DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/pwk.v22i1.78496

INSTITUTIONAL ROLE: POLICY BIAS TOWARDS VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT TRANSFORMATION

*Anggi Rahajeng orcid scopus  -  Department of Economics and Business, Sekolah Vokasi (School of Applied Sciences), Universitas Gadjah Mada ; Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Wihana Kirana Jaya orcid scopus  -  Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada ; Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Nanda Widhianta orcid  -  Department of Economics and Business, Sekolah Vokasi (School of Applied Sciences), Universitas Gadjah Mada ; Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Citation Format:
Abstract

Decentralization has been a key element in regional development in Indonesia, with significant impacts on reducing economic and spatial disparities. While initial policies were more centered on the district/city level, the 2014 Village Law has shifted the paradigm by giving villages greater authority to manage their development. This study explores village-oriented institutional and policy changes and their impact on rural development transformation. Using a qualitative approach based on interview content and desk research, this study identifies three main themes: village authority and finance, national-regional strategic projects, and controlling agricultural land conversion. The analysis results show that pro-rural policies have increased village capacity through the Village Fund and strengthened community participation but also created dynamics of authority trade-offs with local governments. National strategic projects, especially infrastructure development, have improved connectivity and opened new economic opportunities for villages. However, major challenges remain in harmonizing spatial policies with agricultural land protection. This study concludes that pro-rural policies have accelerated sustainable rural development and promoted economic convergence between urban and rural areas. However, multi-level coordination is still needed to optimize their impact.

Fulltext Email colleagues
Keywords: Institutional, Decentralization, Rural Development, Local Institutions

