International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

Collaborative Governance in Eliminating Separatist Movement

Stepi Anriani*, Amy Yayuk Sri Rahayu, Roy Valiant Salomo Faculty of Administrative Science, Universitas , Depok, Indonesia Corresponding Email: [email protected]

Abstract Papua Separatist Movement has existed since 1961 in the form of armed, political and clandestine movement. The Government of Indonesia has made an optimum effort in eliminating this movement by establishing collaborations of inter-regional governments, central-regional governments and with international parties as well. The difficult situation faced until today is that such movement still creates problems for the government of Indonesia, and even it tends to threaten the nation’s disintegration. The purpose of this research is to discover a suitable format of Collaborative Governance that can be implemented to handle Papua Separatist Movement in Papua Province Indonesia.The methodology is built up based on the Post Positivist Paradigm, where deductively, the Ratner’s concept of Collaborative Governance and the criteria of success of Collaborative Governance of Goldsmith and Kettl are used to portrait the Collaborative Governance in eliminating in Papua.The result is that during the first phase, the distributive accountability indicator and information sharing did not run smoothly. During the second phase, the Governance indicator failed to be performed due to loss of trust among actors. During the third phase, almost all indicators in Ratner’s Theory have not yet been fulfilled.As a conclusion, in handling Papua Separatist Movement in Papua, the Ratner’s perspective needs to be developed further because there are many contextual variables that need to be taken into account in Collaborative Governance. A dialogue effort and establishment of suitable institutional design are required in eliminating this Papua case.

Keywords: Collaborative Governance, Papua Separatist Movement, Eliminating, Papua.

1. Introduction

Complex, dynamic social problems such as issues of poverty, health and education access, infrastructure, energy and natural resources management, unemployment, human trafficking, and illegal weapon require synergy from various parties to solve. (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015)When the government cannot perform collective resources management that involves public agencies and society, hybrid government-private collaboration is needed. Multi partner governance by involving collaboration of state and civic is known as collaborative governance ( Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015). One of the benefits of collaboration is that the actors can share and utilize the resources together, allowing them to solve the problems (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015).

5076 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

The practice of Collaborative Governance does not only occur in USA but also in other countries (Freeman and Peck, 2006; Lee and Hague, 2006; Noble and Jones, 2006). It can be seen from the development of collaborative governance concept in managing policies to climate change or public health policy (Emerson and Murchie,2010) the importance of public participation (Newman, Barnes, Sullivan, Khops, 2014), policy innovation ( Doberstein, 2016). There are even more than 450 practices of collaborative governance in USA, one of them is in health reform in Oregon(Droppers, 2014), water resources management (Innes and Boher, 2003; Blomquist, Schlager, and Heikkila, 2004), water management in France ( Boschet and Rambonilaza, 2018), rare animals conservation(Porter and Salvesen, 1995; Sabatier et al., 2005; Thomas, 2003). In , collaborative governance is the new era of their public policy (O'Flynn and Wanna, 2008). In Korea, its health policy begins to apply collaborative governance(Kim, 2010). So as inter-state collaboration such as that of and South Korea (Jung,Mazmanian and Tang, 2009). For developing countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, collaborative governance is used as an approach to address health issues such as HIV/AIDS(Mayer, 2009), aquatic agriculture (Ratner, 2012), and other multi-sector issues. Indonesia, which consists of 34 provinces, surely faced various challenges and obstacles in its infrastructure development in its regions, including the continuously existing group called Separatist Papua Organization. In 2017, the Coordinating Minister of Politics, Law and Human Rights called this group as an Armed Separatist Criminal Group or Political Separatist Criminal Group because they exist in the form of armed, political and clandestine movement. Until today, there are many separatist groups in Papua who wish to separate the area from Indonesia. Their desire for freedom and sense of dissatisfaction towards Indonesia have triggered insurgency, which then called Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM), OPM was officially establish at the start of 1961 in Ayamaru region(Chauvel,2005). In this research, OPM is referred to as Papua Separatist Movement. We are interested in studying collaborative governance issues in eliminating Papua Separatism Movement because even after special autonomous policy prevails, this problem still occurs. In addition, it is academically interesting and is theoretically useful.Even though the Government has given extra attention for Papua with security approach,institutional approach and prosperity approach. Papua Separatist Movement that operates as armed group still exists until today. It seems difficult for the Government of Indonesia to eradicate this issue despite many ministries and institutions assigned to handle this Papua issue.

5077 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

Collaborative approach used in the present study is based on Ratner’s Model. The locus of the study was City, Papua Province and as the Capital of Indonesia. The question addressed in the present study is, how is the implementation of collaborative governance based on the Ratner’s model in eliminating Papua Separatist Movement according to the Goldsmith and Kettl’s criteria of success of collaborative governance?

Purpose of the Research The purpose of this research is to analyze the implementation of Collaborative Governance based on Collaborative Governance Phases using the Ratner’s model and the criteria of success of Collaborative Governance from Goldsmith and Kettl in eliminating the Papua Separatist Movement.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Collaborative Governance

Governance can be defined as management (Pierre, 2000). The purpose of governance is to make the government more efficient in carrying out its responsibility in administering public goods. Governance is government-civil relationship that allows public policy and programs to be formulated, implemented, and evaluated (Neo and Chen, 2007). Governance is also viewed as a system covering regulatory legislation, administrative system, law, and procedure related to public goods and services procurement (Lynn, Heinrich and Hill,2006). Accordingly, new governance model which process involves civil organization, private sector, and even philanthropy communities (Salamon,2002). Collaborative character itself refers to Latin terminology that means co-labor or work together(Bingham, Nabatchi, and O’leary,2005). Collaborative action is an arrangement in collecting and utilizing resources to solve public problems that cannot be handled separately (Barbara Gray,1985). This definition implies that the complexity of public problems requires diverse attitude and resources to collaborate and work together (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015, p.16). Collaborative governance is an umbrella term that encompasses various public administration topics including intergovernmental and interagency collaboration, regionalism, cross-sector partnership, public service networks, consensus building and public engagement (Emerson,Nabatchi and Balogh, 2012; MorseandStephens, 2012). Collaborative governance as a governing arrangement where public agency directly engages non-state stakeholders in a collective decision making process that is formal, consensus-oriented and

5078 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091 deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets.(Ansell and Gash, 2008). Whereas O’Flynn and Wanna define collaboration as working together with other people. This implies that an actor or an individual, group or organization that establish a cooperation in several operations. Every person that establish cooperation with others have specific terms and conditions, which is highly varied (O’Flynn and Wanna, 2008). By referring to various definition that described collaborative governance, it can be outlined that basically the need to collaborate arises from dependency relation established among the parties or stakeholders. Collaborative governance can be described as a process that involves collective norms and mutual interactions among the governance actors. Through the perspective of collaborative governance, positive purposes of each party can be achieved. The issue of Papua is a wicked problem with difficult complexity to handle if using partial or sectorial approaches. Therefore, Collaborative Governance is chosen as one of the approaches that is considered ideal to handle the issue in Papua, which is Papua Separatist Movement. In this paper, we employed Ratner’s collaborative governance model since it seems suitable to portray separatism issue in Papua. It would be different if the study used other collaborative governance theories. For instance, in the collaborative study elaborated byThomson and Perry (2006) about network management,they focused only on the inter- organizational partnership process.Cooper et al(2006) study on environmental governance and conflict resolution emphasized stakeholders and civic involvement dynamics within program and policy planning process. Study on collaborative governance in settling separatism is still scarce. Separatism is a “spectrum” from demands to increased local powers through full separation from the state (Treisman, 1997, p. 214). Separatism as the pursuit of independencefrom the central government-not necessarily the achievement of independence(Cederman, Wimmer, and Min, 2010). Moreover, according to Ratner, in collaborative governance, there are three focused- phases or three stages that are the process of collaboration in good governance. (Ratner, 2012:5), the three phases consist of: 1. Identifying Obstacles and Opportunities (Listening Phase) During this phase, the government and the stakeholders who establish the collaboration, shall identify various obstacles that will be faced during the process of good governance. Every stakeholder is to explain their respective problems and other stakeholders are to listen each problem being described by other shareholders involved in the process.Basically, this is a listening phase to discover the problems and opportunities in

5079 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

order to gain benefit from every problem explained by the respective stakeholders. 2. Debating Strategies for Influence (Dialog Phase) During this phase, the stakeholders involved in good governance start a dialog or discussion concerning the obstacles explained during the first phase. The discussion performed by the respective stakeholders who are involved consist of discussion regarding choosing the steps to be taken that are considered most effective to solve the problems. 3. Planning Collaborative Actions (Choosing Phase) This phaseis to identify a measurement on each process being performed and they must determine steps to maintain the collaboration process so that it continues to operate in the long term.

