Online transportation is a new type of service equipped with an internet network, and its presence in Indonesia is considered a service that disrupts the transportation sector. The government is faced with a complex policy problem to regulate online transportation. This article aims to reveal the role of policy actors in the media regarding policy issues and online transportation policy solutions. This article used qualitative analysis and the NPF policy narrative framework approach. This study found that licensing issues and Permenhub were problems that the DIY and Riau governments shared. More specific problems in Riau Province are related to violence issues, and that in DIY are related to congestion problems. The policy solution recommended by policy actors to the media is to make regional level regulations that technically regulate online transportation according to the area conditions.

1. Aminah S (2018). “Transportasi publik dan aksesbilitas masyarakat perkotaan [Public transportation and accessibility of urban communities]”. Jurnal Teknik Sipil, 9(1): 1142–1155. https://doi.org/10.36448/jts.v9i1.1135
2. Beer R, Brakewood C, Rahman S, et al. (2017). “Qualitative analysis of ride-hailing regulations in major American Cities”. Transportation Research Record, 2650(1): 84–91. https://doi.org/10.3141/2650-10
3. Bond AT (2014). “An app for that: Local governments and the rise of the sharing economy”. Notre Dame Law Review Online, 90(2): 77–96.
4. Cohen B and Kietzmann J (2014). “Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy”. Organization and Environment, 27(3): 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614546199
5. Crow DA and Lawlor A (2016). “Media in the policy process: Using framing and narratives to understand policy influences”. Review of Policy Research, 33(5): 472–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12187
6. Dudley G (2018). “Creative destruction and the sharing economy. Uber as disruptive innovation”. Transport Reviews, 38(5): 679–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2017.1365277
7. Dudley G, Banister D and Schwanen T (2017). “The rise of Uber and regulating the disruptive innovator”. The Political Quarterly, 88(3): 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12373
8. Flores O and Rayle L (2017). “How cities use regulation for innovation: The case of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar in San Francisco”. Transportation Research Procedia, 25: 3756–3768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.232
9. Fraiberger SP and Sundararajan A (2017). “Peer-to-peer rental markets in the sharing economy”. NYU Stern School of Business Research Paper (First version March 2015; current version September 2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2574337
10. Goletz M and Bahamonde-Birke FJ (2021). “The ride-sourcing industry: status-quo and outlook”. Transportation Planning and Technology, 44(6): 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2021.1943128
11. Gray G and Jones MD (2016). “A qualitative narrative policy framework? Examining the policy narratives of US campaign finance regulatory reform”. Public Policy and Administration, 31(3): 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076715623356
12. Gupta K, Ripberger JT and Collins S (2014). “The strategic use of policy narratives: Jaitapur and the politics of siting a nuclear power plant in India”. In: Jones MD, Shanahan EA and McBeth MK (Eds.), The Science of Stories, pp. 89–106. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137485861_5
13. Gupta K, Ripberger J and Wehde W (2018). “Advocacy group messaging on social media: Using the Narrative Policy Framework to study Twitter messages about nuclear energy policy in the United States”. Policy Studies Journal, 46(1): 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12176
14. Harding S, Kandlikar M and Gulati S (2016). “Taxi apps, regulation, and the market for taxi journeys”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 88: 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.03.009
15. Jones MD (2014). “Cultural characters and climate change: How heroes shape our perception of climate science”. Social Science Quarterly, 95(1): 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12043
16. Jones MD and Jenkins‐Smith HC (2009). “Trans‐subsystem dynamics: Policy topography, mass opinion, and policy change”. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1): 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00294.x
17. Jones MD and McBet MK (2010). “A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong?”. Policy Studies Journal, 38(2): 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00364.x
18. Jones MD, McBeth MK and Shanahan EA (2014). “Introducing the narrative policy framework”. In: Jones MD, Shanahan EA and McBeth MK (Eds.), The Science of Stories, pp. 1–25. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137485861_1
19. Jones MD and Radaelli CM (2015). “The narrative policy framework: Child or monster?”. Critical Policy Studies, 9(3): 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2015.1053959
20. Li Z, Hong Y and Zhang Z (2016). “Do ride-sharing services affect traffic congestion? An empirical study of uber entry”. Social Science Research Network, 2002: 1–29.
