Prosiding International Conference 2009

 LEMBAGA ADMINISTRASI NEGARA REPUBLIK INDONESIA International Conference on Building Capacity and Policy Networking for Effective Welfare Development PROSIDING KONFERENSI GRAN MELIA HOTEL, KUNINGAN Jakarta, 17‐19 November 2009 KATALOG DALAM TERBITAN
Lembaga Administrasi Negara, Pusat Kajian Administrasi Internasional
International Conference on Building Capacity and Policy Networking for
Effective Welface Development
Cetakan I, Jakarta, LAN Press
169 hlm : 15 x 23
ISBN : 978-979-17939-5-7
1. International Conference on Building Capacity and Policy
Networking for Effective Welface Development
1. Judul
PKAI
International Conference on Building Capacity and Policy
Networking for Effective Welface Development
Pusat Kajian Administrasi Internasional, Lembaga Administrasi Negara
Copyright @ 2009 pada LAN Press
Pengarah
Desi Fernanda
PM. Marpaung
Tim Editor
Yogi Suwarno
A Rina Herawati
Widhi Novianto
Desain Cover dan Tata Letak
Teguh Suprayitno
Diterbitkan oleh : LAN Press
Jl. Veteran No. 10, Jakarta Pusat
Dilarang keras memperbanyak sebagian atau seluruh
isi buku ini tanpa izin tertulis dari penerbit
ii
DAFTAR ISI Daftar Isi Sambutan Deputi III LAN Keynote Speech Kepala LAN
Conference Agenda Terms of Reference Rekapitulasi Daftar Undangan
Biodata Sekilas mengenai LAN Sekilas mengenai PKAI Prosiding Building Capacity and Policy Networking for Effective Welfare Development – Desi Fernanda Development of Social Welfare in Indonesia: Situation Analysis and General Issues – Edi Suharto, Ph.D. Growth Constraints and Welfare Development – Jorn Brommelhorster Human System and The Complexities of Policy Network
– Prof. Bambang Shergi Laksmono, M.Sc. Millenium Development Goals: A Framework for Welfare Development – Abdurrahman Syebubakar Understanding Welfare: From Phillosophy to Implementation – Dr. Lowell K. Anderson Capacity Building For Promoting Policy Networking – H Sujono
Pengembangan Kapasitas dalam Jejaring Kebijakan – Dr. H. Sarimun Hadisaputra, M.Si iii
Hal
iii
v
vii
xi
xiii
xviii
xix
xxvi
xxxiii
1
21
40
46
65
76
101
111
iv
Deputi Bidang Penelitian dan Pengembangan Administrasi Pembangunan & otomasi Administrasi Negara Sambutan Teriring salam sejahtera bagi semuanya, kami keluarga besar Kedeputian III Bidang Penelitian dan Pengembangan Administrasi Pembangunan dan Otomasi Administrasi Negara, khususnya Pusat Kajian Administrasi Internasional – Lembaga Administrasi Negara dengan ini mengucap rasa syukur kepada Ilahi Robbi yang telah menganugrahkan kesempatan kepada kita semua untuk berkumpul dan berbagi ilmu dalam forum konferensi ini. Pembangunan kesejahteraan melalui proses kebijakan yang berkualitas merupakan perhatian dan kepentingan setiap pihak di negara ini, baik individu warga negara, maupun institusi dan entitas sosial, ekonomi dan politik, juga kelembagaan formal negara, sekaligus setiap komponen masyarakat lainnya. Dengan mengoptimalkan peran dan kapasitas yang dimiliki oleh masing‐
masing kelembagaan, maka diharapkan bahwa proses kebijakan akan menghasilkan produk kebijakan yang lebih adil dan mendekati kebutuhan dari masyarakat itu sendiri. Peran dan kapasitas negara dan pemerintah dalam hal ini diarahkan pada upaya menyerap dan menerjemahkan aspirasi yang tumbuh di warga masyarakat, sedangkan peran dan kapasitas kelembagan di luar negara adalah sebagai penyeimbang sekaligus pendukung proses kebijakan itu sendiri. Namun demikian, tidak dipungkiri bahwa proses kebijakan ini belum berjalan secara sinergis, karena masing‐masing kelembagaan tidak membangun harmoni dan komunikasi yang cukup kuat. Sehingga pada akhirnya kebijakan yang dihasilkan tidak atau kurang mencerminkan kebutuhan masyarakat itu sendiri. Sehingga dipandang perlu untuk membangun kesadaran di antara para pelaku kebijakan untuk bersatu dan bersinergi. v
Dalam upaya menjaga kesadaran atau awareness inilah, kami menggagas ide untuk menyelenggarakan konferensi yang mampu mempertemukan dan membangun komunikasi bagi seluruh pemangku kepentingan ini dalam sebuah sinergi yang memberi nilai manfaat dan keuntungan bagi terciptanya kebijakan yang lebih berkualitas dan mendukung pembangunan kesejahteraan yang lebih efektif. Tiada gading yang tak retak. Akhirnya kami mengucapkan selamat ber‐
konferensi, berkarya nyata dan berkontribusi, khususnya bagi perbaikan dunia kebijakan kita. Jakarta, 17 November 2009 Deputi Bidang Penelitian dan Pengembangan Administrasi Pembangunan dan Otomasi Administrasi Negara Drs. Desi Fernanda, M.Soc.Sc. vi
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on Building Capacity and Policy Networking for Effective Welfare Development By: Chairman of NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA Distinguished Guests and Hosts, Ladies and Gentlemen, First of all, let us say a prayer to The Almighty God for thy blessings that enable us to convene in this prestigious conference today. In line with the dynamics of globalization, the approach conception of the management of the state is shifting from time to time. Initially the management of the state adopted a state‐led development paradigm where the state acted as the actor concomitantly as the main locomotive of the nation development. The emergence of the approach was one of the ways to deal with the weak market by then. In this approach the state was truly organized like that of a machine. The structural, procedural, and bureaucratic approach became the core characteristics of this approach. Power was considered as the domain of the state monopoly. Therefore the state was the hegemonic entity in a state. The state in this perception was bureaucracy, military, the police, legislative and judicative institutions. In this case, the state had not accommodated the wide participation of social and community organizations. In practice the approach was considered failed in ensuring a government that was able to deliver excellent services to the society. The government tended to work in a slow motion in responding to the society’s needs, the procedures and bureaucracy tended to slow down the government actions, the government organizations tended to have fat structures. In other words the state tended to think selfish. Even worse the state was, in fact, exploited by certain self and group interests. vii
This condition encouraged the change of approach from the state‐led (Weberian) to market‐led. A number of models of market‐led approach were New Public Management, decentralization, privatization, and good governance. In principle, such models greatly accommodated the roles of private sectors and society in development or the management of the state. The involvement of those three actors in the management of the state was institutionalized in Governance. In the context of governance, the interaction process of the management of the state was more complex because it involved more stakeholders including the society and interest groups. The complexity of this process in immature society could lead to horizontal conflict. The nation development could be slowing down because the decision‐making had to be in consensus. However, the system allowed the presence of checks and balances among actors so that various possibilities of power abuse could be minimized. Even in the case of several countries, the roles of society were very big in the management of the development activities. In the management of the state each actor either, the government, the private sectors, and the society played some roles. The government had the main roles to ensure conducive environment to the progress of the life of the nation and the state. The private sectors could participate in the creation of job opportunities. The society and the non‐government institutions could participate in political and social interactions as well as in mobilizing society human resources to participate in the development of politics, social, and economy. Particularly the roles of the society not only conducted checks and balances towards the powers of the state and the private sectors, but it also strengthened the roles of those two sectors. The society could do some control towards the power abuse, exploitation of natural resources, equal distribution of fairness and opportunities to increase the quality of the society’s life. By institutionalizing the concept of governance it did not necessarily mean to eliminate the structure of the state hierarchy. Instead, the structure was equipped with the strengthening of the roles of the society and the private sectors through market, network and community structures. Through market system, the society as consumers also had some roles. Through network, policy formulation was conducted in participatory manner. Through community, the society at the level of community could play active roles in development. viii
In other words, governance was a method of management of resources in a participatory, effective, and efficient manner in responding to the needs of the society. Governance was not a model of the management of the state where the focus was the state itself. When the state merely focused on self management and it did not relate with the sub‐systems of other management of the state that included the management of resources and the utilization of the results of development by the society as the primary stakeholders, then the governance became meaningless. For instance, when the new state was focused on the issues of structural changes, the governance remained meaningless. The state goals were the results of shared consensus that could become an integrating factor concomitantly synergizing the roles of government, private sectors and society. Both non‐government institutions and private sectors were part of governance. Both could become the agent of public service that was supposed to be done by the state. Such role was meant to cover the state limitation in achieving the state goals. With the consensus and synergy of the tripartite roles among the state, society and private sectors in achieving the state goals, the arenas of democracy and freedom to align, to assemble and to express opinions for non government institutions should not be manipulated for the interests of the non‐government institutions themselves. So did the relations among the three actors, it could not be used to do mutual destruction or to fight against each other to obtain greater share of resources. In Indonesian context, there was a progress of paradigm change from all state roles (statism) or government domination to governance that reflects socio‐political interactions among the state functionaries with general public and private sectors in various activities in manifesting the state goals and the state governmental goals based on the 1945 constitution. In the framework of increasing effectiveness of welfare development it is decent to apply participatory policy through dialogue building. This means that in conducting development it is necessary to be based on network of partnership by considering locality in a frame of multiparty communication process, instead of bureaucratic instruction approach. This process is necessary to find shared interest that will, later, become a consensus and build multiparty commitment in improving people’s welfare. In relation to that, we happily welcome ideas and initiatives from the National Institute of Public Administration to hold international conference in the framework of building commitment and capacity of policy entity through sharing of information, knowledge and network expansion with local and ix
foreign policy entity. In this forum it is expected that it is able to create new ideas in developing capacity of policy formulation and networking among all concerned parties. Ladies and Gentlemen, finally, I would like to say: happy attending this conference, hopefully the objectives and the benefits of this conference can be achieved as expected. Thank You. Jakarta, 18 November 2009, Chairman The National Institute of Public Administration The Republic of Indonesia DR. Asmawi Rewansyah, M.Sc. x
CONFERENCE AGENDA D A Y 1 : TUESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2009 10.00 – 12.00 Persiapan Panitia Konferensi 13.00 – 15.00 Registrasi Peserta D A Y 2 : WEDNESDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2009 08.00 – 08.30 Registration 08.30 – 08.40 Opening Remark ‐ Dr. Asmawi Rewansyah, M.Sc. (Chairman of NIPA) 08.40 – 08.50 Keynote Speech – EE. Mangindaan (Menpan dan RB) 08.50 – 09.00 Coffee break 09.00 – 12.00 Plenary Session 1: Isu‐isu pembangunan kesejahteraan (General issues on welfare development) 1. Drs. Desi Fernanda, M.Soc.Sc. (Deputi III ‐ LAN RI) 2. Abdurrahman Syebubakar (UNDP Representative) 3. Jorn Brommelhorster (ADB – Indonesia Resident Mission) 4. Edi Suharto, Ph.D. (STKS Bandung) 5. Moderator: DR. P.M. Marpaung MSc. 12.00 – 13.30 Break session 13.30 – 16.00 Plenary Session 2: Jejaring kebijakan pembangunan kesejahteraan di level lokal, regional, dan global (Policy networking on welfare development at local, regional & global context) 1. Prof. Dr. Bambang Shergi Laksmono (FISIP Universitas Indonesia) 2. Sofyan Wanandi (APINDO) 3. DR. Lowell K. Anderson (LDS Asia Area Public Affairs, Singapore) 4. Moderator: Drs. Awang Anwaruddin, MEd. 16.00 – 16.15 Break session 16.15 – 16.30 Wrap‐up DR. P.M. Marpaung MSc. (Kepala Pusat Kajian Adm.Internasional LAN RI) xi
D A Y 3 : THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2009 08.30 – 09.00 Registration & Coffee Morning 09.00 – 11.00 Plenary Session 3: Pengembangan kapasitas untuk mendorong jejaring kebijakan (Capacity building for promoting policy networking) 1. Dr. H. Sarimun Hadi Saputra (Direktur Eksekutif APEKSI) 2. H. Sujono (Ketua Umum APKASI) 3. Moderator: Drs. Machdum Prijatno, MA 11.00 – 11.30 Wrap‐up Drs. Desi Fernanda, M.Soc.Sc. (Deputi III Lembaga Administrasi Negara RI) 11.30 – 12.00 Closing Session Dr. Asmawi Rewansyah, M.Sc. (Chairman of NIPA) 12‐00 – 13.00 Lunch xii
TERMS OF REFERENCE Nama Kegiatan: Konferensi Internasional Membangun Kapasitas dan Jejaring Kerja Kebijakan untuk Pembangunan Kesejahteraan yang Efektif Latar Belakang: Saat ini Good Governance (GG) sebagai konsep maupun panduan sudah banyak dikaji dan diadvokasikan ke seluruh komponen governance. Sebagai sebuah konsep, GG relatif matang dan diterima (acceptable), namun sayangnya masih belum secara utuh terlembagakan, terinternalisaikan dan teraktualisasikan pada dimensi kebijakan dan pelayanan. Selain itu juga para pelaku kebijakan (eksekutif dan legislatif), pelaku dunia usaha (swasta) dan komponen masyarakat sipil belum solid dan bersinergi dalam pencapaian tujuan negara. Padahal penyelenggaraan negara oleh seluruh komponen pemerintahan (governance) mempunyai salah satu tujuan utama (ultimate goal) untuk mencapai kesejahteraan masyarakat melalui kegiatan pembangunan. Kesejahteraan masyarakat ini hanya dapat tercapai dengan efektif apabila penyelenggaraan pembangunan didukung oleh kebijakan yang berpihak pada peningkatan kesejahteraan masyarakat. Kebutuhan dan aspirasi masyarakat yang dapat diterjemahkan dengan baik dalam berbagai dokumen kebijakan akan dapat menuntun pembangunan secara terarah. Ini berarti bahwa pembangunan hanya dapat diselenggarakan apabila seluruh komponen governance dapat memahami karakter pembangunan yang dinamis, bukan statis. Tentunya ini hanya dapat dimengerti melalui perspektif ekologi. Tidak seperti kebanyakan pembangunan yang dipahami dalam bentuk xiii
konsekuensi (hasil) pembangunan, bukan pada “proses” yang memunculkan hasil tersebut. Tujuan dari pembangunan adalah selain meningkatnya konsumsi dan produksi ekonomi, juga kebebasan, keadilan, keamanan dan integritas dasar manusia. Oleh karenanya pembangunan juga meliputi aspek nilai. Dalam perspektif ekologis yang memperhatikan dinamika internal maupun eksternal, administrasi pembangunan memiliki dua sisi. Pertama yang melibatkan transformasi pembangunan infrastruktur fisik dan non fisik seperti kondisi lingkungan, peningkatan standar pendidikan, perbaikan kesehatan masyarakat, ekspansi produksi ekonomi, konstruksi jalan, bendungani pembangkit tenaga, dan irigasi, konservasi sumber daya alam, dan pemanfaatannya secara lebih efektif. Di sisi lain kegiatan pembangunan oleh pemerintah hanya mungkin dilakukan pada tahap dimana efektifitas administrasi pemerintah dapat ditingkatkan melalui kebijakan yang berpihak kepada masyarakat. Oleh karena itu, perlu adanya kompetensi dan komitmen dari para elit perumus kebijakan untuk bersama‐sama dengan komponen governance lainnya untuk membangun sinergi dan kesepahaman. Di sisi lain, perumusan kebijakan dalam rangka pembangunan suatu negara juga tidak bisa lagi dilepaskan dari pengaruh lingkungan strategis di tingkat kawasan (regional) maupun konstelasi internasional. Dimensi kebijakan yang dominan menjadi ciri kedaulatan sebuah negara harus bisa membuka diri terhadap dinamika lingkungan luar. Sehingga pembelajaran antar negara menjadi penting untuk dilakukan. Selama ini beberapa forum internasional banyak digagas dan sudah berlangsung adalah forum yang hanya mempertemukan pelaku kebijakan secara sektoral, seperti forum antar parlemen sedunia, forum perdagangan internasional dan sebagainya. Hanya sedikit forum yang mempertemukan seluruh pelaku yang mewakili seluruh komponen governance. xiv
Memperhatikan kondisi demikian, Lembaga Administrasi Negara (LAN) c.q. Pusat Kajian Administrasi Internasional (PKAI) menilai adanya urgensi serta kebutuhan akan pentingnya penyelenggaraan sebuah forum internasional yang bisa memfasilitasi pertemuan sekaligus pembelajaran antar seluruh pelaku / praktisi kebijakan, akademisi, pelaku dunia usaha dan komponen masyarakat sipil lainnya. LAN menggagas dan berinisiatif untuk menyelenggarakan konferensi internasional ini dalam rangka membangun komitmen serta meningkatkan kapasitas entitas kebijakan ini melalui sharing informasi, pengetahuan dan perluasan jejaring kerja dengan entitas kebijakan lokal maupun asing. Tujuan Konferensi Secara umum penyelenggaraan konferensi internasional ini bertujuan untuk mengembangkan kapasitas dan jejaring kerja kebijakan pembangunan kesejahteraan yang efektif. Tujuan khusus dari kegiatan konferensi ini adalah : 1. mempertemukan para pelaku kebijakan di tingkat nasional dan daerah dengan, para akademisi, para pelaku di sektor bisnis maupun komponen masyarakat sipil dari berbagai negara terutama kawasan regional Asia. 2. membangun kesepahaman dan sinergitas di antara para praktisi kebijakan dengan stakeholder lainnya yang berkepentingan langsung maupun tidak langsung terhadap kebijakan publik 3. mengembangkan kapasitas praktisi kebijakan melalui sharing informasi dan pengetahuan di antara entitas kebijakan nasional maupun asing. 4. memperluas jejaring kerja kebijakan di tingkat internasional Manfaat 1.
terfasilitasinya forum yang mempertemukan para pelaku kebijakan di tingkat nasional dan daerah dengan, para akademisi, para pelaku di xv
2.
3.
4.
sektor bisnis maupun komponen masyarakat sipil dari berbagai negara terutama kawasan regional Asia. terbangunnya kesepahaman dan sinergitas di antara para praktisi kebijakan dengan stakeholder lainnya yang berkepentingan langsung maupun tidak langsung terhadap kebijakan publik terfasiliasinya pengembangan kapasitas praktisi kebijakan melalui sharing informasi dan pengetahuan di antara entitas kebijakan nasional maupun asing. terfasilitasinya perluasan jejaring kerja kebijakan di tingkat internasional Tema: Tema besar yang diusung pada kegiatan konferensi ini adalah Membangun Kapasitas dan Jejaring Kerja Kebijakan untuk Pembangunan Kesejahteraan yang Efektif. Sedangkan sub tema yang menjadi fokus pada konferensi ini adalah : 1.
2.
3.
General Issues on Welfare Development Policy Networking on Welfare Development at Local, Regional, dan Global Capacity Building for for Promoting Policy Networking Target yang Diharapkan Adapun target yang diharapkan dalam penyelenggaraan konferensi ini adalah terselenggaranya konferensi internasional mengenai pengembangan kapasitas dan jejaring kerja kebijakan dengan mempertemukan para pelaku/praktisi kebijakan (eksekutif dan legislatif), akademisi, pelaku dunia usaha, komponen masyarakat sipil baik dari dalam maupun luar negeri. Forum konferensi ini diharapkan mampu menggagas ide‐ide baru dalam pengembangan kapasitas perumusan kebijakan dan jejaring kerja di antara seluruh pihak yang berkepentingan. xvi
Target lainnya adalah terbukanya kesempatan untuk menyelenggarakan forum lanjutan atau bahkan forum berkala yang bermanfaat dalam menjaga harmoni dan sinergitas yang sudah terbangun, Peserta Konferensi Peserta konferensi pada umumnya adalah stakeholder kebijakan dari berbagai latar belakang profesi dan institusi sebagai berikut: 1. Pelaku kebijakan tingkat nasional maupun lokal (eksekutif dan legislatif) 2. Akademisi/Perguruan Tinggi 3. Pelaku bisnis/kalangan dunia usaha 4. Masyarakat, kelompok kepentingan serta LSM 5. Undangan lainnya xvii
Rekapitulasi Daftar Undangan Jumlah peserta konferensi diperkirakan sebanyak 250 orang yang terkait dengan formulasi dan implementasi kebijakan pembangunan kesejahteraan yang meliputi: 1. Para pejabat struktural dan fungsional dari Lembaga Administrasi Negara 2. Para pejabat struktural dan fungsional dari Departemen, Kementrian Negara, dan Lembaga Pemerintah Non Departemen (LPND) 3. LSM (Dari Jakarta, Jabar, Jateng, DIY, Jatim) 4. Kelompok Masyarakat (Civil Society) 5. BUMN / Perusahaan Swasta 6. Perguruan Tinggi (Negeri & Swasta) 7. Kedutaan Besar & Lembaga Asing di Jakarta 8. Pemerintah Daerah Provinsi, Kabupaten, dan Kota xviii
BIODATA PEMBICARA Drs. Desi Fernanda, M.Soc.Sc I. Data pribadi Nama Lengkap Jabatan Saat Ini : Desi Fernanda : Deputi Bidang Litbang Administrasi Pembangunan dan otomasi Administrasi Negara : Lembaga Administrasi Negara : Jl. Veteran No. 10, Jakarta Pusat : Cimahi, 4 Desember 1958 Instansi Alamat Tempat, Tgl Lahir Mobile/HP : ‐‐‐ E‐mail : ‐‐‐ II. Pengalaman Kerja 2007 – sekarang : Deputi Bidang Litbang APOAN LAN RI 2005 – 2007 : Kepala PKP2A LAN Bandung 2001 – 2005 : Kepala Pusat Kajian Otonomi Daerah LAN 1992 – 2001 : Beberapa Jabatan Eselon III A di LAN Jawa Barat III. Latar Belakang Pendidikan 1992 : Master of Social Science, ILGS‐University of Birmingham, UK 1990 : Dipl Development Administration, ILGS – University of Birmingham, UK 1984 : Sarjana Ekonomi, Jurusan Manajemen, FE‐ UNPAD xix
BIODATA PEMBICARA Jorn Brommelhorster I. Personal Data FullName : Jorn Brommelhorster Current Position : Senior Country Economist Employer : ADB – Indonesia Resident Mission Address : BRI II, 7th Floor, Jl. Jend Sudirman Kav. 44‐46 Jakarta Place & Date of Birth : ‐ Mobile : Office : 021‐2512721 E‐mail : [email protected] II. Working Experience Senior Country Economist, ADB – IRM, since 2008 – present Since 2002 as ADB staff in different departments such as RSDD, SARD, and CWRD III. Education Ruht – University Bochum, Ph.D in Economics xx
BIODATA PEMBICARA Edi Suharto, Ph.D. I. Data pribadi Nama Lengkap Jabatan Saat Ini : Edi Suharto : Pembantu Ketua I Bidang Akademk STKS Instansi : STKS Bandung Alamat : Jl. Rahayu III No.1, Cipaganti Rahayu Regency, Cipamokolan, Bandung Indonesia 40287 Tempat, Tgl Lahir : Majalengka, Indonesia 6 November 1965 Mobile/HP : 081324156999 E‐mail : [email protected] II. Pengalaman Kerja July 2008 – the present: Vice Chairperson for Academic Affairs, Bandung School of Social Welfare, Indonesia November 2008 – November 2009: Policy Fellow at Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI), Budapest Hungary. October 2005 – July 2008: Director, Postgraduate School of Specialist Social Work, Bandung School of Social Welfare, Indonesia.. January – December 2007: Special Expert (consultant) for Ministry of Social Affairs in developing and implementing PKH (Program Keluarga Harapan), a conditional cash transfer scheme developed by Bappenas in cooperation with the World Bank. III. Latar Belakang Pendidikan 1999 – 2002 : PhD in Development Studies, Massey University, New Zealand 1993 – 1994 : Master of Science in Rural and Regional Development Planning, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, Thailand 1985 – 1990 : Bachelor in Social Work, Bandung School of Social Welfare BIODATA PEMBICARA xxi
Prof. Dr. Bambang Shergi Laksmono, M.Sc I. Data pribadi / Personal Data Nama Lengkap : Prof.Dr. Bambang Shergi Laksmono, M.Sc Jabatan Saat Ini : Dekan FISIP ‐ UI Instansi : FISIP Universitas Indonesia Alamat : Kampus UI ‐ Depok Tempat, Tgl Lahir : Rabat (Morocco), 29 Agustus 1961 Mobile/HP : ‐ E‐mail : [email protected] II. Pengalaman Kerja/Working Experience 2008 – sekarang : Dekan Fakultas Ilmu Sosial & Ilmu Politik UI 2007 – 2008 : Pejabat Dekan Fakultas Ilmu Sosial & Ilmu Politik UI 2005 – 2007 : Anggota Senat Akademik UI 2006 – sekarang : Anggota Kelompok Kerja Pakar 1987 – sekarang : Pengajar tetap Dep. Ilmu Kesejahteraan Sosial FISIP UI 2005 – sekarang : Pengajar tidak tetap UIN DIY 2003 : Political Sceninces for National Election Grants Assesment Jakarta III. Latar Belakang Pendidikan/Education 1999 Doktor Sosiologi FISIP UI 1987 MSc in Economy, London School of Economy, University of London 1986 S1 Ilmu Kesejahteraan Sosial FISIP UI xxii
BIODATA PEMBICARA Sofjan Wanandi I. Data pribadi / Personal Data Nama Lengkap : Sofjan Wanandi Jabatan Saat Ini : Ketua Umum Instansi : APINDO Alamat : Plaza GRI Lt. 15, Kuningan, Jakarta Selatan Tempat, Tgl Lahir : Sawah Lunto, 3 Maret 1941 Mobile/HP : 0818767677 E‐mail : ‐ II. Pengalaman Kerja/Working Experience 1999 – present : Chairman Gemala Group 1974 – 1996 : Managing Director Pakarti Yoga Group 1996 – 1999 : President Director Pakarti Yoga Group III. Latar Belakang Pendidikan/Education 1960 – 1961 Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Padjajaran 1962 – 1967 Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia xxiii
BIODATA PEMBICARA H. Sujono I. Data pribadi / Personal Data Nama Lengkap : H. Sujono Jabatan Saat Ini : Ketua Umum APKASI (Asosiasi Pemerintah Kabupaten Seluruh indonesia/ Bupati Pacitan) Instansi/Employer : ‐‐‐ Alamat/Address : Jl. Jaksa Agung Suprapto No. 8 Pacitan Tempat, Tgl Lahir : Pacitan, 1 Januari 1946 Mobile/HP : ‐‐‐ E‐mail : ‐‐‐ II. Pengalaman Kerja/Working Experience 2009 – 2013 : Ketua Umum APKASI 2006 – 2011 : Bupati Pacitan 1985 – 2005 : Direktur PT. Intra Caraka Bidang Kontraktor dan PJTKI 1988 – 2002 : Direktur Utama PT Kresna Sumi Fujindo III. Latar Belakang Pendidikan/Education 2000 – 2004 : Universitas Wiraswasta Indonesia 1971 – 1973 : Kanagawa Advance Vocational Training Centre di Yokohama Jepang 1968 – 1970 : Sekolah Bahasa Jepang Tingkat Advance di Tokyo Jepang 1964 – 1966 : Akademi Pendidikan Teknologi Negeri (APTN) xxiv
BIODATA PEMBICARA Dr. H. Sarimun Hadisaputra, M.Si I. Data pribadi Nama Lengkap : Dr. H. Sarimun Hadisaputra, M.Si Jabatan Saat Ini : Direktur Eksekutif APEKSI Instansi : APEKSI Alamat : Jl. Jagakarsa II No. 36, Jakarta Selatan Tempat, Tgl Lahir : Kebumen, 18 Desember 1948 Mobile/HP : ‐ E‐mail : ‐ II. Pengalaman Kerja/Working Experience 2008 – sekarang : Direktur Eksekutif APEKSI 2007 – 2011 : Sekretaris Citynet Indonesia 2007 : Direktur Pusat Studi dan Kajian Pemerintah Daerah, Universitas Satyagama 2004 – 2009 : Ketua Harian DPP Perhimpunan Anak Transmigran RI (PATRI) 2006 – 2011 : Ketua Kehormatan Paguyuban Sosial Marga Tionghoa Indonesia III. Latar Belakang Pendidikan/Education 199 S1 : STIA‐LAN Jakarta 1998
S2 : Magister Manajemen IPWI 1999
S2 : Magister Manajemen Ilmu Pemerintahan Universitas 2000
Satyagama 2001
Doktor (S3) : Ilmu Manajemen Pemerintahan xxv
SEKILAS MENGENAI LAN VISI DAN MISI Visi : Institusi berkualitas internasional dalam kajian kebijakan, pembangunan sistem administrasi negara, dan penyelenggaraan pendidikan dan pelatihan aparatur negara, dalam rangka mewujudkan kepemerintahan yang baik. Misi : Memberikan kontribusi nyata dalam pembangunan aparatur negara melalui pengembangan penelitian, pelayanan informasi, kajian kebijakan, konsultasi serta pendidikan dan pelatihan, dalam bidang ilmu pengetahuan dan sistem administrasi negara yang dilakukan secara interdisipliner sesuai posisi, tantangan nasional, internasional, peran, dan tanggung jawab aparatur dalam sistem penyelenggaraan pemerintahan negara. KEDUDUKAN (SK Kepala LAN No.4/2004) 1. Lembaga Administrasi Negara, selanjutnya disebut LAN, adalah Lembaga Pemerintah Pusat yang dibentuk untuk melaksanakan tugas pemerintahan tertentu dari Presiden; 2. LAN berada di bawah dan xxvi
VISION AND MISSION
Vision :
Becoming an internationally standard institution in policy studies, public administration system development, and education and training for the government apparatus in order to create good governance. Mission :
Providing a significant contribution for enhancing competence and productivity of the government apparatus through research and development, information services, policy studies, consultancy, as well as education and training in public administration with interdisciplinary approach in line with the position, national challenges, international, roles and responsibilities of the government apparatus in the governance system. STATUS
1. The National Institute of Public Administration, here‐in‐after is called LAN, is a Central Government Agency established to carry out certain government tasks assigned by the President; bertanggungjawab kepada Presiden; 3. Dalam melaksanakan tugasnya, LAN dikoordinasikan oleh Menteri yang bertanggung jawab di bidang pendayagunaan aparatur negara; 4. LAN dipimpin oleh Kepala. 2. LAN serves immediately under and directly responsible to the President; 3. In performing its duty, LAN is under the coordination of the Ministry who is responsible for Government Apparatus Empowerment; 4. LAN is led by a Chairman. SEJARAH SINGKAT LAN BRIEF HISTORY OF NIPA Lembaga Administrasi Negara The National Institute of Public didirikan dengan Peraturan Administration (LAN) was Pemerintah No. 30 Tahun 1957 established through Government tertanggal 6 Agustus 1957 dan Regulation No. 30, 1957 dated selanjutnya susunan organisasi August 6, 1957, and then its organization structure and field of serta lapangan tugasnya diatur duties were stipulated in the Prime dalam Surat Keputusan Perdana Ministerial Decree No. Menteri No. 283/P.M./1957. 283/P.M./1957. The establishment of LAN was Pendirian Lembaga Administrasi especially driven by the very urgent Negara pada waktu itu terutama need for government employees, didorong oleh kebutuhan particularly for those occupying Pemerintah yang sangat mendesak leadership positions in the akan pegawai negeri, lebih‐lebih government apparatus, who yang menduduki jabatan‐jabatan require competence and skills in pimpinan dalam aparatur the fields of administration and pemerintah, akan kecakapan dan management to support them in ketrampilan dalam bidang administrasi dan manajemen yang performing their duties. In akan mendukung kemampuannya addition, the system of government administration, which dalam melaksanakan tugasnya. was still based on the Disamping itu sistem administrasi administration system left by both pemerintah yang pada saat itu the Dutch and Japanese Military masih berpangkal pada sistem government, was felt unsuitable to administrasi peninggalan Hindia the needs of the government Belanda dan pemerintah bala xxvii
