Implementation of universal welfare policies in the Global South: a case study of Indonesia’s free nutritious meal program

1 Introduction

Over the past two decades, welfare policies in many countries of the Global South have undergone significant transformations in terms of scale, design, and political function (Nguyen et al., 2024). Welfare programs in the fields of nutrition, health, and education are no longer understood merely as instruments of social redistribution, but also as mechanisms for building state legitimacy and asserting governmental capacity. Countries such as India, Brazil, and South Africa have developed large-scale national nutrition and social assistance programs as part of broader strategies for human development and social stability (Lavers, 2022). However, in many cases, the implementation of these welfare policies has encountered serious challenges when universal policy designs confront deeply unequal social, economic, and institutional realities at the local level (Patel, 2024).

The public policy literature highlights implementation as a critical weakness of welfare policies in the Global South. Centrally designed programs often experience distortion when implemented in contexts characterized by decentralization, limited institutional capacity, and entrenched social inequalities (Reininger et al., 2026). Under such conditions, welfare policies not only risk failing to reach the most vulnerable populations but may also generate new and unintended forms of exclusion (Webb and Vanqa Mgijima, 2024).

Indonesia faces similar dynamics through the Free Nutritious Meal Program (Program Makan Bergizi Gratis, MBG), a national policy aimed at addressing malnutrition and stunting by providing nutritious meals to schoolchildren (Sari, 2025). Normatively, MBG represents a universal welfare approach that positions the state as the primary actor in fulfilling basic nutritional needs. However, as with many welfare policies in the Global South, the success of MBG is highly contingent upon the processes of implementation at the local level, where diverse actors, interests, and social conditions intersect (Sari, 2025).

To date, much of the research on nutrition policy and stunting reduction in Indonesia has focused on program effectiveness, health outcomes, or administrative performance (Subramanian et al., 2022). Such approaches tend to frame implementation challenges as technical or managerial issues, including budget constraints, service quality, or compliance with operational standards (Sher-Hadar, 2024). In contrast, studies that conceptualize welfare policy implementation as a political and institutional process remain relatively limited.

Yet, implementation studies consistently demonstrate that policy outcomes are profoundly shaped by the interaction between policy content and implementation context, including power relations among actors, institutional interests, and local socio-economic conditions (Mthethwa, 2025). This research gap is also evident in the broader literature on welfare policies in the Global South, where relatively few studies explicitly link implementation failures or distortions in universal programs to governance dynamics and state legitimacy at the local level (Prieto, 2023). Consequently, there remains a significant gap in understanding how universal welfare policies are enacted and negotiated within socially and institutionally heterogeneous contexts (Yang et al., 2021).

North Sulawesi Province provides a particularly important analytical case for examining the implementation of Indonesia’s Free Nutritious Meal Program (MBG) because it reflects many of the structural challenges commonly encountered in welfare policy implementation across the Global South. The province is characterized by pronounced geographical fragmentation, encompassing mainland and remote island districts, substantial disparities in infrastructure and public service accessibility, and considerable variation in local administrative capacity. These characteristics create a highly heterogeneous implementation environment in which nationally standardized policy designs are confronted with diverse local realities. Consequently, North Sulawesi offers a critical empirical setting for investigating how the interaction between policy content and implementation context shapes policy outcomes, governance dynamics, and patterns of social inclusion and exclusion under a universal welfare policy framework.

Based on this background and research gap, this article poses the following main research question:

How does the interaction between policy content and implementation context shape the practices and outcomes of the Free Nutritious Meal Program at the local level?

This main question is elaborated through the following sub-questions:

• How are targeting mechanisms and program implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program carried out at the local level?
• Which actors are involved in program implementation, and how do power relations among them influence policy execution?
• Under what conditions can a universal welfare policy such as MBG generate social exclusion in regions characterized by social and geographical inequality?

Based on these research questions, the objective of this article is to analyze the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program as a process of policy governance, with particular attention to the relationship between national policy content and local social, political, and institutional contexts. Through a case study in North Sulawesi Province, this article aims to contribute to theoretical debates on welfare policy implementation in the Global South, particularly regarding the limitations of universal welfare policies in reaching the most vulnerable populations.

2 Literature review

2.1 Universal welfare policies and implementation challenges in the global south

In contemporary public policy literature, universal welfare policies are understood as state strategies aimed at ensuring the fulfillment of citizens’ basic needs without categorical discrimination (Laenen and Gugushvili, 2021). This approach has been widely adopted by countries in the Global South as a response to structural inequalities and low levels of human capital (jules et al., 2023). However, recent studies demonstrate that the success of universal welfare policies is highly contingent upon implementation contexts, particularly in decentralized governance systems characterized by pronounced social inequalities (Aerts et al., 2025).

Comparative studies across Asia, Africa, and Latin America indicate that universal policies frequently experience distortion during the implementation stage. In India, the Midday Meal Scheme has faced problems of mistargeting and uneven service quality across regions due to variations in local government capacity (Dey, 2023). Similar findings have been reported in Brazil, where national welfare programs exhibit uneven performance as a result of local political relations and asymmetrical institutional incentives (Pinto et al., 2023). Research in South Africa likewise highlights that school feeding programs are vulnerable to geographical exclusion and governance weaknesses, particularly in remote areas (Mainje et al., 2024).

This body of literature suggests that failures in the implementation of universal welfare policies are not merely technical problems, but rather the result of complex interactions between national policy design and local socio-political conditions (Álvarez-Cronin and Noguera, 2025). Nevertheless, much of the existing research remains focused on policy outcomes and has not sufficiently examined the institutional mechanisms and power relations that shape implementation practices at the local level (Casula, 2024).

