Self-organizing volunteers as a grassroot social innovation: the contribution and barrier to empowerment and collaborative governance in stunting intervention

ABSTRACT

Considering its contribution to solving societal issues, social innovation (SI) has become critical to driving community development. This paper exposes the role of SI in community development processes at a grassroots level, drawing on volunteers’ experience in collaborative stunting intervention in Sukabumi Regency, a rural area in Indonesia. This study employs a qualitative approach, incorporating data collection methods such as in-person interviews, observation, and document analysis. Findings reveal that human development volunteers, initially appointed by the state, have successfully established a forum that essentially functions as an informal self-organizing group. Self-organizing volunteers might be categorized as SI because they offer a new way of interacting with other actors in collaborative governance, paying attention to community problems and aiming to create community changes. Through the forum, cadres can participate not only as individuals but also that through collective actions. While their meaningful activities are visible, cadres face barriers to changing power relations in collaborative governance and making social changes. The findings contribute to the literature by showcasing an understanding of how self-organizing volunteers function as a social innovation in collaborative processes.

KEYWORDS:

• Social innovation
• volunteering
• empowerment
• collaborative governance
• stunting

1. Introduction

Social Innovation (SI) has become a critical aspect of the development process (de Fátima Ferreiro et al. 2021) as it solves societal problems, many of which are the most pressing development agendas. Researchers examined how SI contributed to addressing a variety of societal issues, such as urban sustainability (Angelidou and Psaltoglou 2017), forestry (Ludvig et al. 2021), labor (Dai, Lau, and Lee 2019), and transportation planning (Mehmood & Imran, 2021). SI also addresses more systematic structural issues (Nicholls, Simon, and Gabriel 2015) and contributes to development by strengthening social networks and reconfiguration (Lombardi et al. 2020).

With the growing importance of SI in solving community problems, SI is a ‘magic concept’ to approach public policy (Bragaglia 2021). It has normative attractiveness (Bragaglia 2021) and responds to the patterns of modernity that exclude certain groups in society (Nicholls, Simon, and Gabriel 2015). Its concept is linked to civil society participation, commonly called the third sector in public management or governance (Ludvig et al. 2021). Whilst SI is not limited to a new product to fix problems caused by market failures (Nicholls, Simon, and Gabriel 2015), it is also a new way to change social relations (Pel et al. 2020). Defining SI as a process reflects a similar notion of the importance of civil society in governing societal issues (Galego et al. 2021).

Despite growing attention to civil society and governance in SI literature, less attention is paid to volunteers’ involvement in SI. de Wit et al. (2019) contributed to the SI-volunteering nexus by analyzing the factors that helped and constrained volunteers’ contribution to SI. Caridà, Colurcio, and Melia (2022) explored how digital SI that promoted flexible volunteering has improved the process of social change. These studies were concerned with volunteering in formal nonprofit organizations. However, grassroots community volunteering that often takes place beyond formality needs to be improved. We fill this gap by focusing on self-organizing volunteers. Moreover, the connection between SI and rural context remains underexplored (Banerjee, Lucas dos Santos, and Hulgård 2021; de Fátima Ferreiro et al. 2021; Steiner, Calò, and Shucksmith 2021). This study aims to contribute to this realm by examining volunteers at the grassroots level in a rural area. The following research question is posited: How do self-organizing volunteers work and contribute to empowerment and collaborative governance?

Indonesia’s central government directs convergence actions to its local governments to help them work together to stop stunting. From the point of view of collaborative governance, convergence actions have a mandated institutional design that allows for starting conditions (Afandi et al. 2023). Further, convergence actions involve a collaborative process between state and non-state actors, facilitate supportive leadership, and provide a transparent accountability system (Afandi et al. 2023).

This study provides a case for collaborative stunting intervention in Indonesia in which volunteers play a role in cooperative efforts to reduce stunting prevalence. Cadres operate outside the formal organization as they work at the grassroots level in the village as the smallest unit of government closest to the local community. Initially, cadres’ volunteering is state-driven, and their presence is a part of mandated collaborative networks designed by the central government. At this early stage, volunteering differs from voluntary actions driven by altruistic motivation (de Wit et al. 2019). This article explores how volunteering becomes a grassroots-level SI in rural areas. It sheds light on the following facets: how grassroots-level volunteers find a new way of tackling stunting issues, whether the process empowers them, and what implications their actions bring to collaborative governance.