2.2 Criteria of Success in Collaborative Governance

Goldsmith and Kettl state that there is an important matter that can become the criteria of success of a network or collaboration in collaborative governance, they are: Networked Structure, Commitment to a Common Purpose, Trust Among The Participants, Governance, Access to Authority, Distributive Accountability / Responsibility, Information Sharing, Access to Resources(Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009) Networked Structure means interconnectedness between one element with the other and collectively they reflect the physical elements of the network being handled. Then, in collaborative governance, network element cannot form a hierarchy, which means there can be no authorization dominance from one of the parties. Thus, in collaborative governance, network must be organic with the involved network structure, which means there shall be no authorization hierarchy, no dominance, and monopoly. Therefore, all parties will have equality in rights, obligations, responsibilities, authorities, and opportunities on accessibility to achieve common goals. Commitment to a Common Purpose is a reason why a network must exist. It is because of attention and commitments to achieve positive goals are performed together. These goals are usually stated in the government organization’s general mission. Moreover, the commitment that has been established must not take side on one of the shareholders, because this situation is defining that the established collaboration only for the benefit of one party. Hence, the commitment made in collaborative government must be for mutual interest by finding collective solution. Trust Among the Participants means a professional or social relation, and the belief

5080 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091 that the participants have put their trust on the information or efforts made by the stakeholders in a network to achieve mutual goal. Therefore, in this case, every stakeholder must trust each other as a form of the professional relation that they are building together to achieve success in the implementation of collaborative governance. Governance means a trusting relation among the governance actors or the government. In addition, there is a set of regulation that has been agreed together from every stakeholder, and there is a freedom to determine how the collaboration will be performed. In this case, good governance can be called governance if there is clarity on who serve as members and who are not parts of the member. Access to Authority means the availability of measurements or clear provisions of procedures, and they are widely accepted. So there is a clear authorization regulation that has been accepted by the respective stakeholders to perform their roles based on the respective authorizations. Distributive Accountability or Responsibility means structure, administration, management performed collectively by the stakeholders and the distribution of decision- making process to all members of network and distribution of responsibilities to achieve the desired outcome. Therefore, in collaborative governance, there must be a clear distribution of responsibilities and every stakeholder (including the society) must be involved in the decision-making policy. Information Sharing means easy access for the members, privacy protection, and access limitation for non-member as long as this is accepted by all parties. Thus, in collaborative governance, there must be a clear information distribution, and such easy access on information can be obtained by every stakeholder. Access to Resources means the availability of financial, technical, human and other resources required to achieve the networking goal. Thus, there must be a clear and availability of resources for each of the stakeholder involved in this process.

5081 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

If the Goldsmith’s and Kettl’s indicator of success in Collaborative Governance is used to examine each phase in the Ratner’s theory, this can be seen in the following image:

 Networked Structure,  commitment to a common purpose,  trust among the participant,  governance  access to authority,  distributive accountability,

 information sharing  access to resources

 Networked  Networked Structure, Structure,  commitment to a  commitment to a common purpose, common purpose,  trust among the  trust among the participant, participant,  governance  governance  access to authority,  access to authority,  distributive  distributive accountability, accountability,  information sharing  information sharing  access to resources  access to resources

Image 1. Three stages of Collaborative Governance and Action Planning from Ratner (CGIR, 2012) against Goldsmith’s and Kettl’s indicator of success (Processed by the Researcher, 2019)

3. Research Methodology

This research used post positivism paradigm by collecting data through interviews and focus group discussion. A semi-structured interview was performed in two stages, which were in Jayapura in January 2019 and October 2019 with the local Government, traditional authorities, religious leaders and public figures. The second stage interview was performed in Jakarta in July until September 2019, which was with related stakeholders such as the Chairman of Desk Papua in the Office of the Ministry of Politics, Law and Human Rights

5082 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

Affairs, the Directorate General of Regional Autonomy and the Directorate General of Politics and General Government of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Presidential Staff Office, Ministry of Health, National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), the Indonesian Institutes of Sciences (LIPI), Ministry of Finance. After that, a Focus Group Discussion was performed to complete the interview result in Juli 2019 and November 2019. The FGD was conducted with the Ministry of Politics, Law, and Human Rights Affairs and the institutions/ministries under it. Data analysis in this research was performed by reducing, organizing data and drawing conclusion.

