INTERREGIONAL COOPERATION BASED

INTERREGIONAL COOPERATION BASED ON SOUND GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVETjahjanulin Domai

Faculty of Administration Science, University of Brawijaya Malang

Abstract : The recent decentralization and local autonomy policies in Indonesia has brought some implications such as the changing pattern of the relationship between the governmental levels and the greater authority on the local government, as well as the opening of the opportunity for the local to do interregional cooperation. However, Farazmand observes some barriers against this cooperation involving: untrustworthy, power domination, excessive expectation, political and cultural environment, religion, ethnic and racial.

Keywords: Decentralization, Intergovernmental Relations and Sound Governance.INTRODUCTION1. Interregional Cooperation

In the period of local autonomy and decentralization, interregional cooperation shows a significant development in Indonesia. Many cooperation institutions are formed as a response to the changing pattern of the relationship between government levels and also to the greater authority on the local government due to the implication of the implementation of decentralization policy in Indonesia (Pratikno, et.al., 2007).

Such change opens the road for the local government to cooperate either with other local government or non-state actor.

In other side, decentralization gives a new challenge and opportunity in the local realm. The local may be difficult to respond it effectively without a reliable cooperation (Pratikno, et.al, 2007). For example, the economic development opportunities, among other tourism, in certain region may not be effectively managed if it should be self-operated. Often, it triggers a new conflict in the interregional context.

Supporting Pratikno et.al (2007), Paterson (2008) admits that many recent local governments have looked for a new method to reduce the expense, to maintain the service quality, to review the service system, to determine the priority, and to establish which service is given through alternative channels.

The alternatives of the service delivery that might be used by local government may include: contract with the private company, voluntary organization, or environment group; franchise; subsidy to the direct service user; the use of donated labor; the determination of users charge to cover service cost; and the negotiation of intergovernmental cooperative agreement.

Paterson (2008) says that intergovernmental cooperation is a manner used by one government or more to achieve mutual goal, service delivery, or problem solving. The example of such cooperation may range from informal action and/or information or equipment exchange; the interest for mutual service delivery or mutual projects to manage water, trash, waste, and drainage, throughout formal arrangement, such as the strict legal agreement. Survey at New York State Department in 1981 and 1982 shows the presence of formal and informal cooperative relations with other government.

Interregional cooperation for development and resource usage is attempted to reduce interregional gap, to control conflict, to improve service, to empower the community, and to increase efficiency and effectiveness of resource usage, in order to produce a compatible development which is balancing the tenure, role, and function, but still to consider democracy principles and to integrate the diversity of each potential into one integral management (Tasmaya, 2007).

Some literatures mention that cooperation has different degree, which is ranging from coordination throughout the highest degree, collaboration (Thomson, 2001; Thomson and Ferry, 2006). Basically, there is expert opinion that the difference of this degree remains in the depth of integration, interaction, and complexity. Cooperation is in the lowest rank, while collaboration is in the highest rank (Keban, 2007).

Ramses and Bowo (2007) assert that in essence, cooperation indicates the dynamic interaction between two parties or more to achieve a mutual goal. This definition contains three main substances which are producing a mutual framework. These are two parties or more, interaction, and mutual goal. If one substance is eliminated, the cooperation is considered as absent.

Two parties always describe a group of interests which are influencing and interacting to each other to achieve mutual goal. If the relation or interaction is not for meeting each partys interest, this relation is not cooperation. A dynamic interaction is not directly meant as cooperation. An interaction to meet the interest of one party, and at the same time, to abandon the interest of other party, cannot be called as cooperation. Indeed, cooperation always put the interacting parties in the balancing and harmonic position. The cooperation is only achieved by giving mutual benefits to the participant. If just one party is a loser in the cooperation, the meaning of cooperation is failed. In pursuing for the mutual benefits in the cooperation, good communication between the participants and the shared understanding for mutual goal are needed.

Other reasons for interregional cooperation are as follows:

1. The cooperated parties can establish greater power. In the interregional cooperation, the power of each cooperated region can be synergized in dealing with threat or problem which is difficult to be self-handled. By cooperating, the possibility of dealing with environmental barrier or obtaining productivity is higher.

