Keywords

1 Introduction

Ministry of Energy and Mineral (Ministry of ESDM) (2018, 2019) reported, Indonesia has potential solar generation energy up to 207,898 MW (~4.80 kWh/m2/day) and considers photovoltaic (PV) to achieve 100% national electrification in 2022 that currently only utilized less than 0.05%. Government prioritizes new PV infrastructures in uncovered service areas of the state-owned electricity company (PLN), such as remote villages. Establishing PV energy is the nationally strategic renewable energy program that aims at 23% of total energy production from renewable sources in 2025 and will increase to 31% in 2050 (Peraturan Pemerintah No 79 Tahun 2014). It is also part of the Indonesian government’s commitment to climate change through the Ministry of Finance (Ministry of Finance, 2021).

The Government of Indonesia and PLN established a centralized PV generation system (PLTS) and a dispersed PV generation system (solar home system/SHS) (Asmara & Mitsufuji, 2017; Boedoyo, 2013). Both systems are beneficial for achieving the national electrification ratio (Boedoyo, 2013) and allowing the communities to extend their activities until night, especially education, social, and economic activities (Retnanestri et al., 2003; Setiawan et al., 2014).

In the last decades, PLTS/SHS projects have been facing continuity issues (see studies of Asmara & Mitsufuji, 2018; Retnanestri, 2007; Retnanestri et al., 2003; Setiawan et al., 2014). There is electricity generation degradation of PV power plants annually (Halimatussadiah et al., 2020), but there are no maintenance mechanism that considers the business model, policy, and community empowerment aspects of PLTS/SHS (Asmara & Mitsufuji, 2018; Hamdi, 2019; Retnanestri, 2007; Setiawan et al., 2014).

PV is a part of sophisticated technologies for solar energy generation (Adityawan, 2010; Durganjali et al., 2020; Halimatussadiah et al., 2020; Retnanestri et al., 2003) and has been studied by scholars from innovation and technology transition perspectives (Asmara, 2018; Kebede & Mitsufuji, 2017; Lo et al., 2013). Development of innovation involves academician, business, government, and community (ABGC) (Carayannis et al., 2012; Ivanova & Leydesdorff, 2014; Kuhlmann et al., 2010). As part of innovation, PV utilization in every country involves diverse stakeholders, including PV technology providers, PV technology users, government, and academicians. Those actors interact with each other in the particular innovation system (see Asmara, 2018; Geels et al., 2004; Kebede & Mitsufuji, 2017; Lo et al., 2013; Strupeit, 2017).

Currently, the continuity of PLTS/ SHS projects in Indonesia emerges as a massive issue in renewable energy discussion. Those projects involve government policy and technology providers, PV technology disseminators, and communities as PV users whose actors stay in a particular innovation system. Kieft et al. (2017) state that an innovation system (IS) is a mutual interaction resulting from multiactors closely tied by the existing infrastructures and institutions inside as well as strongly influencing the pace and direction of innovation.

PLTS/SHS projects should consider local condition variation such as geographical properties of the location, demography, social, and culture of the community. It needs a regional innovation system (RIS) to ensure the PLTS/SHS continuity projects. Isaksen (2001) and Parto& Doloreux (2004) define RIS as an industrial agglomeration that adopts geographical aspects in the actors’ interaction (providers, users, intermediary unit/technology diffusion, and government) in the same region to stimulate economic growth. RIS is like an innovation platform with actual space.

PV industry development requires not solely extensive support from RIS to obtain a market-ready product, because each region has a diverse ability to provide the latest technology. Updated technologies can be provided from other regions. In this sense, a network and interaction among actors from different regions within or beyond the national border are required (Hipp & Binz, 2020). The notion of network and interaction among actors will focus on a specific sector. Sectoral innovation system (SIS) is required to provide a solution to spur PV industry development and to serve as a solid foundation for the region’s economic growth (Strupeit, 2017). Like an innovation platform with networks, SIS focuses on a particular industrial sector development by which actors are mutually interlinked, getting through borders of regions/countries (Malerba & Mani, 2009).

RIS and SIS have identical actors that possibly build a connection and trust. In this sense, both systems are virtually connected. RIS has limitations because economic activities and innovation learning resulting from actors’ interactions beyond the region border are different in nature(Chung, 2002). Therefore, this study aims to construct a new approach by combining RIS and SIS in developing an IS for PLTS/SHS projects continuity in Indonesia.

ABGC actors are interlinked with each other to create an IS (Casadella, 2018; Geels et al., 2004; Nordfors, 2004). ABGC actors exist at the Indonesian PV development projects, they are Ministry of ESDM, Ministry of Village, local government agencies (government), the state-owned electricity enterprise (PLN), PT INTI, PT LEN, and other electricity state enterprises (business), universities and public research & development (R&D) institutes (academician), as well as nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and local communities (society) (Asmara, 2018; Asmara & Mitsufuji, 2017; Setiawan et al., 2014).

Government and business are dominant actors to build public-funded projects of PLTS/SHS in Indonesia (Asmara & Mitsufuji, 2018). Due to limited governmental resources, involvement of nongovernment actors is required to provide public service optimally, such as society and academician (Rhodes, 2017; Valkama et al., 2013). Electrification service to rural inhabitants through PLTS/SHS projects could not be delivered by Government of Indonesia and business efficiently. Retnanestri et al. (2003) and Retnanestri (2007) revealed that academicians and local communities should be intensely involved to sustain PLTS/SHS projects in Indonesia.

The existence of government and industry to develop PLTS/SHS projects need to be connected to local communities and academician through RIS and SIS to achieve the goal of sustainable PLTS/SHS projects in Indonesia. Geels et al. (2004) reveal that governance of various actors is a key aspect to IS leading to sustainable aspect. Sørensen & Torfing (2007); Torfing (2007) provide network governance (NG) perspective as an appropriate lens to capture how government and nongovernment actors are involved in addressing public issues coherently. Those actors are mutually interlinked to solve public problems; they are still autonomous and independent actors, not influenced by other actors.

Studies of utilization, sustainability, and transition of PV technologies in many countries are mostly on IS as a whole (see (Hipp & Binz, 2020), singly SIS approach (see (Strupeit, 2017), and technological innovation system (TIS) (see (Esmailzadeh et al., 2020; Hanson, 2018; Kebede & Mitsufuji, 2017; Shubbak, 2019). There are no studies on using SIS and RIS concepts combined with the NG perspective on PV innovation development. Therefore, this study fills the conceptual and practical gap of previously existing PV innovation studies. This study aims to answer two main questions: 1) What are the current issues of PLTS/SHS development projects in Indonesia? How is an innovation system of PLTS/SHS projects built through NG perspective in Indonesia?

2 Literature Review

2.1 Sustainable Issue and Renewable Energy

Energy is an integral part of human activities, such as electricity. It held an important role during the industrialization revolution and still prevails to date (Ahuja & Tatsutani, 2009). Electricity generation is increasing due to increasing demand and fossil fuel as the primary source of electricity in the last 46 years (IEA, 2021). Unfortunately, fossil fuel is limited available in nature. Regardless, the remaining deposit is adequate for the next 120 years (Kakaras et al., 2012), sustainable development and climate change issues urge reducing fossil fuel use and utilizing renewable energy (RE) instead (Owusu & Asumadu-Sarkodie, 2016; Welsby et al., 2021).

Simultaneously, Fossil fuel usage possibly harms the environment, human health, and even future generations (Annamalai et al., 2018; Berenshtein et al., 2019; Carlson & Adriano, 1993; Edenhofer et al., 2011; Hansen et al., 2013; Lubchenco et al., 2012; Mishra & Das, 2017; Reuscher et al., 2020). Therefore, the government eagerly regulates from production to waste management stages, even dependence on fossil fuel (Aien & Mahdavi, 2020). RE sources like wind, water, and solar are promising to combat climate change and ensure energy sustainability (Kumar & Majid, 2020; Moriarty & Honnery, 2016). They are considerably cleaner than fossil fuels (Jain, 2019). IEA has recorded that RE utilization in electricity generation has increased by 10% in the last 46 years (IEA, 2021).