tentara Jepang, kondisi seperti itu administration in the independent state of the Republic of Indonesia. dirasakan tidak sesuai dengan kebutuhan administrasi pemerintah It was therefore necessary to carry dalam negara Republik Indonesia out research and development of yang merdeka. Oleh karena itu government administration, which diperlukan adanya usaha penelitian was more suitable to conditions in dan pengembangan administrasi Indonesia as an independent state. pemerintah yang lebih sesuai dengan keadaan di Indonesia sebagai suatu negara yang merdeka. Walaupun pendirian dan Eventhough the establishment and status of LAN had been legally kedudukan Lembaga Administrasi stipulated by the issuance of Negara secara yuridis telah Government Regulation No. 30, ditetapkan dengan dikeluarkannya 1957, it was only truly realized and Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 30 Tahun 1957, tetapi baru benar‐
began to perform its activities on May 5, 1958 with the appointment benar direalisasikan dan mulai of Prof. Dr. Prajudi Atmosudirdjo, melakukan kegiatannya sejak tanggal 5 Mei 1958 dengan SH as the first Director of LAN. diangkatnya Prof. Dr. Prajudi Atmosudirdjo, SH sebagai Direktur Lembaga Administrasi Negara yang pertama. In the following periods, it was Dalam masa‐masa selanjutnya, then considered necessary to dipandang perlu untuk adjust the duty, function and the menyesuaikan tugas pokok, fungsi structure of the organization of dan susunan organisasi Lembaga LAN demanded by the national Administrasi Negara dengan development. Therefore, by tuntutan perkembangan jaman. Government Regulation No. 5 Year Oleh karena itu dengan Peraturan 1971, Government Regulation No. Pemerintah Nomor 5 Tahun 1971, dicabutlah Peraturan Pemerintah 30 Year 1957 was revoked. Since Nomor 30 Tahun 1957 dan sejak then the organization of LAN has been stipulated by Presidential saat itu organisasi Lembaga Administrasi Negara diatur dengan Decree. The first Presidential xxviii
Keputusan Presiden (Keppres). Keppres pertama adalah Keppres No. 5 Tahun 1971. Di samping itu dalam rangka menghadapi era globalisasi Pemerintah telah mengeluarkan kebijakan restrukturisasi organisasi LPND, sebagaimana terakhir ditetapkan dalam Keppres No. 103 Tahun 2001 tentang Kedudukan, Tugas, Fungsi, Kewenangan, Susunan Organisasi dan Tata Kerja LPND, selanjutnya pemerintah mengeluarkan kembali Keppres Nomor 110 Tahun 2001 tentang Unit Organisasi dan Tugas Eselon I LPND sebagaimana telah beberapa kali diubah, terakhir dengan Peraturan Presiden Nomor 64 Tahun 2005 tentang Perubahan keenam atas Keppres Nomor 103 tahun 2001. Dengan adanya restrukturisasi LPND tersebut, LAN melakukan penyesuaian ke dalam dengan melakukan perubahan terhadap tugas pokok, fungsi, susunan organisasi dan tata kerja yang diatur berdasarkan Keputusan Kepala LAN Nomor 4 Tahun 2004 tentang Organisasi dan Tata Kerja Lembaga Administrasi Negara yang telah diubah dengan Keputusan Kepala LAN Nomor 10 Tahun 2004. DASAR HUKUM (SK Kepala LAN No.4/2004) Decree was Presidential Decree No. 5 Year 1971. Furthermore, in bracing itself to the globalisation era, the Government has issued a policy on the organizational restructurisation of Non‐Department Agencies through Presidential Decree No. 103 Year 2001 on the Status, Duty, Functions, Authority, Organi‐zation and Management of Non‐
Department Agencies. After that, Presidential Decree No 110 Year 2001 on Organisation and Tasks of Echelon I of Non‐Department Agencies was issued, which after several changes has been renewed with Presidential Regulation No. 64 Year 2005 concerning the Sixth Revision of Presidential Decree No 103 Year 2001. In line with this development, LAN has also made some adjustment to its duties, functions, structure of organization and management. The organization and management of LAN is further stipulated in LAN Chairman Decree No. 4 Year 2004 on Orgazation and Management of NIPA which has been renewed with Chairman Decree No. 10 Year 2004. xxix
LEGAL BASIS
Lembaga Administrasi Negara didirikan pada tahun 1957 berdasarkan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 30 Tahun 1957. Pada saat ini LAN diatur oleh: 1. Keppres Nomor 103 Tahun 2001 tentang Kedudukan, Tugas, Fungsi, Kewenangan, Susunan Organisasi dan Tata Kerja LPND, sebagaimana telah beberapa kali diubah, terakhir dengan Perpres Nomor 64 Tahun 2005, dan 2. Keppres Nomor 110 Tahun 2001 tentang Unit Organisasi dan Tugas Eselon I LPND sebagaimana telah beberapa kali diubah, terakhir dengan Perpres Nomor 52 Tahun 2005. TUGAS (SK Kepala LAN No.4/2004) LAN mempunyai tugas melaksanakan tugas pemerintahan di bidang administrasi negara sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang‐undangan yang berlaku. FUNGSI DAN KEWENANGAN (SK Kepala LAN No.4/2004) Dalam melaksanakan tugas, LAN menyelenggarakan fungsi : a. pengkajian dan penyusunan kebijakan nasional tertentu di xxx
The National Institute of Public Administration was established in 1957 based on the Government Regulation No. 30 Year 1957. At present the management of LAN is stipulated in: 1. Presidential Decree No. 103 Year 2001 on the Status, Duty, Functions, Authority, Structure of Organization and Management of Non‐
Department Agencies which after several changes, has been renewed finally with Presidential Regulation Nomor 64 Year 2005; and 2. Presidential Decree No 110 Year 2001 on Organization and Tasks of Echelon I Non‐
Government Agencies which after several changes, has been renewed finally with Presidential Regulation No 52 Year 2005. MAIN DUTY
LAN’s duty is carrying out a series of government tasks in the field of public administration as stipulated in respective laws and regulations. FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITY b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
bidang administrasi negara; pengkajian kinerja kelembagaan dan sumber daya apa‐ratur dalam rangka pembangunan administrasi negara dan peningkatan kualitas sumber daya aparatur; pengkajian dan pengembangan manajemen kebijakan dan pelayanan di bidang pembangunan administrasi negara; penelitian dan pengembangan administrasi pembangunan dan otomasi administrasi negara; pembinaan dan penyeleng‐
garaan pendidikan dan pelatihan aparatur negara; koordinasi kegiatan fungsional dalam pelaksanaan tugas LAN; fasilitasi dan pembinaan terhadap kegiatan instansi pemerintah di bidang administrasi negara; penyelenggaraan pembinaan dan pelayanan administrasi umum di bidang perencanaan umum, ketatausahaan, organisasi dan tata laksana, kepegawaian, keuangan, kearsipan, hukum, persandian, dan rumah perlengkapan tangga. xxxi
In performing its duty, LAN has the functions of : a. conducting research and development and formulating a set of national policies in the field of public administration; b. studying the performance of the government apparatus and institutions in the frame of public administration development and improving the quality of the government apparatus; c. conducting research and development on policy and public service management in the field of public administration development; d. conducting research and development in development administration and automation of public administration; e. fostering and organizing education and training for the government apparatus; f. coordinating functional activities in carrying out the duties of LAN. g. facilitating and fostering the activities of government institutions in the field of public administration; h. fostering and carrying out general administration services in the field of general planning, administrative matters, organization and management, personnel, finance, archive Dalam menyelenggarakan fungsinya, LAN mempunyai kewenangan: a. penyusunan rencana nasional secara makro dibidangnya; b. perumusan kebijakan di bidangnya untuk mendukung pembangunan secara makro; c. penetapan sistem informasi di bidangnya; d. kewenangan lain sesuai dengan ketentuan per‐aturan perundang‐undangan yang berlaku yaitu: 1) perumusan dan pelaksanaan kebijakan tertentu di bidang administrasi negara; 2) penyusunan standar dan pedoman penyeleng‐garaan dan pelaksanaan pendidikan dan pelatihan fungsional dan penjenjangan tertentu serta pemberian akreditasi dan sertifikasi di bidangnya. xxxii
laws, coding, households and logistics. In performing its functions, LAN has the authority in : a. designing macro national plan in the field of public administration; b. formulating policies in its respective field to support the macro national development; c. stipulating information system in its respective field; d. other authority in line with the respective laws and regulations such as: 1) certain policy formulation and implementation in the field of public administration; 2) designing standardization and a handbook for organizing and implementing functional and certain structural education and training as well as providing accreditation and certification in its respective field. PUSAT KAJIAN ADMINISTRASI INTERNASIONAL Center for International Administration Studies “Serving the knowledge and wisdom in International Administration” CIAS IN BRIEF
SEKILAS PKAI Center for International Pusat Kajian Administrasi Administration Studies (CIAS) was Internasional (PKAI) ditetapkan stipulated based on the berdasarkan Keputusan Presiden Presidential Decree No.8/1999. Nomor 8/1999. PKAI berkedudukan CIAS is under Deputy III in the field di bawah Kedeputian III Bidang of Research and Development Penelitian dan Pengembangan Administration and Public Administrasi Pembangunan dan Administration Automation of Otomasi Administrasi Negara, LAN. NIPA. The main task and functions Tugas Pokok dan Fungsi PKAI adalah of CIAS is to conduct comparative pengkajian perbandingan studies on development administrasi pembangunan untuk administration in order to identify mengidentifikasi dan meningkatkan and improve the national posisi daya saing nasional dan perekonomian Regional dan global, competitiveness in the regional and serta kerjasama regional dan global economy, as well as to internasional. evaluate regional and international cooperation. OUR PARTNERS MITRA KERJA Public Organizations: Organisasi Publik : Departments, Non‐ Department Instansi Pemerintah Pusat dan Institutions, Local Government Daerah, dan lainnya (Pemprov, Pemkab/Pemkot) and Other Related Organizations. Eksternal Stakeholders : External Stakeholders: Sekretariat ASEAN, CIFOR, UNDP, Various Partners from other berbagai Negara mitra kerjasama dan Countries and International organisasi internasional, dan lainnya. Organizations. xxxiii
PRODUK KAJIAN (OUR PRODUCT S): 1. Kemanfaatan (Values) Kemanfaatan Organisasi Internasional ‐ Values of International Organization 2. Manajemen (Management) a. Manajemen Pengeluaran Publik di Berbagai Negara & Perbandingannya dengan Indonesia ‐ Public Expenditure Management in Several Countries & Its Comparison with Indonesia b. Pengelolaan Aset Daerah di Berbagai Negara ‐ Local Asset Management in Several Countries c. Manajemen Wilayah Perbatasan Negara‐ Border Management d. Implementasi Penataan Kewenangan Pemerintah Pusat & Daerah di Berbagai Negara ‐ Central & Local Government Authority Arrangement e. Evaluasi Pengelolaan Sister City antara Kota‐Kota di Indonesia dengan Kota‐Kota di Luar Negeri ‐ Evaluation on Sister‐City Management f. Pengembangan Check & Balances System dalam Berbagai Tataran Penyelenggaraan Pemerintahan Negara ‐ Development of Check & Balances System 3. Ekonomi & Investasi (Economy & Investment) a. Foreign Direct Investment dalam Perekonomian Daerah di Berbagai Negara ‐ Foreign Direct Investment in Regional Economy b. Model Vitalisasi UKM ‐ Vitalization Model of SME’s c. Kebijakan Pengelolaan Sektor Informal Perkotaan di beberapa Negara Asia ‐ Policy on Urban‐Informal Sector Management d. Strategi Kebijakan Sistem Insentif Penanaman Modal dalam dan Luar Negeri di Daerah Dalam Perspektif Daya Saing Global ‐ Policy Strategy on Investment Incentive Systems 4. Analisis Kebijakan (Policy Analysis) a. Analisis Kebijakan Pengembangan Sistem Keterjaminan Sosial (Social Security) menuju Masyarakat Madani ‐ Policy Analysis on Development of Social Security System b. Revitalisasi Kebijakan Sektor Primer dalam Rangka Pemberdayaan Masyarakat & Peningkatan Daya Saing ‐ Revitalizing Policy on Primary Sector to Empowering Society & Enhancing Competitiveness xxxiv
5. Strategi (Strategy) a. Strategi Kebijakan Penempatan & Perlindungan Pekerja Migran di Beberapa Negara ‐ Policy Strategy on Placement & Protection of Migrant Workers b. Strategi Negara‐Negara ASEAN dalam Menghadapi AFTA ‐ ASEAN Strategies on Facing AFTA c. Advokasi dan Pelembagaan Norma Keswadayaan Masyarakat (Good Societal Governance) dalam Rangka Pengelolaan Good Governance ‐ Advocation and Institutionalization of Good Societal Governance towards Good Governance 6. Kerjasama (Cooperation) a. Kerjasama Bidang Perlindungan Tenaga Kerja ‐ Cooperation in Labour Protection b. Kerjasama dalam Penanganan Migran ‐ Cooperation in Handling Migrants c. Kerjasama dalam Penanganan Pencemaran Udara Akibat Kebakaran Hutan ‐ Cooperation in Handling Air Polution d. Kerjasama Antar Negara ASEAN dalam Pelaksanaan Open Sky Policy ‐ ASEAN Cooperation in Implementing Open Sky Policy e. Kerjasama Penangananan Masalah Keamanan Selat Malaka ‐ Cooperation in Handling Malacca Security f. Kerjasama dalam menangani Pelintas Batas di Kepulauan Riau ‐ Cooperation in Handling Cross‐Border in Riau Islands g. Kerjasama dalam Pembangunan Kawasan Perbatasan di Sulawesi Utara dalam Rangka Mencegah Kerawanan Sosial ‐ Cooperation in Developing Border Area in North Sulawesi 7. Perbandingan (Comparison) a. Perbandingan Model Pembangunan Masyarakat Daerah di Berbagai Negara dalam Rangka Pelaksanaan Otonomi Daerah ‐ Comparison of Local Community Development Model b. Perbandingan Pengelolaan Badan Usaha Milik Negara di Negara‐
Negara ASEAN ‐ Comparison on Management of State‐owned Companies in ASEAN c. Kajian & Perbandingan Model Pengelolaan Infrastruktur di Beberapa Negara ‐ Comparative Study on Infrastructure Management d. Komparasi Implementasi Kebijakan Manajemen Otonomi Pendidikan ‐ Comparison on Policy Implementation of Education Autonomy Management e. Strategi Pemberantasan Korupsi di Negara‐Negara Asia Pasifik ‐ xxxv
Corruption Eradication Strategy in Asia‐Pacific Countries f. Model Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam rangka Meningkatkan Kualitas Pelayanan Dasar di Negara‐Negara Asia Pasifik ‐ Citizens Participation Model in order to Enhance the Quality of Basic Service in Asia‐Pacific Countries SUMBER DAYA MANUSIA (HUMAN RESOURCES) 1. Pakar (Experts) a. Desi Fernanda (Development Administration) b. PM. Marpaung (Human Resources Management, Education Training) c. A. Rina Herawati (Strategic Management, Development Organization) d. Widhi Novianto (Service Management, Organizational Performance) e. Yogi Suwarno (Innovation in the Public Sector, Public Administration) 2. Staf Pendukung (Administrative Staff) a. Reniwati b. Tri Murwaningsih c. Suhartati KAJIAN/KEGIATAN SAAT INI (CURRENT STUDIES/ACTIVITIES) a. Kajian Efektivitas Kemitraan pemerintah dan Swasta (Public Private xxxvi
Partnership) dalam Rangka Meningkatkan Kesejahteraan Rakyat – Study on Public Private Partnership Effectiveness in order to Increase Welfare b. Survey Efektivitas Kebijakan Perekonomian Daerah dalam Rangka Percepatan Pembangunan Ekonomi Daerah – Survey on Local Economic Policy in order to Accelerate Local Economy Development c. International Conference on Building Capacity and Policy Networking for Effective welfare Development KAJIAN/KEGIATAN MENDATANG (FUTURE STUDIES/ACTIVITIES) a. Pengembangan Kapasitas Pengelolaan Ekonomi Daerah dalam rangka Percepatan Pembangunan Ekonomi Daerah – Capacity Building in Managing Local Economy in order to Accelerate Local Economy Development b. Kajian Membangun Pendekatan Global Governance dan Efektivitasnya dalam Sinergi Penanganan Isu‐isu Global – Study on Global Governance Approach and Its Effectiveness in Synergic Managing Global Issues JASA / LAYANAN (OUR SERVICES) a. Kajian – Research Studies b. Seminar & Lokakarya – Seminars / Workshops c. Konsultansi Manajemen – Management Consultancy d. Asistensi – Technical Assistance e. Pertukaran Pakar – Experts Exchange Further Inquiry: LEMBAGA ADMINISTRASI NEGARA RI Pusat Kajian Administrasi Internasional Jl. Veteran 10 Jakarta 10110 Tel (021) 3455021‐5 ext 133, 135, 138 Facs (021) 3504658 www.lan.go.id www.pkai.org xxxvii
Building Capacity and Policy Networking for Effective Welfare Development Background Paper Desi Fernanda Deputy of P2APOAN I.
Background F
or more than six decades of its independence, Indonesia has been going through various up and down periods, particularly in terms of political sense and the dynamic of economic life. As the most densely inhabited country in the region, even the fourth largest of the world, with quite large natural resources, Indonesia has surely lots of strengths and opportunities to optimalize in developing its economy and prosperity. Hence, natural resources would not be enough as the only basic capital for the development. Achieving welfare for the people thoughout nation is principally the ultimate goal of government’s work in running development. It has been clearly mandated in basic constitution of UUD 1945. As the constitution gives official mandate to any person or regime in power to utilize its all resources to generate economy in order to achieve high welfare nationwide, it is apparently quite difficult to say what has been achieved so far is satisfactory, particularly when compared with neighbouring countries’s achievements. Some successful stories which come along with some of failures has been a dynamic picture of the development of Indonesia. Some influencing factors seemingly support the process, while unfortunately some other harmful factors are inevitable. Therefore this welfare achievement is seemingly a long way to go. Clearly this is not an unsatisfied expression without any reasons. Some worldwide well‐recognized indicators have shown this condition, e.g. 1 HDI released annually by UNDP, including Human Poverty Index, Global competitiveness index, e‐readiness index, Economic Freedom Index by Heritage Foundation, not to mention annual GNP per capita released by many institution, as well as many other related indicators. One of the most recognized indicator is HDI. In 20071 Indonesia’s index has achieved 0,734 which is ranked 111 out of 182 surveyed countries. Compared to neighbouring countries, Indonesia is relatively belonged to below rank. Singapura, for instance, ranked 23 (HDI 0,944), while Brunei Darussalam ranked 30 (HDI 0,920), and Malaysia rank 66 (HDI 0,829). Meanwhile Thailand stays at 86 (HDI 0,783), and the Philippines ranked 105 (HDI 0,751). In this regard, HDI of Indonesia is fortunately still better than what Vietnam and Laos have, which ranked 116 and 133. This HDI index achievement is also actually below on average among East Asian countries. Nevertheless this achievement is pretty much better above average in Asia‐Pacific region. Tha’s why it is categorized as medium position. The other popular indicator would be a global competitiveness index (GCI) which is annually published by World Economic Forum (WEF). According to the last report, in 2009‐2010 Indonesia is ranked 54 out of 133 surveyed nations. This is a slight improvement in terms of rank from the last year, but actually the score remains the same at 4,32. Surely there must be several reasons for this such disappointing achievement. Not only the huge numbers of population, and the large size of scattered‐thousand islands, but also some other factors contributing onto this condition. In this regard, blaming this miserable condition on such endowment is definitely not smart. We need to be more honest, and looking at the root of the problems, and finding out what causes these, and then trying to figure out the right approach to overcome such condition. Although it wouldn’t be an easy things to do. Looking at this condition as a complicated one, our hypothesis lead to the belief that the root of all of this might be the policy problem. This policy problem could be related to either the content or the context. That’s 1
2
Human Development Index (HDI) Report, 2009.
World Economic Forum (WEF) Report, 2009.
2 why, one of the primary concern would be the importance role of policymaker in making policy responding to what public has been demanding, as well as some challenging environments. II.
Development Policy of Indonesia in Brief A big question which usually occurred in terms of economic development in many less developed countries is when will they reach prosperity?. So far, there are many theories explaining this condition and trying to give solution. Unfortunately, only few of them succeed in implementing it. South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (SAR) could be the best examples of it, not to mention Singapore and even now Malaysia. In the case of Indonesia, we might say that Indonesia has achieved certain achievement, which is to some degree may look not really good, particularly when compared with neighboring countries achievement. The development in a broad sense in Indonesia actually started from the economic policy of President Soekarno—the founding father of Indonesia—by nationalizing all Dutch companies without any compensation at all3. The policy just regulated to take over the ownership of all Dutch companies to become state‐owned enterprises. This nationalization policy gave the first capital to government to run the economy development. Due to political fight at elite level and some international influences especially because of the change of geo‐politics in South‐East Asia region, this economic program had never been done completely. As a result Indonesia had the worst period of economy compared with other Asian countries. Policy has been a major tool in determining many areas of development in Indonesia, particularly since New‐Order regime into power in early 1960’s. In the past, for instance, policies in economy area, well‐
3
Later on, it would be a problem, when Soeharto took place the national leadership, Dutch
government asked for compensation of what Soekarno had been done to all Dutch
companies. According to the international business law, Indonesia should pay compensation
to The Dutch government which almost near 600 millions gulden as did they nationalized
those companies. Because of low bargaining power and big pressure from outside,
Soeharto’s administration decide to pay without any complaint at all. For over 30 years,
Indonesia had been transferring those amount of money to the Dutch government.
3 known as planned‐development. It has been more than four decades since the first planning programmed by government so‐called Repelita in late 1969. Under New‐Order regime, the Repelita had persistently been done multi‐years, up to as the development in Indonesia has been going through. Under Soeharto’s regime, Indonesia was one of the countries which have highest economic growth in Asia. The authority invited many foreign investors from all over the world to invest their money there. At that time, investment in Indonesia was promising a lot, considering strong political stability, high economic growth, cheap labors, and conducive investment policy. Indeed, those instruments proved the feasibility of Indonesian economy. At least, based on what’s written on the paper or statistical data, it had reached amazing economic level. At the first time, the idea was actually good, that was to create single powerful economic source to be a locomotive of the rest sectors. It was expected that it would bring a continuous growth and prosperity together. In reality, unfortunately this policy limited the distribution of wealth over the nation. In fact, money, capital, qualified human resources, and other economic resources were centralized in Jakarta only. Expected growth sources had never been created. What happened then was the huge disparity of economy between central and local regions. At this point, it can be considered that the foundation of economy was not established well. Since the foundation of economy was relatively weak, when monetary crisis struck Thailand in the middle of 1997 and spread through other Asian countries, Indonesia could not avoid the wave of crisis. And all of sudden, those glorious economic performances felt down drastically. Referring to Rosenstein‐Rodan theory4, the big push of investment has been actually implemented in Indonesia. However, this theory—
somehow—ignores policy making process and possibility of local authority attitudes. It was shown when Indonesia received many investments, in a short term it seemed there was nothing wrong with that, but later then, because of poor policy and “bad” attitude of the authority, it could not work well. 4
Colman, David & Fredrick Nixson. Economics of Change in Less Developed Countries.
1978.
4 Slightly different from big push theory, a theory of balanced growth by Ragnar Nurkse5 focus on forced savings through an increase in taxes on upper‐income recipients. This theory is quite difficult to be implemented, especially in Indonesian case, where popularity of policy becomes first priority rather than “good” policy. Again, it depends on local condition, for some reason, the authority prefers to have popular policy—no matter how bad it is—in order to keep the power on their hands, rather than to make good policy which might be not popular. Taxes is a sensitive issue in Indonesia, considering the real economic capability of people or industry sector. Increasing taxes will pull the trigger of social conflict and other shapes of protest. Since Indonesian economy depends on natural resources such as oil and gas for a long time, it should start to change this dependency to another sector which is—in this case—tax optimalization. This major change can only be well‐implemented as long as there is strong political will from political elites and bureaucracy itself. Perhaps what Hirschman 6 tried to pattern industrial linkages is closely feasible to implement. Although the idea of decreasing costs to stimulate upstream investments will meet some difficulties in market system, it is worth it as long as it can gain valuable outputs. Some of Lewis’s7 surplus labor model can be adopted in order to link agriculture sector with modern capitalist sector. Furthermore, this model gives opportunity to transfer some of the labor from agriculture sector to industry. The only thing that being left by Lewis is when the unlimited supply of labor was finally depleted. Since then, there is an explanation that the objective of the transformation of the economy would have been achieved, and everything dealing with standard of living, prosperity and so on had been improved. In Indonesian case, in the past, transformation of labor from one sector to another happened because of economy centralization. After the local autonomy act and balance of central and local 5
Colman, David & Fredrick Nixson. op.cit.
Cypher, James M. & James L. Dietz. The Process of Economic Development. 1997.
7
Kirkpatrick, Colin & Armando Barientos, The Lewis Model After Fifty Years. 2004.
6
5 finance act implemented, the trend of labor transformation spread to several regions which has high economic potency. The last one is Rostow’s stages of growth8. The stages trying to describe comprehensively “step by step” of the development process from the beginning to the end. To some degree, this stages is an explaining model for well done development only, and ignoring other variables which might be occurred. In fact, external environment influences a lot to the development process, not to mention the unexpected variables. As we knew then, World Bank and IMF took action to prevent the spread of Asian crisis by assisting the crisis‐afflicted country’s government with some economic recovery program and fund as well. These two financial institutions plan were welcomed and soon implemented. The formulation of recovery consists of: 1. privatizing and liberalizing the economy, including liberalizing import controls, capital markets, reducing financial and legal safety nets for business. 2. rescheduling existing debt 3. decreasing government spending by ending subsidies, and allowing market to regulate the price, laying off workers, reducing education, reducing health expenditure. 4. increasing export by devaluing the currency, improving the terms of investments, reducing or freeze wages, and reducing worker power. Since the increasing pressures come from international and even from inside the country, the government, in this case, had no choice but implemented all of sudden at once, without considering some social impacts which might be occurred. Of course, this recovery program aimed to improve the macro level of economy, to balance and strengthen the foundation of economy, but in the other hand, in grass root level, there were a huge disappointment and decreasing trust of the public. This condition had led Indonesia to a dilemma, in running the program. The biggest problem was how to provide—at least—basic need 8
Rostow, Walt Whitman. The stages of economic growth: a non-communist manifesto.
1960.
6 for people with affordable price. Since the government should end subsidies and allow the market to regulate the price, it was difficult to make the price affordable or even low. From time to time, there were increasing level of price of any kind of goods. Once the government released the price of oil, then it led a domino effect to other good’s price. As Robert Wade (2000) said that many millions of people who were confident of middle class status feel robbed of their life time savings and security. Public expenditures of all kinds have been cut, creating “social deficits” that match the economic and financial ones9. This “unpopular” policy taken by at least four different regimes, starting from Soeharto’s (the end of his leadership period), Habibie’s, Wahid’s and Megawati’s. at the same time, this policy invited antipathy and public apathy. At the same time, Indonesian government succeed to convince these financial institutions to continue the recovery program by injecting liquid funds. Economic performance had seemed to be entered cyclical period, when sometimes it is up and down in a short interval of time. Unlike Indonesia, from the beginning the Malaysian government refuses international assistance, and tried to strengthen their economy by implementing some tight policy. They relied on their own rule and power. And somehow, this policy brought Malaysia into a better condition, compared with other crisis‐afflicted Asian countries. When President SBY came into power for the first time in 2004, political environment was such a free and market‐driven society. Political awareness among public from all level has been increasing so enormous, supported mainly by increasing‐press industry. At that time mass media had started playing important role in developing such awareness. This condition has led to different mechanism of how public policy should be formulated. Government and its traditional political supporters is no longer the only power in, particularly, formulating policy. III.
Revisiting Good Governance 9
Wade, Robert. Governing The Market: A Decade Later. 2000.
7 Why do we need to start from good governance? First, we know that this term has been a major issue in recent years. But mostly scholars talk about good governance in relation to the enforcement of transparency, accountability, and many other things that is attached to governmental side. It means that the mindset of most of us always mislead to misunderstand of proper distribution of role for each component of governance. Thus, secondly, policy process will not involve governmental side only, but also the other policy stakeholders. Later on, we will briefly elaborated which of those who belong to policy stakeholders. Certainly there is no doubt that government in all levels‐would be the primary institution which is in charge to make it happen. However, in doing so, government could not solely play this role, and ignoring its environments. Such environments like political institutions, business sector, elements of civil society, and many other parties have shown their increased contribution over time. Collaboration of all parties in running the country is now unavoidable, and is actually needed. That’s why the term of government, which dominated in the past, is now noticeably shifting to what so‐called governance, a form of collaborated working parties. World Bank 10 , for instance, had introduced principles of good governance; accountability, transparency, predictability, and participation. Meanwhile Bappenas has developed its own version of good governance principles, which consists of (1) participation, (2) law enforcement, (3) transparency, (4) stakeholder‐driven, (5) consensus oriented, (6) equality, (7) effectiveness and efficiency, (8) accountability, and (9) strategic vision. Above all, for us, the basic idea of good governance is to reduce the strong power of the state and give more spaces to both private sector and civil society to play their roles respectively. Governance is about how to manage resources in participative, effective and efficient ways, in accordance with responding public needs. Governance is not a model of running a country wherein the state is the only player there. The state has primary stakeholders to deal with, as they need to cooperate each other. 10
World Bank, World Development Report 1997: The State in Changing World. 1997.
8 Good governance is meaningful when it contributes to the process of achieving nation’s goal. According to UNDP, Sound governance is...... wherein public resources and problems are managed effectively, efficiently and in response to critical needs of society (UNDP, 2002). This is related to what Kooiman’s statement (1999) which is saying that governance can be seen as all of those interactive arrangements in which public as well as private actors participate aimed at solving societal problems, or creating societal opportunities, and attending to the institutions in which these governing activities take place.
In the case of Indonesia, the paradigm shift from “statism” or government‐centered model to “governance” paradigm represents the dynamic of social‐political interaction among public sector, private sector and the citizens in accordance with the effort of achieving nation’s goal and governmental goals, based on our consitution (Fernanda, 2008). In fact, the term of good governance as either a concept or a guidance has been extensively explored and advocated to all governance components. As a concept, the term is academically well‐established and widely recognized by all parties. Unfortunatelly it is apparently less institutionalized, internalized, actualized in policy and service dimensions. Hence, in nation wide, this good governance movement has been one of major issues carried out by most central government institutions. As a matter of fact, most of government institutions entitle good governance program to their annual program or activity. It means that every program undertaken by those institution is regarded as part of developing good governance as a whole. Meanwhile, in accordance with autonomy implementation, good governance is also translated into local governance activities. Local parties are encouraged to develop their respective roles in order to support and develop their good “local” governance. On the other hand, policy actors (executive and legislative), including other policy stakeholders from business community, and civil society components are not solid enough and synergized in achieving nation’s goal. As a matter of fact, running the nation by all governance components has an ultimate goal that is to achieve people’s welfare 9 through development activities. People’s welfare can only be achieved effectively when the development process is supported by pro‐welfare policy. In other words, the needs and aspirations of people can be best translated through a good policy guiding development process well. As a well‐known concept, up to now, there are two popular kinds of good governance understanding namely “good public governance” (GPG) which is related to the emphasize of public sector and its governmental side, and “good corporate governance” (GCG) which is strongly emphasizing governance issues within business community. Apart from those two well‐recognized concepts of good governance and its various perspectives, National Institute of Public Administration, so‐
called NIPA in 2008 had initiated to conduct research on the other component of good governance. At the end, NIPA introduced the third form of governance, which is so‐called good societal governance (GSG). In this regard, NIPA emphasize civil society as the third sector and its role in strengthening the building of governance. Thus, the GSG is a complementary to complete the big picture of good governance, as shown in the following illustration. Picture 1 The Three Components of Good Governance The GSG can be considered as a third concept derived from good governance in order to balance the system. In other words, the role of the state should be played properly, and at the same time, the roles of private 10 sectors and civil society should be increased properly. Balancing the system is therefore needed. If the role played by the state is too powerful or too weak, then it may lead to undesirable failure. The condition of “state‐
dominated development and stateless development” (World Bank) or “too much state and too litle state at the same time” (Larbi, 1999) may impose different type of policy processes. Based on that, we may conclude that there might be three possible configurations of governance; (1) state‐led governance, (2) market‐led governance or stateless governance, and (3) cohesively governance. State‐led governance or too much state will certainly lead to put more power and discretion to the state and/or government. Consequently it may ignore the existence of the other components of governance. Policy process will flow from the top to the bottom with only small feedback coming from below. This may impose some abuses or deviations, due to weak control from institutions beyond the state. The condition and its policy process can be shown in following illustration: Picture 2. State‐led Governance On the contrary, when the state has less power to do so, the policy process may be chaotic caused by the absence of control. None of either private sector or citizens can take over the policy process, due to lack of 11 capacity of them to do so. This condition is even much dangerous, and is probably will bring the nation into worst situation, such as bankruptcy or in other terms called government failure. The policy process will not be able and credible enough to in rowing the whole nation. Illustration below shows how chaotic the situation would be. Picture 3. Stateless Governance The absence of credible policies would also affect the relation between private sector and the citizens. In this kind of situation, even both private sector and citizens may reject any policy enacted by government. This is not because of the absence of communication channel. The problem pretty much lies on the unequal power between the state and its counterparts. To some extent, this model has approximately similar characteristic with market‐driven. Roughly we can apply market approach to this situation. However, even in the market‐driven society, wherein market takes control of many things, rules and regulations should be established in advance. Meanwhile, chaotic situation may be getting bigger when the policy control taken over by society. Such situation might be roughly similar to what happened in soviet era. Even though the trend lead to similar situation, society would not be able to take over such control directly, instead the society would be transformed themselves to the form 12 of the strong state, and finally end up with the ignorance of the society itself. Therefore GSG would provide more balanced mechanism of policy process only when the state and private sector play its respective role properly. We might say that GSG is a kind of missing piece of puzzle that complete the building of good governance as a whole. The proper role played by each component of governance does not necessarily exactly equal from one to another. What is needed is more than just equal role, but the strong and cohesive relation between the three. This relation will, at the end, be translated as what we call the policy networking. Following illustrations show the difference between equal role among the three with and without relation. Public Sector Private Sector The Citizens Picture 4. Separated governance This illustration shows each component of governance working and playing its role separately. Without any communication among them, it would be difficult to develop a good and communicative policy. In contrast, relation among the three through communication would be beneficial to the quality of public policy, like shown on following illustration. 13 Public Sector Private Sector The Citizens Picture 5. Cohesively governance This picture represents the most ideal work of governance, where each component shares role to play, and at the same time keeps balancing the system. Through this ideal model, the policy process can be made and initiated from each of them. In this regard, the state represented by government plays two important roles, both as an initiator and as the same time as an executor of policy. Meanwhile the private sector and citizens can also contribute as the agent of public service. In doing so, the three of them should share resources and capacity, and working in constructive manner. Conceptually, this kind of interaction among the three encompasses three main arenas: economic governance, political governance, and administrative governance. Economic governance deals with decision making process which immediately and or indirectly affects one’s country economy, or its neighboring ones. Meanwhile political governance is the process of decision making, and the execution of policy. The third one, administrative governance is the implementation system of public sector policy, in efficient, effective and accountable ways11. Therefore, the development process can be successfully run when all components of governance can deeply understand the dynamic character of development. Surely this can be best understood through policy ecology perspective. Unfortunately the common criteria of successful development are typically seen by its “end results” or its direct 11
UNDP. Reconceptualising Governance. 1997.
14 consequences, not by its “on‐going process” which produce that results. That’s why the primary goal of development is not merely to increase consumption and economic production, but also to create freedom, fair, security and basic integrity of human being. Hence a development process should’ve touched values aspects as well. Therefore, governance mechanism should provide interactive space among government, citizens and business community in achieving nation’s goal. Without such interaction, synergy among the three would be more difficult to develop. Some problems may occur during the interaction between one to another. For instance, when government interact with citizens, problems occurred slightly complex, due to its respective role to play. Government naturally provides services to the citizens, meanwhile the citizens should comply with any policy that government executed. This kind of relationship shows supply‐and‐demand mechanism which may result in complex problem, particularly when either government or citizens could not meet balanced interaction. Accordingly the relation between government and business community shows similar difficulties. Although this relation would be rather dynamic than what government‐citizens relation has. On the other hand, relation between business community and citizens may provide various problems, as both of them are the user of the policy. Both of them have pretty much something in common. It could be either a common goal or a common enemy. In this regard, both of them can mutually cooperate each other in order to pursue common goal. 15 Picture 6. Interaction among Governance Components In order to develop harmony among the three, there is a need of mechanism what so‐called authotheraphetic governance mechanism. Some informal organizations formed within society have various areas of interests, mostly dealing with politics, economic, social and cultural issues. In the context of governance, these various interest groups may be defined as organized society. Basically organized society is a civil society which is well‐
informed, well society, and well access. In this regard, proper instrument of decision making process they need is musyawarah. Picture 7. Autotherapheutyc Mechanism Even though through this mechanism, each sector could arrange its own business, it doesn’t mean each of them is free of doing whatever they want to do. Such disorder may lead to something ungovernable. That’s why there is a need of governing system, a system that provides guarantee in running governance and governance’s work. 16 IV.
The Need of Capacity Building & Policy Networking Through policy ecology perspective, basically development administration is a kind of two‐side of a coin. First, those which involve development transformation of physical and non‐physical infrastructure such as environment’s condition, education standardization, health’s improvement, economic expansion, road construction, power plant and irrigation , natural resources conservation, and so on. On the other hand, development administration can be effectively done when the effectiveness of government administration can be increased through pro‐people policy. As a result, the need of competency and commitment from policy making elites is inevitable, altogether with other governance components to create synergy and mutual understanding. This sounds too idealistic, when equal level of role being granted to each components. The most possible question might be: who is going to formulate policy and execute it?. As we may define, policy stakeholder consists of the state represented by government and legislative, business community and the citizens. These three components of governance can be regarded as the primary policy stakeholders. Certainly some parts of business community and some other parts of citizens belonged to secondary policy stakeholder as they do not directly interact with the policy process. Of course there is some other way in defining what policy stakeholders comprise, which can be identified into three kind of stakeholders: 1. Key stakeholders : Government (depsos, depdikdub, depkes under the coordination from menko kesra), and legislative bodies 2. Primary stakeholders : civil society (NGO, professional asociationsbusiness community) 3. Secondary Stakeholders: those who don’t have direct impact with policy formulation. Now let us assume that those key and primary policy stakeholders work simultaneously based on their respective role. Then the next question would be: the possibility to work with different capacity and resources. The 17 state, of course, has bigger and larger capacity, and not to mention its experience in running policy process. Meanwhile the business community has lots of resources and may be some degree of capacity to engage in policy formulation. What about citizens? They do have interest, public demand, and certainly basic rights. However, the capacity of citizens to engage in such process might be still a big question. Thus, to resolve this, the simple formulation below shows the work of capacity building and policy networking in developing welfare. Capacity Building Welfare Development Policy Networking Picture 8. The need of capacity building & policy networking Therefore, by starting from building capacity for each primary policy stakeholder, we may assume that welfare development would be much easier to conduct. As we have defined that what we meant by the state is both government and legislative bodies, keep in mind, that the government we are dealing with is both national and local governments, consequently the legislative what we meant is also coming from both level. Capacity building for the state should emphasize the role o the state in both formulating and executing policy. So, this capacity building is intended to strengthen its role. Meanwhile capacity building for business community is to strengthen its role in running economy activity. The most important thing to do is ti build capacity of citiziens. They have awareness, but might be lack of capacity to strengthen their role to engage in policy formulation process. 18 The need of these capacity buildings is inevitable as policy making process can not solely isolated from its strategic environment, in either regional or international constellation. Policy dimension which is by and large characterized by sovereignty of respective country, should have opened up itself from external dynamic and its unavoidable influence. Thus from now on, self‐learning among countries is commonly needed. Once the capacity is built, the following need will occur; policy networking. It means that the three stakeholders with its sufficient capacity should be linked from one to another in order to communicate. This is important to build a communication, not only in formal mechanism, but more important in informal mechanism. What should be communicated? Not only have the content of the policy but also to communicate and share resources thay, to make the most of the policy process. Through a good networking, policy formulation can be easily flow and absorb any changes and demand from its stakeholder. Unfortunately, most of the cases, this kind of communication is in formal sense. For instance, the UU SPPN which regulate the way of national development planning from kelurahan level until national level. Such mechanism is, of course, important in providing guarantee of good policy formulation process. However it has the weaknesses, such as the capacity of, particularly, the citizens and business community. So what is good policy? To us, good policy can perform their functions well. To be more specific, what are the functions of social policy (welfare policy); preventive function ‐‐‐ to prevent the poor and disadvantage group from the condition that threaten their well being, curative function that enable the poor, disadvantage groups to cope with hunger, lost of income and access to basic needs and development function that giving capacity of the poor and disadvantage groups to clam their welfare right. Up to now several international forums initiated is mostly intended to meet policy makers in certain sector only, for instance world parliamentary forum for parliament members or organizations, and international trade forum for trade organizations, etc. Only few forum 19 initiated facilitating all policy actors representing all governance components. Therefore there is a need of undertaking a forum facilitating the meet of all policy actors from all issues, involving not only governmental apparatus and other policy makers, but also other components from business community (private sectors) and civil society including selected NGO’s. This forum is intended to meet those actors and to create commitment and to increase the capacity of policy entity through information and knowledge sharing, as well as developing network among policy makers. That is why; we believe that this international conference is needed to create wider opportunity to develop capacity and policy network among policy stakeholders. This conference can bring together all policy stakeholders from national and local level with academicians, practitioners, business community, as well as civil society components. Through this conference we also want to create mutual understanding and synergy among policy makers and other policy stakeholders. Last but not least, by going through the conference, there is a chance to widen policy networking. ‐‐‐ 20 Development of Social Welfare in Indonesia: Situation Analysis and General Issues12 Edi Suharto, PhD13 The questions to ask about a country’s development are therefore: What has been happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? If all three of these have declined from high levels then beyond doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. If one or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially if all three have, it would be strange to call the result “development” even if per capita income doubled. Dudley Seers (1972) The achievement of social welfare means, first and foremost, the alleviation of poverty in its many manifestations. Howard Jones (1990) Introduction In industrialized, civilized and rapidly changing society, social welfare has become an important function within its national development strategies. Social welfare is not a new term, either in global or national discourses. Since 1960s the United Nations, for example, has addressed the issue of social welfare as one of the activities of international community (Suharto, 2006). The UN defines social welfare as activities organized to help individuals or communities to meet their basic needs and improve their 12
Presented at International Conference on Building Capacity and Policy Networking for Effective Welfare Development, Center for International Administration Studies, National Institute of Public Administration, Jakarta 18‐19 November 2009 13
Vice Chairperson for Academic Affairs, Bandung College of Social Welfare, Indonesia; Policy Fellow, Local Governance Initiative (LGI), Hungary. Website: www.policy.hu/suharto; Email: [email protected]; Cellphone: 081324156999
21 welfare in accordance with the interests of family and society. DuBois and Miley (2005) define social welfare as those social provisions and processes directly concerned with the prevention and treatment of social problems, the development of human resources and the improvement of quality of life. Both definitions basically delineate that social welfare is an institution or a field of activities involving organized activities carried out by government and private institutions aimed at preventing and addressing social problems as well as at improving the quality of life of individuals, groups, and society. In Indonesia, the term social welfare can be found in Law No. 11 of 2009 concerning “Social Welfare”. Closely examined, it contains two kinds of meanings: firstly, social welfare as a condition in which material, spiritual and social needs of citizens are fulfilled and secondly, social welfare as an organized activity, widely known as the development of social welfare (pembangunan or penyelenggaraan kesejahteraan sosial) implemented in the form of social services consisting of social rehabilitation, social security, social empowerment and social protection (Suharto, 2009a). The main target or beneficiaries of social welfare is the poor and vulnerable people (e.g. homeless, street children, child labor, migrant workers), although general population especially those facing social problems (e.g. persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence) can also be the recipients of social welfare programs. Situation Analysis The situation of social welfare in Indonesia can be seen in the Human Development Index (HDI). In 2007, Indonesia’s HDI ranked 107 among 177 countries of the world. Compared with the index in the ASEAN neighboring countries, it shows that Indonesian’s standard of living was above Laos (130), Cambodia (131) and Myanmar (132). However, while this position was far below Singapore (25), Brunei Darussalam (30), Malaysia (63), Thailand (78), and the Philippines (80), this ranking was also surpassed by Vietnam (105), which ranked 109 in 2006 (UNDP, 2007; Suharto, 2009a). 22 The HDI is a composite index that measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: economic (a decent standard of living indicated by gross domestic product/GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Parity US dollars/PPP US$); health (a long and healthy life measured by life expectancy at birth); and education (access to knowledge examined by adult literacy and combined gross enrolment in primary, secondary and tertiary level education) respectively (UNDP, 2007). Therefore, this low HDI does not only indicate the failure of economic development and the low quality of human resources, but also reveal the failure of social welfare development. This is supported by the fact that poverty and human misery are still among the most serious social problems in Indonesia. Although the rate of poverty between 2002 and 2009 tends to decrease, the absolute number is still considerably high. In 2008 and 2009, for example, the number of people living in poverty was 35 millions and 32.5 millions respectively, accounting for 15.4 percent and 14.1 percent of the total population correspondingly (CBS, 2009). This gloomy picture of Indonesian welfare will even look worse if it includes those categorized as “people with social problems”, dubbed by the Ministry of Social Affairs as “Penyandang Masalah Kesejahteraan Sosial (PMKS)”, comprising of millions of people, such as neglected child (3.9 millions), neglected child under five years (1.5 millions), disabled (3.1 millions), neglected elderly (2.7 miilions) and other disadvantaged groups (homeless people, beggars, prostitute, persons with HIV/AIDS, remote traditional community, street children, child labor, etc) accounting for more than 11 millions people (MOSA, 2009). What Goes Wrong? Looking at this gloomy portrait of development, the question is: Does it mean that since its independence 64 years ago, Indonesia did not make any progress? The answer is no. There are some indicators that show Indonesia’s progress. The problem is: the progress is relatively slow and other countries make faster progress. 23 In the last decade, economic liberalization and political democratization have made major improvement (Husodo, 2006: 1‐2). The economic system is now witnessing the shift from overregulated economy to market economy, and the political system has also shifted from centralistic to decentralistic. Bank Indonesia has become more independent, the president is directly elected, the House of Representatives is stronger, government administration is more accountable, trading permit procedures have become more transparent, regional autonomy has increased (some regions even have different system from the national system). These are some examples of the progress. However, amid the on‐going progress, the progress of other countries is faster than Indonesia (Husodo, 2006; Suharto, 2008). A UN expert, Prof. Jeffry Sach points out an interesting comparison of economic indicators. In 1984, Indonesia’s export was US$ 4 billion, while China’s export was only US$ 3 billion. But 20 years later, China’s exports had reached US$700 billion, while Indonesia’s export was only around US$70 billion. World Investment Report 2006 shows that foreign direct investment to China in 2004 reached US$ 60.6 billion, while in Indonesia it showed negative number. It means that more investors withdrew the investment from Indonesia. They moved to other countries which they thought more profitable. Even Indonesian investors themselves in 2004 invested around US$ 107 million abroad. Uncertainty of law, unstable security, and unfavorable fiscal policy which was not conducive make Indonesia uninteresting for investment. As a country with remarkable natural resources and the potentials of comparative advantages, the downside of Indonesia’s development should make us aware that something is wrong in the development and the management of this country. In short and with reference to the Indonesia’s development strategy and the issues of social welfare development, there is a number of factors explaining why the country still faces serious and multifaceted social problems. Five issues are worth to be highlighted: 24 


The mainstream approach of national development in Indonesia relies heavily on economic growth and foreign debt within the context of neoliberalism policy interventions. While it lacks of strategies that have direct impacts on poverty, unemployment and inequality, the economy is often vulnerable due to “debt trap” and global crisis. Two books entitled Globalization and its Discontents written by Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz (2003) and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins (2004) are proofs of development failure depended heavily on economic growth, foreign debts, and neo‐liberalism ideology. After it had been practiced for more than 30 years, the approach failed to eradicate poverty. It only caused bubble gum economy and nurtured shaky conglomeration, corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN), social injustice which generated 25 persent of very rich people exceeding the average of Malaysian rich people. Some even become world‐
class jet‐sets with trillions of rupiah of wealth (Husodo, 2006; Suharto, 2008). Poverty alleviation programs are dominated by “project‐oriented” interventions employing ad‐hoc, partial and residual methods. The programs tend to be curative and rehabilitative in nature and lack of preventive measures. All poverty reduction policies depend heavily on means‐tested targeting. Such poverty reduction programs as Family Hope Program (Program Keluarga Harapan/PKH), Rice for the Poor (Beras Miskin/Raskin), and National Program of Community Empowerment (Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat/PNPM) are targeted to the poor. This approach cannot prevent people from becoming poor since beneficiaries should be poor first before receiving the anti‐poverty programs. Public policy is mainly concerned with state administration and bureaucracy affairs. It lacks of responding social policy issues concerned with such welfare strategies as social rehabilitation, social security, social empowerment and social protection which are administered in institutionalised and sustainable ways. Indonesia is one of four countries (with Cambodia, Laos and Pakistan) 25 

