Dynamics of Collaborative Governance in the Implementation of Post-Earthquake and Liquefaction Handling Policies in Palu City
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to describe and analyze the dynamics of collaborative governance in post-earthquake liquefaction management policies in Palu city. This study uses a qualitative deductive approach. The results indicate that collaborative dynamics in the implementation of post-earthquake and liquefaction management policies in Palu city can be seen through three components: principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action, which are interrelated with one another so that cooperation can be carried out. However, the post-earthquake and liquefaction handling policy in Palu city has not been implemented properly because there are still agencies that have not fully carried out their responsibilities. For example, the Palu city government has not provided land for the construction of permanent houses for disaster victims, while the Ministry of PUPR through the Cipta Karya regional office is ready to build permanent houses if land is available. There is no synergy in decision-making in implementing policies so that communities affected by the earthquake and tsunami liquefaction have not been handled properly and are still stranded in temporary shelters, while permanent houses have not been built for the victims.
Keywords: dynamics, principled engagement, shared motivation, capacity to join an action
References
[1] Davies AL, White RM. Collaboration in natural resource governance: Reconciling stakeholder expectations in deer management in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management. 2012 Dec;112:160–9.
[2] Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2012;22(1):1– 29.
[3] Moleong LJ. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya. 2007.
[4] Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis, A methods sourcebook. USA: SAGE Publications. 2014.
[5] Hicks D, Larson C, Nelson C, Olds DL, Johnston E. The influence of collaboration on program outcomes: The Colorado nurse-family partnership. Evaluation Review. 2008 Oct;32(5):453–77.
[6] Bidwell RD, Clare RM. Collaborative partnership design: The implications of organizational affiliation for watershed partnerships. Society & Natural Resources. 2006;19(9):827–43.
[7] Bussu S, Bartels KP. Facilitative leaders in collaborative governance: Windows dressing in Italy. PSA Annual Conference, London. 2011.
[8] Mei C, Qingyu Z. Supply chain collaboration. Roles of Interorganizational Systems, Trust, and Collaborative Culture, London. London: Springer. 2013.
[9] Segil L. Strategic alliances for the 21st Century. Strategy Leadership. 1998;26(4):12–6.
[10] Kumar K, van Dissel HG, Bielli P. Kumar. The merchant of Prato revisited: Toward a third rationality of information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 1998;22(2):199–226.
[11] Gopal G, Gosain S. The role of organizational controls and boundary spanning in software development outsourcing: Implications for project performance. Information Systems Research. 2010;21(4):960–82.