Transcript Evaluating Governance and Decentralization in Indonesia

Evaluating Governance and
Decentralization in Indonesia
The 2002 Governance and Decentralization Survey
(GDS)
BBL, 12:30-14:00
2nd October 2002, MC 9-W150
EACIQ and the Decentralization Thematic Group
Kai Kaiser
World Bank Office Jakarta/EASPR
www.worldbank.or.id/decentralization
Indonesian Decentralization
2001 “Big Bang”
30 Provinces
348 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
Governance and Decentralization Survey (2002)
North Sumatra
#
Jakarta
#
Indonesia_adm1.shp
No Coverage
GDS 2002
GDS + RPER
#
N
West Java
W
E
NTB (West Nusa Tenggara)
S
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000 Kilometers
GDS Framework
Tracking over time
2002/4 GDS
Strategic Links of Primary & Secondary Data
Indonesian Decentralization Empirical Analysis (IDEA)
Research Partner (CPPS/UGM, Yogya)
Network of 16 Regional Universities
Leveraged 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 Ups
12 Structured Questionnaires
4 Village Clusters
Health Clinic
School
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
A Few of Our Favourite Things
participation
rule of law
effectiveness & efficiency
responsiveness
transparency
equity
conflict resolution
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 optimistic
Expectations across respondent types
largely consistent
Decentralization Optimism
Figure1: Service Delivery Quality Before and
After decentralization (2000-2001)
60
50
50.16
49.75
39.6
40.25
40
Same
30
Better
20
10
0
Public School Services Public Health Services
Decentralization Optimism II
Figure2: Service Delivery Quality in A Year
Ahead (2002)
60
50.2352.33
50
42.6340.83
40
Public School Service
30
Public Health Service
20
10
0
Same
Better
Perceptions of Decentralization
Figure1: Household's view on decentralization
70
60
50
40
National
Java
non-Java
30
20
10
0
A. Greater
Local
Authority
B. More
C. More
Public
Responsive
Participation Policy and
D. Greater
Local
Revenue
E. Smaller
Local
Revenue
F. Easier
G. Opening H. Increasing I. Reborn
Service
issues on inter-regional
ethnic
Regulation/P
Local
conflicts
institutions
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
National
Some indications that perceptions differ off-Java
The Bad
Concerns about crime/rule of law
LG’s don’t do enough for the poor
Decentralization Troubles
Figure 3
Dispute on land and
building with LG
90
77.35
80
Abused of power by
LG(corruption,etc)
70
Crime
60
50
40
30
20
Public violence
37.62
31.11
23.04
18.86
10.13 7.37
10
0
%
Environmental pollution
Violent disputes btw pol
party supporters
Violent disputes over
wtr mgt
Pro-Poor Local Governments?
Figure 1: Does the Local Government have
Enough Programs to Empower the Poor?
50
48.03
40
29.2
30
16.24
20
%
6.53
10
0
No
Enough
More than
enough
Don't know
Perceived Reasons for Local Poverty
Figure 2: Top Three Reasons of Existence of the
Poor
75.42
76
74.94
74
72
70.42
70
%
68
66
Low Education Not Enough Not Enough
Level
Attention from
Jobs
LG
Em
po
we
rm
Inf
Inc
en
ra
re
str
to
as
f th
i ng uctu
e
re
ed
De poo
uc
Inc
r
ve
ati
re
lop
on
as
me
se
Im i ng h
rv
pr
ice nt
ea
ov
lth
sq
ing
se
ua
co
rv
mm
ice l ity
sq
on
Bu
ua
pu
ild
l ity
ing
bli
Ag
ind c fa
ri c
ci l
ult
us
itie
ur
e s tr ial
s
fac
ec
t
to
rie
La or d
e
s
bo
ve
ur
lop
int
m
en
siv ent
Hi
ep
r in
ro
g
jec
Inc new
t
of
re
fi c
as
ial
i ng
Di
s
st r
t
he
Inc ibut
sa
ei
re
t to lary
as
i ng
t
Bu he p
o
si n
es or
sC
ap
ita
l
Ot
he
rs
Perceived Priorities?
If I had a 100 billion Rps?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
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
Figure 1: Average Participation
20
19.03
17.02
15
8.65
10
%
5
0
Dinas
Kesehatan
Puskesmas
Personnel
Household
Accountability?
Figure 1: Money Politics in ...
70
60.2
60
50
40
30
38.12
33.34
28.52
41.7
36.72
YES
NO
21.57
20
43.02
38.79
18.17
19.5720.16
10
0
Bupati/Walikota
election
Head of
Bupati/Walikota Head of Village
Parliament
accountability
election
(DPRD) election
speech
But levels vary across local governments.
DON'T KNOW
Accountability
Prospects for accountability?
Electoral (esp. 2004)?
Legal/Judicial?
Administrative?
“Informal” Mechanisms
Planning, budgeting, and implementation
Dis-junctures
Routine versus development budgets
GDS Objectives & Trade-Offs
Breath versus Width
Yardstick Competition
Comparability Across Regions
Common Language
Common Proxies
Monitoring & Evaluation
Rating Systems
Follow-up
National Report (11/2002)
Good and Bad Practices Digest (12/2002)
Regional Ratings (2/2003?)
Regional Investment Climate
Case Studies / IGRs?
Local Capacity Building for Evaluation
Reality Checks
Targeted Case Studies
Monitoring Over Time: GDS 2004
The Sulawesi Fiduciary Review
Spirit versus Letter of Good Governance