4. Result and Discussion

The Papua and Province are parts of Indonesia that have obtained acknowledgement from the United Nation through the "" signed by the Netherland and Indonesia on August 15th, 1962. This New York Agreement was recorded by the UN General Assembly based on its Resolution on September 21st, 1962, No.1752 (XVII). Thereafter, on October 1st, 1962, authority granting was performed from the government of the Netherland to UN’s temporary government, which was Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA). On May 1st, 1963, UNTEA handed over Papua to Indonesia. Indonesia’s sovereignty over West Papua became more legal with the existence of Resolution No. 2504 (XXIV) on November 19th, 1969, which recorded the result of - Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat (Pepera) in Papua Region, which was to remain part of Indonesia.(Materay, 2011). According to Prof Hikmahanto Juwana, if referring to the International Law, by viewing the law principle of “Uti Possidutis Juris”, whether the Act of Free Choice- Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat (Pepera) 1969 exist or not, Papua shall remain part of Indonesia(interview in Jakarta, 2019) Several factors that become the background of the emergence of Separatist Papua Movement for the past 3 decades among others are, the infrastructure development in East Indonesia region tends to be neglected, massive exploitation of natural resources were not for people in the area to use, the new entrants dominance against the native people creates an assumption that the natives are the second class people, job opportunities for the natives are very limited, “security” approach used during the New Order - Orde Baru has made OPM gain more sympathy from Papua nation Papua (interview in Papua, Januari 2019) Based on the Dissertation research conducted by Bernarda Metaray, the Papua natives first perceived that they were originally belonged to the Papua nation before they are Indonesian. When other areas in other provinces in Indonesia received their independence in

5083 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

1945, the country was not yet present in Papua until the Act of Freedom - Pepera 1969. As a consequence, the nationalism building is different if compared with other regions. (Metaray,2011) The Government of Indonesia has endeavored to perform many approaches in order to reduce the Separatist Papua Movement, among others by using security approach, welfare approach, and institutional approach. The security approach was conducted during the President Soeharto era in order to achieve the State’s security stability at that time. The welfare approach was performed through specific autonomy policy, which is the Law No.21 Year 2001 on Papua Specific Autonomy. One of the institutional approaches that was done is through Desk Papua under the 1st Deputy of Domestic Politic Coordinator Division under the Coordinating Ministry of Political, Legal and Human Rights Affairs. There were many institution and foundation involved in it. Cooperation and collaboration regarding Papua issue have been executed since President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono era by forming Working Unit for Papua and West Papua Development Acceleration - Unit Kerja Percepatan Pembangunan Papua and Papua Barat (UP4B) chaired by Mister Bambang Darmono, then in President Joko Widodo era, Presidential Staff of Papua Division was established. To date, Special Autonomy Policy for Papua and West Papua Province is in motion by prioritizing education, people’s economy, health, and infrastructure. However, some people deem this special autonomy fails. Even, special autonomy may raise separatism actions instead of conflict resolution (Mc Gibbon,2004). Currently autonomous groups are more likely to have the capacity to overcome collective action problems. The capacity for separatism is largely irrelevant, however, if autonomous groups lack the desire for secession, either because the status quo satisfies their demand for self-determination or the potential risks associated with rebellion are excessively great.Most important, the greatest amount of separatist activity from groups that were recently deprived of autonomy-those groups that experienced a shift from indirect rule to direct rule (Hechter, 2013; Siroky and Aprasdize, 2011; Siroky, Dzutsev, and Hechter, 2013). Retracted or lost autonomy provides a strong motive and need not significantly diminish the group’s collective action capacity. Moreover, it considerably weakens the government’s ability to make credible commitments that might otherwise prevent tensions from escalating, making “voice” seem less likely to yield positive results than exit, thereby increasing the probability of secession (Hirschman, 1970; North and Weingast, 1989; Siroky and Aprasdize, 2011).

