Multilevel dynamic governance in dealing with crisis: the case of handling corona virus disease 19 (COVID-19) in Lampung Province, Indonesia

Abstract The Covid−19 pandemic has become a global problem that requires coordination and cooperation at all levels of government and sectors. In Indonesia, the implementation of Covid−19 handling policies varies in each region. This study aims to analyze the use of multilevel dynamic governance in handling Covid−19 in Lampung Province. The multilevel governance approach is used to analyze the coordination and cooperation between provincial, district and city governments in handling the Covid−19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the dynamic governance approach is used to analyze how the government can adapt to changes during the pandemic. The research method used is qualitative, with data collection techniques through in-depth interviews, observation, and document analysis. The Lampung Provincial Government’s multilevel dynamic governance indicates weak government capacity. During the year-long outbreak, there were no long-term initiatives, appropriate responses, meaningful evaluation follow-up or cross-sectoral coordination and collaboration activities. This research implies that coordination and collaboration are an essential factor in multilevel dynamic governance.


Introduction
The COVID−19 virus triggered a crisis that has affected nearly every aspect of human life. It has been estimated that the virus has infected millions of people worldwide and created economic devastation on a scale never previously imagined (Olivia et al., 2020). Regarding infections, deaths and the scope of public health interventions, such as mobility limitations or the economic ramifications of unemployment and public-sector spending, the figures are startling (Greer et al., 2020). According to the latest available data, a total of 907,929 COVID−19 cases had been reported in Indonesia as of 17 January 2021, with up to 25,000 deaths. Moreover, based on that data, Indonesia has been the worst-hit country in South East Asia in terms of fatalities (Pradana et al., 2020). Many believe that the true figure may be significantly higher as the Indonesian health system has not been operating at peak efficiency.
The COVID−19 pandemic has hit all regions of Indonesia, including Lampung Province. There had been 6,725 positive cases as of 16 December 2020. Bandar Lampung, the capital city of Lampung Province, was the worst-hit area, with 1,240 cases. As a public entity with a community service mandate, the government had to be able to respond quickly and precisely to the COVID−19 outbreak. However, it has faced a heavy burden in dealing with the pandemic. Lampung Province has faced the significant risk of becoming a point of transmission for COVID−19 due to its strategic location between Sumatra and Java. The number of positive cases reached 17,124 on 18 May 2021; 15467 people were declared to have recovered, 944 had died, there were 305 suspected cases and a further 97 were probable (DinkesLampung, 2021).
While neither the handling nor prevention of COVID−19 has become easier or more successful over time, even if the efforts made are transitory and aimed at addressing a specific problem during a turbulent period, cross-sectoral and cross-level collaboration is still required (Donahue & Zeckhauser, 2011). Therefore, against this backdrop, the Lampung Provincial Government must work closely with both the local government and the community to empower the latter at even the lowest level.
Governance becomes complex when seeking to control COVID−19. While demand grows for epidemiologists, virologists and immunologists, there is a fear that mathematical modelling has surpassed the public health competence of individuals with hands-on experience of pandemics and disease outbreaks. There are valid concerns about their qualifications, even if politicians want to appear to be "following the science".
In terms of literature studies, plenty of research has focused on policies for handling COVID−19. As an example, Yuda et al. (2020) argued that the COVID−19 pandemic has illustrated the need for a community-based support structure, especially for vulnerable groups that are often disregarded. Many policies have been enacted to manage COVID−19 and these will remain in place until the virus is eradicated. The policies have included working and studying from home, the suspension of all mass gatherings, restraints on physical movement, the use of PPE, increased personal hygiene and pervasive social restraint. However, local governments must have the necessary resources and ability to enact and enforce these measures. While falling or low death rates are thus linked to the government's policy competency, the infection rate may also expose where it lacks capacity in other areas (Woo, 2020). To provide public services and formulate and implement policies, the public sector requires a collection of skills, competencies and resources (Wu et al., 2015).
