The Divergence of Regulatory Logic in Field Practices of Land Boundary Return Policy Implementation

Abstract

The land boundary reconciliation policy was originally designed to guarantee legal certainty over land rights, but divergences between regulatory texts and the reality of field practices continue to occur. This study aims to identify the determinants and dissect the root causes of these divergences through a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach. Quantitative analysis involved 100 respondents from Land Offices in Java, Kalimantan, and Sumatra, tested using multiple linear regression based on the theory of George C. Edward III. Meanwhile, qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews in Sleman Regency and Yogyakarta City to explore two contrasting field practices. The results of the quantitative analysis demonstrate that Communication, Resources, and Bureaucratic Structure have a significant influence on policy implementation, with the availability of Measurement Drawings (Resource Sector) being the most dominant factor. Interestingly, Bureaucratic Structure shows a negative influence; clarity of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) is often used as a legitimizing instrument in the field to divert services as a form of policy drift. This quantitative model explains 20% of the variation in implementation, indicating the significant role of pragmatic field factors such as legal risk, physical land dynamics, and low public awareness. This study concludes that the root of the divergence is not due to unclear regulations, but rather to a failure to reconcile the "logic of implementation," representing formal regulatory directives, and the "logic of discovery," born of technical experience in the field. The dominance of the logic of discovery in Sleman resulted in a complete shift to boundary delimitation services, while the balance of the two logics in Yogyakarta allowed for the maintenance of boundary reestablishment practices in the field.