where social protection systems are very limited (OECD, 2009). In this country about 60 percent of the population is still living without any kinds of social protection (Suharto, 2009a). Formal social protection schemes, such as Health Insurance (Asuransi Kesehatan/Askes) and Social Security for Workers (Jaminan Sosial Tenaga Kerja/Jamsostek) have only covered those working in the formal sector (Suharto, 2009b). Although informal employees and the self‐employed are the majority in the labour force, they are not covered by these formal social insurance schemes. Social assisstance programs provided by the state, mainly by the Ministry of Social Affairs, are very limited and partial. When the Asian financial crisis hit the ASEAN region in 1997‐98, the heavy reliance on traditional family‐based social protection systems and, in some cases, a poorly developed infrastructure for administering social protection programes, led to the failure of Indonesian government to respond effectively to the needs of its citizens (Suharto, et al., 2006). State commitment and obligation toward the fulfillment of citizen’s social rights are low. Social expenditure ratios in Indonesia are below 2 percent of national GDP, far below the 4.8 percent average for 15 Asian countries and the 20.5 percent average for 30 OECD countries (OECD, 2009). Indonesia notes very good progress over the past two years in reallocating spending (from inefficient subsidies) towards pro‐poor programs (World Bank, 2007). However, this country is still considered under‐spending in key sectors, such as infrastructure and health. For example, the level of spending on the infrastructure and health sectors, accounting for 10.2 percent and 4.2 percent of total expenditures respectively, is rather low by most international standards (World Bank, 2007). Decentralization tends to limit the responsibility and capacity of local government in dealing with social problems. When receiving the allocation of power from central governement, many local governments, especially at district level (kabupaten/kota), are applying the principle of “functions follow money” rather than “money follow functions.” As a result, the stronger power of local 26 governments tend to be exercised to increasing local revenues (PAD) rather than providing social services to the residents. Moreover, in terms of local regulations (PERDA), decentralisation has produced a number of PERDAs that are “not pro‐poor”. According to Hafidz Abbas, Head of Board of Research and Development, Ministry of Law and Human Rights, out of thousands of existing PERDAs, 85 percent of the regulations are made to increase PAD, 10 persen to claim local government’s assets, and only 5 percent which is really “pro‐poor” (Media Indonesia, 24 January 2008). Lessons Learned Economic development is necessary for the improvement of quality of life in a country. In order to be equitable and sustainable, economic development should be done fairly and in accordance with the development of social welfare. Social welfare is an important element in social policy strategies for eradicating poverty and reducing multidimensional deprivation. But social welfare is not the only approach of poverty reduction initiatives. In order to have sustainable and effective results, it needs to be implemented in combination with other approaches within the overall context of socio‐economic development. Social welfare policies should be put integrativelly within a broader set of policies on macro‐economic development, employment programs, and education and health policies and be established to reduce risks and deprivation as well as to encourage growth with equity and sustainability. Lessons from the bulk of literature on social welfare and social protection show that the provision of basic social services and protection for the vulnerable people can be affordable even in low‐income economies, and that it always has a significant positive economic impact on the aggregate national development goals of the country concerned (John, 2002; von Hauff, 2002; Shepherd et al 2004; Suharto, 2009a; Suharto, 2009b). Whilst it is estimated that significant social services and protection can cost less than 5 per cent of GDP, they have significantly short‐ and long‐term benefits to 27 the economy. Therefore, the relationship between social welfare and economic development should not be seen as a trade‐off, as there are many ways in which reducing risk and vulnerability serve to increase investment and growth, positive associations which can be maximized (Suharto, 2009b). What Should be Done? There is a need to have the paradigm shift in the development of social welfare. While the system should be responsive to the dynamic and more complex social problems, the approaches need to celebrate the principles of human rights, democratization, and the role of civil society both in the formulation and in the implementation of social programs. This paradigm shift encompasses six broad themes: 1. The result of development should benefits all people In the past, the results of development benefited only a small portion of community which caused socio‐economic gap. Now, we need to reform the process of development to make it more poor people‐oriented by providing chances to people with social problems to get an access to development resources, including easy access to capital, social services and sustainable social protection schemes. 2. The strategies of development need to considers human being as subject of development The paradigm of development in the past focused more on economic growth and physical development, and considered human being as objects, so it caused dehumanization in development. The existence of people with social problems as objects of social welfare development had positioned them as passive recipients of social assistance which was given as charity. The development paradigm that positions human beings as subjects of development will position the people with social problems as active players 28 in activities meant for them and gives proper appreciation to their potentials and resources. 3. The approaches of development need to reflect on local potentials and culture In the past, development tended to standardize models of development and hence to ignore local potentials and culture. As a result, people with social problems become dependent upon external assistance. Therefore, the empowerment of people with social problems should be implemented by digging out, maintaining and developing social resources, including local wisdom. Socio‐cultural values, such as social solidarity, cooperation, and trust should be optimized as basic resource in creating social responsibility. The improvement of wellbeing of people with social problems need to involve active role, care and capacity of the people in accordance with their potentials and culture. 4. Basic social services are provided for all citizens In the past, basic social services could only be enjoyed by the wealthy people or by selected poor (narrow targeting approach). Accessibility to basic social services should be open to all people (universal approach), including people with social problem who so far have been marginalized. 5. Empowerment of people with social problems become joint‐
commitment between the central government and local government During the centralistic era, poverty eradication was the responsibility of central government. Following the decentralization of development, the policies and programs of empowerment should be the responsibility of both central government and local government. The relationship between central and local government is no longer structural but functional. Local governments need to have strong political will in designing and implementing social welfare programs for their citizens. 29 6. Empowerment of people with social problems is done on individual, family, group and community basis, and in an integrated way In the past, the emphasis of intervention of people with social problems was on group approach. Assistance was in uniform in the form of objects/tools. Empowerment of people with social problems should not be done by group approach only, but also by individual, family, group and community approach. The facilities to be provided should also be in various forms in accordance with the potentials and needs of people with social problems, including access to financial assistance. References CBS (Central Board of Statistics) (2009), “The Overview of Poverty in Indonesia on March 2009” in FacSheet No.43/07/Th.XII, July 1st, Jakarta: CBS DuBois, Brenda dan Karla Krogsrud Miley (2005) (edisi ke‐5), Social Work: An Empowering Profession, Boston: Pearson Husodo, Siswono Yudo (2006), “Membangun Negara Kesejahteraan’ (Building Welfare State), paper presented at Seminar on Mengkaji Ulang Relevansi Welfare State dan Terobosan melalui Desentralisasi‐
Otonomi di Indonesia, Institute for Research and Empowerment (IRE) Yogyakarta and Perkumpulan Prakarsa Jakarta, Yogyakarta 25 Juli 2006 John, Marei (2002), “Social Protection in Southeast and east Asia: Towards a Comprehensive Picture” in Erfried Adam, Michael von Hauff, and John Marai (eds), Social Protection in Southeast and East Asia, Singapore: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, pp.7‐14 Jones, Howard (1990), Social Welfare in Third World Development, London: MacMillan Media Indonesia (2008), 24 January MOSA (Ministry of Social Affairs) (2009), Public Expenditure Review for Social Rehabilitation and Services, Jakarta: MOSA 30 OECD (2009), “Key Findings: Indonesia” in Asia/Pacific Edition Fac Sheet, OECD/Korea Policy center Perkins, John (2004) Confessions of An Economic Hit Man, San Francisco: Berret‐Koehler Publisher Shepherd, Andrew, Rachael Marcus, and Armando Barrientos (2004), Policy Paper on Social Protection, London: DFID Stiglitz, Joseph E, Globalization and Its Discontents, New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Suharto, Edi (2009a), Kemiskinan dan Perlindungan Sosial (Poverty and Social Protection), Bandung: Alfabeta Suharto, Edi (2009b), “Social Protection Systems in ASEAN: Social Policy in a Comparative Analysis” in Social Development Issues, Vol.31, No.1, pp.1‐26 Suharto, Edi (2008), Kebijakan Sosial Sebagai Kebijakan Publik (Social Policy as Public Policy), Bandung: Alfabeta (second edition) Suharto, Edi (2006), Membangun Masyarakat Memberdayakan Rakyat: Kajian Strategis Pembangunan Kesejahteraan Sosial dan Pekerjaan Sosial (Building Community Empowering People: Strategic Analysis on Social Welfare Development and Social Work), Bandung: Refika Aditama (second edition) Suharto, Edi, Juni Thamrin, Michael Cuddy dan Eammon Moran (2006), Strengthening Social Protection Systems in ASEAN, Galway: GDSI UNDP (United Nations Development Pogramme) (2007), Human Development Report 2007/2008 Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World, New York: UNDP von Hauff, M. (2002), “The Relevance of Social Security for Economic Development” in Erfried Adam, Michael von Hauff and John Marei (eds), Social Protection in Southeast and East Asia, Singapore: FES World Bank (2007), Spending for Development: Making the Most of Indonesia’s New Opportunities, Jakarta: The World Bank 31 Curriculum Vitae in Brief Edi Suharto, PhD This image cannot currently be display ed.
Edi Suharto is a specialist in the area of Social Work Macro Practice. With more than fifteen years of experience, he has been serving as lecturer, researcher, training manager, programme designer and policy analyst in the field of social development and social work focusing on such areas as social policy, social welfare services, poverty alleviation programmes, social protection and social security schemes, child protection as well as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and community development initiatives. Dr Suharto is currently Vice Chairperson for Academic Affairs at the Bandung College of Social Welfare, Indonesia after serving two years as Director of the Postgraduate School of Specialist Social Work at the college. From November 2008 to November 2009, Dr Suharto is Policy Fellow at Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI), Budapest Hungary. He is also a visiting lecturer at Postgraduate Programme of Interdisciplinary Islamic Studies and Social Work, Islamic State University of Sunan Kalijaga, Yogyakarta; Postgraduate School of Social Work and Community Development, Bogor Institute of Agriculture; Postgraduate Programme of 32 Managament of Social Development, University of Indonesia, Jakarta; and Postgraduate Programe of Social Welfare, Padjadjaran University, Bandung. In these postgaruate programmes of social work/social welfare, Dr Suharto gives lectures and serves as thesis supervisor in a number of subjects and areas such as social policy analysis, social welfare policy and programme, human service management, social work with poverty, and community organisation and development (COCD). He often serves as consultant for international organisations such as ILO‐IPEC (International Labour Organisation – International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour), Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), Hungary; and Galway Development Services International (GDSI), Ireland. In 2007, he has served as Special Expert for Ministry of Social Affairs for a year in developing and implementing PKH (Programme Keluarga Harapan), a conditional cash transfer scheme developed by Bappenas (National Board of Development Planning) in cooperation with the World Bank. In 2007‐2009, Dr Suharto was consultant for Plan International for CNSP (Children in Need of Special Protection) programme in Indonesia. In 2009, he is also serving as consultant for Plan International Indonesia and UNICEF for the projects relating to child protection issues. Since 2004 to the present, Dr Suharto is a member of editorial board of Indonesian Journal of Social Work. Since 2007 to the present, he is a member of editorial board of Journal of Business and Corporate Social Responsibility, Indonesia and Journal of Political Biography, Indonesia. He has published more than twenty books or book chapters as well as articles in a number of international and national journals such as:  “Opportunities and Challenges of Taxing the Urban Informal Economy” dalam Nick Devas (ed), 33 




Local Government and Local Taxation of the Informal Economies, Budapest: LGI (2010 forthcoming) “Social Protection Systems in ASEAN: Social Policy in A Comparative Analysis”, International Journal of Social Development Issues, Vol.31, No. 1, 2009, pp.1‐26 Kebijakan Sosial Sebagai Kebijakan Publik (Social Policy as Public Policy), Bandung: Alfabeta (second edition 2008) Pekerjaan Sosial di Dunia Industri: Memperkuat Tanggungjawab Sosial Perusahaan (Social Work in Industrial World: Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility), Bandung: Refika Aditama (2007) Analisis Kebijakan Publik: Panduan Praktis Mengkaji Masalah dan Kebijakan Sosial (Public Policy Analysis: A Practical Handbook for Analysing Social Problems and Policies) (fourth edition), Bandung: Alfabeta (2008); Membangun Masyarakat Memberdayakan Rakyat: Kajian Strategis Pembangunan Kesejahteraan Sosial dan Pekerjaan Sosial (Developing Community Empowering People: Strategic Analysis on Social Welfare Development and Social Work) (second edition), Bandung: Refika Aditama (2006)  “How Informal Enterprises Coped with the Asian Economic Crisis: The Case of Pedagang Kakilima in Bandung” in Edwina Palmer (ed), Asian Futures, Asian Traditions, London: Global Oriental (2005), pp.243‐264  "Human Development and the Urban Informal Sector in Bandung, Indonesia: the Poverty Issue," International Journal, New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies (NZJAS), Vol. 4, No. 2., 2002, pp.115‐133.  Pembangunan, Kebijakan Sosial dan Pekerjaan Sosial (Development, Social Policy and Social Work), Bandung: Lembaga Studi Pembangunan (1997) He can be reached at +62‐22‐
2504838 (office); +62‐22‐2502962 (fax); +62‐22‐7534913 (home); and +62‐81324156999 (mobile); or email: [email protected] 34 PROSIDING Edi Suharto, PhD
35
PROSIDING The questions to ask about a country’s development are therefore: What has been happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? If all three of these have declined from high levels then beyond doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. If one or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially if all three have, it would be strange to call the result “development” even if per capita income doubled Dudley Seers (1972)
The achievement of social welfare means, first and foremost, the alleviation of poverty in its many manifestations
Howard Jones (1990)
The context
Health
Education
Sectoral Development
Social Welfare
People Welfare (KESRA)
OBJECTIVE
Wellbeing (sejahtera)
36
PROSIDING 


