The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasizes a transformation of global development and a “win–win” cooperation based on an integrated approach, equal relationships among stakeholders, as well as coherent, comprehensive, and inclusive responses for development issues and challenges. Responding to the limited government sources, the newly introduced direction of multilateralism underlines the importance of partnerships between governments and nonstate actors to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Partnering for the SDGs requires the government to move out from their traditional ways of working with nonstate actors such as consulting in policymaking or contracting for policy implementation. This paper aims to understand how multi-stakeholder partnerships could be a tangible instrument to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, in particular related to urban issues. Using Indonesia case studies as examples, it seeks to examine the ways in which partnerships between state and nonstate actors are being pursued and their associated drivers and challenges. In particular, sustained engagement beyond short-term partnership requires an establishment of formal institutional frameworks, alignment of objectives, and fulfilling of partnership requirements.

Keywords: 2030 agenda for sustainable development, multi-stakeholder partnerships, developing countries, local governments

Introduction

The need for collective approaches to public policymaking and implementation has become the central concern with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development along with a widespread recognition of the shift in how policy is developed and implemented (Nilsson & Persson, 2017; UN ECOSOC, 2016). Constructive and inclusive partnerships among all groups of society to ensure that no one is left behind features strongly in the UN resolution text (United Nations General Assembly, 2015) and efforts (UN DESA/DSDG, 2018; UN ECOSOC, 2019). The narrative remains 4 years after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda with governments and nonstate actors exemplified that the governance for implementing the agenda should involve a wide variety of actors, advocate the importance of participation of multi-stakeholders, and strengthen the ownership to achieve the collective global on sustainable development. They also stressed the importance of establishing partnership frameworks, adopting enabling policies, enhancing skills and expertise on partnership design and management, and encouraging monitoring and review of partnerships (UN ECOSOC, 2019).

The efforts to maximize the role of partnerships to achieve global goals are greatly encouraged at the local level (Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments, 2016b). There is a common understanding that cities are the arenas where sustainable development will be won or lost; they are the locus for change and the venue where policies are realized (UN Habitat, 2016). Urban development is identified as one of the six entry points that offer the most promise to achieve the desired transformations required to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the necessary scale and speed (United Nations, 2019a). Having an inclusive approach to partnerships by involving diverse actors at the local level is seen as a lever to drive inclusion and impact (UN ECOSOC, 2019). In policy practice, partnerships are essential in promoting local governance as a cornerstone of sustainable development. In line with the 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda (NUA) anchors its efforts in participatory urban policies and promotes the establishment of multilevel and multi-sector partnerships to encourage the development of cities and settlements that are more inclusive, nondiscriminatory, and sustainable (Minister of Public Works and Housing of Republic of Indonesia, 2017).

The importance of partnerships for achieving global ambitions at the local level could be attributed to two main factors: the prevailing “wicked problems” of sustainable urban development and the changing context of local governance. Rittel and Weber defined “wicked problems” as problems that are difficult to solve due to their complexity, contradictory issues, complex interdependencies, and rapidly changing environment (Rittel & Webber, 1973). The 2030 Agenda is trying to address urban challenges mainly through SDG11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable are the wicked problems taking place in the intersection between economics, society, technology, environment, and governance. Moreover, cities are a nested arena where multi-sectors and multi-level actors are involved in development, exacerbating the complexity of urban issues. Thus, it is critical to understand how to devise robust and inclusive partnerships for delivering the SDGs in cities.

In the last two decades, partnerships have gradually been embraced widely and have played a key role in the development policy, mainly through global partnerships for development (Andonova & Levy, 2003; Streck, 2004) and recently in the area of sustainable development (Biermann, Chan, Mert, & Pattberg, 2007; Hale & Mauzerall, 2004; Hazlewood, 2015; Van Huijstee, Francken, & Leroy, 2007) and climate change (Bäckstrand, 2008; Pinkse & Kolk, 2012). However, the majority of literature on partnerships has so far focused on global, multilateral, and intergovernmental spheres. The discussion has mostly been framed from the perspective of North–South and less on the emerging economies (Pinkse & Kolk, 2012). If they have, these mainly address partnerships at the national level, thus diverging from the importance of addressing multi-stakeholder partnerships at the local level.

Acknowledging this gap, we explore the role of locally contextualized multi-­stakeholder partnerships within the implementation of the 2030 Agenda framework. By focusing on “the state,” the purpose of our discussion is to contribute to multi-stakeholder partnerships that are crucial for achieving transformative change in governance generated by the 2030 Agenda while creating impacts toward further improving people’s well-being. This paper drew from policy scholarships capturing collective actions and partnerships. This paper derived its primary data from interviews and focus group discussions with national and local policymakers and stakeholders. We took stock of the main lessons learned during the development of the Indonesian Multi-stakeholder Partnerships Guidelines.

This article is structured as follows. First, we elaborate on the linkages between multi-stakeholder partnerships and sustainable development, reflecting on the ongoing demand and progress on partnerships to support policymaking and implementation. We follow this with a discussion on the role of nonstate actors and critical factors contributing to the success of implementing multi-stakeholder partnerships. In this section, we discuss the roles of multi-stakeholder partnerships as a form of governance in various policy stages with the potential to address resources, ensure knowledge production and peer-learning, and monitor gaps in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Subsequently, we present three illustrative cases of partnerships for the SDGs with nonstate actors’ involvement driving the implementation process in cities across Indonesia. The article ends with our main conclusions and some recommendations for future studies.

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda

One of the most recent definitions of multi-stakeholder partnerships in the context of the 2030 Agenda is “a manifestation of inclusive development emphasizing the leave no one behind principle by engaging most vulnerable people in the development process equitably” (POST 2015/UNU IAS, 2014). Another scholarship sees multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development as “voluntary initiatives undertaken by governments, intergovernmental organizations, major groups, and other stakeholders, which efforts are contributing to the implementation of inter-governmentally, agreed development goals and commitments” (Stibbe, Reid, & Gilbert, 2019). According to the 2030 Agenda resolution text, multi-stakeholder partnerships should be inclusive, leaving no one behind, and “reach the furthest behind first.” These definitions reflect the evolution of concepts of partnerships from a vehicle for supporting government-led actions in realizing development goals to a means of implementation through inclusive engagement. In global partnerships, this means shifting the paradigm from aid to development effectiveness where open dialogue among different stakeholders on an equal footing is actively pursued.

Multi-stakeholder partnerships are often used interchangeably with cross-sector partnerships, involving a diverse array of institutional arrangements between the government, private sector, civil society, the United Nations, and other multilateral agencies serving a variety of purposes to address development challenges (Hazlewood, 2015). Gradually, it becomes an essential paradigm in sustainable development, as multi-stakeholder partnerships are an alternative to traditional state-led, top-down development approaches (Stibbe, Reid, & Gilbert, 2019). The needs to overcome the limitation of traditional, state-led development become more pressing with the unprecedented cost of financing the 2030 Agenda and the pursuit of leaving no one behind, requiring the active participation of nonstate actors in the development efforts. The 2030 Agenda explicitly acknowledges the interconnectedness of partnerships, a thriving economy and society, and safeguarding the environment. The 2030 Agenda, therefore, recognizes all development actors as keys actors to deliver global ambition through extensive and inclusive partnerships.

