Interactive Governance of Regulatory Reform in the Issuing of Building Construction Permits in DKI Jakarta

This study assessed interactive governance of regulatory reform in the implementation of integrated permit processing in the Investment Agency and One Stop Services (DPMPTSP). Inter-action/coordination among regulatory reform actors in the integrated units was plagued by problems. Improvement in interactive governance was adopted to solve the problems in the regulatory reforms of processing building construction permits. The research was based on qualitative research design. Used Data collection techniques included in-depth interviews and desk research. Results showed that regulatory reforms in the processing of building construction permits in DPMPTSP, DKI Jakarta is influenced by rigidity of regulations, weak institutional functions, and inconsistency in central government policies. Weak institutionalization of interactive governance is the major obstacle that has hampered the implementation of regulatory reform in the building construction permits processing. Recommended course of action include strengthening institutional capacity, improving policy consistency between the central government and DKI Jakarta administration, and creating avenues that strengthen coordination and interaction among relevant actors.


INTRODUCTION
The problems that relate to regulations are closely associated with the increase in the number of regulations, policies and programs and attendant costs. The quality of regulation can be improved through changes in the existing regulatory system and the development of a new management approach. Besides to concern about quality, the purposes of regulatory reform are basically three inter alia, economic, administrative, and political. To address regulations related problems that are associated with the administrative issues, policymakers implement regulatory reforms that are aimed at strengthening government effectiveness and efficiency. Some of the reform initiatives that were adopted to achieve such objectives include cutting government costs by privatizing cost state-owned enterprises, streamlining administrative structures and processes, integrate multiple policies through redefining policy objectives, and reducing inconsistencies and uncoordinated actions (Liou, 2007).
Improving regulatory quality through better governance in the processing of building construction permits is vital for improving the investment climate, especially in DKI Jakarta, which is a mirror of the country"s image with To streamline the provision of services that relate to the processing and issuing of permits, DKI Jakarta issued DKI Jakarta provincial Regulation No.12 (Doner, 1992;Ritchie, 2005) as cited by (Torfing et al., 2012). Table 1 shows the conceptual framework that is adopted from Kooiman et al. (2008) and several other references.

RESEARCH METHODS
The study used a qualitative research de-

Concept Variabel Dimension Indicator
Interactive Governance Governing System -Regulatory system related to human resources on regulatory reform for building permits -Regulatory system related to natural resources related to regulatory reform for build-

Interactive Governance
System to be Governed -Institution that describes the working model of a governance activity regulatory reform building permit Governing Interaction (structural) -Problem solving by related actors -Use of top-down controls for problem solving (Hierarchical Governing). -The involvement of other authorities as a form of interdependence in managing the government to achieve the desired goals (Co-Governing).
Factors that influence interactive governance

Culture
-Actor representation in the regulatory reform process -Actor's trust in the regulatory reform process Institutionalization -Characteristics of the institutional structure in regulatory reform Capacity -Capability / institutional capacity in the regulatory reform process -Characteristics of regulatory reform govern-  (Kooiman et al., 2008).