The issue of Papua is a specific issue and it receives extra attention from President

5084 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

Joko Widodo. By prioritizing holistic approach for Papua, President Jokowi has visited Papua more than 13 times during his leadership era, he gave motivation to the people of Papua, he accelerates infrastructure development in Papua including the Trans Papua road that connects remote areas, the building of sea toll-road in East Indonesia, Holtekamp Bridge, Trans Papua Road, Mama-Mama Papua Market, schools and hospitals repair and other miscellaneous activities. The Government also cooperates with various parties such as public figures, traditional authorities and religious leaders. (interview in Papua, Oktober 2019). The Government of Indonesia has made an optimum effort in eliminating this movement by establishing collaborations of inter-regional governments, central-regional governments and with international parties as well.Although development in Papua continues to be intensively, since January until August 2019, there had been 24 shooting events with 8 men died and 7 were injured from the Indonesian National Army. There were also 2 men died and 4 men injured from the Indonesian National Police, 14 people from the separatism group died, and 2 people from the society were also killed and 1 person was injured. Whereas the shooting often occurred in the area of middle mountain, which is , Nduga, Deiyai and . On December 2nd, 2018 there were 17 civilians killed, due to an attackedon workers when they were working on the Trans Papua road in Nduga Regency, which was committed by the armed group of Free Papua Egianus Kogoya. This group rejects all kind of infrastructure development in Papua, as stated by Sebby Sambom as a Spokesman of TPN OPM of Nduga Area (interview in Papua, Oktober 2019) The result of this research discover that during the first phase of the Ratner’s theory, which is the First Phase: Identifying Obstacles and Opportunities, has been synchronized with the indicator of success criteria according toGoldsmith and Kettle, which areNetworked Structure, commitment to a common purpose, trust among the participant, governance, access to authority, distributive accountability, information sharing and access to resources. From the result of the interview and in-depth discussion, it was discovered that during this early phase, the distributive accountability and information sharing indicators did not function. Since the beginning, task and authorization distribution related with Papua seemed to be overlapped and it was not running side-by-side. During the second phase of the Ratner’s Theory, which is the Dialog Phase (Debating Strategies for Influences), the result of the interview and in-depth discussion discovered that in this second phase, the indicator of Governance failed to run smoothly, which was caused by different point of view inside the government itself. There was no consistent trust-relation among the government actors, suspiciousness and egocentric

5085 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091 behavior were still shown quite often. During the third phase of the Ratner’s theory, which is the Choosing Phase (Planning Collaborative Actions), it was discovered that almost all indicators did not function well. The indicator of networked structure failed to function well, specifically for the issue of security in Papua, since during the action phase, this security issue in the field has been under the responsibility of the Indonesian National Police because the situation in Papua is Civil Order, but when dealing with Free Papua Movement, especially the armed guerilla groups in the forests, the required skills is skills of the Indonesian National Army. This network structure is affirmed by the Police, Law and Human Rights Division by obligating the Indonesian National Army to assist and based on the Law No.34 Year 2004 on Indonesian National Army, to overcome separatism issue is the task of the Indonesian National Army in Military Operation Other Than War-Operasi Militer Selain Perang (OMSP). Whereas, the indicator of Commitment to a common purpose has not been fulfilled entirely due to the commitment to achieve the goal in the field seemed to lack of synergy, especially the intelligent officials and security actors in the regional or central division. Papua regional government also often made little commitment to collaborate, and must always be driven by the central government. Moreover, trust indicator among the participant does not function smoothly because during this action phase, the trust to handle the issue is often filled withsuspiciousness between the central and regional government. The regional government assumes that the central government is only half-heartedly providing special autonomy fund and they believe that the central made corruption criminal act threat as part of criminalization of Papua’s officials. On the other side, independence issue or referendum often becomes a shield when a Papua official is investigated by the law enforcement regarding misuse of the special autonomy fund and budgeting. Also, the indicator of Governance is not yet well executed during this phase because trust relation between the security actors does not seem to be established optimally. State Intelligence Agency (BIN), the Indonesian National Army (TNI) and the Indonesian National Police (POLRI) each has their own intelligent and compartment one another. The indicator of Access to authority is running well since during this action phase, the Indonesian National Army cannot maximally performed their task because at the moment, KKSB or GPM is considered as part of criminal group, where the Indonesian National Police is the one who stands in the front line with justice approach. On the other side, if the OPM terminology is a pure separatism without referring it to criminal, thus, based on the Law of the Indonesian National Army, they can directly move to take action. Moreover, for the indicator of

5086 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

Distributive Accountability, during this action phase, the task and authorization distribution of the Indonesian National Army and the Indonesian National Police is agreed that the Indonesian National Police stands in the front line. Whereas, the indicator of Information sharing is still facing issue because of the overlapping information in the field is not handled appropriately and as a consequence, information to the head of division is lacking synergy. From all eight indicators from Goldsmith and Kettl, in Ratner’s third phase, almost all indicators are not yet fulfilled, there is only 1 indicator that has been adequately fulfilled, which is Access to Resources, in this case the availability of financial resources and human resources to solve the Papua issue are already in existence, but they are not yet utilized optimally. From the said explanation, it can be seen that in all three phases of the Ratner collaboration, each phase has issue if faced with Goldsmith and Kettl’s factor of success, and as a consequence, the collaboration process in eliminating Free Papua Movement still faced many issued due to the varied obstacles found along the process. In this case study, the ratner model in phase one must also observe the leadership factors that will guide collaboration. Then in phase two there needs to be a common perception in carrying out dialogue ( the same frequency). At the end of the phase, the third phase needs to add institutional design that can help the collaboration process.

5.Conclusion Based on the result of the research, the Implementation of Collaborative Governance in eliminating Separatist Papua Movement based on the phases in the Ratner Theory is not functioning well and still faces many obstacles. Every phase of the Ratner Theory which is analyzed using collaborative success indicator from Goldsmith and Kettl shows that every phase is still imperfect, especially on the third phase, which is the Choosing Phase (Planning Collaborative Action). As a result, it is required to perform a comprehensive evaluation on the stakeholders who are involved in eliminating the issue in Papua, specifically the state’s security actors. The government needs to synchronize the perceptions among security actors and also identify gap between the real issue and the eradication of the separatism group, which often ineffective. A dialog effort needs to be comprehensively performed in order to eliminate Free Papua Movement since many victims have fallen due to this issue, and extreme material loss has been faced. The government needs to involve civil organization, actors, and National

5087 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

Government Organization in relation with the issue in Papua more intensively. An institutional design is also required to reduce the conflict of Free Papua Movement and Specific Autonomy Policy that will end in 2021 also needs to be reviewed comprehensively so that there is no new issue arising from it.

Acknowledgment We would like to thank Faculty of Administrative Science of Universitas Indonesia for funding this study through PITMA A 2019.

References

Journal Articles

Agustinus, John. 2013. Phenomoenology Study on Financial Performace and Management Accountability of Special Autonomu Funds Allocated for Education at the Province of Papua, Indonesia. Gajah Mada International Journal of Business Vol 15.No.1 79-94

Ansell,Chris and Gash, Alison. 2008. Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.18:543-71

Bang, Min Seok and Young Kim,Yun. 2016. Collaborative governance difficulty and policy implication: Case study of the Sewol disaster in South Korea, Disaster Prevention and Management Vol 25 No.2 pp 212- 226

Boschet,Christope, Rambonilaza,Tina. 2018. Collaborative environmental governance and transaction costs in partnership: evidence from a social network approach to water management in France, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61: 1, 105-123

Brisbois,M.C et.al. 2018. Augmenting the IAD framework to reveal power in collaborative governance-An illustratetive application to resource industry dominated processes.World Development

Cabral, Sandro.,Keane,Dale. 2018. Civic festivals and Collaborative Governance. International review of administrative science.84(1) 185-205

Chauvel, Richard & Ikrar Nusa Bhakti. (2004). The : Jakarta’s Perceptions and Policies. Washington: East-West Center.

Chester, C.C., Moomaw, William R. 2008. A Taxonomy of collaborative governance: a guide to understanding the diversity of international and domestic conversation accords. International Environmental Agreements 8:187-206

Cheung, Peter TY, 2014. Toward collaborative governance between Hong Kong and mainland China. Urban Studies Journal Foundation,1-19

Eldridge,Kaye., Larry,Lisa., Jeanette Baird & David Kavanamur . 2018. A Collaborative governance approach to improving tertiary education in Papua , Pacific Journal of Education, 38 : 1, 78-90.

Emerson,Kirk., Gerlak, Andrea K. 2014. Adaptation in Colaborative Governance Regimes. Environmental Management 54:768-781

Emerson,Kirk.,Nabatchi,Tina.Balogh,Stephen. 2011. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.22:1-29

5088 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

Emerson,Kirk.,Nabatchi.,Tina.2015. Evaluating the productivity of Collaborative Governance Regimes: A performane Matrix.Public Performance & Management Review,38,717-747

Giuliano, Elise. 2018. Who supported separatism in Donbas ? Ethnicity and popular opinion at the start of the crisis. Post-Soviet Affairs, 34:2-3,158-178

Hammar, Roberth .K.R.2018.The existence of Customary Rights of Customary law Community and Its Regulation in the Era of Special Autonomy of Papua. Journal of Social Studies Education Research. 2019 : 9 (1) 201-213. Hayter,Christopher., Azfar, Nisar M. 2018. Spurring Vaccine Development for the Developing World: A Collaborative Governance Perspective on Product Development Partnership. International Journal of Public Administration, 41: 1, 46-58

Huang, Chen et al. 2017. Collaborative Environmental Governance, Inter-Agency Cooperation and Local water Sustainability in China.Sustainability Journal, 9: 2305

Hutter,Gerard. 2016. Collaborative governance and rare floods in urban regions-Dealing with uncertainty and surprise.Environmental science and policy. 55(2016) 302-308.

Hwang,Sungsoo. 2017. Collaborative Governance and information technology innovative : public-nonprofit partnership to build neighborhood information system, International review of Public Administration, 22 : 4, 321-343.

Iek,Mesak, Blesia,John Urasti. 2019. Development Inequalities in Autonomous Regions : A Study Pre and Post- Special Autonomy in Indonesia’s Most Eastern Provinces.Journal of Asian Finance, Economic and Business Vol 6. N0.1 303-314.

Kallis, Giorgos., Kiparsky, Michael., Nargaard,Richard.,2009.Collaborative governance and adaptive management: lesson from California’s CALFED water Program.Environmental science and policy. 12. 631-643.

Kim,Sunhyuk. 2010. Collaborative Governance in south korea : Citizen Participation in Policy Making and welfare service provision.Asian perspective.Vol 34,No.3, 2010, pp.165-190.

Kossmann,Christina.,Behagel,Jelle.,Bailey.,Megan.2016.Action and inertia in collaborative governance. Marine Policy 72(2016) 21-30.

Kuhn,Berthold. 2016. Collaborative Governance for Sustainable Development in China. Open Journal of Political Science,6,433,453.

Liu,Lei, Zhihang Xu. 2017. Collaborative governance: A Potential approach to preventing violent demolition in China. Cities.

Mc Gibbon, Rodd, 2004. Secessionist Challenges in Aceh and Papua: Is Special Autonomy the Solution? Policy Studies

McWilliam, Andrew. 2011. Marginal Governance in the time of Pemekaran: Case Study from and West Papua, Asian Journal of Social Science 39, p.164-167.

Mollet,Julius Ary. 2011. The dynamics of contemporary local government policies and economic development in West Papua. Development in Practise, Vol 21, No.2

Mosley, Jennifer E, 2014. Collaboration, Public-Private Intermediary Organizations,and the Transformation of Advocacy in the field of Homeless Services. American review of Public Administration. 44(3) 291-308.

Nwogwugwu, Ngozi dan Rachael Iyanda. 2015. Collaborative Governance Regime and the Responsive Governance in Ogun State: A Study of Ogun State Council of Elders, Singaporean Journal of Business Economics and Management Studies, Vol. 3, No. 6, 2015.

5089 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

O’Leary, Rosemary dan Nidhi Vij. 2012. Collaborative Public Management: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?,The American Review of Public Administration 2012 42: 507.

Parks, Thomas I. 2009. Maintaining peace in a neighbourhood torn by separatism: the case of satun province in Southern Thailand, Small Wars and amp: Insurgencies, 20 : 1. 185-202.

