local community. Strong local identity as shared identity could not be strong if the local leaders do not have leadership capacity.
II.2 The Dynamics Definition of Decentralization and Glocalization Era
One of the most critical prerequisites to translate decentralization from concept to practice is clear understanding of the concept. To be able to better understanding what
decentralization means basically we must discuss what decentralization is and what decentralization is not. The most comprehensive definition about decentralization is
UNDP Monograph on Decentralization Nharnet Team, 2005. According to UNDP monograph 2005, decentralization is :
a counterpoint to globalization
Decentralization is a counterpoint to globalization means that has two concepts as the opposite one to another. On the one hand, globalization often to remove
decision making process from local and national levels toward global level of multi-national or non-national interests. On the other hand, decentralization
brings decision making process back to sub-national or local levels.
a phenomenon involving multiple dimensions, actors, and sectors
Decentralization is a complex phenomenon involving many geographic entities, societal actors and social sectors. The geographic entities include the
international, national, sub-national and local levels. The social actors consist of government, the private sector, and civil society. The social sector includes
several development issues, they are : political, legal, social, cultural and environtmental.
a mix type functions and relationships
Decentralization is a mixture of administrative, fiscal and political functions and relationships.
On the other hand, decentralization is not :
an alternative to centralization
Decentralization is not an alternative of centralization, both decentralization and centralization are needed Prasojo, 2009 ; Cheema and Rondinelli, 1983.
Exclusive public sector reform
Decentralization is much more than merely public sector reform, it involves the role and relationship amongst all societal actors, whether governmental, private
sector or civil society.
After we have discussed what decentralization is and what decentralization is not as well as global governance and local governance phenomenon, there is an impression
that global and local are simultaneously interplay. This phenomenon academically called “glocalization”. The term “glocalization” that captures the essence of the emerging
worldwide phenomenon where globalization and localization are simultaneously transforming the development landscape Sharma, 2008. Still according to Sharma
2008, the term has its roots in the Japanese term dochakuka which first appeared in the late 1980s in articles by Japanese economists in the Harvard Business Review. The term
originally meant adapting farming technique to one’s own local condition. The idea was later adopted to refer to global-localization.
Accor ding to the dictionary, the term of ‘glocal’ and the process noun of
‘glocalization’ are formed by telescoping global and local to make a blend” The Oxford Dictionary of New Words, 1991:134. Roland Robertson, conceptualized glocalization as
“the universalization of particularization and the particularization of universalism” Robertson, 1992:100. Khondker 1994 expressed it as a process combining the twin
processes of macro-localization and micro-globalization.
However, the term “glocalization” is relevant to make the atmosphere of decentralization discussion become warmer. Nowadays discussion on decentralization
has increased and it could be said as the impact of glocalization era. Decentralization was designed because of two forces combined to push for decentralization : first, external
pressure by international development agencies and experts; and second, internal political expediency in national contexts where the public authorities are unable to
organize basic public services De Grauwe, et.al, 2005; see also Suwandi, 2003. International development agencies which promotes the idea of decentralization, consist
of World Bank, Asian Development Bank, USAID, and UNDP. Worl Bank promotes and disseminates the idea of decentralization through some projects, covers baseline survey
on preparation for decentralization or regional autonomy implementation, in-cooperation with prominent university in respective country in Indonesia with University of Indonesia;
Gadjahmada University and evaluation of decentralization practices to give input for revision of Law on Regional Government. Meanwhile, ADB, USAID and UNDP run the
donor-driven project related with local government capacity to implement decentralization. In this contexts, such projects as Sustainable Capacity Building for
Decentralization Projects SCBD-P funded by ADB; Local Governance Support Programme LGSP funded by USAID; Governance and Decentralization Survey GDS
funded by World Bank and UNDP.
Internal political expediency in national contexts represents by push both of association of city regency government and association of provincial government in
Indonesia also called – APKASI and APEKSI for local level and APPSI for provincial level
to revise the Law on Regional Government which give more power and discretion for local government. According to regional point of view, decentralization should be bringing the
state or government closer and more accountable for local people. This notion based on argument that “local government best known the local needs”.
Without ignoring the debate on decentralization, one principle must be in mind : decentralization does not imply abandoning the state, but rather a change of its role. This
principle could be well-understood by tracing the dynamic of definition of decentralization, especially ‘why’ and ‘how’ of decentralization.
The ‘why’ government should decentralize, generally answered by two constrasting perspectives: a to bring the government closer to the people or b to split
sovereignty between various levels of the government Sharma, 2008; see also : Hidayat, 2008. Roots of these two decentralization perspectives can be traced in political thought
of “social contract” by Rousseau and Montesquieu respectively. It means, Rousseau emphasized on virtues of bringing the government closer to the people, meanwhile
Montesquieu emphasized on virtues of limiting huge central government.
The ‘how’ to decentralize is a mixture of administrative, fiscal and political functions and relationships. In the design of decentralization, many countries use all three
dimensions. Administrative decentralization occurs when agents in higher level of government move to lower levels in Indonesia-
called as “deconsentration”. Fiscal decentralization occurs when higher level of government delegate influence over budgets
and financial decisions to lower level. Political decentralization occurs when higher level of government shifts power and task to lower-level authorities who are autonomous.
Based on those elaborations regarding on the rationale or ‘why’ and ‘how’ to
decentralize government, it is clear and easy to understand the definition of decentralization as follow :
Mawhood 1987: 9 said that decentralization is “… devolution of power from central to local governm
ents”. This definition is not different with Smith 1985 which define the decentralization as “… the transfer of power, from top level to lower level, in a territorial
hierarchy, which could be one of government within a state, or offices within a large o
rganisation.” The spectrums of those definitions mentioned above more clearly elaborate that
dynamic definition of decentralization depends on means and goals of decentralization. On the one hand, the means of decentralization bring the political and administrative
perspectives into debate on decentralization. On the other hand, the goals of decentralization uncover the local versus national interest to be promoted. Hence,
decentralization can be placed as a result of dialectical discourse in the age of glocalization. So what is the empirical evidence for those phenomenon will be elaborate
more on the rest of this paper, especially with reference to Karo Regency, North Sumatera Province, Indonesia.
II.3 Decentralization in Practices: Findings and Lessons From Karo Regency