2.2 Photovoltaic Energy

The isolated and remote communities are often facing energy deficiency, mainly electricity (Zomers, 2003). PV technology is advancing (Durganjali et al., 2020; Goetzberger et al., 2002) and empirically resolve unelectrified communities and provide quality of life improvement (Cravioto et al., 2020). The type of off-grid PV can be installed anywhere. Installed PV is increasing steadily (IEA, 2021) and is predicted to be the largest installed power capacity (IRENA, 2019). PV has the potential to meet electricity demand in Indonesia (Silalahi et al., 2021). In 2019, the installed PV capacity reached 135 MW (Dewan Energi Nasional, 2020). Individual power producers (IPPs) produce more power than state- and private-owned electricity companies combined (Center for Data and Information Technology on Energy Mineral Resources, 2021).

Despite the bright future, adopting and installing PV have numerous challenges and obstacles spanning from the individual level to global level. Policy emerges as the main obstacle in introducing PV to the community (Lazdins et al., 2021). From the community perspective as users, solar PV is considered a high-technology energy generation and maintenance complexity (Alrashoud & Tokimatsu, 2019). Another increasing issue, scholars emphasized PV panels waste (Chowdhury et al., 2020).

2.3 Innovation

Innovation is a newness that results from research and development (R&D) activities conducted by universities and/or R&D institutes that can be commercialized to market (see Balachandra et al. (2010); Nelson in Casadella (2018)). Innovation also results from engineering reverse or development of existing invention as developing countries do (Aminullah et al., 2018; Mani, 2002). Innovation is also a newness in a new place, though it is the old one in previous places (Rogers, 1995). Innovation has four types: product innovation, process innovation, organization innovation, and marketing innovation (OECD-Eurostat, 2005). All innovation types are possibly applied in business and public organizations (Gault, 2018; Yip & McKern, 2016). It is possible to have one or more of those innovation types.

2.4 Regional and Sectoral Innovation System

A system consists of complex actors with various motives and networks, tied by an institution pattern (Gault, 2018). An innovation system (IS) is a mechanism to analyze and understand the innovation process by which surrounding actors interact with and learn from each other to develop economic growth strategy at the regional or national level or particular sector (Lundvall et al., 2009). There are four main characteristics of IS: (1) co-evolutionary practice of technology supply and demand side, (2) change of structure elements on socio-technical system, (3) historical events in a change process, (4) involvement of multiactors and their networks (Geels et al., 2004). Multiactors are academicians, businesses, governments, and communities (ABGC) (Carayannis et al., 2012; de Oliveira et al., 2017; Ivanova & Leydesdorff, 2014). Those characteristics develop conceptually into national innovation system (NIS), regional innovation system (RIS), sectoral innovation system (SIS), and technological innovation system (TIS) (Lundvall et al., 2009; Malerba & Mani, 2009; Schrempf et al., 2013).

RIS is localized-economy development through knowledge transfer and innovation learning in a region (Isaksen, 2001; Lim, 2006; OECD, 2010; Parto & Doloreux, 2004). It is defined as a network and its linkage of multilayer and complex ABGC actors in doing innovation activities such as generation of innovation, learning of science-technology, knowledge transfer, business activities, diffusion, and utilization of innovation (Chung, 2002). While SIS focuses on foundation, structure, organization, and innovation-production dynamics in particular sectors. The sector is a set of activities interlinked with emerging demand on specific product(s) and its knowledge. SIS consists of elements: (1) enterprises actors (focal point actor), (2) nonenterprises actors, (3) networks, (4) demand, (5) institutions, (6) knowledge base, (7) Main process and coevolution, (8) transboundary of local, national, and global level (Malerba & Mani, 2009).