2.2 Policy implementation as a political and institutional process

Since the emergence of implementation studies, scholars have emphasized that implementation is not a mechanical stage following policy formulation, but rather a political and administrative arena characterized by negotiation among actors (Sager and Hinterleitner, 2022). Recent literature has expanded this perspective by demonstrating that the implementation of welfare policies in the Global South is strongly influenced by state capacity, institutional fragmentation, and the interests of non-state actors involved in policy delivery (Yörük and Gençer, 2022).

Governance-based approaches show that welfare policies are often implemented through complex networks of actors, including central governments, local governments, private partners, and community organizations (van Gerven et al., 2024). In such contexts, power relations among actors shape how policies are interpreted and enacted on the ground (Shey Blandine and Koulle Brigitte Christelle, 2025). Studies in the health and nutrition sectors further indicate that the involvement of non-state actors without robust accountability mechanisms can undermine implementation consistency and service quality (Fox et al., 2022).

Despite growing recognition of the political and institutional dimensions of policy implementation, the literature still tends to analytically separate policy design from implementation context. As a result, the dynamic interaction between policy content and local social-institutional contexts remains insufficiently theorized (Shey Blandine and Koulle Brigitte Christelle, 2025).

2.3 Policy content, implementation context, and the logic of exclusion

Analytical approaches that distinguish between policy content and implementation context provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding failures and distortions in welfare policy implementation. Policy content includes formal objectives, targeting mechanisms, operational standards, and allocated resources, while implementation context encompasses institutional structures, power relations, socio-economic conditions, and geographical characteristics (Shey Blandine and Koulle Brigitte Christelle, 2025).

Recent social policy literature shows that mismatches between policy content and implementation context often produce what is termed policy-induced exclusion, whereby policies designed to be inclusive instead marginalize the most vulnerable groups (Shey Blandine and Koulle Brigitte Christelle, 2025). Empirical studies in the nutrition and health sectors find that administratively driven targeting mechanisms rather than those based on social vulnerability tend to favor groups that are institutionally more visible and accessible to the state (Schnitzer and Stoeffler, 2024).

In this context, universal welfare policies may function symbolically as expressions of state presence and political commitment, while failing as effective instruments of redistribution (Frericks and Höppner, 2024). Several recent studies published in World Development and Social Science & Medicine show that national nutrition programs in developing countries are often more successful in reaching urban areas and middle-income groups than poor and remote communitiesThese findings indicate that policy universalism does not automatically translate into social justice in practice (Mah and McIntyre, 2025).

2.4 Street-level bureaucracy and welfare policy implementation

While Grindle’s implementation framework explains how policy outcomes are shaped by the interaction between policy content and implementation context, it provides limited attention to the behavior of frontline actors responsible for translating policy into practice. To address this limitation, this study draws on Michael Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucracy (SLB) theory, which emphasizes the central role of public officials who interact directly with citizens in determining how public policies are ultimately implemented (Lipsky, 2010). According to Lipsky (2010), street-level bureaucrats, including teachers, school administrators, healthcare workers, and local program managers, exercise substantial discretionary authority because they operate under conditions of limited resources, high workloads, conflicting policy demands, and diverse local needs. Consequently, policy implementation is not merely a process of executing centrally formulated rules but also involves continuous interpretation, negotiation, and adaptation by street-level bureaucrats responsible for delivering public services (Brodkin, 2021).

The concept of discretion is particularly relevant to the implementation of universal welfare policies, where standardized national regulations frequently encounter diverse local realities. Rather than applying policy uniformly, street-level bureaucrats often develop coping strategies to reconcile institutional expectations with practical constraints. These strategies may include prioritizing certain beneficiaries, simplifying administrative procedures, modifying service delivery, or reallocating scarce resources to sustain program implementation (Lipsky, 2010). Although such adaptive practices may enhance administrative feasibility, they may also produce unequal access to public services and unintended forms of social exclusion, particularly among disadvantaged populations living in geographically remote or institutionally weak regions (Brodkin, 2021; Hupe and Buffat, 2014).

Recent studies have increasingly applied the Street-Level Bureaucracy perspective to examine welfare policy implementation in developing countries, where street-level bureaucrats frequently operate within environments characterized by decentralization, limited institutional capacity, and significant socioeconomic inequalities (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2022). In these contexts, implementation outcomes are influenced not only by formal policy design but also by the everyday decisions and interactions of local implementers as they continuously balance national policy objectives with local realities. This perspective complements Grindle’s policy implementation framework by explaining the governance processes through which policy content is interpreted and translated into practical action.

In the context of Indonesia’s Free Nutritious Meal Program (MBG), the Street-Level Bureaucracy perspective offers an important analytical lens for understanding how implementation outcomes are shaped not only by formal policy design but also by the discretionary decisions of local implementation actors. SPPG managers, school principals, and other street-level bureaucrats must balance nationally standardized operational procedures with diverse logistical conditions, resource availability, and institutional capacities. Integrating Grindle’s policy implementation framework with Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucracy theory therefore enables a more comprehensive analysis of how policy content, implementation context, and bureaucratic discretion collectively influence governance processes and policy outcomes within a universal welfare program implemented across socially and geographically diverse regions.

2.5 Knowledge gaps and the position of this study

Based on the literature reviewed above, significant knowledge gaps remain in the study of welfare policy, particularly regarding the implementation of universal nutrition programs in the Global South (Rassanjani and Rahmi, 2025). First, much of the existing research continues to focus on policy outcome evaluation, while insufficiently examining the political and institutional mechanisms shaping implementation practices at the local level (Kaufmann and Wittwer, 2022). Second, relatively few studies explicitly link mismatches between policy content and implementation context to the emergence of social exclusion in universal welfare policies. Third, Indonesia-based case studies remain underutilized as sources of theoretical contribution to global debates on welfare policy implementation (Kasmawati and Sailan, 2024).