2. The cooperated parties may achieve higher progression. By cooperating, each region will transfer the capability, skill, and information. Thus, one region can learn the strength or capability of other. Indeed, each region will try to progress or develop itself based on the mutual learning.

3. The cooperated parties can be more empowered. By cooperating, each region will have better bargaining position, or more capability to defend the interest in the higher level of government structure. If a region should struggle for its self-interest, its voice may be easily neglected. If a region chooses to be a member of a forum of regional cooperation, its voice may be considerable. 4. The cooperated parties can minimize or prevent the conflict. By cooperating, regions which are previously competing to each other or having a conflict can be more tolerant and trying to take a lesson of the conflict.5. Each party feels sense of justice. Each region feels to be benefited because there is a transparency. Each region in the cooperation has similar access to any information made or used.6. Each cooperated parties will need sustainability of the matters which are cooperated. By cooperating, each region will have a commitment to not betray the partner, but to keep up the sustainability of mutual relationship.

7. The cooperation can eliminate regional ego. By cooperating, regional ego may be avoided, and vision of collectivity as a nation must grow (Keban, 2007).

Moreover, Hamdi (2007) adds that: First, each region in the development level must understand that the benefit of the cooperation network is important to improve the regional progression. Second, the cooperation is developed voluntarily and representing a demand of mutual reliance or interregional interdependence. Therefore, in developing a shared-understanding and a willingness to cooperate for sustainable learning and for capacity building, the leadership of national government is needed to motivate local government to cooperate, mainly by some instruments such as policy and national regulation.

Ramses and Bowo (2007) declare that the cooperation between autonomous local governments in all levels with other institution is an important policy due to the following reasons:1. The execution of public service affair across autonomous regions can be effective and efficient if it can be mutually synergized between the autonomous regions. The certain public service aspects may be optimized through integrative implementation by the bordered regions.2. The optimum solution toward the collective problems related to space order, traffic and transportation, trash management, water supply, and the preservation of river basin, is only settled through cooperation. The cause-and-effect relationship between the space use, population mobility, and its implication, is creating collective problems which are required for collective solution. Considering the complexity and the extension of democratization and transparency demands, thus the cooperation between autonomous regions is urgent in order to create more effective, efficient and responsive governmental implementation upon the demand of around autonomous regions.

2. The Type of Interregional Cooperation

Theoretically, the term of cooperation has been long known and conceptualized as a source of efficiency and service quality (Rosen quoted in Keban, 2007). Cooperation is recognized as a precise way to take benefit from economies of scale. Collective expending or purchasing, for example, may illustrate this benefit taking process. Purchasing in greater scale or beyond threshold points will more benefiting than buying in smaller scale. By cooperating, overhead cost is controlled despite its small scale. Sharing in investment, for instance, may give more satisfying final result in the activities such as the provisioning of facility and equipment, or the appointment of specialist and administrator. The cooperation also increases service quality, especially in the provisioning of facility and equipment when each party cannot buy alone. By cooperating, the expensive service facilities are possible to be bought and enjoyed collectively, such as recreation center, adult education, and transportation. Interregional cooperation, therefore, is a form of arranging the cooperation between local governments in the predetermined fields to achieve better efficiency and service quality.

Historically, interregional cooperation mechanism has been becoming an important issue in the developed countries (Henry quoted in Keban, 2007). It is starting with very limited fields such as police and fire departments, in which one city and other have an agreement to help each other in dealing crises such as fire and other disaster. In advance, this cooperation mechanism is not only applied into emergency situation, but also into an arrangement to buy some services from private company or other government, or even from NGO. Early cooperative agreement made by local governments is (1) designed for single activity, (2) service-oriented than facility-oriented, (3) not permanently, (4) being as stand-by-provision which is implemented in certain cases, and (5) requiring permission from legislative.

The type and method of the cooperation between local governments include: (1) Intergovernmental Service Contract, (2) Joint Service Agreement, and (3) Intergovernmental Service Transfer (Henry, 1995). The first cooperation type is made if a region pays other region to implement certain service such as prison, trash management, animal or livestock control, or tax estimation. The second type of cooperation is usually found to implement the functions of planning, budgeting, and service delivery to the local community, such as regional library, communication between police and fire departments, control over fire, and trash management. The third type represents a permanent transfer of a responsibility from a region to other region concerning with fields such as general work, structure and infrastructure, health and welfare, government and public finance.

Meanwhile, other opinion says that the cooperation between local governments can be found in two formats, which are forms of agreement and forms of arrangement (Rosen quoted in Keban, 2007). The forms of agreement are distinguished as follows:a. Handshake Agreements, which is a cooperation arrangement without written document.b. Written Agreements, which is a cooperation arrangement with written document.

Handshake Agreements represent a form of agreement which is easily subjected to conflict and misunderstanding. Written Agreements are usually required for contract, collective ownership, or the work to build a mutual service unit. Anything mentioned in the written agreements involve any conditions of cooperation and self-withdrawal, cost sharing, location, maintenance, schedule, operation and the rule of collective resource ownership, rent condition, and conflict solving method.

Rosen quoted in Keban (2007) adds that forms of arrangement of the cooperation consist of the following:

a. Constantia, which is a cooperation arrangement in the resource sharing because it is more expensive to be self-paid. The example is library. It has books and other services which are used together by student and public. It will be expensive to build the library for each party. b. Joint Purchasing, which is a cooperation arrangement to buy goods in order to save the cost when buying in greater scale. c. Equipment Sharing, which is a cooperation arrangement in sharing expensive equipment, or those not daily used.d. Cooperative Construction, which is a cooperation arrangement in constructing buildings like recreation center, library, parking lot, performance hall, and others.

e. Joint Services, which is a cooperation arrangement in providing public service, such as one-roof service center which is collectively owned where each party sends its officer to work in this center.

f. Contract Services, which is a cooperation arrangement where a party contracts other party in order to deliver certain services, such as drink water service, trash management, and others. Such arrangement is easily made and easily terminated, or easily transferred to other party.

However, the reality shows that type and method of cooperation are often troubled in its implementation (Rosen, 1993). Each region may have different jurisdiction, and therefore, each must be difficult to arrange the resource schedule and the charge of the cost. In turn, a friction or conflict is easily found. It is often occurred because one region feels overcharged, while the other feels lack of service than is deserved. The community is also suffered if the service location is centralized (combined) because transport cost may be higher than if the service location is self-provided. In addition to transport problem, the community feels isolated as served by new parties.

Centralized purchasing through joint purchasing cannot escape from critic. Standardization of goods bought is often problematic because a region feels that goods bought is already based on its standard of interest, while other region denies it. Indeed, it is always difficult to meet the interest of each cooperated party (Rosen, 1993).

In the developing countries, the cooperation between local governments is seen in the development planning activity, such as Integrated Area Planning (IAP). It is a breakthrough to solve the complicated problems when this cannot be solved by a development planning based on administrative region borders. It must be admitted that recent interregional cooperation may not appear as a demand. However, some problems or internal decisions made by a Regency or City, or Province, are always related to the problems or decision beyond its regional border. The reality indicates many problems faced by a Regency or City, or Province exactly emerge because of policy made by other region concerning matters such as trash, criminality, demographic, education, and health. In short, a planning or policy which is made by a Regency or City, or also Province, often disregards its impact of other Regency/City or Province. In such, the function of integrative planning and horizontal coordination is the main key.

The introduction of integrated area planning model is expected to reduce some conflicts among administrative regions, by making effective the development at certain sectors and institutions that are subjected to conflict (regardless the administrative region borders). This model comes up as a reaction to the weakness in the sector planning, the coordination between sectors, and the satisfaction of the demand of each special geographic area (possibly not aligned with the existing administrative region borders), such as river basin (DAS) and rural development which is then called integrated rural development.

Though this model is very reliable in the past, there is important barrier to be considered somehow. This barrier is related to the structure (organization) which is designed to manage integrated rural development. This structure is a formal structure established based on the existing political and administrative units, such as officials and technical agencies from each Regency/City or Province. However, this formal structure is not planned to deal with such issue. As a result, this model is lack of support from formal authority, meaning that the model is also difficult to implement and hard to be succeed.

Exit gates that are ever offered are (1) establishing a structure representing a length of arm of the central government in the related area, or a structure made by the local government or private company with special status; (2) founding a planning consultant team from outside the area to only concern about planning; and (3) reforming the existing organizational structure and improving the staff capability in preparing and implementing the plan, and strengthening the horizontal relationship between sectors and also weakening vertical relationship.

3. Interregional Cooperation Policy in the Normative Review

Interregional cooperation is formally enforced in the legal term by Law No.22 of 1999 on The Local Government with Article 87 verse (1) saying that some regions can develop interregional cooperation as collectively decided, (2) regions can form an interregional cooperation agency, (3) regions can develop cooperation with other agency as collectively decided, and (4) collective decision and/or cooperation agency, as mentioned in verse (1), (2), (3) and (4) which is burdening the community and region, must be acknowledged by House of Representative of each region.

Indeed, Article 88 verse (1) says that regions can develop a mutual cooperation with institution/agency out of country, as collectively decided, except in matter related to governmental authority, as mentioned in Article 7 verse (2) on Order of Conduct.

The opportunity of cooperation is opened when Law No.22 of 1999 is replaced by Law No.32 of 2004 through its Article 195 verse (1) stating that to improve the community welfare, region can cooperate with other region based on the consideration of efficiency and effectiveness of public service, synergy, and mutualism.

Next, Article 196 determines the importance of cooperation in the public service. Verse (1) states that the implementation of governmental affair which is affecting the interregional area will be arranged together by related regions. Verse (2) says that to create efficiency, regions are supposed to deliver public service collectively with the other around regions for public interest. Verse (3) says that for the management of cooperation as mentioned in verse (1) and verse (2), regions form cooperation agency. Verse (4) states that if the regions cannot implement cooperation as mentioned in verse (1) and (2), the public service will be implemented by government.

The cooperation policy is enforced by the Government Regulation No.50 of 2007 on the order of conduct for the local cooperation. Especially, in the Article 4, public service is a set of services given to the public by the government, such as administrative, superior sector development, the delivery of goods and services, the provision of hospital, market, clean water management, housing, parking lot and trash management.

Local cooperation, therefore, represents a structure to optimize the interregional relationship and interdependence, to compare with local development, to synergize interregional potential, and to improve the exchange of knowledge, technology and information.

Through local cooperation, it is expected to reduce local gap in giving public services, especially in remote area, interregional borders, and disadvantaged region.

The object which can be cooperated may be some affairs related to the authority of autonomous region, local asset, and local potential, as well as public service delivery. The implementation of cooperation must concentrate into the principles of efficiency, effectiveness, synergy, mutualism, sharing agreement, virtue, equality, transparency, justice, and law certainty. Indeed, cooperation object is a main factor to consider in implementing cooperation, thus allowing the determination of type of cooperation.

For instance, in realizing the development harmony based on the interregional growth rate in the urban area of Yogyakarta, and in anticipating the problems occurred in Bantul Regency, Sleman Regency and Yogyakarta City, the cooperation is required for the management of urban structure and infrastructure. Thus, the follow-up measure taken by Bantul Regent, Sleman Regent and Yogyakarta Mayor is a Joint Decree No.18/2001, No.01/PK-KDH/2001, and No.01/2001, on the cooperation of the management of urban structure and infrastructure between Bantul Regency, Sleman Regency, and Yogyakarta City.

Basically, these regulations have similar and complementing principles. Interregional cooperation will improve public welfare based on the efficiency and effectiveness of public service, the synchronization of activity program, a synergy, and mutualism, in order to deal with the regional collective problems.4. The Implementation of Interregional Cooperation Policy based on Empirical Review

The interregional cooperation policy is divided into cooperation with the bordered region and cooperation with distant region. Review of interregional cooperation with the bordered region is concentrating on the problem solving and the anticipation of border problem, and optimizing and increasing the efficiency of the use of local resource and fund.

Cooperation made by the government of Yogyakarta City, Sleman Regency and Bantul Regency is an activity to deal with the urban agglomeration problems such as road, clean water, waste water, transportation, trash, and drainage. The cooperation of these regions is expected to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of mutual interest, precisely related to the management of Yogyakarta City.

According to Suryakusumo (2008), the limitation of each region is a chance for the cooperation with other region. Each region can take greater benefit from cooperation rather than its self-action. Interregional cooperation will be operated if there are two or more regions interacted for mutual goal, in the equal position, in harmonic balance, and willing to settle into memorandum of understanding.

