Inter Local-Government Partnerships in Metropolitan Regions in The Decentralizing Indonesia: Kartamantul and Jabodetabek Compared

Tommy FirmanSchool of Planning, Architecture, and Policy Development, Institute of Technology, Bandung

Background: Decentralization in Indonesia

It is considered one of the most ambitious decentralization Scheme in modern history, involving nearly 500 local Governments, and more than 220 million people living in various cultures and ethnicities with different level of socio-economic Development, and in quite diverse geography environment.

Indonesia has also Little experience in practice of decentralization in the past.

Objectives:1. To make democratization works and to improve the public

welfare.2. To make the government closer to the citizenry.3. To empower the local governments, local communities and

local legislature councils.4. To make the public funds will become more transparent,

more effective and more efficient in promoting the quality of public service provisions.

Decentralization: Rule of Thumbs

1. Decentralization is expected to make local governments more responsive to people’s local needs, not to weaken the role of central government.

2. Decentralization is an option to diminish dependence of local governments on central government; to improve accountability; to institutionalize change; and to encourage economic development (Grindle, 2007).

3. Decentralization involves a transfer of a significant degree of authorities and responsibilities for public expenditures and revenues from central government to local governments. With this, it is expected that local governments will take their own initiatives to promote local economic development.

A Decade Progress of Indonesia’s Decentralization Reform (1999-2009: Local Government Conditions

1. Has not led to uniform outcomes, in which some local governments have been able to develop impressively, but some are even worse off.

2. The quality of leadership of the local elites, i.e., Bupati and Walikota, plays important role in the implementation of the reform.

3. Despite the success in accomplishing some of its goal in short period of time, its longer term success is not assured, because the reform has failed to recognize and give incentives for local governments to be accountable to the public (Shah and Thompson, 2004).

4. Under euphoria of new decentralization and autonomy, the local governments tend to be more inward-looking in orientation.

5. Local Government Fragmentation, as they tend to maximize own local income by exploiting available resources, and without considering the interests of their neighboring districts (‘Local Egoism”.

6. Effective Inter Local-Government Cooperation for the purpose of urban and regional development becomes much more difficult to establish.

Problem and Objectives of the Study

1. Within the context of metropolitan areas in Indonesia, there have been almost no effective cooperation among the bordering districts and municipalities to promote urban and regional development in the areas.

2. The operation and management of the inter-local governments are becoming very important issue for sustainable urban and regional development under Indonesia’s Decentralization Reform.

3. This study will examine the institutional governance of metropolitan areas in Indonesia, with case studies of the Kartamantul (Yogyakarta Metropolitan Areas) and

the Jabodetabek (Jakarta Metropolitan Area)

Governance Metropolitan Institutions

1. Governanace refers to ‘the social proceses by which binding decision for cities and regions are made and carried out (Friedmann, 1999).

2. There are three main actors: politicians and bureaucrats; civil societies; and domestic and foreign capitals.

3. Objectives: to promote vibrant, living and environmentally sustainable governing communities. However, there is no ‘one size fits all’ (Bird and Slack, 2007; and Freire, 2007).

4. Challenges: First, Competitiveness, as to be good place, region should be competitive; Second, livability, as the quality of live of a region is an important elements of its competitiveness; Third, how to establish as appropriate governance institution which can optimize the potential of urban and regional development.

Models of Sub-National Governance Institution (Laquian, 2005 and Feiock, 2004)

Laquian (2005):1. One-tier autonomous local governance: small fragmented

municipalities and districts in the metropolitan area or a large consolidated municipalities and districts for the whole metropolitan area.

2. Multi-tier confederated regional governance.3. Mixed or voluntary system of metropolitan governance.4. Special or single-purpose districts.

Feiock (2004):1. Inter-local agreement between two or more government units.2. Coalitions of local governments seeking central government

grants.3. Public-Private Partnership.4. Metropolitan Authorities.5. Consolidated metropolitan governments

Jabotabek RegionProvinces: 1. DKI Jakarta Province2. Banten Province: (i) Tangerang District (ii) Tangerang Municipality 3.West Java Province: (i) Bogor District (ii) Bogor Municipality (iii) Bekasi District (iv) Bekasi Municipality

Kartamantul (1)

1. Consists of Municipality (Kota) of Yogyakarta, Districts (Kabupaten) of Sleman and Bantul.

2. Total population: about 2 million (2008). Urban population about 800 thousand.

3. Locally Establishment of a Joint Secretariat (Sekertariat Bersama) Kartamantul (Yogyakarta-Sleman-Bantul).

4. The objective: the create balanced and harmonius development and management of the physical infrastructure development. Urban infrastructure development would only reach optimum performance only if it is managed as a system, regardless the administrative boundaries (Sutrisno, 2004).

