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
How far decentralization goes as the theme of this conference, could be answered by using lesson learned from Karo Regency, North Sumatera Province. Decentralization
in political, administrative and fiscal dimensions is elaborated through conceptual framework which more emphasis on the three dimensions. To be able to better
understanding findings and lessons from Karo Regency, this paper conceptualizes
decentralization in practice by using Schneider’s dimension and indicator of decentralization 2003 as well as Law No.322004 on Regional Government.
According to Schneider 2003 andor Law No.322004 on Regional Government, dimension and indicator of decentralization can be summarized as follow Table 1.
Table 1. Decentralization Dimensions and Indicators
Dimension Indicator
Source of Data
Political Local election
Local Government of Karo Regency
Administrative Local authority and capacity of
bureaucracy Local Government of Karo Regency
Fiscal Local revenue and expenditures as
percentage of total annual budget Local Government of Karo Regency
As shown on Table 1, lesson learned from Karo Regency depicts through political, administrative and fiscal dimensions of decentralization could be described as follow.
First, political decentralization which is measured by quality of local election. Local election on the first instance was designed to vote for local elite that acceptable for local
people and have an adequate capability to overcome local problems. In accordance with this philosophy, local election was created by using direct election both by political parties
as well as independent path see Law No.122008 on Second Revision toward Law No.322004 on Regional Government; see also Government Regulation No.62005.
What is the empirical evidence from this concept? In local government of Karo Regency, the fact that elected regent was came from marginal political parties. As the result of
marginal legislative supporting toward elected regent, the local government is weak and vulnerable from legislative interventions. Divided government is the result of local
election.
Secondly, from the administrative perspective both local authority and capacity of bureaucracy were poor in performance. Local authority according to Government
Regulation No.382007 is not optimally implemented. Several problems deal with local authority was happened on the practice of governance. Minimum service standard MSS
as a basic measurement for obligatory function implementation was far from expected achievement. Basic services became worse and underfinanced. On the other hand, the
capacity of bureaucracy was not optimally improved. Local bureaucracy become highly politicized and victimized by local elite. Civil servant management become unpredictable
because of the absence local leadership and competency standard. Parsonian bureaucracy and bureaupathology are pervasive as the result of hyper-politicized local
government.
Third, financial perspective as local revenue and expenditures as percentage of total annual budget is still marginal for recent 4 years 2009-2012. Local own revenue
also called PAD : Pendapatan Asli Daerah in Law No.322004 still less than 5 from total revenue since 2009 up to 2012 see Chart 2.
Chart 2. Local Revenue and Local Own Revenue IDR 2009-2012
Still deal with financial dimension, expenditure on local government is dominated by indirect expenditure which used to finance for local apparatus salary more than 60
annually rather than to pay for public services. Local financial discretion is not adequate for improving the basic infrastructure, pay for minimum service standards especially for
three basic sectors : health, education and social affairs. Local financial is restricted by local budget policy which guide by rule-driven budgeting which emphasized on earmark,
obligatory funded and co-financing as support and priority toward national programmes. Shortly, how far decentralization goes, it could be answered that decentralization is going
well-localized politically but administratively and financially is still centralized. We need to consider changing relationships and mental model to make decentralization goes beyond.
III. CONCLUSION
