The Maatschap Paradox: Unpacking the Determinants of Slow Innovation Adoption among Indonesian Notaries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58344/jws.v4i10.1533Keywords:
adoption, innovation, law, maatschap, notariesAbstract
The dominant practice of independent notaries in Indonesia is systematically vulnerable, causing service disruptions and losses for clients when a notary is unable to perform their duties. Although a superior alternative model, namely civil partnerships (maatschap), has a legal basis, its adoption rate is very low. This failure to innovate creates a market gap that is exploited by illegal actors and erodes public trust. Therefore, through a qualitative approach with a multi-site case study design, this article aims to uncover the root causes of this paradox and formulate policy recommendations to encourage professional transformation. The overall results of the study show that strong resistance to the adoption of maatschap is caused by a complex interaction between high-risk perceptions (especially loss of autonomy), a significant deficit of trust among peers, and the pressure of individualistic professional cultural norms. Four main determinants were identified as barriers: (1) ambiguous and unsupportive regulations, creating legal uncertainty; (2) low capacity for collaboration due to difficulties in building trust and a shared vision; (3) the complexity of technology management and integration; and (4) the failure of the socialisation process in building legitimacy and instilling new norms within the professional community.
References
Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, 492–505.
Adler, M. D. (2010). Regulatory Theory. In A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory: Second edition. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444320114.ch42
Alkatiri, N. H., Putra, M. F. M., & Ongko, K. (2023). A Legal Perspective: Implementing an Electronic Notarization System in Indonesia in the Post-Pandemic Era. Jambura Law Review, 5(2), 332–355.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.
Arianto, B. (2024). Triangulasi Metoda Penelitian Kualitatif. In Borneo Novelty Publishing: Vol. 10.70310/q. Borneo Novelty Publishing. https://doi.org/10.70310/q81zdh33
Ariwangsa, I. D. G. A., & Yustiawan, D. G. P. (2024). Pengaturan Persekutuan Perdata Notaris Dalam Perspektif Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris. Acta Comitas: Jurnal Hukum Kenotariatan.
Audet, J., & d’Amboise, G. (2001). The Multi-Site Study: An Innovative Research Methodology. The Qualitative Report, 6(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2001.2001
Berger, P. ., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Doubleday & Company.
Betwisten, O. T. E., Voorkooprecht, G., Gebreke, B. I. J., & Bepaling, D. (2010). Hof van beroep te Brussel. 762–787.
Bingham, R. O. & L. B. (2009). The collaborative public manager: New ideas for the twenty-first century.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47–55.
BRIN. (2021). Cetak Biru Ekosistem Pengetahuan dan Inovasi. 116.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross?Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
Chandradevi, A. A. (2024). A Comparison of Limited Liability Partnership Regulations in the State of Delaware, USA, Malaysia & India. Jurnal Akta, 11(3), 806. https://doi.org/10.30659/akta.v11i3.39752
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in Organizational Institutionalism. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 49–77). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n2
Dewi, Y. K. (2021). The need to adopt a limited liability partnership for the legal profession in the partnership law: A critical review from Indonesia’s perspective. Cogent Social Sciences, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2021.1999005
Douglas W, A., Barberis, J., & Buckley, R. P. (2017). FinTech, RegTech, and the Reconceptualization of Financial Regulation. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 37(3), 371–413.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
Gent, U., & Hootegem, J. Van. (2008). De maatschap, de stichting en de trust als instrumenten van familiale vermogensplanning.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Suddaby, R. (2002). Theorizing change: the role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069285
Heesakkers, R. (2024). Towards social and ecological corporate governance. Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Hollweck, T. (2015). Robert K. Yin. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.). Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(1), 108–110. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.30.1.108
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069453
Jukic, E. (2017). Vernieuwing personenvennootschapsrecht. Universiteit van Tilburg Faculteit.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economics Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803475.009
Kasih, A. (2019). Akibat Hukum terhadap Akta yang Dibuat Notaris yang Melakukan Kerja Sama dengan Biro Jasa dalam Mencari Klien. Universitas Pelita Harapan.
Katz, D. M. (2014). The MIT school of law? A perspective on legal education in the 21st century. In University of Illinois Law Review (Vol. 2014, Issue 5).
Kolb, D. (2000). The Process of Experiential Learning. In Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy (pp. 313–331). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50017-4
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and Institutional Work. In The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 215–254). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n7
Marston, S., Li, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., Zhang, J., & Ghalsasi, A. (2011). Cloud computing — The business perspective. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.006
Muzio, D., & Faulconbridge, J. R. (2017). Global Professional Service Firms and Institutionalization Global Professional Service Firms and institutionalization. September. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316855508.014
Natalia, D., & Da, C. (2018). Kepastian Hukum Mekanisme Kerja Persekutuan Perdata Notaris Berkaitan Dengan pembuatan Akta. 3(2), 301–313.
Nowira, P. H., Dewi, A. S. K., & Susilo, H. (2025). Legal Certainty for Notaries in Performing Their Duties Jointly Through Persekutuan Perdata. International Journal of Business, Law, and Education, 6(2), 1132–1141. https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v6i2.1143
Oktaviani, D., & Dwi Nugroho, A. (2024). Penerapan Solusi E-Businesdalam Meningkatkan Layanan Kantor Notaris Dan Ppat(Studi Kasus Rossa Kristantina). Social Sciences Journal, 2(3), 1–11.
Pare, N., Habsy, B. A., & Nursalim, M. (2025). Grounded Theory: Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Inovasi Pendidikan Nusantara, 6(2), 282–293.
Patnessia, B., & Djajaputra, G. (2020). Pengaturan Mengenai Maatschap Pada Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris Dan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata Terkait Tugas Dan Jabatan Notaris. ERA HUKUM: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Hukum, 18(1), 60–82.
Rabanirajona, H. (2020). Role of Notary in Abroad and Indonesia. Jurnal Akta, 7(4), 343. https://doi.org/10.30659/akta.v7i4.12900
Rangkuti, N. S. (2022). Penyelesaian Pekerjaan Notaris yang Tertunda karena Notaris Meninggal Dunia di Kota Medan. Rechtsnormen Jurnal Komunikasi Dan Informasi Hukum, 1(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.56211/rechtsnormen.v1i2.123
Rogers, E. M. (2003a). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003b). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003c). Diffusion of Innovations fifth Ed Free Press. New York. Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J. & Bodin.
Salemink, T., Wolters, P., & de Wulf, H. (2024). Cybersecurity and Online Formation of Companies in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany. European Company and Financial Law Review, 21(1), 67–103. https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2024-0003
Salim, M. R. (2019). Limited Liability Partnership in Malaysia: A Corporate Governance Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2329493
Saputri, E. H., & Hosein, S. H. (2023). Pelanggaran Kode Etik Notaris Yang Bekerjasama Dengan Biro Jasa. Kosmik Hukum, 23(2), 115. https://doi.org/10.30595/kosmikhukum.v23i2.15466
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.
Siburian, E. P. E., & Dewi, R. I. (2024). Perlindungan Hukum Notaris Atas Kelalaian Pegawainya Terkait Pemberian Sertipikat Kepada Pihak Lain (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Blitar Nomor 10/Pdt.G/2020/PN Blt). UNES Law Review, 7(2), 754–763.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Susskind, R. (2013). Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future. Oxford University Press.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001
Tuqa, A. F., Herlia, H., Maarif, D. P. P., & Caesar, L. Z. T. (2019). Kerja Sama Antar Notaris dalam Bentuk Persekutuan Perdata. Jurnal Hukum Magnum Opus, 2(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.30996/jhmo.v2i2.2175
Vangrieken, K., Grosemans, I., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers’ autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021
Vania, I., Gunawan, S., & Suryono, A. (2014). Legal Consequences Due To The Vacancy Of Notary Maatschap Implementation Regulation. 2004(30), 44–49.
Voert, M. J. ter, & Ewijk, M. van. (2025). Eerste Trendrapportage Notariaat.
Voorde, G. Van De. (2023). maatschap als vehikel vermogensplanning anno 2023 Is de koning van zijn troon gestoten?? voor. 60(1), 2022–2023.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Wigusta, G. C. (2017a). Perbandingan Hukum Mengenai Maatschap Dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata dan Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris Serta Implementasinya Pada Notaris. Jurnal Repertorium, 4(2).
Wigusta, G. C. (2017b). Perbandingan hukum mengenai maatschap dalam kitab undang-undang hukum perdata dan undang-undang jabatan notaris serta implementasinya pada notaris. Jurnal Repertorium, 4(2).
Wijaya, T. F. M., & Priyono, E. A. (2024). Penerapan Asas Profesionalitas Pada Notaris Dalam Pembuatan Akta Autentik. Lex Renaissance, 9(2), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.20885/jlr.vol9.iss2.art1
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rosita Yuwanasari, Pande Made Kutanegara, Dewi Haryani Susilastuti, Ninik Darmini
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
