State Roles in Commercial Spaceport Governance: Lessons for Indonesia and the Global South

Regulatory Governance

Regulatory governance theory highlights that in complex, high-risk sectors, the state’s role extends beyond rulemaking to ensuring regulatory legitimacy, accountability, and effectiveness amid overlapping economic, security, and geopolitical interests. ¹⁵ Regulation is understood as part of a multilevel, polycentric system involving governments, private actors, and international institutions. Applied to the space sector, this perspective explains why states must continually adapt oversight mechanisms to keep pace with technological innovation and emerging commercial models.

For Indonesia, this framework is particularly relevant given ongoing institutional fragmentation following the integration of National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN) into National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (BRIN) and the absence of a dedicated launch authority. These conditions require stronger cross-agency coordination and clearer regulatory differentiation. A more flexible, collaborative governance approach can enhance legal certainty and expand opportunities for private participation, while ensuring that the state fulfils its obligations under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.

Entrepreneurial State

Entrepreneurial state theory ¹⁶ expands the role of the state from merely correcting market failures to actively shaping new markets through mission-oriented policies, early-stage research funding, and technological leadership. In the space sector, this perspective highlights the need for governments to assume initial risks and build the foundations of an innovation ecosystem, rather than relying solely on regulatory instruments.

For Indonesia, this framework is particularly relevant because spaceport and broader space-industry development remain at an early stage and require fiscal support, clear national missions, and strong innovation incentives. BRIN has the potential to serve as the country’s entrepreneurial arm through leadership in launch-related research and development. Yet the absence of explicit mission-oriented policies—such as a national strategy for Biak’s commercialization—illustrates that the state’s catalytic role is still underdeveloped. This perspective helps assess how mission-oriented innovation policies could be leveraged to strengthen Indonesia’s national space innovation system.

National Innovation System

The NIS concept highlights the importance of coordinated interactions among government agencies, industry, and research institutions in advancing national technological capabilities.^17,18 Effective NIS performance relies on strong knowledge flows, cross-sector coherence, and consistent linkages between research, industry, and education. In the space sector, the NIS framework explains why technological capacity building requires institutional arrangements that enable joint innovation and sustained collaboration between public and private actors.

For Indonesia, the NIS perspective provides a foundation for developing a more integrated national space ecosystem in which BRIN, universities, launch-service industries, and private investors operate within a supportive and interconnected structure. At present, Indonesia’s space innovation system remains fragmented and lacks strong linkages connecting BRIN, academic institutions, and emerging space industries. The NIS approach therefore helps assess the need for deeper cross-sector coordination to support more synergistic and sustainable development of the national spaceport and broader space innovation landscape.

Public–Private Partnership

The PPP model underscores collaborative arrangements in which governments and private actors share responsibilities for financing, developing, and operating major infrastructure. ¹⁹ In capital-intensive sectors like spaceports, PPPs distribute risks more efficiently: governments manage political and regulatory uncertainties, while private firms handle technical and operational challenges. In some countries, PPPs have advanced into open-innovation partnerships that support joint research and technology development. ¹⁴

For Indonesia, PPPs offer a practical solution to fiscal constraints in building launch facilities. The state can provide policy direction and regulatory support, while private actors contribute innovation and efficiency. Yet clearer rules on risk-sharing and space asset ownership are still needed. This framework helps evaluate Indonesia’s readiness to adopt more innovative partnership models in the space sector.

Conceptual Integration

These four theories collectively provide an analytical lens for defining the state’s strategic role in commercial spaceport development. Regulatory governance highlights the need for legitimacy and security; the entrepreneurial state underscores innovation leadership; the NIS stresses coordination among research and industry; and the PPP model emphasizes financing partnerships and collaborative innovation. Applied to Indonesia, integrating these perspectives supports a governance model that goes beyond legal compliance to promote economic growth, technological advancement, and international cooperation—an approach relevant for many Global South countries building high-tech capabilities.

