ACCESS PHASE II Impact Evaluation - Community Impact Assessment and Local Government Survey Editorial Inggris
Editorial
The application of regional autonomy is a further step of the implementation of decentralisation. The latter can be
defined as “systematic and rational dispersal of governmental powers and authority to lower level institutions so as to
allow multi-sectoral decision-making as close as possible to problem areas” 1. Code 1 of 22/1999 mentions that
decentralisation is the delivery of authority from the central government to the autonomous region (local government)
within the framework of the unitary state of Republic of Indonesia. Furthermore, it also mentions that regional autonomy
is the authority owned by the local government to organise the interest of the local people, based on its own initiatives,
the people’s aspiration, and the regulation.
Conceptually, the implementation of decentralisation is based on the willingness to create democracy, equal
distribution and efficiency. It is assumed that decentralisation will lead to the democracy through the participation of the
local people. Moreover, the democratic system will support the equal distribution of development, mainly in rural areas
where most people live. In other words, decentralisation can also be seen as a reaction of the centralised development
program. At the moment, decentralisation is a controversial issue. On one side, it is said that decentralisation may
create inefficiency. On the other hand, it is argued that decentralisation is indeed increase efficiency, since the distance
between the government and the people are getting closer. Decentralisation may not need a large bureaucratic system
to support the local government. Resources can be used whenever it is needed and problems are identified by the local
people. The mentioned arguments imply that the implementation of decentralisation supposed to be an effective
instrument to create democracy, equal distribution and efficiency and to prevent disintegration.
The case of Indonesia shows that the tendency of disintegration of the outer islanders, is a significant factor which
support the creation of code 22/1999 on regional autonomy to replace code 5/1974 on regional governance and code
5/1979 on rural governance. The similar case occurred in South Africa and India when decentralisation was
implemented to avoid disintegration. Therefore, the implementation of decentralisation is very much influenced by
political motives 2 . Decentralisation is often assumed as an effective instrument to create efficiency and welfare
distribution. Nevertheless, the assumption should be looked at carefully, since the case of decentralisation of Latin
America led to fiscal deficit and in Spain caused higher lack of welfare distribution between the rich and the poor areas.
The case of Philippines shows that at the micro level, decentralisation weakened the labour movement. At the end,
discussion on decentralisation may come to a point that the issue of decentralisation is not a matter of good and bad but
focus on the possibility of the success or the failure of decentralisation program. It will depend on the design and the
implementation of the program itself (ibid).
AKATIGA convinces that the implementation of decentralisation is indeed an important part of democratisation process
in Indonesia. In particular, this is related to the bigger authority given to the local government to formulate strategic
policies for the interest of the local people, and a more fairly financial balancing and administrative distribution between
the central and the local government. The implementation of decentralisation is convinced to give an impact to the
practice of local governance. “Governance” itself is a comprehensive concept, which covers state’s institutions and
structure, decision making process, the capacity to implement (decentralisation) and the interaction between the
government and the society3. The assumption that the implementation of decentralisation will imply to the practice of
local governance, has raised another question i.e. how is the impact of decentralisation (and regional autonomy) in
Indonesia to the civil society? Is there a (new) opportunity for the civil society? If there is, how the civil society
anticipates and makes use of such an opportunity? Can decentralisation be an opportunities to reduce the number of
poor people?
To enrich the current decentralisation discourse, the present edition of AKATIGA’s Social Analyses Journal tries to
raise issues on decentralisation and regional autonomy. It is hoped that the socialisation of decentralisation program
Endriga, Jose, Prof., “Decentralisation: Concept and Strategy for Local Development”, University of Philippines, 1996.
World Bank, “Entering the 21st Century”, World Development Report, 1999/2000.
3 UNDP, 1999, Towards Better Government, Philippines.
1
2
will help civil society to anticipate and to make use of new opportunities, which come along with the implementation of
the program. The present journal is started by an article, which discusses decentralisation and its relation with the
participation of civil society. The second article discusses the tendency of the raising of local elites who have their own
interest. The following articles try to focus the discussion on decentralisation and its relation with specific issues i.e.
decentralisation and land problem, small scale enterprises, education, and decentralisation discourse in the
Philippines.
Hetifah Sjaifudian, Sawarung Presidium, who raises issue of participation and decentralisation, writes the first article.
It is agreed that the implementation of decentralisation opens a bigger opportunity for participation. Nevertheless, such
an opportunity needs to be prepared properly by the civil society and the government apparatuses. Some questions
raise on the obstacles which may be faced by civil society who are willing to participate, the quality of the participation,
what is needed to reach an optimum participation and which reflects the interest of the people.
