• Suryani Eka Wijaya
  • Muhammad Imran


This study investigates policy tension at multiple levels by examining the planning and attempted implementation of BRT in two LIA cities in Indonesia: Bandung and Surabaya. The cycle of BRT development is analysed from policy-making, plan-making and implementation perspectives to understand how power and communication gaps in institutional relationships among different actors at multiple levels of governance create conflict. This chapter concludes the research and offers four key messages. First, we identify a large number of government, non-government and international actors involved in multifaceted BRT policy-making and implementation and find that top-down policies and funding mechanisms cause tension in intergovernmental relationships by making for complex and overlapping organisational structures and responsibilities. An absence of comprehensive planning processes and clear communication between different levels of government organisations adds to that complexity. Second, top-down solutions generated socio-political tension in Bandung and Surabaya. Social tension arose from the socio-economic realities of both cities, realities that shaped city structure and mobility patterns over time. The political tension came from local political dynamics and political leadership styles, especially in resolving conflicts and delivering projects on time. We found that the local political dynamic positively or negatively influenced institutional relationships. Third, discursive tension emerged in BRT projects because conflicting discourses were advanced by the international development agencies and central government. The discourses were not aligned with local economic, social and environmental issues. Fourth, top-down BRT projects tend to lack communication between various levels of government and non-government actors in general and local public and transport operators in particular, because there is no history of open communication or development of its associated skills.


Institutional relationships Organisational structures Top-down solutions 


  1. Imran, M. (2014). Making public transport work: Lessons from Curitiba, Brazil. Planning Quarterly, 192, 20–25.Google Scholar
  2. Jaeger, A., Nugroho, S. B., Zusman, E., Nakano, R., & Daggy, R. (2015). Governing sustainable low-carbon transport in Indonesia: An assessment of provincial transport plan. Natural Resources Forum, 39(1), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kunzmann, K. R. (2005). Creativity in planning: A fuzzy concept? disP-The Planning Review, 41(162), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Republic of Indonesia. (2014). Roles and functional arrangements for working cabinet (Presidential Regulation No. 165/2014). Jakarta: Republic of Indonesia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suryani Eka Wijaya
    • 1
  • Muhammad Imran
    • 2
  1. 1.BAPPEDA of NTB ProvinceMataramIndonesia
  2. 2.Massey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations