Integrative Governance For Extreme Poverty Alleviation: Institutional Capacity and Local Governance in Indonesia

Integrative Governance For Extreme Poverty Alleviation: Institutional Capacity and Local Governance in Indonesia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Integrative Governance For Extreme Poverty Alleviation: Institutional Capacity and Local Governance in Indonesia Widyawati Widyawati, Sangkala Sangkala, Muhammad Rusdi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7449971/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Discover Sustainability → Version 1 posted 23 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Extreme poverty is a multidimensional challenge that cannot be solved through a sectoral approach. The SDGs agenda targets the global eradication of extreme poverty by 2030, but significant obstacles remain in cross-sectoral governance for extreme poverty alleviation. This study explores the suitability of implementing integrative governance principles in extreme poverty alleviation locally, using a case study in Jeneponto Regency, Indonesia, a national priority area for extreme poverty alleviation. A qualitative approach with a case study design was used not only to understand the complexity of the context but also to develop integrative research procedures. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 15 key informants, national and regional policy document analysis, and observation. Data analysis was conducted using an interactive model and verified through sources, methods, and member checking triangulation. The results show that extreme poverty alleviation practices in Jeneponto do not yet reflect integrative governance principles. The established governance network remains hierarchical, dominated by the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), with weak cross-sectoral coordination, minimal distribution of function-based authority, and symbolic community participation. The absence of a deliberative mechanism within the Regional Poverty Reduction Coordination Team (TKPKD) worsens participatory coordination and hinders the formation of facilitative leadership. These findings emphasise the importance of institutional reform in the governance of extreme poverty alleviation, through the redistribution of function-based authority, strengthening the role of the TKPKD as a deliberative arena, developing facilitative leadership, and institutionalising substantive participation of the extreme poor. Extreme Poverty Integrative Governance Coordination Institutions Leadership Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Extreme poverty is not simply a matter of income and purchasing power (Dimitrios et al., 2024 ; Ochi, 2023 ; Sullivan et al., 2024 ), but encompasses a broader, multidimensional problem (Lavell et al., 2023 ; Liu et al., 2023 ; Ochi et al., 2023 ). The Sustainable Development Goals target reducing extreme poverty to below 3% of the global population by 2030 (Jin & Ialnazov, 2023 ; Ochi et al., 2023 ), focusing on the proportion of people living below the international poverty line, based on sex, age, employment status, and geographic location, with incomes of less than $ 1.90 per day (Lavell et al., 2023 ; United Nations, 2016 ). Eradicating extreme poverty within the framework of these goals requires pro-poor policies and accelerated investment in extreme poverty reduction actions. This goal encompasses targets requiring multiple interventions (Lavell et al., 2023 ). Extreme poverty alleviation cannot be addressed through a partial sectoral approach, as it often results in fragmented, overlapping, and unresponsive policies, which are not in keeping with its multidimensional nature. Several research findings explain that when governments operate independently in extreme poverty alleviation, it results in inefficient resource use, duplication of efforts, and gaps in services (Elmenofi et al., 2014 ; Larantika et al., 2017 ; Patnaik & Prasad, 2021 ). Furthermore, extreme poverty alleviation policies not aligned with social and economic policies contribute to inequality, creating conflicting objectives that exacerbate poverty (Adeleye et al., 2020 ; Nzobo, 2021 ). Experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia demonstrate that economic growth alone is insufficient to reduce poverty (Saidi et al., 2023 ), but is also influenced by the quality of governance (Ochi, 2023 ; Ochi et al., 2023 ; Saidi et al., 2023 ). Governance in extreme poverty alleviation requires a more democratic and collaborative approach, capable of integrating resources, actors, and knowledge across sectors. In this regard, an integrative governance approach offers comprehensive work and is relevant in alleviating extreme poverty, which presents complex problems. The integrative governance approach introduced by (Stout & Love, 2019 ) is based on relational processes and co-creation principles. It emphasises collaborative approaches across sectors, disciplines, and even transnational boundaries to create sustainable solutions to global crises. This governance model advocates an inclusive approach that seeks to create shared solutions through collaboration, making it adaptable to address contemporary governance issues such as poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation (Stout & Love, 2019 ). In Indonesia, the government has initiated a policy to accelerate the eradication of extreme poverty through Presidential Instruction No. 4/2022, emphasising cross-sector integration, program coherence, and community participation at every stage. Each stakeholder is expected to work together according to their respective duties, functions, and authorities to ensure the accuracy of targeting and effectiveness of interventions. This indicates that the government has developed a policy framework that emphasises the importance of cross-sector coordination, multi-actor collaboration, and community participation in extreme poverty alleviation. However, empirical studies are needed to assess their suitability with practice on the ground to ensure alignment between these policies and the principles of integrative governance. This research was conducted in Jeneponto Regency, one of the priority areas for accelerating extreme poverty eradication, with persistent extreme poverty rates in South Sulawesi. Initial findings indicate a gap between formal policy design and implementation practices in the region, where extreme poverty alleviation is still dominated by hierarchical bureaucratic patterns, weak cross-sectoral coordination, and minimal involvement of non-governmental actors and the extreme poor in Jeneponto Regency. Although several studies on extreme poverty in Indonesia have been conducted, the majority of these studies focus on social policy aspects, issues of inequality, and methodological issues related to the accuracy of data collection on the extreme poor at the central and regional levels (Habibullah, 2024 ; Iskandar et al., 2023 ). However, studies specifically addressing the governance of extreme poverty alleviation, particularly from an integrative governance perspective at the local level, are still minimal. This gap is significant given the complexity of the challenges faced by regions like Jeneponto Regency, which are characterised by high rates of extreme poverty, limited institutional capacity, and minimal participation of non-governmental actors and local communities. This context demands governance that is not merely administrative and sectoral, but also adaptive, deliberative, and collaborative, as recommended in the integrative governance framework. This research has a scientific urgency to fill this gap by exploring the application of integrative governance principles to alleviate extreme poverty locally, focusing on Jeneponto Regency. This research is expected to provide theoretical contributions by enriching the literature on the dynamics, obstacles, and opportunities for implementing integrative governance in developing country contexts, while also offering relevant practical implications for strengthening governance for extreme poverty alleviation in Indonesia. 2. Methode This research employs a qualitative approach with a case study design to examine the application of integrative governance principles in depth for alleviating extreme poverty. This approach is based on the complex, contextual nature of extreme poverty, which requires a holistic understanding of the dynamics of interactions between actors in its management at the local level. The case study design is viewed not only as a descriptive method but also as an extended analytical procedure, as the research combines various data collection and validation techniques to produce a comprehensive mapping of governance practices(Yin, 2018 ). Jeneponto Regency in South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia, was chosen as the research location. This was chosen because the region's extreme poverty rate has consistently been high and has been a priority in the national policy for accelerating extreme poverty eradication. This location was chosen not solely for empirical reasons but also as a testbed for the method, as Jeneponto represents an underdeveloped region with fragmented cross-sectoral governance. Thus, the research context serves as a testbed for the development of integrative governance research procedures. The analytical framework of this research refers to the integrative governance approach developed by (Stout & Love, 2019 ), which includes responsive networks, referring to the formation of collaborative networks without hierarchical domination, collective responsibility, and transparency. Integrative collaboration encompasses situational authority, leadership, facilitative management (management as enabling), and participatory coordination. Finally, facilitative coordination emphasizes leadership that supports, empowers, and encourages the substantive involvement of the extreme poor. In this research, the framework is operationalized methodologically by developing a multi-layered analysis procedure: first, testing the alignment of national policies (Presidential Instruction No. 4/2022, Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022) with local practices; second, mapping cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms in the regions; and third, identifying gaps in extreme poverty governance, which serves as the research's contribution point (Fig. 1 ). Data collection was not solely derived from interviews, but was supplemented by document analysis and observation to increase the depth of data in qualitative research (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Interviews were conducted with 15 key informants selected using purposive sampling, including officials from the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), technical Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPD), members of the Regional Poverty Alleviation Coordination Team (TKPKD), and community leaders. The interviews were conducted not only by asking a series of questions from the instrument but also by developing questions based on the informants' responses. Document analysis was conducted on national policies, Regional Medium-Term Development Plans (RPJMD), Annual Action Plans, and Regional Poverty Reduction Plans (RPKD). The analysis was not only content-based but also focused on communication patterns, decision-making mechanisms, and cross-sector coordination dynamics, thus becoming a complementary procedure to direct observation. Data analysis was conducted using an interactive model (Miles et al., 2018 ). Each piece of data obtained from the three data collection methods was selected, categorized, and simplified according to the research objectives. The data presented in the following sections is primarily narrative and table, to facilitate understanding of the relationships between categories. Data analysis concluded with drawing conclusions and verifying findings by comparing field findings to the integrative governance theoretical framework and double-checking the consistency of the findings. Data validity was maintained through source and method triangulation (Flick, 2018 ), and member checking procedures involving key informants to ensure the accuracy of interpretation and the credibility of the findings. 3. Results 1) Responsive Networks in Extreme Poverty Alleviation The main characteristic of integrative relationships is the absence of dominant hierarchical authority (Stout & Love, 2019). Relationships between actors are established through iterative interaction mechanisms within an open system framework, where each group continuously adapts and regulates itself while considering the dynamics of its surrounding environment (Bertalanffy, 1975; Stout & Love, 2019; Wheatley, 2006). (Stout & Love, 2019) use the term responsive networks to describe these relationships In responsive networks, the network structure fosters strong bonds by ensuring direct participation among groups, shared responsibilities, and transparency through group communication and information exchange (Stout & Love, 2019). Therefore, in this study, researchers examined hierarchical authority, responsibility, and transparency through communication and information exchange within regional government organizations involved in extreme poverty alleviation to analyze responsive networks in extreme poverty alleviation. Field findings indicate that the network formed to alleviate extreme poverty in Jeneponto Regency does not yet meet the ideal characteristics of a responsive network. Relationships among the organizations involved strongly favor a vertical structure, with the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) dominating as the technical coordinator (Leading Sector), holding authority over all process stages, from data verification to targeting and intervention planning. Information obtained from the Head of Bappeda indicates that Bappeda controls the determination of target data for impoverished families, which serves as the basis for decision-making for program mapping. Although the procedure aligns with Presidential Instruction No. 4/2022, by holding village deliberations, these deliberations serve only as a formal procedure to fulfill documentation obligations, not as a deliberative space that influences policy direction. Technical authority remains centralized within Bappeda, while other Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPDs) play a passive role. Furthermore, research findings indicate that the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) intervenes in establishing extreme poverty alleviation programs with Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPDs). However, some OPDs still implement programs on their initiative, synchronizing existing programs with the extreme poverty alleviation program. The relationship between vertical structures in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency is not only reflected in the role of the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), but also in the implementation of the 2023 extreme poverty alleviation intervention program, a program of the South Sulawesi Provincial Government. In 2023, the Jeneponto Regency Government acted solely as an implementer, not involved in activity planning. Vertical control in the practice of extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto reflects a common paradox within a decentralized system. On the one hand, regions are granted formal autonomy, but on the other hand, they remain subject to central instructions, manifested in standardized targets, reporting, and administrative responsibility structures. Furthermore, Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022 regulates all matters related to poverty alleviation, from specific program targets to program reporting. However, the central government still allows for discretionary authority at the regional level, as argued (Cleveland, 2000) that decentralization maintains hierarchical control at the center, with only minimal delegation of authority at the regional level. According to Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022, the authority granted to regions is in the form of developing additional programs that can take the following forms: (1) Regional programs as extensions of central programs; (2) Regional programs as complements to central programs; and/or (3) increasing the amount of assistance (strengthening) central programs by applicable regulations. However, field findings indicate that no Regional Apparatus Organization (OPD) actively uses the discretionary space granted to expand, complement, or strengthen central program interventions, demonstrating weak institutional capacity to implement regional autonomy. Presidential Instruction No. 4/2022 also regulates every organization involved in extreme poverty alleviation. Within this policy framework, OPD involvement is not based on voluntary principles or direct participation in responsive networks but rather on the OPD's formal core duties and functions (tupoksi) that are directly linked to the three national strategies (Table 1). Table 1. OPDs Involved in Interventions, Allocations, and Budget Realization for Addressing Extreme Poverty in 2024. Strategy 1: Reducing Community Expenditure Strategy 2: Increasing Community Income Strategy 3: Minimizing Poverty Areas 1 Social Affairs Office 1 Social Affairs Office 1 Social Affairs Office 2 Education and Culture Office 6 Agriculture Office 4 Food Security Office 3 Health Affairs Office 7 Marine and Fishery Office 11 Regional Development Planning Agency 4 Food Security Office 8 Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprise (SMEs) Office 12 Public Works and Public Housing Ofiice 5 Industry and Trade Office 9 Tourism Office 13 Library and Archive Office 10 Manpower and Transmigration Office 14 Housing, Residential Areas, and Land Affairs Office Source: Bappeda of Jeneponto Regency, 2025. Observing the table above and comparing it with research findings, it is clear that the division of roles within the Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPDs) is administrative and instructional, not the result of a deliberative process across actors. OPDs are not involved in program formulation or evaluation. Still, they are merely designated as implementers by the provisions of the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) and the Central Government. The Social Affairs Office, for example, encompasses all three national strategies, and Food Security Office, two national strategies, but this role relies on existing instructions and policies, not on substantial coordination with other OPDs. This reflects the lack of a responsive and adaptive collaborative network. There is no cross-sectoral reflective process that could foster synergy, evaluate achievements, or innovate local policies. The formal structure, namely the Regional Poverty Alleviation Coordination Team (TKPKD), which is tasked with developing poverty alleviation plans, coordinating, facilitating partnership development, developing monitoring and reporting instruments, and managing public complaints, is not effectively carrying out its duties and functions. Team members do not clearly understand their responsibilities in alleviating extreme poverty. Their participation is mainly symbolic and administrative. Based on information obtained in the field, there is no cross-sectoral coordination forum to discuss program implementation strategies, establish achievement indicators, and evaluate program outcomes. This indicates a lack of collective responsibility for alleviating extreme poverty in Jeneponto Regency. Communication between OPDs only occurs in coordination meetings held once a week (Thursdays). Information exchange in these forums is one-way and limited to the presentation of target data (P3KE data). This contradicts the principles of responsive networks, which emphasize two-way communication and information exchange to strengthen relationships between groups (Stout & Love, 2019). Field findings actually show that communication and information exchange create data fragmentation and uncertainty in program implementation. Furthermore, this