DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jis.25.1.2026.37-58

How digital governance networks shape community empowerment: A multilevel study of Indonesian villages

*Aminullah Aminullah scopus  -  Universitas Yudharta Pasuruan, Indonesia
Any Urwatul Wusko scopus  -  Universitas Yudharta Pasuruan, Indonesia
Dustin Tarinque Loreño scopus  -  Western Philippines University, Philippines
Open Access Copyright (c) 2026 Aminullah Aminullah, Any Urwatul Wusko, Dustin Tarinque Loreño
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Abstract

This study examines how digital governance networks shape community empowerment in Indonesian villages, focusing on the mediating role of participation quality and citizen facing transparency and accountability. Drawing on network governance and empowerment theory, the study conceptualizes village digitalization as an inter-organizational governance arrangement rather than a standalone administrative intervention. Quantitative data were collected from villages in East Java Province between May and July 2025, involving governance network respondents and 1,200 community members. Governance network characteristics were measured using social network analysis, while citizen perceptions of participation quality, transparency and accountability, and community empowerment were captured through structured surveys. The hypotheses were tested using multilevel structural equation modelling to distinguish village level governance effects from individual level empowerment mechanisms. The results show that higher levels of digital integration and greater network density are positively associated with participation quality and transparency at the village level, while highly centralized governance networks are associated with lower participation quality. At the individual level, participation quality and transparency and accountability are positively related to community empowerment. Mediation analysis confirms that the effects of digital integration and governance network structure on empowerment are indirect and transmitted through governance processes. The study contributes to public administration scholarship by demonstrating that digital governance reforms enhance community empowerment only when embedded within collaborative and transparent governance networks.

Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords: Digital governance; network governance; community empowerment; village governance