In fact, interregional cooperation is successful in some regions. Indeed, in this cooperation, every problem must be mutually solved. Therefore, each local government can synergize its development concept.

Interregional Cooperation Agency has been established in some regions. The authority may differ because its establishment is based on memorandum of understanding made in each region. For example is BKAD at Banjarnegara, Banyumas, Purbalingga, Cilacap and Kebumen. Interregional cooperation agency is also established at Boyolali, Sukoharjo, Karanganayer, Wonogiri, Sragen and Klaten Regencies. This Agency is named by Regional Economic Development, which is founded from the cooperation of Indonesia government and German government.

Provincial interregional cooperation is found at Pacitan Regency (East Java), Wonogiri (Middle Java), and Gunung Kidul (Yogyakarta Privileged Region), which is named by Pawonsari. The cooperation between Surabaya City and Sidoarjo Regency is called as Su-Si. Similar cooperation is also evident between Bogor City and St.Louis City of United States. The international cooperation seems already settled between Yogyakarta and Hue City of Vietnam in Thua Thein Hue Province. Provincial based cooperation has also been created by Riau Island, Bangka Belitung, Riau and West Kalimantan Provinces.

Taking these into account, it seems consistent with sound governance dimensions proposed by Farazmand (2004). The process dimension explains the interaction of stakeholders in the cooperation. The structure dimension explains how the governance is managed. The term structure defines a direction for the process.

Sound Governance has a solid, legitimate, competent and dynamic structure either in the format and substance. The constitution dimension is a fundamental guiding document, being as blue print for governance while the constitution is source of legitimacy. The organizational and institutional dimension explains that institution without clearly defined organization is brittle and suffered from destruction. Organization without institution is also weak and less resistant. Therefore, this dimension becomes an integral component for sound governance. Furthermore, management and performance dimension is equaled to a kind of glue or a systemic transmission with the expected result. Management must be supported by knowledge, technology, capacity, resource and skill. Policy dimension gives a guide to the institution and organization of governance in pursuing for the expected goal and target. Awareness and value dimension represents a distinctive value system which is irregular in the governance structure/process. For example, a governance system which is poor, corrupt and not healthy always relies on the external power, complexity, diversity, and low intensity. Sound governance has healthy and dynamic values such as justice, equality and integrity. Ethic, accountability and transparency dimension is an important thing for sound governance. The implementation ethic can prevent the misled of power and the corruption, thus preventing bureaucracy from only concerning with economic and administrative affairs. Bureaucracy works for the effectiveness and efficiency, and has public orientation. Sector dimension of the governance is important because it is specific sectors, including industry, education, health, and transportation. Therefore, this dimension requires direct participation of the community, reliable management, and reliable knowledge and skill.

Interregional cooperation is a response to such complexity. Indeed, a comprehensive framework should be made by involving any related parties.

Interregional cooperation must be based on mutual interest. Therefore, interregional cooperation should in the nature of participative and flexible to produce a consensus. This consensus is failed if it is without recognition of equality, volunteering, and autonomy of each related party. Thereby, interregional cooperation is a kind of interregional horizontal relationship.

The value of interregional cooperation based on Old Public Administration is different from the values of New Public Management and Sound Governance. In this Old Public Administration-based interregional cooperation, the relation pattern is hierarchic, seeing a forum of cooperation organization as a coherent unit with clear goal, with process structured from the top, being oriented toward certain goal, and its decision making dominated by the central as the single actor.

Interregional cooperation based on New Public Management is more concerning with interregional relationship which is each region is free, flexible and self-support. In this interregional relationship, hierarchical and centralized authority is absent. New Public Management-based interregional cooperation seems underscoring the performance indicator as a measure of interregional cooperation to obtain the economic, efficient and effective value.

Interregional cooperation based on Sound Governance involves four actors and ten dimensions. These four actors develop an inclusiveness of political relationship between country, community, business world, and international power.

In the interregional cooperation context, these four actors interact to each other in the position of equality, self-support, mutualism, and participative, which is supported by dimensions of process, structure, awareness and value, constitution, organization and institution, and management and performance, policy, sector, globalization, and ethic, accountability and transparency.

The above figure is showing a relationship between three concepts. Sound Governance is containing with more critical and dynamic thoughts.

