<p>Extreme poverty is a multidimensional challenge that cannot be solved through a sectoral approach. The SDGs agenda aims to eradicate extreme poverty globally by 2030, but various cross-sectoral governance barriers still hinder its effectiveness at the local level. This study aims to explore the suitability of implementing integrative governance principles in alleviating extreme poverty through a case study in Jeneponto Regency, Indonesia, one of the national priority areas for eradicating extreme poverty. A qualitative approach, utilizing a single-case study design, was employed to capture institutional dynamics and cross-sectoral relationships. Data were collected through interviews with 15 key informants from the Regional Development Planning Agency, the Regional Poverty Reduction Coordination Team, and related Regional Apparatus Organizations, analysis of national policy documents and regional planning, and were analyzed using an interactive analysis model and validated through triangulation of sources, methods, and member checking. The results suggest that extreme poverty alleviation practices in Jeneponto have not yet fully reflected the substantive application of integrative governance. Despite involving at least 14 Regional Apparatus Organizations, the governance network is still dominated by hierarchical coordination, with the Regional Development Planning Agency as the leading sector, reflecting institutional role drift in cross-sectoral coordination patterns. Coordination occurs through routine meetings focused on data updates, but lacks a collective follow-up mechanism. Function-based authority distribution has not been institutionalized; cross-sectoral initiatives and functional leadership emerge ad hoc and depend on individual commitment. The Regional Poverty Reduction Coordination Team exists formally, but has not yet functioned as a deliberative arena for shared decision-making, cross-actor learning, and facilitative coordination. This study operationalizes the integrative governance framework for the local government context of developing countries and affirms integrative governance as a capacity-bound ideal type, with boundary conditions of sectoral fragmentation, dominance of administrative accountability, and institutional path dependency. It also identifies institutional role drift as a key mechanism explaining the failure of cross-sectoral governance.</p>