1

Decentralized Governance and Delivery of Services:

Lessons Learned from Jembrana District1

By

Ida Widianingsih2

Abstract

The notion of decentralized governance and service delivery became an important agenda in

developing countries. The dynamic of political, social and economic of the country

contribute to the way Indonesian government experiencing a long path to establish a more

mature and reponsible government which can provide better public services. Indeed the

implementation of decentralization laws give both positive and negative impacts on public

service provision. This paper discusses one of the best practices of decentralized governance

and public service in Indonesia using the case of Jembrana District, Bali as an example.

Despite the limited development resources, the Jembrana government is the first Post

Suharto Indonesia local government that introduces free education and health services as

well as implementing poverty alleviation program. The question is how does the

decentralized governance enable local government to achieve a better public service

delivery. What factors contribute to the successes and failures in improving the public service

delivery? The secret of it successes lays in the ability of its reform leader to strategically

negotiate power amongs development stakeholders, building strategic networking,

implementing bureauratic reform for better public service delivery.

Keywords: Decentralization, public service delivery, Post-Suharto Indonesia

I. Introduction: Short History of Indonesian Decentralization

The recent development in Indonesia closely associates with the practice of decentralization

to achive local good governance. Decentralization is not merely limited to the process of

handing over some central government functions to the localgovernment, but also reflects a

broader process of political and economic reforms. Consequently, decentralization process

resulted in the changing patterns of power relations of central and local governments, new

path of relations amongs local governments as well as new relations between government and

other development stakeholders.

Prominent thinkers of decentralization believe that decentralization is essentially understood

as a transfer of responsibilities and authorities toward public function from central to local

1 Paper presented in the CIRDAP-NIRD-NAM CSSTC Collaborative International Training Programme on “Decentralized Governance and

Delivery of Services – Way to Good Governance”, Bali, Indonesia, 9-18 January 2014 2 Associate Professor, Public Administration Department, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Padjadjaran University, Indonesia.

2

governments which involve multi dimensional aspects and complex concepts. Hence,

decentralization could open more space to the public to be involved in decision making

process and create a more democratic governance as noted by Smith (1985), Rondinelli

(1981), Esman & Uphoff (1988), Antlov (2002), Devas (1997). Specifically, Esman &

Ufhoff (1988) argue that there are 7 benefits of decentralization which include (a) accurate

and representative informations; (b) Adaptation of programs; (c) group communications (d)

resource mobilization; (e) local expertise; (f) better utilization of facilities and services; (g)

cooperation (Sjamsuddin & Noor 2012, p. 14).

For this Rondinelli et.al (1983) argue that decentralization could bring service closer to the

people (Widianingsih 2005, p. 1). Similarly, the World Bank states that the decentralization

aims to increase the quality of public service delivery and pubic welfare through good

governance.

In Indonesian context, the history of Indonesian decentralization is strongly rooted in the

colonial era, however, the new form of Indonesian decentralization took place after the

Suharto New Order fell in 1998 (Widianingsih 2005, Sjamsuddin & Noor 2012;

Rahmatunnisa 2013). Since the broad concept of decentralization involves transferring

power from the central to local governments, Indonesian decentralization is characterized by

the efforts to shift central government authority to the local government authority. The World

Bank contends that following the fall of Suharto regime, Indonesia experienced a radical and

drastic change of decentralization that is called the big bang of decentralization is

implemented in January 2001.The Post Suharto Indonesia decentralization implemented

based on Laws No. 22/1999 on Regional Government and No. 25/1999 on the Fiscal Balance

between the Central Government and Regional Governments (Takeshi 2005; Rahmatunnisa

2012; Sjamsuddin & Noor 2012).

According to Takeshi, the two decentralization laws changed the hierarchical relationship

between the province (the first-level subnational government) and the district/municipality

(the second-level subnational government). Consequently, district governments have more

power to manage public services and can directly affect the quality of public services.

Furthermore, the laws also changed the mechanism of Regional heads (provincial governors

and district heads) appointment. Under the new laws, the National government is no longer

responsible in choosing the head of the regions. The head of the regions elected by and

3

accountable to regional parliaments (Takeshi 2005, p. 139). The latest decentralization laws

No. 32/2004) allow the local leaders to be directy elected by their people.