study found no involvement of the non-government sector or the extreme poor in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency. Therefore, the previous discussion only relates to the hierarchical authority, responsibility, and transparency of the Jeneponto Regency government in extreme poverty alleviation. This situation reflects weaknesses in implementing governance networks to alleviate extreme poverty in Jeneponto Regency. To better understand the gap between field findings and responsive network theory in integrative governance, the following table presents a synthesis of theory and field findings: Table 2. Comparison of Theory and Field Findings in Extreme Poverty Alleviation Theoretical Dimensions (Stout & Love, 2019) Field Findings (Jeneponto Regency) Analysis Absence of hierarchical authority: the network system works through situational authority and voluntary participation, not through a command structure. Bappeda acts as the leading sector. There is no involvement of non-governmental actors and affected communities Actor involvement is administrative and instructional. Local government agencies act as implementers without decision-making authority. Communication and information exchange create data fragmentation and program uncertainty. There is no evidence of a governance network for extreme poverty alleviation. A governance network, based on the theory of liberative democracy and participation, requires community participation, in addition to the private sector, in governance (Wang & Ran, 2023), Furthermore, within the governance network, no dominant actor controls decision-making (Huxham & Vangen, 2000; Stout & Love, 2019). The importance of governance networks is related to increasing credibility (Allgaier, 2012; Vuorelma & Lehtonen, 2024). The absence of governance networks has a negative impact on the adaptive capabilities of the Jeneponto Regency government in alleviating extreme poverty. Collective responsibility among actors: All actors have equal responsibility and accountability in solving the problem. Technical implementers (OPDs involved in extreme poverty alleviation) are not functionally involved. Technical OPDs lack clear roles and are limited to program implementation. Fragmented and non-collectively constructed responsibilities cannot encourage active contributions from technical OPDs in addressing the multidimensional problem of extreme poverty. Adopting collective responsibility can foster a sense of shared accountability. Although tasks and responsibilities are carried out individually, collective responsibility can influence individual morale for their contribution to achieving shared goals (Miller, 2024; Obasa et al., 2023). Transparency through open communication and two-way information exchange Communication tends to be one-way (Bappeda to Regional Apparatus Organizations). Information exchange is limited to discussing P3KE data Data fragmentation in the implementation of extreme poverty alleviation programs. This type of communication indicates a network failure. Information sharing among actors involved in extreme poverty alleviation is necessary to find solutions and establish appropriate and synergistic programs to address extreme poverty. The intensity of information sharing within the network influences effectiveness and efficiency (Jayaraman et al., 2008; Sezen, 2008) Quality information sharing influences the quality of decision-making (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). Source: Author's processing, 2025 Based on the description above, it can be concluded that the alleviation of extreme poverty in Jeneponto Regency does not yet reflect the principles of a responsive network. The relationship between OPDs is still hierarchical and administrative; actor participation is symbolic and does not involve non-governmental organizations and the community. Communication is one-way and procedural. There is no deliberative process that encourages the exchange of information or joint reflection across sectors. This condition indicates that the network structure formed does not yet reflect the principles of a responsive network as proposed by (Stout & Love, 2019). This weakness in the network aspect impacts limited collaboration in the governance of extreme poverty alleviation, which will be discussed in the next section. 2) Integrative Collaboration in Extreme Poverty Alleviation Integrative collaboration is a conceptual understanding that emphasizes social, economic, and environmental interconnectedness in governance (Stout & Love, 2019). In this context, collaboration is not viewed in terms of competitive and hierarchical practices, but rather as a process of bargaining, negotiation, mediation, and conflict management, as found in much of the literature. Collaboration is not merely viewed as a compromise or middle ground between hierarchical consolidation, coordination, and cooperation and competition (Stout & Keast, 2021). According to (Stout & Love, 2019) collaboration facilitates dialogue and deliberation, conflict resolution, and collaborative problem-solving. Integrative collaboration transforms administrative policies and all aspects of the administrative process through power, including authority, leadership, management, and action procedures. All group members are understood as collaborators, enhancing their autonomy and mutuality. Integrative collaboration emphasizes coordination and cooperation to achieve common goals across organizational boundaries (Stout & Love, 2019). To analyze integrative collaboration in alleviating extreme poverty in Jeneponto Regency, it is analyzed through 1) situational authority; 2) Leadership; 3) Management as enabling, and 4) Participative Coordination, adopting the view of Stout & Love, 2019. a) Situational Authority The situational authority dimension in integrative collaboration (Stout & Love, 2019) focuses on the distribution of authority based on the situation and functional capacity of individuals or groups. Within this framework, authority is not based on structural position; all individuals and groups have equal jurisdiction according to their functions. Granted authority is accompanied by intensive administrative responsibility and is bound by transparency and public accountability principles. Field findings indicate that the distribution of authority in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency does not yet reflect the concept of situational authority. Most decision-making authority is determined by the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), with Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPD) acting only as technical implementers, as explained in the previous presentation. OPDs cannot determine program direction based on sectoral analysis or local dynamics. This finding is reinforced by an interview with the Head of the Animal Husbandry Division at the Jeneponto Regency Agriculture Office, who stated: “We've already received the planning from the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda). We never begged or asked for this activity, but Bappeda already has a plan and budget. As we progress, we'll adjust it to the recipient criteria we'll work on. We'll have to see what happens during verification. If it's true, we can't force it. If the recipient criteria aren't met, we'll stop it and issue a statement. In 2025, there will be goats and horses. But horses were being discussed yesterday because providing assistance to the extremely poor was a bit confusing. As we know, the extremely poor, by classification, generally don't have housing. Our requirements for receiving livestock assistance require at least a pen. We're worried that they'll be kept in pens everywhere if they don't have a place to live, and that's a big question mark for us." The informant's statement indicates that the authority of technical regional government agencies (OPDs) directly involved in extreme poverty alleviation has been limited from the outset, with room to maneuver only after the plan has been established. Nevertheless, OPDs have still demonstrated initiative in adapting to field conditions in program implementation. Furthermore, information obtained from the Cooperatives and SMEs Office also indicates OPD initiatives that illustrate applying the principle of situational authority. During the implementation of the entrepreneurship training program, participants (from the communities they trained) encountered various structural problems (from the extremely poor). One example is when training participants faced multidimensional challenges, such as children dropping out of school or not having access to social security. These issues do not fall within the scope of the Cooperatives and SMEs Office, but they responded through informal efforts to connect data and problems with other OPDs: “ "Yesterday, we had a group discussion with the Cooperatives and SMEs Office, the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), the Social Affairs office, and the Manpower and Transmigration office. I have this data. They have this problem. One participant has a child who's not in school. Please take over." This statement indicates that the Regional Apparatus Organization (OPD), in this case, the Cooperatives and SMEs Office, recognizes its functional responsibilities in implementing the extreme poverty alleviation program. Efforts to share roles with other OPDs are voluntary based on the situation's dynamics and the participants' needs. This practice reflects the basic characteristics of situational authority: context-based initiative, collective responsibility, and a commitment to acting across functions (Stout & Love, 2019). It aligns with the principles of extreme poverty alleviation implementation, namely "integration and synergy," implementing programs simultaneously and complementary to meet the needs of the extreme poor (Kepmenko No. 32/2022). However, the OPD's actions are carried out informally, without a system that allows for a formal and sustainable redistribution of authority and responsibility. This indicates that, despite the sensitivity and willingness to play cross-sectoral roles based on the situation, this practice is not sufficient to establish a system of situational authority consistent with the perspective of (Stout & Love, 2019) because situational authority is not only about being responsive to situations, but also about institutionalizing discretion and accountability within a structured and deliberative collaborative governance framework. b) Leadership In Integrative Collaboration, leaders are portrayed as visionaries who set goals. Leadership is a dynamic and pervasive function(Follett, 2013a; Stout & Love, 2019). Leadership must be instilled in everyone; everyone leads something, and everyone follows others in achieving organizational goal(Robertson, 2015). In the context of extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency, leadership roles do not yet reflect the concept of leadership within the integrative collaboration approach. By the concept of leadership within an integrative collaboration network, each individual/group is their leader, committed to achieving the desired goals. However, field findings indicate the existence of a leading sector, namely the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda). The dominant role implemented also does not align with existing policies. Based on Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 53/2020 and Decree No. According to Decree No. 100.3.3.2/112/2024, Bappeda's role in extreme poverty alleviation is limited to secretary within the Regional Poverty Alleviation Coordination Team (TKPKD). Bappeda's dominance in taking over substantive functions in extreme poverty alleviation reflects informal institutional change, namely a mismatch between actual practices and the formal institutional design that positions it solely as secretary of the TKPKD. This phenomenon aligns with institutional role drift, where certain actors gradually expand their roles beyond their formal mandate (Mahoney & Thelen, 2009; Schmid & Thatcher, 2013). As a result, ideal leadership patterns are hampered by the remaining centralized structure. Furthermore, the absence of institutional mechanisms that facilitate technical OPDs to lead processes within the sectoral context they directly understand weakens adaptive cross-sectoral collaboration practices. The findings of this study also indicate the emergence of functional leadership. For example, the initiative undertaken by the Cooperatives and SMEs Office to share data with other OPDs, although in an informal forum that has not been institutionalized and still depends on personal commitment, has reflected the existence of adaptive collaborative potential in accordance with the integrative collaboration framework. The absence of a distributed leadership model consistent with this integrative collaboration approach indicates that governance remains bureaucratic-centered, rather than functional-based sector collaboration. Addressing the multidimensional complexity of extreme poverty requires a leadership model that allows each OPD to lead based on its function while contributing to cross-sectoral goals. Therefore, institutional reform is needed that not only reorganizes the distribution of authority but also establishes a contextual and adaptive mechanism for dividing leadership functions by the spirit of integrative governance. c) Management as Enabling Within the framework of integrative collaboration, management is positioned not as a directing and controlling function, as often found in classical administrative literature, but rather as a function that supports the achievement of shared understanding, collective agreement, and coordination across actors (Stout & Love, 2019). From this perspective, the managerial function demands the creation of structural and cognitive conditions that enable active participation, critical evaluation, and policy adjustments based on contextual dynamics on the ground. Research findings indicate that management practices in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency are still implemented using a traditional administrative approach that emphasizes task compliance over collaborative capacity building among regional government agencies (OPDs). The mechanisms implemented focus more on distributing technical tasks and consolidating target data, rather than establishing dialogue spaces or collaborative platforms that encourage the exploration of cross-sectoral solutions. Interviews with OPDs involved in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency confirmed that coordination is primarily realized through weekly cross-OPD meetings, held every Thursday. However, these meetings are merely a formal routine that does not impact program implementation. The Head of the Cooperatives and SMEs Office, for example, stated that: “ The communication space takes the form of coordination meetings, regular meetings, or whatever. This year, the Acting Regent meets every Thursday. Previously, in 2023, we always had meetings across regional government agencies. Although I also found them a waste of time, as they were just endlessly discussing data." This statement indicates that coordination meetings function more as a forum for administrative reporting and data updates (P3KE) than for exchanging ideas to formulate integrated approaches or evaluate program effectiveness. Thus, the managerial function facilitating cross-sector integration has shifted to a formal administrative mechanism. Furthermore, this study found no mechanism encouraging synergy between OPDs in implementing extreme poverty alleviation programs. There is no collective reflection process on implementation successes or failures, even though, according to the Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022, the principles of integration and synergy and monitoring and control are the main foundations of extreme poverty alleviation governance. Program evaluation is carried out by each OPD and Bapedda. This weak managerial aspect is inextricably linked to the suboptimal implementation of the Regional Poverty Alleviation Coordination Team (TKPKD), which should serve as a cross-sectoral coordination forum to ensure the implementation of policy integration and performance-based evaluation. Overall, this study's findings indicate that management practices in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency remain administrative in nature, with coordination mechanisms focused on data reporting and the distribution of technical tasks. The absence of cross-sectoral dialogue and the weak role of the Regional Leadership Coordination Team (TKPKD) indicate that the facilitative managerial capacity needed to realize integrative collaboration has not yet developed optimally. d) Participative Coordination Stout and Love (2019) argue that participatory coordination is an integrative process that unites various organizational functions through structures, mechanisms, and practices that facilitate collaboration. Its key characteristics are its ability to embrace diverse perspectives, open up discussion, develop joint decisions, and generate collective action aligned with the needs of achieving goals. Participatory coordination is not simply the synchronization of administrative agendas, but rather a socio-political process that requires exchanging ideas between actors, sharing information, and actively pursuing cross-sectoral integration. However, research findings in Jeneponto Regency indicate the failure of this principle. The Regional Leadership Coordination Team (TKPKD), responsible for facilitating coordination in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency, failed to fulfill its strategic role. As a result, the implementation of extreme poverty alleviation lacks synergy and integration across sectors, and is characterized by heterogeneity in program target data. Although the government conducts coordination through formal meetings, these forums do not serve as a forum for exchanging ideas, making decisions, and planning collective action in program implementation. Instead, the emerging collaborative actions were informal and reliant on personal initiative, lacking strong institutional strength. This situation indicates that existing coordination has not been able to bridge differences between OPDs or create a space for discussion based on the experiences and challenges faced in alleviating extreme poverty. Furthermore, intervention programs established without a joint decision pose unique challenges for OPDs and operational challenges for them. For example, the Food Security Agency experienced difficulties in distributing aid due to differing policies. Central regulations require group seed distribution, while extreme poverty alleviation policies require individual assistance. The absence of a forum for cross-sectoral discussion and idea exchange to resolve these policy issues demonstrates the weak coordinating capacity of the TKPKD as a facilitator of coordination in regional poverty alleviation. Furthermore, research findings revealed that inter-OPD coordination took place in a fragmented and sectoral manner, without a collaborative framework that guaranteed synergy and sustainability of interventions. This situation directly contradicts the requirements for participatory coordination according to(Stout & Love, 2019), which emphasizes the importance of institutional communication mechanisms capable of managing policy diversity and preventing duplication of resources. Thus, the research findings confirm that coordination for extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency does not meet the principles of participatory coordination, as stated by (Stout & Love, 2019). The absence of forums for discussion and exchange of ideas, sectoral fragmentation, and collective decision-making mechanisms indicate the dominance of procedural administrative coordination. This situation emphasises the need to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Regional Development Planning Agency (TKPKD) and institutionalise inclusive cross-sectoral communication mechanisms as prerequisites for successful extreme poverty alleviation at the local level. Untuk memperjelas kesenjangan antara kerangka teori Stout & Love (2019) and the empirical findings in Jeneponto Regency regarding the overall integrative collaboration dimension, a table synthesizing theory and field findings is presented below: Table 3. Comparison of Theory and Field Findings in Extreme Poverty Alleviation Dimensions of Integrative Collaboration Theoretical (Stout & Love, 2019) Field Findings Analysis Situational Authority Authority is distributed based on the situation and functional capacity, not structural position. All actors have equal authority based on their respective functions Authority is centralized in the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda). Regional Apparatus Organisations (OPD) have limited authority for technical implementation. Limiting the authority of technical OPDs opens up opportunities for failure in the governance of extreme poverty alleviation. Authority is associated with expertise, and because of the situation and circumstances, authority can foster collective action(Bourgoin et al., 2020; Woo et al., 2024). The multidimensional nature of extreme poverty requires a problem-solving approach involving multiple actors' interaction according to their respective functions. Leadership Leadership is distributed, with all actors leading within their respective functions to achieve common goals. Leadership is centralised within the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), which does not align with its formal authority. Functional leadership is limited to the Cooperatives and SMEs Office Leadership remains authoritarian. This leadership style fails to create a favourable work climate and is inappropriate for collaborative networks(Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al., 2021; Pizzolitto et al., 2023). The problem of extreme poverty demands an integrative leadership style that can influence inter-organisational collaborative networks to achieve the common good in addressing complex issues(Parkkinen, 2025) Management as Enabling Management functions as a supporter/facilitator to foster shared understanding, collective agreement, and cross-sector coordination. Emphasises task compliance. Focuses on distributing technical tasks and data consolidation, targeting the extremely poor Lacks a collaborative space or platform to encourage the exploration of cross-sector solutions Coordination is conducted only through weekly meetings, without meaningful discussions on extreme poverty alleviation The existing management function, which does not align with the integrative collaboration approach, results in the extreme poverty alleviation intervention program being out of sync with field conditions. Although each OPD has its function, providing space to realise mutual understanding and agreement is needed to create collective action to coordinate joint efforts in achieving goals (Stout & Love, 2019, 2015). Participative Coordination Ability to embrace diverse perspectives Opening up space for discussion Building shared decisions Collective action Coordination is procedural and administrative Formal forums do not open up space for discussion. Lack of shared decisions and collective action in the implementation of intervention programs Coordination is at the heart of the problems and challenges in alleviating extreme poverty. The implemented coordination fails to build sustainable collaborative mechanisms. Extreme poverty requires program implementation and follow-up actions that can only be achieved through coordination, which embraces differences of opinion, involves all actors, and makes shared decisions. This practice will foster a sense of collective responsibility and commitment based on experience (Follett, 2013b). Source: Author's processing, 2025 Overall, the analysis of the four dimensions of integrative collaboration shows that implementing extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency does not yet reflect the principles of integrative collaboration formulated by Stout & Love (2019). The absence of a distribution mechanism for authority, the dominance of centralised leadership in the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), administrative managerial practices, and weak participatory coordination indicate that governance is still dominated by a hierarchical bureaucratic perspective rather than adaptive cross-sectoral collaboration. These findings emphasise the gap between formal institutional design and practice on the ground, while broadening understanding of the obstacles to implementing an integrative governance approach in the local context of developing countries that are rife with sectoral fragmentation and institutional deviation. 3) Fasilitative Coordination dalam Pengentasan Kemiskinan Ekstrem Facilitative coordination within the integrative governance approach is understood as a facilitative function. In this approach, leaders are portrayed as good listeners, empathetic, intuitively aware, imaginative, creative, and persistent (greeleaf, 2002). This concept emphasises the role of administrators and leaders who guide and empower group members, supporting learning and development to increase capacity (Stout & Love, 2019). In the context of extreme poverty alleviation, facilitative coordination not only serves to unite the involved OPDs but also opens up space for maximum participation for the extreme poor, as beneficiaries, to directly voice their needs and experiences in the program planning and evaluation process. However, the research findings in this section also highlight weaknesses, namely the failure to apply facilitative governance principles in implementing extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency. Extreme poverty alleviation is not the responsibility of any particular party, but rather the responsibility of those involved in the Regional Leadership Coordination Team (TKPKD). Therefore, the TKPKD is obligated to carry out its facilitative function. However, as previously explained, if the TKPKD does not perform its functions effectively, including cross-sector coordination, facilitating sector involvement, and monitoring program implementation. This results in the failure to achieve the targets for extreme poverty alleviation stipulated in Presidential Instruction No. 4/2022 and Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022, which aim to accelerate extreme poverty alleviation. According to Ministry of Home Affairs Instruction No. 53/2020, the TKPKD team stipulates community participation through representatives, in this case, village heads or community leaders. However, according to Regent Decree No. 100.3.3.2/2024, the membership is dominated by regional officials, with no involvement from community and business representatives. Essentially, central government policy reflects the government's efforts to facilitate community participation in poverty alleviation, aligning with the facilitative coordination principle within an integrative governance approach. Although the determination of P3KE data is conducted through a deliberation mechanism at the sub-district/village level, this process is merely administrative. As a result, some data on the extremely poor are invalid. Government efforts to increase community participation in extreme poverty alleviation are also regulated in the Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022. This is done to ensure that program implementation is targeted and meets the needs of the extremely poor. Furthermore, this research also shows that when technical OPDs involved in extreme poverty alleviation implement programs that are not well-targeted, the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), which plays the leading role, does not attempt to coordinate to provide direction or solutions, but instead exerts pressure and presents these findings. To clarify the gap between (Stout & Love, 2019)theoretical framework and empirical findings in Jeneponto Regency on the overall facilitative coordination dimension, a table synthesising theory and field findings is presented below: Table 4 . Comparison of Theory and Field Findings in Extreme Poverty Alleviation Theoretical Dimensions (Stout & Love, 2019) Field Findings (Jeneponto Regency) Analysis Leaders: act as mentors and empower group members, supporting learning and capacity building. Leadership is centred on the role of Bappeda.. Leadership lacks improvement and learning for the actors involved Leadership weakens collaboration, impairing the capacity in define and implement extreme poverty alleviation programs. In a relational approach, leadership is seen as a social influence process that can foster coordination. As servants, leaders use their authority to listen, support improvement and demand learning, and minimise directive actions (Greenleaf, 2002; Stout & Love, 2019; Uhl-Bien, 2006). In extreme poverty alleviation, leaders are needed who can provide support, not just give orders, which can worsen performance. Community Participation Participation is mainly symbolic. Limited community participation results in inaccurate data and program implementation. Residents' knowledge of their conditions and needs can be a valuable source of knowledge and ideas for decision-making related to extreme poverty alleviation. The government's perspective alone is insufficient; communities must be involved as stakeholders, whose involvement is essential from the outset (Chauhan, 2022; Stout & Love, 2019). Source: Author's processing, 2025 Overall, these findings confirm a clear gap between the principle of facilitative coordination within the integrative governance approach and the practice of extreme poverty alleviation in the research area. The presence of the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), which positions itself as a leader in extreme poverty alleviation, creates problems. It does not act as a facilitator, accommodating all complaints, providing solutions, learning, and building capacity. Furthermore, community participation in extreme poverty alleviation is neglected.. 4. Discussion The research findings reveal a significant gap between the principles of integrative governance formulated by (Stout & Love, 2019) and the governance practices for extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency. Empirically, extreme poverty alleviation remains dominated by a bureaucratic hierarchy that centralizes authority in the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) as the primary responsible sector, while other Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPDs) play a passive role as technical implementers without the authority to make joint decisions. This situation contradicts the characteristics of responsive networks, which require function-based distribution of authority, voluntary participation across actors, and transparent two-way communication. Furthermore, the absence of involvement from non-governmental actors and the extreme poor reinforces the established governance network's administrative rather than collaborative nature. This situation indicates the weak adaptive capacity of local governments to develop deliberative, reflective, and responsive governance to the multidimensional dynamics of extreme poverty (Allgaier, 2012; Vuorelma & Lehtonen, 2024). Analysis of the integrative collaboration dimension also demonstrates the weakness of effective institutionalization of cross-sectoral collaboration. First, the situational authority dimension is not functioning because decision-making authority is concentrated in the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda). At the same time, technical OPDs have limited space at the implementation stage. Although there are informal initiatives from certain OPDs, such as the Cooperatives and SMEs Office, that attempt to bridge cross-sectoral needs, these actions are not accompanied by formal mechanisms for deliberative redistribution of authority, thus not reflecting the principle of function-based situational authority (Bourgoin et al., 2020; Woo et al., 2024). Second, the leadership aspect shows Bappeda's dominance, even exceeding its formal duties, reflecting the phenomenon of institutional role drift (Mahoney & Thelen, 2009). Integrative governance, however, demands distributed and contextual leadership, where each OPD leads based on its sectoral capacity to realize joint solutions to complex problems (Parkkinen, 2025). Third, in the management-as-enabling dimension, the implemented managerial mechanisms emphasize data reporting and procedural compliance rather than enhancing collaboration. For Example, Weekly cross-OPD meetings serve only as administrative forums without encouraging critical reflection or cross-sector learning. Finally, the participatory coordination dimension fails to materialize due to the absence of a deliberative forum within the Regional Poverty Reduction Coordination Team (TKPKD), which should be the primary platform for the exchange of ideas, collective decision-making, and alignment of cross-sectoral interventions (Follett, 2013b). Furthermore, research findings on the facilitative coordination dimension highlight weaknesses in facilitative leadership practices, which are at the heart of integrative governance. The TKPKD's role as a cross-sectoral facilitator is not functioning optimally. At the same time, the Bappeda (Regional Development Planning Agency) tends to be directive and not oriented toward learning and capacity building (Greenleaf, 2002). Furthermore, the involvement of the extreme poor in program planning and evaluation processes is mainly symbolic, limited to formal village deliberation mechanisms that merely fulfill procedural requirements. Consequently, data inaccuracies and interventions misalign with the real needs of the community result, as a result of ignoring the potential of local knowledge as a crucial source of information for decision-making (Chauhan, 2022; Stout & Love, 2019). The extreme poor's lack of substantive participation weakens policy legitimacy and hinders the development of inclusive and adaptive collaborative networks. The situation in Jeneponto Regency in alleviating extreme poverty reflects the paradox of decentralization in developing countries, where local governments are formally granted autonomy. However, decision-making practices remain subject to central direction and trapped in a mindset of administrative coordination (Smoke, 2015). The weak institutional capacity of the TKPKD, the absence of deliberative mechanisms, and the reliance on bureaucratic hierarchies weaken the cross-sectoral policy integration needed to address the complexities of extreme poverty. As stated by (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016), the successful governance of wicked public problems such as extreme poverty requires a deliberative collaboration mechanism that combines cross-actor competencies, builds collective accountability, and encourages policy innovation based on local context. The findings of this study have important implications for the governance of extreme poverty alleviation at the local level. First, institutional reforms are needed to reorganize the distribution of authority through the institutionalization of situational authority, allowing technical OPDs to play a more deliberative role by their functional capacities. Second, strengthening the function of the Regional Development Planning Agency (TKPKD) is crucial as a deliberative arena that facilitates participatory cross-sectoral coordination and integrates policies based on local contexts. Third, facilitative leadership must be applied to replace hierarchical leadership, positioning leaders as facilitators who support learning, empower actors, and create collaborative solutions. Fourth, governance management must transform from an administrative mechanism to an enabling management mechanism that encourages reflective dialogue, performance-based evaluation, and cross-sectoral policy innovation. Finally, integrating extreme poverty participation in program planning and evaluation must be institutionalized to enhance collective accountability and the effectiveness of interventions. These implications emphasize that the success of integrative governance depends not only on the technocratic capacity of the bureaucracy but also on the ability of governance management to build an adaptive collaborative ecosystem that is inclusive, deliberative, and responsive to the complexities of extreme poverty at the local level. 5. Conclusion This research confirms that extreme poverty alleviation practices in Jeneponto Regency do not yet reflect the principles of integrative governance formulated by Stout and Love (2019). Current governance remains oriented toward a bureaucratic hierarchy dominated by the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), minimal involvement of non-governmental actors and the extreme poor, and a weak deliberative function of the Regional Poverty Alleviation Coordination Team (TKPKD). These gaps result in poor participatory coordination, limited function-based distribution of authority, and the underdevelopment of facilitative leadership mechanisms necessary to manage the multidimensional complexity of extreme poverty. Theoretically, this research expands the literature on the obstacles to implementing integrative governance in the local context of developing countries, characterized by sectoral fragmentation and institutional deviation. Practically, these findings emphasize the need for institutional reform to reorganize the distribution of authority through institutionalizing situational authority, strengthening the deliberative function of the TKPKD, encouraging facilitative leadership, and integrating substantive participation of the extreme poor into the policy cycle. Without fundamental changes in governance management that shift the paradigm from a bureaucratic hierarchy to a collaborative, deliberative one, efforts to alleviate extreme poverty have the potential to remain sectoral, procedural, and unsustainable. Therefore, the success of integrative governance in alleviating extreme poverty requires strengthening the capacity of local institutions that are adaptive, inclusive, and responsive to the socio-economic dynamics of the extreme poor. These findings confirm that the effectiveness of public governance is determined not only by the technocratic capabilities of the bureaucracy, but also by the ability to build collaborative, deliberative networks that position the government, Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPD), and the extreme poor as equal partners in formulating and implementing targeted policies. Declarations Participant consented to participate in the study, even if this statement indicates that the need for consent was waived by the approving ethics committee. Acknowledgments The author would like to express his gratitude for the financial support provided by the Indonesian Education Scholarship (BPI), the Center for Higher Education Funding and Assessment of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, and Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP). This support was instrumental in completing the research and writing this article. The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely the author's responsibility and are not related to the policies of the funding institutions. Author Contributions W.W. conceptualized the research and formulated the research methodology design. Collected primary and secondary data through in-depth interviews, policy document analysis, and field observations. Responsible for qualitative data analysis and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript; S.S. provided academic supervision and methodological validation. Contributed to strengthening the theoretical framework of integrative governance; M.R. contributed to policy analysis and contextualization of local governance. Actively reviewed and refined the manuscript to enhance the quality of the final publication. Funding The research received financial support from the Indonesian Education Scholarship (BPI), the Center for Higher Education Funding and Assessment of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP). Data availability The datasets that support this research are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable Consent for Publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Clinical trial number Not applicable References Adeleye, B. N., Gershon, O., Ogundipe, A., Owolabi, O., Ogunrinola, I., & Adediran, O. (2020). Comparative investigation of the growth-poverty-inequality trilemma in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin American and Caribbean Countries. Heliyon , 6 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05631 Allgaier, J. (2012). Networking expertise: Discursive coalitions and collaborative networks of experts in a public creationism controversy in the UK. Public Understanding of Science , 21 (3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510383385 Bertalanffy, L. von. (1975). Perspectives on general system theory: Scientific-philosophical studies . George Braziller Press. Bourgoin, A., Bencherki, N., & Faraj, S. (2020). “ And Who Are You ?”: A Performative Perspective on Authority in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal , 63 (4), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1335 Chauhan, E. (2022). Residents’ Motivations to Participate in Decision-Making for Cultural Heritage Tourism: Case Study of New Delhi. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 14 (14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148406 Dimitrios, M., Alegakis, A., & Koukouli, S. (2024). Evaluating the effect of individual characteristics and COVID-19 pandemic on people living under extreme poverty conditions in Greece. Poverty and Public Policy , 16 (1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/pop4.395 Elmenofi, G. A. G., Bilali, H. El, & Berjan, S. (2014). Governance of rural development in Egypt. Annals of Agricultural Sciences , 59 (2), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2014.11.018 Flick, U. (2018). An Introduction to Qualitative Research . SAGE Publications Ltd. Follett, M. P. (2013a). The Essentials of Leadership. In Freedom and Co-ordination: Lectures in Business Organization . Routledge. Follett, M. P. (2013b). The Illusion of Final Authority. In Freedom and Co-ordination: Lectures in Business Organization . Routledge. Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness . Paulist Press. Habibullah. (2024). Homelessness in the context of extreme poverty: Social policy from Indonesia. In Homelessness to Hope Research, Policy and Global Perspectives (pp. 365–384). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-14052-5.00020-3 Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of collaboration. Human Relations , 53 (6), 771–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536002 Iskandar, A. H., Suja’Ie, A. F., & Agusta, I. (2023). Redesigning Consolidated Data for Handling Extreme Poverty in Rural Areas Based on Sdgs Desa. Journal of Community Positive Practices , 23 (1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.35782/JCPP.2023.1.08 Jayaraman, V., Ross, A. D., & Agarwal, A. (2008). Role of information technology and collaboration in reverse logistics supply chains. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications , 11 (6), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675560701694499 Jin, Z., & Ialnazov, D. (2023). Governance Challenges and Solutions of the Solar Energy for Poverty Alleviation Program in China: The Case of Jinzhai County. Journal of Asian Energy Studies , 7 , 20–38. https://doi.org/10.24112/jaes.070002 Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., Gumusluoglu, L., Erturk, A., & Scandura, T. A. (2021). Two to Tango? A cross-cultural investigation of the leader-follower agreement on authoritarian leadership. Journal of Business Research , 128 , 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.034 Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2016). Governance Networks in the Public Sector . Routledge. Larantika, A. A. A. D., Zauhar, S., Makmur, M., & Setyowati, E. (2017). Collaboration as a Strategy for Poverty Alleviation. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities , 1 (3), 40–48. Lavell, A., McFarlane, C., Moore, H. L., Woodcroft, S., & Yap, C. (2023). Pathways to Urban Equality through the Sustainable Development Goals: Modes of Extreme Poverty, Resilience, and Prosperity. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development , 15 (1), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2023.2226099 Liu, M., Feng, X., Zhao, Y., & Qiu, H. (2023). Impact of poverty alleviation through relocation: From the perspectives of income and multidimensional poverty. Journal of Rural Studies , 99 , 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.02.009 Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2009). Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power . Cambridge University Press. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook . Sage publications. Miller, S. (2024). Institutional Corruption, Institutional Corrosion and Collective Responsibility. Criminal Justice Ethics , 43 (2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2024.2381295 Nzobo, C. M. (2021). Poverty Reduction through Industrialisation , Economic Diversification and Growth in Low-income Countries : A Review of Literature and Evidence. Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development , 60 , 35–46. https://doi.org/10.7176/JPID/60-04 Obasa, A. E., Botes, M., & Palk, A. C. (2023). Collective responsibility during a cholera outbreak: The case of Hammanskraal. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law , 16 (3), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2023.v16i3.1250 Ochi, A. (2023). Inequality and the impact of growth on poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: A GMM estimator in a dynamic panel threshold model. Regional Science Policy and Practice , 15 (6), 1373–1394. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12707 Ochi, A., Saidi, Y., & Labidi, M. A. (2023). Nonlinear Threshold Effect of Governance Quality on Poverty Reduction in South Asia and Sub ‑ Saharan Africa : a Dynamic Panel Threshold Specification. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 15 (1), 4239–4264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01271-3 Parkkinen, J. (2025). Integrative public leadership: a systematic review. International Journal of Public Sector Management , 38 (4), 426–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2024-0093 Patnaik, S., & Prasad, C. S. (2021). Development in Practice Coordination in multi-actor policy implementation : case study of a livelihood enhancement programme in India. Development in Practice , 31 (4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2020.1861220 Pizzolitto, E., Verna, I., & Venditti, M. (2023). Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda. In Management Review Quarterly (Vol. 73, Issue 2). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y Robertson, B. J. (2015). Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World . Henry Holt and Co. Saidi, Y., Labidi, M. A., & Ochi, A. (2023). Economic Growth and Extreme Poverty in Sub ‑ Saharan African Countries : Non ‑ Linearity and Governance Threshold Effect. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 15 (12), 7819–7851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01421-7 Schmid, V. A., & Thatcher, M. (2013). Resilient Liberalism in Europe’s Political Economy . Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139857086 Sezen, B. (2008). Relative effects of design, integration and information sharing on supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management , 13 (3), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540810871271 Smoke, P. (2015). Rethinking Decentralization: Assessing Challenges to a Popular Public Sector Reform. Public Administration and Development , 35 (2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1703 Stout, M., & Keast, R. (2021). Collaboration : what does it really mean ? In Handbook of Collaborative Public Management (pp. 17–35). Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Stout, M., & Love, J. (2019). Integrative Governance : Generating Sustainable Responses to Global Crises (Issue October). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315526294 Stout, M., & Love, J. M. (2015). Integrative Governance : A Method for Fruitful Public Encounters. American Review of Public Administration , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015576953 Sullivan, D., Moatsos, M., & Hickel, J. (2024). Capitalist reforms and extreme poverty in China: unprecedented progress or income deflation? New Political Economy , 29 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2023.2217087 Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly , 17 (6), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007 United Nations. (2016). Final list of proposed Sustainable Development Goal indicators. In Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators . Vuorelma, J., & Lehtonen, P. (2024). The Role of Expert Networks in Pandemic Governance and Recovery. Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory , 27 (1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.424 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 Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. Third Edition . Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Woo, D., Miller, L. E., & Lamsen, L. N. (2024). “What do you want to do?”: expertise tension and authority negotiation in emergency nurse–physician interactions. Journal of Communication , 75 (1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqae043 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods 6th . Sage Publications. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Discover Sustainability → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 12 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 07 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 02 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 30 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 17 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 06 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 11 Sep, 2025 Editor invited by journal 11 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 29 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 29 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 25 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7449971","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":507388680,"identity":"79e5e561-0c77-45cc-a7a7-76c9f3b6da73","order_by":0,"name":"Widyawati Widyawati","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hasanuddin University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Widyawati","middleName":"","lastName":"Widyawati","suffix":""},{"id":507388681,"identity":"c0f3b11d-ba30-41e0-a7c4-b5deed144ee4","order_by":1,"name":"Sangkala Sangkala","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hasanuddin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sangkala","middleName":"","lastName":"Sangkala","suffix":""},{"id":507388682,"identity":"1bf93a78-efda-45b8-850a-1b76ad3e7750","order_by":2,"name":"Muhammad Rusdi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hasanuddin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"","lastName":"Rusdi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-25 05:39:05","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7449971/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7449971/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-03108-w","type":"published","date":"2026-03-29T16:10:05+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90882175,"identity":"73eafa74-3d64-4cf2-90b5-9da6f2620087","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-09 09:52:13","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100343,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIntegrative governance analytical framework for extreme poverty alleviation (adapted from Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019, and elaborated by the authors). This framework is used to explore the relevance of integrative governance theory to local practices in Indonesia, particularly the context of extreme poverty in Jeneponto.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7449971/v1/6aac5fdcc608fa30e109d706.png"},{"id":105755979,"identity":"60846c39-4c0a-4915-83a5-9cfb2b620a44","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-30 16:33:43","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1029894,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7449971/v1/567decbd-249d-46ad-8a83-0b02d432f25e.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Integrative Governance For Extreme Poverty Alleviation: Institutional Capacity and Local Governance in Indonesia","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eExtreme poverty is not simply a matter of income and purchasing power (Dimitrios et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ochi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sullivan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), but encompasses a broader, multidimensional problem (Lavell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ochi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The Sustainable Development Goals target reducing extreme poverty to below 3% of the global population by 2030 (Jin \u0026amp; Ialnazov, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ochi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), focusing on the proportion of people living below the international poverty line, based on sex, age, employment status, and geographic location, with incomes of less than \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1.90 per day (Lavell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; United Nations, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Eradicating extreme poverty within the framework of these goals requires pro-poor policies and accelerated investment in extreme poverty reduction actions. This goal encompasses targets requiring multiple interventions (Lavell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExtreme poverty alleviation cannot be addressed through a partial sectoral approach, as it often results in fragmented, overlapping, and unresponsive policies, which are not in keeping with its multidimensional nature. Several research findings explain that when governments operate independently in extreme poverty alleviation, it results in inefficient resource use, duplication of efforts, and gaps in services (Elmenofi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Larantika et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Patnaik \u0026amp; Prasad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, extreme poverty alleviation policies not aligned with social and economic policies contribute to inequality, creating conflicting objectives that exacerbate poverty (Adeleye et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Nzobo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperiences from Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia demonstrate that economic growth alone is insufficient to reduce poverty (Saidi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), but is also influenced by the quality of governance (Ochi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ochi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Saidi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Governance in extreme poverty alleviation requires a more democratic and collaborative approach, capable of integrating resources, actors, and knowledge across sectors. In this regard, an integrative governance approach offers comprehensive work and is relevant in alleviating extreme poverty, which presents complex problems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe integrative governance approach introduced by (Stout \u0026amp; Love, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) is based on relational processes and co-creation principles. It emphasises collaborative approaches across sectors, disciplines, and even transnational boundaries to create sustainable solutions to global crises. This governance model advocates an inclusive approach that seeks to create shared solutions through collaboration, making it adaptable to address contemporary governance issues such as poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation (Stout \u0026amp; Love, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Indonesia, the government has initiated a policy to accelerate the eradication of extreme poverty through Presidential Instruction No. 4/2022, emphasising cross-sector integration, program coherence, and community participation at every stage. Each stakeholder is expected to work together according to their respective duties, functions, and authorities to ensure the accuracy of targeting and effectiveness of interventions. This indicates that the government has developed a policy framework that emphasises the importance of cross-sector coordination, multi-actor collaboration, and community participation in extreme poverty alleviation. However, empirical studies are needed to assess their suitability with practice on the ground to ensure alignment between these policies and the principles of integrative governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research was conducted in Jeneponto Regency, one of the priority areas for accelerating extreme poverty eradication, with persistent extreme poverty rates in South Sulawesi. Initial findings indicate a gap between formal policy design and implementation practices in the region, where extreme poverty alleviation is still dominated by hierarchical bureaucratic patterns, weak cross-sectoral coordination, and minimal involvement of non-governmental actors and the extreme poor in Jeneponto Regency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough several studies on extreme poverty in Indonesia have been conducted, the majority of these studies focus on social policy aspects, issues of inequality, and methodological issues related to the accuracy of data collection on the extreme poor at the central and regional levels (Habibullah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Iskandar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, studies specifically addressing the governance of extreme poverty alleviation, particularly from an integrative governance perspective at the local level, are still minimal. This gap is significant given the complexity of the challenges faced by regions like Jeneponto Regency, which are characterised by high rates of extreme poverty, limited institutional capacity, and minimal participation of non-governmental actors and local communities. This context demands governance that is not merely administrative and sectoral, but also adaptive, deliberative, and collaborative, as recommended in the integrative governance framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research has a scientific urgency to fill this gap by exploring the application of integrative governance principles to alleviate extreme poverty locally, focusing on Jeneponto Regency. This research is expected to provide theoretical contributions by enriching the literature on the dynamics, obstacles, and opportunities for implementing integrative governance in developing country contexts, while also offering relevant practical implications for strengthening governance for extreme poverty alleviation in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methode","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research employs a qualitative approach with a case study design to examine the application of integrative governance principles in depth for alleviating extreme poverty. This approach is based on the complex, contextual nature of extreme poverty, which requires a holistic understanding of the dynamics of interactions between actors in its management at the local level. The case study design is viewed not only as a descriptive method but also as an extended analytical procedure, as the research combines various data collection and validation techniques to produce a comprehensive mapping of governance practices(Yin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJeneponto Regency in South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia, was chosen as the research location. This was chosen because the region's extreme poverty rate has consistently been high and has been a priority in the national policy for accelerating extreme poverty eradication. This location was chosen not solely for empirical reasons but also as a testbed for the method, as Jeneponto represents an underdeveloped region with fragmented cross-sectoral governance. Thus, the research context serves as a testbed for the development of integrative governance research procedures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analytical framework of this research refers to the integrative governance approach developed by (Stout \u0026amp; Love, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), which includes responsive networks, referring to the formation of collaborative networks without hierarchical domination, collective responsibility, and transparency. Integrative collaboration encompasses situational authority, leadership, facilitative management (management as enabling), and participatory coordination. Finally, facilitative coordination emphasizes leadership that supports, empowers, and encourages the substantive involvement of the extreme poor. In this research, the framework is operationalized methodologically by developing a multi-layered analysis procedure: first, testing the alignment of national policies (Presidential Instruction No. 4/2022, Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022) with local practices; second, mapping cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms in the regions; and third, identifying gaps in extreme poverty governance, which serves as the research's contribution point (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData collection was not solely derived from interviews, but was supplemented by document analysis and observation to increase the depth of data in qualitative research (Creswell \u0026amp; Poth, 2018). Interviews were conducted with 15 key informants selected using purposive sampling, including officials from the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), technical Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPD), members of the Regional Poverty Alleviation Coordination Team (TKPKD), and community leaders. The interviews were conducted not only by asking a series of questions from the instrument but also by developing questions based on the informants' responses. Document analysis was conducted on national policies, Regional Medium-Term Development Plans (RPJMD), Annual Action Plans, and Regional Poverty Reduction Plans (RPKD). The analysis was not only content-based but also focused on communication patterns, decision-making mechanisms, and cross-sector coordination dynamics, thus becoming a complementary procedure to direct observation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData analysis was conducted using an interactive model (Miles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Each piece of data obtained from the three data collection methods was selected, categorized, and simplified according to the research objectives. The data presented in the following sections is primarily narrative and table, to facilitate understanding of the relationships between categories. Data analysis concluded with drawing conclusions and verifying findings by comparing field findings to the integrative governance theoretical framework and double-checking the consistency of the findings. Data validity was maintained through source and method triangulation (Flick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and member checking procedures involving key informants to ensure the accuracy of interpretation and the credibility of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1) Responsive Networks in Extreme Poverty Alleviation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe main characteristic of integrative relationships is the absence of dominant hierarchical authority (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019). Relationships between actors are established through iterative interaction mechanisms within an open system framework, where each group continuously adapts and regulates itself while considering the dynamics of its surrounding environment (Bertalanffy, 1975; Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019; Wheatley, 2006). (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019) use the term responsive networks to describe these relationships\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn responsive networks, the network structure fosters strong bonds by ensuring direct participation among groups, shared responsibilities, and transparency through group communication and information exchange (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019). Therefore, in this study, researchers examined hierarchical authority, responsibility, and transparency through communication and information exchange within regional government organizations involved in extreme poverty alleviation to analyze responsive networks in extreme poverty alleviation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eField findings indicate that the network formed to alleviate extreme poverty in Jeneponto Regency does not yet meet the ideal characteristics of a responsive network. Relationships among the organizations involved strongly favor a vertical structure, with the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) dominating as the technical coordinator (Leading Sector), holding authority over all process stages, from data verification to targeting and intervention planning.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformation obtained from the Head of Bappeda indicates that Bappeda controls the determination of target data for impoverished families, which serves as the basis for decision-making for program mapping. Although the procedure aligns with Presidential Instruction No. 4/2022, by holding village deliberations, these deliberations serve only as a formal procedure to fulfill documentation obligations, not as a deliberative space that influences policy direction. Technical authority remains centralized within Bappeda, while other Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPDs) play a passive role.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, research findings indicate that the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) intervenes in establishing extreme poverty alleviation programs with Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPDs). However, some OPDs still implement programs on their initiative, synchronizing existing programs with the extreme poverty alleviation program. The relationship between vertical structures in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency is not only reflected in the role of the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), but also in the implementation of the 2023 extreme poverty alleviation intervention program, a program of the South Sulawesi Provincial Government. In 2023, the Jeneponto Regency Government acted solely as an implementer, not involved in activity planning. Vertical control in the practice of extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto reflects a common paradox within a decentralized system. On the one hand, regions are granted formal autonomy, but on the other hand, they remain subject to central instructions, manifested in standardized targets, reporting, and administrative responsibility structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022 regulates all matters related to poverty alleviation, from specific program targets to program reporting. However, the central government still allows for discretionary authority at the regional level, as argued (Cleveland, 2000) that decentralization maintains hierarchical control at the center, with only minimal delegation of authority at the regional level. According to Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022, the authority granted to regions is in the form of developing additional programs that can take the following forms: (1) Regional programs as extensions of central programs; (2) Regional programs as complements to central programs; and/or (3) increasing the amount of assistance (strengthening) central programs by applicable regulations. However, field findings indicate that no Regional Apparatus Organization (OPD) actively uses the discretionary space granted to expand, complement, or strengthen central program interventions, demonstrating weak institutional capacity to implement regional autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePresidential Instruction No. 4/2022 also regulates every organization involved in extreme poverty alleviation. Within this policy framework, OPD involvement is not based on voluntary principles or direct participation in responsive networks but rather on the OPD\u0026apos;s formal core duties and functions (tupoksi) that are directly linked to the three national strategies (Table 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e OPDs Involved in Interventions, Allocations, and Budget Realization for Addressing Extreme Poverty in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"618\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrategy 1: Reducing Community Expenditure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrategy 2: Increasing Community Income\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 210px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrategy 3: Minimizing Poverty Areas\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 177px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Affairs Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Affairs Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Affairs Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 177px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation and Culture Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgriculture Office\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood Security Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 177px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth Affairs Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarine and Fishery Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional Development Planning Agency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 177px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood Security Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprise (SMEs) Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic Works and Public Housing Ofiice\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 177px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndustry and Trade Office\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTourism Office\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLibrary and Archive Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eManpower and Transmigration Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHousing, Residential Areas, and Land Affairs Office\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Bappeda of Jeneponto Regency, 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObserving the table above and comparing it with research findings, it is clear that the division of roles within the Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPDs) is administrative and instructional, not the result of a deliberative process across actors. OPDs are not involved in program formulation or evaluation. Still, they are merely designated as implementers by the provisions of the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) and the Central Government. The Social Affairs Office, for example, encompasses all three national strategies, and Food Security Office, two national strategies, but this role relies on existing instructions and policies, not on substantial coordination with other OPDs. This reflects the lack of a responsive and adaptive collaborative network. There is no cross-sectoral reflective process that could foster synergy, evaluate achievements, or innovate local policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe formal structure, namely the Regional Poverty Alleviation Coordination Team (TKPKD), which is tasked with developing poverty alleviation plans, coordinating, facilitating partnership development, developing monitoring and reporting instruments, and managing public complaints, is not effectively carrying out its duties and functions. Team members do not clearly understand their responsibilities in alleviating extreme poverty. Their participation is mainly symbolic and administrative. Based on information obtained in the field, there is no cross-sectoral coordination forum to discuss program implementation strategies, establish achievement indicators, and evaluate program outcomes. This indicates a lack of collective responsibility for alleviating extreme poverty in Jeneponto Regency.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCommunication between OPDs only occurs in coordination meetings held once a week (Thursdays). Information exchange in these forums is one-way and limited to the presentation of target data (P3KE data). This contradicts the principles of responsive networks, which emphasize two-way communication and information exchange to strengthen relationships between groups (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019). Field findings actually show that communication and information exchange create data fragmentation and uncertainty in program implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this study found no involvement of the non-government sector or the extreme poor in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency. Therefore, the previous discussion only relates to the hierarchical authority, responsibility, and transparency of the Jeneponto Regency government in extreme poverty alleviation. This situation reflects weaknesses in implementing governance networks to alleviate extreme poverty in Jeneponto Regency.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo better understand the gap between field findings and responsive network theory in integrative governance, the following table presents a synthesis of theory and field findings:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u003c/strong\u003e Comparison of Theory and Field Findings in Extreme Poverty Alleviation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"606\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical Dimensions (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eField Findings (Jeneponto Regency)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAbsence of hierarchical authority:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe network system works through situational authority and voluntary participation, not through a command structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBappeda acts as the leading sector.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThere is no involvement of non-governmental actors and affected communities\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eActor involvement is administrative and instructional.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLocal government agencies act as implementers without decision-making authority.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCommunication and information exchange create data fragmentation and program uncertainty.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThere is no evidence of a governance network for extreme poverty alleviation. A governance network, based on the theory of liberative democracy and participation, requires community participation, in addition to the private sector, in governance (Wang \u0026amp; Ran, 2023), Furthermore, within the governance network, no dominant actor controls decision-making (Huxham \u0026amp; Vangen, 2000; Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019). The importance of governance networks is related to increasing credibility (Allgaier, 2012; Vuorelma \u0026amp; Lehtonen, 2024). The absence of governance networks has a negative impact on the adaptive capabilities of the Jeneponto Regency government in alleviating extreme poverty.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCollective responsibility among actors: All actors have equal responsibility and accountability in solving the problem.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTechnical implementers (OPDs involved in extreme poverty alleviation) are not functionally involved.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTechnical OPDs lack clear roles and are limited to program implementation.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFragmented and non-collectively constructed responsibilities cannot encourage active contributions from technical OPDs in addressing the multidimensional problem of extreme poverty. Adopting collective responsibility can foster a sense of shared accountability. Although tasks and responsibilities are carried out individually, collective responsibility can influence individual morale for their contribution to achieving shared goals (Miller, 2024; Obasa et al., 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTransparency\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethrough open communication and two-way information exchange\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCommunication tends to be one-way (Bappeda to Regional Apparatus Organizations).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInformation exchange is limited to discussing P3KE data\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eData fragmentation in the implementation of extreme poverty alleviation programs.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis type of communication indicates a network failure. Information sharing among actors involved in extreme poverty alleviation is necessary to find solutions and establish appropriate and synergistic programs to address extreme poverty. The intensity of information sharing within the network influences effectiveness and efficiency (Jayaraman et al., 2008; Sezen, 2008) \u0026nbsp;Quality information sharing influences the quality of decision-making (Klijn \u0026amp; Koppenjan, 2016).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author\u0026apos;s processing, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the description above, it can be concluded that the alleviation of extreme poverty in Jeneponto Regency does not yet reflect the principles of a responsive network. The relationship between OPDs is still hierarchical and administrative; actor participation is symbolic and does not involve non-governmental organizations and the community. Communication is one-way and procedural. There is no deliberative process that encourages the exchange of information or joint reflection across sectors. This condition indicates that the network structure formed does not yet reflect the principles of a responsive network as proposed by (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019). This weakness in the network aspect impacts limited collaboration in the governance of extreme poverty alleviation, which will be discussed in the next section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2) Integrative Collaboration in Extreme Poverty Alleviation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntegrative collaboration is a conceptual understanding that emphasizes social, economic, and environmental interconnectedness in governance\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019). In this context, collaboration is not viewed in terms of competitive and hierarchical practices, but rather as a process of bargaining, negotiation, mediation, and conflict management, as found in much of the literature. Collaboration is not merely viewed as a compromise or middle ground between hierarchical consolidation, coordination, and cooperation and competition (Stout \u0026amp; Keast, 2021). According to (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019) collaboration facilitates dialogue and deliberation, conflict resolution, and collaborative problem-solving.