The following section outlines the theoretical framework: social innovation as a process towards social change and linking collaborative governance, volunteering, and empowerment. The context of collaborative governance of stunting intervention in Indonesia follows the conceptual framework. Then, we present the study method and discuss the findings by answering the research question. The last section of this work comprises the conclusion.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Social innovation as processes towards social changes

Social innovation (SI) is new solutions to meet social needs that improve societies’ capabilities, resources, and relationships (Caulier-Grice, Kahn, and Mulgan 2010). By tackling social issues, SI changes social relations and systems (Kumar 2020). As an innovation, SI has originality and a variety of forms, such as new ideas, products, markets, models, or systems (Caulier-Grice, Kahn, and Mulgan 2010; Westley et al. 2014). Nicholls and Murdock (2012 in Nicholls, Simon, and Gabriel 2015) divide the changes SI addresses into incremental, institutional, and disruptive levels. Incremental SI focuses on creating new products to address societal issues caused by market failures. Institutional SI emphasizes the reconfiguration of market structures. Meanwhile, disruptive innovation SI employs political movements to transform social systems. Besides being operated at three different levels, SI operates with four dimensions: the satisfaction of human needs, changes in social relations, increased socio-political capability, and access to resources (Moulaert et al. 2005). Moreover, as proposed by Caridà, Colurcio, and Melia (2022), the change in value sets SI apart from conventional business innovation in that SI has not only forms and processes as its dimensions but also those of value change. These value changes can include aspects such as sustainability, social justice, community participation or social responsibility, all of which can be essential elements of SI. This value change reflects the orientation of SI, which focuses on economic aspects and pays attention to the social and environmental impacts of the solutions produced. It can help create positive and sustainable change in society. SI must be ‘social’ in its means and ends (Caulier-Grice, Kahn, and Mulgan 2010). This concept is in line with Miquel, Cabeza, and Anglada (2013), who conceptualize SI as processes that generate (1) service or resource provision to meet social needs, (2) empowerment of the marginalized groups, (3) transformation of governance mechanism to address the structural causes of social exclusions.

These SI conceptualizations ostensibly emphasize the results indicated by the terms ‘new solutions’ that lead to ‘social changes’ or ‘society improvement’. However, the close link between SI and social change also signifies processes. Social change requires complex processes at a micro level (individual empowerment), meso level (interactive channel to create new ideas), and macro level (changing institutions) (van Wijk et al. 2019). The definition of SI by Avelino et al. (2019) expresses the processes well, in which SI is perceived as ‘⁠change in social relations, involving new ways of doing, organizing, knowing and framing’ (p.197). While significant progress has been made with regard to the theoretical foundation of social innovation, the ‘ecosystem’ facilitating respective innovative activities remains rather vague and ambiguous (Terstriep, Rehfeld, and Kleverbeck 2020). Wilson et al. define SI as ‘ … a process that leads to novel, community-produced solutions to social problems’ (279). The first aspect identified as a need for SI development and implementation is an appropriate culture of communication and discussion (Audretsch, Eichler, and Schwarz 2022). In as much the purpose of SI is to ‘bring about social change inspired by social problems’ (Wegner, Hölsgens, and Bitencourt 2023, 9), the discussion is essential to understand the context of SI. These conceptualizations indicate that SI is an interlink of ‘new social processes’ and ‘new social outputs and outcomes’ that address changes (Nicholls, Simon, and Gabriel 2015, 2). In this article, we adopt these concepts of SI that pays attention to the process while still acknowledging the importance of the results. SI is, therefore, defined here as new processes that drive novel solutions to societal problems and lead to social changes.