The conceptual framework, as shown in Figure 1, summarizes how these four theories align with the state’s five strategic roles in commercial spaceport governance and their policy implications for Indonesia and similar emerging space nations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 1.

Conceptual framework of the relationship between four theories and five roles of the state in commercial spaceport activities (Source: processed by the author).

Political and Industrial Context of Indonesia’s Space Sector

Indonesia’s space sector reflects a long-term commitment to advancing strategic science and technology. Since the establishment of LAPAN in 1963, national space activities have focused on research, Earth observation, and the development of rocket and satellite technologies. Institutional reform through Presidential Regulation No. 78/2021 integrated LAPAN into BRIN, creating a unified research governance system intended to strengthen coordination, align space policy with national priorities, and support the vision of Golden Indonesia 2045. Indonesia’s space policy is grounded in Law No. 21/2013 on Space, which affirms state responsibility for all national space activities and provides the legal basis for developing commercial spaceports. Positioned as national strategic projects, spaceports are expected to catalyze the growth of the space economy by attracting investment, strengthening launch capabilities, and expanding industrial participation. The government also promotes international cooperation to support technology transfer and enhance competitiveness, reflecting the broader shift toward an innovation-driven space economy. ⁶

At the industrial level, Indonesia has made notable progress. PSN launched the 160 Gbps Nusantara Lima—Southeast Asia’s largest commercial satellite—expanding national broadband capacity. ²² Telkomsat advanced high-throughput capabilities through the Merah Putih-2 satellite in partnership with Thales Alenia Space. ²³ The SATRIA-1 project, delivered through a PPP scheme with 150 Gbps capacity, demonstrates the effectiveness of government–private collaboration for expanding digital public services. ²⁴ Industry associations and partnerships also strengthen ecosystem development. ²⁵ The Indonesian Satellite Association (ASSI) promotes collaboration, talent development, and policy advocacy, while PT LEN Industri’s cooperation with French partners expands capabilities in Earth observation and satellite communications. ARIKSA estimates Indonesia’s potential spaceport market at USD 200 million annually, ²⁶ aligning with global projections of a USD 1.8 trillion space economy by 2035. ²⁷

Despite this progress, Indonesia still faces major challenges: limited launch infrastructure, heavy reliance on foreign launch services, early-stage domestic launcher development, and low private investment relative to other high-tech sectors. Addressing these gaps requires more targeted policies, stronger cross-sector coordination, and a coherent national innovation system. Overall, Indonesia’s space sector is in a transitional phase toward a more integrated innovation ecosystem that connects research, industry, and economic development. With clearer regulations, effective PPPs, and long-term strategic planning, Indonesia has significant potential to strengthen its position in the global space industry, providing a basis for comparison with governance models in France, the United States, and India.

The Role of the State in Commercial Spaceport Activities in Benchmark Countries

This section examines the role of the state in commercial spaceport activities across benchmark countries, highlighting how institutional capacity, regulatory frameworks, and policy strategies shape the development of space infrastructure in the New Space era.

Comparative Analysis of State Roles in Commercial Spaceport Activities and Policy Lessons for Indonesia and the Global South

The U.S. space ecosystem illustrates a multiactor pattern that positions the state as a policy director and regulator without taking over the operational functions of the private sector. Through the Commercial Space Launch Act (1984) and FAA oversight, the government established a regulatory framework that fosters commercial competition while ensuring safety and legal compliance. The NSpC strengthens cross-agency coordination, while NASA plays a strategic role in innovation and industry partnerships. This configuration illustrates the principle of Regulatory Governance, which views regulation as part of a polycentric, multilevel governance system—involving the government, the private sector, and international actors. ¹⁵ Through the FAA mechanism, oversight is carried out on technological innovation and risk. As explained by Hood, Rothstein, and Baldwin (2001), ⁴⁵ the state plays the roles of both a rule-maker and a rule-enforcer. In practice, this regulatory function not only establishes rules but also manages the trade-off between encouraging industrial innovation and maintaining public safety, especially in high-risk sectors that are highly dependent on technological progress. This makes the regulatory function in the U.S. strategic in establishing the credibility of the commercial space industry.

This policy aligns with the concept of an entrepreneurial state, where the state serves not only as a regulator but also as a catalyst and driver of innovation. Through the COTS and CCP programs, NASA acts as an early investor, sharing risks with the private sector to develop new launch systems such as Dragon (SpaceX) and Cygnus (Orbital). This approach embodies a mission-oriented policy, emphasizing the creation of new markets and increasing the competitiveness of national industries. In this context, the state’s role can be categorized as a catalyst, as per Mazzucato (2013) ¹⁶ and Evans (1995), ⁴⁶ who emphasize the importance of the state in encouraging innovation and establishing an independent yet connected industrial ecosystem (embedded autonomy). State involvement does not stop at the initial funding stage but is integrated into the national innovation ecosystem through Space Act Agreements and the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program, which strengthens collaborative networks between government, industry, and academia. ⁴⁷ Within the framework of the National Innovation System (NIS), the government acts as a facilitator, creating a conducive environment for innovation by providing infrastructure, incentives, and institutional support. ⁴⁸ This approach allows innovations to be tested, adopted, and developed more quickly in a broader industrial context while strengthening national capacity and opening up opportunities for future international collaboration.

Furthermore, the PPP model in the United States has evolved into an open innovation partnership that emphasizes strategic collaboration between the state and industry. The NASA–SpaceX COTS project demonstrates that PPPs go beyond sharing financial risks, creating shared value through research, technology validation, and strengthening industrial capacity. ¹⁴ Within this framework, the state acts as a coordinator that aligns public and private interests, as described by Peters (2018) ⁴⁹ in the concept of meta-governance—the state’s ability to manage policy complexity and facilitate innovation without taking over operational control. This approach creates a space ecosystem that balances collaboration, competition, and regulation, while strengthening the competitiveness of the national industry. By integrating the four analytical lenses, it can be concluded that the state plays a multidimensional role in U.S. commercial spaceport governance: as a regulator that ensures public safety and legal compliance, a catalyst that encourages innovation and market formation, a facilitator of the national innovation ecosystem, and a coordinator of cross-agency public–private partnerships. Meanwhile, the state’s implementation function is limited because most operational activities are carried out by the private sector.

French space institutions position the state as the primary actor in the regulation and policy direction of this strategic sector. Since the enactment of the 2008 French Space Operations Act (FSOA), CNES has held primary authority over licensing, safety, and launch coordination, while Arianespace operates as a semi-public company under state oversight. This model demonstrates centralized regulation, where strategic decisions and standardization remain state-led. Within the framework of Regulatory Governance, CNES’s role reflects a hierarchical oversight function that maintains the legitimacy and stability of the system. In line with Majone (1997) ⁵⁰ , regulators are tasked not only with establishing rules but also with maintaining policy quality and balancing public interests in high-risk sectors. This also aligns with Black’s (2008) ¹⁵ view that the state must ensure the legitimacy, accountability, and effectiveness of regulation amid intersecting economic, strategic, and security interests. Through CNES, the government maintains policy authority while opening limited space for innovation.

The partnership between CNES and Arianespace can be understood as a state-guided public–private partnership, in which the state retains a key role in directing public–private collaboration to maintain the efficiency and competitiveness of the launch sector. In this context, the relationship between the two can be viewed from a meta-governance perspective, namely as the state’s effort to coordinate various actors without losing its ability to maintain strategic policy direction. ⁵¹

On the other hand, innovation networks within the French space sector’s National Innovation System (NIS) tend to develop within a structured institutional framework, emphasizing policy stability and a relatively strong state role.^52,53 This^54,55 contrasts with more market-based ecosystems, such as those in the United States, which are often associated with faster innovation dynamics. Within this context, the development of innovation in the French space sector can be understood as gradual and directed, in line with a policy orientation that prioritizes national security and strategic interests. Thus, the French state’s role can be seen as both a regulator and a primary coordinator, with a tendency to prioritize policy stability and strategic control within a relatively centralized governance structure.