A proactive approach is essential to solving dynamic concerns and serving the public good. Dynamic governance is defined as the government's ability to adjust policies, institutions and structures to changing and uncertain conditions. It begins in government and involves thinking ahead, thinking again and thinking across while also considering external influences on agile people and processes (Neo & Chen, 2007). Different countries have mounted varying responses to the COVID−19 outbreak. However, the process is extremely complex and time-consuming since it must address multiple policy areas and be implemented at multiple levels of jurisdiction (Bennett & Carney, 2015) affecting healthcare, social services and economic development, among other areas. Public safety and security are separate issues (Carney & Bennett, 2014;Keller, 2019).
COVID−19 cases have been attributed to various factors in Indonesia, including inadequate government strategies, a poor health system, and a lack of public awareness. Research by Hartanto and Siregar (2021) shows transparency, perceived accountability, and responsiveness with the public trust to be important aspects of governance in local governments in the face of COVID−19. However, based on some research findings, there is a delay in the response of the Indonesian government in dealing with COVID−19 (Djalante et al., 2020;Roziqin et al., 2021). This delay indicates that the Indonesian government's governance in dealing with the crisis is separate from dynamic capacity. Policies to overcome the crisis due to a pandemic cannot be managed or defeated with only one step or policy. Instead, the pandemic crisis can be managed with several policy responses that interact with each other over time (Nasri et al., 2022). Therefore, the government needs the dynamic capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. Therefore, pandemic preparedness requires state control of the health system and public governance (Greer et al., 2020).
Based on some of the previous studies, the novelty contribution provided by this research is the use of multilevel governance and dynamic governance approaches in the context of handling the COVID−19 pandemic crisis. Although the multilevel governance approach has been widely used in the context of local governance in Indonesia, its use in handling the Covid−19 pandemic still needs to be improved. In addition, the dynamic governance approach is also a very relevant concept in helping the government to adapt to the rapidly changing situation during the pandemic. Therefore, the use of these two approaches in this study can contribute to and provide an overview of how dynamic policy coordination and adaptation can help the handling of the Covid−19 pandemic in the regions. The results of this study can be a reference for the government and researchers in developing strategies for handling the Covid−19 pandemic in other regions in Indonesia and other countries experiencing similar situations in the future. Moreover, the novelty contribution provided by this research is the use of multilevel governance and dynamic governance approaches in the context of handling the COVID−19 pandemic crisis. Although the multilevel governance approach has been widely used in the context of local governance in Indonesia, its use in handling the Covid −19 pandemic still needs to be improved especially in the context of dealing with pandemic. In addition, the dynamic governance approach is also a very relevant concept in helping the government to adapt to the rapidly changing situation during the pandemic. Therefore, the use of these two approaches in this type of study can contribute to and provide an overview of how dynamic policy coordination and adaptation can help the handling of the Covid−19 pandemic in the regions. The results of this study can be a reference for the government and researchers in developing strategies for handling the Covid−19 pandemic in other regions in Indonesia and other countries experiencing similar situations.

The importance of Lampung as the study location
Our action research sought to adapt Neo and Chen's (2007) conceptual framework of thinking ahead, again and across to the process of dealing with COVID−19 in Lampung Province. Multilevel is essential because many countries have multiple levels of government, including local, regional, state, national, and federal levels, as well as other organizations that have a stake in policy decisions and outcomes (Schiller, 2018). In the investigation of the case study in Indonesia, it is very relevant because the conditions for the implementation of handling COVID−19 in the regions are different.
We argue that there are two methodological reasons why it is important to study multilevel governance in the context of handling COVID−19 in Lampung and why such a study is representative of the Indonesian context. First, based on data from the Indonesian Covid−19 National Task Force, the Lampung Provincial Government was the second-best province in 2020 in terms of its handling of COVID−19. Second, Lampung is ranked within the top 10 provinces in Indonesia based on population size and is the third largest on Sumatra Island.