This study seeks to address these gaps by analyzing the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program (Program Makan Bergizi Gratis) as a process of policy governance rather than merely as a technical nutrition intervention (Sari, 2025). Drawing on empirical findings from North Sulawesi Province, the study develops a theoretical explanation of how interactions between national policy content and local socio-political contexts shape implementation practices and produce particular patterns of exclusion. In doing so, this research not only contributes to the Indonesian public policy literature but also enriches international discussions on the limitations of universal welfare policies in the Global South (Majid et al., 2024).

3 Methods

This study employs a qualitative approach with a case study design to analyze the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program (Program Makan Bergizi Gratis, MBG) as a process of policy governance at the local level (Pambudi, 2025). A qualitative approach is adopted because it enables an in-depth understanding of policy implementation as a social, political, and institutional phenomenon that cannot be adequately reduced to quantitative variables (van den Brandeler, 2022). The case study design is used to capture the complexity of interactions between national policy content and local implementation contexts within the framework of universal welfare policy (Rosenstein and Bonvin, 2020).

The research site is North Sulawesi Province, which represents the implementation context of welfare policy in an archipelagic region characterized by varying levels of social inequality, geographical constraints, and institutional capacity (Frisca, 2025). This case is positioned as an analytical case aimed at generating theoretical insights into welfare policy implementation in countries of the Global South, rather than producing statistical generalizations (Mumtaz et al., 2025).

The study employed purposive sampling to identify participants who were directly involved in the planning, coordination, and implementation of the MBG program. Eight key informants were selected based on their institutional roles, practical responsibilities, and direct knowledge of program implementation. The participants consisted of representatives from relevant central government ministries, managers of the Nutrition Fulfilment Service Units (Satuan Pelayanan Pemenuhan Gizi/SPPG), and five principals of schools participating in the MBG program. Data collection was conducted between June and August 2025 through semi-structured interviews, field observations, and document analysis. Each interview lasted approximately 30–60 min and was conducted using a semi-structured interview guide that allowed participants to elaborate on their experiences and implementation practices while ensuring consistency across interviews (see Table 1).

Table 1. Profile of key informants.

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on the research data.

Field observations were conducted at selected MBG kitchen/SPPG facilities across the research locations. In the island regions, direct observations were conducted at SPPG Soataloara II, located in Soataloara II Urban Village, Tahuna District, Sangihe Islands Regency, and at SPPG Melonguane, located on Bandara Lama Road, Melonguane Barat Urban Village, Melonguane District, Talaud Islands Regency, North Sulawesi. The observations focused on operational processes, food preparation, distribution mechanisms, logistical constraints, and compliance with nationally established MBG operational standards. Evidence from the island regions was also obtained through semi-structured interviews with the school principals coded I7 and I8 and through relevant documentary sources. Evidence derived from observations, interviews, and documentary sources was distinguished during the analysis and explicitly attributed to its respective source in the Results section.

Secondary data consisted of national and regional policy documents, implementation guidelines, official government reports, statistical publications, and national and local media coverage concerning the MBG program. Documentary sources were selected based on their relevance to policy formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, as well as their ability to provide contextual information for interpreting the primary qualitative findings. These documents were also used to support source triangulation and strengthen the credibility of the empirical findings.

Data analysis followed a qualitative thematic analysis procedure. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim, while observation notes and documentary materials were compiled into a unified dataset. The researchers repeatedly read all materials to achieve familiarity with the data before conducting open coding to identify meaningful units of information related to policy implementation. Similar codes were subsequently grouped into broader categories and synthesized into analytical themes representing recurring patterns across different data sources.

During the coding and thematic analysis, the study operationalized several core analytical concepts using predefined indicators that were continuously refined through comparison across interviews, field observations, and documentary evidence. Administrative readiness was identified through the availability of supporting infrastructure, administrative preparedness, and logistical capacity to implement the MBG program. Policy adaptability referred to the extent to which frontline implementers were able to modify operational practices, including menu substitutions, distribution schedules, or other implementation procedures, in response to local conditions. Institutional capacity was identified through evidence related to human resources, inter-organizational coordination, infrastructure, and logistical capabilities supporting program implementation. Implementation context encompassed geographical, social, institutional, and logistical conditions that influenced policy execution across the research sites. Social exclusion was identified through recurring patterns of unequal access to MBG services, including delayed implementation, irregular service delivery, administrative prioritization of beneficiary schools, and disparities in service quality associated with geographical and institutional constraints. These operational definitions guided the coding process and ensured a consistent interpretation of qualitative evidence throughout the analysis.

The interpretation of these themes was guided by Grindle’s policy implementation framework and complemented by Street-Level Bureaucracy theory to explain how interactions between policy content, implementation context, and the discretionary practices of frontline implementers shaped implementation outcomes. Themes were continuously refined through constant comparison across interviews, field observations, policy documents, official reports, and media sources.

To enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings, the study employed source triangulation, methodological triangulation, and reflexive analysis. Information obtained from interviews was systematically compared with field observations, policy documents, official reports, and media coverage. When discrepancies emerged across data sources, the researchers revisited the original interview transcripts and field notes to determine the most plausible interpretation. Reflexive analysis was conducted throughout the study by continuously evaluating how researchers’ assumptions and interpretations might influence the analytical process. The researchers had no formal role in the implementation or management of the MBG program and maintained an independent position throughout data collection and analysis to minimize potential influence on participants’ responses and data interpretation. Interpretations were repeatedly reviewed against the empirical evidence to minimize researcher bias and enhance the credibility, dependability, and confirmability of the findings.