The laws also took further impact on bureaucratic structures and public investment, most

state agencies at the regional and local levels were dissolved, and their personnel were

transferred to subnational governments. 239 provincial-level offices of the central

government, 3,933 district-level offices, and more than 16,000 service facilities were

transferred to district (kabupaten) governments. With the increased responsibilities and

personnel, the subnational share in government spending jumped from 17 percent to over 30

percent in 2001 and 2002 (World Bank 2003;Hofman & Kaiser 2002: 1-2). About one third

of the total state expenditures is transferred to local governments under decentralization

scheme. In addition, about half of all public investments are managed by the local

governments (World Bank 2010a: 2).

This table below highlights the history of Indonesian decentralization from the Dutch

colonization era until the recent development. It is found that Indonesian decentralization

covers the implementation of Indonesian decentralization laws, as well as administrative and

fiscal transfers of power from central to local governments. However, I would argue that

since Japanesse collonization, Indonesian local governments have never embraced the real

transfer of power from the central to local governments until the Suharto regime fell in 1998

(Widianingsih 2005, p. 1). One of the most important legacies of the Habibie government is

the enactedment of new decentralization law no. 22/1999 and law no 25/1999 which was

aimed to distribute the central government power to the local level. However, due to political

circumtances, the law could only be implemented in 2001. Three years after the

implementation of the decentralization laws of 1999, critiques on the laws encourage the birth

of the recent decentralization law No. 32/2004 and Law No, 33/2004 on fiscal balance

(Widiningsih 2005; Widianingsih 2012).

4

Table 1. Decentralization and Centralization in Indonesia (1900s-2000s)

Source: (Mudrajad Kuncoro in Sjamsuddin & Noor 2012, p.11)

I would argue that basically the decentralization laws expected to redefine the power

relations between central and local governments. These laws would enable local governments

to have more spaces for decision making processes (Widianingsih 2005; Widianingsih &

5

Morrell 2007). The most important point for this is to create better public service delivery as

shown in Jembrana district, Solok Municipality, Kebumen district, Minahasa district,

Kabupaten Sumedang district, and Purbalingga district (Widianingsih 2005; Widianingsih &

Morrell 2007; Anwar 2010; Hamudy 2010; Nugroho 2013).

In similar vein, Prasodjo et.al argue that decentralization encourage local government

innovation as shown in the case of Banjar Local Government Hospital (Rumah Sakit Umum

Daerah, RSUD), the Economic Intitution of Fishermen (Lembaga Ekonomi Pengembangan

Pesisir Mikro Mitra Mina, LEPP-M3) in Deli Serdang District, and the iriigation system of

the Gianyar Sejahtera, in Gianyar (Apkasi in Prasodjo et.al 2004, p. 3).

This paper focuses on the practice of decentralized governance and public service delivery in

Jembrana District, Bali, Indonesia. Jembrana used to be one of the best practice of the public

service delivery in Indonesian decentralization context (Widianingsih 2006; Prasodjo et.al

2004; Nugroho 2012). Despite the limited development resources owned by the region, the

Jembrana government is the first Post Suharto Indonesia local government that introduces

free education and health services as well as implementing a poverty alleviation program.

The question is how does the decentralized governance enable the local government to

achieve better public service delivery. What factors contribute to the successes and failures of

improving public service delivery? The secret of its successes lays in the ability of its reform

leader to strategically negotiate power amongs the development stakeholders, building

strategic networking, implementing bureauratic reform for better public service delivery.

II. Decentralized Governance and Public Service Delivery: Indonesian point of view

As mentioned earlier, the Indonesian government has been experiencing different

implementation of decentralization laws for more than a century. Yet, the assumption of

redefining power relations between the central and local government by giving more decision

making power to the local government remains a huge challenge. The decentralization laws

do not guarantee the ability of the local government to fulfill the main aims of

decentralization and bringing services closer to the people. Despite some success stories from

implementation of decentralization laws in the Post Suharto Indonesia, the early

6

implementation of the big bang of decentralization for example understood differently and

created some problems as found in the Indonesian Rapid Decentralization Appraisal (IRDA)

of the Asia Foundation (2002-2004). The IRDA research concluded that implementation of

decentralization programs resulted in some positive progress as well as new challenges

(Colongon 2003). This perhaps is not surprising, because in many cases around the world,

the implementation of decentralization program create local and national problems of

financial and fiscal management, debt, corruption, and inefficient resource allocation (Smoke,

Gomez et.al 2006, p. 3). While decentralization has been widely used in developing

countries to achieve more effective governance, levels of success vary (Cheema & Rondinelli

2007, p. 17)

In term of public service, research conducted by Dwiyanto et.al (2000) found that the

low quality of public service delivery in three province samples related to the paternalistic

bureaucratic culture. Bureaucrats perceive themselves as center of power instead of public

servants (Dwiyanto 2000; Widianingsih & Ihsan 2012). In a similar vein, Sanusi argues that

the Post Suharto Indonesia government has serious problems including ineffectiveness and in

eficiency in government management, low corruption indext (3.0), low public trust,

overlapping roles, functions, development programs and activities of national and local

governments, and low level of e-government readiness index (Sanusi 2012, p. 5).