More clear about these concepts is shown in the table:

Table 1. The Difference of The Characteristic of Old Public Administration, New Public Management and Sound Governance

Old Public AdministrationNew Public ManagementSound Governance

Hierarchic

Clear goal

Central-based decision

Government as singular actor Free relationship

Flexible

Self-support

Less hierarchic authority Efficient, economic and effective Equal

Self-Support

Mutualism

Participative

Democratic

5. Some Problems in the Implementation of Interregional Cooperation

The cooperation between local governments must be seen as an irresistible demand. Peterson (2008) admits that intergovernmental cooperation is settled to search for a new method to relieve expense burden, to ensure the service quality, to determine the priority, and to establish which service given through cooperation. Furthermore, intergovernmental cooperation is an order of conduct used between two governments or more in pursuing for mutual goal, service delivery or problem solving. The example of this cooperation may be informal action during joint information or equipment, or formal arrangement, including a legal agreement. For instance, the municipal officers in New York have wider authority to make intergovernmental agreement. Early government may implement the function or service individually, but now it should be collectively operated.

Intergovernmental cooperation is a significant step. Different situation can stimulate cooperation. Some considerations of government in agreeing for cooperation are as follows:

(1) Economies of scale, in which some services given by government accelerate the achievement of economies of scale when the cost of recent service unit increases with the greater volume of service. Such service is a chance for cooperation. The example is public work, liquid waste management, capital facility, clean water, and trash dumping. The cost of these units is usually reduced to obtain the optimum cost.

(2) Unevenly distribution of natural resources such as land, clean water, transportation, road and drainage. These resources are needed by the government to meet the public interest. The example is clean water supply and end point of trash dumping.

(3) Development activity and service delivery by local government for the public interest cannot be constrained by administrative region. The example is drainage, trash dumping, road, transportation, health service, and education. It will require the cooperation between the bordered local governments.

In the cooperation between local governments, a dominant consideration is building consensus between related actors. Therefore, a flexible cooperation is required to open chance of change and adjustment during the implementation of cooperation. However, some barriers constrain the implementation of cooperation, such as:

(1) The regional ego is very salient during the cooperation between local governments.

(2) Untrustworthiness between actors of cooperation.

(3) Resource gap among the cooperated local governments. (4) A dominance of a region against other region in the decision making about the cooperated sector.

(5) Different vision-mission among local governments.

These problems are also found by Farazmand (2004) in Sound Governance. There are also barriers against the implementation of cooperation, such as:

(1) Untrustworthiness is a main barrier against the cooperation of actors.

(2) Power structure is globally dominant, thus forcing the partner to be submissive. (3) Too high expectation for the successful cooperation.

(4) Environmental condition of actors which is suffered from ideological, political and cultural effects.

(5) Religion and culture issues may obstruct intergovernmental cooperation.

(6) Ethnic and racial issues can also hidden the implementation of intergovernmental cooperation.

6. The Cooperation between Local Governments as a Choice of Policy

The question of the model used by a country or a local government to solve the collective problem is related to the choice of policy. Problem solving through cooperation is susceptible to weakness, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, and failure. It can be measured from the appropriateness of the policy chosen by exploring the deeply the policy realm. Among ten dimensions of Sound Governance, one dimension is policy, which is important to provide clear guide, direction and control to the process, structure and management dimensions. One policy may come from external of governance organization, which is usually from legislative authority. Such policy guides and directs the institution and organization of governance to pursue for the expected goal and target. Second type of policy is that internal to organization and institution of governance. Such policy is an organizational policy or a manual which is defining and determining the rule of conduct, regulation, procedure and values considered to achieve the performance, mission and goal of the organization of Sound Governance. Both external and internal policies become a controlling mechanism for the performance of the organization of Sound Governance. The higher participation of citizen in the policymaking means higher credibility and legitimacy of governance system.

The cooperation between local governments as a choice of policy will face local governments onto certain problem. Local governments may not ready to deal with the problem, thus not using the cooperation between local governments as the problem solving.

Intergovernmental relationship remains as a conceptual pillar due to the presence of promise. If the choice of policy is appropriate, local government will play key role to implement local government system for the internal or external public welfare. Thus, the cooperation between local governments should be planned in integration.