4 Results

4.1 Targeting mechanisms and program implementation practices

The research findings indicate that targeting mechanisms in the local implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program (Program Makan Bergizi Gratis, MBG) are predominantly driven by administrative considerations rather than by social vulnerability criteria. The selection of beneficiary schools is largely based on administrative readiness and the availability of supporting facilities, rather than on students’ socio-economic conditions. Consequently, schools that are institutionally better prepared have a higher likelihood of receiving the program compared to schools located in remote and low-income areas.

Data from interviews with school representatives and managers of the Nutrition Fulfillment Service Units (SPPG) indicate that beneficiary selection criteria have not fully considered factors such as poverty levels, geographical remoteness, and nutritional vulnerability. Several schools in island regions reported delays in food distribution or limited service frequency, while schools in urban areas tended to receive services more consistently.

“Food deliveries do not always arrive according to the scheduled timetable because transportation to our island depends heavily on sea conditions. When the weather deteriorates, meal distribution is delayed, and maintaining the quality and freshness of the food becomes increasingly difficult.” (Principal, Ebenhaezar Christian Elementary School, Melonguane, Talaud Islands).

These findings demonstrate a clear mismatch between the universal objectives of the MBG policy and its selective implementation at the local level.

In terms of execution, program implementation follows nationally defined operational standards, including menu composition, distribution patterns, and service schedules.

However, field observations revealed that these standards were difficult to implement consistently across all research locations. Logistical constraints, transportation distances, and infrastructure conditions created variations in food quality and delivery timeliness.

“The implementation procedures are the same as those applied in mainland areas, even though our logistical conditions are very different. Transportation costs are higher, delivery times are longer, and these realities are not fully reflected in the current implementation arrangements.” (Principal, Apengsembeka Inpres State Elementary School, Sangihe Islands).

Consequently, implementation practices relied on ad hoc adjustments to local conditions without formal policy adaptation mechanisms.

Beyond targeting issues and limited operational flexibility, this study also finds that MBG implementation is shaped by institutional capacity and coordination patterns among local actors. Differences in administrative capacity and resource availability across regions result in uneven policy implementation, despite operating within the same national regulatory framework. In areas with relatively strong institutional capacity, the program tends to be implemented in accordance with formal guidelines, whereas in resource-constrained areas, implementation relies heavily on the initiative and improvisation of local actors.

This condition indicates that MBG implementation is not fully determined by formal policy design, but rather by the ability of local actors to navigate structural constraints. In some cases, adjustments made by SPPG managers and school administrators aim to sustain program continuity, even at the cost of service standard consistency. However, these adjustments remain individual and non-institutionalized, thereby potentially generating interregional disparities in service quality.

Overall, these findings suggest that the implementation of universal welfare policies such as MBG operates under tension between compliance with national standards and the need for adaptation to local realities. Without explicit policy mechanisms to accommodate social and geographical differences, implementation tends to produce difficult-to-control variations in practice and risks widening inequalities in access to services. Thus, the variations identified in this study should not be understood merely as implementation deviations, but rather as reflections of policy design limitations in responding to local contextual complexity.

4.2 Implementation actors and power relations

The findings show that the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program (MBG) involves a wide range of actors operating at different levels and functions, including the central government, local governments, SPPG managers, schools, and private partners. Although the program is formally designed as a cross-sectoral policy involving multiple stakeholders, local-level implementation practices reveal hierarchical and asymmetrical relations among actors.

Strategic decisions regarding program design, operational standards, and implementation mechanisms are largely determined by central authorities. Local governments and schools primarily function as technical implementers responsible for executing the policy in accordance with predefined regulations. The discretionary space available to local actors to adjust the policy based on local conditions and needs remains limited. Interviews with local government officials and school representatives indicate minimal involvement in strategic decision-making processes, thereby constraining their ability to respond flexibly to implementation challenges.

“Our responsibility is to implement the technical guidelines issued by the central government. We have very limited authority to modify operational procedures because all major decisions, including menu standards and implementation mechanisms, must comply with the national guidelines.” (Manager of the Nutrition Fulfillment Service Unit (SPPG), PAAL Dua, Manado).

Figure 1 Institutional relationships and asymmetrical power structure in the implementation of Indonesia’s Free Nutritious Meal Program (MBG). The figure illustrates the concentration of decision-making authority at the national level and the limited discretion of SPPG managers despite their central role in frontline implementation.

Within this implementation structure, SPPG managers occupy a position that is both strategic and vulnerable. They bear direct responsibility for operational aspects such as kitchen management, menu planning, and food distribution to beneficiary schools. At the same time, they are required to comply with national standards that are often misaligned with field realities.

“Distribution costs are considerably higher in remote island areas due to transportation challenges. These logistical realities make it difficult to implement the program exactly as prescribed in the national standards.” (Head of the Nutrition Fulfillment Service Unit (SPPG), PAAL Dua, Manado).

This interview evidence demonstrates that SPPG managers must simultaneously address substantial logistical constraints while remaining accountable for compliance with nationally standardized operational requirements. Consequently, frontline implementers possess operational responsibilities that exceed their formal decision-making authority.

The tension between regulatory compliance and operational constraints is reflected in various informal adjustment practices, including menu modifications, portion reductions, or changes in distribution schedules These adaptations are not necessarily authorized by formal regulations but emerge as practical responses to implementation challenges encountered in the field.

“On several occasions, we had to reduce meal portions because of budget limitations and the increased cost of transporting food supplies. These adjustments were made solely to ensure that the program could continue operating.” (Head of the Nutrition Fulfillment Service Unit (SPPG), PAAL Dua, Manado).

