Evaluating Governance and Decentralization in Indonesia

BBL, 12:30-14:002nd October 2002, MC 9-W150EACIQ and the Decentralization Thematic Group

Kai KaiserWorld Bank Office Jakarta/EASPR

www.worldbank.or.id/decentralization

The 2002 Governance and Decentralization Survey (GDS)

Indonesian Decentralization

2001 “Big Bang”30 Provinces348 Local Governments (kotas/kabupatens)Administrative & Legal

Unitary State Emphasis on Local Governments “Devolution” of Civil Service

Fiscal Law 25/1999 90/10 25 % Net Revenue Framework Block Transfers Dominant Source of LG Revenue (the DAU)

Transformation of Accountabilities

Pre-Decentralization Central-Regional Accountabilities Tied Funding (SDO/Inpres) Appointments “Dual” Civil Service Structure

Decentralization Local Bureaucracy-Legislature Legislatures Elected in 1999 (again in 2004) Regional Heads Elected as Term Ends Annual Accountability Speeches Partners….in an uncertain marriage?

Main Governance Themes

Elite Capture Money Politics (politik uang) Little Kings (raja kecil )

“Overgrazing” (campur tangan)Uncertainty“Pro-Poor” Regional Governments?Capacity

Main Initiatives

Central Support of Evolving Intergovernmental System

Regional Public Expenditure Review (RPER)

Integrated Performance Monitoring Regional Fiscal Information Sectoral Outcomes at the Local Level Governance and Decentralization Surveys

Local Monitoring, Case Studies and Project Initiatives

2002 Governance & Decentralization Survey

#

North Sumatra

#

West Java

Jakarta

#

NTB (West Nusa Tenggara)

Indonesia_adm1.shpNo CoverageGDS 2002GDS + RPER

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Governance and Decentralization Survey (2002)

GDS Framework

Tracking over time 2002/4 GDS

Strategic Links of Primary & Secondary DataIndonesian Decentralization Empirical Analysis (IDEA)

Research Partner (CPPS/UGM, Yogya)Network of 16 Regional UniversitiesLeveraged on Project and Sectoral Work

ILGR– Initiatives for Local Government Reform Project ULGRP – Urban Local Government Reform Project

Information Strategies

Quantitative Survey Instruments

Qualitative Field-supervisor Notes Logs of Best Practices and Worst

Practices Regional Forums/Facilitators Follow-up

GDS Coverage & Sampling

150 Randomly Sampled Local Governments

27 Project Top Ups12 Structured Questionnaires

4 Village ClustersHealth ClinicSchool

60 Households 36 Public Officials and Civil Society

Decentralization Dimensions

stakeholder’s understanding of local autonomy civil service reform commitment to public needs service quality stakeholder’s judgment on local autonomy

implementation corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN) technical capacity of local governments level of conflict

Governance Dimensions

participationrule of laweffectiveness & efficiency responsivenesstransparencyequity conflict resolution

A Few of Our Favourite Things

Preliminary Findings/Issues

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Data still being cleaned Detailed analysis still being conducted

The Good

People have heard of decentralization 81,52 % did after one year

Perceptions suggest that core services have not collapsed

People are optimisticExpectations across respondent

types largely consistent

Decentralization Optimism

49.75

39.6

50.16

40.25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Public School Services Public Health Services

Figure1: Service Delivery Quality Before and After decentralization (2000-2001)

Same

Better

Decentralization Optimism II

50.2352.33

42.6340.83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Same Better

Figure2: Service Delivery Quality in A Year Ahead (2002)

Public School Service

Public Health Service

Perceptions of DecentralizationFigure1: Household's view on decentralization

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

National

Java

non-Java

National 61.3 13.91 17.02 14.4 2 4.56 8.44 0.66 1.84

Java 61.07 9.55 13.63 10.76 2.56 2.82 1.39 0.78 0.17

non-Java 61.42 16.06 18.68 16.19 1.71 5.42 11.9 0.6 2.67

A. Greater Local

Authority

B. More Public

Participation

C. More Responsive Policy and

D. Greater Local

Revenue

E. Smaller Local

Revenue

F. Easier Service

Regulation/P

G. Opening issues on

Local

H. Increasing inter-regional

conflicts

I. Reborn ethnic

institutions

Some indications that perceptions differ off-Java

The Bad

Concerns about crime/rule of lawLG’s don’t do enough for the poor

Decentralization Troubles

Figure 3

31.11

18.86

77.35

37.62

23.04

10.13 7.37

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

%

Dispute on land andbuilding with LG

Abused of power byLG(corruption,etc)

Crime

Public violence

Environmental pollution

Violent disputes btw polparty supporters

Violent disputes overwtr mgt

Pro-Poor Local Governments?

48.03

29.2

16.24

6.53

0

10

20

30

40

50

No Enough More thanenough

Don't know

Figure 1: Does the Local Government have Enough Programs to Empower the Poor?

%

Perceived Reasons for Local Poverty

75.42 74.94

70.42

66

68

70

72

74

76

Low EducationLevel

Not EnoughAttention from

LG

Not EnoughJobs

Figure 2: Top Three Reasons of Existence of the Poor

%

Perceived Priorities?If I had a 100 billion Rps?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Empowerm

ent o

f the p

oor

Infrastr

uctur

e Deve

lopment

Increas

ing edu

catio

n serv

ices q

uality

Increas

ing hea

lth se

rvice

s quali

ty

Impro

ving c

ommon pu

blic f

aci lit

ies

Building i

ndustr

ial fac

tories

Agricu

lture

secto

r deve

lopment

Labou

r inten

sive projec

t

Hiring ne

w officials

Increas

ing th

e sala

ry

Distrib

ute it

to the

poor

Increas

ing Bus

iness

Capital

Others

Java

non-Java

The Ugly (or at least vexing)

Perceptions about participation vary across key actors

The relationship between participation, accountability, and LG “efficacy” is not yet clear

Differing Perceptions

17.0219.03

8.65

0

5

10

15

20

DinasKesehatan

PuskesmasPersonnel

Household

Figure 1: Average Participation

%

Accountability?

28.52

38.1233.34

21.57

41.736.72

18.17

38.7943.02

19.57

60.2

20.16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Bupati/Walikotaelection

Head ofParliament

(DPRD) election

Bupati/Walikotaaccountability

speech

Head of Villageelection

Figure 1: Money Politics in ...

YES

NO

DON'T KNOW

But levels vary across local governments.

Accountability

Prospects for accountability? Electoral (esp. 2004)? Legal/Judicial? Administrative? “Informal” Mechanisms Planning, budgeting, and implementation

Dis-juncturesRoutine versus development budgets

GDS Objectives & Trade-Offs

Breath versus WidthYardstick CompetitionComparability Across Regions

Common Language Common Proxies

Monitoring & EvaluationRating Systems

Follow-up

National Report (11/2002)Good and Bad Practices Digest

(12/2002)Regional Ratings (2/2003?)

Regional Investment ClimateCase Studies / IGRs?Local Capacity Building for Evaluation

Reality Checks

Targeted Case StudiesMonitoring Over Time: GDS 2004The Sulawesi Fiduciary ReviewSpirit versus Letter of Good

Governance