Some experts disagree with the definition of intergovernmental relationship. Websters Dictionary determines that:

Intergovernmental relationship is an existence or emergence of cooperation or collective actions between two governments or levels of government.

To understand the intergovernmental relationship, Wahab (2009) explains a model of local governments in cooperating to each other. This model is described as follows:1. The Coordinate Authority Model

It is characterized by:

a. Federal/central and local governments have equal authority.

b. Federal/central and local governments have autonomous authority.

c. The strict line between central and local authorities, in which each region cannot intervene.

d. Local, city, regency, and provincial governments follow an unitary system.

Critics against The Coordinate Authority Model are:

a. There is no strict line between central and local authorities, thus absolute power can be enjoyed either by central or local.

b. Power channeling in this system doesnt have clear direction whether from central to local or from provincial to regions, although the superior government has authority given by the laws of local government.2. The Inclusive Authority Model

It is characterized by:

a. Central and local governments are affected by decision made by political actors in the national level, and also affected by national economic interests.

b. The authority of institutions outside national agency such as Governor and member of Local House of Representative is so limited. For instance, United States applies such pattern where the political system is arranged hierarchically by central. The growing opportunity for cooperation is almost ensured in the central and local levels (state-province-local). The combination of province and local has equaled to budget demanded by central.

3. The Overlapping Authority Model

It is characterized by:

a. The power is widely distributed such that each government level reduces its dependency to each other.

b. High synergy is produced for each central, provincial and district governments, with its autonomous region and its exclusivity in the central, provincial, and district governments. c. The cooperation between governments or governmental environments is developed in the competitive or cooperative realm.

4. Federal and State with Autonomous Region

It is characterized by:

a. The objective of federal government is egalitarian and universal.

b. The objective of local government is particularistic, which is specific only the region.

The base of relationship between central, provincial and local governments is as follows:

1. The central government is the keeper of money.

2. The central government needs human resource and organization resource, thus giving the money to the supplying government in turn for the resources.

3. Provincial and district governments have human and organization resources, thus requiring money to manage it.

Through any model perspectives, it is shown that intergovernmental relationship is a form of policy. To understand the intergovernmental relationship, we must understand the distinctive marker behind the success and failure after the implementation of policy.

Intergovernmental relationship concept may understood as partnership concept, as suggested by Hetifah (2009). Partnership is a new perspective, representing an elaboration of governance. Partnership is needed to increase the support of public and private sectors in building a communication path. Local government considers partnership because it supposes to use the limited resource. Many program of communication cannot be developed alone either by the government or the non-profit organization. Developing the communication path may be more effective through cooperation.

According to Wahab (2009), partnership needs high commitment to manage the change to empower the position of related parties. For example, in the partnership, each party should obey the provisions stated in Law No.32/2004 on Local Government, or submissive to the Memorandum of Understanding. This memorandum usually explains the role and responsibility of each party. The cooperation between local governments may be difficult to formulate, thus increasing the possibility of distortion or failure in the decision making process or during the agreement of decision making procedure. In other word, Memorandum of Understanding and other procedure of negotiation must be rationalized and understood appropriately by each local government to prevent the useless management of resource or service delivery to the public, or to avoid from low quality or unsatisfying outcome. Regularly consistent evaluation should be conducted over the role and responsibility of each party. It is important to ensure the transparency the cooperated governments. This evaluation can involve the public input.

The expectation of lay person and policy marker onto the problems is solved through cooperation. Decision making is thus facilitated to achieve goal efficiently and effectively.

There are some examples of Governance Network which is flexible and proactive with its real impact on public policy making. The problem, however, is that Governance Network involves social and political processes which are occurred in the uncontrolled political and economical context. In reality, some barriers obstruct the effective Governance Network: (1) it is difficult to motivate actor into the participation due to high transaction cost and small opportunity for an actor to obtain real political influence; (2) it is not possible to solve the internal conflict in the network for mutual solution; (3) the creation of self-supported Governance Network is difficult due to the minimized legitimacy and resource; (4) the governmental failure in understanding the Governance Network procedure or the political resistance from the actor of Governance Network; and (5) different perceptions between Government Network and Governance Network.