Multi-stakeholder partnerships have the potential to not only address the regulatory gaps in the development context (Pinkse & Kolk, 2012) but also to overcome a participation gap (Bäckstrand & Lövbrand, 2006) and provide financing for the sustainable development gap (United Nations, 2019b). The broad participation of multi-stakeholder partnerships across sectors expected from the 2030 Agenda forms the response to implementation based on coalescing of local needs, interests, and resources. The SDGs also call for development aid to be more effective and catalytic to optimize the impact of available resources and to form the collective efforts on the global partnerships for SDGs, reflected in SDG17. These forms of partnerships, drawing from the classic literature on partnerships, are based on critical voices that call to ensure inclusiveness, credibility, impact, and quality in the delivery of the 2030 Agenda. Literature defines their principles to partner for SDGs. Among them, transformative, inclusive, and accountable (Beisheim & Ellersiek, 2017) are the most commonly recognized principles. It means that multi-stakeholder partnerships should seek to address structural and systemic deficits (Nelson, 2017). Other principles (1) include the knowledge of all in the development processes, (2) engage all stakeholders in the politics of development and governance processes; (3) formulate targeted capacity-building to help the most vulnerable benefit from opportunities and engagement processes; and (4) enhance the level of protection for the most marginalized communities (POST 2015/UNU IAS, 2014).

Given the scope and ambition of the SDGs as well as the complex nature of interactions involved in partnerships, coalitions, and networks, the conceptual and implementation challenges of developing and managing multi-stakeholder partnerships might be embedded in the difficulties involved in the range and scope of the stakeholders required. Multi-stakeholder partnership challenges are clashes between investment priorities, political differences across scales, and specific socio-cultural and socio-technical aspects of program and policy conceptualization (Oburu & Yoshikawa, 2018). Partnerships involving national governments take on many forms, including coordination by inter-ministry commissions, the leading ministry, or the National Statistics Agency. Another challenge with the multi-­stakeholder partnership of the SDGs is the foregrounding of the role of the private sector, where at present it is called upon to pursue a more sustainable path. In practice, business interest groups have often interpreted the sustainable development principles in a rather narrow fashion, leading toward a managerial focus through win–win situations and low interest in social sustainability (Scheyvens, Banks, & Hughes, 2016). Thus, a new paradigm in development thinking is needed to recognize the centrality of the private sector in the pursuit of the 2030 Agenda and vice versa (UN Global Compact, 2014). The question that follows is whether multi-stakeholder partnerships could be a platform where profit-motivated businesses make a meaningful contribution to the achievement of the SDGs.

The private sector has been strongly encouraged to take a proactive role in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and contribute to sustainability and development objectives in general, driven by the argument that the government is facing a lack of resources to deliver the complex and broad global goals (UN Global Compact, 2014). However, some studies cautioned that distinction should be made between the private sector as a development tool and as a development agent (Blowfield, 2012). What was needed from the private sector is to contribute to the SDGs by acting as a development agent. It means effectively moving from the perspective of business as a development tool emerging from managerial calculations related to costs, returns, and competitions to the view of business as a development agent motivated by stakeholder concerns, pressures, and demands (Blowfield, 2012). For example, instead of creating employment, the private sector needs to generate inclusive industrialization (SDG9) through quality jobs and fair employment.

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships and the Role of NonState Actors in Supporting the Achievement of SDGs in Indonesia

Multi-stakeholder partnerships supporting the attainment of the SDGs in Indonesia is still in its infancy. It reflects the struggle to design inclusive and impactful partnerships that persist at global partnerships for sustainable development. The complexity of dealing with cross-sector and cross-actors, characterized by resource, and regulatory and participation gaps, presents at both the national and local levels. The enactment of the Presidential Decree and ministerial regulations stipulating the role of nonstate actors in supporting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda has filled some of the regulatory gaps and raised expectations for the contribution of multi-stakeholder partnerships (Minister of National Development and Planning/Bappenas of Republic of Indonesia, 2018; President of Republic of Indonesia, 2017). The expectation is further strengthened in the latest policy development as the Government of Indonesia underpins the multi-stakeholder partnerships approach in the newest National Mid-Term Development Plan 2020–2024 (Minister of National Development and Planning/Bappenas of Republic of Indonesia, 2019). Under the framework of decentralization and local autonomy, it is expected that multi-stakeholder partnerships contribute to improving the quality of public services, initiate innovations at the local level, and strengthen public finance. This progress has been warmly welcomed, especially by nonstate actors. The “Type II partnerships” between state and nonstate actors, including the UN system and development partners, to promote global actions on local problems have been advocated at the global level as early as the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). However, the practices at different stages of policy implementation and insights into how the multi-stakeholder setting could contribute to the policy implementation processes at the national and local level are limited.

In localizing the SDGs in Indonesia, the identified key actors are national and local governments, civil society organizations, academia, the private sector, and philanthropy (Minister of Home Affairs of Republic of Indonesia, 2018). Within the governance mechanism structured through the Presidential Decree, these key actors are assigned different roles. The national government plays the coordinating role as the steering committee and the secretariat of the 2030 Agenda implementation. Local governments are mandated to promote, drive, and facilitate the implementation at the local level, including developing baseline assessments of the current development in their region and budget outlook. Unlike the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), for the SDGs, nonstate actors are given supporting roles in consulting, policymaking and implementation, monitoring, and awareness-raising. The development provision roles are not explicitly stated beyond active consultancy in spite of an increasing interest to tap into nonstate resources to expand the domestic financial capacity and knowledge sharing from academia and civil society to improve accountability. Regardless, most of our interviewees agreed that civil society organizations had taken more central roles in the policymaking process following the 2030 Agenda. It could be attributed to the critical approach adopted by the government after learning from the experience of involving nonstate actors in delivering specific development policies related to the community. Partnerships involving civil society organizations have received government attention due to their ability to support various development areas such as: (1) health; (2) gender equity; (3) reducing economic inequality; (4) strengthening the rights of persons with disabilities; (5) environmental resilience; and (6) strengthening the quality of the governance including nondiscrimination and an open government. There has also been widespread acknowledgment among policymakers that civil society organizations offer alternative solutions in the policymaking process through their bottom-up approaches in representing vulnerable and marginalized groups while at the same time providing policy inputs to local governments.

The involvement of more stakeholders could positively influence the local implementation of the 2030 Agenda. For example, by establishing SDGs Centre involving universities, higher education institutions, and research institutes, engagement of multiple actors could potentially support policymaking and implementation through the provision of big data and information leading to more science-based policies. These centers of research and development could be incubators of innovative technologies, cutting-edge data and policy analysis, and educators of current and future generation of leaders (UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2017). Among many, state universities in Jember and Bengkulu have provided policy support to local governments in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. This type of technical assistance has the potential to be a valuable modality for localizing the SDGs at the local level.