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : EN
Most cited articles
Model Kebijakan Permukiman Kampung Code Utara di Tepi Sungai Code Kajian Strategi Pengembangan Zona Air Minum Prima (Zamp) pada Kelompok Pelanggan Rumah Tangga di Kota Bogor (Studi Kasus: Eksisting Zamp di Kecamatan Bogor Selatan dan Bogor Timur) Kajian Perubahan Penggunaan Lahan dan Struktur Ruang Kota Bima Peran Serta Masyarakat Dalam Pengelolaan Taman Nasional Gunung Merbabu di Desa Jeruk Kecamatan Selo, Kabupaten Boyolali Keberlanjutan Pengelolaan Sampah Domestik di Kampung Menoreh, Kelurahan Sampangan, Semarang More cited articles
  1. Andersson, A., Höjgård, S., & Rabinowicz, E. (2017). Evaluation of results and adaptation of EU Rural Development Programmes. Land Use Policy, 67(April), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.002
  2. Anggalini, T. D., Retnandari, N. D., Yuliani, K., Keban, Y. T., & Mulyo, J. H. (2020). Sustainable food agriculture land protection policy for Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Solution or dilemma? IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 423(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/423/1/012043
  3. Berdegué, J. A., & Soloaga, I. (2018). Small and medium cities and development of Mexican rural areas. World Development, 107, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.007
  4. Beynon, M. J., Crawley, A., & Munday, M. (2016). Measuring and understanding the differences between urban and rural areas. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(6), 1136–1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515605096
  5. Bhattacharya, A. (2016). Conceptualizing the Silk Road Initiative in China’s Periphery Policy. East Asia, 33(4), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-016-9263-9
  6. Bonfiglio, A., Camaioni, B., Coderoni, S., Esposti, R., Pagliacci, F., & Sotte, F. (2017). Are rural regions prioritizing knowledge transfer and innovation? Evidence from Rural Development Policy expenditure across the EU space. Journal of Rural Studies, 53, 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.05.005
  7. Bowen, J. R. (1986). On the Political Construction of Tradition: Gotong Royong in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Studies, 45(3), 545–561. https://doi.org/10.2307/2056530
  8. Butler, J. R. A., Wise, R. M., Skewes, T. D., Bohensky, E. L., Peterson, N., Suadnya, W., Yanuartati, Y., Handayani, T., Habibi, P., Puspadi, K., Bou, N., Vaghelo, D., & Rochester, W. (2015). Integrating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Adaptation Planning to Build Adaptive Capacity: A Structured Learning Approach. Coastal Management, 43(4), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2015.1046802
  9. Chen, A., & Partridge, M. D. (2013). When are Cities Engines of Growth in China? Spread and Backwash Effects across the Urban Hierarchy. Regional Studies, 47(8), 1313–1331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.589831
  10. Chiang, S. hen. (2018). Assessing the merits of the urban-led policy in China: Spread or backwash effect? Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020451
  11. Delphine, Witte, P., & Spit, T. (2022). Bridging the perception gap? When top-down built megaprojects meet bottom-up perceptions: a case study of Suramadu bridge, Indonesia. Asian Geographer, 39(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10225706.2020.1750441
  12. Devi, M. K., Gorman, Y. H., & Hidayati, S. R. (2020). Spatial transformation in urban periphery: The case of Yogyakarta. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 592(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/592/1/012022
  13. Divigalpitiya, P., & Nurul Handayani, K. (2015). Measuring the urban expansion process of Yogyakarta City in Indonesia: Urban expansion process and spatial and temporal characteristics of growing cities. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 3(4), 18–32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.3.4_18
  14. Eko, S. (2014). Desa Membangun Indonesia. In Academia.Edu
  15. 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
  16. Gamayuni, R. R., & Hendrawaty, E. (2020). E-Planning, E-Budgeting and the Quality of Government Institution Performance Accountability System in Indonesia. Talent Development & Excellence, 12(1s), 218–225
  17. Ganning, J. P., Baylis, K., & Lee, B. (2013). Spread and backwash effects for nonmetropolitan communities in the U.S. Journal of Regional Science, 53(3), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12026
  18. Giyarsih, S. R. (2017). Regional Management of Areas with Indications of Urban Sprawl in the Surrounding Areas of Universitas Muhammadiyah, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Geography, 49(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.22146/ijg.16842
  19. Haarsma, D., & Qiu, F. (2017). Assessing Neighbor and Population Growth Influences on Agricultural Land Conversion. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 10(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-015-9172-0
  20. Hafsari, T. A., Djunaedi, A., & Marsoyo, A. (2020). Utilization of Information Technology in Processing for Annual Regional Development Planning in Kulonprogo Regency. Jurnal Perencanaan Pembangunan: The Indonesian Journal of Development Planning, 4(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.36574/jpp.v4i3.129
  21. Hariyati, D., Holidin, D., & Mulia, I. C. (2021). Centralized Local Development versus Localized Central Arrangement in Village Autonomy Policy Implementation in Indonesia. BISNIS & BIROKRASI: Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Dan Organisasi, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.20476/jbb.v27i2.11275
  22. Jayasinghe, K., Adhikari, P., Carmel, S., & Sopanah, A. (2020). Multiple rationalities of participatory budgeting in indigenous communities: evidence from Indonesia. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 33(8), 2139–2166. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2018-3486
  23. Laksana, S. (2021). Post Pandemic Indonesian Regional Development Planning, New Normal, New Orientation: The Case of West Java. Jurnal Perencanaan Pembangunan: The Indonesian Journal of Development Planning, 5(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.36574/jpp.v5i1.150
  24. Land and Spatial Planning Office DIY. (2017). Karakteristik Kawasan Perkotaan Yogyakarta. In Materi Teknis Rencana Tata Ruang Kawasan Perkotaan Yogyakarta 2017 (pp. 1–30)
  25. Long, H., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Woods, M., & Zou, J. (2012). Accelerated restructuring in rural China fueled by “increasing vs. decreasing balance” land-use policy for dealing with hollowed villages. Land Use Policy, 29(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.04.003
  26. López-Goyburu, P., & García-Montero, L. G. (2018). The urban-rural interface as an area with characteristics of its own in urban planning: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 43(November 2017), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.07.010
  27. Melloni, N., Palmieri, G., & Soci, A. (2011). How to Develop the Periphery?: The Regional Integration Case of <i>Basso-Ferrarese</i> in Italy. Journal of Economic Integration, 26(3), 477–498. https://doi.org/10.11130/jei.2011.26.3.477
