Indonesia’s Decentralization Experiment: Motivations, Successes, and Unintended Consequences

Ostwald, Kai; Tajima, Yuhki; Samphantharak, Krislert

doi:10.1355/ae33-2b

Cited by 53 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only national defence, monetary and foreign policy remained under the responsibility of the central government authority. The country faced strong centrifugal forces and political instability marked by a rise in the number of separatist parties based on ethnic and religious identity trying to pursue self-determination (Ostwald et al, 2016). Between 2000 and 2010, the number of provinces increased from 27 to 34 and the number of districts from 341 to 497 due to the splitting of 98 original districts into 254 administrative units.…”

Section: Political Fragmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Goods and Ethnic Diversity: Evidence from Deforestation in Indonesia

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper shows that the level of deforestation in Indonesia is positively related to the degree of ethnic fractionalization. To identify a causal relation, we exploit the exogenous timing of variation in the level of ethnic heterogeneity due to the creation of new jurisdictions. We provide evidence consistent with a lower control of politicians, through electoral punishment, in more ethnically fragmented districts. Our results are consistent with the literature on (under)provision of public goods in ethnically diverse societies.

show abstract

Section: Political Fragmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Goods and Ethnic Diversity: Evidence from Deforestation in Indonesia

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…National statistics show that the impact of decentralization on subnational development has been 'minimal' and that regional development dynamics have been characterized by remarkable continuity before and after decentralization (Hill and Vidyattama 2016). While service delivery has improved according to popular perception, economic data do not provide evidence for a positive effect of decentralization on actual service delivery (Ostwald et al 2016). According to socioeconomic indicators of health, education and infrastructure, decentralization brought about increased interregional inequalities in service delivery as local capacity for making use of new opportunities varied (Holzhacker et al 2016;Leer 2016).…”

Section: Improved Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Decentralization of government and forestry in Indonesia

Thung¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The decentralization program that Indonesia embarked on in 1998 as part of widespread national reforms was unprecedented in scope and ambition. Although initially described in terms of a single, transformative event, over the last two decades it has unfolded in manifold, sometimes contradictory processes. The dynamics of decentralization continue today, even-or especially-in the remotest corners of the archipelago. Recent CIFOR research on the interface between human migration and forest management in Malinau, North Kalimantan showed the ongoing salience of legal reforms, the restructuring of local governments and innovations in forest governance. These decentralization processes give rise to hopes, aspirations and uncertainties that form the backdrop for decisions about both migration and land use. This paper synthesizes previous analyses, overviews and evaluations of decentralization, supplemented with insights from more recent publications. A final section considers in more detail the decentralization of the forestry sector and the related introduction of Forest Management Units. The primary aim was to present a concise and up-to-date overview of the aims, dimensions and dynamics of decentralization, to support the analysis of CIFOR's fieldwork data from Malinau. This paper may furthermore be useful to anyone interested in processes of decentralization in Indonesia or elsewhere.

show abstract

“…this level of local administration. The central government is left with only six basic functions-defense, police, monetary policy, justice, foreign affairs, and religious affairs-while the provincial governments serve as the representatives of the central government in the regions and manage issues such as interdistrict coordination and other local government functions that cannot be handled by district governments (Ostwald et al 2016).…”

Section: Two Exemplary Cities: a Closer Look At Bandung And Makassarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indonesia:

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term "country" in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

show abstract

Indonesia’s Decentralization Experiment: Motivations, Successes, and Unintended Consequences

Cited by 53 publications

References 42 publications

Public Goods and Ethnic Diversity: Evidence from Deforestation in Indonesia

Public Goods and Ethnic Diversity: Evidence from Deforestation in Indonesia

Decentralization of government and forestry in Indonesia

Indonesia:

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About