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntegrative collaboration transforms administrative policies and all aspects of the administrative process through power, including authority, leadership, management, and action procedures. All group members are understood as collaborators, enhancing their autonomy and mutuality. Integrative collaboration emphasizes coordination and cooperation to achieve common goals across organizational boundaries (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo analyze integrative collaboration in alleviating extreme poverty in Jeneponto Regency, it is analyzed through 1) situational authority; 2) Leadership; 3) Management as enabling, and 4) Participative Coordination, adopting the view of Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea) Situational Authority\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe situational authority dimension in integrative collaboration (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019) focuses on the distribution of authority based on the situation and functional capacity of individuals or groups. Within this framework, authority is not based on structural position; all individuals and groups have equal jurisdiction according to their functions. Granted authority is accompanied by intensive administrative responsibility and is bound by transparency and public accountability principles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eField findings indicate that the distribution of authority in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency does not yet reflect the concept of situational authority. Most decision-making authority is determined by the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), with Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPD) acting only as technical implementers, as explained in the previous presentation. OPDs cannot determine program direction based on sectoral analysis or local dynamics. This finding is reinforced by an interview with the Head of the Animal Husbandry Division at the Jeneponto Regency Agriculture Office, who stated:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We\u0026apos;ve already received the planning from the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda). We never begged or asked for this activity, but Bappeda already has a plan and budget. As we progress, we\u0026apos;ll adjust it to the recipient criteria we\u0026apos;ll work on. We\u0026apos;ll have to see what happens during verification. If it\u0026apos;s true, we can\u0026apos;t force it. If the recipient criteria aren\u0026apos;t met, we\u0026apos;ll stop it and issue a statement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn 2025, there will be goats and horses. But horses were being discussed yesterday because providing assistance to the extremely poor was a bit confusing. As we know, the extremely poor, by classification, generally don\u0026apos;t have housing. Our requirements for receiving livestock assistance require at least a pen. We\u0026apos;re worried that they\u0026apos;ll be kept in pens everywhere if they don\u0026apos;t have a place to live, and that\u0026apos;s a big question mark for us.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe informant\u0026apos;s statement indicates that the authority of technical regional government agencies (OPDs) directly involved in extreme poverty alleviation has been limited from the outset, with room to maneuver only after the plan has been established. Nevertheless, OPDs have still demonstrated initiative in adapting to field conditions in program implementation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, information obtained from the\u0026nbsp;Cooperatives and SMEs Office also indicates OPD initiatives that illustrate applying the principle of situational authority. During the implementation of the entrepreneurship training program, participants (from the communities they trained) encountered various structural problems (from the extremely poor). One example is when training participants faced multidimensional challenges, such as children dropping out of school or not having access to social security. These issues do not fall within the scope of the Cooperatives and SMEs Office, but they responded through informal efforts to connect data and problems with other OPDs:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;Yesterday, we had a group discussion with the Cooperatives and SMEs Office, the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), the Social Affairs office, and the Manpower and Transmigration office. I have this data. They have this problem. One participant has a child who\u0026apos;s not in school. Please take over.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis statement indicates that the Regional Apparatus Organization (OPD), in this case, the Cooperatives and SMEs Office, recognizes its functional responsibilities in implementing the extreme poverty alleviation program. Efforts to share roles with other OPDs are voluntary based on the situation\u0026apos;s dynamics and the participants\u0026apos; needs. This practice reflects the basic characteristics of situational authority: context-based initiative, collective responsibility, and a commitment to acting across functions (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019). It aligns with the principles of extreme poverty alleviation implementation, namely \u0026quot;integration and synergy,\u0026quot; implementing programs simultaneously and complementary to meet the needs of the extreme poor (Kepmenko No. 32/2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the OPD\u0026apos;s actions are carried out informally, without a system that allows for a formal and sustainable redistribution of authority and responsibility. This indicates that, despite the sensitivity and willingness to play cross-sectoral roles based on the situation, this practice is not sufficient to establish a system of situational authority consistent with the perspective of (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019) because situational authority is not only about being responsive to situations, but also about institutionalizing discretion and accountability within a structured and deliberative collaborative governance framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eb) Leadership\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Integrative Collaboration, leaders are portrayed as visionaries who set goals. Leadership is a dynamic and pervasive function(Follett, 2013a; Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019). Leadership must be instilled in everyone; everyone leads something, and everyone follows others in achieving organizational goal(Robertson, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency, leadership roles do not yet reflect the concept of leadership within the integrative collaboration approach. By the concept of leadership within an integrative collaboration network, each individual/group is their leader, committed to achieving the desired goals. However, field findings indicate the existence of a leading sector, namely the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda). The dominant role implemented also does not align with existing policies. Based on Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 53/2020 and Decree No. According to Decree No. 100.3.3.2/112/2024, Bappeda\u0026apos;s role in extreme poverty alleviation is limited to secretary within the Regional Poverty Alleviation Coordination Team (TKPKD).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBappeda\u0026apos;s dominance in taking over substantive functions in extreme poverty alleviation reflects informal institutional change, namely a mismatch between actual practices and the formal institutional design that positions it solely as secretary of the TKPKD. This phenomenon aligns with institutional role drift, where certain actors gradually expand their roles beyond their formal mandate (Mahoney \u0026amp; Thelen, 2009; Schmid \u0026amp; Thatcher, 2013). As a result, ideal leadership patterns are hampered by the remaining centralized structure. Furthermore, the absence of institutional mechanisms that facilitate technical OPDs to lead processes within the sectoral context they directly understand weakens adaptive cross-sectoral collaboration practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study also indicate the emergence of functional leadership. For example, the initiative undertaken by the Cooperatives and SMEs Office to share data with other OPDs, although in an informal forum that has not been institutionalized and still depends on personal commitment, has reflected the existence of adaptive collaborative potential in accordance with the integrative collaboration framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe absence of a distributed leadership model consistent with this integrative collaboration approach indicates that governance remains bureaucratic-centered, rather than functional-based sector collaboration. Addressing the multidimensional complexity of extreme poverty requires a leadership model that allows each OPD to lead based on its function while contributing to cross-sectoral goals. Therefore, institutional reform is needed that not only reorganizes the distribution of authority but also establishes a contextual and adaptive mechanism for dividing leadership functions by the spirit of integrative governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ec) Management as Enabling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the framework of integrative collaboration, management is positioned not as a directing and controlling function, as often found in classical administrative literature, but rather as a function that supports the achievement of shared understanding, collective agreement, and coordination across actors (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019). From this perspective, the managerial function demands the creation of structural and cognitive conditions that enable active participation, critical evaluation, and policy adjustments based on contextual dynamics on the ground.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch findings indicate that management practices in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency are still implemented using a traditional administrative approach that emphasizes task compliance over collaborative capacity building among regional government agencies (OPDs). The mechanisms implemented focus more on distributing technical tasks and consolidating target data, rather than establishing dialogue spaces or collaborative platforms that encourage the exploration of cross-sectoral solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviews with OPDs involved in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency confirmed that coordination is primarily realized through weekly cross-OPD meetings, held every Thursday. However, these meetings are merely a formal routine that does not impact program implementation. The Head of the Cooperatives and SMEs Office, for example, stated that:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe communication space takes the form of coordination meetings, regular meetings, or whatever. This year, the Acting Regent meets every Thursday. Previously, in 2023, we always had meetings across regional government agencies. Although I also found them a waste of time, as they were just endlessly discussing data.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis statement indicates that coordination meetings function more as a forum for administrative reporting and data updates (P3KE) than for exchanging ideas to formulate integrated approaches or evaluate program effectiveness. Thus, the managerial function facilitating cross-sector integration has shifted to a formal administrative mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this study found no mechanism encouraging synergy between OPDs in implementing extreme poverty alleviation programs. There is no collective reflection process on implementation successes or failures, even though, according to the Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022, the principles of integration and synergy and monitoring and control are the main foundations of extreme poverty alleviation governance. Program evaluation is carried out by each OPD and Bapedda. This weak managerial aspect is inextricably linked to the suboptimal implementation of the Regional Poverty Alleviation Coordination Team (TKPKD), which should serve as a cross-sectoral coordination forum to ensure the implementation of policy integration and performance-based evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, this study\u0026apos;s findings indicate that management practices in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency remain administrative in nature, with coordination mechanisms focused on data reporting and the distribution of technical tasks. The absence of cross-sectoral dialogue and the weak role of the Regional Leadership Coordination Team (TKPKD) indicate that the facilitative managerial capacity needed to realize integrative collaboration has not yet developed optimally.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ed) Participative Coordination\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStout and Love (2019) argue that participatory coordination is an integrative process that unites various organizational functions through structures, mechanisms, and practices that facilitate collaboration. Its key characteristics are its ability to embrace diverse perspectives, open up discussion, develop joint decisions, and generate collective action aligned with the needs of achieving goals.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipatory coordination is not simply the synchronization of administrative agendas, but rather a socio-political process that requires exchanging ideas between actors, sharing information, and actively pursuing cross-sectoral integration. However, research findings in Jeneponto Regency indicate the failure of this principle. The Regional Leadership Coordination Team (TKPKD), responsible for facilitating coordination in extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency, failed to fulfill its strategic role. As a result, the implementation of extreme poverty alleviation lacks synergy and integration across sectors, and is characterized by heterogeneity in program target data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the government conducts coordination through formal meetings, these forums do not serve as a forum for exchanging ideas, making decisions, and planning collective action in program implementation. Instead, the emerging collaborative actions were informal and reliant on personal initiative, lacking strong institutional strength. This situation indicates that existing coordination has not been able to bridge differences between OPDs or create a space for discussion based on the experiences and challenges faced in alleviating extreme poverty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, intervention programs established without a joint decision pose unique challenges for OPDs and operational challenges for them. For example, the Food Security Agency experienced difficulties in distributing aid due to differing policies. Central regulations require group seed distribution, while extreme poverty alleviation policies require individual assistance. The absence of a forum for cross-sectoral discussion and idea exchange to resolve these policy issues demonstrates the weak coordinating capacity of the TKPKD as a facilitator of coordination in regional poverty alleviation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, research findings revealed that inter-OPD coordination took place in a fragmented and sectoral manner, without a collaborative framework that guaranteed synergy and sustainability of interventions. This situation directly contradicts the requirements for participatory coordination according to(Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019), which emphasizes the importance of institutional communication mechanisms capable of managing policy diversity and preventing duplication of resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThus, the research findings confirm that coordination for extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency does not meet the principles of participatory coordination, as stated by (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019).\u0026nbsp;The absence of forums for discussion and exchange of ideas, sectoral fragmentation, and collective decision-making mechanisms indicate the dominance of procedural administrative coordination. This situation emphasises the need to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Regional Development Planning Agency (TKPKD) and institutionalise inclusive cross-sectoral communication mechanisms as prerequisites for successful extreme poverty alleviation at the local level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUntuk memperjelas kesenjangan antara kerangka teori Stout \u0026amp; Love (2019) and the empirical findings in Jeneponto Regency regarding the overall integrative collaboration dimension, a table synthesizing theory and field findings is presented below:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3. Comparison of Theory and Field Findings in Extreme Poverty Alleviation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"606\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDimensions of Integrative Collaboration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eField Findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSituational Authority\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAuthority is distributed based on the situation and functional capacity, not structural position.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAll actors have equal authority based on their respective functions\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAuthority is centralized in the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRegional Apparatus Organisations (OPD) have limited authority for technical implementation.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLimiting the authority of technical OPDs opens up opportunities for failure in the governance of extreme poverty alleviation. Authority is associated with expertise, and because of the situation and circumstances, authority can foster collective action(Bourgoin et al., 2020; Woo et al., 2024). The multidimensional nature of extreme poverty requires a problem-solving approach involving multiple actors\u0026apos; interaction according to their respective functions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeadership\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeadership is distributed, with all actors leading within their respective functions to achieve common goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeadership is centralised within the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), which does not align with its formal authority.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunctional leadership is limited to the Cooperatives and SMEs Office\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeadership remains authoritarian. This leadership style fails to create a favourable work climate and is inappropriate for collaborative networks(Karakitapoğlu-Ayg\u0026uuml;n et al., 2021; Pizzolitto et al., 2023). The problem of extreme poverty demands an integrative leadership style that can influence inter-organisational collaborative networks to achieve the common good in addressing complex issues(Parkkinen, 2025)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eManagement as Enabling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eManagement functions as a supporter/facilitator to foster shared understanding, collective agreement, and cross-sector coordination.