Perceived program implementation and learning conditions as predictors of nutrition policy legitimacy

Abstract

Background: The Free Nutritious Meal Program (Program Makan Bergizi Gratis/MBG), launched in 2025, is a flagship Indonesian policy combining school nutrition intervention with political legitimation goals. This study addresses the scarcity of quantitative research examining the simultaneous relationships among perceptions of program implementation, student learning conditions, and policy legitimacy. Methods: Using a quantitative ex post facto design, data were collected from 117 students across schools implementing MBG, selected via purposive sampling. A 30-item instrument measured perceptions of MBG implementation (X₁), student learning conditions (X₂), and public policy legitimacy (Y) on a 5-point Likert scale. All items were valid (r = 0.590–0.864 > r-table 0.195) with excellent reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.960). Multiple linear regression was conducted using SPSS, including classical assumption tests and hypothesis testing (F-test and t-test). Findings: The model showed strong explanatory power (R² = 0.603; F = 86.497; p < 0.001). Student learning conditions were the strongest positive predictor of legitimacy (β = 0.852; p < 0.001, confirming H₂), while MBG implementation perceptions were paradoxically and negatively correlated with legitimacy (β = -0.172; p = 0.014, confirming H₁). Both variables jointly influenced legitimacy significantly (H₃ confirmed). These results support Output Legitimacy Theory and Cognitive Dissonance Theory, showing legitimacy rests on tangible impact and implementation quality rather than political narrative. Conclusion: MBG sits at a crossroads between educational transformation and political legitimation. Poor implementation quality (food quality, timeliness, cleanliness, consistency) erodes legitimacy despite positive learning outcomes, underscoring the need to prioritize implementation quality over political spectacle. Novelty/Originality of this article: This study provides the first quantitative evidence of the paradoxical MBG implementation–legitimacy relationship, integrating Human Capital, Output Legitimacy, Cognitive Dissonance, and Institutional Trust theories.