Within the broad partnerships that the government has introduced, the private sector and donors play a pivotal role in providing financial support as the 2030 Agenda requires trillions of dollars of financing of all types to achieve the SDGs (Abshagen, Cavazzini, Graen, & Obenland, 2018). The private sector and donors increasingly consider multi-stakeholder partnerships as the key to lead a sustainable business through the strengthening of local actions. The benefits expected from the involvement of private sectors in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda should be accompanied by an assurance of pursuing inclusive growth as domestic and informal economic players such as micro, small, and medium enterprises are generally the beneficiaries of the partnerships with the private sector. Moreover, individual donors through philanthropy initiatives could play a critical role in strengthening impactful contribution to the SDGs by initiating innovative financing mechanisms, such as blended finance. In particular, pursuing blended finance through a mixture of various financial instruments may positively improve access to funding and realization of government policies in implementing and achieving the SDGs (Blended Finance Task Force, 2018). Blended finance offers a unique potential to support the achievement of SDGs, which requires extensive funding support such as economic growth and jobs (Goal 8), infrastructure (Goals 6, 7, 9, and 11), climate change (Goal 13), and cross-cutting issues (Goals 1 and 17) (OECD, 2018). In Indonesia, the government has limited experience of blended finance and is currently in the process of regulating the initiative. Some of the potential activities are sustainable food cultivation, urban housing for the poor, renewable energy, prevention of easily treated disease outbreaks, and restoration of healthcare facilities (OECD, 2018).

While the goal and the potential impact of private sector involvement in policymaking and implementation for the 2030 Agenda is broadly defined, the localizing of the 2030 Agenda should consider the capacity that they possibly contribute. Among the potential contributions, the government has identified SDGs 4, 8, and 12 relevant to employment generation, social protection of labor, and technological innovations, respectively, as key areas where private sector involvement will significantly affect the implementation. At the local level, the private sector shall also be encouraged to streamline other SDGs such as Goals 1, 2, 6, 11, 14, and 15 related to poverty alleviation, ending hunger, providing water and sanitation, supporting the development of sustainable cities and communities, as well as creating eco-friendly business strategies.

The 2030 Agenda also places the local governments at the center of the collective efforts to achieve the SDGs. Bridging communities and governments, and nurturing global partnerships at the playing field level are two distinctive policy actions for local governments in locally implementing the 2030 Agenda (Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments, 2016a). Their distinctiveness has consequences for how to strengthen their capacity as facilitators and to establish multi-stakeholder partnerships that are locally owned. Local governments are not only, due to their position as a service provider, at the forefront of policymaking and implementation but also are expected and encouraged to collaborate more with nonstate actors in providing more policy space in delivering the development. According to our interviewees, more than at the national level, the broad participation of multi-stakeholder partnerships across sectors at the local level has the potential to form the basis of inclusiveness and overcoming the resource and participation gap prevalent at the local level.

Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships at Different Stages of Policy Implementation

From an urban planning and governance perspective, achieving the SDGs at the local level requires a comprehensive plan and budgeting to ensure integrated implementation, robust monitoring, and continuous evaluation of progress. To ensure that the application is inclusive and responsive to the principle of leaving no one behind, inclusive and meaningful partnerships should be pursued in all stages. Multi-stakeholder partnerships involving all local stakeholders in implementing the 2030 Agenda, therefore, should be sought, among others, throughout the determination of goals, targets, indicators, and means of implementation. Based on the observation of case studies in Indonesia, analyzed against partnership phases recommended by available multi-stakeholder partnership guidelines (Dahiya & Okitasari, 2018; Bahagijo, Santono, & Okitasari, 2019), there are at least five main stages that are advisable to be carried out.

The Initiation Stage

It is the stage where all stakeholders involved need to establish relationships among themselves to reach agreements and to develop plans and strategies for the partnerships. It is necessary to build a collective awareness that the SDGs cannot be achieved without collaboration between state and nonstate actors. Therefore, the “leave no one behind” principle is a fundamental norm that shall be discussed during the initiation stage. Another influential factor is the willingness to share information aiming to build effective communication channels, mutuality, and trust. Formalizing partnership through agreement, such as joint commitment, memorandum of understanding, etc., could be sought to ensure stakeholders’ engagement going forward. With committed stakeholders, it will be easier to determine collective goals and objectives, in spite of the presence of individual interests. Regardless of whether stakeholders seek to formalize partnerships or agree to keep it informal, it is necessary at this stage for all stakeholders to collectively develop and agree upon a set of rules and norms of partnership. Collectively agreed rules and norms provide a base toward inclusiveness and are essential for managing and maintaining partnerships.

The Formation Stage

At this stage, it is necessary to focus on activities to formulate and agree on strategies and managing the partnership. This stage is very critical as it requires addressing and developing the strategic, effective, and responsive planning, that is, foreseeing and considering the possible risks and the possibility of success. Strategic planning requires transparency and accountability among stakeholders to ensure that voluntary collaboration among stakeholders is well-maintained. The establishment of multi-stakeholder partnerships entails underlining integrated procedural and institutional arrangements, including clear roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders and unambiguous rules, structures, and protocols acceptable to all. Through these processes, there will be a stronger mutual trust and a shared understanding of the SDGs.

The Implementation Stage

The implementation stage is the action arena of the agreed partnerships where resources are mobilized and translated into programs and activities. At this stage, managing the relations with all stakeholders is necessary. It could be well-managed if there is openness from all stakeholders and partners with clear expectations on indicators and targets that could or could not be achieved during the implementation. It is also essential to establish risk and conflict mitigation mechanisms and to build monitoring mechanisms based on outputs and outcomes delivered under the framework of a multi-stakeholder partnership.

The Monitoring and Learning Stage

At this stage, all stakeholders involved need to focus on evaluating the performance and achievements of the partnerships by reviewing, among others, the outputs and outcome of SDGs implemented through multi-stakeholder partnerships. In addition to that, accountability and transparency are also components that need to be evaluated to improve cooperation. Other aspects that have impacts, such as inclusiveness, gender equality, and the application of leaving no one behind, especially the vulnerable and the marginalized groups, shall be reviewed. The results of the review serve as lessons learned for strengthening the partnerships by integrating it into their evolving strategies.

The Expansion Stage

Multi-stakeholder partnerships have reached an expansion stage where broader coverage is needed to enable stakeholders to find solutions for the various obstacles in the partnership so that it will be sustainable and more robust. At this stage, two steps need to be carried out, namely: (1) ensuring the availability of monitoring and evaluation results as references for input and feedback and (2) taking action to improve and strengthen the partnerships to be more effective and efficient as well as achieve a broader impact through diversifying issues (i.e., SDGs targets), target groups, sources of funding, and participation of new stakeholders.

Exploring Different Mechanisms of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for the SDGs in Indonesia

Multi-stakeholder partnerships as an instrument to support the attainment of SDGs have a lot of potential to be applied in Indonesia. There are several issues in the context of development at the local level that potentially could be resolved through collaborative action. Two examples that we presented below illustrate that multi-stakeholder partnerships help the local government and communities in tackling the issue of poverty reduction, increasing the school attendance, and improving the quality of education for the poor through scholarships. Another example describes an advocacy effort in the development of accessibility and facilities for persons with disabilities. These three case studies are elaborated by referring to different mechanisms of multi-stakeholder partnerships.