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEmphasises task compliance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFocuses on distributing technical tasks and data consolidation, targeting the extremely poor\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLacks a collaborative space or platform to encourage the exploration of cross-sector solutions\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCoordination is conducted only through weekly meetings, without meaningful discussions on extreme poverty alleviation\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe existing management function, which does not align with the integrative collaboration approach, results in the extreme poverty alleviation intervention program being out of sync with field conditions. Although each OPD has its function, providing space to realise mutual understanding and agreement is needed to create collective action to coordinate joint efforts in achieving goals (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019, 2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipative Coordination\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbility to embrace diverse perspectives\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOpening up space for discussion\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBuilding shared decisions\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCollective action\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCoordination is procedural and administrative\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFormal forums do not open up space for discussion.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLack of shared decisions and collective action in the implementation of intervention programs\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoordination is at the heart of the problems and challenges in alleviating extreme poverty. The implemented coordination fails to build sustainable collaborative mechanisms. Extreme poverty requires program implementation and follow-up actions that can only be achieved through coordination, which embraces differences of opinion, involves all actors, and makes shared decisions. This practice will foster a sense of collective responsibility and commitment based on experience (Follett, 2013b).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author\u0026apos;s processing, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, the analysis of the four dimensions of integrative collaboration shows that implementing extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency does not yet reflect the principles of integrative collaboration formulated by Stout \u0026amp; Love (2019). The absence of a distribution mechanism for authority, the dominance of centralised leadership in the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), administrative managerial practices, and weak participatory coordination indicate that governance is still dominated by a hierarchical bureaucratic perspective rather than adaptive cross-sectoral collaboration. These findings emphasise the gap between formal institutional design and practice on the ground, while broadening understanding of the obstacles to implementing an integrative governance approach in the local context of developing countries that are rife with sectoral fragmentation and institutional deviation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3) Fasilitative Coordination dalam Pengentasan Kemiskinan Ekstrem\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFacilitative coordination within the integrative governance approach is understood as a facilitative function. In this approach, leaders are portrayed as good listeners, empathetic, intuitively aware, imaginative, creative, and persistent (greeleaf, 2002). This concept emphasises the role of administrators and leaders who guide and empower group members, supporting learning and development to increase capacity \u0026nbsp;(Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of extreme poverty alleviation, facilitative coordination not only serves to unite the involved OPDs but also opens up space for maximum participation for the extreme poor, as beneficiaries, to directly voice their needs and experiences in the program planning and evaluation process. However, the research findings in this section also highlight weaknesses, namely the failure to apply facilitative governance principles in implementing extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExtreme poverty alleviation is not the responsibility of any particular party, but rather the responsibility of those involved in the Regional Leadership Coordination Team (TKPKD). Therefore, the TKPKD is obligated to carry out its facilitative function. However, as previously explained, if the TKPKD does not perform its functions effectively, including cross-sector coordination, facilitating sector involvement, and monitoring program implementation. This results in the failure to achieve the targets for extreme poverty alleviation stipulated in Presidential Instruction No. 4/2022 and Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022, which aim to accelerate extreme poverty alleviation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Ministry of Home Affairs Instruction No. 53/2020, the TKPKD team stipulates community participation through representatives, in this case, village heads or community leaders. However, according to Regent Decree No. 100.3.3.2/2024, the membership is dominated by regional officials, with no involvement from community and business representatives. Essentially, central government policy reflects the government\u0026apos;s efforts to facilitate community participation in poverty alleviation, aligning with the facilitative coordination principle within an integrative governance approach.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the determination of P3KE data is conducted through a deliberation mechanism at the sub-district/village level, this process is merely administrative. As a result, some data on the extremely poor are invalid. Government efforts to increase community participation in extreme poverty alleviation are also regulated in the Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture Decree No. 32/2022. This is done to ensure that program implementation is targeted and meets the needs of the extremely poor.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this research also shows that when technical OPDs involved in extreme poverty alleviation implement programs that are not well-targeted, the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), which plays the leading role, does not attempt to coordinate to provide direction or solutions, but instead exerts pressure and presents these findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo clarify the gap between (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019)theoretical framework and empirical findings in Jeneponto Regency on the overall facilitative coordination dimension, a table synthesising theory and field findings is presented below:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u003c/strong\u003e. Comparison of Theory and Field Findings in Extreme Poverty Alleviation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"606\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical Dimensions (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eField Findings (Jeneponto Regency)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeaders:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eact as mentors and empower group members, supporting learning and capacity building.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeadership is centred on the role of Bappeda..\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeadership lacks improvement and learning for the actors involved\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeadership weakens collaboration, impairing the capacity in define and implement extreme poverty alleviation programs. In a relational approach, leadership is seen as a social influence process that can foster coordination. As servants, leaders use their authority to listen, support improvement and demand learning, and minimise directive actions\u0026nbsp;(Greenleaf, 2002; Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019; Uhl-Bien, 2006). In extreme poverty alleviation, leaders are needed who can provide support, not just give orders, which can worsen performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunity Participation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParticipation is mainly symbolic.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLimited community participation results in inaccurate data and program implementation. Residents\u0026apos; knowledge of their conditions and needs can be a valuable source of knowledge and ideas for decision-making related to extreme poverty alleviation. The government\u0026apos;s perspective alone is insufficient; communities must be involved as stakeholders, whose involvement is essential from the outset\u0026nbsp;(Chauhan, 2022; Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author\u0026apos;s processing, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, these findings confirm a clear gap between the principle of facilitative coordination within the integrative governance approach and the practice of extreme poverty alleviation in the research area. The presence of the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), which positions itself as a leader in extreme poverty alleviation, creates problems. It does not act as a facilitator, accommodating all complaints, providing solutions, learning, and building capacity. Furthermore, community participation in extreme poverty alleviation is neglected..\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe research findings reveal a significant gap between the principles of integrative governance formulated by (Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019) and the governance practices for extreme poverty alleviation in Jeneponto Regency. Empirically, extreme poverty alleviation remains dominated by a bureaucratic hierarchy that centralizes authority in the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) as the primary responsible sector, while other Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPDs) play a passive role as technical implementers without the authority to make joint decisions. This situation contradicts the characteristics of responsive networks, which require function-based distribution of authority, voluntary participation across actors, and transparent two-way communication. Furthermore, the absence of involvement from non-governmental actors and the extreme poor reinforces the established governance network\u0026apos;s administrative rather than collaborative nature. This situation indicates the weak adaptive capacity of local governments to develop deliberative, reflective, and responsive governance to the multidimensional dynamics of extreme poverty (Allgaier, 2012; Vuorelma \u0026amp; Lehtonen, 2024).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the integrative collaboration dimension also demonstrates the weakness of effective institutionalization of cross-sectoral collaboration. First, the situational authority dimension is not functioning because decision-making authority is concentrated in the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda). At the same time, technical OPDs have limited space at the implementation stage. Although there are informal initiatives from certain OPDs, such as the Cooperatives and SMEs Office, that attempt to bridge cross-sectoral needs, these actions are not accompanied by formal mechanisms for deliberative redistribution of authority, thus not reflecting the principle of function-based situational authority (Bourgoin et al., 2020; Woo et al., 2024). Second, the leadership aspect shows Bappeda\u0026apos;s dominance, even exceeding its formal duties, reflecting the phenomenon of institutional role drift (Mahoney \u0026amp; Thelen, 2009). Integrative governance, however, demands distributed and contextual leadership, where each OPD leads based on its sectoral capacity to realize joint solutions to complex problems (Parkkinen, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, in the management-as-enabling dimension, the implemented managerial mechanisms emphasize data reporting and procedural compliance rather than enhancing collaboration. For Example, Weekly cross-OPD meetings serve only as administrative forums without encouraging critical reflection or cross-sector learning. Finally, the participatory coordination dimension fails to materialize due to the absence of a deliberative forum within the Regional Poverty Reduction Coordination Team (TKPKD), which should be the primary platform for the exchange of ideas, collective decision-making, and alignment of cross-sectoral interventions (Follett, 2013b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, research findings on the facilitative coordination dimension highlight weaknesses in facilitative leadership practices, which are at the heart of integrative governance. The TKPKD\u0026apos;s role as a cross-sectoral facilitator is not functioning optimally. At the same time, the Bappeda (Regional Development Planning Agency) tends to be directive and not oriented toward learning and capacity building (Greenleaf, 2002). Furthermore, the involvement of the extreme poor in program planning and evaluation processes is mainly symbolic, limited to formal village deliberation mechanisms that merely fulfill procedural requirements. Consequently, data inaccuracies and interventions misalign with the real needs of the community result, as a result of ignoring the potential of local knowledge as a crucial source of information for decision-making (Chauhan, 2022; Stout \u0026amp; Love, 2019). The extreme poor\u0026apos;s lack of substantive participation weakens policy legitimacy and hinders the development of inclusive and adaptive collaborative networks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe situation in Jeneponto Regency in alleviating extreme poverty reflects the paradox of decentralization in developing countries, where local governments are formally granted autonomy. However, decision-making practices remain subject to central direction and trapped in a mindset of administrative coordination (Smoke, 2015).\u0026nbsp;The weak institutional capacity of the TKPKD, the absence of deliberative mechanisms, and the reliance on bureaucratic hierarchies weaken the cross-sectoral policy integration needed to address the complexities of extreme poverty. As stated by (Klijn \u0026amp; Koppenjan, 2016), the successful governance of wicked public problems such as extreme poverty requires a deliberative collaboration mechanism that combines cross-actor competencies, builds collective accountability, and encourages policy innovation based on local context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study have important implications for the governance of extreme poverty alleviation at the local level. First, institutional reforms are needed to reorganize the distribution of authority through the institutionalization of situational authority, allowing technical OPDs to play a more deliberative role by their functional capacities. Second, strengthening the function of the Regional Development Planning Agency (TKPKD) is crucial as a deliberative arena that facilitates participatory cross-sectoral coordination and integrates policies based on local contexts. Third, facilitative leadership must be applied to replace hierarchical leadership, positioning leaders as facilitators who support learning, empower actors, and create collaborative solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFourth, governance management must transform from an administrative mechanism to an enabling management mechanism that encourages reflective dialogue, performance-based evaluation, and cross-sectoral policy innovation. Finally, integrating extreme poverty participation in program planning and evaluation must be institutionalized to enhance collective accountability and the effectiveness of interventions. These implications emphasize that the success of integrative governance depends not only on the technocratic capacity of the bureaucracy but also on the ability of governance management to build an adaptive collaborative ecosystem that is inclusive, deliberative, and responsive to the complexities of extreme poverty at the local level.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research confirms that extreme poverty alleviation practices in Jeneponto Regency do not yet reflect the principles of integrative governance formulated by Stout and Love (2019). Current governance remains oriented toward a bureaucratic hierarchy dominated by the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), minimal involvement of non-governmental actors and the extreme poor, and a weak deliberative function of the Regional Poverty Alleviation Coordination Team (TKPKD). These gaps result in poor participatory coordination, limited function-based distribution of authority, and the underdevelopment of facilitative leadership mechanisms necessary to manage the multidimensional complexity of extreme poverty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheoretically, this research expands the literature on the obstacles to implementing integrative governance in the local context of developing countries, characterized by sectoral fragmentation and institutional deviation. Practically, these findings emphasize the need for institutional reform to reorganize the distribution of authority through institutionalizing situational authority, strengthening the deliberative function of the TKPKD, encouraging facilitative leadership, and integrating substantive participation of the extreme poor into the policy cycle. Without fundamental changes in governance management that shift the paradigm from a bureaucratic hierarchy to a collaborative, deliberative one, efforts to alleviate extreme poverty have the potential to remain sectoral, procedural, and unsustainable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore, the success of integrative governance in alleviating extreme poverty requires strengthening the capacity of local institutions that are adaptive, inclusive, and responsive to the socio-economic dynamics of the extreme poor. These findings confirm that the effectiveness of public governance is determined not only by the technocratic capabilities of the bureaucracy, but also by the ability to build collaborative, deliberative networks that position the government, Regional Apparatus Organizations (OPD), and the extreme poor as equal partners in formulating and implementing targeted policies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParticipant consented to participate in the study, even if this statement indicates that the need for consent was waived by the approving ethics committee.