Autonomous but constrained: CBOs and urban upgrading in Indonesia

Formalizing the Informal: Understanding the Position of Informal Settlements and Slums in Sustainable Urbanization Policies and Strategies in Bandung, Indonesia

“…This shift from highly centralized to decentralized governance promoted accountable systems of government and more pluralistic democratization thus allowing greater stakeholder participation than allowed under the earlier New Order authoritarian regimes [59]. In 2011, for example, the introduction of The Housing and Settlement Areas Law provided the legal framework to advance housing for low-income residents, and importantly gives the authority to local and provincial governments to identify slum areas, prevent their expansion and upgrade the quality of life for slum residents [53].…”

“…There have been three main phases of these policies and strategies which can be viewed as part of Indonesia's evolving approach to dealing with urban poverty alleviation [53]. The first was the highly successful Kampung Improvement Program (KIP) initiated in Jakarta in 1969 and funded by the World Bank and the Jakarta City Administration.…”

“…The World Bank, which was the major partner of KIP with the Indonesian Government, estimates over 18,000 hectares of kampungs received some form of improvement with some 7 million urban poor positively impacted by the year 2000 [58]. While there was negligible community participation by civil society and NGOs in KIP in the initial stages [53], the KIP and subsequent in-situ iterations became a model for slum improvement in many Indonesian cities including Surabaya and Bandung. The citywide program has been attributed as a major driver in improving kampung living conditions during and following the formal KIP period of 1969-1999 [19].…”

“…If such policies continue to be perpetuated from global to local without caveats and represent "good" urban practice, what does this policy of integration into the "formal system" mean for local government when assessing informal settlements and slums? With processes of formalization at city and local levels increasingly recognized as underpinned by an interplay of global agencies, state power, capital interests, local political economies and socio-cultural constraints and opportunities [12,17,53], there is a need to critically question who really gains when residents must conform to the imposition of "new" values and attitudes in how they live their lives. Governments at varying levels are not impartial in providing services and infrastructure.…”

“…When land is acquired for public purposes such as flood mitigation and freeways corridors, the national government will consider compensation for land, housing and economic activities that are affected so residents can attempt to continue their livelihoods in the new locations. These national initiatives have allowed city governments and other stakeholders such as community groups and non-government organizations (NGOs) to balance former "top down" central government approaches emanating from Jakarta with "bottom-up" initiatives, including those specifically aimed at improving the condition of kampungs and slums [39,53].…”