Generally, social changes refer to societal transformations in social relations and institutions. The term is used in various disciplines and practices, such as sociology, economy, politics, and international development. Modernization proponents argue that social changes are about transforming traditional society into a modern one (see Rostow 1959), while Marxist scholars view social change as a series of class struggles. In terms of SI, which is often regarded as a response to the failure of problem-solving through institutionalized ways (Moulaert et al. 2013), social changes also refer to the change of structures and institutions, particularly the ones that cause or pertain to problems. SI is related to reconfiguring social practices and relationships (Murray, Caulier-Grice, and Mulgan 2010) at formal and informal institutions (Kluvánková et al. 2018). For instance, Andersen and Bilfeldt (2017) found that two SI cases in Denmark had transformed welfare institutions by changing organizational culture, values, and working methods. The changes facilitated community empowerment and brought welfare services closer to citizens (Andersen and Bilfeldt 2017).

Creating social changes through SI requires the involvement of civil society actors (Ludvig et al. 2021) and collaboration (Murray, Caulier-Grice, and Mulgan 2010). This aspect puts SI into a broader discourse on the importance of the participation of civil society actors and the practice of collaborative governance. It also makes SI a ‘magic concept’ among policymakers as it meets the four indicators of a ‘magic concept’ proposed by Pollitt and Hupe (2011), namely the broadness of the concept, the normative attractiveness, the implication of consensus, and the global marketability (Bragaglia 2021). As SI gets normative justification, policymakers often facilitate it as a part of their collaborative governance policy. SI and governance involve collaborative processes to find alternative solutions to public needs (Galego et al. 2021).

2.2. Linking collaborative governance, volunteering, and empowerment

Collaborative governance is closely linked to the engagement of non-governmental actors in managing public affairs. As more actors are involved, collaborative governance is about power sharing. As expressed by Purdy (2012), collaborative governance refers to ‘ … processes that seek to share power in decision-making with stakeholders to develop shared recommendations for effective, lasting solutions to public problems’ (p.409). The processes have collaborative structures where state and non-state actors engage constructively (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2011) in a deliberative, formal, and consensus-oriented manner (Ansell and Gash 2008). The involvement of more actors is expected to achieve public purposes that cannot be otherwise accomplished (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2011).

Literature on collaborative governance emphasizes openness and inclusiveness (Ansell and Gash 2008), allowing civil society actors to participate more actively, including volunteers. ⁠Volunteering is ‘any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group or cause’ (Wilson 2000, 215). Volunteer work, which refers to formal and informal productive works, requires collective actions when carried out on behalf of ‘collective goods’ (Duarte Alonso and Nyanjom 2016). Volunteering becomes a characteristic of civil engagement in communities and bridges social capital (Mason and Fredericksen 2011). It is commonly used to increase participation among the poor and marginalized in decision-making processes (Aked 2015).

In their seminal work, Cnaan, Handy, and Wadsworth (1996) revealed four dimensions of volunteering: free choice, remuneration, structure, and the intended beneficiaries. Each of these dimensions contains categorizations. For instance, the free choice dimension ranges from ‘free will’ and ‘relatively uncoerced’ to ‘obliged to volunteer’, while remuneration ranges from ‘no incentive expected’, ‘reimbursement’, and ‘low pay/stipend’ (Cnaan, Handy, and Wadsworth 1996). The wide range means that the definition of volunteering is not limited to a voluntary action without any remuneration. What constitutes volunteering varies, and its definition can be broader. Instead of defining volunteering based on a fixed set of characteristics, Cnaan, Handy, and Wadsworth (1996) argued about cost–benefit analysis to understand the dimensions of volunteering by comparing the costs of a person to perform work and the public and private benefits those works generate. The higher the benefits compared to their costs, the more likely work is perceived as volunteering (Cnaan, Handy, and Wadsworth 1996; Handy et al. 2000). In this study, we follow this cost–benefit approach to define volunteering. Therefore, volunteering here refers to formal and informal work in which people spend costs (in terms of time, money, opportunities, etc.) to generate public or private benefits for others.

Volunteering plays a role in sustaining development partnerships (Schech et al. 2015). Managing development programs or agendas through partnerships often requires collaborative governance in which actors interact with each other. However, in collaborative governance, ⁠‘mutual, equal, and sustainable development partnerships remain limited’ (Schech et al. 2015, 358). Empowerment is crucial to help the local community gain power, enabling them to play a more active role in the decision-making of programs concerning their lives and wellbeing. This is where volunteering is essential. Volunteers are more effective at inviting community participation as their relationships with the poor, marginalized, and excluded are based on ‘informality, doing together and networked reciprocity’ (Aked 2015, 39). Moreover, volunteering opens three spaces: personal learning space for empowerment, policy space for organizational partnership, and geopolitical space for building global citizenship and public diplomacy (Schech et al. 2015). Through volunteering, the community can exercise their agency, leading them to empowerment.

In summary, volunteering opens spaces for empowering the community to be equal partners in the collaborative processes of development programs concerning their needs and welfare. Empowerment here refers to agency expansion and the creation of opportunity structure (Alsop, Bertelsen, and Holland 2006), which reflects the similar broad conceptualization of empowerment and social innovation as both are processes towards creating social changes.

2.3. Collaborative governance of stunting intervention in Indonesia

The prevalence of stunting in Indonesia continues to exceed the World Health Organization (WHO) target outlined in the 2030 agenda, which aims for rates below 20 per cent. According to the Indonesian Nutritional Status Survey in 2021, the stunting prevalence in the country was 24.4 per cent (Ministry of Health of Indonesia 2021). According to the same survey, West Java Province has a stunting prevalence of 24.5 per cent, a significant figure considering the province’s proximity to the capital of Indonesia, Jakarta. Moreover, West Java is the province with the highest population in the country, at 49.5 million people in 2018, which is approximately 18.39 per cent of the total population in the country (BPS n.d.). Consequently, the high prevalence of stunting in West Java reflects a high number of children below five years who experience stunting. Stunting is briefly defined as ‘ … the impaired growth and development that children experience from poor nutrition, repeated infection, and inadequate psychosocial stimulation’ (WHO 2015). This condition puts West Java as one of the targeted provinces in the Indonesian policies related to stunting.

Along with the specific stunting interventions the Ministry of Health carried out, decreasing stunting prevalence in Indonesia requires multi-level actors and cross-sectoral collaborative actions. The collaborative actions usually refer to Eight Convergence Actions (ECA), mandated by the central government to local governments since 2018. ECA consists of eight actions, as shown in Table 1. The central government defines the ECA as a coordinated and unified intervention approach to the geographically targeted area and priority household to address stunting. The implementation of the ECA is carried out by combining or integrating various resources to achieve common goals, particularly resources from the sectors of health, education, clean water and sanitation, housing, women’s empowerment and child protection, and family planning. Moreover, it also involves the development planning agency and the regent as the coordinator and leader, respectively.

Table 1. The Framework of Eight Convergence Actions (ECA).

Actions	Description
Situation analysis	Analyzing the region regarding its stunting level and funding allocation to increase household access to stunting interventions
Prog00ram planning	Creating alternatives of programs to be implemented through convergence stunting interventions
Stunting forum	Communicating alternatives of stunting interventions with multi-stakeholders to build and declare public commitment
Policymaking on the role of village	Issuing a regulation that allows village administration to use village funds for stunting interventions
Training of human development cadre	Training is given to human development cadres to improve their knowledge and role in stunting interventions.
System management and stunting data	Providing access and integrating data regarding stunting status
Stunting measurement and publication	Measuring, monitoring, and publishing stunting status
Annual performance review	Reviewing program results by the end of the fiscal year and generating feedback for suggested improvement

Source: first author

The recipients of the ECA mandate are the local government bodies and communities. The involvement of the latter reflects the participatory approach of the ECA. In practice, local government expands the collaborative networks while non-governmental actors participate because of the expansion. In Sukabumi Regency in West Java, non-governmental actors include business, academia, and media entities.

The local community is central to converging actions, particularly in raising public health and stunting awareness. Local communities, particularly the targeted households, participate in activities concerning stunting intervention. A member of the local community, one per village, is selected to be a human development cadre (HDC). The central government defines HDC as ‘the selected [members of the] community who have concerns and a will to dedicate themselves to play a role in village development, particularly in monitoring and facilitating convergence stunting intervention’ (Ministry of Villages Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration 2018, 8). The cadres’ work description includes: (1) facilitating social mapping to understand the status of stunting in their respective village, (2) facilitating directed discussion on program planning concerning stunting interventions at the village level, (3) facilitating weight and height measurement of children under five years old, and (4) monitoring the accessibility of services by the targeted households.

3. Method

This study employed a qualitative approach, suitable for a holistic understanding of complex processes (Desai and Potter 2006). We used a qualitative case study of convergence stunting intervention in Sukabumi Regency in West Java, Indonesia, as the locus of the study. The case study is a suitable approach to conduct an in-depth exploration of a phenomenon in its specific context (Rashid et al. 2019) so that it fits the thematic focus on social innovation with its new aspect of the phenomenon. This research chose a qualitative approach because it has several advantages that support the research objectives, particularly the depth of understanding, where a qualitative approach allows researchers to gain a deep understanding of the phenomenon being observed. In the context of the role of SI in community development at the grassroots level, it is essential to gain an in-depth understanding of volunteers’ experiences in stunting intervention in Sukabumi Regency. Interviews, observations and document analysis can provide in-depth knowledge that is difficult to achieve with a quantitative approach. Using interviews and observations, qualitative research can explore volunteers’ perspectives, values and meanings. These methods can help identify expected social changes and understand the role of SI in the process. In terms of complex interactions and dynamics among various stakeholders within SI, the qualitative method allows researchers to explore these dynamics, especially when involving volunteers’ experiences in forums that function as local communities. In addition, the qualitative approach allows closer involvement with research subjects. Involving volunteers in interviews and observations can provide a more in-depth and contextual perspective on the role of SI in stunting intervention. This research can achieve its objectives in-depth and contextually by employing a qualitative approach.

Sukabumi Regency was selected as the location of the study because it is in the West Java Province, one of Indonesia's most prominent targets for stunting reduction programs. West Java is generally known as one of Indonesia's most densely populated areas, so handling stunting there can have a broad impact. Moreover, while this research emphasizes the role of the community in stunting intervention, Sukabumi may offer an advantage because the implementation of the stunting intervention in the regency has involved the local community in a more substantial and organized way, namely through a cadre forum.

Data in the case study were collected through in-person informal interviews and semi-structured interviews, supported by on-site observation and document study from May 2022 to June 2023. Interviewees were selected for their knowledge and participation in the collaborative stunting intervention, ranging from regency-level government officials to lower-level village administrators, human development cadres, and local communities. We interviewed several government officials representing the Agency for Village Community Empowerment, the Agency for Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection, the Health Agency, and the Regional Planning Agency. These agencies are selected based on their direct involvement in stunting intervention programs. The main questions were about their roles in stunting intervention and their perspectives on the cadre forum. In-person interviews were conducted with the head of cadre forums, a group of selected cadres who have assumed responsibility as HDC since the beginning of the program, a village head and administrator, and the villagers. These people were chosen due to their direct involvement in stunting intervention, either as the implementers or targeted users. The main interview questions included the cadres’ motivation and incentive to participate, the nature of their activities, the forum's role, and the cadres’ role in stunting intervention. On-site observations were conducted twice: during a focus group discussion involving the HDCs and government officials and a cadre visit to the village to perform their duty. A document study was performed to analyze the government documents and websites and collect information about the ECA.

4. Results and discussion

Human development cadres are a part of the convergence actions to intervene in stunting in Indonesia. Their presence and role in the collaborative process are explicitly acknowledged in the design framework of ECA. In Sukabumi Regency, each village chooses a cadre to represent their village in the ECA. A community member becomes a cadre by being appointed by the locally elected village head or selected by the villagers in addition to self-selection for volunteering to be one. The village head then issues an official letter stating the cadre’s name. At the end of 2022, all 382 villages in Sukabumi Regency have appointed a cadre. Most cadres are women who are experienced as cadres for the government’s development programs, such as the National Program for Community Empowerment and Integrated Service Post for Basic Healthcare. Their experience in other programs gives them an advantage in participating in the ECA. However, it also has a downside concerning local community representation. The same individual can become a cadre in multiple programs, which may indicate a low turnout of community members in development programs. The villagers choose experienced individuals to continue their participation as cadres.