Syarif Hidayat, a researcher of Centre of Economic and Development Studies of Indonesian Science Institute,
discusses the tendency of the raise of local elites whose interest will not be match with the interest of the local people.
The discussion is developed based on a case study in North Bandung. He raises two questions i.e.; whether or not
decentralisation leads to the raise of local elites; how the interest of local elites interact with that of the local people.
Does education need to be decentralised? Armida Alisyahbana, head of Economic Development Department,
Faculty of Economic, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, writes that regulation number 22/1999 does not mention clearly on
decentralisation of education. In particular, she points out that the regulation does not cover the problem of how far the
educational institutions are given the authority in planning their own education process and in developing their
institutions.
Gunawan Wiradi, member of executive board of AKATIGA, argues that the implementation of regional autonomy
gives an opportunity for a more democratic agrarian reform. He develops his argument regardless to the fact there is
only one article (of regulation number 22/1999) which mentions land problem. He writes that a democratic agrarian
reform can only be achieved if the local government and the regional House of Representatives have a good
understanding of all aspects of agrarian reform. Furthermore, it is also influenced by the clear direction of agrarian
national politics.
Revrisond Baswir, lecturer of Economic Faculty, Gadjah Mada University, a director of Institute of Development and
Economic Analysis (IDEA), Yogyakarta, and member of Steering Committee Indonesian NGO Forum on Indonesian Development
(INFID), Jakarta argues that regional autonomy may solve the structural problems, which (in the past) had caused
small-scale enterprises left behind. He develops his argument based on the reason that regional autonomy opens a
bigger opportunity for participation, improve local economic activities, and increase market for the local small scale
enterprises. Nevertheless, whether or not regional autonomy give a positive impact for the development of small scale
enterprises, also depend on the willingness of the local government to empower small scale enterprises. Moreover, it is
also depend on the betterment of fund allocation from the central to the local government.
Joel Rocamora, executive director of Institute of Popular Democracy, Philippines, enriches the discussion, by sharing
the Philippines’ experience in decentralisation. In particular, he discusses discourse of global capitalism, its interest,
and NGO, all in the frame of governance and democratisation in the Philippines.
Does decentralisation give an advantage for the poor and the marginal people? The answer may be “yes” if it is aimed
to give a bigger space for democratisation and the improvement of people’s welfare. Therefore, all of the nation’s
components should have the political will and participate actively in planning, implementing, and controlling the
decentralisation program. Otherwise, decentralisation may become a dream only.
Verania Andria and Yulia Indrawati Sari
The application of regional autonomy is a further step of the implementation of decentralisation. The latter can be
defined as “systematic and rational dispersal of governmental powers and authority to lower level institutions so as to
allow multi-sectoral decision-making as close as possible to problem areas” 1. Code 1 of 22/1999 mentions that
decentralisation is the delivery of authority from the central government to the autonomous region (local government)
within the framework of the unitary state of Republic of Indonesia. Furthermore, it also mentions that regional autonomy
is the authority owned by the local government to organise the interest of the local people, based on its own initiatives,
the people’s aspiration, and the regulation.
Conceptually, the implementation of decentralisation is based on the willingness to create democracy, equal
distribution and efficiency. It is assumed that decentralisation will lead to the democracy through the participation of the
local people. Moreover, the democratic system will support the equal distribution of development, mainly in rural areas
where most people live. In other words, decentralisation can also be seen as a reaction of the centralised development
program. At the moment, decentralisation is a controversial issue. On one side, it is said that decentralisation may
create inefficiency. On the other hand, it is argued that decentralisation is indeed increase efficiency, since the distance
between the government and the people are getting closer. Decentralisation may not need a large bureaucratic system
to support the local government. Resources can be used whenever it is needed and problems are identified by the local
people. The mentioned arguments imply that the implementation of decentralisation supposed to be an effective
instrument to create democracy, equal distribution and efficiency and to prevent disintegration.
The case of Indonesia shows that the tendency of disintegration of the outer islanders, is a significant factor which
support the creation of code 22/1999 on regional autonomy to replace code 5/1974 on regional governance and code
5/1979 on rural governance. The similar case occurred in South Africa and India when decentralisation was
implemented to avoid disintegration. Therefore, the implementation of decentralisation is very much influenced by
political motives 2 . Decentralisation is often assumed as an effective instrument to create efficiency and welfare
distribution. Nevertheless, the assumption should be looked at carefully, since the case of decentralisation of Latin
America led to fiscal deficit and in Spain caused higher lack of welfare distribution between the rich and the poor areas.
The case of Philippines shows that at the micro level, decentralisation weakened the labour movement. At the end,
discussion on decentralisation may come to a point that the issue of decentralisation is not a matter of good and bad but
focus on the possibility of the success or the failure of decentralisation program. It will depend on the design and the
implementation of the program itself (ibid).
AKATIGA convinces that the implementation of decentralisation is indeed an important part of democratisation process
in Indonesia. In particular, this is related to the bigger authority given to the local government to formulate strategic
policies for the interest of the local people, and a more fairly financial balancing and administrative distribution between
the central and the local government. The implementation of decentralisation is convinced to give an impact to the
practice of local governance. “Governance” itself is a comprehensive concept, which covers state’s institutions and
structure, decision making process, the capacity to implement (decentralisation) and the interaction between the
government and the society3. The assumption that the implementation of decentralisation will imply to the practice of
local governance, has raised another question i.e. how is the impact of decentralisation (and regional autonomy) in
Indonesia to the civil society? Is there a (new) opportunity for the civil society? If there is, how the civil society
anticipates and makes use of such an opportunity? Can decentralisation be an opportunities to reduce the number of
poor people?
To enrich the current decentralisation discourse, the present edition of AKATIGA’s Social Analyses Journal tries to
raise issues on decentralisation and regional autonomy. It is hoped that the socialisation of decentralisation program
Endriga, Jose, Prof., “Decentralisation: Concept and Strategy for Local Development”, University of Philippines, 1996.
World Bank, “Entering the 21st Century”, World Development Report, 1999/2000.
3 UNDP, 1999, Towards Better Government, Philippines.
1
2
will help civil society to anticipate and to make use of new opportunities, which come along with the implementation of
the program. The present journal is started by an article, which discusses decentralisation and its relation with the
participation of civil society. The second article discusses the tendency of the raising of local elites who have their own
interest. The following articles try to focus the discussion on decentralisation and its relation with specific issues i.e.
decentralisation and land problem, small scale enterprises, education, and decentralisation discourse in the
Philippines.
Hetifah Sjaifudian, Sawarung Presidium, who raises issue of participation and decentralisation, writes the first article.
It is agreed that the implementation of decentralisation opens a bigger opportunity for participation. Nevertheless, such
an opportunity needs to be prepared properly by the civil society and the government apparatuses. Some questions
raise on the obstacles which may be faced by civil society who are willing to participate, the quality of the participation,
what is needed to reach an optimum participation and which reflects the interest of the people.
Syarif Hidayat, a researcher of Centre of Economic and Development Studies of Indonesian Science Institute,
discusses the tendency of the raise of local elites whose interest will not be match with the interest of the local people.
The discussion is developed based on a case study in North Bandung. He raises two questions i.e.; whether or not
decentralisation leads to the raise of local elites; how the interest of local elites interact with that of the local people.
Does education need to be decentralised? Armida Alisyahbana, head of Economic Development Department,
Faculty of Economic, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, writes that regulation number 22/1999 does not mention clearly on
decentralisation of education. In particular, she points out that the regulation does not cover the problem of how far the
educational institutions are given the authority in planning their own education process and in developing their
institutions.
Gunawan Wiradi, member of executive board of AKATIGA, argues that the implementation of regional autonomy
gives an opportunity for a more democratic agrarian reform. He develops his argument regardless to the fact there is
only one article (of regulation number 22/1999) which mentions land problem. He writes that a democratic agrarian
reform can only be achieved if the local government and the regional House of Representatives have a good
understanding of all aspects of agrarian reform. Furthermore, it is also influenced by the clear direction of agrarian
national politics.
Revrisond Baswir, lecturer of Economic Faculty, Gadjah Mada University, a director of Institute of Development and
Economic Analysis (IDEA), Yogyakarta, and member of Steering Committee Indonesian NGO Forum on Indonesian Development
(INFID), Jakarta argues that regional autonomy may solve the structural problems, which (in the past) had caused
small-scale enterprises left behind. He develops his argument based on the reason that regional autonomy opens a
bigger opportunity for participation, improve local economic activities, and increase market for the local small scale
enterprises. Nevertheless, whether or not regional autonomy give a positive impact for the development of small scale
enterprises, also depend on the willingness of the local government to empower small scale enterprises. Moreover, it is
also depend on the betterment of fund allocation from the central to the local government.
Joel Rocamora, executive director of Institute of Popular Democracy, Philippines, enriches the discussion, by sharing
the Philippines’ experience in decentralisation. In particular, he discusses discourse of global capitalism, its interest,
and NGO, all in the frame of governance and democratisation in the Philippines.
Does decentralisation give an advantage for the poor and the marginal people? The answer may be “yes” if it is aimed
to give a bigger space for democratisation and the improvement of people’s welfare. Therefore, all of the nation’s
components should have the political will and participate actively in planning, implementing, and controlling the
decentralisation program. Otherwise, decentralisation may become a dream only.
Verania Andria and Yulia Indrawati Sari