We use dimensions determining the mechanisms of participation (Fung, 2006) as the basis of our identifying factors: who participates, how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public actions. Also, we use forms of collaboration (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002). Our factors are drivers of partnerships, modality, leadership, forms of collaboration, degree of formalization, outcomes, and new value-added of partnerships. These factors constitute a space in which the mechanism of multi-stakeholder partnerships could be located. We also identified the benefits and cost of multi-stakeholder partnerships based on the literature on inter-organizational collaboration (Gazley & Brudney, 2007; Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002). These benefits and costs are institutional cost benefits, service improvement, and relationship building. The summary is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Mechanism and cost benefits of multi-stakeholder partnerships for the SDGs in Indonesia
Gertak, TrenggalekPT Timah Scholarship program, Bangka BelitungOhana, Yogyakarta
InitiatorLocal governmentPrivate sectorCivil society
Type of partnershipsService delivery and knowledge partnershipsService delivery partnershipKnowledge support
ModalityA collaboration of local government, local community, and nonprofit organizationA collaboration of the private sector, local government, and local communityProvision of a feasibility study, recommendations to implement partnerships
LeadershipTransformative leadership from governmentPrivate sector ledTransformative leadership from civil society
Forms of collaborationAgreement to undertake activities jointly with community, collective problem-solvingAgreement to make joint activitiesKnowledge support
Degree of formalizationMemorandum of understandingMemorandum of understandingA loose network between government and civil society organization
OutcomeAccurate data of the poor and extensive collective funds for transparent and accountable poverty reduction programsAccurate data of the poor and extensive collective funds for a transparent and accountable programDevelopment of accessibility and facilities for the disabled in public through multi-stakeholder partnership
Value-added of partnershipIntegrated services for the poor, innovation financing for poverty reduction programsInnovative corporate social responsibility through a collective consultative processImplementation of “leave no one behind” principle and affirmative action
Institutional cost benefits

Government:

Provide a means of dispute resolution

Greater financial support and stability

Greater accountability

Enhance capability

Private sector:

Business objectives

Enhance capability

Civil society:

Increase access to policymaking

Pioneer of sustainability

Communities:

Collective problem solving

Government:

Greater financial support and stability

Enhance capability

Government:

Enhance capability

Greater accountability

Service improvement

Government:

Cost savings

Broaden service

Quality increase

Government:

Cost savings

Quality increase

Civil society:

Meeting social needs

Communities:

Broaden service

Meeting social needs

Communities:

Quality increase

Meeting social needs

Government:

Cost savings

Quality increase

Community:

Meeting social needs

Relationship building

Government:

Increase political capital

Private sector:

Increase political capital

Create more favorable attitudes toward working with business

Civil society:

Increase social capital

Increase political capital

Communities:

Increase social capital

Increase political capital

Local Government-Driven Partnerships

Government-driven partnership for service delivery is the most typical partnership in areas where the government is seen as the sole provider of public services. At the center of this is the idea that the government should be smaller (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002). In Indonesia, local development and public services are primarily driven by public financing, where governments act as regulators, providers, managers, and any combination of these. Public–private partnerships often fall under this category as the local government remains the central stakeholder in the partnerships as the initiator. The SDGs are expected to increase the number of this type of partnership in Indonesia as local governments seek support from nonstate actors, particularly the private sector, to deliver SDGs-associated programs.

Local government-driven partnerships are often policy-driven (Booth, 2011). It means that local governments generally pursue partnerships in policy areas where pressures are the highest, and resources are limited. Constraints exacerbating the pressures might materialize in the form of social, economic, political, or environmental issues. An example of multi-stakeholder partnerships for the SDGs initiated by the local government is on SDG1 in Trenggalek, one of the poorest cities in East Java. The objectives of the partnership are twofold: to improve the existing poverty reduction programs by ensuring the data accuracy of the poor and to find alternative financial sources. The partnership initiation phase was formed in 2016. This process began as a response from the local government to local community criticism in social media on the implementation of poverty reduction programs.

The first measure that the government had taken was to validate the data of the poor by conducting discussions and meetings with the heads of the districts and village leaders as well as the local communities. The second measure they took was involving the local communities, who criticized the government’s performance, into the implementation taskforce of the poverty reduction program named Gerakan Tengok Bawah Masalah Kemiskinan (Gertak) (Diskominfo Trenggalek, 2017b). The so-called “Pink Force” was assigned to disseminate information about the program to the poor to assist them in fulfilling the administrative requirements to be able to get the government’s support and to carry out data verification of the poor. This initiative of recruiting communities is a selective recruitment mechanism, where the design of the entire participation processes was suited to respond to civil disputes. Selective recruitment may occur passively through incentives by making it attractive to those who are less likely to participate (Fung, 2006). What we observe in Trenggalek occurred through active recruitment, where specific communities are invited on the basis that the issue is urgent to them. This type of participatory mechanism is an example of Fung’s mini-publics, where citizens are intentionally invited to discrete bodies to discuss matters of public concern.

Following the re-planning and re-strategizing of the Gertak Program, the partnership between state and nonstate actors was extended by involving an external actor, the National Zakat Agency (otherwise referred to as BAZNAS) through a new partnership. The partnership aims to channel Islamic Tax, popularly known as Zakat, to finance poverty reduction and public service enhancement programs. It includes housing, education, and the provision of health services for the poor (Karimi, 2018). What is notable from the implementation of the Gertak Program is how the participation mechanism employed enhances justice by shifting decision-making toward citizens. One of the positive results is transparent and accountable management. The program is publicly accessible, as well as monitored and evaluated by independent auditors. The local government has also established a GERTAK center equipped with computerized and digital systems enabling them to provide accurate poverty data for quick decision-making processes (Diskominfo Trenggalek, 2017a). Representatives of respective government institutions work together in this integrated poverty alleviation center.

The GERTAK program is an example of a successful partnership between state and nonstate actors in developing an inclusive poverty reduction policy. Its participatory mechanism exerted a direct influence on the government, where communities and nonstate actors join the local government to make plans and develop strategies for public action on poverty reduction. It has shifted the traditional to new modes of governance through a co-governing partnership that is more transparent and accountable. Multi-stakeholder partnerships have also contributed significantly to reduce the poverty rate in Trenggalek. From 2015 to 2018, the figure decreased by 1.3%, that is, from 13.39% to 12.02%.

The GERTAK program is an example where government, communities, and nonprofit organizations work together to meet the social needs. While partnerships do not always bring the same or equal benefits to both parties (Peters, 1998), we identify multiple benefits for the local government and the communities. For the local government, the benefits include: partnership as a means of dispute resolution by responding to community criticism; cost savings through the use of community resources, that is, increased government access to volunteers; more significant financial support and stability through the involvement of third-party financing; higher quality of service through better data quality; better program coverage; promotion of greater accountability; increasing capability of government through experience in working on strategic alliance; and raising political capital through meeting public expectations and increased citizen satisfaction in government. The benefits for communities include: (1) improvement of poverty program delivery; (2) addressing and meeting of social needs; (3) increasing social capital through a stronger sense of community and capacity-building to contribute to the program; (4) improving community access to the program; (5) involvement in collective problem-solving; and (6) increasing political capital through strengthening government–community relations, allowing the community to influence local policymaking related to poverty eradication.