The state invited cadres into the ECA as part of a participatory approach to rural development programs in Indonesia. It is important to note that, over time, convergence actions can develop into broader collaborative networks that allow cadres to act beyond responsibilities assigned by the government. For example, on December 14th, 2020, cadres in Sukabumi Regency self-organized and established the Human Development Cadre Forum (HDC Forum) as an informal forum that aims to unite all cadres in the regency.

4.1. Self-organizing cadres as a grassroot social innovation

We utilize the cost–benefit perspective to understand the nature of cadres’ works. We compare the qualitative cost and benefit of cadres’ participation in convergence actions as by so doing we can analyze the cadre system in the ECA framework as volunteering.

In terms of cost, the cadres in Sukabumi Regency invested their time, money, and skills. They dedicated time to acquiring knowledge on stunting measurement and promoting healthy living conditions. Subsequently, they disseminated the information to households within their respective villages. These tasks required effective communication and social skills. Additionally, they were responsible for assessing children under five years, monitoring their development, and providing regular reports to government authorities at least once a month. Cadres also participated in offline training sessions and meetings for which they are responsible for covering their transportation expenses.

In some cases, the village administration covered transportation costs through village funds, but this scheme depends heavily on the specific policies of each village. Cadres also established an online group to coordinate and communicate with other actors in the convergence actions. This coordination necessitates the expenditure of funds for internet connectivity.

Despite their efforts and spending, the monetary benefit they received was minimal, averaging 300,000 IDR per month. This amount scarcely covered their internet expenses and transportation costs. For individuals in economically challenging rural areas, such as those in Sukabumi Regency, serving as cadres demands altruistic motives. Cadres viewed volunteering as a demonstration of genuine care. They revealed their involvement in the stunting intervention was to ‘help the community and children’ [interviews with cadres]. Some individuals expressed that volunteering is a manifestation of their religious teachings that emphasized the importance of caring for and assisting their neighbors. Furthermore, the benefits received by cadres were more centered on personal satisfaction rather than material incentives. Cadres’ satisfaction stemmed from their ability to assist community members, especially children. Furthermore, they valued the knowledge acquired through training facilitated by government agencies or information exchanges in the collaborative process. The individual benefits of being a cadre contribute to the exercise of their agency.

The public benefits received by the government and community with the presence of cadres are noteworthy. The cadre system is a strategy for doing participatory community development. Cadres’ presence makes public services more accessible at the grassroots level. Consequently, the local community benefits from cadres’ activities in terms of accessibility to public services and knowledge. There is a literal and figurative distance between the government officials and the local community in the rural area of Sukabumi Regency, and the cadres bridged this gap. For the local community, gaining knowledge from a cadre from the same village is more accessible than communicating with government officials. Cadres bring public service and expertise closer to villagers, which, in turn, strengthened the state’s capacity at the grassroots level.

Based on the cost and benefit analysis, the cadres’ role in convergence actions is volunteering. The appointment of cadres to support community development is a repeat of the previous program, so it offers no inventiveness that constitutes a social innovation. However, as time passed, the cadres in Sukabumi Regency embraced their identity as cadres, as evidenced by the self-organizing forum that the cadres have entirely run. Some of them are selected for the managerial positions. Cadres Forum, the self-organizing forum in Sukabumi Regency, is a social innovation. Within this self-organizing forum, cadres exchange information and undertake peer learning concerning stunting interventions and village development. The forum can also represent the cadres while interacting with other actors involved in stunting interventions.

The self-organizing volunteers in Sukabumi Regency represent a social innovation in three dimensions: introducing a novel method of engagement with other stakeholders, addressing social needs to combat stunting, and demonstrating the potential of bringing structural changes, particularly in collaborative governance. These dimensions meet the broad definition of social innovation: new processes that drive novel solutions to societal problems and lead to social changes. The contribution of self-organizing volunteers is further discussed in the following section.

4.2. The (Potential) contributions of self-organizing volunteers

The self-organizing forum in Sukabumi Regency shows cadres comply with government policy and participate in self-actualization and care expression. The contributions of self-organizing volunteers to convergence actions to address stunting in Sukabumi Regency can be seen through an empowerment perspective, particularly concerning agency expansion and opportunity structure.