Compared to other countries, Indonesian government effectiveness remains low. For

example, Indonesia holds the third lowest position among ASEAN contry members. This

even worse compared to advanced countries like Switzerland, UK, USA, Australia, and

Japan. Furthermore, the effectiveness of Indonesian government is also lower than the new

emerging donors from Asia such as India and China as ilustrated in the figure below.

7

Figure 1. Indonesian government Effectiveness in Comparison

Source: (Sanusi 2012, p. 8)

Regardless of the negative views on Indonesian decentralization, some promising practices

emerged at the local government, take the Jembrana Municipality for example. The region

succesfully improve the quality of public services in three different areas and will be

elaborated further in part 3 of this article.

The discussion on decentralized governance and public service delivery is closely related to

the way the government operates effectively. Learning from the Indonesian experiences, the

implementation of the decentralization laws could not guarantee the improvement of public

service at the local level of government. There are so many factors contributing to the

success or failures of the public service improvement agendas, including the capacity of the

local government, the existence of innovative leaders, supports from other development

stakeholders, etc. Yet, it can be said that only those regions that has willingness to change

and encourage innovation will be able to achieve the better quality of public services. As

noted by Mulgan and Albury that innovation is important in the public sector because it „can

develop better ways of meeting needs, solving problems, and using resources and

technologies‟. Unfortunately, some of the local government officials are reluctant to change,

innovation occasionally seen as‟ an optional luxury or an added burden‟ instead of the

governments main responsibility (Mulgan and Albury 2003, p. 5).

8

Years after the implementation of decentralization, generally Indonesian bureaucracy

embraces specific negative characteristics, including lack of compatence, power culture

when the bureaucratic structure, norm, value and regulation are influenced by the interest of

those who hold power. Furthermore, the service delivery culture has not been implemented

properly. For example, there is no certain standard of procedure in bureaucracy, the cost of

uncertainty are reveals in most of public institutions. Moreover, the patron-client and

affiliation culture tend to create moral hazard. All of those characteristics are basically

related to different levels such as individual, organization and system. This is why the

Indonesian government develops the framework for bureaucratic reform based on the

internationalization and actualization of norms and values to achieve national goals as

reflected in the figure below.

Figure 2. Framework for Indonesia‟s Bureaucratic Reform

Source: Sanusi 2012

Specifically, the reform agenda addressed in the National Long Term Development

Plan document. The figure below underlines the recent evaluation on Indonesian bureucratic

performance and what is the future target in 2009.

9

Figure 3. National Long Term Development Target 2009-2014

Source: (Sanusi 2012, p. 6)

III. Profile of Jembrana: From the Poorest into the Best Practice District

Jembrana District, Bali Province Indonesia covers 841.8 square meter with 234, 208

inhabitants and 276 people /sqm. This is one of the most famous region because of its ability

to deal with local problems during the early stage of Post Suharto Indonesia decentralization

laws. This region often mentioned as an innovative government, as argued by Shapiro that

„the winners will be the government that find ways to release their innovative potential and

apply it to the way they think and the way they work (Shapiro, 2002:7).

The district located in Western Part of Bali island, one of the favourite world tourist

destinations (Bappeda 2011; Nugroho 2012; Sjamsuddin & Noor 2012). Ironically, Jembrana

is considered as the poorest region in Bali with only 5% local revenue in 1999. Compared to

other neighbouring regions such as Kuta and Denpasar, Jembrana is not a main tourist

destination nor rich region with oil and gas revenue (Cahya Loka 2010;Nugroho 2012).

However, the region turned into a famous region due to the impressive programs delivered by

10

the new elected mayor in 2001. I Gede Winasa holds a PhD degree, a professor who has

been working as a government official as well as an academic. He owns a pharmacy store

and is a prominent academic, dean in the University of Singaraja, Bali. His background

strongly influenced his management style which combined his entreprenership capacity and

academic endevour (Nugroho 2012, p. 121). Winasa developed an innovative local

government to deal with local limitation and succesfully utilized his network and knowledge

for Jembrana‟s development. I agree with Groot (2007) who stated that “Innovative local

government: making public services more responsive”.

Figure 4 The Location of Jembara District, Bali Province Indonesia

Sources: Bappeda Jembrana 2012

Jembrana district administratively has 4 sub districts, 42 rural villages and 9 urban villages.

Compared to other regions in Bali, the Human Development Index of Jembrana was low. It

was rank 6 out of 10 in 1999 and improved to rank 4 in 2002.

11

Tabel 2. Comparison of Human Development Index (HDI) of Regions & Cities in

Bali Province (1999-2002)

Source: UNDP-National Development Planning Agency 2005

IV. The Secret of Jembrana District Successes: Leadership, Administrative Reform,

and Networking

Under the two period leadership of the mayor, I Gede Winasa (1999-2010), the region

gained its success. Many argue that his strong leadership power is the most important factor

undermines his achievement in leading the poor region (Sjamsudin & Noor 2010; Hamudy

2010; Nugroho 2012). Specifically, Sjamsuddin & Noor argue that the success of

decentralization and the improvement of public service delivery in Jembrana district related

to the positive political environment that enable the mayor to focus on his development

programs. This is contradictory to the case of Banyuwangi district, when political parties

dominate the rulling government, which caused development failures (Sjamsuddin & Noor

2010, p. 18).

Innitially, in the first period of his leadership (2000-2005), Winasa was not a favourite

leader to his political contenders. This is because of his weak political bargain position, in

the 1999 election, he became a mayor who was supported by two small parties, the United

Development Party (Partai Persatuan Pembangunan, PPP) and National Mandate Party

(Partai Amanat Nasional, PAN) which only had 2 and 1 seats in the local parliament.3

3 The head of region election under decentralization Law No, 22/1999 based on the votes of local parliament

members.

12

Theoretically, it was impossible to win the election because the Indonesian Democratic

Struggle Party (Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan, PDIP) had 17 seats. However, the

silent political movement of Winasa as a mayor candidate resulted change in local politics.

The Golkar that had 6 seats and also the TNI-POLRI fraction (4 chair) decided to suport

Winasa. Winasa finally elected, winning by 18 votes in the local parliament. Meanwhile his

contender got 12 votes. However, his new position was challenged by his political

contenders. In the first two years of his leadership period he struggled to negotiate with other

local ellites and tried to gain trust from all development stakeholders Riots and demonstration

occured in different areas. Winasa had no choice other than enacted a populis policy in the

form of social support for the villagers. At the same time he aproached PDIP politician to

gain trust, this ended with a great victory, Winasa was finally elected as the head of the

Indonesian Democratic Struggle Party (Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan, PDIP) of

Jembrana District (Hamudy 2010, p. 55).

His ability to build political trust with other development stakeholders meant that he easily

won the second period of his leadership election (2005-2010), he won absolute vote of

election by winning 88.56% votes. This most probably related to his stroger political position

as the head of the Indonesian Democratic Struggle Party (Partai Demorasi Indonesia

Perjuangan, PDIP) of Jembrana District as the strongest and the most influencial party in the

region (Sjamsuddin & Noor 2010, p. 18). .

Moreover, the mayor was concerned that his new government inherited huge development

problems. As the poorest region in Bali province, the poverty rate was 19.4 % (12,206

households). It also had a high mortality rate at 15.25 per 1000 life birth. In term of

education, the region also had low school enrolment rate. The bad development indicators

worsen by the profile of local bureacracy. The government structure was obviously too big

and consumed too much fund whereas local budget was undeniably limited. Local Revenue

was only IDR 2.5 billion compared to IDR 66.9 billion local budget (Humany 2010, p. 54).

Based on that condition, the Jembrana government designed a pro poor policy which focused

on poverty alleviation policy through three main development areas, education and health

services, and local economic development (Anwar 2010; Cahyaloka 2010; Hamudy 2010;

13

Sjamsuddin & Noor 2010).4 Winasa government believes that government should provide

education and health services as communities basic needs; Human Development lndex (HDI)

of the region would be increased once education and health quality as well as purchasing

power of the community improved, public services are the government‟s responsibility as

regulator and public servant.

Table 3. Local Revenue and Budget in Jembrana District 2000-2005

Source: (Bappeda Jembrana in Nugroho 2012, p. 126)

According to the mayor, the core success of Jembrana government reform called as „DOA‟

management (manajemen do‟a). DOA or Do‟a literally means „pray‟, this emotionally has

positive impact on Bali community who practice Hinduism. The DOA management is about

efficiency strategy which include Budget (Dana), People (Orang), and instruments (Alat).

