Dynamics of Contestment of Formal and Informal Institutions in The Public Space in Governance of the Brantas River Watershed Area

Main Article Content

Ulfa Binada


This research focuses on the dynamics of formal and informal institutions in their contestation in the Brantas Watershed (DAS). As a public space, the Brantas Watershed is of concern to the government and an informal organization, Ecoton. The presence of Ecoton in the management of the Brantas Watershed was triggered because the government program was only ceremonial and considered unsustainable. This research uses a qualitative approach with a soft system methodology (SSM). In the data collection process, this study used the focus group discussion (FGD) method as primary data and a literature study as secondary data. Furthermore, this research uses the structure-culture-process (SKP) theory and models of formal and informal institutional relations. The results of this study indicate that relationships have been successfully formed through the contestation of formal and informal institutions in the public space. The Brantas River Basin Center (BBWS) and the Environmental Service (DLH), as representatives of the state that have a formal power base, are not sufficiently capable of managing the Brantas DAS optimally. This is due to the complexity and breadth of the Brantas watershed area in East Java, thus triggering the presence of the informal Ecoton institution. The presence of Ecoton in the governance of the Brantas Watershed is a force that supports and complements the government, but at the same time, Ecoton can be a government competitor and even a substitute in the public sphere. The contestation of these formal and informal institutions is part of social integration and collaborative governance.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
BINADA, Ulfa. Dynamics of Contestment of Formal and Informal Institutions in The Public Space in Governance of the Brantas River Watershed Area. Policy & Governance Review, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 3, p. 316-331, dec. 2023. ISSN 2580-4820. Available at: <https://journal.iapa.or.id/pgr/article/view/803>. Date accessed: 21 feb. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.30589/pgr.v7i3.803.


Anderson, S. (2012). Public, private, neither, both? Publicness theory and the analysis of healthcare organisations. Social Science and Medicine, 74(3), 313–322. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.07.021

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

Ashaf, A. F., & Indonesia, J. I. (2020). Pola Relasi Media, Negara, dan Masyarakat: Teori St ruk turasi Ant hony Giddens seb agai Alternatif. Sosiohumaniora, 8, 274–282.

Bourgon, J. (2007). Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towardsa New Public Administration theory. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307075686

Bozeman, B., & Moulton, S. (2011). Integrative publicness: A framework for public management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(SUPPL. 3), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur031

Budiman, S., Utari, D. S., Fazira, N., & Junriana, J. (2019). Dinamika Kewenangan Urusan Lingkungan Hidup di Pemerintah Daerah (Studi tentang Pengawasan Mangrove di Kota Tanjungpinang). Jurnal Pemerintahan Dan Politik, 4(3), 29124.

Cassegård, C. (2014). Contestation and bracketing: The relation between public space and the public sphere. In Environment and Planning D: Society and Space (Vol. 32, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1068/d13011p

Checkland, P. (1990). Soft Ssytems Methodology in Action, include a 30-year retrospective, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Chichester.

Peter Checkland and John Po. (2010). Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. In M. R. and S. Holwell (Ed.), Philosophy of Management (pp. 191–242). Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40926-016-0039-5

Creswell, J. W. (2016). Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Methods - Pragmatic Approach. Sage, Los Angeles.

Durkheim, E. (1984). The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press.

Edgardo, A. R. (2021). Governance network theory re-examined: Implications of the research findings of the water and sanitation sector governance network of the municipality of tela, honduras. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 16(3), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.18280/ IJSDP.160304

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Polity press.

Haryono, N. (2012). Jejaring Untuk Membangun Kolaborasi Sektor Publik. Jurnal Jejaring Administrasi Publik, 1(4), 48–53.

Helmke, G., Levitsky, S., & Galvan, D. (2004). Politics : Institutions Comparative Agenda. Political Science, 2(4), 725–740.

Helmke, Gretchen and Levitsky, S. (2004). INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS: A RESEARCH AGENDA. Political Science, September.

Jan Kooiman & Martijn van Vliet. (2000). Self-Governance As a Mode of Societal Governance. Public Management: An International Journal of Research and Theory, Volume 2,. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030000000022

Jurgen Habermas, diterjemahkan oleh Y. S. (2008). The Structural Transformation of The Public Sphare: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Kreasi Wacana.

Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2016). Governance Networks in The Pulic Sector. Routledge.

Klijn, E., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2000). Public management and policy networks: foundations of a network approach to governance. 2(2).