The Impetus of Interactive Governance
Understanding regulatory reform has evolved from initially concentrating on elimi-nating regulation (deregulation) to a more systemic approach that combines de-regulation and re-regulation, driven by the goal of improving regulatory effectiveness. Meanwhile, the reform process itself has undergone changes: once seen as something essentially episodic in nature a one-off set of interventions, to what is today being considered as a dynamic process that is increasingly integrated into public policy-making (Meloni, 2010).
The big mission in regulatory reform activities is to create a conducive economic climate Copyright © 2021, JKAP, ISSN 0852-9213 (Print), ISSN 277-693 (Online) for a country.
The focus of this research is regulatory reform in DKI Jakarta which is necessitated by the establishment of DPMPTSP, which is an autonomous that is charged with the task of processing and issuing permits and non-permits an integrated manner. The motivation for the initial concept of the formation of DPMPTSP was to increase the convenience in providing permits services, especially in the building construction sector, by integrating the provision of various permits issuing services into one agency. DPMPTSP issues many and various types of permits, of which building construction permit is just one type.
The existence of one agency that provides permits services, especially those that relate to building construction, improved clarity in management flow of permits processing, which previous lacked order and clear direction. Before the existence of DPMPTSP, permits processing was spread across various technical agencies that were located in different locations. That created difficulties for applicants in complexity of procedures, all of which increased time, effort and cost spent on permits processing. For instance, an IMB applicant had to deal with several agencies, which was inefficient. Moreover, the head of local government as the supervisor of providers of the services, supervising many Regional Work Units (SKPD) that are spread in different parts of DKI Jakarta Province was difficult and time consuming. Thus, the establishment of DPMPTSP which serves as the preintegration of the permits processing and issu-ing process, was expected to reduce irregularities and opportunities for malfeasance that are likely to characterize the service delivery process. Nonetheless, improvement in the quality services depends on the quality of regulatory framework especially in its regulation of the power and relations between technical agencies and DPMPTSP Specifically with regards to IMB, the integration of permits issuing into one agency and location, was expected to substantially reduce the complexity of the process, which in turn lowers costs incurred by users.
The existence of an integrated permits system has created a better inter-agency surveillance system. Compared to the previous system that was in place prior to the implementation of regulatory reform, the need for coordination in the processing of permits which the integrated system requires, has created opportunities for technical agencies to interact with each other. This is a good as it enhances policy effectiveness and responsiveness thanks to improvement in coordination among actors in the policy process right from formulation, implementation, to policy evaluation. The increased of coordination across technical agencies of DKI Jakarta Province occurred during the implementation phase, while involvement of non-government actors mostly occurred during policy formulation and evaluation stages.
Endi Jaweng, who is a non-government actor, a representative of the Regional Auton- Nonetheless, obstacles have stymied changes, which the regulatory reform process has created to generate a lot of improvement in the interaction pattern of actors that are involved in the issuing of building construction permits. As an agency that is entrusted with the authority to manage both permits and nonpermits, DPMPTSP is constrained by limited authority. Moreover, there is still no regulatory clarity on the mechanisms that supposed to be used in delegating authority from technical agencies to DPMPTSP. Contrary to expectations, the increase in interaction among agencies involved in regulatory reform on harmonizing the issuing of permits, has however, not reduced regulatory overload.
The implementation of interactive governance is a complex process that involves various social and political actors that have diverse interests in formulating, developing, and achieving common goals through mobilizing, exchanging, and implementing various ideas, rules, and resources (Torfing et al., 2012).
Based on the concept of interactive governance, this research identified various actors involved and problems in the implementation of building construction permits regulatory reforms. Actors and problems were categorized intro three phases of the policy, inter alia, pre-construction, construction, and postconstruction. Table 2 shows the results of the mapping exercise of interaction problems in DPMPTSP permits regulatory reform process.
To resolve the three obstacles above, there is need for improving interaction and coordination among actors who are involved in regulatory reform on building permits in DKI Jakarta. The justification for the interaction is explained in the following section.
Based on system theory perspective in general and governing system dimension in particular (Kooiman et al., 2008), complexity is indicative of the architecture of the relationship among parts of the system on one hand, and between the system and its environment, on the other. Regulatory reform in the realm of building permits in DKI Jakarta enhances interaction between actors, especially government actors, especially in conducting internal supervision of activities that relate to processing and issuing building permits. Regulatory reform in building permits in DKI Jakarta with respect to the governing system consists of natural resource systems, which relate to problems of buildings and spatial planning.
Regulatory reforms that are needed should promote improvement in the governance improvement that pays attention to the environment in such a manner that minimizes developed linked environmental degradation in DKI Jakarta.
Besides the natural resource system, the governing system can be assessed from the perspective of the social system that is associated with the involvement among government and non-government actors that are constrained by limited resource capacity. In pro-

Problem
Definition Impact Different of the standard procedure and criteria Sectoral ego due to minimum coordination in the implementation of permit service which has high complexity across sectors. IMB-related regulations intersect with sectoral regulations that are separate from one This intersection with sectoral regulations has caused the permits integration not running optimally.

Disharmonization of regulations
In terms of management, the delegation of authority in construction permits of highrise buildings given to DPMPTSP does not fully transfer technical authority from technical agencies, because the governing regulations of DPMPTSP are under sectoral regulations.
The implementation of permits integration leaves two tasks that are differentiated into administrative matters/ permits issues authority by (DPMPTSP) and technical/ supervision by related tech-Inconsistency in central government and local government policies.
the policies that regulate permit services, especially after the establishment of OSS stipulate that regions only take care of submissions and commitments that are not carried out by the central government.
The difficulty of integrating existing systems at the regional level (Jakarta) with those at the central government level requires adjustments. latory authority that is charged with issuing IMBs has undergone substantial changes after the integration of separate permits, there is still a mismatch between regulatory practices and the facts found on the ground with respect to governance in IMB services management.
The impetus to improve governance is inseparable from the influence of globalization which compels governments to limit the ad- where it is the only agency that delivers permits services. Nonetheless, in practice the current permits management system is a dualism in which DPMPTSP handles administrative matters while handled technical agencies are still responsible for tackling by technical matters that relate to processing of permits.

