<![CDATA[Studies of urban farming policy in Indonesia commonly diagnose weak outcomes as an implementation gap, yet this diagnosis presupposes that a governing norm exists. This study aims to theorise a different condition, namely regulatory invisibility, in which a practice thrives materially while remaining absent from the legal and administrative apparatus governing its policy domain. The research employs a qualitative case study of food security regulation in Bandar Lampung City, combining controlled term tracing across a corpus of regulations and budget documents with interviews, focus group discussions, and field observation. The findings reveal invisibility operating across five layers, namely nominal, mandate, fiscal, statistical, and tenurial, which reinforce one another in a self-sustaining cycle: an unnamed practice generates no budget nomenclature, no nomenclature generates no routine data, and no data removes the evidentiary basis required to argue the practice into regulation. The consequences include substitution of public financing by corporate and community sources, drift of programme siting away from food vulnerable areas, and absence of tenurial certainty amid rapid land conversion. The study concludes that regulatory invisibility and implementation gaps demand opposite remedies, so misdiagnosis directs corrective effort toward coordination when the actual deficit is the absence of a norm.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