Koppel. (2010). Administration without Sovereignty. The T wilight of C onsti tutionalism? https://doi.org/10.1093/acp rof:oso/9780199585007.003.0013

Koppenjan, E. H. K. dan J. (2016). Governance Networks in the Public Sector. Routledge.

Langervik, L. A. dan. (2001). Socio Technical Soft System Methodology: a sociotechnical approach to Soft Systems Methodology. Master Thesis, Department of Informatics University of Gothenburg.

Mehregan, M. R., Hosseinzadeh, M., & Kazemi, A. (2012). An application of Soft System Methodology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41(December), 426–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.051

Merritt, C. C., Farnworth, M. D., & Kienapple, M. R. (2018). Developing organizational leaders to manage publicness: A conceptual framework. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(2), 216–233. https://doi.or g/10.1080/15236803.2018.1429816

Meynhardt, T. (2009). Public value inside: What is public value creation? International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 192–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732632

Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: Modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1068/b36057

Newman, J. (2007). Rethinking “the public” in troubled times: Unsettling state, nation and the liberal public sphere. Public Policy and Administration, 22(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076707071502

Pesch, U. (2008). The publicness of public administration. In Administration and Societ y (Vol. 40, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707312828

Prasetyo, A. G. (2012). Menuju Demokrasi Rasional: Melacak Pemikiran Jürgen Habermas tentang Ruang Publik. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 16(2), 95–186.

Rambaree, K., & Rambaree, B. B. (2021). “Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire”: Mauritian Social Workers’ Perspectives on Disaster Governance in Mauritius. British Journal of Social Work, 51(5), 1585–1604. https://doi. org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab102

Ringeling, A. (2015). How public is public administration? A constitutional approach of publicness. Teaching Public Administration, 33(3), 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739415573268

Rodriguez-Ulloa, R., & Paucar-Caceres, A. (2005). Soft System Synamics Methodology (SSDM): Combining Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and System Dynamics (SD). Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(3), 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-4816-7

Roza, P. (2013). Ruang Publik: Melacak “Partisipasi Demokratis” dari Polis sampai Cyberspace. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 12(30), 559–562. https://doi.org/10.5614/sostek.itbj.12.30.7

Safitri, D. P., Edison, & Kurnianingsih, F. (2017). Analisis Sound Governance: Model Kemitraan Pemerintah Daerah dan Civil Society Dalam Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Pesisir. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Negara (JUAN), 5(2), 35–47.

Silalahi, U. (2012). Metode Penelitian Sosial. Refika Aditama.

Sørensen, E., Theory, S. A., Dec, N., Taylor, P., & Srensen, E. (2016). Democratic Theor y and Network Governance Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : Democratic Theory and Network Governance.24(4), 693–720.

Sorensen, E., & Tor fing, J . (2009). Making Governance Networks Democratic. In Public Administration (Vol. 87, Issue 2).

Sørensen, E., & Tor fing, J . (2009). Making go v ernance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x

Suganda, E., Yatmo, Y. A., & Atmodiwirjo, P. A. (2009). Pengelolaan Lingkungan dan Kondisi Masyarakat Pada Wilayah Hilir Sungai. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia, 13(2), 143. https://doi.org/10.7454/ mssh.v13i2.255

Taufik. (2017). Studi Jaringan Aktor dalam Perumusan Kebijakan Publik. AL-IJTIMA`I-International Journal of Government and Social Science, Vol. 2, No, 219–234.

Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: The Star Model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502350

Wang, Y. (2018). A critique of the socio-spatial debate and the publicness of urban space. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 72(3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2018.1470564

Werang, M. (2017). Hannah Arendt on Freedom and Political. Studia Philosophica et Theologica, 17(1), 34–45.

Wieviorka, M. (2014). Sociology’s interventions: Engaging the media and politics while remaining a social scientist. Current Sociology, 62(2), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113515562

Wirutomo, P. (2013). Mencari Makna Pembangunan Sosial: Studi Kasus Sektor Informal di Kota Solo. MASYARAKAT: Jurnal Sosiologi, 18(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.7454/mjs.v18i1.3735

Wise, C. R. (2010). Organizations of the Future : Greater Hybridization Coming Author. ASPA - American Society for Public Administration,70(December 2010).

Zainal Abidin Achmad. (2020). Anatomy of Structuration Theory and Ideology of the Third Way of Anthony Giddens. Jurnal Translitera, 9(2), 45–62.