Procedural Collaboration and The Limits of Collaborative Governance in Public Service Delivery: Evidence From Drug Prevention Services at The Local Level
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64670/jpgs.v2i2.95Keywords:
Collaborative Governance, Procedural Collaboration, Service Impact Performance, Drug Prevention Services, Collaborative Governance RegimeAbstract
Background This article examines why collaboration between formal organizations often fails to produce substantive public service outcomes in complex policy contexts. Focusing on local drug prevention services in Indonesia, this article addresses a conundrum in which administrative input, outreach activities, and inter-agency coordination are increasing, while prevention outcomes remain weak. Existing collaborative governance research explains how cross-sectoral coordination is formed, but it is less clear why institutionally active collaboration may remain ineffective substantively.
Methods Using a qualitative single case study at the National Narcotics Agency in Gorontalo City, the study used interviews, focus group discussions, observations, and institutional documents to reconstruct the mechanisms linking collaboration and service performance.
Results The findings suggest that collaboration operates primarily as procedural collaboration: formal forums, agreements, and participation are present, but engagement based on principles remains limited, shared motivation is uneven, and the capacity for joint action is fragmented. As a result, collaboration results in administrative outputs rather than stable service impacts.
Conclusion This article contributes to collaborative governance theory by conceptualizing procedural collaboration as an internal constraint of collaborative governance and by extending the framework of the Collaborative Governance Regime towards service impact performance.
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
Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2015). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge University Press.
Berardo, R., & Lubell, M. (2016). Understanding what shapes a polycentric governance system. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 738–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12532
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
Dwiyanto, A. (2017). Manajemen pelayanan publik: Peduli, inklusif, dan kolaboratif. Gadjah Mada University Press.
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.
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
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy: Governance in theory and in practice. Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Nani, Yakob Noho, Rustam Tohopi, Alexander Badjuka, and Sri Yulianty Mozin. 2025. Metode Penelitian Adminsitrasi Publik Tinjuan Filosofis Dan Implikasi Praktis. Deepublish, CV Budi Utama.
Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press.
Kasita, I. D. (2023). Collaborative Governance dalam Mengatasi Penyalahgunaan Narkoba di Kota Surakarta. 3(2012), 119–135.
Kelman, C. C., Brady, U., Raschke, B. A., & Michael, L. (2023). Society & Natural Resources A Systematic Review of Key Factors of Effective Collaborative Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Society & Natural Resources, 0(0), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2023.2228234
Kismartini, A. S. S. E. L. (2021). Collaborative Go v ̛ ernance in Drug Prevention in Lhokseumawe , Indonesia. 495(ICoSPOLHUM 2020), 332–339.
Koontz, T. M., & Newig, J. (2014). From Planning to Implementation : Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches for Collaborative Watershed Management. 42(3), 416–442.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900203
Osborne, S. P., Powell, M. G. H., Cui, T., & Strokosch, K. (2022). Value creation in the public service ecosystem: An integrative framework. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 634–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13474
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021). Radical and disruptive answers to downstream problems in collaborative governance? Public Management Review, 23(11), 1590–1611. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879914
Voets, J., Brandsen, T., Koliba, C., & Verschuere, B. (2021). Collaborative governance. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1419