In industrialized, civilized and rapidly changing society, social welfare has become an important function within its national development strategies.
Activities organized to help individuals or communities to meet their basic needs and improve their welfare in accordance with the interests of family and society (UN) Those social provisions and processes directly concerned with the prevention and treatment of social problems, the development of human resources and the improvement of quality of life (DuBois and Miley, 2005)
Institution, a field of activities, or organized activities Carried out by government and private institutions
Aimed at preventing and addressing social problems as well as improving quality of life

Social welfare as a condition in which material, spiritual and social needs of citizens are fulfilled 
Social welfare as an organized activity: the development of social welfare implemented in the form of social services consisting of social rehabilitation, social security, social empowerment and social protection 
The main target or beneficiaries: the poor and vulnerable people (e.g. homeless, street children, child labor, migrant workers), and general population especially those facing social problems (e.g. persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence) 37
PROSIDING 
In 2007, Indonesia’s HDI ranked 107 among 177 countries. Above Laos (130), Cambodia (131) and Myanmar (132)

Far below Singapore (25), Brunei Darussalam (30), Malaysia (63), Thailand (78), and the Philippines (80) and surpassed by Vietnam (105) ranked 109 in 2006

This indicates the failure of economic development and the low quality of human resources, as well as the failure of social welfare development 
The mainstream approach of national development : economic growth and foreign debt within the context of neoliberalism policy interventions

Poverty alleviation programs: “project‐oriented” interventions employing ad‐hoc, partial and residual methods

Public policy: state administration and bureaucracy affairs and lacks of responding social policy issues and strategies: social rehabilitation, social security, social empowerment and social protection

State commitment and obligation : the fulfillment of citizen’s social rights are low

Decentralization: limiting the responsibility and capacity of local government in dealing with social problems
38
PROSIDING 
Economic development is necessary for the improvement of quality of life in a country. In order to be equitable and sustainable, economic development should be done fairly and in accordance with the development of social welfare

Social welfare is an important element in social policy strategies for eradicating poverty and reducing multidimensional deprivation. But it is not the only approach of poverty reduction initiatives. It needs to be implemented in combination with other approaches within the overall context of socio‐economic development