Fauzi (DKI Jakarta Provincial Transportation
Agency, 2020) from the interview said that to that end, implementation of regulations on the processing and issuing of permits is still partial as it is characterized by two separate systems, inter alia, the system that is charged with permits administrative issues and the other that concentrates on permits" service technical matters. DPMPTSP is still merely servicing as an entry point, with technical agencies still responsible for caring out most of the crucial work of processing permits. This is major weakness of the current permits governance system.
Besides, technological infrastructure capacity that underlies the governing system of the integrated permits processing and using system is still inadequate. Such weakness is reflected in the recommendation services of technical agencies, and activities that involve the inspection of documents that support IMB permits applications at DPMPTSP, which are still by and large manual. To that end, while government actors profess commitment and hope to improve the permits system, which is not difficult to realize given the fact that DKI Jakarta has a digital platform that can be adopted to support the process, suboptimal interactions between OSS and technical agen- Regulatory reform that involves the integration of permits processing and issuing ser-vices enhances governance and interdependency of actors. Regardless of whether the current system is favorable or not, the researchers believe that collaborative governing or co-governing is a necessity under such conditions. However, the processing and issuing of permits has not been exhaustive as some permits still require technical agencies to monitor and supervise the implementation of activities and synchronization of data still.
Integration of services has also led to improvement in the relations between DPMPTSP and non-governmental actors such as KPPOD and the World Bank. The two institutions have provided input to the permits service integration process that have contrib-uted to improving service delivery. Consequently, DKI Jakarta, and Indonesia, have registered improvement in the ease of business index.

Factors Affecting Interactive Governance
From an Interactive governance perspective, findings of this research point to several factors that influence regulatory reform in the processing and issuing of building permits in DKI Jakarta.

Culture
Interconnection between the existing structures and representative cultures is one e of the important topics in interactive governance. Empowerment inspires cultural perspectives, which is manifested in the capacity of Aminatul Maula, Eko Prasojo -Interactive Governance of Regulatory Reform in the Issuing of Building...

Dimension
Indicator Findings Governing System 1. Regulatory system related to natural resources 2. Regulatory system related to the human resources involved.
1. The impetus to improve governance that takes into consideration environmental aspects 2. Limited human resource capacity undermines the permits management system System to be Governed Institutions that describe the working model of a governance activity.
The absence of institutional authority to influence institutional integration, it can be seen from the partial business process. So that problem solving has not yet reached the resolution of strategic problems, coordination is only a routine in the business process. Governing Interaction (Structural) 1. Problem solving by related actors 2. The use of top-down control for problem solving (Hierarchical Governing). 3. The involvement of other authorities as a form of interdependence in managing the government to achieve the desired goals (Co-Governing).
1. Voluntary professional involvement in permits operations. 2. Hierarchical governing: dominated by the central role in policy making, it makes difficult for regions to follow existing standards. 3. Co-governing is an alternative in overcoming problems faced with resource mobilization.   (Minogue & Carino, 2006 ing various interests into one vision. A proper deregulation strategy is needed for institutional governance that is based on a one-door system to work well. (Minogue & Carino, 2006). DKI Jakarta is still in the nascent procedural evolutionary process a at a more strategic level, redressing the problem that central policies that can reverse the ongoing evolutionary regulatory reform process, there is need for DKI Jakarta government to persuade the central government to avert such course of action in future. With such assurance, interactions within the administration system, particularly those that are related to regulatory reform, are carried-out in a mutually supportive and non-rivalrous manner by DKI Jakarta Government and the central Government. In the end, one of the key factors that influence the performance of regulatory reform in building permits service provision is the insti-

Dimension
Indicator Findings Culture 1. Representation of actors in the regulatory reform process 2. Actor's trust in the regulatory reform process 1. There are representatives of government and non-government actors in regulatory reform with varying influences, so that a joint commitment is needed to encourage better governance. 2. Trust is seen by involving nongovernment actors in the regulatory reform process. Institutionalization 1. Characteristics of the institutional structure in regulatory reform 2. Role of related actors in regulatory reform 1. A rigid institutional structure with a topdown hierarchy that needs interaction in the regulatory reform process. 2. Leaders as actors who are key to commitment in regulatory reform and promote interaction. Capacity 1. Capability / institutional capacity in the regulatory reform process 2. Characteristics of regulatory reform governance objects 1. Limited digital infrastructure/technology and human resources" competence. 2. Regulatory reform cannot be separated from the political influences (legislative process) that shape it.