(Humady 2010, p. 54). The mayor developed an innovative approach in managing the poor

region by using the government efficiency strategy. For example, the startegy to defeat the

lack of local revenue conducted by encouraging development planners and the technocrats

to analyse local budget and alocated the budget in an efficiet way. This is supported by

bureacratic reform program which practically reduce the size of local government structure.

At the same time, the mayor continued to approach local politicians by balancing startegic

bureaucracy positions. The new Bureacratic structure filled up with the mixture of old and

young bureaucrats. Furthermore, the mayor accomodated the various interest of the

parliamnet members as well as harmonising the political athmosphere at the grass root level

(Anwar 2010;Humady 2010). In the case of Jembrana, I agree with Parnaa & Tunzelmannb

4 I Gede Winasa fell into corruption scandal in 2009, the mayor accused to corrupt IDR 2.3 Billion of local

budget in the case of waste management factory worth IDR 4.1 billion in Kalakah village back in 2006. The

Jembrana government collaborate with a Japanesse company, Tuasa Sangyocho Lmt. For this scandal he got 2.5

years sentence in jail and IDR 100 million fined (see Tempo interaktif 12 Oct 2009; Tempo interaktif 12 June

2009; Jawa Post 5 March 2010; Koran Sindo 6 October 2010; Tempo interaktif 25 Oct 2010; Antara News 14

January 2011; Bali Post 29-30 March 2011; Radar Lampung 2013)

14

who stated that “innovation is becoming a reality in government. The failure to innovate in

public services creates imbalances in societies and additional fiscal restraints” (Parnaa &

Tunzelmannb 2007, p. 1)

4.1 After the Political Upheaval was Gone: Its Time for Bureauratic Reform

Mid 2005 became the most important time for the Mayor to implement better local

development strategy. His new position as head of the Indonesian Democratic Struggle Party

(Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan, PDIP) of Jembrana District could keep the

political athmoshere condusive. Winasa government impelemented a Bureaucratic reform

program through various activities, including: bureaucratic refrenchment, highly monitored

procurement program, and efficient budgeting strategy. This resulted in budget relocation,

the Winasa government could allocate more budget for education and health services as well

as local community development programs (Humady 2010, p. 55).

The figure below illustrates how local budget efficiency led to the realocation of local budget

for better public service.

Figure 5 Realocation of Local Budget for Public Service Improvement

Source: (Raharjo 2005, p. 19)

15

Winasa understands that Jembrana needs a high quality and experienced bureaucrat to be

able to run his local government effectively. For this, he recruited Gede Suinaya- a Balinesse

Central government Official who has been working for the Ministry of Home Affairs to be

the Jembrana District Secretary. This strategy was considered appropriate and gave more

benefit to the Jembrana government, the strong network of the new appointed local

government secretary opened access to Jembrana District to get national programs (Humady

2010, p. 55-56). As I found in my other research on Indonesian local governments, local

development programs in poor and disadvantaged regions mostly rely on central government

support. Unfortunately, national government has not yet established a fair mechanism to

distribute the fund. Local government officers need to have „direct access‟ to Jakarta to be

able to get the fund (Widianingsih 2012).

We might consider Winasa as a pure reformer, however, the bureaucratic reform strategy

basically supported by Government Regulation No. 84/2000 and Government Regulation No.

8/2003 on The Guidance of Local Government Organization that aims to establish a more

effective local government (Humady 2010, p. 53). The Winasa government reduced 9 local

government offices into 7 local government offices (Raharjo 2005; Humady 2010).

Furthermore, Raharjo argues that the process of reducing bureaucracy size will save at least

40% of the local budget. Other strategy of bureaucratic reform in Jembrana conducted

through Local government staff moratorium in 2004 and early pension program which

resulted in saving 30% of local budget. The government also encourages the improvement of

staff discipline and tight working hours (8 hours) through the introduction of reward and

punishment programs. For example, 10 best staff of the month will receive IDR 500.000 and

IDR 1,000,000 given to all staff (Raharjo 2005, p. 9).

Furthermore, Winasa government adopted professional bureaucracy startegy by developing a

cooperation with Udayana University to recruit professional government officials in all

positions. Technically, all the candidates haveto attend the regular fit and profer test. For

those interested to hold a position in the rank III and the rank IV position, should attend the

job tender procedure (lelang jabatan) (Humady 2010; Raharjo 2005).

