2011
DOI: 10.1163/22134379-90003601
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Splitting, splitting and splitting again: A brief history of the development of regional government in Indonesia since independence

Abstract: The paper reviews the changes in the structure and role of provincial and sub-provincial governments in Indonesia since independence. Particular attention is paid to the process of splitting both provinces and districts (kabupaten and kota) into smaller units. The paper points out that this process has been going on since the 1950s, but has accelerated in the post-Soeharto era. The paper examines why the splitting of government units has occurred in some parts of the Outer Islands to a much greater extent than… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
3
3

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
31
3
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The main reason decentralization received support was the idea that decentralization was necessary to enable resource-rich regions to have more control and thus to avoid national disintegration. However, as has since been observed, the impacts are both economically and politically unpredictable, with increasing regional disparities and persistent demands for regional splitting (pemekaran daerah) (Booth, 2011;Fitriani et al, 2005).…”
Section: Decentralization: a Form Of Historical Institutionalismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main reason decentralization received support was the idea that decentralization was necessary to enable resource-rich regions to have more control and thus to avoid national disintegration. However, as has since been observed, the impacts are both economically and politically unpredictable, with increasing regional disparities and persistent demands for regional splitting (pemekaran daerah) (Booth, 2011;Fitriani et al, 2005).…”
Section: Decentralization: a Form Of Historical Institutionalismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They then set about successfully demanding the subdivision of administrative districts into numerous new districts, each to be graced by a new district capital built by well-connected local contractors. In fifteen years since the mid-1990s, the number of districts in Indonesia has more than doubled to over 450, in the face of opposition from Jakarta which regards subdivision as wasteful (Booth 2011). It is true that provincial towns no longer take up arms against Jakarta (though there is a rural separatist revolt in Papua and until recently another in Aceh), but several of them did host more or less serious communal violence in the chaotic transition to democracy around the year 2000.…”
Section: Why So Influential?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The situation was exacerbated when more jurisdiction over resources was devolved to the regions after the demise of the centralized Suharto regime in 1998. Booth (2011) and Burgess et al (2012) explain how this process resulted in greater opportunities and incentives for government officials to enrich themselves; as Jarvie et al (2003: 10) remark 'the old central govemmentkleptocracy has been replaced by a plethora of district-level kleptocracies'. A short explanation of the Indonesian geographical administrative system will help to contextualize this: the main territorial divisions are provinces (propinst), which are further divided into districts (kabupaten) and smaller divisions which need not concern us here.…”
Section: The Challenges Of Collaborative Management In Indonesiamentioning
confidence: 99%