This interview evidence demonstrates that frontline implementers occasionally exercised pragmatic operational discretion to maintain service continuity under financial and logistical constraints. Rather than reflecting formal policy flexibility, these adjustments illustrate how implementation practices evolved in response to resource limitations at the local level.

Field findings indicate that such adjustments are undertaken as pragmatic strategies to ensure program continuity, even though they are not always supported by formal policy mechanisms. This demonstrates that MBG implementation cannot be understood solely as a linear administrative process, but rather as a continuous arena of negotiation among actors with differing interests, capacities, and constraints. Asymmetrical power relations within the implementation structure shape local policy practices and contribute to variations in implementation across regions.

4.3 Misalignment between policy content and implementation context

The study reveals a significant misalignment between the policy content of the Free Nutritious Meal Program (MBG) and its implementation context in North Sulawesi Province. The policy design is based on assumptions of relatively uniform infrastructure availability, logistical capacity, and geographical conditions, as reflected in nationally standardized operational guidelines for menu provision, distribution mechanisms, and service schedules. However, field findings show that the local context is characterized by archipelagic geography, limited transportation access, and substantial variation in institutional capacity across regions.

This misalignment has direct implications for program effectiveness. In areas with limited transportation access and long travel distances, food distribution faces risks of delays and quality degradation, particularly with regard to food freshness and safety. Interviews with school representatives and SPPG managers indicate that distribution delays often reduce students’ interest in the provided meals, thereby affecting program acceptance at the school level. These conditions influence not only service quality but also local actors’ perceptions of the program’s overall benefits.

In addition to distribution challenges, nationally standardized menus demonstrate limited responsiveness to local contexts. Field observations show that certain menu items are difficult to align with students’ consumption preferences and local food availability. In several research locations, limited access to specific food ingredients compelled SPPG managers to make informal adjustments or substitute menu components with locally available alternatives. Although these practices are intended to sustain program implementation, they are often unsupported by formal and standardized policy mechanisms.

“We are not allowed to change the menu without prior approval. However, when certain food ingredients are unavailable in the local market, we have to substitute them with locally available alternatives to ensure that meal distribution can continue.” (Manager of the Nutrition Fulfillment Service Unit/SPPG, PAAL Dua, Manado).

This interview excerpt illustrates that local menu adjustments are primarily pragmatic responses to implementation constraints rather than formally authorized policy adaptations, reflecting the misalignment between nationally standardized program design and local implementation realities.

Variations in institutional capacity across regions further amplify the impact of this misalignment. Areas with relatively adequate administrative capacity and resources are better able to adjust implementation practices effectively, while capacity-constrained areas face greater challenges in meeting national standards. Consequently, the implementation of the MBG program exhibits variations in service quality and consistency across regions, despite operating under the same policy framework.

These findings indicate that the implementation of MBG has not fully accommodated the diverse social, geographical, and institutional conditions across regions. Consequently, the persistent misalignment between nationally standardized policy design and local implementation contexts contributes to variations in service quality and policy outcomes.

4.4 Policy implementation and the reproduction of social exclusion

One of the most fundamental and critical findings of this study is the identification of mechanisms through which social exclusion is reproduced within the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program (MBG). This exclusion does not manifest as deliberate formal discrimination, but rather emerges as an unavoidable structural consequence of the dissonance between technocratic policy design and the heterogeneity of implementation contexts. In-depth analysis demonstrates that the interaction between rigid central policy standards and limited local infrastructural capacity has produced tangible service disparities.

Specifically, schools and students located in geographically remote areas or within pockets of structural poverty face significant barriers in accessing program benefits optimally. These constraints manifest in two dimensions: uncertainty in distribution coverage and degradation of nutritional quality compared to services received in more developed urban areas. Field data confirm that a “one-size-fits-all” universal policy approach becomes counterproductive when applied without accounting for variations in social and logistical vulnerability at the grassroots level.

In this context, the discourse of universality within the MBG policy appears to have undergone a functional shift. Rather than operating as an effective instrument of redistributive social justice, the universal label increasingly functions as a symbol of political legitimacy and state commitment. When implementation mechanisms fail to mitigate geographical and economic barriers, the policy paradoxically reinforces existing social stratification.

Therefore, the program’s failure to adequately reach the most vulnerable demographic groups cannot be viewed merely as an operational anomaly or isolated case. Instead, it reflects a systemic pattern in welfare policy governance within contexts marked by sharp structural inequalities. These findings underscore the urgency of reforming implementation approaches from administratively uniform models toward more affirmative and context-sensitive strategies, ensuring that claims of program inclusivity extend beyond policy rhetoric and translate into equitable access for all beneficiaries.

4.5 Summary of key findings

Overall, the study demonstrates that the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program in North Sulawesi is shaped by complex interactions between national policy content and local contexts. Administratively driven targeting mechanisms, asymmetrical power relations among actors, and misalignment between policy design and local conditions contribute to implementation variability and the emergence of social exclusion. These findings affirm that the success of universal welfare policies cannot be separated from their capacity to adapt to social, political, and geographical contexts at the implementation level. The summary of the key findings on the implementation of Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Empirical summary of key findings on the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program (MBG).

Source: Data processed by the authors, 2026.

5 Discussion

This study provides significant empirical evidence regarding the structural challenges involved in implementing universal welfare policies in developing countries (the Global South), particularly in archipelagic states such as Indonesia (Yanti and Sukmana, 2024). The Free Nutritious Meal Program (Program Makan Bergizi Gratis, MBG), which is normatively designed as an instrument for redistributive social justice and human capital improvement, has in practice encountered implementation challenges associated with the interaction between a centralized policy design and diverse local socio-geographical realities. These distortions arise from the collision between a technocratic and centralistic policy design and complex local socio-geographical realities (Pratiwi et al., 2025). This discussion unpacks these dynamics through four key dimensions: (1) administrative hegemony in targeting mechanisms, (2) power asymmetries and limited local agency, (3) spatial disconnection in policy standardization, and (4) the paradox of universalism that produces new forms of social exclusion.

5.1 Administrative hegemony and the Bias of “institutional readiness”

The findings suggest that targeting mechanisms in the local implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program are trapped in what can be described as administrative hegemony (Santos et al., 2024). Rather than prioritizing socio-economic vulnerability such as poverty levels, stunting prevalence, or geographical remoteness as the main criteria for service allocation, program implementation relies heavily on institutional readiness as the dominant filter. Schools and regions deemed administratively prepared in terms of documentation, facilities, and bureaucratic reporting are more easily integrated into the program than those with the greatest substantive needs. These findings suggest a tendency toward a shift from substantive rationality, which focuses on meeting students’ nutritional needs, to procedural rationality, which prioritizes administrative order, procedural compliance, and auditability (Mokoginta et al., 2025).

From a public management perspective, this condition reflects a classic bureaucratic pathology known as goal displacement, in which bureaucratic means procedures, reporting systems, and compliance mechanisms replace the original policy objectives (Fernández-Dols, 2024). Program success appears to be increasingly measured by the extent to which vulnerable children’s nutritional needs are fulfilled, but by how neatly implementation can be documented and administratively accounted for. Consequently, public policy loses its normative orientation and is transformed into a managerial activity centered on formal compliance (Andrews, 2022).

Furthermore, the findings suggest patterns consistent with creaming practices in welfare policy implementation. Schools with adequate infrastructure, strong managerial capacity, and closer access to administrative centers are prioritized because they are perceived as “safe” from reporting failures and audit risks (Asim et al., 2023). This allows implementing agencies to maintain a positive performance image before central authorities, reflected in “green” success indicators in official reports. However, this apparent success is achieved at the expense of the groups most in need of policy intervention (Lo, 2024).

The implications of this administrative hegemony are particularly severe for schools located in island and peripheral areas of North Sulawesi. These schools often possess limited administrative capacity due to constraints in human resources, supporting facilities, and access to bureaucratic networks. Ironically, these limitations which should serve as strong justification for state intervention instead function as mechanisms of exclusion in policy practice (Randy Lieminarto et al., 2025). The inability to meet certain administrative standards renders these schools invisible within program selection systems, despite higher levels of social vulnerability and nutritional need among their students (Eliza et al., 2025).

This condition exposes the paradox of universal welfare policy, where a design that normatively promises equity instead produces differentiation and inequality in practice (Kim et al., 2023). When selection mechanisms based on institutional capacity are rigidly applied, universal policies are transformed into selective ones that systematically advantage better-resourced institutions. Administratively “rich” schools benefit disproportionately, while resource-poor schools are left behind not because they lack need, but because they fail to meet administratively constructed criteria (Zahroh, 2025).

More broadly, administrative hegemony carries significant political implications. Welfare policies such as MBG may function symbolically as expressions of state presence and concern, yet this symbolism does not necessarily translate into equitable benefit distribution (Monnappa, 2025). The state appears discursively through universal policy rhetoric but remains practically absent from the social spaces most in need of intervention. As a result, welfare policy risks losing its substantive legitimacy among vulnerable groups, even when it is deemed administratively successful (Numans et al., 2023).

These findings reinforce critiques of public policy approaches that overemphasize administrative rationality in Global South contexts marked by deep structural inequality (Maela, 2025). Reliance on administrative readiness indicators not only reflects limitations in state capacity, but also reproduces unequal power relations between central and local governments, and between strong and weak institutions (He, 2022). Administrative hegemony in MBG implementation therefore cannot be understood merely as a technical problem, but as a structural issue rooted in how the state perceives, classifies, and prioritizes citizens within welfare policy frameworks (Soler-Buades and Ferraioli, 2025).

5.2 Power asymmetries and limited discretion of local actors

The implementation of MBG in North Sulawesi suggests highly hierarchical and asymmetrical power relations between the central government, local governments, and frontline implementers particularly schools and SPPG managers (Hartina et al., 2023). The top-down policy design systematically positions local actors as technical operators tasked with executing policy instructions, without sufficient discretionary space for contextual adaptation (Shahi, 2024). This structure reflects strong centralization of decision-making, where central authorities dominate the determination of objectives, standards, and operational mechanisms, while local actors are confined to implementation roles (Casula, 2024).

In the policy implementation literature, particularly Michael Lipsky’s theory of street-level bureaucracy, frontline workers are viewed as key actors who ultimately shape how policy is realized in practice (Hupe, 2022). Lipsky argues that uncertainty, resource constraints, and the complexity of social needs make improvisation and coping mechanisms inevitable in public service delivery. However, this study finds that MBG’s policy design constrains such improvisation, thereby limiting local actors’ capacity to respond effectively to field dynamics.

The vulnerable position of SPPG managers and school administrators exemplifies what can be termed policy alienation (Levy and Shumane, 2017). They are held accountable for successful food distribution and service delivery targets, yet are not granted commensurate authority to adjust policy inputs in line with local realities (Kimwele et al., 2023). Centrally determined standards for pricing, menu composition, and distribution schedules frequently ignore fluctuations in food prices, disparities in market access, and archipelagic geographical conditions that significantly affect logistics costs. This imbalance between responsibility and authority generates structural pressure on local actors (Didi and Asmiddin, 2023).

Under such conditions, local actors resort to informal adaptations to sustain program operations. Practices such as portion reduction, menu substitution, or distribution schedule changes are not acts of resistance, but survival strategies in response to real constraints (de Araújo et al., 2024). Normatively and administratively, these adaptations occupy a grey area: they may be classified as deviations from policy standards, yet from an implementation perspective they constitute rational responses to misalignment between policy standards and field conditions. What appears as procedural deviation is thus better understood as forced deviation produced by policy design itself (de Bree and Stoopendaal, 2020).

The absence of institutionalized bottom-up feedback mechanisms further exacerbates this situation. Channels through which local actors can systematically communicate experiences, constraints, and adaptation needs are largely absent (Shahi, 2024). Central dominance over operational details reflects a high degree of distrust toward local capacity, limiting opportunities for dialogue and policy learning. As a result, policy becomes rigid and poorly responsive to changing conditions (Shahi, 2024).

Rather than fostering collaborative multi-level governance, MBG implementation exhibits a linear, one-way command relationship (Yu and Tan, 2019). In North Sulawesi, where field conditions are highly volatile from maritime weather affecting inter-island distribution to significant price differentials in staple goods the lack of tactical autonomy among local actors heightens the risk of inefficiency and service failure. Frontline implementers are trapped between utopian national standards and realistic local resource constraints (Djohanis et al., 2025).

More broadly, these findings indicate that asymmetrical power relations in welfare policy implementation are not merely administrative issues, but deeply political governance challenges (Davidovitz, 2025). Policies designed and implemented without trust in local capacity risk widening the gap between normative policy goals and implementation realities. In the context of universal welfare policies such as MBG, this gap may result in state failure to reach those most in need, while simultaneously undermining policy legitimacy at the local level (Montesano, 2025).

5.3 Spatial disconnection: National Standardization versus archipelagic realities

One of the most fundamental critiques emerging from this analysis concerns the failure of MBG’s policy design to accommodate Indonesia’s geographical diversity. The policy appears to be constructed upon assumptions of continental bias or even Java-centricity, whereby logistical infrastructure is assumed to be relatively homogeneous, market access continuous, and commodity price fluctuations uniformly manageable. While such assumptions may hold in highly connected mainland regions, they become deeply problematic when applied to archipelagic contexts such as North Sulawesi, characterized by distinct geographical, social, and economic conditions (Pambudi, 2025). When national policy design fails to internalize spatial differentiation, universal policy risks losing effectiveness at the implementation level (López Ochoa et al., 2023).

Findings regarding distribution delays and declining food quality in island areas demonstrate that MBG’s supply chain is not designed for difficult and unpredictable terrain (Yanti and Prayitno, 2025). Archipelagic geography, dependence on maritime transport, and vulnerability to extreme weather render food distribution a high-risk process. Nevertheless, MBG relies on standardized per-portion cost frameworks set at national or overly broad regional levels (Thornton et al., 2023). This standardization fails to capture interregional variability in logistics costs, particularly in remote areas. The cost of delivering a single meal in Manado differs substantially from delivery to outer islands in the Sangihe or Talaud archipelagos. When these cost differentials are not accommodated in budget design, food quality in remote areas is sacrificed to subsidize higher transportation expenses. Comparable evidence from Indonesia’s Sea Toll policy indicates that sustained maritime connectivity and reliable transportation networks are essential for reducing interregional price disparities (Wijaya, 2025).

The findings suggest that the implementation challenges identified in North Sulawesi cannot be addressed solely through standardized national budgeting mechanisms. Instead, they point to the need for a governance approach that accommodates regional diversity through the principle of asymmetric decentralization. Asymmetric decentralization recognizes that regions with distinct geographical, administrative, and socio-economic characteristics require differentiated policy arrangements rather than uniform administrative treatment (Lele, 2019; Rahmatunnisa et al., 2018). In the context of the MBG program, this approach would allow greater spatial flexibility in budget allocation, enabling higher per-meal funding for remote island regions such as the Sangihe and Talaud Islands, where transportation and distribution costs are substantially higher than those in mainland areas. Such flexibility would reduce the need for local implementers to absorb logistical costs within fixed national budget ceilings, thereby minimizing cross-subsidization practices that ultimately compromise food quality and service equity. Rather than treating all regions equally, geographically differentiated budgeting would promote substantive equity by ensuring that citizens in remote island areas receive nutritional services of comparable quality despite their higher implementation costs. These findings reinforce the argument that effective social policy implementation in archipelagic states requires governance arrangements that are responsive to territorial diversity rather than administratively uniform (Lele, 2019).

Rigid menu standardization further reflects insensitivity to local cultural and economic contexts (Ali and Santos, 2025). Centrally designed menus often fail to align with local dietary preferences or the availability of local food resources (Galloway et al., 2023). This mismatch increases the risk of food waste, as meals are not optimally consumed by students. Moreover, policies that do not allow the use of local food products such as tubers, seafood, or locally produced agricultural goods eliminate potential multiplier effects for local farmers, fishers, and small businesses (Jablonski et al., 2023). Integrating local food systems into welfare programs could strengthen food security while simultaneously stimulating local economies (Sari and Muslim, 2024).

These conditions indicate that MBG continues to operate within a charitable social assistance framework, where the state acts as a direct food provider without linking the program to sustainable local economic empowerment strategies (Osinski, 2020). Rather than serving as a tool for regional development, the policy reproduces top-down distribution patterns that sever the connection between welfare provision and local economic potential (Hershbein and Stuart, 2023). The misalignment between centrally designed policy content and the policy context of archipelagic North Sulawesi generates significant budget inefficiencies and undermines program legitimacy among beneficiaries (Siahay and Salle, 2025). Thus, failure to internalize geographical diversity in policy design constitutes a structural, rather than merely technical, determinant of universal welfare policy success or failure in archipelagic states such as Indonesia (Jamil et al., 2024).

