Strengthening Cooperation between DPRD and the Civil Society
Recommendations
While Regional Heads and SKPDs are working, DPRD should carry out strict supervisory function through either a quantitative or longitudinal qualitative research or a community satisfaction survey to monitor the impact of development. They should not merely do a comparative study by visiting other regions that are not relevant to the context of their own region .
This supervisory function can be performed by working with the civil society and the economic society by coordinating the grant from the economic society to assist the supervision.
A concrete example can be seen in what has been done by several Regional Heads such as Head of Siak District who established cooperation with the private sector and
NGOs in implementing the development program. However, we have never heard any members of DPR or DPRD establish similar partnerships with universities or
community organizations to supervise the development in the region.
DPRD has suicient budget to conduct a comprehensive study or survey that will provide policy recommendations. By using their budget, DPRD can cooperate with universities, media or NGOs to carry out constructive supervision more efectively.
14 Source: Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW), “ICW: 48 Calon Anggota Legislatif Terpilih Terlibat Korupsi”, 15 September 2014. http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2014/09/15/16541981/ICW.48.Calon.Anggota.Legislatif.Terpilih.Terlibat.Korupsi
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 35
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
ANNEX I
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF THE FOUR REGIONAL ACTORS
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 37
Annex I.
Average Performance of the Four Regional Actors
Performance Proile of Political Oice Index
Arenas and per
Ei- Efec- Functions
Partici- Trans-
Fair-
Accoun-
ciency tiveness Political Oice
Arena pation parency ness
tability
3.70 3.80 3.71 2.58 3.38 6.09 3.19 1. Policy
Framework 3.83 3.55 4.92 2.57 4.32 5.70 2.46 2. Budgeting
The average score for political oice in 34 districts/cities is the lowest compared to 3 other Arenas. This low score is contributed by the average low scores of each function, which range only from 2.48 – 4.44, in the scale of 1-10. Meanwhile, the average score in this Arena is contributed by 6 governance principles, with the lowest score being attributed to accountability of the oversight function of DPRD (1.82) and the highest to the eiciency function of the leadership of regional head (6.94).
Fairness obtained the lowest score in all political oice’s authorities (between 2.49 and
2.86) in the scale of 1-10. Meanwhile, the highest score is achieved by the eiency of local leadership (6.94). However, because most scores are below 5, this relatively high score cannot increase the general score signiicantly.
The average score for Bureaucracy in 34 districts/cities is the highest, compare to the other three Arenas. This high score has been attributed by the performance of bureaucracy in generating and collecting local revenues and in delivering public services, for which they have been given scores above 8 for Eiciency (8.73) and Efectiveness (8.68). Unfortunately, averagely the score for public service function is only 5.13, while for revenue collecting function is only 5.40. Functions which are scored low include local regulation enforcement (3.41) and regulating of economic activities (3.97).
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
Performance Proile of Bureaucracy Index
Arenas and per
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Functions
ciency tiveness Bureaucracy
Arena pation parency
ness
tability
6.38 2.91 4.29 5.22 5.06 4.96 5.76 1. Public Service
5.13 3.53 4.30 6.51 5.23 4.62 5.15 2. Regional
5.40 2.53 4.04 4.32 5.81 8.73 8.68 Income
3. Regulating Eco- 3.97 1.82 5.01 1.45 4.90 5.52 5.57 nomic Activities
4. Enforcement of 3.41 2.64 3.67 3.67 4.09 3.08 2.46 Local Regulation
Looking at the scores per principle, the lowest is Participation (2.91). This low score was due to the low quality of public complaint handling mechanism provided at all functions in the Arena of Bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the highest score is Efectiveness (5.76). Several performance indicators at outcome level contribute to the high score of efectiveness in this Arena. Some of the outcome indicators applied include among others are economic growth, Human Development Index, gender empowerment and realization of Local Revenue at each district/city.
Performance Proile of Civil Society Index
Arenas and per
Ei- Efec- Functions
Partici- Trans-
Fair-
Accoun-
ciency tiveness Civil Society
Arena pation parency ness
2. Monitoring 5.30 4.20 5.50 5.61 5.34 4.94 and Advocacy 6.81
The average score for civil society in 34 districts/cities is 5.17, lower than the provincial IGI score (6.33). This score has been attributed by community empowerment function (5.06) as well as monitoring and advocacy function (5.30). Looking at the principles, Fairness earned the highest score (6.37), and next to it is Efectiveness (6.03). On the other side, transparency (4.63) and accountability (4.87) in all two functions scored below 5.
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 39
Quite diferent from most civil society organizations (CSOs) existing at the provincial level and having network that reaches the national level, CSOs at district/city level are limited in nature and only ailiated with important igures of the region. This limitation has led to the lack of transparency in their management, and their accountability is not as good as those at the provincial level. Also, the fact that these CSOs are ailiated with several local key igures have also caused their lack of independence.
Nevertheless, the closeness between CSOs and the local community can explain the high scores given to the principles of fairness and efectiveness. IGI Team indings in several districts shows that most CSOs at the district/city level can respond to the needs of their community. This is shown by IGI indicators which are related to CSO category and issues being addressed by CSO, both community empowerment or monitoring and advocacy. Meanwhile, most Well Informed Person/WIP think that CSOs are adequately efective in doing their empowering and advocating functions at district/city level. However, improvement can be done particularly in the utilization of empirical data to allow implementation of data based advocacy, and network consolidation with CSOs at district, provincial and national level. IGI has proven that the stronger the civil society is in a particular region, the higher the performance of the region will be..
Performance Proile of Economic Society Index
Arenas and per
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Functions
tability ciency tiveness Economic
Arena
pation parency
1. Protection of Business’
3.31 1.00 1.16 5.10 5.86 4.04 1.67 Interest
2. Economic empowerment
A similar picture also appears on the Arena of Economic Society. The average score of this Arena is lower compared to IGI results from provincial level (5.72). The low score has been attributed by inefectiveness of this Arena in implementing its role to provide protection toward business interests (3.31) and empowerment of local economy (4.54). Looking at each separate principle, the lowest score is obtained by Transparency (1.12) and Participation (4.01), while Fairness (5.86) and Accountability earn higher scores.
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
This Arena is represented by business associations at district/city level which are still very exclusive in nature. This leads to the low transparency in the management of the Economic Society organizations. The exclusiveness of several economic actors within the regions also explain why participation in this Arena is low. Meanwhile, high compliance of the economic actors toward obligation to pay taxes and charges, and to maintain the sustainability of the environment constitute factors that explain the high score achieved by the principle of accountability in this Arena.
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 41
ANNEX 2
Performance Proile of 34 Districts/Cities
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
Annex II.
Performance Proile of 34 Districts/Cities
1. City of Banda Aceh, Aceh Province
Index Arenas
Fairness Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arena pation parency
per
Partici- Trans-
tability
ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
2. District of Deli Serdang, North Sumatera Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness tability
Political Oice
Civil Society
3. District of Tanah Datar, West Sumatera Province
Index Arenas
Fairness Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arena
per
Partici- Trans-
pation parency
tability
ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
Economic Society
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 43
4. District of Ogan Komering Ulu, South Sumatera Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
tability ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness
Political Oice
Civil Society
5. District of Siak, Riau Province
Index Arenas
per Partici- Trans- Fairness Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arena pation parency
tability ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
6. District of East Tanjung Jabung, Jambi Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
tability ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness
Political Oice
Civil Soci- ety
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
7. District of West Lampung, Lampung Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
per pation parency Fairness tability ciency tiveness Arena
Political Oice
Civil Society
8. District of Tanjungpinang, Riau Island Province
Index Arenas
Fairness Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arena
per
Partici- Trans-
pation parency
tability ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
9. District of South Bangka, Bangka Belitung Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
per pation parency Fairness tability ciency tiveness Arena
Political Oice
Civil Society
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 45
10. District of Indramayu, West Java Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
per pation parency Fairness tability ciency tiveness Arena
Political Oice
Civil Society
11. City of Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta Province
Index Arenas
Fairness Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arena pation parency
per
Partici- Trans-
tability ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
12. District of Gunung Kidul, Yogyakarta Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
per pation parency Fairness tability ciency tiveness Arena
Political Oice
Civil Society
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
13. City of Semarang, Central Java Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
per pation parency Fairness tability ciency tiveness Arena
Political Oice
Civil Society
14. District of Sampang, East Java Province
Index Arenas
Trans- Fairness Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arena
per
Partici-
pation parency
tability ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
15. City of South Tangerang, Banten Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
per pation parency Fairness tability ciency tiveness Arena
Political Oice
Civil Society
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 47
16. District of Karangasem, Bali Province
Index Arenas
Fairness Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arena pation parency
tability ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
17. District of North Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
per pation parency Fairness tability ciency tiveness Arena
Political Oice
Civil Society
18. District of North East Timor, East Nusa Tenggara Province
Index Arenas
Fairness Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arena pation parency
tability ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
Economic Society
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
19. City of Pontianak, West Kalimantan Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness tability
Political Oice
Civil Society
20. District of Pulang Pisau, Central Kalimantan Province
Index Arenas
Fairness Accoun- Eicien- Efec- Arena pation parency
per
Partici- Trans-
tability
cy tiveness
Bureau- cracy
21. District of Banjar, South Kalimantan Province
Accoun- Eicien- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
cy tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness tability
Political Oice
Civil Society
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 49
22. City of Balikpapan, East Kalimantan Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
per pation parency Fairness tability ciency tiveness Arena
Political Oice
Civil Society
23. City of Tarakan, North Kalimantan Province
Index Arenas
Fairness Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arena pation parency
per
Partici- Trans-
tability ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
24. City of Bitung, North Sulawesi Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
tability ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness
Bureau- cracy
Economic Society
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
25. District of Sigi, Central Sulawesi Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness
tability
Political Oice
Civil Society
26. District of Enrekang, South Sulawesi Province
Index Arenas
Ei- Efec- Arena pation parency
per
Partici- Trans-
Fairness Accoun-
tability
ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
27. District of Kolaka, South East Sulawesi Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness
tability
Political Oice
Civil Society
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 51
28. District of Mamuju,West Sulawesi Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
tability ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness
Political Oice
Civil Society
29. District of Gorontalo, Gorontalo Province
Index Arenas
Fairness Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arena pation parency
ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
30. City of Ambon, Maluku Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness
tability
Political Oice
Civil Society
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
31. City of Ternate, North Maluku Province
Accoun- Ei- Efec- Arenas
ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness
tability
Political Oice
Civil Society
32. City of Jayapura, Papua Province
Index Arenas
Ei- Efec- Arena pation parency
per
Partici- Trans-
Fairness Accoun-
tability
ciency tiveness
Bureau- cracy
33. District of Manokwari, West Papua Province
Ei- Efec- Arenas
Index
Partici- Trans-
Accoun-
ciency tiveness Arena
per
pation parency Fairness
tability
Political Oice
Civil Society
34. District of Seluma, Bengkulu Province Cannot be accessed
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 53
ANNEX 3
Gender, Environment and Investment
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
ANNEX III.
Achievement Scores on Commitment to Gender, Environment and Investment
I. Ranking of Commitment to Gender Equality
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 55
II. Ranking of Commitment to Enviroment
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
III. Ranking of Commitment to Investment
Rata Rata 34 Kab/Kota
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 57
ANNEX 4
What is Indonesia Governance Index (IGI)
Governing Indonesia From The Regions
Executive Summary of Indonesia Governance Index 2014 59
ANNEX 5
List of Indicators applied in IGI at Disctrict/City Level
Governing Indonesia From The Regions