In 42 Kabupatens and Cities and 5 Provinces in Indonesia
12 person there than the average of Rp 1.3 mperson for the 42 kabupatens and cities studied. The city of
Padang Panjang ’s revenue per person was Rp 4.9 m; in West Sumbawa population: 115 000 it was Rp 3
mperson. On Java, the cities of Blitar and Banjar —with populations of 132 000 and 175 000
respectively —achieved average revenue over Rp 1.5 mperson. By contrast, 14 of the 18 regions
surveyed on Java had average revenue of less than Rp 1 mperson. On the bottom of that list were Malang and Garut
—with revenue of just ±Rp 0.5 mperson. High population levels in the three kabupatens on Lombok
—between 600 000 and 1.1 m—resulted in very low revenue numbers: ±Rp 0.7 mperson.
Graph 2.5 Average Revenue per Person, 2007-10, Based on Constant 2007 Prices
This graph is available only in the Indonesian text of this publication
Source: APBD-Rs for 2007-09 and APBD-Ms for 2010, processed by the LBS team.
2.3 Analysis of Local Revenue Sources
Central government fiscal transfers to regions dana perimbangan contributed most revenue in the
kabupatens and cities studied ; in second place came “other lawful own-source revenue” LPDS
Graph 2.6.
Cities were slightly less dependent on dana perimbangan than kabupatens: in 2007 they derived 81 of their revenue from such transfers; in 2010 the proportion was 73; in kabupatens the
level of dependency on dana perimbangan fluctuated between 83 and 86 during the period studied 2007-10. As for LPDS, in 2010 it contributed 14 of total revenue in 16 cities and 9 in 26
kabupatens studied —a slightly higher number than ―local own-source revenue‖ PAD 13 in cities and
8 in kabupatens.
Large cities and kabupatens with urban characteristics received relatively lower levels of dana perimbangan transfers and had higher levels of local own-source revenue PAD. The cities of
Surabaya and Semarang derived quite substantial amounts of their total revenue from PAD —30 and
20 respectively in 2009
6
. The extent of their dependency on dana perimbangan —54 for Surabaya
and 65 for Semarang —was correspondingly less than that of other cities and kabupatens. But a
kabupaten with urban characteristics like Sleman managed to draw on PAD for 16 of its total revenue.
Graph 2.6 Percentage of Revenue KabupatenCity Revenue by Revenue Source, 2007-10
This graph is available only in the Indonesian text of this publication Source: APBD-Rs for 2007-09 and RAPBDs for 2010, processed by the LBS team
Most of the 19 kabupatens and cities that received less than 80 of their 2009 revenue from central government fiscal balance transfers dana perimbangan derived sizeable amounts of revenue from
other lawful own-source revenue LPDS Graph 2.7 . In all these kabupatens and cities more than 9
of total revenue —the kabupaten average in 2009— came from LPDS. North Gorontalo and the city of
Palangka Raya had the highest level of LPDS revenue reaching 17 of total revenue in 2009.
Graph 2.7 Proportion of Kabupaten City Revenue by Source, 2009 APBD-R
This graph is available only in the Indonesian text of this publication Source: APBD-Rs for 2007-09 and APBD-Ms for 2010, processed by the LBS team.
6
Of the four budgetary years studied 2007-10, 2009 was the last for which APBD-R figures were available. Data for the 2010 budgetary year could therefore only be drawn from APBD-Ms.
In 42 Kabupatens and Cities and 5 Provinces in Indonesia
13
Kabupatens outside Java were generally very dependent on dana perimbangan. Almost all of the fourteen kabupatenscities among the 42 studied that derived more than 85 of their revenue from dana
perimbangan in 2009 were located outside Java Graph 2.7. Among those, West Aceh, Dompu, Polewali Mandar, East Lombok and Serdang Bedagai collected limited local own-source revenue PAD
less than 5 of total revenue. Situbondo and Bojonegoro in East Java were exceptions: they derived 87 and 85 of their revenue respectively from dana perimbangan and just 6 and 8 respectively
from PAD.
The three provincial governments on Java derived most of their revenue from local own-source revenue PAD, whereas the governments of South Sumatera and West Nusa Tenggara NTB relied
heavily on dana perimbangan transfers. Generally speaking, during 2007-10, PAD contributed between 67 and 74 of total revenue for the governments of West Java, Central Java and East Java; and dana
perimbangan contributed just 25-33. Those proportions remained steady over the period studied. By contrast, although West Sumatera and NTB derived progressively more revenue from PAD during 2007-
10, dana perimbangan transfers remained a more important revenue source for them. The government of South Sumatera derived 48 of its revenue from PAD in 2010 but just over 50 came from dana
perimbangan. In NTB the degree of dependence was even greater: 60 came from dana perimbangan compared to 40 from PAD. Meanwhile LPDS contributed very little to provincial government revenue.
Graph 2.8 Contributions of PAD and Regional fiscal transfers system Transfers to Revenue in 5 Provinces, 2007-10
This graph is available only in the Indonesian text of this publication Source: APBD-Rs for 2007-09 and APBD-Ms for 2010, processed by the LBS team.
2.4 Central Government Fiscal Transfers to Regions