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : EN
Most cited articles
ECONOMIC RESILIENCE PADA INDUSTRI KREATIF GUNAMENGHADAPI GLOBALISASI DALAM RANGKA KETAHANAN NASIONAL Peran Indonesia Dalam Memerangi Terorisme More cited articles
  1. Ahmad, I., & Islam, M. R. (2024). Navigating the Challenges: Ethical Dilemmas in Community Development. In Building Strong Communities: Ethical Approaches to Inclusive Development (pp. 69-89). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83549-174-420241003
  2. Ahmed, M. Y., Abdullahi, A. M., Hussein, H. A., & Hassan, A. Y. (2025). Empowering communities: Assessing the impact of decentralisation on citizen participation in formal organisations within Somalia’s evolving governance landscape. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 102147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102147
  3. 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
  4. Arkorful, V. E., Lugu, B. K., Hammond, A., & Basiru, I. (2021). Decentralization and Citizens’ Participation in Local Governance: Does Trust and Transparency Matter? – An Empirical Study. Forum for Development Studies, 48(2), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2021.1872698
  5. Asimakopoulos, G., Antonopoulou, H., Giotopoulos, K., & Halkiopoulos, C. (2025). Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Democratic Processes and Citizen Participation. Societies, 15(2), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15020040
  6. Asmorowati, S., Schubert, V., & Ningrum, A. P. (2022). Policy capacity, local autonomy, and human agency: Tensions in the intergovernmental coordination in Indonesia’s social welfare response amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 15(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2020.1869142
  7. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002
  8. Ben Yahia, N., Eljaoued, W., Bellamine Ben Saoud, N., & Colomo-Palacios, R. (2021). Towards sustainable collaborative networks for smart cities co-governance. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 102037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.11.005
  9. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
  10. Chamusca, P. (2025). Governance, participation, and development: Local power’s perspective in Portugal. International Planning Studies, 30(3), 292–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2025.2457656
  11. Criado, J. I., Guevara-Gómez, A., & Villodre, J. (2021). Digital government, digital governance and public value creation. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101629
  12. Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking 'Participation': Models, Meanings and Practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283
  13. Das, D. K. (2024). Exploring the Symbiotic Relationship between Digital Transformation, Infrastructure, Service Delivery, and Governance for Smart Sustainable Cities. Smart Cities, 7(2), 806–835. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7020034
  14. Dean, R. (2023). Civic Participation in the Datafied Society| Participatory Governance in the Digital Age: From Input to Oversight. International Journal of Communication, 17, 20–20. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/18833
  15. Dushkova, D., & Ivlieva, O. (2024). Empowering Communities to Act for a Change: A Review of the Community Empowerment Programs towards Sustainability and Resilience. Sustainability, 16(19), 8700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198700
  16. Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press
  17. Fox, J. A. (2015). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say?. World Development, 72, 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011
  18. Fung, A. (2015). Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361
  19. Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2012). Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. World Development, 40(12), 2399–2410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.014
  20. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181
  21. Goh, Z., Eva, N., Kiazad, K., Jack, G. A., De Cieri, H., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2022). An integrative multilevel review of thriving at work: Assessing progress and promise. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2571
  22. Gupta, A., Gonzalez-Rojas, Y., Juarez, E., Crespo Casal, M., Moya, J., Rodrigues Falci, D., Sarkis, E., Solis, J., Zheng, H., Scott, N., Cathcart, A. L., Parra, S., Sager, J. E., Austin, D., Peppercorn, A., Alexander, E., Yeh, W. W., Brinson, C., Aldinger, M., … COMET-ICE Investigators. (2022). Effect of Sotrovimab on Hospitalization or Death Among High-risk Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 327(13), 1236–1246. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.2832
  23. Haesevoets, T., Roets, A., Steyvers, K., Verschuere, B., & Wauters, B. (2024). Towards a multifaceted measure of perceived legitimacy of participatory governance. Governance, 37(3), 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12800
  24. Harinurdin, E., Laksmono, B. S., Kusumastuti, R., & Safitri, K. A. (2025). Community Empowerment Utilizing Open Innovation as a Sustainable Village-Owned Enterprise Strategy in Indonesia: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 17(8), 3394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083394
  25. Hariyanto, H., Yeyeng, A. T., Kapugu, B. A., Arowosaiye, Y. I., & Tajuddin, M. S. (2025). Democratization of Village Autonomy in the Construction of Indonesian Administrative Law: Is It Possible?. Jurnal Media Hukum, 32(2), 190–209. https://doi.org/10.18196/jmh.v32i2.25216
  26. Harsanto, B. T., & Wahyuningrat, W. (2024). Investigating the keys to the failure of inter-village government collaboration in developing rural economic potentials in Indonesia. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 16(5), 100023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rspp.2024.100023
  27. Heeks, R. (2003). Most e-government-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester
  28. Kementerian Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal, dan Transmigrasi. (2023). Pedoman pengembangan desa digital. Kementerian Desa, PDT, dan Transmigrasi
  29. Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika. (2022). Transformasi digital Indonesia 2022. Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika
  30. Khusna, L. S. (2024). Influence of accountability of village fund allocation and village institutions on financial performance through digitalization [Masters, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung Semarang]. https://repository.unissula.ac.id/36863/
  31. Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge
  32. Llorente-Alonso, M., García-Ael, C., & Topa, G. (2024). A meta-analysis of psychological empowerment: Antecedents, organizational outcomes, and moderating variables. Current Psychology, 43(2), 1759–1784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04369-8
  33. Malenko, N. (2024). Chapter 14: Information flows, organizational structure, and corporate governance. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781800373891/book-part-9781800373891-23.xml
  34. Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1987), 20120382. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382
  35. Meijer, A. (2015). E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies. Information Polity, 20(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150352
  36. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308
  37. Molina Rodríguez-Navas, P., Medranda Morales, N., & Muñoz Lalinde, J. (2021). Transparency for Participation through the Communication Approach. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(9), 586. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10090586
  38. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press
  39. Narayan, D. (Ed.). (2005). Measuring empowerment: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. World Bank
  40. Onifade, O., Adaobi Ochuba, N., Equitozia Eyeregba, M., Kalu, A., & Sophia Ezeh, F. (2024). A Conceptual Model for Policy-to-Practice Alignment in Financial Reporting and Operational Oversight. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies, 4(6), 1928–1934. https://doi.org/10.62225/2583049X.2024.4.6.4176
  41. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment?. Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
  42. Panday, P. K., & Al-Maruf, A.-. (2025). Local Governance Transformation and Citizen Engagement in Bangladesh. Taylor & Francis
  43. Peng, Y., Peng, X., Li, X., Lu, M., & Yin, M. (2023). Effectiveness in Rural Governance: Influencing Factors and Driving Pathways—Based on 20 Typical Cases of Rural Governance in China. Land, 12(7), 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071452
  44. 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
  45. Rifaldi, B. (2024). Intergovernmental relations and the dynamics of local revenue mobilisation in a decentralised Indonesia [D_ph, University of Birmingham]. https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/14874/
  46. Rodríguez-Abitia, G., Martínez-Pérez, S., Ramirez-Montoya, M. S., & Lopez-Caudana, E. (2020). Digital Gap in Universities and Challenges for Quality Education: A Diagnostic Study in Mexico and Spain. Sustainability, 12(21), 9069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219069
  47. Sari, R. E., & Nugroho, A. D. (2024). Psychological Well Being and Family Supportive Supervision Behaviors with Work Life Balance in Working Women. Jurnal Psikologi Teori Dan Terapan, 15(01), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.26740/jptt.v15n01.p48-60
  48. Schuppan, J. (2020). Mobilität und berufliche Lebensereignisse: Eine Mixed-Method-Studie zu Verkehrsmittelnutzung unter Einfluss von Identitätsänderungen und einer Soft-Policy-Intervention. Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29916-3
  49. Shaleh, A. R., & Nuraini, P. (2021). Examining gender role attitude as a moderator of personality, social support, and childcare responsibilities in women’s work-life balance. Psikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi, 6(2), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.21580/pjpp.v6i2.9591
  50. Sofyani, H., Pratolo, S., & Saleh, Z. (2021). Do accountability and transparency promote community trust? Evidence from village government in Indonesia. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 18(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-06-2020-0070
  51. Sofyani, H., Riyadh, H. A., & Fahlevi, H. (2021). Improving service quality, accountability and transparency through e-government implementation. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2020-0005
  52. van Popering-Verkerk, J., Molenveld, A., Duijn, M., van Leeuwen, C., & van Buuren, A. (2022). A Framework for Governance Capacity: A Broad Perspective on Steering Efforts in Society. Administration & Society, 54(9), 1767–1794. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211069932
  53. Vian, T. (2020). Anti-corruption, transparency and accountability in health: Concepts, frameworks, and approaches. Global Health Action, 13(sup1), 1694744. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1694744
  54. Wang, H., & Ran, B. (2023). Network governance and collaborative governance: A thematic analysis on their similarities, differences, and entanglements. Public Management Review, 25(6), 1187–1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2011389
  55. Wang, Z. (2025). Designated Accountability: Pair-Making Mechanisms and Evolving Central-Local Relations in China’s Targeted Poverty Alleviation. Journal of Contemporary China, 34(152), 232–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2024.2333484
  56. Wilfahrt, M. (2018). Precolonial legacies and institutional congruence in public goods delivery. World Politics, 70(2), 239–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887117000310
  57. Wilfahrt, M. (2018). The politics of local government performance: Elite cohesion and cross-village constraints in decentralized Senegal. World Development, 103, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.09.010
  58. Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43–63). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_2

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-07-13 21:25:15

No citation recorded.