4.2.1. Self-organizing volunteers and agency expansion

Self-organizing cadres find that the founding of the cadre forum clarified their responsibilities as a cadre. Even though cadres underwent various training sessions held by the Regency Health Agency, there are confusion in managing their tasks at the grassroots level, resulting from the lack of a technical understanding of the cadres’ roles in convergence actions. There is a gap between the policymakers’ intent at the national level and the practice in rural areas. Volunteers expressed that the cadres’ tasks and roles in the ECA are ‘often confusing and difficult to follow’ [Interview with cadres]. Clarifying the issue directly with government officials was challenging for some cadres because of cultural reticence and unequal power relations. On the other hand, communication with fellow cadres was less constrained because of their equal status as local community members. Cadres exchanged knowledge about stunting interventions and left communicating with the government officials to the selected head of the forum as their representative.

The cadre forum has gone beyond helping the cadres understand their assigned responsibilities in convergence actions. Cadres have expressed more critical thoughts concerning their participation in convergence actions, for example, as explained by one of the cadres below: ‘As the name suggests, the human development cadre is about human development, but our focus lately is on handling stunting. In the future, we would like to contribute to the other areas of community development as well’ [Interview with the forum leader].

Their concern about the scope of responsibilities stemmed from their knowledge or experience volunteering in other development initiatives. Many programs with a similar cadre system led to overlapping activities and those of many cadres simultaneously, albeit in many cased activities were being assumed by the same individual. Cadres in Sukabumi Regency expressed that the overlaps could be eliminated by designing an all-encompassing community development program in which the participation of cadres can be carried out more efficiently. ‘We want to continue developing our skills and knowledge to become an effective cadre’ [Interview with cadres]. Such a critical thought emerged because the cadres had a channel of peer-to-peer interactions facilitated by cadres’ online group and occasional offline meetings. It is a crucial point in their empowerment process precisely because it reflects Freire’s (2000) concept of ‘conscientization’. The forum has helped cadres to understand their existing reality and future possibilities.

4.2.2. Self-organizing volunteers and collective actions

Besides personal learning, the cadre forum also helped cadres’ interactions with other actors of stunting convergence. Cadres often voiced their opinions to the forum leader so the leaders would represent them to communicate with government officials and other actors. Through mechanisms with different actors, they voiced several issues, particularly with the government as the actor with the most significant power in the convergence actions. Particularly on a financial matter, cadres have expressed their difficulty performing the work because many came from low-income households in rural areas. The forum started lobbying the governments so that they would encourage village administration to allocate village funds to support cadres’ activities. The cadres do not demand high pay such as that of formal work. Instead, they wished the village could cover the operational costs. They also voiced their opinion about program planning and the alternatives to increase public awareness about wellbeing. This process shows that, to some extent, the forum allows cadres to act individually and collectively. Cadres, who are in a weaker position in convergence actions because of the lack of power, become more potent when they collaborate. It opens a possibility for further negotiations about the roles of cadres and how the convergence actions work.

Currently, the convergence actions show unequal power relations among actors. The local governments drive most of the convergence actions and report the progress of stunting interventions to the central government. They possess the most enormous power in the collaborative process because they have all three primary sources of power: authority, discursive legitimacy, and resources (Purdy 2012). Other actors have fewer sources of power, which affects their position in convergence actions. For instance, enterprises have resources but lack authority and discursive legitimacy. Their central role in the ECA is to give products to support nutritional programs for children. Universities have discursive legitimacy but lack authority and own fewer resources for stunting interventions. Cadres are weaker than other actors, specifically given their low-income status. Consequently, the ECA in Sukabumi Regency is primarily about meeting the target given by the central government. The interactions signify more vital coordination among government agencies than equal collaborative governance.

Cadres’ low power challenges them to play a more active role in the convergence actions. They need empowerment to gain more control over how they participate in the collaborative process. The forum has helped cadres expand their agency and has the potential to change the social relationships among actors in convergence actions. Self-organizing volunteering can turn into social activism that leads to social relations in the convergence actions. However, the transformation of the cadre forum into more impactful social activism meets barriers that may hinder the expected relational changes, as discussed further in the following section.