RIS and SIS have intersection elements; Isaksen (2001) states that RIS comprises interaction among actors (firms, universities, R&D institutes, finance agencies, intermediary agencies, business associations, training houses, etc.). Firms in industrial clusters are focal points to generate and diffuse knowledge. Malerba and Mani (2009) assert that SIS pays attention to innovation processes at particular sectors trespassing jurisdictions across regions and countries’ boundaries, while jurisdictions bound NIS and RIS at the national and regional levels. Strupeit (2017) reveals that SIS evolves swiftly in dynamic landscape of market, policy, and technology. According to Chung (2002), RIS can promote to create SIS effectively. Moreover, the SIS helps create RIS that focuses on specific industry development.

2.5 Network Governance

The concept of network governance (NG) is often interchanged with governance networks. Both have something in common: they emphasize the interdependence of autonomous actors in realizing public goals (Marsh, 1998; Sørensen & Torfing, 2007; Torfing, 2007). Although there is an interdependent relationship, the position of each actor is equal. Even actor participation in the network is voluntary and free to leave the network (Sørensen & Torfing, 2007). Their interaction is carried out through negotiation and is relatively institutionalized (Torfing, 2007).

NG is considered an approach to understand political and administrative relationships of some actors, which in many cases are not determined by formal rule (Bogason & Zølner, 2007). However, actors try to develop both formal and informal regulations to create a more stable interaction (Sørensen & Torfing, 2007). Furthermore, Provan and Kenis (2007) formulated three forms of NG as mentioned in Table 24.1.

Table 24.1 Main predictors of the effectiveness of forms of network governance
Full size table

NG has a vital role in an innovation process (Khan, 2013; Zhang et al., 2019). This type of governance can bridge the interaction between disciplines (Guo et al., 2017; Laranja, 2012), by which each actor has a wide opportunity to enter the network. They can share information as well as do an interactive learning process leading to innovation (Bauknecht et al., 2020). The domain of innovation is not only in science and technology policies but also in other sector domains such as education, agriculture, health, etc. (Guo et al., 2017; Laranja, 2012). Interdisciplinary interactions also encourage sustainable innovation implementation (Rossignoli & Lionzo, 2018).

NG pays greater attention to the importance of community involvement in formulating and implementing an innovation (Laranja, 2012). The role of communities can enrich perception to formulate an innovation, provide sufficient resources to implement an innovation, and foster public trust among involved actors (Guo et al., 2017). An IS is run by ABGC actors by which they have respective interests and motives. Thus, the most appropriate form of NG will depend on the addressed issue and how ABGC actors interact.

2.6 Conceptual Framework

ABGC actors should be closely interlinked through cooperation or even competition in creating IS (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020; Marshall & Parra, 2019). Therein, IS governance is required due to the complexity of involved actors (de Oliveira et al., 2017; Geels et al., 2004). NG is a fitted form by which actors are mutually interlinked, but each cannot directly influence other actors (Sørensen & Torfing, 2007). The institution exists to respond to actors’ interlinkage, or it results from the socioeconomic change (Altenburg, 2009). This study focuses on NG perspective on RIS and SIS development with national jurisdiction as the boundary (Fig. 24.1).

Fig. 24.1
A conceptual model depicts four circular spheres labeled A, B, C, and G that are linked by R I S 1,2,3,4. Strategic projects are connected to the Sectoral Innovation System.

NG on Development of RIS and SIS. (Source: Adopted from Schrempf et al., 2013; Ivanova & Leydesdorff, 2014; Strupeit, 2017)

Full size image

3 Research Method

The study is qualitative research using multiple case studies. Creswell (2014) argues that qualitative study aims to reveal real phenomena, including scrutinizing an interrelation of involved actors in multiple cases. This study focuses on the actors and their relations to develop PLTS/SHS projects in Indonesia, including identifying sustainability issues of those projects. There are 14 PLTS projects and 1 SHS hamlet project as case studies dispersedly located in 8 regency governments within five province governments. The period of research was in 2014 year and 2018–2020 years sequentially (Table 24.2).

Table 24.2 List of visited PLTS/SHS project sites
Full size table

Collecting data was conducted through in-depth interviews with 51 key informants consisting of 24 villagers, including head villagers, 12 local government officers at the regency level, one local government officer at the province level, two Ministry of ESDM officers, three PV enterprises employees, three PLN employees, four academicians at universities and R&D institutes, one former PLN employee, and one former local government officer at regency level. The researchers observed the operation and maintenance of PLTS/SHS project in sites. Also, we collected relevant documents such as regulations, region planning agendas, PLN’s electricity report, and Indonesian PV project inventory.

Data analysis was also carried out to produce a narrative about the relationship among actors to identify sustainability issues of PLTS/SHS projects and to propose IS design for PV development conceptually in Indonesia. According to Creswell (2014), qualitative method is helpful for researchers in capturing the complexity of the issue and in providing a contextual understanding. Those benefits will assist researchers in identifying the NG forms in the IS development of PLTS/SHS projects.

4 Result and Discussion

4.1 The Current Issues of PLTS/SHS Projects in Indonesia

PLTS/SHS projects are installed in rural areas, small and isolated islands without PLN’s electricity grid PLN. This study explores 15 PLTS/SHS project sites categorized as following: electricity capacity, funding, PV builder, benefit for users, involved actors, and existing issues. The electricity capacity of PLTS units ranges from 10 KWp to 5 MW, only has the SHS unit has the capacity of 20 Watt. The 12 of 15 PV projects are funded by Ministry of ESDM, Ministry of village (one project), and PLN (two projects). Most of them are off-grid PLTS type, and the rests are on-grid PLTS connected to PLN’s electricity grid. The SHS is automatically is off-grid type. Type of electricity grid and PV funding source are two main factors influencing PV project builders, involved actor roles, benefit for villagers/users, and issue to be addressed (see Asmara & Mitsufuji, 2018). Though, benefit for PLTS/SHS users is relatively similar on several sites (See on the appendix) (Fig. 24.2).

Fig. 24.2
A four square grid with four zones marked as 1,2,3 and 4. The rows are marked as government funding and P L N funding,the columns are marked as on grid P V and off grid P V.

Typology of sustainable PV problems in Indonesia

Full size image

All PLTS/SHS projects (type I, II, III, IV) face similar problems: high cost of PV components and limited PV experts in Indonesia. Type I by which the very simplistic problems (see No.3 in the appendix). Type II is the simplistic problem (see No. 10 in the appendix). Type III is a complex problem (see No 2 in the appendix). Type IV is the highly complex problem (see No 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 in the appendix). The most complex problems are faced by Type IV such as limited electrical capacity to illuminate activities throughout the day, high technology, no maintenance due to low skill of local community, broken PV components after guarantee time over, high cost of transportation to site, high cost of PV components. Moreover, each region of PV projects has unique added issues as exemplified like (1) thievery of PV components, (2) reaving excessive electricity access surreptitiously occurred in and (3) the increasing households, the decreasing capacity of electricity.

In linear with global PV problems supposed to (Alrashoud & Tokimatsu, 2019), the main problems of PLTS/SHS projects are affordable PV technology availability and its experts in Indonesia. Secondly, each region where PLTS/SHS projects depend on socio-economy, local culture, geography, and demographycal attributes. Sectoral and regional domains are like “it takes two to tango” by which both are a fused concept used to address problems of PLTS/SHS projects in Indonesia. While PV is the sophisticated and highly updated technology requiring IS involving ABGC actors to develop it. Fusing SIS and RIS concepts to sustainable PLTS/SHS projects is feasibly proposed in Indonesia.

4.2 Discussion

Although both are feasible in the adjacent starting point, RIS and SIS can be created in different pathways because they have intersection parts (Chung, 2002). Co-evolutionary practice and historical events proposed by Geels et al. (2004) are two of the main elements of IS that underlay rationality of nearly time as a starting point in creating RIS and SIS adjacently and closely. RIS and SIS are interaction networks generated by ABGC actors (Malerba & Mani, 2009; Parto & Doloreux, 2004). Each of them is autonomous and independent, but they cooperatively address public problems according to their interests (Sørensen & Torfing, 2016).

Context of Indonesian ABGC actors can be defined as follows: (1) Academicians (A) are those who work as lecturers at universities and as researchers at R&D institutes, either public or private ownership. (2) Business (B) actors (state-owned/private) are main enterprises like PV-manufacturing firms and supporting enterprises like electricity firms, PLN, ingot/steel/aluminum firms, PV assembly, distributor, and installer firms, finance agencies, etc. The main goal of this actor is profit oriented. (3) Government agencies (G) are all agencies at the central and local Government of Indonesia. The central government like Ministry of ESDM, Ministry of Village, Ministry of Finance, etc. The local government like local agency of planning at province/municipality/regency level, local agency of energy at province level, etc. (4) Communities (C) are nongovernment organization(s) (NGOs), villagers/people, local partners, PV association(s), mass media, education institutes, and socio-culture-politics groups. Communities are commonly nonprofit organizations, but they also get external funding and nonfunding support to operate their daily activities (Fig. 24.3).

Fig. 24.3
Four S I S circular spheres marked A B C and G in the middle, and four sets of smaller circular spheres marked R I S on the four sides, are interconnected.

Two-Sided RIS and SIS Frame in Developing Sustainable PV Projects in Indonesia. (Source: Analyzed research result with modification from Schrempf et al., 2013; Ivanova & Leydesdorff, 2014; Strupeit 2017)

: Interlinkage of RIS on PLTS/SHS projects and SIS on PV industry development

: Interrelation among ABGC actors both in RIS and SIS on PLTS/SHS projects

Full size image

4.3 Building RIS on PV Industry Cluster

Emergency of industrial cluster created by a nest of firms is not guaranteed to be an innovation cluster. The role of government is to initiate and facilitate creation of innovation cluster, because the government functions to provide terrain for industry cluster formally (see World Bank, 2010). Role of government is pivotal to transform from industry agglomeration to innovation cluster in a region, for instance, in building Hsinchu Science Industrial Park (HSIP) in Taiwan (Yang et al., 2009), and in the Suzhou Dushu Lake Science and Education Innovation District (SEID) in China (Sun et al., 2019). RIS also focuses on developing regionally knowledge-based economy (KBE). Therefore, PV industries are parts of a region’s technology-based industries (TBIs).

Government

Economic affairs excluding fiscal and monetary are decentralized to local government. Building KBE-like PV innovation cluster in a region is the duty of province and regency/municipality government. Province government agency responds and directs municipality/regency government agencies to make specific policies such as local regulations, middle-long term programs, multiyear budget allocation, incentives or levy allowance, and establishing public infrastructures to promote PV R&D activities and commercializing PV innovation to society/users. Besides providing terrain to build PV innovation cluster, another main task of local government agency is to address current issues of PLTS/SHS projects of users and business players. Really, local government agencies have limited capacity to do it because they do not have equal information and resources.

Academician

Universities and R&D institutes are main institutes to generate new PV ideas, PV publications, PV technologies/prototypes, bring up PV R&D results to firms, and disseminate it to end users. In Indonesia, each region has local-standardized universities, most of them do not have the capacity to conduct national-global PV R&D activities. Even most of the region does not have PV R&D institutes. Academicians will find it easier to play their roles if government facilitates PV R&D activities.

Business

Firms are motors of IS. Since government facilitates academicians and communities to do many PV activities, firms can benefit from this opportunity to absorb much information and knowledge and to upgrade PV technologies from supply-side (academician) and demand-side (communities). Besides, finance agencies are business actors playing roles to support PV finance schemes. The scheme can be soft loans with or without guarantee, equipment procurements, PV maintenance, or other finance agreement types. Academicians are feasible to get funding grants for doing PV R&D activities, but it is not directly delivered by finance agencies but by PV firms. Unfortunately, completed firms and financial institutions mentioned above are very rare in many regions.

Community

In collaboration with academicians and the government, communities are involved as mentors in empowering villagers/PV users, as PV disseminators to many regions, and as silencer/reliever amidst PV conflict in communities. The government’s facilitation to academicians, business, and communities will influence community activities in supporting PLTS/SHS projects. Unfortunately, very few local communities like NGOs and youth villagers have knowledge about PV technology and its maintenance (Table 24.3).

