal-principal conϐlicts during crisis. Asia Paciϔic Journal of Management, 1-13.

Laffont, J. -J., & Martimort, D. (2002). The theory of incentives: The principal-agent model. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Lane, J.-E. (2013). The principal-agent approach to politics: Policy implementation and public policy-making. Open Journal of Political Science, 3(2), 85-89.

Margono. (2005). Metode penelitian pendidikan. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., & Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic theory. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitati v e inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283.

Santoso, J., & Wibawa, S. (2015). Kebijakan pertambangan pasir Merapi di Kabupaten Magelang. Retrieved from http://etd. r eposit pencarian/28145.

Su, Y. D., Xu, P. H., & Phan. (2008). Principal- principal conϐlict in the governance of the Chineses public corporation. Management and Organization Review, 4(1), 17-38.

Sugiyono. (2008). Metode penelitian kuantitatif kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Yin, R. K. (2011). Studi kasus desain dan metode. Jakarta: Raja Graϐindo Persada.

Z uba y r, M., Darusman, D., Nugr oho, B., & Nurrochmat, D. R. (2014). Principal-agent relationship in policy implementation of the use of forest area for mining activity, Indonesia. Agriculture, Foresty and Fisheries,
3(3), 181-188.