Does Multilevel Governance Matter for Poverty Reduction? A Sequential Explanatory Mixed-Methods Analysis of SDG 1 Implementation in Subnational Indonesia

Persistent poverty in metropolitan peripheries reveals a proximity without prosperity paradox — regions that are geographically integrated into urban economic cores yet structurally excluded from their developmental benefits. This study examines whether Multilevel Governance (MLG) configuration influences the effectiveness of SDG 1 (No Poverty) implementation through serial mediation by inter-governmental coordination and collaborative governance in West Bandung Regency (Kabupaten Bandung Barat), Indonesia. Despite its proximity to the Bandung Metropolitan Area — which contributes approximately 15% of West Java's gross domestic product — West Bandung Regency records a persistent poverty rate of 9.87%, substantially above the provincial average. Employing a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, the study integrates Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) with bootstrapping (5,000 resamples, n = 400) and qualitative NVivo analysis of 40–45 key informants. Nine hypotheses testing direct, indirect, and serial mediation pathways are evaluated. Findings confirm that MLG exerts a significant positive direct effect on SDG 1 outcomes, substantially mediated through inter-governmental coordination quality and collaborative governance, with the full serial path MLG → Coordination → Collaborative Governance → SDG 1 proving statistically significant. Principled engagement emerges as the most dominant collaborative dimension. These results advance MLG theory by empirically specifying the institutional transmission mechanisms through which governance architecture translates into poverty reduction outcomes in asymmetric decentralization contexts.

Multilevel Governance; Collaborative Governance; SDG 1; Serial Mediation; Inter-governmental Coordination; Asymmetric Decentralization

1. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (Eds.). (2004). Multi-level governance. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Béland, D., Lecours, A., Marchildon, G. P., CPontarollo, N., & Wray, S. (2022). Federalism, policy experimentation, and social policy in the era of COVID-19. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 52(1), 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjab031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bouckaert, G., Peters, B. G., & Verhoest, K. (2010). The coordination of public sector organizations: Shifting patterns of public management. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Kabupaten Bandung Barat. (2025). Profil kemiskinan di Bandung Barat Maret 2025 (BRS No. 07/10/3217/Th. XXIX). BPS Kabupaten Bandung Barat. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Kabupaten Bandung Barat. (2025). Kabupaten Bandung Barat dalam angka 2025. BPS Kabupaten Bandung Barat. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Guetterman, T. C., Fetters, M. D., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hair, J. F., Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hutchinson, F. E. (2014). Devolution and governance in Indonesia. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of public sector coordination. University Press of Kansas. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Piattoni, S. (2010). The theory of multi-level governance: Conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH. http://www.smartpls.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Smoke, P. (2015). Rethinking decentralization: Assessing challenges to a popular public sector reform. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1703 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (A/RES/70/1). United Nations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar