Desentralisasi Fiskal dan Kesenjangan Wilayah
2.14 Desentralisasi Fiskal dan Kesenjangan Wilayah
Bonet (2006), examines the impact of fiscal decentralization on regional regional disparity in Colombia. By using panel data between departments, found strong evidence that the process of fiscal decentralization increases regional regional disparity. This behavior is caused by a set of factors that is currently spending most of resources allocated to a new area (eg, wages and salaries), not capital investment or infrastructure, lack of component redistribution of national transfers, the lack of adequate incentives ranging from the national level down to the level of area to promote the benefits of their efficient, and lack of institutional capacity in local government.
Empirical analysis of the results also prove that the essential elements of fiscal decentralization policy can affect regional disparity regions namely equitable transfer system, the ability to select the sector, where resources areallocated, and the application of the correct incentives. These elements, plays an important role in the success of decentralization to reduce regional income disparities. According to Bonet (2006), there are two variables that need to be controlled; degree of economic openness and economic agglomeration tendencies, have a negative impact on regional disparity. Rodriguez-Pose and Ezcurra (2010), this study analyzed the relationship between decentralization and regional disparity in developed countries and developing country.
The results prove that the developed countries do not affect the evolution of political decentralization inequality between regions, while fiscal decentralization contributes to reducing regional disparities. In contrast, in developing countries fiscal decentralization sparked significant rise in regional disparity. The increase in inequality, cannot be compensated by the positive effects of political decentralization of the political inter-regional disparities in this country. Most of these countries, the state is less than the capacity of redistribution in rich countries, so that decentralization has the potential to have an impact on increasing inequality between regions.
Widhiyanto (2008), examines the fiscal decentralization and regional regional disparity in Indonesia during the years 1994 to 2006. Taking into account the economic convergence, found empirical evidence that during the period 1994-2000 there were economic differences, while in the period 2001-2004 there is economic convergence. This finding is consistent with new theories of fiscal decentralization. Sigma convergence did not occur because the coefficient of variation of per capita income fluctuates during the observation period. Meanwhile, the implementation of the policy of fiscal decentralization local governments face coefficient of variation of per capita government revenue higher. This is because when the area has many natural resources could benefit from it. Areas that lack of natural resources does not have an advantage. Other findings also show that fiscal decentralization has a negative impact on regional per capita income disparities.
Lessman (2006), examines the impact of fiscal decentralization on regional disparity. The findings indicate that countries with high levels of decentralization has relatively small area inequality. It means that the distribution between regions in decentralization is not harmful, but quite the contrary, decentralization reduce regional disparity.
These results can only be generalized to highly developed countries. While, decentralization in poor countries has a negative impact on regional equity. Akai and Sakata (2005), examines the fiscal decentralization, commitment and regional disparity. By using cross-sectional data the United States, including regional income convergence suggests that there is a relationship between fiscal decentralization to regional disparity.
Direction of the relationship, depending on how the fiscal decentralization promoted. While the impact of the distribution is directly dependent on the share of the central government, as well as the impact of incentives depending on the level of autonomy. The results showed that local expenditures or revenue share on fiscal decentralization has no significant effect on regional disparity, while achieving autonomy by fiscal decentralization has a negative effect on regional disparity. (Journal of Economic Development and Sustainable Developkment ISSN 2222-1700 (paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online) Vo;.5, No.18, 2014) email : Fadly.ali@gmail.com
Ketimpangan pembangunan antar wilayah di China juga dapat dijadikan rujukan untuk menganalisis ketimpangan pembangunan antar wilayah di Indonesia, suatu kajian menarik tentang ketimpangan tersebut di paparkan secara substansial oleh Zheng dan Chen (2007) melalui penelitiannya yang berjudul China’s Regional Disparity and Its Policies Responses mengemukakan antara lain : Since the reform and opendoor policy of the late 1970s, China has achieved magnificent economic growth. The fruits of this growth, however, have not been distributed fairly across China’s regions. In the early stages of the reform, the Chinese government gave preferential policy treatment to coastal regions and greatly promoted their development. China’s regional inequalities are to a great extent due to regional development policies by the government. In order to control rising regional inequality, China has shifted its focus from the coast onto the interior regions. The central government put the “western development strategy” into practice in 1998, with the “northeast revival strategy” following in 2003.
Most recently, the “rise of central China” strategy has been implemented. China’s early reforms were focused mainly on the development of the coastal areas, with the aim of attracting investments from abroad. China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows have contributed enormously to economic growth in general and to export industry in particular. However, FDI has been highly concentrated in the eastern costal areas and this has caused unequal development among regions.
The Deng Xiaoping leadership expected that by supporting the growth centres in the eastern regions first, these centres would ultimately lead the rest of the economy to expand. However, the spillover effect from growth centres in the coastal provinces to inland areas has not happened as expected. The central government has made enormous efforts to control regional disparities. In 1998, the Zhu Rongji government launched the western development programme. The programme was expected to boost domestic demands by promoting economic development in the western part of the country.
At the beginning of this century, the government started to revive the economy in some old key industrial bases, especially the northeast region, in order to ease growing social conflict caused by laidoff workers. Furthermore, under Wen Jiabao, the central government initiated the “rise of central China” programme to balance regional economic development. It is hoped that all these regional development policies will also support the development of minority peoples, especially in remote areas.
The interior regions of China have benefited substantially from these regional development programmes. Inland China also gains from shifting comparative advantages, as the land and labour prices in the east have risen significantly. Interior China is a potentially huge market for foreign and domestic investors. However, in spite of this great endeavour, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the government to control and direct the economy, as market economy mechanisms now have a far greater influence than the government.
Central government’s policies and various administrative methods cannot easily reach the bottom level of the economy. Unsurprisingly, compared with Deng’s opening up policies, the later development policies initiated by both Zhu and Wen are becoming less and less effective in terms of their implementation.Regional inequality in China continues to be serious. The lessons learned by the eastern economic centres should be taken into account during the development of the noncoastal provinces as well as all the nongrowthcentre areas within the eastern provinces.
Whether or not China’s trickledown approach to development and the consequent increase in regional inequality will eventually lead to a higher per capita income for all regions depends on whether or not the Chinese government’s regional development policies can enhance efficiency of production and increase the rate of returns on investment. Overall, if China ultimately could employ equitable policies all over the country, the process of growth in China would generate income convergence and more regional equality.
The peoplecentred approach of the current HuWen leadership has paid increasingly substantial attention to regional development disparities in its attempt to build a “harmonious society” in China. Nevertheless, China needs further extensive reforms if all these measures for reducing regional disparity are to be effective. (Yiongnian Zheng dan Minjian Chen, 2007. China Regional Disparity and Its Policy Response. China Policy Institute, China House University of Nottingham NG7 2RD United Kingdom. Email : CPI@nottingham.ac.uk Website : www.chinapolicyinstitute.org