The partnership with BAZNAS for collecting and managing the zakat funds also reflects an innovative governance solution in the context of development financing. Through this partnership scheme, the local government has managed to secure external funding outside its public budget (APBD). Building on the initial partnership with communities, the local government has created an opportunity to obtain external financing for the program, indicating that partnerships could drive a desire to expand services beyond its existing capacity. The initiative initially accumulated approximately IDR 10 million per month, which was after the scaling-up effort in 2017 had resulted in IDR 200 million per month (Detiknews, 2018). The monthly figure increased again in 2018 to IDR 250 million and is expected to reach IDR 800 million in the future. It is in line with the assumption that organizational behavior is linked to resource dependence, where institutions with a substantial financial stake would seek to maximize the goals sustaining the relationship (Wood & Gray, 1991).

To further strengthen the partnership between the local government and the BAZNAS, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in October 2019 under the framework of local SDGs implementation (Pemkab Trenggalek, 2019). It shows that SDGs could be a motivating factor that drives collaborative action concerning cross-cutting issues, for example, poverty, and cross-sector organizations, for example, government–community–nonprofit organization.

Private Sector–Driven Partnerships

Forms of partnerships involving the private sector have been around for a long time before the 2002 WSSD acknowledged “Type II partnerships.” Private sector–driven partnerships for sustainable development, however, have received less attention and have often been clumped together under public–private partnerships, including as an innovative instrument for an international organization (Samii, Van Wassenhove, & Bhattacharya, 2002), or designated as social alliances (Austin, 2000; Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2004). Social alliances literature identifies two traditional objectives of the private sector in pursuing partnerships with nonprofit actors: noneconomic goals that focus on improving social welfare and economic purposes that include a marketing objective (Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2004). Much of the scholarships in this area focus on the process of gaining resource support from the private sector and the process of exchanging resources (Austin, 2000). Understanding of collective and organizational interaction between companies and nonprofit actors has been limited. It means moving beyond the social responsibility toward strategic alliance melding corporate strategy and social responsibility that involve the sharing of resources, knowledge, and capabilities.

A public–private partnership is generally developed as a result of the changing intellectual, political, and managerial climate (Arhin, 2016; Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002). In Indonesia, we observed the intention of expanding public–private partnerships beyond corporate social responsibility by involving more actors and a having a greater role for the private sector. However, at present, although there are a growing number of private sector–driven partnerships for the SDGs in Indonesia, the majority of them are considered within the philanthropic frame: the traditional social responsibility process where the government or civil society organizations seek and gain corporate donations. Our study observing private sector–driven partnerships in Bangka Belitung and Riau Islands Province is an effort to understand the interaction between the company and other stakeholders beyond the process of gaining and exchanging resources.

This partnership is an example where collaborative experience may breed familiarity between the sectors and help to sustain partnerships. One critical attribute of a successful collaboration is based on trust (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002), and building and maintaining trust demand resources, time, and energy from partners. PT Timah has collaborated with the provincial government since 2000. The partnership initially aimed to provide and to organize scholarship programs, especially at Senior High School 1 Pemali Bangka Belitung. PT Timah initiated this program as part of their Community Empowerment and Development Program. There are several phases of providing the scholarship program. First, during the program outreach, PT Timah invited related government agencies such as Social Affairs and Education Agencies to disseminate the information to other relevant stakeholders in all PT Timah operating areas. Second, conducting administrative selection process to ensure that the applicants met all the requirements, including a good academic record, belongs to the targeted groups, and their parents/families living in poverty. A joint team consisting of representatives of PT Timah and the respective government agencies undertook the selection process. The third phase is the scholarship test, that is, a series of academic ability tests, psychological evaluation, and interview. Since successful candidates will have to stay in a dormitory for the next 3 years, the ability to socialize with people is also reviewed. The fourth phase is the medical test.

The private sector–driven partnership, which is in line with the social objectives of the company, has the potential to overcome the usual problems of principal–agent relationships that commonly emerge when the government is contracting out the delivery of public service. Problems arise because such relationships are based on a competitive market and short-term agreement. When the investment is in line with the company’s social objectives, such as the case of PT Timah, it reduces the partnership costs of the principal–agent relationship. As it is based on social objectives, we argue that the partnership program delivery is no longer characterized by market mechanism but cooperation between providers, that is, PT Timah and the provincial government.

The private sector–driven partnership differs from the traditional public–private partnership, which is based on a short-term contract. The characteristics of the partnership between PT Timah and the local government are their interweaving goals, efforts, and outcomes. Both parties see quality education as a joint goal that contributes to their interests. We argue that this relational element is an essential factor in providing a means for developing a longer-term business–government partnership. Through this scholarship program, PT Timah has significantly contributed to increasing school enrollment rates among those aged 16–18 years.. In 2001, the participation rate of school children aged 16–18 years in the Bangka Belitung Province was only 42.47%. Today, the figure stands at 66.35%. Senior High School of Pemali 1 also gained a positive image as it is considered as one of the most favorite/top schools in this province. The benefit of providing a scholarship program for PT Timah is that it helps the company to translate its vision and mission toward leveraging the quality of life of people surrounding the company’s operational areas. Until now, there have been approximately 700 scholarship awardees since 2000. Some of them are continuing their studies at various universities in Indonesia and abroad as well as having had opportunities to work in multiple sectors.

Based on our observation, we argue that interweaving goals, efforts, and outcomes could lead to a better distribution of benefits. The example of PT Timah implies that partners understand the value of partnerships and have a shared understanding of how to facilitate partnerships to achieve collective outcomes. In turn, it nurtures a collaborative culture through the experience of working together. For both the government and PT Timah, their history of partnership working in the locality contributes to a shared understanding, which has the potential to condition the approaches and behavior of the decision-makers and the communities toward partnerships. For PT Timah, this successful partnership creates political capital by increasing the government’s trust and increasing citizen satisfaction.

The distinctive challenge of government–business relationships is the complex arrangements underlined by differing ideological considerations and political judgment about risks and risk management (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002). Toward this end, the SDGs provide potential pathways to bridge these differences, such as changing the development paradigm, where the government is the sole provider, and creating space for the private sector in the development through multi-stakeholder partnerships. The example from PT Timah shows the efforts from the private sector to influence development delivery through advancing human rights into development by using the nondiscrimination approach, including ethnicity, religion, and gender within the scholarship program. It is in line with SDG16 to promote just, peaceful, and inclusive societies. This program helps the attainment of SDG4 in Indonesia, namely, ensuring inclusive and quality education.

Civil Society-Driven Partnerships

Citizens, if properly deployed, could provide local knowledge, wisdom, commitment, and authority to address the wicked failure of legitimacy, justice, and effectiveness in representative and bureaucratic institutions (Fung, 2006). The implementation of the 2030 Agenda expects significant progress in the involvement of civil society organizations through development cooperation. The roles of civil society organizations in development could broadly be identified in three main functions, namely, service delivery or implementers, advocacy or catalyst, and facilitation or brokering (Arhin, 2016). Literature also pointed out that civil society organizations have a critical need to engage in the implementation and a keen interest to play a key role in achieving the SDGs (Haywood, Funke, Audouin, Musvoto, & Nahman, 2019; Together 2030, 2018). However, the linkages between the civil society organizations’ activities and the SDGs are not always stated explicitly. It is also unclear as to whether their efforts influence the national policy process.