5. Focus: Initially on Solid-waste and waste-water management

Kartamantul (2)

6. Three Level of Management: on the top level are heads of all local governments; the second level consists of senior officers; the lowest level consists of lower ranked officers who are responsible for the technical implementation.

7. The working process: started at the lowest level. The consensus and decisions are then brought to the second level of management for futher discussions and the signing of an agreement document. The final step is documents signed by all heads of the local governments involved.

8. Key Success Factors: shared vision and leadership of all heads of the local governments in the area, regarding infrastructure development; negotiation process among the local government; the organization of Kartamantul Joint Secretariat is basically a collective horizontal decision making process.

9. Challenges: the sustainability of this organization; how to improve the capacity of this organization; the form of this organization in the future: (1) forum of coordination; (2) executing agency; or shareholder organization.

Jabodetabek (1)

1. The largest concentration of urban economic activities and urban population in Indonesia.

2. Consisting of three provinces, i.e., Jakarta, Banten and West Java. The are four municipalities (Kota) and three districts (Kabupaten).

3. The Management is implemented by BKSP (Cooperating Agency) for Jabodetabek, with members of all heads of provincial and local governments in the area. The daily operation is managed by an executive secretary appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

4. The Jabodetabek faces the problem of local government fragmentation, resulted from the new decentralization policy in Indonesia.

5.. BKSP does not have the authority on implementation of development in JMA. This has made the BKSP powerless and ineffective in coordinating and monitoring the development program in the region.

6. There is a need to develop an effective metropolitan governance institution for Jabodetabek.

Jabodetabek (2)

7. Involvement the central government in JMA management is a must, because the Jakarta City is the national capital, which needs supports and significant contribution from the central government.

8. The physical infrastructure development in this region will require enormous financial resources, beyond the technical and financial capacities of all local and provincial governments in the Jabodetabek.

9. It seems that the most appropriate governance model for the Jabodetabek is a mixed model, in which the central, provincial and local governments play specific roles in the governance of the region. It should be given a proper legal basis (undang-undang) in itself, so that it may work in effective ways.

10. This proposed governance institution needs to be given the authority to plan and develop major structure of physical infrastructure scheme for the whole area, mist notably in transportation system, spatial development plan, solid waste and waste water management, and watershed management.

11. The provincial and local government will still retain their authority on local government administration.

12. This idea might be against the Law of Local Government (Undang-Undang Pemerintah Daerah), but we need to go beyond the law for effectiveness of Jabodetabek Governance Institution.

The Joint Secretariat of Kartamantul The Cooperating Development Agency for the Jabodetabek

(BKSP Jabodetabek)

Provincial and Local Governments Involved The Province of Yogyakarta, The Municipality of Yogyakarta and the Districts of Sleman and Bantul

The Provincial Governments of Jakarta, West Java and Banten; The Municipalities and the Districts of Bogor, Tangerang, Bekasi, and Depok

Core and Its Functions Yogyakarta City; A middle-sized city, center of tourism and higher education activities

Jakarta City; The national capital and the largest concentration of urban population and economic activities

Socio-economic Condition More Homogenous Heterogenous

Coverage of Cooperation Limited to urban infrastructure and development, especially waste water and solid waste management

Broader metropolitan development, including but not limited to spatial and infrastructure development

Conclusion: The Joint Secretariat of Kartamantul and The Cooperating DevelopmentAgency (BKSP) of Jabodetabek Compared (1)

Conclusion: The Joint Secretariat of Kartamantul and The Cooperating Development Agency (BKSP) of Jabodetabek Compared (2)

Initiative All the local governments (2000); bottom-up (local) initiative, with significant role of Sultan as the Governor and Leader of Special Province of Yogyakarta.

Central Government and the Provincial Governments of West Java and Jakarta (1975); top-down initiative, but politically acceptable to the stakeholders.

Problems Limitation of the function; lack of financial resources and manpower

Lack of power and authority; does not function as a metropolitan authority

Challenges Development of institution to be able to deal with broader local and regional development issues, including spatial planning and transport system development

Restructuring the authority of the institution, by involving central, provincial and local governments in the context of Indonesia’s Decentralization Reform

Future Development Three options: coordinating agency; implementing agency; or shareholder association.

Trasformation the institution to become a mixed model of a metropolitan governance.