Table 24.3 Interrelation of ABGC actors in building PV industry cluster
Full size table

In the RIS frame, government facilitates PV activities for ABC actors. ABGC actors mutually collaborate to build multiyear PLTS/SHS projects according to their respective duty and responsibility, and each of them is profitable with these networks. Notwithstanding, each actor has limited capacity and resources, partial information/knowledge, and minimal public facilities to realize RIS on PV. Widening PV networks, cooperations, and collaborations with other ABGC actors at local and national level or even across countries is required. Building PV innovation cluster is not only the domain of regional ABGC actors, but intersection with national and global ABGC actors. Accordingly, building RIS on PV is accompanied by building SIS on PV.

4.4 Building SIS on PV Industry Development

SIS covers a paucity of RIS focused on general KBE development in a region. SIS focuses on a specific product leading to a specific focus on RIS. As supply-side, enterprises exist and grow with their networks across regions and nations to respond to market demands. Universities and R&D institutes collaborate with institutions across regions and nations to bring up R&D results to firms. They often utilize the opportunity of “open policy window” to come through existing policies to respond to market demands. Strupeit (2017) reveals that SIS evolves swiftly in dynamic landscape of market, policy, and technology. Multi-level perspective (MLP) proposed by Geels (2005, 2011) simplifies our understanding of how firms and universities/R&D institutes at the niche level actively react to respond to market/communities at the landscape level by passing through governmental policies at the regime level.

Community

Communities can trigger market demands at landscape level. They can stimulate firms and universities/R&D institutes to develop new products/technologies and stimulate central and local government agencies to respond to existing market demands to open policy window opportunities. Communities can stimulate PV development activities for ABG actors inside and outside regions/countries.

Academician

PV R&D activities are stimulated by landscape condition; if communities need new PV technologies, universities/R&D institutes will react to bring up PV R&D results to firms at the niche level, though government regime in a region or country limits/hinders those activities. Indeed, R&D results are possible to be responded by other firms at different niches and by other government agencies at different regime levels that want to develop PV in its region/country.

Business

Firms and universities/R&D institutes are at the niche level. Firms produce marketable PV products, while universities/R&D institutes generate latest PV technologies. Landscape conditions also stimulate them; if communities need new PV products, firms will react to meet market demands by involving universities/R&D institutes through government regimes in a region/country limit/hinder those activities. Rather, firms can involve universities/R&D institutes from another niche level to collaborate in producing new PV products. Firms have direct access from niche to landscape (market) utilizing the PV-opened policy windows across regions/countries. In this case, the role of finance agencies adjusts to existing conditions of firms, government policies, and market demands.

Government

National and local government agencies, at the regime level, are intermediary actors for firms and universities/R&D institutes at the niche level and communities at the landscape level. Policy windows for developing PV will be easily opened when high pressure from landscape-level emerges and when firms and universities/R&D institutes prompt government to support PV activities from niche level due to high PV market demands. It is important for the government to facilitate ABC actors in developing PV projects and address its issues with many policy schemes like incentives, multiyear programs, allocated and specific budgets, community empowerment, etc. Often, strength of market demand is not responded to by government agencies in developing countries quickly. Consequently, there is a “policy vacuum” condition in temporary periods, and the PV policy window is largely opened until the government responds formally (Table 24.4).

Table 24.4 Inter-relation of ABGC actors in building PV industry development
Full size table

Introducing PV to communities faces obstacles both at the individual level and global level, and one of them is hindering policy (Lazdins et al., 2021). In the SIS frame, ABGC are autonomous and independent actors mutually interlinked without negating their respective interests. Central and local government agencies are catalysts to facilitate ABC interaction in developing PV inside and outside regions/countries. Academicians and businesses can respond to communities’ demands through a closed policy window in a region/country. Those actors can collaborate with other ABGC actors across niche, regime, and landscape level. Edler et al. (2016) propose that innovation policy can be delivered by adopting the demand and supply side. Role of government is to bridge interests between ABGC actors in a region/country.