Civil society–driven partnership in Yogyakarta provides an example where nonstate actors exert a communicative influence on the local government through the participatory mechanism. In Yogyakarta, the civil society organization encourages the local government to apply participatory policymaking. In-line with the plans of the provincial and the local government to build an inclusive Yogyakarta by 2024, Ohana collaborated with other civil society organizations with support from the Department of Architecture of Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology to develop a feasibility study (Ja’faruddin, 2018). The study identified severe challenges regarding policy formulation on accessibility and facilities for the disabled in public, including a lack of engagement of relevant stakeholders in decision-making processes.

According to the perspective of policy products, the government has shown a strong political will. The provincial government has enacted regulation No. 4/2012 concerning the protection and fulfillment of rights of persons with disabilities (Umaiyah, 2018). The local government planned to build eight disabled-friendly districts in Kotagede, Tegalrejo, Wirobrajan, Gondokusuman, Kraton, and Jetis (Asmani, 2018). Accessible public spaces for persons with disabilities have been constructed on the streets of Malioboro and Suroto (Tirtana, 2018).

However, the process of drafting local regulations and implementing the project is perceived as not inclusive. Thus, Ohana and its partners carried out policy advocacy through the development of a feasibility study. The study stressed that communication and coordination among respective agencies at the provincial and the local levels should consider the accessibility of persons with disabilities. The capacity of public officers and relevant stakeholders to disseminate information shall also be increased to allow a pivotal role in understanding the concept of inclusive, nondiscriminatory, and sustainable urban development. The study also identified challenges and policy recommendations toward attempts to make an inclusive Yogyakarta by 2024. One of the 11 recommendations underlined the importance of initiating multi-stakeholder partnerships in the process of designing and building accessibility for persons with disabilities. The study at the end provided policy and legal references for the implementation of universal access and inclusive design.

Ohana, in this partnership, plays the role of an advocate or catalyst through the provision of knowledge and that of a facilitator by linking the local needs and the government through policymaking. In this case, the civil society organization has successfully encouraged the local government to apply participatory policymaking process. Its partnership initiation could be an example for the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 2030 Agenda, and NUA, underlining that the cities shall be a place for all. We found that at the initiation stage, a multi-stakeholder partnership needs to take into account social needs to inform plans and strategies for the partnership. Toward this end, leadership has played a crucial role in linking global agenda and the local needs as elucidating the transformative leadership factors contributing to transformative capacity (Wolfram, 2016). Ohana, through its founder, is one of the members of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention by the States Parties.

Civil society organizations could create a polycentric arrangement with their networks via the co-provision of services (Hasan & McWilliams, 2015). Ohana provided knowledge production services, supporting the local government’s policymaking process. This partnership shows the potential contribution of civil society organizations to policymaking by leveraging their network capacity to increase awareness and improve knowledge sharing with the government and the other actors. Within the framework of the SDGs, through its networks and collaborations, Ohana advocates inclusive development delivery. Along with other civil society organizations, Ohana conducted surveys to measure the accessibility for the disabled and submitted the results to multiple local government agencies in Yogyakarta. It shows that civil society actors have the knowledge and capacity to bring about projects that directly contribute to sustainable development, thereby demonstrating their feasibility in putting knowledge into action for sustainability. At the same time, this action puts pressure on the local government to take more concrete measures to address disability issues. In Yogyakarta, while accessibility for the disabled has received political support at the provincial level through a commitment to become a “Disability-Friendly City,” the implementation on the ground in relatively is slow with only two disability-friendly roads in the city.

This partnership elucidates how multi-stakeholder partnerships for the SDGs could be a vehicle for the civil society to pioneer transformations to sustainability through knowledge sharing, to safeguard social needs, and to foster connections between the government and the communities by introducing progressive ideas to address social needs. These roles allow us to consider the broader context of influence that the civil society could have beyond balancing public policies in the form of increasing transparency and accountability. The working of sustainability initiatives led by the civil society, such as what we observed in Ohana, provides an example of an empirical ground for new market forms of policymaking in a socially responsible and value-creating way. It also shows that civil society organizations do not operate in isolation but interact with the government and the market logic (Frantzeskaki et al., 2016).

Conclusion

Based on the above three case studies, our study identified several key factors affecting the local implementation of multi-stakeholder partnerships in Indonesia.

  1. Regulations and policies supporting multi-stakeholder partnerships.Clear and consistent regulations at all levels of the government facilitate the creation of a conducive partnership climate (Bahagijo, Santono, & Okitasari, 2019). Toward this end, supporting regulations and policies could encourage the active participation of all stakeholders, including the involvement of vulnerable groups.
  2. Political will and leadership.Political support and commitment of policymakers, especially the central government and regional governments, play an essential role in building a strong and stable multi-stakeholder partnerships structure (Bahagijo, Santono, & Okitasari, 2019). It includes the style of leadership that strongly influences the application of informal authority, managing conflict as a starting condition for collaboration.
  3. Collective learning and capability-building.In order to strengthen the skills and capacity of the stakeholders involved, there is a need for exchanging knowledge and experience, which allows peer-learning and collective development of good practices (Stibbe, Reid, & Gilbert, 2019). This mechanism could bring opportunities for building intensive communications among stakeholders.
  4. Governance awareness.In governance, sensitivity toward game-changing or rule-changing objectives, leadership, stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, relationships between work partners, and availability of resources are needed (Fowler & Biekart, 2017). It includes undergoing periodic checking of multi-stakeholder partnerships’ rules, and governance remains in line with the changes that occur during multi-stakeholder partnerships’ implementation. Another critical aspect is anticipating possible changes, for example, coordination and commitment associated with decision-making, the contribution of resources, implementation, and monitoring mechanisms.
  5. Integrative, holistic, and results-oriented.Results-oriented partnerships focus on issues that have a direct impact on the quality of life and welfare of the people as well as use an integrative approach to solve problems by aligning initiatives at the global, regional, national, and regional levels (Bahagijo, Santono, & Okitasari, 2019).

By working together under the framework of a multi-stakeholder partnership, stakeholders could drive collective efforts that produce a more significant development impact. Multi-stakeholder partnerships could drive the achievement of the SDGs through: (1) driving systemic transformation where the scope of challenges is complex, with overlapping issues that cut across sectors, stakeholders, and jurisdictions; (2) increasing synergies and reducing duplicities in developing policies and programs; (3) encouraging the involvement of other stakeholders to increase the effectiveness in delivering the SDGs; and (4) achieving sustainable outcomes through consensus decision-making (Bahagijo, Santono, & Okitasari, 2019). However, requirements of multi-stakeholder partnerships need to be fulfilled, such as strengthening local leadership and ownership by citizens, generating a bottom-up approach, be based on a broad consultative process that identifies solutions and ideas collaboratively, and providing a framework for monitoring results. The holistic approach could be developed by defining clear means of engagement to encourage transparency and accountability, for example, participatory budgeting and planning, and promoting collaboration between the local governing bodies, civil society organizations, the private sector, and other relevant stakeholders (POST 2015/UNU IAS, 2014).

Our observations noted that sustained engagement beyond short-term partnership requires an establishment of formal institutional frameworks to ensure open, regular and systematic, predictable, and potentially more manageable partnerships for scaling up purpose. For a public–private partnership to move beyond the traditional philanthropy framework, alignment of objectives between business and governments is needed to reduce the cost of the principal–agent relationship.

Author Contributions

M.O., M.H.P., and H.S. conceptualized the study. The methodology was determined by M.O. and M.H.P.; validation was done by M.O., M.H.P., and H.S.; formal analysis was done by M.O. and M.H.P.; and investigation was done by H.S.; the original draft was prepared by M.O., M.H.P., and H.S.; and review and editing were done by M.O. and M.H.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

MO received funding from the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (grant number JPMEERF20181001 and JPMEERF16S11612) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the interviewees and experts for sharing their valuable insights. The opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the organizations that they work for.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders and the employers had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

  • *

    Mahesti Okitasari, is a Research Associate of the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Tokyo, Japan. Mochammad Hendro Prabowo, is Advisor of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH or GIZ, Jakarta, Indonesia of ­Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH or GIZ, Jakarta, Indonesia. Hamong ­Santono, is Corporate Social Responsibility Advisor of PT Timah Tbk., Jakarta, Indonesia. Mahesti Okitasari and Mochammad Hendro Prabowo can be contacted at [email protected]; [email protected].return to text