  28. Ménard, C. (2014). Embedding organizational arrangements: Towards a general model. Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137414000228
  29. Ménard, C. (2017). Meso-institutions: The variety of regulatory arrangements in the water sector. Utilities Policy, 49, 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2017.05.001
  30. Ménard, C. (2018a). Research frontiers of new institutional economics. RAUSP Management Journal, 53(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rauspm.2017.12.002
  31. Ménard, C. (2018b). Research frontiers of new institutional economics. RAUSP Management Journal, 53(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rauspm.2017.12.002
  32. Ménard, C., Jimenez, A., & Tropp, H. (2018). Addressing the policy-implementation gaps in water services: the key role of meso-institutions. Water International, 43(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2017.1405696
  33. Ménard, C., & Shirley, M. M. (2014). The future of new institutional economics: From early intuitions to a new paradigm? Journal of Institutional Economics, 17(1), 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413741400006X
  34. Ménard, C., & Shirley, M. M. (2018). A research Agenda for new institutional economics. A Research Agenda for New Institutional Economics, 5, 1–287. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788112512
  35. Partridge, M., Bollman, R. D., Olfert, M. R., & Alasia, A. (2007). Riding the wave of urban growth in the countryside: Spread, backwash, or stagnation? Land Economics, 83(2), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.83.2.128
  36. Pratomo, R. A., Samsura, D. A. A., & van der Krabben, E. (2020). Transformation of local people’s property rights induced by new town development (Case studies in peri-urban areas in Indonesia). Land, 9(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/land9070236
  37. Pratono, A. H., Siwu, S. C., & Claeye, F. (2021). Social Innovation in the Indonesian Village Enterprises for Sustainable Development. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 15(7), 735–753
  38. Priyarsono, D. S. (2017). Membangun dari Pinggiran: Tinjauan dari Perspektif Ilmu Ekonomi Regional To Develop from The Periphery: A Review From the Perspective of Regional Economics. Journal of Regional and Rural Development Planning Februari, 1(1), 42–52
  39. Raharjo, T., Ubed, R. S., Yudanto, A. A., & Yuliati, R. (2021). Innovations of village asset management: A case of the best indonesian village. Planning Malaysia, 19(3), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.21837/PM.V19I17.1021
  40. Richard Timotius. (2018). Revitalisasi Desa Dalam Kontelasi Desentralisasi Menurut UU No. 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Desa. Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembangunan Universitas Indonesia, 48(2), 323–344
  41. Rokhmah, M. (2012). Potensi dan Kendala Kebijakan Perlindungan Lahan Pertanian Pangan Berkelanjutan di Kabupaten Demak. Jurnal Pembangunan Wilayah & Kota, 8(2), 157. https://doi.org/10.14710/pwk.v8i2.11568
  42. Rondhi, M., Pratiwi, P. A., Handini, V. T., Sunartomo, A. F., & Budiman, S. A. (2018). Agricultural land conversion, land economic value, and sustainable agriculture: A case study in East Java, Indonesia. Land, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040148
  43. Rusono, N., Sunari, A., Zulfriandi, Indarto, J., Muharam, A., Avianto, N., Maghfirra, D., Suryaningtyas, P., Tejaningsih, Martino, I., Susilawati, & Hersinta, D. (2015). Evaluasi Implementasi Kebijakan Lahan Pertanian Pangan Berkelanjutan. Direktorat Pangan Dan Pertanian, Bappenas, 2
  44. Salim, W., & Negara, S. D. (2018). Infrastructure development under the jokowi administration progress, challenges and policies. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 35(3), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1355/ae35-3e
  45. Seftyono, C., Luthfi, M., Rahayu, A. M., & Alam, U. M. (2018). Accelerating Rural Development in Central Java Indonesia: Connecting Leadership, Social Capital and Policy in Local Context. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 175(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/175/1/012185
  46. Shukla, A., & Jain, K. (2019). Critical analysis of rural-urban transitions and transformations in Lucknow city, India. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 13(January), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2019.01.001
  47. Stępniak, M., & Rosik, P. (2018). The Role of Transport and Population Components in Change in Accessibility: the Influence of the Distance Decay Parameter. Networks and Spatial Economics, 18(2), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-017-9376-8
  48. Suwignyo, A. (2019). Gotong royong as social citizenship in Indonesia, 1940s to 1990s. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 50(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463419000407
  49. Thomas, B. C. (2013). Core-periphery relations in the European union and the role of central places in Europe with a focus on regional policy in Britain and Germany. European Review, 21(3), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798713000392
  50. Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S. C. (2015). Economic Development (Twelfth). Pearson
  51. Ustaoglu, E., & Williams, B. (2017). Determinants of Urban Expansion and Agricultural Land Conversion in 25 EU Countries. Environmental Management, 60(4), 717–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0908-2
  52. Vel, J., Zakaria, Y., & Bedner, A. (2017). Law-Making as a Strategy for Change: Indonesia’s New Village Law. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 4(2), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2017.21
  53. Winardi, U. N. (2020). Gotong Royong and the Transformation of Kampung Ledok Code, Yogyakarta. City and Society, 32(2), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/ciso.12291
  54. Wong, T. C., Han, S. S., & Zhang, H. (2015). Population mobility, urban planning and management in China. In Population Mobility, Urban Planning and Management in China. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15257-8
  55. Yasin, M., Rofi, A., Fachurrahman, Untung, B., Rostanty, M., Dwiherwanto, S., Saharudin, I., & Muslih, F. (2014). Anotasi Undang-Undang No.6 Tahun 2014 tentang Desa. 6, vi + 526
  56. Yudha, E. P., Juanda, B., Kolopaking, L. M., & Kinseng, R. A. (2018). Influence Measuring of Rural Expenditure Toward Rural Development Performance by using Geographically Weighted Regression: A Case Study at Pandeglang District-Banten Province. Tata Loka, 20(1), 23–34
  57. Yudhistira, M. H., & Sofiyandi, Y. (2018). Seaport status, port access, and regional economic development in Indonesia. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 20(4), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0089-1
  58. Zeng, C., Song, Y., He, Q., & Liu, Y. (2018). Urban–rural income change: Influences of landscape pattern and administrative spatial spillover effect. Applied Geography, 97(July), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.06.003
  59. Zhang, L., Wang, H., Song, Y., & Wen, H. (2019). Spatial Spillover of house prices: An empirical study of the Yangtze Delta Urban Agglomeration in China. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020544

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-03-31 15:30:21

No citation recorded.