Integrated institutional model and API-based information system for seaweed agribusiness governance in South Sulawesi, Indonesia
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract. Haruna B, Yunarti, Zam W. 2026. Integrated institutional model and API-based information system for seaweed agribusiness governance in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Asian J Agric 10 (1): g100170. https://doi.org/10.13057/asianjagric/g100170. This study aimed to strengthen the governance of the seaweed agribusiness value chain in South Sulawesi, Indonesia, by developing an integrated institutional model and API-based information system. Preliminary analysis shows that the value chain is still characterized by information asymmetry, the dominance of intermediaries in market access, weak coordination between actors, and the lack of digital recording and consistent quality standards. This condition increases the cost of information, negotiation, and monitoring, and limits the bargaining position of farmers. The research uses a qualitative case study approach through in-depth interviews, FGD, document analysis, and expert validation. The data is thematically analyzed to map the actors, governance relationships, and main sources of transaction costs. The results of the analysis were used to design a new institutional model that strengthens the role of cooperatives and farmer groups as nodes for coordination, data consolidation, and collective negotiation, while improving working relationships with local governments, financial institutions, exporters, and universities. The model is operationalized through an API-based information system that supports data exchange, production recording, market demand, and documentation of transactions between actors. Validation is carried out through simulation-based functional testing of key operational scenarios, including production recording, market demand delivery, harvest ordering, and data synchronization between authorized users. The test results showed that the system was able to run key process flows consistently and provide a more transparent digital footprint for coordination needs. In agribusiness, this design has the potential to increase marketing certainty, assist production planning based on demand, accelerate coordination between sectors, and reduce farmers' reliance on informal information. Theoretically, these findings suggest that digitalization for smallholders will be more effective if it is accompanied by institutional restructuring, not just technology adoption. The developed system has achieved functional feasibility as the basis for pilot implementation and advanced field evaluation in South Sulawesi.
Article Details
Issue
Section

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Abate GT, Abay KA, Chamberlin J, Kassim Y, Spielman DJ, Tabe-Ojong MPJr. 2023. Digital tools and agricultural market transformation in Africa: Why are they not at scale yet, and what will it take to get there? Food Policy 116: 102439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102439.
Campbell KA, Orr E, Durepos P, Nguyen L, Li L, Whitmore C, Gehrke P, Graham L, Jack S. M. 2021. Reflexive thematic analysis for applied qualitative health research. Qual Rep 26 (6): 2011-2028. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5010.
Chatterjee S. 2023. Market power and spatial competition in rural India. Q J Econ 138 (3): 1649-1711. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad004.Cho Y, Murphy K. 2025. Tree-to-me: Standards-driven traceability for farm-level visibility. Agronomy 15 (5): 1074. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051074.
Espinosa Diaz S, Riccioli F, Di Lacovo F, Moruzzo R. 2023. Transaction costs in agri-environment-climate measures: A review of the literature. Sustainability 15 (9): 7454. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097454.
Frolov D. 2021. Blockchain and institutional complexity: An extended institutional approach. J Institutional Econ 17 (1): 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137420000272.
Ghatak M, Mookherjee D. 2025. Misallocating misallocation? Ann Rev Econom 17: 511-538. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-091624-051237.
Hackfort S. 2021. Patterns of inequalities in digital agriculture: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 13 (22): 12345. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212345.
Iliopoulos C, Theodorakopoulou I, Giotis T, Brunori G. 2025. Perceptions of the costs and benefits of farm digitalisation in Europe. EuroChoices 24 (2): 54-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12471.
Jiménez BR, Allen-Perkins D, Caballero DC, Martin R, Juárez LM. 2024. Qualitative significance as first-class evidence in the design and assessment of public policies: The vital plan for social inclusion in Extremadura, Spain. Intl J Qual Methods 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241254007.
Kopp T, Sexton RJ. 2020. Farmers, traders, and processors: Buyer market power and double marginalization in Indonesia. Am J Agric Econ 103 (2): 543-568. https://doi.org/10.1111/AJAE.12149.
Kubitza C, Veettil PC, Gupta I, Krupnik TJ. 2025. Can information constraints explain the low efficiency in premium quality rice cultivation? Evidence from smallholder farmers in Bangladesh. J Agric Econ 75 (2): 617-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12577.
López-Morales JA, Marinez JA, Skarmeta AF. 2020. Digital transformation of agriculture through the use of an interoperable platform. Sensors 20 (4): 1153. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20041153.
Mardenli A, Sackmann D, Fiedler A, Rhein S, Alghababsheh M. 2024. Determinants of information asymmetry in agri-food supply chains. Intl J Logist Manag 36 (1): 259-289. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2023-0330.
Muhonda P, Rice E, Bennett A, Liverpool-Tasie LSO, Belton B, Abaidoo E. 2024. Investigating the inclusiveness of the usipa value chain in Malawi. World Dev Perspect 33: 100552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2023.100552.
Ouerghemmi H, Frija A, Souissi A, Carpentier I, Shiri Z, Dhehibi B, Rejeb H. 2024. Are farmer organizations effective intermediaries and facilitators of agricultural innovations processes? Evidence from Tunisia. Front Sustain Food Syst 4: 1440086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1440086.
Rahmat YN, Neilson J, Langford A, Walyandra Z, Ruhon R, Armis R, Lapong I. 2024. Fluid institutions of access: Sea space as a livelihood resource in coastal Indonesia. J Agrar Chang 25 (2): e12617. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12617.
Reisman E, Fairbairn M, Kish Z. 2024. Agrarian platform capitalism: Digital rentiership comes to farming. Antipode 57 (1): 412-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.13107.
Ruder S-L, Wittman H. 2025. Agricultural data governance from the ground up: Exploring data justice with agri-food movements. Big Data Soc 12: 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517251330182.
Sauvagerd M, Mayer M, Hartmann M. 2024. Digital platforms in the agricultural sector: Dynamics of oligopolistic platformisation. Big Data Soc 11: 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241306365.
Seifert S, Kahle C, Huttel S. 2020. Price dispersion in farmland markets: What is the role of asymmetric information? Am J Agric Econ 103 (4): 1545-1568. https://doi.org/10.1111/AJAE.12153.
Sharma R, Sharma SK. 2025. Optimizing agricultural downstream supply chain: Addressing information asymmetry and losses. Bus Process Manag J 31 (7): 2801-2824. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2024-0097.
Shi J, Zhang J, Xie N, Yang Z, Luo J. 2022. An agricultural supply chain coordination model: The case of trinity comprehensive cooperation organization in China. Sustainability 14 (14): 8879. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148879.
Utama IMS, Widia IW, Arthawan IGKA, Parker JB, Arya NN, Sayaka B, Widyastuti S, Dahlanuddin, Djarkasi GSS, Sumual MF, Sumendap AL. 2025. From farm to HORECA: Advancing sustainable value chains for tourism-driven agribusiness in Indonesia. Front Sustain Food Syst 9: 1639384. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1639384.
Zheng Y, Mei L, Chen W. 2024. Does government policy matter in the digital transformation of farmers’ cooperatives? A tripartite evolutionary game analysis. Front Sustain Food Syst 8: 1398319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1398319.