21. Marshall P (2015). The Sharing Economy. SAGE. https://businessresearcher.sagepub.com/sbr-1645-96738-2690068/20150803/the-sharing-economy
22. Martin E and Shaheen S (2016). Impacts of car2go on Vehicle Ownership, Modal Shift, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Analysis of Five North American Cities. https://tsrc.berkeley.edu/publications/impacts-car2go-vehicle-ownership-modal-shift-vehicle-miles-traveled-and-greenhouse-gas
23. McBeth MK, Lybecker DL, Stoutenborough JW, et al. (2017). “Content matters: Stakeholder assessment of river stories or river science”. Public Policy and Administration, 32(3): 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076716671034
24. McBeth MK, Shanahan EA, Arnell RJ, et al. (2007). “The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory”. Policy Studies Journal, 35(1): 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00208.x
25. McMorris C, Zanocco C and Jones M (2018). “Policy narratives and policy outcomes: An NPF examination of Oregon’s Ballot Measure 97”. Policy Studies Journal, 46(4): 771–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12263
26. Nijland H and van Meerkerk J (2017). “Mobility and environmental impacts of car sharing in the Netherlands”. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23: 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.02.001
27. Owyang J (2016). Honeycomb 3.0: The Collaborative Economy Market Expansion. https://web-strategist.com/blog/2016/03/10/honeycomb-3-0-the-collaborative-economy-market-expansion-sxsw/
28. Owyang J and Cases P (2016). Sharing Economy’s ‘Billion-Dollar Club’ Is Going Strong, but Investor Risk Is High. https://venturebeat.com/entrepreneur/sharing-economys-billion-dollar-club-is-going-strong-but-investor-risk-is-high/
29. Pierce JJ, Smith-Walter A and Peterson HL (2014). “Research design and the narrative policy framework”. In: Jones MD, Shanahan EA and McBeth MK (Eds.), The Science of Stories, pp. 27–44. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137485861_2
30. Shanahan EA, Jones MD and McBeth MK (2018). “How to conduct a Narrative Policy Framework study”. Social Science Journal, 55(3): 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.12.002
31. Shanahan EA, Jones MD, McBeth MK, et al. (2013). “An angel on the wind: How heroic policy narratives shape policy realities”. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3): 453–483.
32. Shanahan EA, Jones MD, McBeth MK, et al. (2018). “The narrative policy framework”. In: Weible CM and Sabatier PA (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, pp. 173–213. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494284
33. Shanahan EA, McBeth MK and Hathaway PL (2011). “Narrative policy framework: The influence of media policy narratives on public opinion”. Politics & Policy, 39(3): 373–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00295.x
34. Smith‐Walter A, Peterson HL, Jones MD, et al. (2016). “Gun stories: How evidence shapes firearm policy in the United States”. Politics & Policy, 44(6): 1053–1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187
35. Stephan HR (2020). “Shaping the scope of conflict in Scotland’s fracking debate: Conflict management and the narrative policy framework”. Review of Policy Research, 37(1): 64–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12365
36. Stone RW (2011). Controlling Institutions: International Organizations and the Global Economy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793943
37. Tirachini A and del Río M (2019). “Ride-hailing in Santiago de Chile: Users’ characterisation and effects on travel behaviour”. Transport Policy, 82: 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.07.008
38. Weible CM, Olofsson KL, Costie DP, et al. (2016). “Enhancing precision and clarity in the study of policy narratives: An analysis of climate and air issues in Delhi, India”. Review of Policy Research, 33(4): 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12181
39. Zha L, Yin Y and Yang H (2016). “Economic analysis of ride-sourcing markets”. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 71: 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.07.010