Most of the land border areas in Indonesia are disadvantaged areas with minimal social and economic facilities and infrastructure. As a result, in some areas, land border areas become untouched by development dynamics (Rahim et al., 2022) . People in the region are generally poor and more oriented to neighbouring countries. On the other hand, neighbouring countries such as

Malaysia have built growth centres and border corridors through various economic and trade activities. Dover in the U.K. made a very rapid change in building its border area (Cassidy et al., 2018). Countries such as India and Bangladesh built their borders through culture (Shahriar et al., 2020). China and Europe are among the countries that carry out massive development in the border areas in both the education, economic, political, and cultural sectors (Brunet◻Jailly, 2012),(Grant, 2020),(Ying, 1999) after which it started widening. This diminishing trend was due to a significant decline in income inequality among provinces in the coastal region. A further test indicates that an increase in per capita GDP in the southern coastal provinces is the main reason for declining regional inequality in China during the early reform period (1978-90. Such development has benefited the government and its people. Economic opportunities in some areas of Indonesia’s land borders have opened up more with the enactment of several international treaties. The agreement includes international free trade, regional and bilateral economic cooperation, and sub-regional cooperation such as Indonesia Malaysia Singapore – Growth Triangle (IMS-GT) or ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). This international collaboration is expected to benefit the development efforts of border areas.

The development of land border areas massively started from a new paradigm based on security to prosperity (Yandri et al., 2018). The development of this land border area is carried out in line with the paradigm change; in addition to improving productivity and stimulating connectivity, it is expected to reduce poverty (PRIYARSONO, 2017). This development certainly impacts the economic growth side of the land border area. The construction of infrastructure facilities is also increasingly rampant and rapid. Intensive interaction, especially inland border areas, results in developing economic and people activities on the border. The government, as a regulator, began to publish various policies supporting the economic development of the border area. Starting from establishing a particular agency for border management, namely National Agency for Border Management (BNPP) through Presidential Regulation No. 12 of 2010, to policies in the form of integrated programs and activities between ministries and institutions. However, the problem of land border areas is certainly not resolved. There are still some economic problems that are still homework for the government, including:

a. Low Development Performance Indicators

There are four indicators of development performance, such as HDI (human development index), GDP (Gross Regional Domestic Product), Gini Index, and Poverty Level. The following figure describes the indicators of development performance in inland border areas compared to non-border areas in the same province. During 2015 – 2020 the HDI inland border areas increased by an average of 0.08%. When compared to non-border areas (0.16%) and Indonesia (0.14%), of course, it is still relatively low, considering the government has massively issued various policies to improve development in the border area (Figure 1).

In line with the HDI, GDP in land border areas are also lower in value than in non- border areas and Indonesia. Figure 1explains that the increase in GDP in inland border areas throughout 2015 - 2020 is quite good, which is 5.8% compared to non-border areas at 2.7% and Indonesia at 3.01%. Nevertheless, the increase is still far from the value side. Hopefully, in the future, there will be an acceleration of development in the border area that can increase GDP in the border area.

The level of income inequality in a region is seen from the value of the Gini index; the greater the value of the Gini index, the higher the inequality (Farris, 2010). Inequality of land border areas is relatively small compared to non-border areas and Indonesia. It is possible because the land border area is an area that is identical to rural and suburban areas, in contrast to non-border areas that are urban areas. The picture above explains that in 2015 - 2016 inequality in the region decreased by 2.9 %, but then tends to be stable. In contrast to non-border areas, inequality decreased by about 3.2% during 2015-2020, while inequality decreased by 1.4% for Indonesia. (Figure 2).

When it comes to poverty, this problem is crucial because it has a vast impact, including unemployment, crime, and other social ills (Zia & Prasetyo, 2018) banking services availability, and the use of banking services. The data was time series from 2014- 2016 and cross section from 33 provinces in Indonesia obtained from Bank Indonesia, Financial Service Authority, and Central Bureau Statistics. The results showed; (1. The poverty rate in the land border area is relatively high compared to non-border areas and Indonesia. During 2015 – 2020 poverty in land border areas ranged in 37% of the population. While non-border areas are at 27%, Indonesia is in the range of 10%- 12% (Figure 2).

Based on these four performance indicators, land border areas have a lower value than non-border areas, whereas border areas get special policies and programs compared to non-border areas. Some of the policies that the government has issued are:

b. The geographical isolation of the development centre makes the utilization of natural resources potential not maximized, while local economic development is also limited to impact the small investment (Rahim & Adiatmojo, 2020). Figure 5 below explains the location of land border areas in Indonesia

c. Low investment, throughout 2015 - 2020, investment in non-border areas is much higher than in land border areas. As a note, investment is one of the critical variables in increasing GDP and the region’s economy (Mello, 1997), (Suparjito et al., 2020). However, in reality, investments in inland border areas are still lower than in non- border areas. The following figure describes the comparison of investment in land border areas compared to non-border areas.

The three main problems above make the economic condition of most areas in the land border area still relatively lagging compared to development in other regions, and there is a gap in the development of border areas with neighbouring countries. This condition directly creates a backwash effect for the economy in the border area. Therefore, the question arises, what factors affect the improvement of development indicator performance to build economic resilience in the land border area and anticipate interregional gaps, backwash effects, and other economic problems? How do these factors affect development in border control, and what strategies should be carried out by the government in developing border areas? In the end, the purpose of this research is provide an overview of what important factors that the government should develop so the border area become developed region.

Along with developing knowledge, technology, and community needs, development planning undergoes a paradigm change. The latest paradigm of regional development planning explains that development activities should be aimed at and carried out by local communities to improve the community’s welfare in a sustainable manner that requires adjustment to the capacity and environmental state of its natural resources (Vanthillo & Verhetsel, 2012). In comparison, the role of the government is increasingly shifting more as a development facilitator and public infrastructure provider (Luu et al., 2019), as well as designing policies and incentive structures toward improving the productivity of economic actors. Thus, the current and future development approach is a local community- based economy (Jesuit & Sych, 2012). The importance of reorientation of local community- based regional development is increasingly raised due to the occurrence of government failure, which is often the impact is more severe than market failure (Dolfsma, 2011), which has often been used as a reason for public intervention by the government (Oakerson & Parks, 2011). According to the current development paradigm, the role of government needs to be increasingly limited to areas where other economic actors (private and community organizations) have no incentive to do so (Horner, 2019). The role of the government should be increasingly encouraged as an institution that facilitates communication and transfer of information and technology that bridges information between developed and relatively disadvantaged regions. The second is a domestic resource-based economy development approach. Reorientating the current development approach requires implementing a domestic resource-based regional development approach (Saleh et al., 2020). The domestic resources in question include resources in a broad sense, including physical natural resources, human resources, artificial resources, and social resources (Labra et al., 2016). Thus, a development planning approach is needed based on the potential of domestic nature, local human resources, and local development results so far, including the availability of existing domestic physical and social (institutional) infrastructure. This approach requires identifying the base sectors that will be the driving forces of regional economic activity.

Based on the thought, the phenomenon of borderless and border (reviewing the function of border areas) is inseparable. Both concepts have been implemented in European countries as part of the globalization effect that abolishes country borders inanticipation of more significant economic activity and benefits both bordering regions. This concept can also encourage prosperity that leads to prosperity in both border areas. It is also used by the Indonesian government and is known as the change of the paradigm of border area management that was initially inward-looking to outward-looking. In creating the growth of disadvantaged areas, the development of border areas becomes unnecessary. It is the main reason because it is increasingly clear the gap between the border area and neighbouring countries that, if it is not noticed, then leads to security and defence threats to the country, a backwash economy and economic inequality in the community. Therefore, Rahim explained (Rahim et al., 2021), that the function of the border area is:

1.As a barrier, the border area is a transparent barrier in terms of economic affairs, government administration, community and social psychology.

2.As a bridge, there is no denying that the social structure in both border areas is derived from the same culture. This similarity is expected to be a bridge for programs and capacity building in the region (Firmansyah & Oktavilia, 2015).

3.As a resource centre, it is proven that many border areas have a wealth of resources.

4.As a symbol of identity, the border area is the front page of a country and not a backyard.

The above functions provide consequences for managing border areas oriented to regional studies, spatial linkages, and program alignment.

This research was conducted in five provinces in Indonesia, namely West Kalimantan, East Kalimantan, North Kalimantan, East Nusa Tenggara and Papua, from 2015-2020. These five provinces are land-border areas in Indonesia (Rahim et al., 2022). The data used is secondary data sourced from the Central Bureau of Statistics. The methods used are:

There is twenty-four district of the land border area in Indonesia, including areas scattered in East Kalimantan, West Kalimantan, North Kalimantan, East Nusa Tenggara, and Papua. Each border area certainly has different conditions regarding its development. It is evidenced by development data in the border area, such as the condition of regional development, the condition of community poverty, the condition of inequality of opinion in each region, the state of human development that lives in the border area, as well as the economic condition of each border area.

The development of inland border areas is an inevitability. The influence of development in this region has a broad impact on the border area and neighbouring countries. Nevertheless, what should be anticipated is that development in the border area should benefit the area and not the backwash economy, benefiting neighbouring countries. The development of border areas should be able to increase people’s income, regional income, and long-term prosperity for the area. At this stage, government policy and impartiality are critical. The alignment is in addition to policies, development programs, financing activities, and policy synchronization between central and local governments.

Development strategy in the border area is specifically on 2 things; firstly, make the land border area a centre of sustainable growth, where the area has linkage and can be a driver for the surrounding area’s growth. Second, making the development of border areas a priority through developing growth poles and buffer areas. In the future, the development of border areas is expected to increase people’s income, reduce poverty, and improve people’s welfare through increasing economic activities.