These problems are contrasted to Farazmand (2004) who is explaining it from the process dimension in Sound Governance. It is said that Sound Governance involves a governmental process, where all elements or stakeholders are interacted. A process, therefore, can explain how the governance works. Above problems are contrasted to the structure dimension. This dimension is consisting for a group of element, actor, regulation, procedure, and constitutive decision making frame. Sound Governance has a solid structure which is enriched by information, legitimized, competent, and dynamic in any forms or substances. In Public Governance, the officers can be selected and appointed, and the stakeholders and community self-support organization are part of governmental structure.

Formulating and implementing the satisfying solution for unclearly defined and complex policy will be need: (1) the participation of all relevant and influential factors in the network negotiation; (2) the actor to collect the resource; and (3) the actor to agree for the conception of problem nature, option diversity, and rational of the most important decision making. There is no guarantee that all these demands are met. In reality, a set of barriers need to be dealt before producing a problem solving which is compatible to Governance Network.

The participation of actors may be constrained by the closure nature of Governance Network. Schapp and Van Twist (1997) quoted in Sorensen and Torfing assert that there are four type of closure where one actor disregards other actor. First, there is an unawareness of social closure if the rule, norm and procedure are regulating access to Governance Network by disregarding certain actor. Second, social closure is evident if the network actors recognize that some relevant actors are disregarded. Third, there is an unawareness of cognitive closure, meaning that in the discursive network actor context, the other actor may be disregarded in the negotiation of Governance Network. Finally, cognitive closure may be recognized if the network actor is considering the exclusion effect of the reference, but is not willing to change it for the further participation into Governance Network.

It is aligned with Farazmand (2004) for the cognition and value dimension where the cognition and value are representing the distinctive or irregular value system in the structure and process of governance. For instance, a governance system which is poor, corrupt and not healthy always relies on the external power, complexity, diversity, and low intensity. However, Sound Governance has healthy and dynamic values such as justice, equality and integrity.BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdul Wahab, Solichin. (1997). Analisis Kebijaksanaan: Dari Formulasi ke Implementasi Kebijaksanaan Negara, Edisi Kedua. Bumi Aksara. Jakarta.

Farazmand Ali (ed). (2004). Sound Governance Policy and Administrative Innovation. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut. London.

Hamdi, M. (2007). Organisasi Kerjasama Antar Daerah. Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintah Indonesia, Jakarta.

Henry, N. (1995). Public Administration and Public Affair. Sixth Edition. Engle Wood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice- Hall.

Hetifah, SJ. S. (2009). Inovasi, Partisipasi dan Good Governance. Yayasan Obar Indonesia. Jakarta.

Keban, Jeremias, T. (2007). Membangun Kerjasama Antar Pemerintah Daerah Dalam Era Otonomi. Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan Indonesia, Jakarta.

Paterson, DA. (2008). Intergovernmental Cooperation James A. Coon Local Government Technical Series. Department of State, Lorraine A. CortesVazquez. Secretary of State New York State.

Pratikno (ed). (2007). Kerjasama Antar Daerah: Kompleksitas dan Tawaran Format Kelembagaan. Program S2. PLOD. UGM. Yogyakarta.

Ramses, A. dan Bowo Fauzi. (2007). Kerjasama Antar Daerah Format Pengaturan dan Pengorganisasian. Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan Indonesia. Jakarta.

Rosen, E.D. (1993). Improving Public Sector Productivity: Concept and Practice. London, Sage Publications, International -Educational and Professional Publisher.

Sorensen, Eva and Torfing. Jacob (2007) Theories of Democratic Network Governance Polgrave Mac Milan hound Mills Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 GXS and 175 F 1 7h Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010.

Suryokusumo, F.A. (2008). Pelayanan Publik dan Pengelolaan Infrastruktur Perkotaan. Penerbit Sinergi Publishing, Yogyakarta.

Tasmaya, R.H. (2007). Kerjasama Antar Jabodetabekjur (Dalam Rangka Solusi atas Masalah Bersama). Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan Indonesia. Jakarta.

Thomson. (2007), Thomson dan Ferry (2006). Dalam Keban. Membangun Kerjasama antar Pemerintah Daerah Dalam Era Otonomi, Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintah. MIDI. Jakarta.

Sound Governance

Old Public Administration

New Public Management