Pares,Marc.,Boada,Julia.,Canal,Ramon,Hernando,Elia.,Martinez,ruben. 2017. Chalenging collaborative urban governance under austerity: How local governments and social organizations deal with housing policy in Catalonia (Spain).Journal of Urban Affairs. Vol 39, No.8: 1066-1084

Rasche,Andreas. 2010. Collaborative Governance 2.0. Corporate Governance. Vol 10 (4) 500-51.

Ratner,B.D.2012. Collaborative Governance Assessment.CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural system.Penang.Malaysia.Guidance Note : AAS-2012-27

Suesse, Marvin. 2019. Adjusting the size of nations : Emperical determinants of separatism and the soviet breakup. Journal of Comparative Economics. Vol 47. 50-64

Siroky, David and Cuffee, John. 2015. Lost Autonomy, Nationalisme and Separatism. Comparative Political Studies. Vol 48 (1) 3-34

Silvia, Chris. 2011. Collaborative Governance Concepts for Succesful Network Leadership. State and Local Government Review 43(1) 66-71

Torfling, Jacob., Ansell, C. 2017.Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through the expansion of collaborative forms of governance.Public Management Review, 19 : 1, 37-54

Westerink,Judith.,Jongeneel,roel.,Polman,Nico.,Prager,Katrin.,Franks,Jeremy.,Dupraz Pierre.,Mettepenningen. 2017. Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management. Land Use Policy. 69: 176-192

Yang, Lihua. 2017. Collaborative knowledge-driven governance: Types and mechanisms of collaboration between science, social science and local knowledge. Science and Public Policy 45(1) 53-73

Yang,Lihua. 2017. Types and Institutional Design Principles of Collaborative Governance in a Strong Government Society: The case Study of Desertification Control in Nothern China, International Public Management Journal, 20: 4, 586-623

Books

Betrand, Jacques.2002. Nationalism and ethnic conflict in Indonesia, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bungin, Burhan. (2007). Penelitian Kualitatif: Komunikasi, Ekonomi, Kebijakan Publik, dan Ilmu Sosial Lainnya. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Coleman, Peter T. (ed.). (2000). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Creswell, John W. (2014). Penelitian Kualitatif & Desain Riset: Memilih di Antara Lima Pendekatan (terjm.). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Creswell, John W. (1994). Research Design Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. USA: Sage Publication.

De Geus, P.B.R dkk. 1984. Masalah Irian Barat : Aspek Kebijakan Luar Negeri dan Kekuatan Militer. Papua: Yayasan Jayawijaya.

Denzin, Norman K & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2009). Handbook of Qualitative Research (terj). Yogyakarta: Penerbit Pustaka Pelajar.

5090 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 03, (2020), pp. 5076 - 5091

Donahue, J. Richard Z. 2011. Collaborative Governance ( Private Rules For Public Goals in Turbulent Times). Pricenton and Oxford: Pricenton University Press

Djopari, John RG.1993. Pemberontakan Organisasi Papua Merdeka. Jakarta : PT Grasindo.

Drooglever, PJ. 2010. Tindakan Pilihan Bebas ! Orang papua dan Penentuan Nasib Sendiri. Yogyakarta: Kanisius

Goldsmith, S. Donald. F. K. 2009. Unlocking the power of networks: Keys To High Performance Government. Washington DC: Brooking Institution Press

Metaray, Bernarda. 2011. Disertasi Sejarah fakultas Ilmu Budaya dengan judul “Penyemaian Dua Nasionalisme : Papua dan Indonesia di Nederlands Niew Guinea Pada Masa Pemerintahan Belanda 1925-1962”. Depok : Universitas Indonesia

O’Flynn. J.John.Wanna. 2008. Collaborative Governance : a New Era of Public Policy in Australia. Australia : E Press

Tebay, Nelas. 2009. Dialog Jakarta Papua: Sebuah Perspektif Papua .Jayapura :SKP Jayapura

Winarno, Budi. 2013. Kebijakan Publik. Yogyakarta : CAPS (Center of Academic Publishing Service)

Yang, Kaifeng & Miller, Gerald J. (2008). Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration. CRC Press.

Widjojo, Muridan S. (2009). Papua Road Map. Jakarta: LIPI.

Constitution Law

Undang-Undang No. 21 Tahun 2001 tentang Otonomi Khusus Papua ( Constitution Law No.21/2001 on Special autonomy for Papua Province)

5091