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author would like to express his gratitude for the financial support provided by the Indonesian Education Scholarship (BPI), the Center for Higher Education Funding and Assessment of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, and Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP). This support was instrumental in completing the research and writing this article. The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely the author\u0026apos;s responsibility and are not related to the policies of the funding institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eW.W. conceptualized the research and formulated the research methodology design. Collected primary and secondary data through in-depth interviews, policy document analysis, and field observations. Responsible for qualitative data analysis and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript; S.S. provided academic supervision and methodological validation. Contributed to strengthening the theoretical framework of integrative governance; M.R. contributed to policy analysis and contextualization of local governance. Actively reviewed and refined the manuscript to enhance the quality of the final publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research received financial support from the Indonesian Education Scholarship (BPI), the Center for Higher Education Funding and Assessment of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets that support this research are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdeleye, B. N., Gershon, O., Ogundipe, A., Owolabi, O., Ogunrinola, I., \u0026amp; Adediran, O. (2020). Comparative investigation of the growth-poverty-inequality trilemma in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin American and Caribbean Countries. \u003cem\u003eHeliyon\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05631\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAllgaier, J. (2012). Networking expertise: Discursive coalitions and collaborative networks of experts in a public creationism controversy in the UK. \u003cem\u003ePublic Understanding of Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3), 299\u0026ndash;313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510383385\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBertalanffy, L. von. (1975). \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on general system theory: Scientific-philosophical studies\u003c/em\u003e. George Braziller Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBourgoin, A., Bencherki, N., \u0026amp; Faraj, S. (2020). \u0026ldquo; And Who Are You ?\u0026rdquo;: A Performative Perspective on Authority in Organizations. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1\u0026ndash;64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1335\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChauhan, E. (2022). Residents\u0026rsquo; Motivations to Participate in Decision-Making for Cultural Heritage Tourism: Case Study of New Delhi. \u003cem\u003eSustainability (Switzerland)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148406\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDimitrios, M., Alegakis, A., \u0026amp; Koukouli, S. (2024). Evaluating the effect of individual characteristics and COVID-19 pandemic on people living under extreme poverty conditions in Greece. \u003cem\u003ePoverty and Public Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 52\u0026ndash;68. https://doi.org/10.1002/pop4.395\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElmenofi, G. A. G., Bilali, H. El, \u0026amp; Berjan, S. (2014). Governance of rural development in Egypt. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Agricultural Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(2), 285\u0026ndash;296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2014.11.018\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFlick, U. (2018). \u003cem\u003eAn Introduction to Qualitative Research\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFollett, M. P. (2013a). The Essentials of Leadership. In \u003cem\u003eFreedom and Co-ordination: Lectures in Business Organization\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFollett, M. P. (2013b). The Illusion of Final Authority. In \u003cem\u003eFreedom and Co-ordination: Lectures in Business Organization\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGreenleaf, R. K. (2002). \u003cem\u003eServant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness\u003c/em\u003e. Paulist Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHabibullah. (2024). Homelessness in the context of extreme poverty: Social policy from Indonesia. In \u003cem\u003eHomelessness to Hope Research, Policy and Global Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 365\u0026ndash;384). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-14052-5.00020-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuxham, C., \u0026amp; Vangen, S. (2000). Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of collaboration. \u003cem\u003eHuman Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(6), 771\u0026ndash;806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIskandar, A. H., Suja\u0026rsquo;Ie, A. F., \u0026amp; Agusta, I. (2023). Redesigning Consolidated Data for Handling Extreme Poverty in Rural Areas Based on Sdgs Desa. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Community Positive Practices\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 96\u0026ndash;115. https://doi.org/10.35782/JCPP.2023.1.08\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJayaraman, V., Ross, A. D., \u0026amp; Agarwal, A. (2008). Role of information technology and collaboration in reverse logistics supply chains. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Logistics Research and Applications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(6), 409\u0026ndash;425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675560701694499\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJin, Z., \u0026amp; Ialnazov, D. (2023). Governance Challenges and Solutions of the Solar Energy for Poverty Alleviation Program in China: The Case of Jinzhai County. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Asian Energy Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 20\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.24112/jaes.070002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKarakitapoğlu-Ayg\u0026uuml;n, Z., Gumusluoglu, L., Erturk, A., \u0026amp; Scandura, T. A. (2021). Two to Tango? A cross-cultural investigation of the leader-follower agreement on authoritarian leadership. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e128\u003c/em\u003e, 473\u0026ndash;485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.034\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKlijn, E. H., \u0026amp; Koppenjan, J. (2016). \u003cem\u003eGovernance Networks in the Public Sector\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLarantika, A. A. A. D., Zauhar, S., Makmur, M., \u0026amp; Setyowati, E. (2017). Collaboration as a Strategy for Poverty Alleviation. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Social Science and Humanities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 40\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLavell, A., McFarlane, C., Moore, H. L., Woodcroft, S., \u0026amp; Yap, C. (2023). Pathways to Urban Equality through the Sustainable Development Goals: Modes of Extreme Poverty, Resilience, and Prosperity. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Urban Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 215\u0026ndash;229. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2023.2226099\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu, M., Feng, X., Zhao, Y., \u0026amp; Qiu, H. (2023). Impact of poverty alleviation through relocation: From the perspectives of income and multidimensional poverty. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Rural Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e, 35\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.02.009\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMahoney, J., \u0026amp; Thelen, K. (2009). \u003cem\u003eExplaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMiles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., \u0026amp; Salda\u0026ntilde;a, J. (2018). \u003cem\u003eQualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook\u003c/em\u003e. Sage publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMiller, S. (2024). Institutional Corruption, Institutional Corrosion and Collective Responsibility. \u003cem\u003eCriminal Justice Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(2), 194\u0026ndash;210. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2024.2381295\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNzobo, C. M. (2021). Poverty Reduction through Industrialisation , Economic Diversification and Growth in Low-income Countries : A Review of Literature and Evidence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Poverty, Investment and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e, 35\u0026ndash;46. https://doi.org/10.7176/JPID/60-04\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eObasa, A. E., Botes, M., \u0026amp; Palk, A. C. (2023). Collective responsibility during a cholera outbreak: The case of Hammanskraal. \u003cem\u003eSouth African Journal of Bioethics and Law\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 99\u0026ndash;104. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2023.v16i3.1250\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOchi, A. (2023). Inequality and the impact of growth on poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: A GMM estimator in a dynamic panel threshold model. \u003cem\u003eRegional Science Policy and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1373\u0026ndash;1394. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12707\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOchi, A., Saidi, Y., \u0026amp; Labidi, M. A. (2023). Nonlinear Threshold Effect of Governance Quality on Poverty Reduction in South Asia and Sub\u0026nbsp;‑\u0026nbsp;Saharan Africa : a Dynamic Panel Threshold Specification. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Knowledge Economy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 4239\u0026ndash;4264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01271-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParkkinen, J. (2025). Integrative public leadership: a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Public Sector Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(4), 426\u0026ndash;447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2024-0093\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePatnaik, S., \u0026amp; Prasad, C. S. (2021). Development in Practice Coordination in multi-actor policy implementation : case study of a livelihood enhancement programme in India. \u003cem\u003eDevelopment in Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(4), 523\u0026ndash;532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2020.1861220\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePizzolitto, E., Verna, I., \u0026amp; Venditti, M. (2023). Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda. In \u003cem\u003eManagement Review Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 73, Issue 2). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRobertson, B. J. (2015). \u003cem\u003eHolacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World\u003c/em\u003e. Henry Holt and Co.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaidi, Y., Labidi, M. A., \u0026amp; Ochi, A. (2023). Economic Growth and Extreme Poverty in Sub\u0026nbsp;‑\u0026nbsp;Saharan African Countries : Non\u0026nbsp;‑\u0026nbsp;Linearity and Governance Threshold Effect. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Knowledge Economy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(12), 7819\u0026ndash;7851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01421-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchmid, V. A., \u0026amp; Thatcher, M. (2013). \u003cem\u003eResilient Liberalism in Europe\u0026rsquo;s Political Economy\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139857086\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSezen, B. (2008). Relative effects of design, integration and information sharing on supply chain performance. \u003cem\u003eSupply Chain Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 233\u0026ndash;240. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540810871271\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmoke, P. (2015). Rethinking Decentralization: Assessing Challenges to a Popular Public Sector Reform. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(2), 97\u0026ndash;112. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1703\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStout, M., \u0026amp; Keast, R. (2021). Collaboration : what does it really mean ? In \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Collaborative Public Management\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 17\u0026ndash;35). Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStout, M., \u0026amp; Love, J. (2019). \u003cem\u003eIntegrative Governance : Generating Sustainable Responses to Global Crises\u003c/em\u003e (Issue October). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315526294\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStout, M., \u0026amp; Love, J. M. (2015). Integrative Governance : A Method for Fruitful Public Encounters. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Review of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015576953\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSullivan, D., Moatsos, M., \u0026amp; Hickel, J. (2024). Capitalist reforms and extreme poverty in China: unprecedented progress or income deflation? \u003cem\u003eNew Political Economy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2023.2217087\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. \u003cem\u003eLeadership Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(6), 654\u0026ndash;676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUnited Nations. (2016). Final list of proposed Sustainable Development Goal indicators. In \u003cem\u003eReport of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVuorelma, J., \u0026amp; Lehtonen, P. (2024). The Role of Expert Networks in Pandemic Governance and Recovery. \u003cem\u003eRedescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 46\u0026ndash;64. https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.424\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, H., \u0026amp; Ran, B. (2023). Network governance and collaborative governance: a thematic analysis on their similarities, differences, and entanglements. \u003cem\u003ePublic Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1187\u0026ndash;1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2011389\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWheatley, M. J. (2006). \u003cem\u003eLeadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. Third Edition\u003c/em\u003e. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWoo, D., Miller, L. E., \u0026amp; Lamsen, L. N. (2024). \u0026ldquo;What do you want to do?\u0026rdquo;: expertise tension and authority negotiation in emergency nurse\u0026ndash;physician interactions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(1), 51\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqae043\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYin, R. K. (2018). \u003cem\u003eCase Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods 6th\u003c/em\u003e. Sage Publications.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Extreme Poverty, Integrative Governance, Coordination, Institutions, Leadership","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7449971/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7449971/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eExtreme poverty is a multidimensional challenge that cannot be solved through a sectoral approach. The SDGs agenda targets the global eradication of extreme poverty by 2030, but significant obstacles remain in cross-sectoral governance for extreme poverty alleviation. This study explores the suitability of implementing integrative governance principles in extreme poverty alleviation locally, using a case study in Jeneponto Regency, Indonesia, a national priority area for extreme poverty alleviation. A qualitative approach with a case study design was used not only to understand the complexity of the context but also to develop integrative research procedures. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 15 key informants, national and regional policy document analysis, and observation. Data analysis was conducted using an interactive model and verified through sources, methods, and member checking triangulation. The results show that extreme poverty alleviation practices in Jeneponto do not yet reflect integrative governance principles. The established governance network remains hierarchical, dominated by the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), with weak cross-sectoral coordination, minimal distribution of function-based authority, and symbolic community participation. The absence of a deliberative mechanism within the Regional Poverty Reduction Coordination Team (TKPKD) worsens participatory coordination and hinders the formation of facilitative leadership. These findings emphasise the importance of institutional reform in the governance of extreme poverty alleviation, through the redistribution of function-based authority, strengthening the role of the TKPKD as a deliberative arena, developing facilitative leadership, and institutionalising substantive participation of the extreme poor.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Integrative Governance For Extreme Poverty Alleviation: Institutional Capacity and Local Governance in Indonesia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-09 09:52:09","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7449971/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-12-12T16:59:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-09T22:59:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-09T16:04:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"296375736043666144209506992851805024478","date":"2025-12-07T22:11:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-07T19:35:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-03T02:13:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"313823829951354935556330597789530538112","date":"2025-12-02T12:08:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"193959430846025256668403113231658240916","date":"2025-12-01T13:27:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"144565044968442190988253935058982243802","date":"2025-12-01T03:05:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-30T23:55:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"240044665192622710075300656165225900666","date":"2025-11-30T23:05:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"303469475142861837936901391860446996380","date":"2025-11-30T11:50:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"58405794535133556481444325818520878236","date":"2025-11-30T11:42:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-18T00:33:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-06T15:24:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"294272109994875153309452195562468228460","date":"2025-10-20T09:54:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"248304643652387487523633676311710826359","date":"2025-10-13T08:38:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"221888074678064071811771381515774640378","date":"2025-09-26T21:49:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-11T11:19:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-11T11:11:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-29T10:10:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-29T10:09:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Sustainability","date":"2025-08-25T05:35:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"16013f42-87be-4c99-9dff-43e262844534","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-30T16:31:04+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7449971","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-03108-w","journal":{"identity":"discover-sustainability","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Discover Sustainability"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-29 16:10:05","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 29th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-09 09:52:09","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s43621-026-03108-w","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-03108-w","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7449971","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7449971","identity":"rs-7449971","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}