Platform Governance And Democratic Legitimacy: Public Policy Challenges In Indonesia's Digital Economy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24905/icobis.v2i1.8Keywords:
platform governance, democratic legitimacy, digital economy, public policy, IndonesiaAbstract
The rapid expansion of digital platforms has transformed relationships among governments, markets, and citizens while creating new questions about regulatory authority and democratic accountability. This study examines how platform governance reshapes democratic legitimacy in Indonesia's digital economy and identifies the public policy arrangements required to reconcile technological innovation with democratic values. Using a qualitative Systematic Literature Review guided by PRISMA 2020 and complemented by interpretive policy analysis, the study synthesizes 40 peer-reviewed articles published between 2018 and 2025. The review shows that scholarship is concentrated in developed democracies, is dominated by qualitative approaches, and remains theoretically fragmented across governance, institutional, network, platform, algorithmic governance, and legitimacy perspectives. The findings indicate that legitimacy deficits arise when platforms exercise quasi-regulatory power through opaque algorithms, privately defined rules, and asymmetric access to data without adequate public oversight. Building on the synthesis, this study proposes the Democratic Platform Governance Framework, which connects governance inputs, processes, outputs, and democratic outcomes. Transparency, accountability, participation, fairness, and institutional adaptability constitute its core governance processes. The framework argues that effective platform governance requires both institutional capacity and democratic safeguards. For Indonesia, the priority is integrated regulatory coordination, algorithmic oversight, independent accountability mechanisms, participatory policymaking, and continuous development of technological expertise.
References
Ananny, M., & Gillespie, T. (2017). Public platform commitment: Participatory culture and the politics of transparency. International Journal of Communication, 11, 973-997.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Public governance as co-creation: A strategy for revitalizing the public sector and rejuvenating democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.
Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 825-836.
Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital competition, innovation, and power. Harper Business.
de Reuver, M., Sorensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2018). The digital platform: A research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124-135.
Gawer, A. (2022). Digital platforms and ecosystems: Remarks on the dominant organizational forms of the digital age. Innovation, 24(1), 110-124.
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Gorwa, R. (2019). What is platform governance? Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 854-871.
Helberger, N., Pierson, J., & Poell, T. (2018). Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. The Information Society, 34(1), 1-14.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
Koppell, J. G. S. (2005). Pathologies of accountability. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94-108.
Meijer, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2021). Responsible artificial intelligence in government. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101548.
Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy. Jossey-Bass.
OECD. (2024). OECD economic surveys: Indonesia 2024. OECD Publishing.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641-672.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic
Reviews, 10(1), 89.
Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutional theory in political science (4th ed.). Edward Elgar.
Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1-13.
Ranchordas, S. (2022). Digital constitutionalism in Europe. Routledge.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press.
Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited. Political Studies, 61(1), 2-22.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2016). Theories of democratic network governance. Palgrave Macmillan.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018). Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-14.
World Bank. (2021). World development report 2021: Data for better lives. World Bank.
Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505-523.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
