Transformation of Population-Data Coordination Networks after Kemendukbangga's Formation in Bengkulu

Maysyah Indah Fitriyani; Jatmiko Yogopriyatno; Is Susanti

doi:10.58835/jspi.v6i4.777

Authors

Maysyah Indah Fitriyani Universitas Bengkulu
Jatmiko Yogopriyatno Universitas Bengkulu https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2617-3086
Is Susanti Universitas Bengkulu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58835/jspi.v6i4.777

Keywords:

historical institutionalism, coordination network, population-data integration, institutional change, path dependency, Kemendukbangga

Abstract

This study analyses how the coordination network for population-data integration at the BKKBN Provincial Office of Bengkulu was transformed after the National Population and Family Planning Board (BKKBN) became the Ministry of Population and Family Development (Kemendukbangga) in late 2024, and what that transformation implies for coordination effectiveness. A qualitative descriptive single-case design was employed at the Provincial Office. Data came from semi-structured interviews with three internal key informants, the Secretary of the Provincial Office and the heads of two functional Working Teams, supported by observation and documentation, and were analysed through historical institutionalism along three dimensions: path-dependency dynamics, gradual institutional change, and implications for coordination effectiveness. Four findings emerge. First, the network's position rests on inherited by-name-by-address micro-data and informal trust rather than on structural authority. Second, change proceeds through layering and conversion rather than displacement and is read internally as continuity. Third, a dual formal-informal architecture is undermined by interlocking technical, organisational, personal, and incentive barriers. Fourth, a recognition gap with external partners signals an emerging drift. The transformation is therefore best characterised as institutional continuity punctuated by gradual change and shadowed by sustainability risk. Resilience depends on formalising informal channels, reforming cader incentives, and preserving institutional memory.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

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

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The Whole-of-Government Approach to Public Sector Reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x

Cinar, E., Prodius, O., Sokoly, I., Ozcan, S., & Guenduez, A. A. (2025). The Political Context of Public Sector Innovation: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis on Ukraine. Research Policy, 54(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105151

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011

Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x

Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740

Lee, J. S., & Jun, S. P. (2021). Privacy-Preserving Data Mining for Open Government Data from Heterogeneous Sources. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101544

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications.

Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2009). A theory of gradual institutional change. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806414.003

Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806416

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining Digital Transformation: Results from Expert Interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Pan, W., Hosli, M. O., & Lantmeeters, M. (2023). Historical Institutionalism and Policy Coordination: Origins of the European Semester. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-023-00253-z

Peraturan Presiden Nomor 139 Tahun 2024 Tentang Penataan Tugas Dan Fungsi Kementerian Negara Kabinet Merah Putih Periode Tahun 2024–2029 (2024).

Peraturan Presiden Nomor 181 Tahun 2024 Tentang Badan Kependudukan Dan Keluarga Berencana Nasional (2024).

Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015

Rahman, S., Teicher, J., Wolfram Cox, J., & Alam, Q. (2023). Slipstreaming for Public Sector Reform: How Enterprising Public Sector Leaders Navigate Institutional Inertia. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac006

Peraturan Presiden Nomor 39 Tahun 2019 Tentang Satu Data Indonesia (2019).

Peraturan Presiden Nomor 180 Tahun 2024 Tentang Kementerian Kependudukan Dan Pembangunan Keluarga (2024).

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Open University Press.

Schmeling, J., Al Dakruni, S., & Mergel, I. (2025). Data Collaboration in Digital Government Research: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102063

Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford University Press.

Thelen, K. (2004). How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790999

Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2022 Tentang Pelindungan Data Pribadi (2022).

Undang-Undang Nomor 52 Tahun 2009 Tentang Perkembangan Kependudukan Dan Pembangunan Keluarga (2009).

van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Wahyuni, H., Mutiarin, D., Pribadi, U., & Kumorotomo, W. (2024). Maturity of Data Interoperability Cross-Organizations in Supporting the Concept of One Employment Data at the Ministry and Regional Government Levels. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), 2407936. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2407936

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. In Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research (Vol. 53, Number 5). https://doi.org/10.1177/109634809702100108

Zhou, L., Hu, J., & Xu, J. (2022). Understanding Interagency Relationships in the Sharing of Government Data: A Meta-analysis. Information Research, 27.