5.4 The paradox of universalism and the production of social exclusion

The findings point to several implementation mechanisms that may contribute to patterns of social exclusion. In theory, universal policies such as free meals for all schoolchildren are intended to eliminate stigma and guarantee basic rights without discrimination (Domina et al., 2024). However, this study reveals a troubling paradox: universal policies may generate exclusion when implemented across structurally unequal landscapes without affirmative mechanisms (Sims, 2023).

Schools in remote areas, where students predominantly come from low-income households, are most likely to experience service disruptions such as delays, poor quality, or exclusion due to failure to meet administrative requirements (Pettalongi et al., 2024). In contrast, better-resourced urban schools receive consistent and higher-quality services. This represents a regressive effect of public policy, where benefits accrue disproportionately to those already better off or more easily reachable, while the most vulnerablethe hard-to-reach are left behind (Zhang, 2025).

This exclusion does not stem from malicious intent on the part of policymakers, but from design blindness to variations in local capacity. By treating all regions as if they share the same starting line identical infrastructure and access the state inadvertently reproduces existing inequalities (Eisenberg, 2024). In Global South contexts, where spatial disparities between growth centers and peripheral regions are acute, applying universal standards without affirmative modification becomes a mechanism for perpetuating structural injustice (Hu and Yang, 2025). Consequently, MBG in North Sulawesi has yet to function as an effective redistributive instrument, remaining instead a performative symbol of state presence that is substantively fragile (Lee, 2022).

5.5 Synthesis and implications

Overall, this study affirms that the “universal” label attached to a policy does not automatically guarantee equality of outcomes. The case of the Free Nutritious Meal Program in North Sulawesi demonstrates that the greatest challenge of policy implementation in developing countries lies not merely in budget availability, but in the state’s capacity to manage contextual diversity.

The interaction between rigid policy content and dynamic local contexts has created an uneven negotiation space in which bureaucratic administrative demands often prevail over the real needs of impoverished communities. Future policy reform therefore requires a paradigmatic shift from standardization toward contextualization.

Operational decentralization must be extended to local actors local governments and schools so they can design distribution mechanisms aligned with their specific geographical realities. Targeting mechanisms must also be freed from rigid administrative constraints and re-centered on empirically grounded social vulnerability data. Without design flexibility that acknowledges interregional asymmetry, even the most ambitious welfare policies risk becoming “promises on paper” for peripheral communities and, paradoxically, administrative burdens for those they are intended to serve. The future success of MBG will not be determined by uniform menus from Sabang to Merauke, but by the system’s sensitivity and capacity to adapt to local rhythms across Indonesia’s archipelagic landscape.

6 Conclusion

This study aims to analyze the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program (Program Makan Bergizi Gratis, MBG) as a process of policy governance by highlighting the interaction between national policy content and local implementation contexts. Based on empirical findings and theoretical analysis, the study demonstrates that the implementation of universal welfare policies cannot be understood as a neutral administrative process, but rather as a social and institutional practice shaped by power relations, institutional capacity, and social and geographical conditions.

The findings confirm that the policy objective of MBG to ensure equitable nutritional provision faces structural constraints at the implementation stage. The interaction between a uniform policy design and heterogeneous local contexts generates variations in implementation practices and the potential for social exclusion, particularly affecting the most vulnerable regions and population groups. Accordingly, this study shows that the effectiveness of universal welfare policies is highly dependent on the alignment between policy content and implementation context, as well as on governance capacity to accommodate social and geographical differentiation.

Conceptually, this study reinforces arguments in the policy implementation literature that policy universalism is not synonymous with distributive justice in practice. Welfare programs may simultaneously function as instruments of social policy and as symbols of state presence, yet they also risk reproducing inequality when implementation mechanisms are insufficiently sensitive to social vulnerability. In this regard, the implementation of the Free Nutritious Meal Program reflects broader dynamics of welfare policy in the Global South, where fragmented governance structures and structural inequalities persist.

From a policy perspective, these findings suggest that future reforms of the Free Nutritious Meal Program should move beyond uniform national implementation toward geographically responsive governance. The National Nutrition Agency (BGN) should introduce geographically differentiated budgeting that provides higher per-meal allocations for remote island regions where transportation and logistics costs are substantially higher. Greater operational flexibility should also be granted to local governments and implementing units in determining menus, procurement mechanisms, and distribution schedules according to local conditions while maintaining national nutritional standards. Furthermore, targeting mechanisms should be based primarily on empirical indicators of social vulnerability rather than predominantly on administrative readiness. These measures would strengthen implementation equity, improve food quality in remote regions, and enhance the effectiveness of universal welfare policy across Indonesia’s diverse archipelagic context.

In addition to these policy implications, the study identifies several avenues for future research. Comparative studies across regions could further examine whether the patterns of interaction between policy content and implementation context identified here recur in different social and geographical settings. In addition, research at the level of implementing actors is needed to explore how discretion, adaptive strategies, and informal practices shape policy outcomes. Conceptually, future research may also link welfare policy implementation to broader debates on state legitimacy, policy performativity, and the politics of welfare in the Global South. In doing so, this study is expected to serve as an initial foundation for the development of more contextualized and critical approaches to the study of welfare policy implementation.

Correction note

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the scientific content of the article.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Maria Asensio, INA - Instituto Nacional de Administração, Portugal

Reviewed by: Amni Zarkasyi Rahman, Diponegoro University, Indonesia

Zakir Husain, Universiti Islam Sultan Sharif Ali, Brunei