The bureacratic reform strategy in Jembrana soon received appreciation from many academic

and government pratitioners and considered as the best practice of decentralization in

Indonesia. Many regions in Indonesia visited Jembrana and tried to take positive experiences

16

from the region. Unfortunately, Humady research found that the process of bureaucratic

profesionalism was only a formality process, at the end, the decision made by the strong and

powerful Mayor (Winasa) (Humady 2010, p. 56). In my opinion, Humadi‟s argument could

be right. The process of political negotiation in the first two years of his government would

influence his choice. As mentioned earlier, Winasa should accomodate other development

stakeholders, including local politicians to keep the positive political athmosphere. My

research on Bureaucratic reform in West Nusa Tenggara (2009), Aceh (2011), Muara Enim

(2013) also confirming this argument. Most of the head of Local Governments embrace

strong power over choosing strategic position in bureaucracy.

4.2 Public service Improvement in Education: Free Education for All

Before Winasa came to power, the education quality in Jembrana was very low which is

shown in some indicators. For example, low school enrolment rate and lack of community

willingness to be involved in education sector development. This can be seen from some data

such as 1 out of 5 students unable to go to school due to expensive education fee and only 21

students enrolled in a 30 class capacity. Furthermore 50% of the 200 school buildings are

severely damaged. Additionally, the teacher‟s welfare were in bad condition. Other problems

in education sector related to the „leakages‟ of the local government budget (Nugroho 2013,

p. 119) .

Winasa government believes that the human resource development is the priority agenda for

Jembrana‟s development. For that, he adopted the Makepung principle, a local vison which

means that Jembrana‟s development and its sustainability based on the quality of human

resources. In practice, the Makepung principle implemented in various local government

regulations. For example: Regent Decision No. 24/2003 on Free School Fee for public

elementary, secondary and high schools in Jembrana, Renegt Decision No. 1615/2005 on

Scholarships for performing students in arts, sports and sciences for all public and private

schools in Jembrana, and Local regulation No. 10/2006 on education subsidy for pre school,

Elementary, Junior and Senior High Schools in Jembrana (Nugroho 2012, p. 120)

To support the Makepung principle, Jembrana district put more budget allocation for

education sector as shown in the table below:

17

Table 4. Educational Budget Allocation in Jembrana District 2001-2006

Source: (Bappeda Jembrana in Nugroho 2013, p. 126)

The table above shows that in the period of 2001-2006, the Jembrana District education

budget allocation is above the minimum national standard (20%) that is mandated in the

amanded constitution. Back in 1999, before Winasa stepped into power, the region only

spent less than 10% of the budget for education sector development. This huge shift made the

Winasa government receives high appreciation from public administration and governance

academics and practitioners.

The performance of Jembrana district education policy characterized by peculiar conditions,

for example: Firstly, The regency has no additional budget, but it managed to be increased by

20% education budget as the result of budget analyses. Secondly, the standard and real

budget for education was less than 10% as noted in the table above. Thirdly, the education

office merged into other local office in order to save local budget (Nugroho 2012, p. 121)

Considering the local political dynamic in Jembrana, the process of education policy

formulation in Jembrana used the negotiation process. The mayor needed to convince the

parliament members and other development stakeholders on the policy (Anwar 2010;

Humady 2010). According to Anwar‟s research decision making process, Jembrana‟s

education policy is considered as a „dynamic capability model‟ with special characteristic.

Long before the policy was being made, the mayor informed the community on the new

education policy using local medias and NGOs. Furthermore, Anwar argues that decision

making process in Jembrana district reflected good governance values (accountabuility,

transparency and partcipation). For example, the renovation of school buildings conducted

through open bidding and involved local community. The policy making process also

encourage citizen to be awared of their rights. The last finding is the ability of Winasa

government to thinking dynamically in managing limited local budget (Anwar 2010, p. 225).

18

In term of progress made by the district, Nugroho‟s research shown that the achivement of

Jembrana education sector performance measured by the Gross Enrollment Rates, Net

Enrolment Rates, Drop Out Rates, Passing Rates and Regional human development index

(Nugroho 2012, p. 124).

Table 4. Education Policy Performance

Source: (Nugroho 2012, p. 126)

It is argued that the succesful implementation of decentralizalized governance and public

service delivery in Jembrana was influenced by the strong role of the mayor and also the

willingness to create innovation for public service in education sector. The paternalistic value

of the society accepts the authoritarian leadership style (Prasodjo et.al. 2004; Nugroho 2012).

