Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Indonesia’s post-authoritarian reform era has produced an institutional contradiction in which decentralisation remains formally embedded in the political system, while strategic development initiatives have increasingly shifted toward centralised governance. This article examines this contradiction in the Mandalika Special Economic Zone (SEZ) through the lens of inter-imperialism, which captures the centre-periphery relationship in which the central state, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and domestic and transnational capital combine exceptional regulation, concentrated finance, and territorial control to reorganise peripheral spaces for accumulation while constraining subnational authority and local participation. Using an interpretive qualitative approach grounded in in-depth interviews and document analysis, this study argues that recentralisation in Mandalika is not merely an administrative adjustment but a political-economic process of capital expansion. The findings identify two determining dynamics: capital expansion and the symbolic reproduction of political legitimacy. These processes operate through regulatory interventions, institutional consolidation, and ideological mechanisms that frame tourism-led development as a symbol of national progress.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Febriansyah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: