Powers on Community-Level Deliberation: A Power Cube Approach


Muhammad Taufiq(1*), Suhirman Suhirman(2), Tubagus Furqon Sofhani(3), Benedictus Kombaitan(4)

(1) Institut Teknologi Bandung
(2) Institut Teknologi Bandung
(3) Institut Teknologi Bandung
(4) Institut Teknologi Bandung
(*) Corresponding Author


This study is generated by the limited understanding of the actor's power on village-level deliberation. In community-level deliberation, especially for villagers, planning struggles with unbalanced power from involved actors to avoid potential failures due to inappropriate implementation and waste of state finances. Problems from policy formulation results have distorted the consensus. Community-based planning faces different power characteristics displayed by involved actors. However, it seems that this matter's understanding is mostly obtained in Western urban areas context and few have studied it in the rural context, even more, sourced from non-Western and global south practices. Questions arise on the power capabilities each actor has and its implications for the planning formulation results. This article aims to provide an understanding of the actor's position and their source of power. It investigates the power identities of involved actors on the community-level deliberation through a power cube approach. Community-level deliberation in Pematang Tengah village, Indonesian, is used as the case study. Primary data were obtained from interviews with twenty-one respondents, observation, and document analysis during 2018-2020. The result shows that each actor displays a specific power characteristic driving their influences on the planning formulation results. This condition has implications for the construction of the power holder's influence in dominating the deliberation process.


deliberative planning; power cube; village community; Indonesia

Full Text:



Antlöv, H. (2003). Village government and rural development in Indonesia: The new democratic framework. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 39(2), 193–214.

Beard, V. A., & Dasgupta, A. (2006). Collective action and community-driven development in rural and urban Indonesia. Urban Studies, 43(9), 1451–1468.

Bebbington, A., Dharmawan, L., Fahmi, E., & Guggenheim, S. (2004). Village politics, culture and community-driven development: Insights from Indonesia. Progress in Development Studies, 4(3), 187–205.

Beza, B. B. (2016). The role of deliberative planning in translating best practice into good practice: From placelessness to placemaking. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(2), 244–263.

Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 221–236.

Butz, D., & Besio, K. (2009). Autoethnography. Geography Compass, 3(5), 1660–1674.

Chilvers, J. (2009). Deliberative and Participatory Approaches in Environmental Geography. In A Companion to Environmental Geography (pp. 400–417). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

Dandekar, H. C. (2018). Delineating the shape of planning practice: John Friedmann’s legacy. Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(2), 193–197.

Flyvbjerg, B. (1998a). Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society? The British Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 210–233.

Flyvbjerg, B. (1998b). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. University of Chicago Press.

Forester, J. (1982). Planning in the face of power. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(1), 67–80.

Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press.

Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press.

Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5–22.

Foucault, M. (1988). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason (R. Howard, Transl.). Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (2002). Archaeology of knowledge (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). Routledge Classic.

Foucault, M. (2017). Power/knowledge: Wacana kuasa/pengetahuan wawancara pilihan dan tulisan-tulisan lain 1972-1977 (Y. Santosa, Trans.).

Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Pantheon Books.

Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Anchor Press.

Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso.

Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23–33.

Gaventa, J. (2019). Power and powerlessness in an Appalachian valley – revisited. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(3), 440–456.

Grooms, W., & Frimpong Boamah, E. (2018). Toward a political urban planning: Learning from growth machine and advocacy planning to “plannitize” urban politics. Planning Theory, 17(2), 213–233.

Guijt, I., & Shah, M. K. (1998). The myth of community: Gender issues in participatory development. Intermediate Technology Publications.

Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. MIT Press.

Huxley, M. (2000). The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 369–377.

Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460–472.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis (pp. 33–59). Cambridge University Press.

Kamete, A. Y. (2012). Interrogating planning’s power in an African city: Time for reorientation? Planning Theory, 11(1), 66–88.

Kesby, M. (2007). Spatialising participatory approaches: The Contribution of Geography to a Mature Debate. Environment and Planning A, 39, 2813–2831.

Legacy, C. (2012). Achieving legitimacy through deliberative plan-making processes—Lessons for metropolitan strategic planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(1), 71–87.

Lennon, M., & Fox-Rogers, L. (2017). Morality, power and the planning subject. Planning Theory, 16(4), 364–383.

Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. Macmillan.

Mäntysalo, R., & Jarenko, K. (2014). Communicative planning theory following deliberative democracy theory: Critical pragmatism and the trading zone concept. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 3(1), 38–50.

Metzger, J., Soneryd, L., & Tamm Hallström, K. (2017). ‘Power’ is that which remains to be explained: Dispelling the ominous dark matter of critical planning studies. Planning Theory, 16(2), 203–222.

Ministry of Finance. (2017). Buku saku dana desa (Hand book of Village Fund). Indonesia Ministry of finance. [Book in Indonesian].

Okezone.com. (2019). Daftar capaian penggunaan dana desa selama 4 tahun (List of achievements in using village funds for 4 years). okezone.com. https://economy.okezone.com/read/2019/01/12/320/2003620/daftar-capaian-penggunaan-dana-desa-selama-4-tahun?page=2. (Accessed 19 October 2019). [Online document in Indonesian].

Puustinen, S., Mäntysalo, R., Hytönen, J., & Jarenko, K. (2017). The “deliberative bureaucrat”: Deliberative democracy and institutional trust in the jurisdiction of the Finnish planner. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 71–88.

Sager, T. (1993). Paradigms for planning: A rationality-based classification. Planning Theory, 9, 79–118.

Sager, T. (2013). Reviving critical planning theory: Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning. Routledge.

Taufiq, M. (2021). Layers of power in deliberative village planning: The Case of Pematang Tengah village, North Sumatra—Indonesia [Doctoral Dissertation]. Institut Teknologi Bandung.

Taufiq, M., Suhirman, S., & Kombaitan, B. (2021). A Reflection on Transactive Planning: Transfer of Planning Knowledge in Local Community-Level Deliberation. SAGE Open, 11(2), 1–11.

Taufiq, M., Suhirman, S., Sofhani, T. F., & Kombaitan, B. (2022). Rural Planning within Local Development: Indonesian Context. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 18(2), 194–212.

Uitermark, J., & Nicholls, W. (2017). Planning for social justice: Strategies, dilemmas, tradeoffs. Planning Theory, 16(1), 32–50.

Voogd, H. (2001). Social dilemmas and the communicative planning paradox. Town Planning Review, 72(1), 77–96.

Voogd, H., & Woltjer, J. (1999). The communicative ideology in spatial planning: Some critical reflections based on the Dutch experience. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(6), 835–854.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/ijg.60911

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 1151 | views : 847


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Muhammad Taufiq, Suhirman Suhirman, Tubagus Furqon Sofhani, Benedictus Kombaitan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Accredited Journal, Based on Decree of the Minister of Research, Technology and Higher Education, Republic of Indonesia Number 225/E/KPT/2022, Vol 54 No 1 the Year 2022 - Vol 58 No 2 the Year 2026 (accreditation certificate download)

ISSN 2354-9114 (online), ISSN 0024-9521 (print)