Digital Governance and the Equity Paradox: Evidence From Indonesia's Local Integrated Planning System

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between digital governance and social equity through the equity paradox. Drawing on a qualitative case study of Indonesia's nationally mandated Sistem Informasi Pemerintahan Daerah (SIPD) in Konawe Regency, it examines how procedural improvements occur, how equity enters planning, and why procedural gains do not necessarily translate into equity‐oriented outcomes. Evidence from 39 interviews and documents identifies four administrative mechanisms: standardization, procedural control and auditability, coordination, and transparency. Equity‐related needs enter planning through administrative categories, indicators, evidence, and prioritization processes. Yet fragmented information, uneven organizational capacity, compliance‐oriented practices, and institutional constraints limit the consistent recognition and prioritization of differentiated needs. This gap between procedural gains and equity‐oriented prioritization defines the equity paradox. The study shows why procedural improvement alone does not ensure equity‐oriented planning, contributing to digital governance, social equity, and public administration scholarship.