The relevance of deconcentration as a central government’s instrument to assure the implementation of national policy within the regions in the wide decentralization

The relevance of deconcentration as a central government’s instrument to

assure the implementation of national policy within the regions in the wide

decentralization era

The 4th APANDS ConferenceHeld by Graduate School of Public Administration,

National Institute of Development Administration,Bangkok, September 2-3, 2010

by Tri Widodo W. UTOMO

• Dept. of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Gadjah Mada• National Institute of Public Administration,

Republic of Indonesia

Decentralization: a general understanding (Rondinelli and WB, 1999)

Political decentralization; Administrative decentralization:

Deconcentration Delegation Devolution

Fiscal decentralization; Market decentralization.

Administrative Decentralization(UNDP, 1999)

Facts on Deconcentration

The weakest form of decentralization (Rondinelli, 1999).

Studies in deconcentration are far lacking behind those of decentralization (Utomo, 2009).

Deconcentration has been mistakenly recognized as other form of centralization.

There has been no single law concerning deconcentration, while there are 8 decentralization laws have been implemented (Indonesian case).

Problem Statement

The implementation of deconcentration function in Indonesia is relatively weak as an instrument to assure the national policy within the regions, due to:

Unclear in the delegated authority of deconcentration functions.

Lack of deconcentration apparatur in the region.

Weakness in financial management of deconcentration fund.

Research Question

Is deconcentration really relevance in assuring national policy within the region, as well as strengthening local development in Indonesia?

Degree of relevance. Relevance in certain substance. Relevance for any subject.

To describe the relevance of deconcentration in assuring national policy within the region, as well as strengthening local development in Indonesia.

To propose a policy recommendation on effective deconcentration based on historical perspective and cross-country experience. This is expected to bring about the new equilibrium between deconcentration and decentralization.

Research Objectives

Approach of the Study

Theoretical approach, to elaborate basic concept of deconcentration and its relation to decentralization, advantages and disadvantages of two concepts, and varied models likely to be applied.

Comparative experimental approach, to observe and to compare the implementation of deconcentration in some countries, particularly unitary states. From such comparison, we can draw a lesson learned to be adopted in the context of Indonesian government system.

Normative empirical approach, to elucidate the current regulation on deconcentration and its impact on the governmental programs both in central & local level.

Theoretical FrameworkDecentralization-Deconcentration Relationship

McBeath & Helms, 1983; Cheema & Rondinelli, 2007: The relationship between devolution and deconcentration should not be seen as a dichotomy or as mutually exclusive, but rather can best be understood as a matrix of relationships.

Work, 2001; Gera, 2008: Decentralization is not an alternative to centralization.

FAO, 2006: Deconcentration and decentralization are far from replacing each other; they have always been considered as complimentary by political decision makers.

Eko Prasojo (no year): Centralization and decentralization is a continuum, not a dichotomy.

Kauzya (no year): Decentralization is essential to promote good governance, but decentralization succeeds best in situations where there is a strong central government.

Theoretical FrameworkTwo Sides of Decentralization-Deconcentration - 1

Positive impacts of decentralization: combating corruption (Arikan 2004; Fjeldstad 2004; Fisman 2002), reduction in poverty (Braathen 2008; Crook 2001; UNDP 2000; Moore and Putzel 1999), improving service delivery (WB 2001; Kolehmainen-Aitken 1999; McLean 1999, Dillinger 1994), fortifying accountability (WB 2000), preventing conflicts (Sasaoka 2007, Siegle and O’Mahony), empowering community (Brinkerhoff 2006).

Negative impacts of decentralization: soft–budget constraints, macro–economic instability, clientelism, and enlargement of bureaucracies (Cornelius 1999; Fox and Aranda 1996; Rodden 2000; Rodden and Wibbels 2002; Stein 1998, quoted from Falleti 2004).

Theoretical FrameworkTwo Sides of Decentralization-Deconcentration - 2

Benefits of deconcentration: accessibility of officials, mobilization of local resources, rapid response to local needs, orientation to the specific local needs, motivation of field personnel, inter-office coordination, and central agencies may relieves of routine tasks (Turner, 2002).

Adverse consequences of deconcentration: Local officials may still be habituated to work according to central regulations and be unwilling or unable to respond effectively to local preferences and conditions, etc. (Fesler, 1959; Smith, 1985, in Turner, 2002).

Theoretical FrameworkTwo Sides of Decentralization-Deconcentration - 3

Decentralization and deconcentration is a “two-edged of sword” (Brillantes Jr., 2004).

The question of centralization (deconcentration) or decentralization is simply a matter of proportion; it is a matter of finding the optimum degree for the particular concern (Cummings, 1995).

Theoretical FrameworkThe Essence of Decentralization-Deconcentration

The essence: to divide and distribute powers among local governments and between central and local government.

Bell (in Prasojo, 2008) national state is too small to deal with huge problems, but it is too big to pay attention to tiny problems.

Deconcentration constitutes a sharing of responsibility among multi-tiered of government. That’s why deconcentrated administrations exist in all countries (OECD, 1997).

Country Experiences in Deconcentration - 1

United Kingdom has a reputation as one of the more centralized regime in contemporary Europe (Jeffery and Wincott, 2006).

Central government has always been powerful in Britain, which, with France, is one of the most highly centralized states in the western world (Goldsmith and Newton, 1983).

Overall, local government systems in the MENA region can be characterized as a form of deconcentration rather than one of devolved local self-government. In general, the public administration system is highly centralized (Tosun 2008).

Vietnam became a centrally planned communist state after the Vietnam War. Under economic reforms (doi moi), the center still exerts substantial control, but sub-national governments have some discretion (Smoke, 2005).

Country Experiences in Deconcentration - 2

Cambodia: following elections brokered by the UN in 1993, the center reclaimed power from provincial governors in order to impose discipline on the intergovernmental system (Smoke, 2005).

Indonesia under Soeharto regime was a model of deconcentration than of decentralization (Ahmad and Mansoor, 2002). Indonesian decentralization based on previous law of 1974 was more akin to administrative delegation than to political devolution (Rohdewohld, 1995). Indonesia is one of the most centralized state (Lewis, 2002).

Deconcentration in Indonesia is still blurred (Tambunan, 2000) “the two laws still leave the specific areas of deconcentration unclear”.

France is an outstanding example of unitary state practicing deconcentration principle (Edwards and Hupe 2000; (Ansell and Gingrich 2003).

Conclusion

Since decentralization and deconcentration is an inter-connected concept, obscurity of deconcentration policy design, for sure, will affect the implementation of decentralization packages. It implies that strengthening of decentralization should be simultaneously accomplished with refurbishment of deconcentration design.

In the near future, it is essential to formulate a new deconcentration model which is more precise for unitary state like Indonesia.

คุณขอบคุณ, อรณุสวสัด์ิ …

Bangkok, September 2-3, 2010