  • †

    All authors contributed equally to the article.return to text

    References

    • Abshagen, M.-L., Cavazzini, A., Graen, L., & Obenland, W. (2018). Highjacking the SDGs? 32. Retrieved from www.unfairtobacco.orgwww.globalpolicy.orgwww.misereor.de
    • Andonova, L. B, & Levy, M. (2003). Franchising global governance: Making sense of the Johannesburg type II partnerships. In O. S. Stokke & O. B. Thommessen (Eds.), Yearbook of international co-operation on environment and development 2003/04 (pp. 19–31). London: Earthscan.
    • Arhin, A. (2016). Advancing post-2015 sustainable development goals in a changing development landscape: Challenges of NGOs in Ghana. Development in Practice, 26(5), 555–568. doi:10.1080/09614524.2016.1189513
    • Asmani, W. (2018). Delapan Kecamatan di Jogja Ini Ramah Difabel. Koran Bernas Jogja. Retrieved from https://www.koranbernas.id/delapan-kecamatan-di-jogja-ini-ramah-difabel
    • Austin, J. E. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and businesses succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    • Bäckstrand, K. (2008). Accountability of networked climate governance: The rise of transnational climate partnerships. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 74–102. doi:10.1162/glep.2008.8.3.74
    • Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 8, 3, 50–75. doi:10.1162/glep.2006.6.1.50
    • Bahagijo, S., Santono, H., & Okitasari, M. (2019). Panduan Kemitraan Multipihak (pp. 7–30). Ministry of National Development and Planning/Bappenas. Retrieved from http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:7354/Panduan_Kemitraan_Multipihak_24_Februari_2019_-_Versi_Cetak.pdf
    • Beisheim, M., & Ellersiek, A. (2017). Partnerships for the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: Transformative, inclusive and accountable? SWP Research Paper. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Retrieved from https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2017RP14_bsh_elk_01.pdf
    • Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2004). Social alliances: Company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review, 47(1), 58–90. doi:10.2307/41166287
    • Biermann, F., Chan, M. S., Mert, A., & Pattberg, P. (2007). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Does the promise hold? In P. Glasbergen, F. Biermann, & A. P. J. Mol (Eds.), Partnerships, governance and sustainable development – Reflections on theory and practice (pp. 239–260). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1744ENI Foundation.pdf
    • Blended Finance Task Force. (2018). Better finance, better world. Business & Sustainable Development Commission. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-bsdc/BFT_BetterFinance_final_01192018.pdf
    • Blowfield, M. (2012). Business and development: Making sense of business as a development agent. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 12(4), 415. doi:10.1108/14720701211267775
    • Booth, D. (2011). Towards a theory of local governance and public goods provision. IDS Bulletin, 42(2), 11–21. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00207.x
    • Dahiya, B., & Okitasari, M. (2018) Partnering for sustainable development: Guidelines for multi-stakeholder partnerships to implement the 2030 agenda in Asia and the Pacific. Tokyo: UNU-IAS. Retrieved from http://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:6459#viewMetadata
    • Detiknews. (2018). Program Gertak di Trenggalek, Dulu Dicibir Kini Berbuah Sanjungan. Local Government of Trenggalek. Retrieved from https://news.detik.com/adv-nhl-detikcom/d-4347588/program-gertak-di-trenggalek-dulu-dicibir-kini-berbuah-sanjungan
    • Diskominfo Trenggalek. (2017a). Mensos RI Khofifah Resmikan Posko GERTAK. Retrieved from https://www.trenggalekkab.go.id/berita.php?page=110
    • Diskominfo Trenggalek. (2017b). Sukarelawan Task Force Posko Gertak Resmi Dikukuhkan Dalam Upacara Peringatan Hari Lahir Pancasila. Retrieved from https://www.trenggalekkab.go.id/berita.php?page=129
    • Fowler, A., & Biekart, K. (2017). Multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable development goals: The importance of interlocutors. In Public administration and development, 37(2), 81–93. wileyonlinelibrary.com. doi:10.1002/pad.1795
    • Frantzeskaki, N., Dumitru, A., Anguelovski, I., Avelino, F., Bach, M., Best, B., & Rauschmayer, F. (2016). Elucidating the changing roles of civil society in urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 45. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.008
    • Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 66–75. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
    • Gazley, B., & Brudney, J. L. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 389–415. doi:10.1177/0899764006295997
    • Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments. (2016a). Local and regional voices on the global stage – Our post-2015 journey (pp. 18–27). UCLG. Retrieved from https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/our_post-2015_journey.pdf
    • Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments. (2016b). Roadmap for localizing the SDGs: Implementation and monitoring at subnational level. UCLG. Retrieved from https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/roadmap_for_localizing_the_sdgs_0.pdf
    • Hale, T. N., & Mauzerall, D. L. (2004). Thinking globally and acting locally: Can the Johannesburg partnerships coordinate action on sustainable development? The Journal of Environment & Development, 13(3), 220–239. doi:10.1177/1070496504268699
    • Hasan, S., & McWilliams, C. (2015). Civil society participation in urban development in countries of the South: The case of Syria. International Planning Studies, 20(3), 231. doi:10.1080/13563475.2014.984663
    • Haywood, L. K., Funke, N., Audouin, M., Musvoto, C., & Nahman, A. (2019). The sustainable development goals in South Africa: Investigating the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships. Development Southern Africa, 36(5), 555–569. doi:10.1080/0376835X.2018.1461611
    • Hazlewood, P. (2015). Global multistakeholder partnerships -scalling up public private collective impact for the SDGs. London: Independent Research Forum.
    • Ja’faruddin. (2018). OHANA Usulkan Kebijakan untuk Difabel kepada DPRD DIY dan Pemkot Yogyakarta. Jogjakartanews. Retrieved from http://jogjakartanews.com/baca/2018/12/13/4926/ohana-usulkan-kebijakan-untuk-difabel-kepada-dprd-diy-dan-pemkot-yogyakarta
    • Karimi, A. (2018). Inovasi Kabupaten Trenggalek yang Meraih Emas Otonomi Awards: Ajak Kelompok Kritik Meng-”Gertak” Kaum Duafa. Retrieved from http://ayoinklusif.jpip.or.id/573/inovasi-kabupaten-trenggalek-yang-meraih-emas-otonomi-awards-ajak-kelompok-kritik-meng-gertak-kaum-duafa/
    • Minister of Home Affairs of Republic of Indonesia. (2018). Ministerial regulation of Ministry of Home Affairs No. 7/2018 on preparation and implementation of strategic environmental assessment in formulating the regional mid-term development plan. Jakarta: Ministry of Home Affairs.
    • Minister of National Development and Planning/Bappenas of Republic of Indonesia. (2018). Peraturan Menteri Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional No 7/2018 Tentang Koordinasi, Perencanaan, Pemantauan, Evaluasi, dan Pelaporan Pelaksanaan Tujuan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan. Jakarta: Ministry of National Development and Planning.
    • Minister of National Development and Planning/Bappenas of Republic of Indonesia. (2019). Rancangan Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional 2020–2024 (p. 91). Jakarta: Ministry of National Development and Planning.
    • Minister of Public Works and Housing of Republic of Indonesia. (2017). Panduan Praktis Implementasi Agenda Baru Perkotaan. Jakarta: Ministry of Public Works and Housing Indonesia.
    • Nelson, J. (2017). Partnerships for sustainable development: Collective action by business, governments and civil society to achieve scale and transform markets. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2uQXGjt
    • Nilsson, M., & Persson, Å. (2017). Policy note: Lessons from environmental policy integration for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Environmental Science & Policy, 78, 36–39. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.09.003
    • Oburu, P. O., & Yoshikawa, H. (2018). Roles of multiple stakeholder partnerships in addressing developmental and implementation challenges of sustainable development goals (p. 434). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96592-5_24
    • OECD. (2018). Making blended finance work for the sustainable development goals. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264288768-en
    • Pemkab Trenggalek. (2019). Kerjasama Pemerintah Kabupaten Trenggalek dengan BAZNAS Kabupaten Trenggalek. Retrieved from http://sdgs.trenggalekkab.go.id/berita-kerjasama-pemerintah-kabupaten-trenggalek-dengan-baznas-kabupaten-trenggalek.html
    • Peters, B. G. (1998). ‘With a little help from our friends’: Public-private partnerships as institutions and instruments. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Partnerships in urban governance (pp. 11–33). London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-14408-2_2
    • Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2012). Addressing the climate change—Sustainable development nexus. Business & Society, 51(1), 176–210. doi:10.1177/0007650311427426
    • POST 2015/UNU IAS. (2014). Policy brief #5, sustainable development goals and inclusive development (Issue 2015). Retrieved from https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:2567/Post2015_UNUIAS_PolicyBrief5.pdf
    • President of Republic of Indonesia. (2017). Presidential regulation no. 59/2017 on implementation of achievements of sustainable development. Jakarta: Secretary of Cabinet of Republic of Indonesia.
    • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730
    • Samii, R., Van Wassenhove, L. N., & Bhattacharya, S. (2002). An innovative public–private partnership: New approach to development. World Development, 30(6), 991–1008. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00015-3
    • Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., & Hughes, E. (2016). The private sector and the SDGs: The need to move beyond ‘business as usual.’ Sustainable Development, 24(6), 373. doi:10.1002/sd.1623
    • Stibbe, D., Reid, S., & Gilbert, J. (2019). Maximising the impact of partnerships for the SDGs First edition. 12. New York: The Partnering Initiative and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
    • Streck, C. (2004). New partnerships in global environmental policy: The clean development mechanism. The Journal of Environment & Development, 13(3), 295–322. doi:10.1177/1070496504268696
    • Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2002). Working across boundaries: Collaboration in public services. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Tirtana, G. A. (2018). Janjikan Trotoar Malioboro dan Kotabaru Ramah Difabel. Radar Jogja. Retrieved from https://radarjogja.jawapos.com/2018/11/28/janjikan-trotoar-malioboro-dan-kotabaru-ramah-difabel/
    • Together 2030. (2018). National civil society coalitions on the sustainable development goals – A mapping (pp. 1–19). Paris: Together 2030 in Partnership with the Norwegian Forum for Development and the Environment (ForUM).
    • Umaiyah, S. (2018). Malioboro dan Balai Kota Yogya Dinilai Belum Aksesibel bagi Difabel. Tribunnews Jogja. Retrieved from https://jogja.tribunnews.com/2018/12/13/malioboro-dan-balai-kota-yogya-dinilai-belum-aksesibel-bagi-difabel?page=3
    • UN DESA/DSDG. (2018). Partnership exchange. 2018 report. Advancing the global partnership for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web.pdf
    • UN ECOSOC. (2016). Summary. Implementing the 2030 agenda for sustainable development through policy innovation and integration. In ECOSOC 2016 Integration Segment, 2–4 May (Issue ECOSOC 2016 Integration Segment, 2-4 May). United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/events/2016/implementing-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-through-policy-innovation-and
    • UN ECOSOC. (2019). Summary. Partnerships driving inclusive implementation of the SDGs. In 2019 ECOSOC Partnership Forum, 11 April. New York: UN Economic and Social Council.
    • UN Global Compact. (2014). The role of business and finance in supporting the post-2015 agenda (p. 3). New York: United Nations Global Compact.
    • UN Habitat. (2016). SDG goal 11 monitoring framework: A guide to assist national and local governments to monitor and report on SDG Goal 11 Indicators (p. 5). Retrieved from http://www.local2030.org/library/60/SDG-Goal-11-Monitoring-Framework-A-guide-to-assist-national-and-local-governments-to-monitor-and-report-on-SDG-goal-11-indicators.pdf
    • UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. (2017). SDSN networks in action. UN SDSN. Retrieved from https://www.unsdsn-ne.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SDSN-network-web.pdf
    • United Nations. (2019a). Global sustainable development report 2019. In Global sustainable development report 2019. New York: United Nations. doi:10.18356/5d04ad97-en
    • United Nations. (2019b). Financing for sustainable development report 2019. United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/financing-for-sustainable-development-report-2019.html
    • United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. In UN-Doc. A/RES/69/315 and A/RES/70/1. United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf
    • Van Huijstee, M. M., Francken, M., & Leroy, P. (2007). Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environmental Sciences, 4(2), 75–89. doi:10.1080/15693430701526336
    • Wolfram, M. (2016). Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: A framework for research and policy. Cities, 51, 127. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011
    • Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139–162. doi:10.1177/0021886391272001

    © 2020 International Consortium for Social Development