Collective Impact in the Implementation of Affirmative Economic Policy for Indigenous Papuans: Evidence from Sorong City, Indonesia

Abstract

Affirmative economic policies for Indigenous Papuans (OAP) in Sorong City have been implemented through empowerment programmes, business legalisation, capital access, and skills training. Despite achieving 80.8% of programme output targets, OAP poverty remains at 48.2% in 2024 against a target of 43.8%, while access to formal markets stagnates at 8.7%, indicating a critical output-outcome paradox rooted in weak collaborative architecture rather than insufficient programmes. This study analyses the implementation of affirmative economic policy for OAP in Sorong City through Kania and Kramer’s (2011) five-dimensional Collective Impact framework: common agenda, shared measurement, mutually-reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone organisation. A qualitative descriptive approach was conducted in Sorong City. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 16 purposively-selected informants representing local government, the Moi Customary Council, OAP business actors, NGOs, and SOEs, complemented by participant observation of coordination forums and document analysis. Thematic analysis was structured around the five Collective Impact dimensions. All five preconditions for Collective Impact operate weakly. The common agenda exists only formally without shared diagnosis. Measurement systems are fragmented and output-biased. Activities run in sectoral silos without sequencing: only 25% of OAP business actors attend coordination forums, and only 2% of forum time is spent on strategy dialogue. Communication is top-down with information-sharing dominating 70% of forum time. The backbone organisation (MRP) operates with only Rp 250 million annual budget (3% of programme budget), producing capacity gaps of 7–8.5 points across six of seven core functions. Implementation has not produced strong collective impact due to weak orchestration. The five preconditions form an interlocking circle of mutual weakening rather than mutual reinforcement. Strengthening requires building a common agenda based on collective diagnosis, outcome-oriented shared measurement, integrated activity sequencing, dialogic communication, and a well-resourced, neutral backbone organization.