Lampung is the southernmost province of Sumatra. Its administrative centre is in Bandar Lampung and the province is divided into 15 (fifteen) regencies/cities. The COVID−19 pandemic response has required multilevel coordination and participation with district and city governments throughout the province, among other things. In this study, the term "multilevel" emphasises the fact that governance often occurs "under the shadow of a hierarchical organisation". However, it is crucial to note that not all links are channelled hierarchically, as is often assumed (Jessop, 2004). According to Regional Government Law Number 23 of 2014, provinces and regencies/cities are categorised as autonomous regions and administrative areas. In the context of the COVID−19 pandemic, the role of the provincial government is to coordinate and regulate the response and measures across the various cities and districts. The governor is responsible for coordinating all vertical agencies within the province to supervise and support the regions/cities under their control. It is therefore necessary to examine the many aspects of dynamic governance. The provincial government cannot function alone; efficient coordination and equitable cooperation are required with each city/district administration. Since COVID−19 has no borders, Lampung Province was a good place to begin the investigation.

Data collection and analysis
The study was conducted in Lampung Province from December 2020 to June 2021 with a major focus on one provincial government, two cities and 13 districts, as illustrated in Figure 1. The participants were selected using a purposive sampling method. Interviews were subsequently conducted with the participants from diverse backgrounds, including a social activist, COVID−19 volunteer and university students. Participants from local government representatives were chosen because of their capacity as those with policy-making responsibilities. While social activists, volunteers, and students were chosen because of their social activities that help the community handle COVID−19, so they know the objective conditions in the field. Due to the restrictions in place, we conducted the participant interviews using both face-to-face and written methods. Finally, the data were analysed using concept drawn theory.

Thinking ahead in handling COVID−19
The COVID−19-pandemic has been unprecedented in human history and governments in different countries have struggled to deal with it. Indonesia has been no exception. COVID−19 has exposed the acute vulnerability of Indonesia's health system to pandemics. Despite these constraints, however, the government had to act rapidly in response to the pandemic's uncertainties. In this sense, public organisations need to adapt to change. However, a common problem concerns the absence of a self-adjusting system capable of reacting to all changes in the state of society and bureaucratic activity (Faedlulloh et al., 2020). As the major subject in a crisis, the government must be able to anticipate future conditions that may damage institutions and people's lives. To prepare for the future, the government should regularly examine its existing policies and plans, update its goals and launch new activities.
A pandemic response will always be a political act since we do not make decisions about border controls or population quarantine in a vacuum (Dodds et al., 2020). Crisis management is a key policy challenge for politicians, executives and public administrators alike (Boin et al., 2017). The public must approve of the means chosen to address an issue if they are to comply with government advice and directives (Laegreid et al., 2019). A pandemic response may be ineffective if the government fails to coordinate public health measures, emphasise prevention and maximise citizen engagement (Sajadi & Hartley, 2021). In this sense, society and government must work together. The immediate response in Lampung was to accept central government programmes, yet herein also lay the problem. Indonesia's federal government did not enforce quarantine requirements. The concept of Large-Scale Social Limitations (PSBB) translated into micro-scale community activity restrictions (PPKM). Some people will resist such measures due to concerns over whether they will be able to eat; in other words, to comply, individuals had to be able to stay at home and not go hungry (Greer et al., 2020). This situation only complicated the measures taken to deal with COVID−19.
The Lampung Provincial Government's foresight was largely reactive and hence insufficient. Local government could only respond normatively to what was happening "here and now"; as a result, policies were inconsistent. During the pandemic, the Lampung Provincial Government issued a total of seven items of legislation.
(1) Regional Regulation Number 3  The seven legal items cited above are all normative policies. Thus, in terms of demonstrating the government's seriousness and a strong commitment to managing and preventing COVID−19, this policy is significant but not adequate. Despite being the most critical factor in overcoming the pandemic and interrupting the chain of virus transmission, the measures contain no explicit policy for healthcare institutions that would support the testing, tracking and treating of patients (Mei, 2020). Furthermore, no severe penalties were outlined for violating the health protocols, thus providing an excuse for people to disregard them (BPS, 2020).
Almost all local governments in Indonesia, including the Lampung Provincial Government, are incapable of responding quickly to catastrophes that created by COVID−19 pandemic. When the central government fails to provide effective policies and directives (Djalante et al., 2020;Yulianti et al., 2020), local governments are left unsure as to how to best serve the general public. In Lampung Province, we believe that policy has an impact on city and district government. The policies issued are representative of the provincial government's policies, yet people do not adhere to healthcare practices promptly.
