Advertisement

Do the donors have it right? Decentralization and changing local governance in Indonesia

  • Christopher Silver
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

Indonesia has initiated an ambitious decentralization program since 1999 spurred on by the international donor community (earlier decentralization measures were more like “deconcentration” under strong central control). This paper examines the degree to which Laws 22/1999 and 25/1999 are working. Local government employment has been expanded (not fully offset by a decline in central government employment) and training has been provided. Many functions have been transferred to the local level, but this was not matched by adequate funding transfers. Those localities that fare best have revenues available from their own natural resources. The results, therefore, are very mixed, and it is much too early to determine whether decentralization is a success.

Keywords

Local Government Central Government Authoritarian Regime Local Governance Local Revenue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alm J, Bahl R (1999) Decentralization in Indonesia: Prospects and problems. USAID Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  2. Aten R (1997) Why increased local democratic decision making would aid Indonesian economic development. USAID Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  3. Beier C, Farrazzi G (1997) The district autonomy pilot program: A new approach to decentralization in Indonesia. Policy Paper, Indonesian-German Technical Cooperation ProjectGoogle Scholar
  4. Brodjonegoro B (2001) Indonesian intergovernmental transfers in decentralization era: The case of general allocation fund. Paper presented at an International Symposium on Intergovernmental Transfers in Asian Countries: Issues and Practices, Hitotsubashi University, February 9–10Google Scholar
  5. Cawley T (2001) Indonesia’s reform hits trouble. Financial Times, January 3Google Scholar
  6. Crook RC, Mann J (1998) Democracy and decentralisation in South Asia and West Africa: Participation, accountability and performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Devas N (1998) The subsidi daerah otonom: A review of the issues, Unpubl. paper. School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, U.KGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillinger W (1994) Decentralization and its implications for urban service delivery. Urban Management Discussion Paper, #16. The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Dow Jones Newsletter (2001) Indonesia’s donors concerned about decentralization. April 24Google Scholar
  10. Firman T (2002) Potential impacts of Indonesia’s fiscal decentralization policy reform on city and regional development. Institute of Technology, Bandung, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Forrester G, May RJ (eds) (1999) The fall of Suharto. Select Books, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  12. Leigland J (1993) Decentralizing the development budget process in Indonesia: Progress and prospects. Public Budgeting and Finance 13:85–101Google Scholar
  13. McAndrews C (1986) Central government and local development in Indonesia. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Ranis G, Stewart F (1994) Decentralization in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 30:41–72Google Scholar
  15. Rondinellit DA (1989) Decentralizing public services in developing countries: Issues and opportunities. The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies 14 (Spring):77–98Google Scholar
  16. Shah A, Qureshi Z (1994) Intergovernmental fiscal relations in Indonesia. World Bank Discussion Paper 239Google Scholar
  17. Siddique NA (1997) Decentralization and development: Theory and practice in Bangladesh. University of Dhaka, DhakaGoogle Scholar
  18. Simandjuntak RA (2002) Sixteen months of fiscal decentralization journey in Indonesia. Ekonomi Indonesia di Era Politik Baru, pp 164–174Google Scholar
  19. South China Morning Post (2000) Regional autonomy needed to keep country united. November 22Google Scholar
  20. United States Agency for International Development Local Government Training II (1980) Project No. 497-0308. USAID, March 4Google Scholar
  21. Usman S (2002) Regional autonomy in Indonesia: Field experiences and emerging challenges. SMERU Research Institute, Jakarta, Indonesia, June 20–21Google Scholar
  22. Walker M (1991) Decentralized planning for sustainable development: The case of Indonesia. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies 3:94–102Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Silver
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urban and Regional PlanningUniversity of IllinoisUrbana-ChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations