RUANG KELABU, KEKOSONGAN INSTITUSI DAN TADBIR URUS ADAPTIF: KERANGKA INKLUSIF UNTUK SABAH
GREY ZONES, INSTITUTIONAL VOIDS AND ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE: AN INCLUSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SABAH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v7i1.1053Keywords:
sektor tidak formal, kekosongan institusi, tadbir urus adaptif, ruang kelabu, pembangunan inklusif, SabahAbstract
Artikel ini menganalisis kewujudan berterusan sektor tidak formal di luar bandar Sabah melalui perspektif Teori Institusi dan pembangunan lestari. Kajian ini berhujah bahawa aktiviti ekonomi dalam “ruang kelabu” bukan berpunca daripada ketidakpatuhan terhadap undang-undang, tetapi merupakan tindak balas rasional masyarakat terhadap kewujudan kekosongan institusi, khususnya apabila peraturan formal, norma sosial dan kefahaman bersama gagal berfungsi secara selari. Kajian ini menggunakan kaedah analisis dokumen kualitatif terhadap beberapa dokumen dasar utama, termasuk Rancangan Malaysia Kedua Belas (2021–2025), Pelan Pembangunan Sabah 2035, Sabah SME Blueprint serta laporan rasmi berkaitan sektor tidak formal. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa walaupun sektor tidak formal meningkatkan daya tahan ekonomi luar bandar, kebergantungan berpanjangan terhadap sistem tadbir urus tidak formal mengekalkan ketidaktentuan pekerjaan dan ke terhadapan perlindungan sosial. Artikel ini membangunkan Kerangka Institutional Voids–Informal Governance–SDG (IVIG–SDG) bagi menjelaskan hubungan dinamik antara kekosongan institusi, tadbir urus berasaskan komuniti dan potensi adaptif institusi formal. Kajian ini menegaskan bahawa pencapaian SDG 1, SDG 8 dan SDG 16 di Sabah memerlukan peralihan daripada pendekatan penguatkuasaan dan formalisasi semata-mata kepada tadbir urus adaptif yang berasaskan kerjasama kerajaan–komuniti serta reformasi institusi yang sensitif terhadap konteks tempatan.
This article examines the persistence of the informal sector in rural Sabah through the lens of Institutional Theory and sustainable development. It argues that economic activities operating within the “grey area” are not primarily the result of regulatory non-compliance, but rather represent a rational community response to institutional voids, particularly where formal regulations, social norms, and shared cognitive frameworks fail to operate in alignment. Using qualitative document analysis, the study reviews key policy documents, including the Twelfth Malaysia Plan (2021–2025), the Sabah Development Plan 2035, the Sabah SME Blueprint, and official reports on the informal sector. The findings indicate that while informal economic practices enhance rural economic resilience, prolonged reliance on informal governance mechanisms perpetuates employment insecurity and limited access to social protection. The article introduces the Institutional Voids–Informal Governance–SDG (IVIG–SDG) framework to conceptualise the dynamic interaction between institutional gaps, community-based governance, and institutional adaptive potential. It concludes that advancing SDG 1, SDG 8, and SDG 16 in Sabah requires a shift away from enforcement-driven formalisation towards adaptive governance grounded in state–community collaboration and context-sensitive institutional reform.
References
[1] Bowen, G.A. (2009): Document analysis as a qualitative research method. – Qualitative Research Journal 9(2): 27-40.
[2] Chen, M. (2006): Rethinking the informal economy: Linkages with the formal sector and the formal regulatory environment. – United Nations Development Programme 14p.
[3] Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J. (2005): Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. – Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441-473.
[4] Granovetter, M. (1985): Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. – American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481-510.
[5] Hart, K. (1973): Informal income opportunities and urban employment in Ghana. – Journal of Modern African Studies 11(1): 61-89.
[6] Mair, J., Martí, I. (2009): Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. – Journal of Business Venturing 24(5): 419-435.
[7] Ministry of International Trade and Industry Malaysia (MITI) (2022): Sabah SME Blueprint 2022-2030. – Kuala Lumpur: MITI 10p.
[8] North, D.C. (1990): Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. – Cambridge University Press 152p.
[9] Scott, W.R. (1995): Institutions and organizations. – Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 255p.
[10] Webb, J.W., Ireland, R.D., Ketchen, D.J., Reynolds, P.D. (2020): Entrepreneurship in developing economies: Understanding institutional voids. – Journal of Business Venturing 35(5): 105-132.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 NUR FIRZANA ROSMAN, MOHAMMAD ANIQ AMDAN, NALDO JANIUS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
