Volume 13, Issue 9 (September 2026), Pages: 54-66

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Suka duka as indigenous solidarity capital: Moderating the relationship between good cooperative governance and cooperative performance in Bali

 Author(s): 

Made Yudi Darmita *, Ida Bagus Raka Suardana, Anak Agung Ngurah Eddy Supriyadinata Gorda, Ida Ayu Oka Martini

 Affiliation(s):

Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Pendidikan Nasional (Undiknas), Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5839-9614

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.09.006

 Abstract

Cooperative organizations in culturally embedded contexts face the challenge of combining formal governance standards with deeply rooted indigenous values. This study examines whether suka duka, a Balinese tradition of solidarity institutionalized through the banjar adat system, moderates the relationship between Good Cooperative Governance (GCG) and cooperative performance. Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) using AMOS was applied to cross-sectional data from 208 savings and credit cooperatives selected through proportional stratified random sampling across nine regencies. Performance was measured using financial indicators (ROA, ROE, NPM, and SHU per member), although this operationalization does not capture its full multidimensional nature. GCG was the strongest positive predictor of performance (β = 0.438, CR = 5.919, p = 0.006). Suka duka significantly and positively moderated the GCG–performance relationship (β = 0.692, CR = 3.584, p < 0.001), although the large coefficient requires cautious interpretation. Robustness checks and possible explanations, including common method variance, are discussed. No significant moderation was found for digital transformation (p = 0.212) or rebranding (p = 0.926). These findings suggest that suka duka may complement GCG through shared mechanisms of trust and participatory accountability. The study also examines the challenges of quantifying indigenous relational concepts and discusses implications for cooperative governance, indigenous management, and Social and Solidarity Economy theory. All findings are interpreted as associations rather than causal effects.

 © 2026 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

Good cooperative governance, Suka duka, Cooperative performance, Cultural moderation, Social and solidarity economy

 Article history

Received 17 May 2026, Received in revised form 20 July 2026, Accepted 7 September 2026

 Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledge all cooperative leaders who participated in this study and the Dinas Koperasi dan UMKM Provinsi Bali for access to cooperative performance data. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study involved cooperative leaders who completed a structured survey. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents, who were informed of the study’s purpose, their right to withdraw, and the confidentiality of their responses. No identifying information is reported. Secondary financial data were obtained from the Dinas Koperasi dan UMKM Provinsi Bali with permission for research use. The study followed the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. 

 Citation:

Darmita MY, Suardana IBR, Gorda AANES, and Martini IAO (2026). Suka duka as indigenous solidarity capital: Moderating the relationship between good cooperative governance and cooperative performance in Bali. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(9): 54-66

  Permanent Link to this page

---------------------------------------------- 

 References (28)

1. Ali A and Abebe B (2024). Does corporate governance and balance sheet feature influence the financial policy of cooperatives? PLS-SEM approach. PLOS ONE, 19(5): e0302121. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302121   [Google Scholar] PMid:38743666 PMCid:PMC11093315
2. Barney J (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108   [Google Scholar]
3. Birchall J (2010). People-centred businesses: Co-operatives, mutuals and the idea of membership. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230295292_10   [Google Scholar]
4. Blau PM (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
5. Busse C, Kach AP, and Wagner SM (2017). Boundary conditions: What they are, how to explore them, why we need them, and when to consider them. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4): 574-609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116641191   [Google Scholar]
6. Chilisa B (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
7. Chin WW, Marcolin BL, and Newsted PR (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2): 189-217. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018   [Google Scholar]
8. Cornforth C (2004). The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75(1): 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2004.00241.x   [Google Scholar]
9. Cummings TG and Worley CG (2005). Organization development and change. 8th Edition, Thomson/South-Western, Mason, USA.   [Google Scholar]
10. Defourny J and Nyssens M (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(6): 2469-2497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9884-7   [Google Scholar]
11. Durkheim É (2013). Durkheim: The division of labour in society. 2nd Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.   [Google Scholar]
12. Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, and Babin BJ (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8): 3192-3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008   [Google Scholar]
13. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, and Anderson RE (2013). Multivariate data analysis. 7th Edition, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, UK.   [Google Scholar]
14. Hofstede G (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd Edition, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
15. ILO (2022). Resolution concerning decent work and the social and solidarity economy. International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland.   [Google Scholar]
16. Jamaluddin F, Saleh NM, Abdullah A, Hassan MS, Hamzah N, Jaffar R, Abdul Ghani Aziz SA, and Embong Z (2023). Cooperative governance and cooperative performance: A systematic literature review. SAGE Open, 13(3): 21582440231192944. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231192944   [Google Scholar]
17. Koopman J (2021). The restoration of gotong royong as a form of post-disaster solidarity in Lombok, Indonesia. South East Asia Research, 29(3): 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/0967828X.2021.1966318   [Google Scholar]
18. Kovach M (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. 2nd Edition, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.   [Google Scholar]
19. Lindell MK and Whitney DJ (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114   [Google Scholar] PMid:11302223
20. Mahrani M and Soewarno N (2018). The effect of good corporate governance mechanism and corporate social responsibility on financial performance with earnings management as mediating variable. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 3(1): 41-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-06-2018-0008   [Google Scholar]
21. Mudana IW (2024). Citizenship education in building social capital for marine and coastal conservation. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 21(1): 169–174. https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v21i1.66705   [Google Scholar]
22. Novkovic S (2008). Defining the co-operative difference. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(6): 2168-2177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2008.02.009   [Google Scholar]
23. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, and Podsakoff NP (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879   [Google Scholar] PMid:14516251
24. Putnam RD, Leonardi R, and Nanetti RY (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400820740   [Google Scholar]
25. Rizki N, Ridhawati R, and Prasedya TCIT (2024). Good corporate governance in cooperatives organization: Lesson learn from Indonesia. New Applied Studies in Management, Economics & Accounting, 7(1): 55-66.   [Google Scholar]
26. Smith LT (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books, London, UK.  [Google Scholar]
27. Utting P (2015). Social and solidarity economy: Beyond the fringe. Zed Books, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350222618   [Google Scholar]
28. Verbeke A and Yuan W (2021). A few implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for international business strategy research. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2): 597-601. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12665   [Google Scholar]