4.5 Network Governance Form in Building RIS and SIS for PV Sustainability

SIS and RIS focus on industry as key actors (Isaksen, 2001; Malerba & Mani, 2009). RIS is based on industrial region cluster, while SIS is based on industrial sector development. The involvement of ABGC actors is significant because multiple actors with different roles operate IS. NG is a lens to capture each actor’s role and how they interact with each other. RIS can be initiated by central and/or local government in collaboration with firms to make PV industry cluster. Next step, the government can facilitate universities and R&D institutes to support those firms in manufacturing PV technologies.

Communities play many roles, such as PV users, PV mentors, PV disseminators, and PV observers that can be formed by the government or emerge by themselves to respond to the PV market. Adjusting from Rhodes (2017), NG form on the government to firms and academician can be delivered through centralization by which government is the leading actor to initiate and facilitate PV innovation cluster. While, NG form on government to communities is decentralization form by which government is an equal partner with communities that mediates firms and academicians to be actively involved in PV innovation cluster.

Industry networks across regions/countries stimulate SIS to respond to national and global market demands. The decentralized NG fits with SIS. Firms will be a magnet of ABG actors. Academicians will support firms with R&D results, communities will be users and partners of firms in maintaining PV production scale. While the government will facilitate and coordinate ABC actors with regulations, incentives, infrastructure, funding, etc.

The building design of RIS and SIS depends on how actors’ networks are mutually interconnected. Provan and Kenis (2007) provide three forms of NG, namely, participant-governed network (Participant NG), lead organization-governed networks (Lead NG), and network administrative organization (Administrative NG), which are useful to delineate wholly various networks among involved actors. According to North (1990), organization is player(s), a bulk of many actors to achieve common goals.

Lead NG is apt to form to initiate RIS. Government intervention is critical to building PV innovation cluster, not PV agglomeration. After it is built, its sustainability is conducted through applying administrative NG. ABC actors are strongly involved in making sustainable to this cluster. The government is one contributor to making administrative rules tying them to promote PV innovation cluster. However, innovation cluster often leads to conflict (Noteboom, 2006), so participant NG is fitted to solve conflicts, and the role of government is as a mediator for ABC actors in addressing conflict. It needs participative discussion action, not coercive government action.

Context of SIS, firms are the main actors, while ACG actors are supporting actors. Participant NG is required to initiate SIS on PV. Formal and informal ties are required to keep all actors staying on the road. Accordingly, administrative NG is suitable in sustaining SIS on PV by which each actor can collaborate formally and informally. Like RIS, the practice of SIS also often emerges conflict among involved actors. The emergence of conflict on SIS can be approached through Lead NG. SIS is initiated with participatory NG and tied formally with administrative NG. It means that many rooms are opened to collaborate among actors since the initiating phase to the sustaining phase of SIS. Therefore, Lead NG through government role is required to mediate conflict among actors.

5 Conclusion

PLTS/SHS type and its funding sources are the main elements leading to complex issues of PLTS/SHS sustainability in Indonesia. There are four categories of PLTS/SHS problems: very simplistic problems, simplistic problems, complex problems, and highly complex problems. It means that the more on-grid PV funded by PLN, the more simplistic problems yielded. While the more off-grid PV financed by the government, the more complex problems yielded. RIS and SIS are suitable concepts to reduce those problems and sustain PLTS/SHS projects in Indonesia. Building RIS and SIS requires ABGC actors’ collaboration by which each actor has their own resources and capacity to achieve their respective goals.

Suggestion for Indonesia, the ABGC collaboration in building PV sustainable projects can be started from RIS firstly through Lead NG that is subsequently formed SIS through participatory NG. Both can be formally tied through administrative NG and sustained through participant NG. In the future, the Government of Indonesia should pay more attention to creating national PV market by stimulating academicians and businesses to collaborate in yielding new PV technologies, because RIS and SIS exist due to cooperation and competition across regions/countries. Future studies should address more detailed RIS and SIS elements of PV industry cluster(s).