Memo #83
By Tim Bunnell (geotgb [at] nus.edu.sg), Michelle Ann Miller, & Nicholas A. Phelps
2011 marks a decade since the implementation of Indonesia’s democratic decentralization project (the ‘Big Bang’), the largest of its kind in the world. With the exception of Jakarta and three other provinces with special autonomy arrangements, most state powers and responsibilities were devolved to sub-provincial governments. Ten years ago, there was a nationwide reordering of the structures and processes of government and we can now evaluate the success of these policies.
In 1999, Indonesia implemented regional autonomy laws, Laws 22 and 25 (later amended by laws in 2004). While Law 22 (as amended by Law 32 of 2004) conferred new administrative and political powers to district and city administrations, Law 25 (later amended by Law 33 of 2004) on fiscal balance between Jakarta and the regions allowed sub-provincial governments to retain most of the after tax revenues generated within their borders.
The experiences of regional autonomy across Indonesia have been mixed. On one hand, academic and media sources have highlighted a series of failings. Networks of patronage from the Suharto regime have sometimes been simply decentralized – local elites have taken control over resources. People who have little to gain from the promotion of transparent or accountable governance have captured democratic institutions. Uncertainty over the distribution of authority across different tiers of government has also deterred potential investors.
On the other hand, stories of good practice in governmental responsiveness and economic innovation are gaining prominence. In December 2008, Tempo Magazine profiled ten exemplary Indonesian city and district leaders. Since, NGOs, international donor agencies, and the central government have evaluated and ranked regional government performance.
Last month, the Ministry of Home Affairs released a list of the top ranking provinces, districts, and cities. Among them were two cities profiled by Tempo and regularly appear at the top of other rankings. The first is Solo (or Surakarta) in Central Java, which is vaunted for its pro-poor policies including peaceful and equitable relocation of street vendors. The second is Yogyakarta where the city government has acquired land for the provision of parks and other public spaces. The hope is that these ‘positive’ cases will travel rather than remain as localized sites of exception. There is evidence that this is beginning to happen, as exemplary cases such as Solo and Yogyakarta have become destinations for public sector comparative study tours (studi banding).
About the Authors:
Tim Bunnell – Associate Professor, Department of Geography, National University of Singapore.
Michelle Miller – Research Fellow, Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.
Nicholas Phelps – Professor of Urban and Regional Development, Faculty of Built Environment, University College London.
Links:
- Jakarta in Post-Suharto Indonesia: Decentralisation, Neo-liberalism and Global City Aspiration, Space and Polity, Volume 15, No. 2, April 2011 (By Tim Bunnell and Michelle Ann Miller)
- Decentralization and Democracy in Indonesia: A Critique of Neo-Institutionalist Perspectives, Development and Change, Volume 35, No. 4, September 2004
- Rebellion and Reform in Indonesia: Jakarta’s security and autonomy policies in Aceh, June 2010 (Book by Michelle Ann Miller)
- Do the donors have it right? Decentralization and changing local governance in Indonesia, The Annals of Regional Science, Volume 37, No. 3
- Communal Violence and Democratization in Indonesia: Small Town Wars, September 2009 (By Gerry van Klinken)
Related Memos:
- Our other Memos about Indonesia and Southeast Asia