To contend with COVID−19, it was critical to reallocate and refocus expenditures. On a national level, based on the Joint Decree of the Ministers of Home Affairs and Finance No. 119/2813/SJ No. 177/ KMK.07/2020 on Accelerating the 2020 Local Government Budget (APBD) Adjustment in the Context of Dealing with Covid−19 and Minister of Finance Regulation No. 35/PMK.07 on COVID−19 Pandemic and/or Economic Threats, the regional government was prompted to amend the possibility for regional taxes and levies in response to the decline in economic activity. The primary data for analysis relate to regional fiscal capability, which concerns the basic "capital" in budget management.
Regional autonomy has repercussions for the transfer of authority from the central to the regional government, such that the latter requires funding to fulfil its duties. Regional fiscal capacity, in contrast, refers to the regional government's ability to collect revenue from accessible sources. It relates to the financial capacity of each region as assessed by regional revenues minus specified revenues and certain expenditures. The Regional Fiscal Capacity Index of Lampung Province is classified as moderate, according to Minister of Finance Regulation No. 120/PMK.07/ 2020. The index is also in the low to short range. Table 1 indicate that the fiscal capacity of local governments in Lampung Province was almost non-existent. This naturally affected regional budget allocations for COVID−19 prevention and response. The fiscal capacity also indirectly reflects the economic realities in each region. The local administration in the Lampung region faced a funding challenge in controlling and preventing COVID−19. On the one hand, the budgetary needs of regions to cope with Covid−19 were enormous, yet fiscal capacity was minimal and constrained. The adjustment to the Lampung Province budget was part of the planning process for COVID−19. The allocation focused on three main areas: 1) health, which accounted for 82 per cent of the Lampung provincial budget, 2) economic aspects, which accounted for 10.9 per cent, and 3) the social safety net, which accounted for 7.1 per cent of the budget. Concerning the health budget for COVID−19 management, the Lampung Provincial government provided IDR 80.36 billion. The total amount absorbed by the budget was IDR 59.77 billion (Oktavia, 2020a). According to the Development Finance Comptroller of Lampung Province, the Lampung Provincial Government and 15 regencies and cities in Lampung funded IDR 1.45 trillion for COVID−19 management in the regional budget. Significant budget allocations for handling COVID−19 must be used optimally  The process of developing seven lawful items was overseen by the provincial government and implemented by district and city governments.

The figures in
The policies were not intended to be long-term. There was no formal policy in place to enhance testing, tracing and treatment. and prioritise the taking of various actions to accelerate COVID−19 handling. As previously stated, Lampung Province has a fiscal capacity in the medium range, although most local governments remain in the low to short range. As a result, the local government in the Lampung region faced a capacity gap, which required effective collaboration to maintain the fiscal capability (Khan et al., 2020) in Lampung's administration of COVID−19.
Based on the above-cited data (Table 2), Lampung's multilevel thinking-ahead approach has proved to be unproductive. The municipal government's authority was normative and short-term in character. The policies established through the thinking-ahead approach were not long-term due to objective factors such as limited budgetary capacity. Nevertheless, Lampung Province has made progress. It was the second-best province in Indonesia in terms of successfully suppressing and managing the spread of COVID−19, based on the Indonesian Covid−19 National Task Force (DinkesLampung, 2020). In addition, Lampung received an award in controlling COVID−19 in the restaurant sector, modern markets/malls and traditional markets (Hutagalung & Sulistio, 2020). However, despite these achievements, government awards in Indonesia are often ceremonial and have no direct impact on the people (Pratama, 2017). This argument was supported by a participant in this study, who is a provincial COVID−19 volunteer: Two-years pandemic, I think there is no innovation taken by Provincial Government. They just wait for the central government's instruction. At the moment, I think, the number begins to decrease, because there is already herd immunity in the community. But, if we look at the third wave, Lampung is actually one of the highest number of cases. I think this means, from the first to the third wave, there was no comprehensive policy evaluation taken. The task force team only supervised the partial issue, there is no policy and programme socialisation, it is indeed resulting in confusion for everyone. (NR1) Another participant agreed, revealing that: I think, the problem is lack of programme socialisation; for example, the health protocol socialisation and what I look, that there is no rule enforcement commitment by the official, that is why we were seeing many people disobey the COVID−19 rules and restrictions and that is causing further problems. (NR2, similarly with NR3) Our research argues that, despite the progress in decentralisation made by local governments in Indonesia, including Lampung, many problems remain in the context of coordinating and collaborative works. The case of the Lampung Provincial Government's handling of COVID−19 has revealed this situation. Indeed, there is still much scope for improvement in the future. If the Lampung Provincial Government more actively involves all relevant stakeholders in the decisionmaking process, strengthening coordination and collaboration between local governments, including local communities (Yuda et al., 2020), health workers, and businesses would open up the possibility of making more dynamic and "thinking ahead" policies. Crises need to be managed with multiple policy responses that interact with each other over time so that problems cannot be partially localized (Nasri et al., 2022). On the other hand, it is also necessary that the policies implemented are tailored to the specific needs of the local context and that all stakeholders have a common understanding of the challenges and opportunities of the crisis.