Indeed, the free school ideas was very odd and unacceptable before the central government

ratified government regulation on free education in 2003. The Winasa government made the

free education real to Jembrana community since 2000. In one hand the policy was very

popular and gained big support from Jembrana community, however, some school teachers

and management expressed reluctancy for the policy (Nugroho 2012, p. 122).

4.3. The Jembrana Health Insurance Program (Jaminan Kesehatan Jembrana, JKJ):

Model of Free Health Services at Local Level

Other reform agenda implemented in Jembrana is health sector development by introducing

the Jembrana Health Insurance Program (Jaminan Kesehatan Jembrana, JKJ) in 2002. This

is a health insurance institution for Jembrana community based on the Mayor Decree No.

19

572/2002 on the 18 December 2002. This insurance model was developed based on the

argumentation that basic health service is the right of the people. The low health indicators of

Jembrana community strengthen the plan to address health issues (Hamudy 2010, p. 55-56).

The development of the JKJ practically based on the evaluation on health sector

development in 2002. It is found that the budget allocation for health sector inappropriate and

could not address the main health problems in Jembrana. Some data on health indicators

showed that there is a need to adjust the fund allocation in order to meet the real demand of

Jembrana community. Based on the health sector evaluation in 2000, the Bed of Rate (BOR)

in the local government hospital only achieved 58-60%. Furthermore, the visit to

community health was considered low, at 30-40 people per day. The data also showed that

only 15-20% poor people in Jembrana used the health facilities (Hamudy 2010, p. 57).

The budget allocation for health sector was IDR 3.5 billion per year, whilst the revenue from

that sector only reached IDR 1 billion per year. The Winasa government decided to realocate

to subsidy of health sector from hospital operational cost into health insurance fee for all

Jembrana community (Hamudy 2010, p. 57).

V. Conclusion

The case of decentralized governance and public service in Jembrana considered as one the

best practices in Indonesia. Despite the limited development resources, the Jembrana

government is the first Post Suharto Indonesia local government that introduces free

education and health services as well as implementing poverty alleviation program. This is

partly because of the ability of the local government to cope with local development problem

whilst it can also deal with the problem of limited financial resources.

Regardless the limitation and the dynamic of local political pressures, the strong leadership

of the mayor finaly brought the region into more prosperous society. Furthermore, the

willingness to accept new ideas and implement innovation in managing the local government

places the region into a good example of innovative local government.

20

The main strategy to deal with complex problems of the region started by the bureaucratic

reform agenda through various innovative ways which essentially encourage local

government to operate in an effective way. Though, the agenda could not be implemented

without the ability of the mayor to create „positive political athmosphere‟. This is important

to ensure all development programs supported by all development stakeholders without

negative comments nor resistance that could challenge the programs.

Winasa‟s government concerns on budget analyses and reviewed all budget to find the most

effective technique in relocating the budget for the sake of public service improvement, for

this the DOA management is considered as good strategy to achieve effective local

government management. Furthermore, local knowledge and wisdom underlines the

improvement of public service delivery. In this case the Makepung functioned as the main

principle for succesful human resource development and ensuring its sustainability.

For local community, free education and health service policies are very popular. Despite

some resitance form „unhappy customers‟, factually, the innovative policy in that era

received huge appreciation from wider community, including academics and praticioners.

Reference

Antlöv, Hans, 2002, The Making of Democratic Local Governance in Indonesia, LogoLink

International Workshop on Participatory Planning. Approaches for Local Governance.

Bandung Indonesia, 20-27 January 2002

Antlov, H., Sumarto, H. Sj. Inovasi, Partisipasi dan Good Governance, Indonesia, Jakarta:

Yayasan Obor, 2004.

Anwar, R, 2010, Development of Dynamic Capabilities of Education Service Policy Process

in Jembrana Bali, Journal of Administrative Science and Organization, November 2010,

p. 218-227.

Bardhan, P. Decentralization of Governance and Development. Journal of Economic

Perspectives, Vol. 16, No 4, 2002, p. 185-205

Cheema, G. Shabbir, and Dennis Rondinelli, eds. 2007. Decentralizing

Governance:Emerging Concepts and Practices. Washington, DC: Brookings, Institution

Press.

Devas, Nick, 1997, Indonesia: what do we mean by decentralization? Public Administration

and Development, Vol. 17 (351-367)

Esman, M. and Uphoff, N, 1988, Local Organizations: Intermediaries in Rural Development,

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Hamudy, M.I., 2010, Negosiasi dalam Reformasi Pemerintahan Daerah, Bisnis & Birokrasi,

Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi, Jan–Apr 2010, hlm. 52-60 Volume 17, Nomor

21

Hoessein, Bhenyamin, 2002, Perspektif Jangka Panjang Desentralisasi dan Otonomi

Daerah, Diskusi Kebijakan Desentralisasi Dan Otonomi Daerah Dalam Jangka Panjang,

Bappenas, Jakarta, 27 November

Moh Ikhsan & Widianingsih, I, 2013, Practical Guide: Public Service Innovation in Aceh,

Studio Driya Media-LOGICA 2 (Local Governance Innovation for Community in

Aceh).

Mulgan, G. & Albury, D, 2003, Innovation in the Public Sector, Working Paper Version 1.9,

October, Strategy Unit, UK Cabinet Office

Nugroho, Riant, 2012, innovation on Education Policy: How A Less Developed Area Was

Transforming into a Performing One: A Case Study of Jembrana Regency-Bali, 2001-

2005, KAPS international Conference „Government Transition and Policy Change‟ Vol

II. The Korean Association for Policy Studies.

Parnaa, Ott and Tunzelmann, Nick von, 2007, Innovation in the public sector: Key features

influencing the development and implementation of technologically innovative public

sector services in the UK, Denmark, Finland and Estonia, Information Polity, 12

(2007) 109–125 109

Prasodjo, E., et.al, 2004, Peran Kepemimpinan dalam Program Inovasi di Daerah: Studi

Kasus Kabupaten Jembrana, Bisnis & Birokrasi, Vol XII No. 3 September 2004, p. 52-

60.

Raharjo, D., INOVASI DAERAH DALAM PELAYANAN PUBLIK:

Belajar dari Kab. Enrekang dan Jembrana, Disampaikan dalam Forum Nasional FPPM:

Merumuskan Konsep dan Praktik Partisipasi Warga dalam Pelayanan Publik. Solo, 19

– 22 September 2005

Rahmatunnisa, M., 2013, “The Rise and The Fall of Indonesia‟s Decentralization Policies:

from Independence to the Post-Soeharto Era”,

Rondinelli, Dennis, 1981, Government decentralization in comparative perspective,

International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 133-45.

Shapiro, Stephen M., 2002, 24/7 innovation: a blueprint for surviving and thriving in an age

of change, McGraw-Hill, United States of America

Sjamsuddin, S., & Noor, I., 2012, Decentralization: A Question for Developing Coutries‟,

Public Policy and Administration, Vol 11, No. 1, p. 9-22.

Smoke, P. J., E. J. Gómez, et al. (2006).Decentralization in Asia and Latin America : towards

a comparative interdisciplinary perspective. Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA,

Edward Elgar.

Smith, B.C., 1985, Decentralization: The Territorial Dimension of the State, George Allen

and Unwin, London.

Takeshi, I. 2006, The Dynamics of Local Governance Reform in Decentralizing Indonesia:

Participatory Planning and Village Empowerment in Bandung, West Java, Asian and

African Area Studies, 5 (2): 137-183, 2006

Widianingsih, I. and Elizabeth, M, 2007, “Participatory Planning in Indonesia: Seeking a

New Path to Democracy”, Journal of Policy Studies, Vol. 28, No.1, 2007, Routledge,

Taylor & Francis Group

Widianingsih, I , 2007a, Indonesia‟s Development in Decentralization Era: Moving Towards

More Participatory Planning in Conference Proceeding, Simposium Kebudayaan

Indonesia Malaysia (SKIM)IX – 2005, UNPAD UKM, Bandung 10-12 Mei 2005

Widianingsih, I, 2007b, Poverty Policy Transformation and Local Good Governance

Innovation in Indonesia: Lesson Learned From Jembrana Municipality, Bali”, paper

presented in NAPSIPAG (Network for Asia Pacific Schools and Institutions of Public

Administration and Governance) Conference, Sydney 4-5 December 2006

22

Widianingsih, I, 2006a, Local Governance, Decentralization, and Participatory Planning in

Indonesia: Seeking a New Path to Harmonious Society”, in The Role of Public

Administration in Building a Harmonious Society, ADB dan NAPSIPAG, pp. 69-90

Widianingsih, I, 2006b, Decentralization and Participation in Indonesia: Moving Towards

More Participatory Planning?, 2006, Sosiohumaniora, Vo. 8. No. 3, Maret 2006, pp.

39-51