INSTITUTIONAL FRAGMENTATION AS GOVERNANCE GAP: WHY INDONESIA HAS NOT ESTABLISHED A MARITIME FUSION CENTER IN THE ERA OF AI-AUGMENTED GIS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines why Indonesia has not yet established a maritime fusion center in the era of AI-augmented GIS, despite facing critical maritime security threats such as IUU fishing, piracy, and cyber risks. Using a qualitative comparative case study design with a most-different systems approach, the research contrasts Indonesia with Singapore’s ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre (ISC). The analysis is triangulated through three theoretical frameworks: Kettl’s (2006) institutional fragmentation typology, McConnell’s (2010) policy failure framework, and Provan & Kenis’s (2007) network governance typology. The findings reveal that the absence of a maritime fusion center is not primarily a technological or budgetary failure but a governance failure. Indonesia’s maritime security architecture exhibits structural, informational, and political fragmentation that are mutually reinforcing. Bakamla operates as a coordinator without binding authority, whereas Singapore’s ISC functions as a network administrative organization (NAO) with a clear mandate. The most binding constraint is political fragmentation agencies defend information monopolies protected by legal ambiguity and lack of presidential-level political will. The study concludes that incremental technology-first approaches will fail; prior institutional reforms are necessary, including a presidential decree mandating data sharing, amendments to conflicting laws (UU No. 32/2014 and UU No. 34/2004), a maritime data governance framework, and ratification of the ReCAAP agreement.
Article Details
Section
How to Cite
References
Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Brookings Institution Press.
Bateman, S. (2011). Solving the 'wicked problems' of maritime security: Are regional forums up to the task? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 33(1), 1–28.
Bateman, S., & Emmers, R. (Eds.). (2009). Security and international politics in the South China Sea: Towards a cooperative management regime. Routledge.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1), 5–24.
Febrica, S. (2017). Maritime security and Indonesia: Cooperation, interests and strategies. Routledge.
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2020). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020. FAO. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9229en
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725–740. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592704040472
Kettl, D. F. (2006). Managing Boundaries in American Administration: The Collaboration Imperative. Public Administration Review, 66(SUPPL. 1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-6210.2006.00662.X
Kraska, J., & Pedrozo, R. (2013). International maritime security law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Kroodsma, D. A., Mayorga, J., Hochberg, T., Miller, N. A., Boerder, K., Ferretti, F., Wilson, A., Bergman, B., White, T. D., Block, B. A., Woods, P., Sullivan, B., Costello, C., & Worm, B. (2018). Tracking the global footprint of fisheries. Science, 359(6378), 904–908. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao5646
Liss, C., & Biggs, T. (Eds.). (2015). Piracy in Southeast Asia: Trends, hotspots and responses. Routledge. McConnell, A. (2010). Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between. Journal of Public Policy, 30(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X10000152
Monahan, T., & Palmer, N. A. (2009). The emerging politics of DHS fusion centers. Security Dialogue, 40(6), 617–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010609357188 Sistem Digital Keamanan Maritim Volume I, Issue 1 (2026) pp. 30-41 41
Natale, F., Gibin, M., Alessandrini, A., Vespe, M., & Paulet, A. (2015). Mapping fishing effort through AIS data. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0130746. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130746
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/JOPART/MUM015
Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. Wiley- Interscience.
Ribeiro, C. V., Paes, A., & Oliveira, D. de. (2023). AIS-based maritime anomaly traffic detection: A review. Expert Systems with Applications, 231, 120561. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2023.120561
ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre. (2018–2023). Annual reports on piracy and armed robbery against ships in Asia. ReCAAP ISC. https://www.recaap.org
Sherry, J., & Sherry, L. (2017). Analysis of AIS data to understand vessel behaviour in marine protected areas. Journal of Navigation, 70(6), 1351–1366.
Sukma, R. (2011). Indonesia's security outlook, defence policy and regional cooperation. In The military balance in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 87–102). IISS.
Tom Christensen, & Per Laegreid. (2007). The Whole of Government Approach to Public Sector.
Till, G. (2012). Seapower: A guide for the twenty-first century (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.