Thinking again -evaluation and sustainability
Thinking again means being able to look at policies that have already been adopted and analyse and re-design them to improve quality-of-life policies and goals. The performance of established policies and programmes is compared to the planned starting objectives. The force-of-the-thinking mindset means that bureaucrats are encouraged to be ardent in undertaking rigorous analysis based on objective conditions, with actual data, reliable information measurement and feedback, as well as recognising problems and public demands. However, with the exception of the Lampung Provincial Government, virtually no local governments in Indonesia were able to respond quickly to problems during the pandemic. When the central government fails to provide effective policies and directives local governments are left unsure as to how to best serve the general public (Djalante et al., 2020).
Previous experience with pandemics enables the government to prepare for future outbreaks (Capano et al., 2020). However, while the Lampung administration lacked such information, this did not curtail the response for very long. To battle a pandemic, governments must be able to rapidly and efficiently adjust to changing circumstances. The Lampung Provincial Government holds regular coordination meetings, the minutes of which are frequently posted on its website and social media. In general, the Lampung Provincial Government followed the orders set out by the central government, which varied from largescale societal limitations to micro-scale community activities, and everything in-between. It is therefore advised that the district/city implements regional or regent/mayor ordinances to address local limits. However, the government is considering using village funds to handle COVID−19, in addition to organising COVID−19 response volunteers and maximising village posts to report on the development of COVID−19 in the areas.
As previously indicated, the government's principal aim has been to suppress micro-community activities. Lampung was one of the provinces that placed restrictions on such activities during the period 22 April−3 May 2021. The Community Activities Restrictions Enforcement (PPKM) was created as a follow-up to the Minister of Home Affairs' Instruction Number 9 of 2021, which was released on 19 April 2021. There were various exceptions to the restrictions, such as public facilities, parks, tourist attractions and other publicly accessible locations that could be operated with a 25 per cent capacity limit and opening hours of 07:00-20:00. Shopping malls and trade centres were only open from 07:00 to 20:00.
Meanwhile, a capacity limit of 25 percent was established due to health regulations. According to public statements, 15 district/city administrations in Lampung had such a policy. The problem, however, was that the various policies differed. Each community is responsible for health and safety, and small business owners and workers in the informal sector are powerless. As a result, society faced a dilemma. The scenario would have been different if the government had passed a quarantine law. As it was, alarming things took place in the field, notably involving individuals who operated in the informal sector daily. They faced the stark choice of leaving the house to work or facing starvation. The government did provide some assistance; however, it was poorly disseminated. Some state authorities even bribed social workers (Mietzner, 2020). As such, when the public authorities in Lampung did not lead by example, the control policy on health processes became a "gimmick".
After a year, it was essential to review the pandemic situation, especially regarding public health facilities. The state was bound to act and provide in areas of citizens' rights. For example, every human being has the right to health, which is a legal right guaranteed by the state without question (Heymann et al., 2013). The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights emphasises the right to health as a basic human right. It should trump other human rights (CESCR General Comment, No 14, 2000).
According to Woo (2020), a crucial consideration is the availability of hospital beds and resources for treating infected individuals. Lampung Province has 36 COVID−19 referral hospitals with 938 beds. Only 35 beds have ventilator capabilities. In normal times, the hospital has sufficient capacity. In the context of a rapidly spreading pandemic, however, existing capacity was potentially insufficient to treat individuals testing positive for COVID−19.
Lampung Province saw a rise in positive cases of COVID−19 in November 2020, which resulted in 12 COVID−19 referral hospitals operating at full capacity. Within a month, COVID−19 bed capacity had fallen to 36.5 per cent of its maximum. Based on the latest available data, the COVID−19 death rate in Lampung was 5.32 per cent in March 2021, exceeding the national rate of 2.71 per cent. In light of these three factors, COVID−19 operational capability and infrastructure were clearly inadequate. Lampung's provincial government responded by cooperating with the University of Lampung to convert the State Higher Education Teaching Hospital into an emergency hospital (Oktavia, 2020b) and making preparations to install emergency tents for COVID−19 patients (Prasetya, 2021).
Aside from treatment, COVID−19 testing and registration are critical. Unfortunately, the COVID −19 testing and tracking ability of Lampung Provincial Government remains in its infancy due to the limits of sample testing equipment and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. However, new testing programmes were designed to reach the areas surrounding the location of a PCR machine, and more accessible locations were reached. Between 14 May and 27 November 2020, a total of 32,047 PCR specimens were tested by the Lampung Health Office. PCR assays were used to test DNA from 15,442 people. Four PCR machines and three molecular-fast-test machines were used in Lampung. Due to limited PCR capacity, Lampung was able to examine only 150-160 specimens per day. The PCR testing capacity in Lampung was also unsatisfactory due to differences in equipment requirements and a restricted supply of reagents. The laboratory, on the other hand, was staffed by only a small number of people. This meant that when police officers, for example, were exposed to COVID−19, the PCR testing process was nearly always impeded.
In Lampung Province, PCR testing capacity was amplified in the Lampung Regional Health Laboratory (Labkesda), Abdul Moeloek Hospital, Lampung POM Centre (BBPOM) and the Veterinary Laboratory Center. Three TCM machines were employed in Pringsewu Hospital, Ahmad Yani Hospital and Menggala Hospital, in addition to other locations.
A minimum of 25-30 people who have direct contact with COVID−19 patients should be tracked. However, according to the police, only seven people who had been in close contact with patients were traced in the average search in Lampung, thus demonstrating the province's lack of tracking capability. It is likely that familial factors disguised the situation, making the tracking process more difficult.
The Lampung government reacted slowly to the above situations. While Indonesia declared COVID−19 a national tragedy in March 2020, it was not until December 2020 that the public was able to access independent PCR tests, underscoring the lack of healthcare facilities in rural areas.
Antigen testing will eventually be made available to people as an initial test through health facilities that offer this service. The market mechanism has been in operation, with only financially secure people able to take the test.
Based on table 3 shows the government's ability to think critically and creatively is not optimal. In Lampung, a multilevel evaluation was conducted with 15 districts/city governments. In this sense, our local health activist participant revealed that "it seems there is no comprehensive evaluation. I think, we should learn from past experiences. They need to improve the services, and [having a better] policy formulation" (NR4).
According to the evaluation results, the second response was not significantly different from the first in March 2020. The study showed no proactive response or good follow-up throughout the first year of the pandemic. In the "thinking again" lens, the Lampung Provincial Government has not collaborated and publicly discussed COVID−19. In a crisis, governments and health organizations must collaborate and discuss with related stakeholders, such as the community, industry, and health experts. It is done to get input and new ideas and to ensure that policies and actions taken include diverse perspectives and are accountable. Moreover, an agile approaches to COVID −19 management were not adopted in Lampung. Neo and Chen (2007) reveals that agile processes aid dynamic governance. As a result, crisis adaptability was ineffective. A successful adaptive capacity building requires political decision-making, compatibility between institutional roles and ecosystems, as well as decision-making to facilitate community adaptation (Eakin et al., 2011). According to Eakin and Lemos (2006), Government adaptive capability is demonstrated through policy initiatives and institutional structures, followed by action.

