Stagnation of Subnational Diplomacy in the Hometown of the President A Critique of Local Leadership and the International Role of Pacitan Regency

Main Article Content

Riza Wildansyah Wisnu Wardhana
Peni Hanggarini

Abstract

The involvement of national political figures in local governance often creates a dual dynamic in efforts to develop subnational diplomacy. Pacitan Regency, known for its close ties to a former president of the Republic of Indonesia originating from the region, is led by a local head of government who remains affiliated with elite national networks. This presents an illustrative case of limitations in leveraging international cooperation opportunities, such as the lack of formal sister city partnerships, minimal participation in global forums, and the absence of targeted strategies to attract foreign collaboration. Despite holding strong symbolic value, the region has yet to demonstrates success in building meaningful international partnerships. This study examines the condition of Pacitan’s subnational diplomacy by analyzing local political influence, symbolic power structures, and the interaction between local government and global actors. Using a qualitative approach and literature review, this article demonstrates that political symbolism, when not followed by institutional performance, tends to weaken a region’s diplomatic capacity. Dependence on symbolic status leads to a neglect of potential international cooperation and minimal public engagement in diplomacy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Wisnu Wardhana, R. W., & Hanggarini, P. . (2025). Stagnation of Subnational Diplomacy in the Hometown of the President: A Critique of Local Leadership and the International Role of Pacitan Regency. Harmonization : Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Ilmu Hukum, Dan Ilmu Ekonomi, 3(2), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.59066/harmonization.v3i2.1505
Section
Articles

References

Anwar.S. (2020). Diaspora as Non-State Diplomatic Actors. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Politik.

Arfianto.Y. (2023). Paradiplomacy and Local Government in the Era of Decentralization: Case Study of City Diplomacy in Indonesia. Intermestic: Journal of International Studies, 8(3), 120–135.

ASCN. (2022). ASEAN Smart Cities Network. ASEAN Secretariat.

Aspinall, E., & Greg Fealy. (2003). Local Power and Politics in Indonesia: Decentralisation & Democratisation. ISEAS.

Aspinall, E., Sukmajati, M., & Fossati, D. (2016). Electoral Dynamics in Indonesia: Money Politics, Patronage and Clientelism at the Grassroots. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 38(2), 321–323. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs38-2j

Bappeda. (2021). RPJMD Kabupaten Pacitan 2021–2026. Bappeda.

Bappeda. (2022). RKPD dan RPJMD Pacitan 2021–2026. Bappeda Kabupaten Pacitan.

BPS.Pacitan. (2022). Laporan Mobilitas Penduduk Usia Produktif. Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Pacitan.

Detik. (2023). Pacitan Belum Ikut Forum Kota Global, Ini Alasannya. Detik. https://news.detik.com/berita-jawa-timur/d-6554321/pacitan-belum-ikut-forum-kota-global.

Docquier, F., Lowell, B. L., & Marfouk, A. (2009). A gendered assessment of highly skilled emigration. Population and Development Review, 35(2), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2009.00277.x

Galtung, J. (1984). There Are Two Ways to Think About Development. International Peace Research Institute.

Hadiz, V. (2010). Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia A Southeast Asia Perspective. Stanford University Press.

Hadiz, V. (2013). Localising Power in Vost-Trade Authoritarian Indonesia. Stanford University Press.

Hofman, & Kaiser. (2006). Decentralization in Indonesia: A Reform on the Wrong Track? World Bank. World Bank.

IOM. (2021). Indonesia Labour Migration Report. IOM Indonesia.

Kompas. (2022). Pacitan Masih Sepi Kerja Sama Internasional. Kompas. https://regional.kompas.com/read/2022/07/18/123000/pacitan-masih-sepi-kerjasama-internasional.

Kompas. (2023). Pacitan Belum Respons Undangan Kota Global. Kompas. https://kompas.id

KPK. (2020). Kajian Sistem Integritas Pemerintahan Daerah. Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi.

Kusumasari.B. (2012). Local Government Capacity for Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia. Disaster Prevention and Management, 21(2), 206–222.

Lecours. A. (2016). Paradiplomacy Cities and States as Global Players. Oxford University Press.

OECD. (2019). The Role of Cities in Global Governance. Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (paris (ed.)). OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2023). Subnational Governments in Southeast Asia: Reshaping Local Diplomacy. OECD Publishing.

Robison.R. (2004). Reorganising Power in Indonesia. Routledge.

Rodrigo Tavares. (2016). Paradiplomacy Cities and States as Global Players (Issue 9780190462123). Oxford University Press.

Saskia Sassen. (2005). The Global City: Introducing a Concept. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 11(2), 27–43.

Tempo. (2021). Pacitan dan Bayang-Bayang Politik Dinasti. Tempo. https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1469003/pacitan-dan-bayang-bayang-politik-dinasti

UN-Habitat. (2022). City Diplomacy: Building Sustainable Urban Futures. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

UNDP. (1997). Governance for Sustainable Human Development.

UNDP. (2021a). Localizing the SDGs: A Guide for Local Governments. United Nations Development Programme.

UNDP. (2021b). Youth Participation and Local Governance: Bridging the Gap. United Nations Development Programme.

Wikan, U. (1998). Managing Turbulent Transitions: Social Deactivation in Marginalized Societies. Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), 243–261.

Winarno. D. (2021). Diplomasi Kota dan Peran Wali Kota Surabaya. Jurnal Hubungan Internasional.

Winters, J. A. (2011). Oligarchy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793806

World Bank. (2007). Strengthening World Bank Group Engagement on Governance and Anticorruption (Washington). World Bank.

World Bank. (2018). Indonesia: Local Governance Performance Report.