4.3. Barriers to transforming social relations in collaborative governance

While volunteering is often perceived as a charitable action devoid of power, social activism may challenge existing power relations to create changes. However, there is an intersection between the two concepts (Henriksen and Svedberg 2010). The broad definition of volunteering includes the term ‘social change’ that inherently signifies power relations. Self-organizing volunteering encourages the collective actions of cadres in the Sukabumi Regency, indicating the potential to empower cadres and challenge unequal power relations through convergence actions. However, doing social activism at a grassroots level, particularly in a rural area, is challenging. In Sukabumi Regency, there are three main challenges to transforming self-organizing volunteering in stunting interventions into more impactful social actions. The challenges are discussed in the following sections.

4.3.1. Strong policy influence on collaborative governance

The government is the most powerful actor in the ECA. Its policies influence how the ECA is implemented, how actors perceive it, and their roles. The knowledge about collaboration to intervene in stunting is gained mainly through government policies. Cadres have shown an understanding of their expected roles in the future, but to date, an alternative view has yet to emerge from below. ‘Through strong collaboration, we are confident we can benefit the people’ [Interview with the forum leader]. Consequently, the ECA is run based on government policy, and the focus of cadres is on making marginal changes to the existing governance instead of changing the collaborative structures.

4.3.2. Lack of resources

The next barrier is a lack of resources. There needs to be more incentive for cadres to perform their activities and to run their forum. Cadres do not pay a membership fee for the forum. While ensuring a high turnout of members is good, it leaves the forum without financial means. The forum is an informal group of people from all villages in Sukabumi Regency. Thus, it is still excluded from the village fund intended for village-based organizations. Moreover, resources from non-governmental organizations, such as business enterprises and universities, are often non-monetary. This barrier puts a danger to the sustainability of the forum.

4.3.3. Resistance

Cadres in convergence actions are ‘partners’ or ‘collaborators’, the terms that give a sense of equality but are also apolitical in practice. Consequently, when cadres acted more politically to voice their interests, they met resistance. For instance, the forum demanded the government’s assistance using village funds to support the cadres. In response, government officials reminded cadres that their forum was not a part of the government; therefore, they had to look for financial support elsewhere. Stronger resistance, however, do not manifest in Sukabumi Regency. Government bodies still allowed the forum to run and became a part of the ECA processes. It shows that the democratic political climate and the growing roles of civil society in Indonesia prevented stronger backlash for self-organizing groups.

Self-organizing volunteers in Sukabumi Regency faced these barriers to bring about changes in the structure and processes of the collaboration. The forum has made significant contributions to the cadres’ agency expansion, but in changing the collaborative process, it is still at the infancy level. Nevertheless, the forum can still run in the regency, and the political figures acknowledge them as essential to the stunting intervention strategy. The situation demonstrates a promising future as a channel for the local community to play a more significant role in the collaborative governance of stunting intervention.

5. Conclusion

Social innovation becomes a critical part of development policy as both a means and an end. In this study, we presented a qualitative study concerning the work of self-organizing cadres as social innovations and their contribution to stunting interventions. The cadre system, which was initially state-driven volunteering, has been institutionalized by the cadres as they organize. The cadre forum contributes to agency expansion by providing a channel for peer-to-peer learning and understanding the cadre’s roles and future possibilities. It also becomes their tool for collective action while interacting with other actors in convergence actions. The forum leader represents other cadres in negotiations and communication, opening a space for creating changes to the collaborative structures of convergence stunting interventions.

There are several challenges in creating change in stunting convergence interventions, namely the strong influence of government policies in the structure and mechanism of convergence action, lack of resources, and resistance. These challenges may prevent self-organizing volunteers from providing an opportunity structure for further development in convergence action. However, the forum is essential in empowering cadres through voluntary community involvement in convergence action to create change in stunting convergence interventions in the region. In turn, their empowerment can create equal collaborative governance that can bring development programs closer to the targeted households at the grassroots level in the rural area.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the research team who strongly supported this research. This research was funded by the Politeknik STIA LAN Bandung, Indonesia.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).