Lack of thinking across in multilevel dynamic governance
Looking elsewhere, China's first response was chaotic, but it became more organised and successful over time. To confront the pandemic, China has sought to mobilise its entire government and resources (Cai et al., 2020;Mei, 2020). As such, complex horizontal/vertical/formal/informal institutional arrangements can boost decision-making ability and crisis management coordination. Ultimately, any local authority can learn from other organisations' COVID−19 pandemic experience.
Local governments must engage in cross-sectoral learning regarding COVID−19 success. Previous experience with pandemics will mean a government is better equipped to prepare for future outbreaks (Capano et al., 2020). Collaboration between governments, as a means of providing support for handling COVID−19 in the Lampung region, can facilitate the learning process. In Indonesia, almost all local governments have faced the same terrible issues. As an example, the administration of DKI Jakarta, Indonesia's capital, has experienced various systemic failures in healthcare delivery. In the context of Lampung, our social activist participant supported this argument and stated that: It should be a lesson, the provincial government claims that there are strategies and innovations, but we can see that each of the local governments works individually without having good collaborative work. I think, there is no policy evaluation, because, according to my friend who is a journalist, he said to me that provincial government official was thinking we are fine, nothing should be worried about. I think, the policies taken are not responsive and never have a public consultation. I think only good news is reported. The official phone numbers cannot be contacted. The data cannot be accessed, except for the report that has been officially released by the government. (NR5) The conclusions of the empirical investigation indicate that the Lampung government has lacked a coherent method of thinking. Local governments have not made efforts to learn about COVID−19 from other groups or institutions. The absence of data on government cross-sectoral collaboration for comparative study programmes indicates that the government does not collaborate. The Lampung Provincial Government organised the XXI Main Praja Partner Cooperation Forum (FKD-MPU) 2021, which was attended by 10 provinces in Indonesia. However, the collaboration and local government focused more on economic aspects than enhancing the health system. Instead of prioritising citizens' health, city and district governments established policies to save the economy.
In the "thinking across" lens, in addition to learning across borders, involving many parties is an integral part of decision-making. In handling COVID−19, parties such as medical experts, epidemiologists, public health experts, governments, and the wider community need to be more actively participated and engaged in the process of decision making. In dynamic governance, everyone is considered to have different expertise and knowledge. As the result, by involving multiple parties can ensure a more holistic perspective and more ideas are generated. In "thinking across," decisions are based on available data and evidence, not individual opinions or wishes. In handling COVID−19, making decisions based on scientific evidence and accurate data is essential to ensure the decisions taken are genuinely effective and can overcome the existing problems. These efforts have unfortunately yet to be optimized by the Lampung Provincial Government during the handling of COVID−19. Local governments in the Lampung region are working independently, even though the public problems caused by the pandemic cannot be localized separately.

Conclusion
Our empirical findings from Lampung Province show that multilevel dynamic governance in the management of COVID−19 remains insufficient, with the lack of long-term pandemic response measures a defining feature. There is currently no clear course for post-pandemic government. In other words, the ability to plan has been underutilised.
Due to the aforementioned conditions, the Lampung Province administration evaluated various measures but did not permit sufficient follow-up after more than a year of pandemic experience. The rethinking of processes to improve quality and policy and to maximise goals requires the ability to think again. In the same way, thinking across is crucial. Provincial and district/city administrations have not created positive pandemic-fighting initiatives involving cross-sector learning and collaboration.
According to the research findings, dynamic governance at the local level can only be achieved through coordination and collaboration. This level of cooperation and coordination requires a new structure: dynamic, multilevel governance. The aspects of coordination and collaboration are essential and must be explained in Neo and Chen's framework. In a multilevel context, coordination is necessary to generate policy responses that interact over time. In this sense, the theoretical contribution of this research is that coordination and collaboration are essential factors in dynamic governance. Based on the findings and limitations of this research, future research agendas should investigate the steps and strategies required for developing a more comprehensive and systematic post-pandemic governance framework. The future studies could delve into broader themes, including the importance of leadership, flexibility and adaptability in multilevel dynamic governance and the crucial role of policy communication as well as trust within the context of multilevel dynamic governance. Conducting research in these areas would contribute to a deeper understanding of effective governance mechanisms for managing post-pandemic situations and align with scientific principles. disease 19  in Lampung Province, Indonesia,