On the other hand, India’s space policy architecture demonstrates a gradual transformation from a state-centric model to a collaborative system involving the private sector. Since the establishment of IN-SPACe in 2020, the government has begun opening up access for commercial companies to participate in the launch and development of space technology. However, ISRO retains primary control over research, technology, and infrastructure, making India an example of hybrid governance where the state remains the primary implementer while simultaneously encouraging the involvement of private actors. Within the Regulatory Governance framework, the Indian state serves not only as a controller but also as a custodian of the balance between national interests and market openness. Through IN-SPACe, the state regulates commercial activities to ensure they comply with strategic safety and security standards while also providing legitimacy for private actors to engage in launch activities. Within the Entrepreneurial State framework, the state acts as a catalyst for innovation, growing the domestic space industry through mission-oriented policies. In line with Mazzucato (2013), ¹⁶ the entrepreneurial state not only funds initial research but also creates market direction through strategic investments and technological support. ISRO programs like the Small Satellite Launch Vehicle (SSLV) and Gaganyaan demonstrate how the state takes on the initial risk to build national industrial capacity and then creates space for private actors to participate.

From a NIS perspective, India positions the state as a facilitator of innovation networks, connecting research institutions, universities, and the industrial sector. Consistent with Pierre and Peters (2000), ⁴⁹ the state plays a facilitative role in governance networks by facilitating collaboration between the public and private sectors to create an ecosystem for cross-actor knowledge exchange. Initiatives such as the Space Enterprise Encouragement & Development (SEED) and the Technology Transfer and Industry Interface Program demonstrate India’s concrete efforts to expand research collaboration and strengthen the innovation capacity of domestic industries. Meanwhile, public-private partnerships in India remain emerging partnerships, where the state leads project coordination but remains open to investment and industrial collaboration. This pattern aligns with Peters’ (2018) ⁴⁹ meta-governance, where the state acts as a strategic director, balancing efficiency and public control. Thus, the role of the Indian state can be defined as a facilitator and implementer of innovation. The state remains the primary driver of research and development but is gradually developing a facilitative role to strengthen private sector participation. This model demonstrates a transition from a closed system to collaborative governance, where the state seeks to balance national technological independence with global market dynamics.

Indonesia’s space institutions are still in the early stages of establishing an institutional and regulatory system that supports commercial activities. The primary legal framework is Law No. 21 of 2013 concerning Space, which affirms the state’s role in regulating, controlling, and utilizing space activities for the national interest. Articles 7 and 37 open opportunities for the involvement of private legal entities, both domestic and foreign, in space launch and utilization activities. However, implementation of this policy remains limited due to the lack of an authoritative institution that functions as a technical regulator and market facilitator. Following the integration of LAPAN into BRIN, the coordination and implementation functions of space programs have not fully met the needs of the commercial industry. This situation indicates that the state’s role remains dominant, although it is beginning to shift toward a more collaborative and inclusive governance model. Through Law No. 21 of 2013 concerning Space and institutional restructuring under BRIN, the government affirmed its central responsibility for all national space activities, both scientific and commercial.

From a Regulatory Governance perspective, this configuration positions the state as the central regulatory authority that not only sets rules but also maintains legal legitimacy, public safety, and policy integration. As Black (2008) ¹⁵ explains, in high-risk sectors, the state plays a role in ensuring the legitimacy, accountability, and effectiveness of regulations amid overlapping economic and geopolitical interests. BRIN’s role in coordinating research and innovation across institutions also reflects a meta-governance function, where the state directs and synergizes policies without completely dominating technical implementation. The policy of spaceport development as a National Strategic Project demonstrates the application of Entrepreneurial State logic, where the government acts as a market shaper and risk taker to create new high-tech markets. Through regulatory support, technological diplomacy, and the provision of initial infrastructure, the state lowers investment barriers while strengthening independence in launch technology. This is in line with Mazzucato (2013), ¹⁶ who views the entrepreneurial state as a public actor that takes risks to encourage private innovation, and Evans (1995), ⁴⁶ who emphasizes the importance of embedded autonomy—state independence that remains embedded in industrial networks. In the Indonesian context, this role is seen in its support for BRIN and national launch industries such as PT Pasifik Satelit Nusantara (PSN) and PT Telkom Satelit Indonesia, where the state serves as a catalyst for innovation that opens new market opportunities through strategic policies and investments.

From the perspective of the National Innovation System (NIS), the integration of research institutions through BRIN and collaboration between industry, associations, and universities are efforts towards a more coordinated innovation system. The state acts as an institutional facilitator, providing an enabling environment for interaction between knowledge actors, as described by Pierre and Peters (2000) ⁴⁸ in the concept of enabling governance. This ecosystem is still in its formative stages, with ASSI, ARIKSA, PT LEN, and several international partners playing a key role in strengthening technological and human resource networks, although coordination between actors and policy continuity remain key challenges. Within the Public–Private Partnership (PPP) framework, the SATRIA-1 project serves as a concrete example of collaboration between the government and the private sector in developing strategic space infrastructure. However, the resulting partnership pattern remains a state-led partnership, where the state retains primary control over policy direction and funding. This aligns with Peters’ (2018) ⁴⁹ view of the meta-governance role, where the state acts as a coordinator, uniting various actors without losing control over its strategic agenda. This pattern indicates that the state’s coordination function in Indonesia still tends to be hierarchical compared to the collaborative model seen in the United States. Overall, the Indonesian state’s role in commercial spaceport activities remains transitional. The state plays a dominant role as a regulator, ensuring public safety and legal certainty, while also beginning to assume a catalytic role in encouraging innovation and private sector involvement. This model demonstrates a shift toward a more flexible approach, where the state seeks to maintain a balance between strategic control and innovation to strengthen the competitiveness of the national space industry.

Based on the description above, the role of the state in commercial spaceport activities in various countries shows different patterns and intensities. In the United States, the state plays a multidimensional role as regulator, catalyst, facilitator, and coordinator, while the private sector holds the primary operational control. In France, the state plays a strategic policymaking role through CNES and relevant ministries, while simultaneously encouraging targeted research and maintaining a balance of innovation through partnerships with Arianespace and ESA. India exhibits a hybrid model, where ISRO remains the primary actor but the government is beginning to open up space for private sector participation and strengthen domestic innovation networks through IN-SPACe. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, the state’s role remains focused on establishing an institutional and policy framework, with BRIN as the primary actor, which is gradually adopting facilitative and catalytic functions to encourage private sector involvement.

Table 1 below summarizes a comparison of the main characteristics of the role of the state, main actors, regulations, and governance models of commercial spaceports in the four countries.

Policy Recommendations for Indonesia and the Global South in Commercial Spaceport Activities

Findings from a comparative analysis of commercial spaceport activities in four countries indicate that the role of the state in the space ecosystem is multidimensional and strongly influenced by the institutional context, industrial capacity, and national policy orientation, as seen in the United States, France, and India. This difference in the role of the state is seen in the governance model implemented by each country, with different characteristics and focuses according to the national context. The United States adopts a regulatory–entrepreneurial governance model that balances regulation with support for market-based innovation, which emphasizes its dominant multidimensional role (regulator, catalyst, facilitator, coordinator). France applies a centralized regulation model that is institutionally strong, and coordinates various private actors, which illustrates its role as regulator and coordinator. Conversely, India shows a hybrid governance pattern that marks the transition from a state-centric system to a collaborative one, where the state plays the role of implementer and catalyst of innovation, while Indonesia is still in a transitional phase toward a more integrated system with continuously developing institutional capacity, where the state plays the role of regulator and catalyst.

Based on the findings from the four countries, several policy recommendations relevant to Indonesia and other Global South countries can be identified: 1.

Establish a strong technical regulatory authority (e.g., FAA/U.S., CNES/France) so that regulations are not merely administrative but also adaptive to technological dynamics, balancing public safety and innovation.