Anwar Sanusi, PhD (Indonesia)

Contains

Introduction

Decentralization PolicyContains Decentralization Policy

Local Best Practices

Prospect and Problems

GeographicGeographic

� Southeastern Asia

� Archipelago between Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean

� Total area: 1,919,440 sq km land: � Total area: 1,919,440 sq km land: 1,826,440 sq km water: 93,000 sq km

� Archipelago of 17,508 islands (6,000 inhabited); straddles equator; strategic location astride or along major sea lanes from Indian Ocean to Pacific Ocean

� Ethnic groups: Javanese 45%, Sundanese 14%, Madurese 7.5%, coastal Malays 7.5%, other 26%

� Religion : Muslim 88%, Protestant 5%, Roman Catholic 3%, Hindu 2%, Buddhist 1%, other 1% (1998)

PeoplePeople

Hindu 2%, Buddhist 1%, other 1% (1998) � Languages: Bahasa Indonesia (official, modified form of

Malay), English, Dutch, local dialects, the most widely spoken of which is Javanese.

� There are around 365 local languages, which seems different each others

� Administrative divisions - 33 Provinces- 357 districts or region

Levels of Government AdministrationLevels of Government AdministrationCountry Sub national level organizations

China Four levels:• Provinces (22), autonomous regions (5), and large cities (4)• Prefectures and cities (300)• Counties (2,100)• Townships (44,000)

Indonesia Three levels (de jure):• Provinces (33), special regions (2), and capital city (1)• Local governments: kotamadya (cities) and kabupaten (districts) (440)• Local governments: kotamadya (cities) and kabupaten (districts) (440)• Desa (villages)

Philippines Four levels:• Provinces (79)• Cities (112)•Municipalities (1,496)• Barangays/villages (41,944)

Thailand Four levels with top three formally empowered:• Provinces (75)• Districts and municipalities (811)• Tambons (subdistricts) (6,744)• Villages (67,000_)

Vietnam Three levels:• Provinces (58) and municipalities (3)• Districts (600)• Communes (10,000_)

Big Bang Decentralization Policies

� New decentralization law (Law No. 22/1999 then

revised to No. 32/2004)

� Indonesia embarked on its “Big Bang”

decentralization in the context of significant decentralization in the context of significant

economic and political transition.

Regional Governance shifted the balance from a

largely top-down form of accountability in Indonesia

to local political accountability.

Fundamental change�Fundamental change�

� First, the bureaucracy was restructured to emphasize to emphasize local delivery of and responsibility for public services.

� Second, with the introduction of a new direct electoral � Second, with the introduction of a new direct electoral system, since 2004 for governors, district heads and mayors became representatives of their constituents rather than appointees of the central governments.

� Third, local governments were guaranteed wide authority and discretion in policy innovation. The new laws also guaranteed the allocation of certain level of finances to the regions, to enable the in fulfilling their autonomous functions

What’s the impact in local level?What’s the impact in local level?

� District of

Jembrana (Bali)

District of � District of

Boalemo, Celebes

� District of

Bantul,Yogyakarta

How the impact of decentralization ?How the impact of decentralization ?

� 65% cited improvements in public health

delivery;

� 60% cited improvements in public education;

� 59% cited improvements in the quality of

local administrative services;

� 66% said that police services either stayed

the same or deteriorated.

Source: http://www.gdsonline.org

Some innovations in local levelSome innovations in local level

Jembrana, BALI� The Jaminan Kesehatan Jembrana (JKJ), health insurance

reform scheme in Jembrana District, Bali, touches upon a theme that is central to making services more pro-poor, to wit, the use of private providers to expand service coverage and improve quality by increasing competition.

� Before JKJ, only 17 percent of district citizens were covered by � Before JKJ, only 17 percent of district citizens were covered by any kind of health insurance; now, 63 percent are covered. The percentage of ill people who sought treatment in Jembrana more than doubled from 40 percent in 2003 to 90 percent in 2004. For the poor, the increase was from 29 to 80 percent.

� JKJ's attempts to become self-financing have focused recently on a new one-membership-card-per-person system (rather than the old one-card-per-family scheme), and this is likely behind a drop in membership of the poor, from 66 percent in 2004 to 22 percent (re-registered under the new system) by May 2005.

Boalemo� Boalemo district was established in October 1999,

following the central government’s decision to decentralize, and the new district government was

Some innovations �..cont (2)Some innovations �..cont (2)

decentralize, and the new district government was formed in 2000.

� Boalemo’s government introduced three reforms, i.e. improving transparency, reduction corruption in procurement, and restructuring incentives to improve performance.

� The results shows that in terms of transparency and reduction corruption in procurement shows the good results, otherwise for restructuring incentives

Bantul, Yogyakarta� The local reforms has anchored by proposing two

main strategies for implementing decentralization, the first focusing on education and the second concerning on public health.

Some innovations �..cont (3)Some innovations �..cont (3)

the first focusing on education and the second concerning on public health.

� It began by merging several schools to increase their efficiency.

� In the area of public health, Bantul tackled the restructuring of health care services by increasing the capacity 17 communities’ health centers (puskesmas) and changing the status of general hospital to that of an autonomous hospital.

Remaining problems on local reformsRemaining problems on local reforms

� Heavily rely on the leader

� The local political configuration to achieve legislative

majority

� Local bureaucracy that still influenced by the

corrupted from the old regime. The survey shows

that corruption and inefficiency continue to threaten

higher quality public services. More than 36% of the

respondents reported that they had to pay bribes for

key public services.

The next Agenda for reformsThe next Agenda for reforms

� Improving the organization of the inter-

governmental system.

Developing the accountability systems that � Developing the accountability systems that

make local governments work

� Strengthening local and intergovernmental

fiscal and financial structures

g{tÇ~ lÉâ äxÜç Åâv{g{tÇ~ lÉâ äxÜç Åâv{