The provision of basic social services and protection for the vulnerable people can be affordable even in low‐income economies, and that it always has a significant positive economic impact on the aggregate national development goals of the country concerned  The result of development should benefits all people
 The strategies of development need to considers human being as subject of development
 The approaches of development need to reflect on local potentials and culture
 Basic social services are provided for all citizens
 Empowerment of people with social problems become joint‐commitment between the central government and local government
 Empowerment of people with social problems is done on individual, family, group and community basis, and in an integrated way
39
PROSIDING “International Conference on Building Capacity and Policy Networking for Effective Welfare Development”
Jakarta, 18 November 2009
Growth Constraints and Welfare Development
Jörn Brömmelhörster
Senior Country Economist
Indonesia Resident Mission
Content
• Welfare and public finance
• Critical contraints to growth
• Critical constraints to reducing poverty and inequality
• Welfare development and supporting systems
40
PROSIDING Welfare and public finance
• Welfare is part of public finance and for public finance growth is important
• Whatever the welfare concept, it needs to be affordable, efficient and effective
• Welfare is about services delivered (results)
Growth matters
Per Capita GDP in 2000 US$
1980
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
397
612
800
818
844
872
904
943
983
1,033
1,083
1,919
2,608
4,030
3,965
4,096
4,251
4,455
4,609
4,789
5,009
5,155
989
901
977
975
999
1,028
1,073
1,106
1,143
1,202
1,225
9,043
14,658
23,019
21,869
22,571
23,704
25,651
26,886
28,234
29,185
27,991
789
1,400
1,968
1,991
2,072
2,193
2,305
2,387
2,490
2,594
2,645
41
PROSIDING Some Observations
• Advancements due to prudent macroeconomic management
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
… but economic growth has not been pro employment
… poverty has declined, but the pace has slowed down
… large proportions clustered around poverty lines
… gap between rural and urban poverty incidence has widened … large disparities in poverty incidences across provinces
… recent rise in income inequalities
… degradation of natural resources and environment, and rising global environment challenges Critical constraints to growth
• Inadequate and inefficient infrastructure – both at national and sub‐national levels
• Weaknesses in governance and institutions
• Unequal access to and poor quality of education
• Insufficient mainstreaming of environmental concerns including climate change in development planning
42
PROSIDING Critical constraints to reducing poverty and inequality (1)
• Lack of access to productive employment opportunities
Critical constraints to reducing poverty and inequality (2)
• Unequal access to opportunities (leads to weaker human capabilities)
– Education
– Health
– Other social services 43
PROSIDING Critical constraints to reducing poverty and inequality (3)
• Unequal access to opportunities (Uneven playing field)
– Infrastructure
– Land
– Credit
Critical constraints to reducing poverty and inequality (4)
• Inadequate provision of social safety nets
44
PROSIDING From welfare challenges to supportive welfare interventions
1. All constraints are measurable
2. All constraints can be compared to other countries 3. How good are the current welfare interventions? To what extent did they assist in reducing some of the development constraints? 4. Based on the constraints strengthened and implementable welfare interventions can be developed 5. All policies and systems need to be results‐based and well governed
Terima kasih
For more information please contact:
Jörn Brömmelhörster ([email protected])
45
PROSIDING HUMAN SYSTEM AND THE COMPLEXITIES OF POLICY NETWORK Prof. Dr. Bambang Shergi Laksmono, MSc Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia Government’s policies with the objectives and goals of improving welfare cannot stand alone and solitary. A proper policy network is needed in order to ensure that the target population receives the maximum benefit. However, to guarantee further the government’s commitment to improve welfare, the policy makers should understand the target populations as a human being – individuals, families, and societies – and its environment and system, in order to preserve their dignity and ensuring that the products of policies is always accessible in humane and uncomplicated ways. Basic Perspectives: policy and the human system ocial welfare policy is – basically – anything a government chooses to do or not to do involving the issues that affects the quality of life of the people (DiNitto, 1999). The issues of the policy in social welfare context is very broad, ranging from taxations, health care, education, housing, minimum wage, public assistance, and many more. As something created and formulated by the government, a policy must have at least a goal or purpose. Some scholars (Gilbert and Terrel, 1998; Friedrich, 1963; Lasswell & Kaplan, 1970) would even say that goals of a policy should be specific and thorough. Nevertheless, a simplification on an applied term revolves around the general idea that policy is counted as a government’s action which would have impacts on the welfare of the population by providing them with service, income, and other products of policy. S 46
PROSIDING The products of a policy can be formed in many things: public service buildings, social projects, regulations, and such. The receiving end of a policy is the population, the public, ordinary living individuals, or – in a simple way – humans. Yes, humans. The same fellow humans who attend schools as students, going to the clinics and hospitals as nurses or patients, to the market to buy and sell goods, working as labours in factories or clerks in offices, tending the rice fields as farmers, bus drivers, our neighbour and families, and many others. They are around us every day, and as humans they are the main core of the activity of the society. Every policy in every sector that the government made will affect humans – individuals, families, and society – in the end. A government’s policy on economics will directly or indirectly affects the income or expenditure level of families. The similar manner will happen if a government imposes a policy on social or cultural life, which will affect the routine activities of individuals or society. Every policy, especially concerning the matters of welfare, the individuals, families, and society are the ones will be affected in the end (Coote, Harman, & Hewitt, 1990). Whether the effect goes positively or not, it depends on the quality of a policy itself and its implementation in ‘understanding’ human’s behaviour as the target of the policy. Therefore, policy makers need to understand the human system that revolving around an individual. As a human, an individual and his/her life were exposed to other systems and dynamics. There are economic factors, social factors, psychological factors, and biological factors, just to name a few. These factors contribute on how an individual lives. Furthermore, the dynamics of culture, society, family, and even technology also play great roles for individuals in perceiving his response and attitude toward everything. 47
PROSIDING Diagram A. The Human System. Note that a single individual is heavily influenced by many aspects of life. The aspects written inside the diagram is simplified. From the diagram, it can be seen that life of an individual is deeply intertwined and influenced by many other aspects in life. In natural response, an individual played several roles at a time, trying to fulfil of what’s expected of him/her in every aspects of life. In a similar manner, life of an individual is greatly affected when there are changes in one of the aspects. These changes, one of them were caused by the government trough their policies. In the search of ultimate wellness in living, individuals will try to balance all the aspects revolving around the human system. The condition where individuals able to fulfil his/her needs in every aspect and sectors adequately will lead to the state of welfare. Therefore, policy networks must be based and centred on the understanding of human system in order to achieve welfare for the population, especially in maintaining their basic and advanced needs, as well as maintaining their dignity as human beings. 48
PROSIDING Complexity of the Theory: the many aspects of policy networks It has to be understood that a policy doesn’t stand solitary. There are complexities in such a system, especially in formulating a policy. There are multiple aspects to be considered, whether it’s social, political, economical, or even cultural. As a product that in the end must be delivered to the population, a policy is by no means free from intersectional and intersecting influences of disciplines and themes. Therefore, when a policy is formulated, there are many details that should not be left out, as linkages between issues, the stakeholders, scales of the policy, inter‐policy connections, as well as the most important: the needs of the people itself. Linkages between issues and problems must not be underestimated. In a modern and interconnected world, one issue is connected to another interdependently, and has the chance of igniting another issue (Rischard, 2003). This is due to the dynamics of social system, where issues are not static but evolving and both influenced by and influencing the aspects of the society and community. For instance, the issue of poverty is deeply connected with the issue of unemployment, lack of economic opportunities, crimes, housing, and others. Should someone formulate a policy to tackle poverty, the policy will have to consider those connected issues, too, in order to achieve complete goals of the policy itself. Even after the issues and aspects had been compromised, the formulation of a policy also needs to prioritize the scale of issues and its dynamics. The scale of issues and its dynamics can vary depends on the level of importance and the size of the target populations. For instance, a minimum wage policy made by central government would mean the scale will be national, while the same policy made by local government will only affect the certain region or area. 49
PROSIDING Diagram B. The scales of issues. When an issue is analyzed and a policy is formulated, it would be very wise to consider the scale of the issues that is about to be tackled, as well as the target and goals to be achieved by a policy. This model is modified and simplified from Cash, et al (2006) and Kennedy,Balasubramanian, and Crosse (2009). Note also that the list of the hierarchy on the scale is not shown complete. Outside the policy itself, there are stakeholders. Stakeholders are individuals or groups that are influential or having interest in an issue of a policy, or also those who formulates the policy. Those who are going to be directly or indirectly affected by the policy are also stakeholders. Now, in sense of practice, who are the stakeholders? It depends on what policy and what issue. A policy of government’s support in agriculture put the farmers, food distributors, and the ministry of agriculture as stakeholders. Meanwhile, a government’s policy on minimum wage would put the labourers and business owners as the immediate stakeholders. To some extent, there are also universal stakeholders such as the NGOs and mass media. 50
PROSIDING The stakeholders are both vital and crucial in policy‐making process. In a formulation of a policy, there are often be conflicting stakeholders, and each will try to influence the policy makers, whether to or not to take an action toward an issue (Sharma & Starik, 2004). The connections between stakeholders are also crucial in determining the forms and scale of a policy. This is coherent with the scale and dynamics of issues itself. The larger the issue in terms of scale and importance, the more stakeholders will get involved. A policy on healthcare, for example, would not only bring the public, nurses, doctors, health workers, and the ministry of health as stakeholders, and also health institutions management, as well as drugs and medicine companies (Galston, 2006). Diagram C. Interdependency inside the triangle and a policy is deeply influenced by the stakeholders. On the grander side, it should be remembered that in all, the stakeholders could be simplified into three categories: the civil society, public sectors, and the business sectors. The public sector is simply put as the government, who are there as the main thinkers of a policy, creating laws and regulations, as well as enforcing them. The business sector is the market itself; the main force of 51
PROSIDING employment, supply chains, distribution of goods and services to the consumers. Meanwhile, the civil society is the people itself as individuals or social and cultural cohesion which made the public and business sectors existed, as well as receiving reciprocal benefits from them. A policy should bridge the triangle between the civil society, public sectors, and the business sectors. Returning to the original point, a policy doesn’t stand solitary. A formulated and enacted policy also exposed to the connection with other policy in the hope to achieve its goals. Often, a policy needs another policy as continuation or as pairs in order to solve an issue due to the dynamics of the issues and problem that need to be tackled trough government’s policy. In the context of social welfare, the social issues are not static. The issues are dynamics and evolving, sometimes unpredictable in case of the changes of events. Consequently, policy makers must also be vigilant in analyzing the circumstances in the grassroots level when a policy is implemented. Should there be a need to improve the policy to meet the standard of the evolving issue, then the changes or new policies should be formulated accordingly. Those were also related to the predictability of an issue and how policy makers will fare to anticipate it. While mostly issues are both predictable and anticipated, such as population control, several issues are not. They are unpredictable, such as natural disaster, but it could be anticipated in terms of disaster mitigation and the minimizing of casualties. The same nature also shared by economic and market volatility. It will all be depended on how policy makers can anticipate the issues trough policy network, whether they are predictable or not. 52
PROSIDING Diagram D. Predictability of issues and policy network. Notice the arrow on global warming, which means that the issue is evolving to be on the verge of becoming anticipated. Another important aspect is the capability of the policy maker to determine who does what, when, and where. While mostly managerial, this aspect is very much important in sense of keeping the policy to be implemented effectively, and to avoid overlapping between governmental institutions in implementing the policy as well as delivering the products of policy to the target population (Butcher, 1995; Flynn, 1990). However, despite the complexities and intertwining aspects, it should be kept in mind that the receiving ends of a policy are the populations, families, and individuals. Therefore, the human system and human interest for welfare is undoubtedly should be the main concern and core of thoughts in designing, formulating, and devising a policy. Challenges in Planning Understanding the complexities of policy network might give policy makers a grand view of the way to solve problems and issues. However, the real challenges came in the implementation of the 53
PROSIDING policy itself and also in maintaining consistency between policies, or between policies made by the bureaucrats and the facts in the fields. One of the main challenges is to minimize the overlapping and contrasting policies between governmental bodies. There have been frequent inconsistencies between policies, laws, and regulations. Record shows that between 1999 and 2007, there has been overruling of more than 1400 local laws. Those laws were overruled for their inconsistencies with the superior national laws. The laws being overruled were mostly on economics, taxations, and incomes. But there were also a significant number of laws overruled for their conflicting and controversial nature, such as discrimination of human rights, gender, environmental destructions, and more. The case happened not only on conflicting laws in the different hierarchy, but also in the same level, and in the same issue. One of the most infamous – in line with welfare topic – in Indonesia is between the laws of child protection and juvenile court, on the case of minimal age. In the Law of Child Protection, a child is defined as a person under 18‐year‐old. Meanwhile, in the Law of Juvenile Court, 8‐years‐old is the minimum age as a child to be brought on the Juvenile Court. Another serious challenge is the effort of synchronizing and maintaining the consistency between the bureaucracy and the people in the grassroots. The problem lies in the inconsistency between the ‘real’ needs in the bottom and the policy from the top. Even though many local governments have implemented bottom‐up methods in planning, it is unfortunately not enough in securing the needs from the grassroots. 54
PROSIDING Diagram E. This shows one of the common inconsistencies between the needs of the grassroots level with the output of a policy. Note that because the schools are built in urban areas, the children who need it in rural area cannot have an easy access to those schools. Diagram E shows an example how inconsistencies are usually being made. The population in rural areas voiced their concern for lack of educational facilities. Therefore, there is a need of building new schools in the rural areas. This aspiration is brought to the governmental bodies to be responded as a policy that will deliver them the access to educational facilities. However, the policy‐
making process and the pressures from other stakeholders would in many times change the output of a policy. In the Diagram, the output to the problem (the policy taken) is to build schools just as the populations wanted, but the schools will be built in urban areas, many miles away from where the populations that need schools lives. On paper, the policy meets the goal and objective: building schools. But as an outcome, the population and children in rural area, who needed the schools the most, is only given limited – if not none – access to the schools. This many respects, this connected to another challenge of how policy makers should not formulate a policy, and goals of a policy, as merely statistics. On the contrary, the goals of a policy should be seen as goods and services that must be delivered to the target population in humane reasoning, giving them easy access and the ability to maintain their dignity as a human being. The challenge of maintaining the dignity of the target population as human being will also lead into another issue of cultural restraint in formulating and implementing policies. 55
PROSIDING The issue of cultural restraint is connected to the autonomy of provinces. Every provinces or regions possessed their own characteristics, cultures, traditions, and norms. Those values were mostly embedded into the daily living activities of the populations in respective provinces and regions. Implementing the same policy for all regions and provinces will not be as much effective in the grassroots level, as there are cultural differences between provinces which need different measures in responding the differences. Autonomy and local self‐government is undoubtedly a way to solve the challenge, but the facts that many local laws contradicts the superior laws broaden the challenge on how to compromise the laws and regulation in order to create consistency to strengthen government’s commitment in improving the people’s quality of life. Recommendations: the need of a paradigm shift In answering those challenges, there are several recommendations to be considered. First, there should be commitments to the issues of welfare. As a concept, welfare is very broad and encompassing all aspect of human lives. However, the government must have a clear framework of thought that in formulating and implementing policies in concerns of social welfare, the interest of the individuals, families, and society as the target populations must be put in the first line. In coherence to the simplified triangle of stakeholders, the government as the public sector should also support the civil society and the market in order to create a main driving force in fulfilling the needs of the population, as well as the delivery of the products of policy, therefore leading them to welfare. On the theme of improving welfare, economic development is still the most effective way in improving the quality of life. Another is to sharpen the needs and potentials of regions and sectors in order to create specific advantages in economic development. Second, in order to achieve welfare and strengthen the commitment, the government should also ensure the consistency in 56
PROSIDING policy, laws, and regulation. Instead of creating overlapping and contrasting policies, the government must redouble its efforts in formulating policies that supports each others. The consistency also means that the effort is also subject to the commitment of creating the state of welfare for the population. This would also means that a reform in the way of thinking in managing an implementation of policy. The third and most important step to be made is the shift of paradigm, from thinking like a bureaucrat to think like the receivers of policy products, the target population. While there are no wrongdoings in thinking as a bureaucrat, a policy will be more effective when its products are safely delivered and accessible to the target population. In logic with understanding the human system as the core of thought in the policy‐making process, it is more than reasonable to put forward the interest of the target population by understanding them. Further, this step will evolve the paradigm of policy making from goal‐based planning into evident‐based and human‐centred planning. Evaluating a policy is no longer adequate just by looking into statistics of goals and objectives, but rather should be in‐depth in explaining whether the target population genuinely benefit from the policy or not. In the end this will raise the popular legitimacy of the policy itself, by once again, putting the interest of target population first as well as showing the commitment to maintain and improve the quality of a policy. 57
PROSIDING References Butcher, T. 1995. Delivering Welfare. Buckingham: Open University Press. Cash, D. et.al. 2006. Scale and cross‐scale dynamics: governance and information in multi‐level world. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8. Coote, A., Harman, H. & Hewitt, P. 1990. The Family Way: A New Approach in Policy Making. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. DiNitto, D. 1999. Social Welfare: Politics and Public Policy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Flynn, N. 1990. Public Sector Management. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Friedrich, C. 1963. Man and His Government. New York: McGraw‐Hill. Galston, W. Political Feasibility: Interest and Power. Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, chp. 26. London: Oxford University Press. Gilbert, N. & Terrel, P. 1998. Dimensions of Social Welfare Policy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kennedy, E., Balasubramanian, H. & Crosse, W. 2009. Issues of scales and monitoring status and trends in biodiversity. Environmental Program and Policy Evaluation: Adressing Methodological Challenges, New Directions of Evaluation 122. San Francisco: Josey‐Bass. Lasswell, H. & Kaplan, A. 1970. Power and Society. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rischard, J. 2003. High Noon: Twenty Global Problems, Twenty Years to Solve Them. New York: Perseus Books. Sharma, S. & Starik, M. Stakeholders, the environment and society: New perspectives in research on corporate sustainability. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. 58
PROSIDING Human Systems and the Complexity of Policy Network for Social welfare
Bambang Shergi Laksmono
Policy Network : A Definition
• A coordinated policy effort to fortify the scale of activities and penetration capacity of intervention through effective strategies to gain welfare impact of a society. 59
PROSIDING (Thomdean, Harian
Kompas 2007)
Planning Vision for Policy Network (I) Predicted
HIV‐Aids
Global warming
Elderly
Soil erosion
Not‐
anticipated/
Ignored
Anticipated
Earthquake
Tsunami
Road accidents
Family breakdown
Unpredicted
60
PROSIDING Planning Vision for Welfare
Policy Network (2)
Synchronized :
Values & concepts
Laws, regulations
Policy
Networking
Governance. Participation, corruptio
n eradication
Strategies, economic drivers clusters
Spatial scale
Jurisdictional scale
Target scale
Temporal scale
Global
Trans National
Society
Decades
REGIONAL
National
Community
Annual
National
Provincial
Family
Monthly
Local
Individual
Daily
Local
Source:
(Kennedy, E.,Balasubramanian, H. & Crosse, W., 2009)
61
PROSIDING Critical Dimensions to Welfare
Cash transfer
Seed capital
Subsidy
Land reform
Digital devide
Wealth
Redistribution
Social conflict
Harga Komoditas Ekspor
Industry / eksternality
Risk
Protection
Climate Change
Disaster
fluctuation
Progresive taxation
Promoting
Freedom ,
Rights &
Responsiblity
Preventif
Rehabilitatif
Kuratif
Social
Services Child
Elderly
Disability
Road accidents
Aviation accidents
Public utilities
Public
Safety
Tobacco use
Reinforcing Policy Network
Human Resources
Infrastructure
Central government
Province
regency
village
Capital & Technology
Law & Regulation
62
PROSIDING Integrasi Kebijakan Membangun Skala
dan Efektifitas Program
Insentif
Perpajakan
Pertumbuhan
Skala dan
kualitas
Pelayanan
Sosial
Penetapan
Afirmatif
Ruang
Conflicting interest between
Laws and Local Regulations • Since 1999 2007, there are 1406 Local Regulations has been overwritten/cancelled
• Mainly on local tax and retribution
• Other regulations were related to sensitive issues on human rights violation, religious belief, discrimination, gender equality, environmental pollution.
63
PROSIDING 64
PROSIDING Policy Network : A challenge
• Not merely increased expenditure
• Reconciling merely economic interests to social /welfare impact
• A test to discipline and smart ways to achieve maximum welfare impact
• A test of determined and accountable leadership
65
PROSIDING Millennium Development Goals: A Framework for Welfare Development Abdurrahman SYEBUBAKAR
Head of Poverty Reduction Unit, a.i.
UNDP Indonesia What are they? 8 Goals
Poverty & Hunger
Maternal Health
EDUCATION
Comm. Diseases
GENDER
ENVIRONMENT
CHLD HEALTH
PARTNERSHIP
18 targets
to achieve
by 2015
Over 50 indicators
Base line: 1990
2
66
PROSIDING Where did they come from?  Millennium Summit in
September 2000, world leaders
adopted the Millennium
Declaration
 The Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) for improving the
human condition by 2015 are
derived from the Millennium
Declaration
 The Declaration was the high
point of a series of international
conferences and summits
beginning in 1990 on a wide
range of commitments and
plans of action
Why do they matter? 



The failure of development assistance to contribute to improved living conditions
They are the first set of quantitative and time‐bound goals shared by developing and developed countries
They offer an integrated, goal‐
oriented framework for improving human welfare
They form the basis on which to mobilize resources for investing in human development and human welfare
67
PROSIDING MDG achievement in Indonesia
 Mixed progress, national aggregates mask
disparities across the archipelago‐‐‐a significant
number of the districts and provinces in the outer
islands are unlikely to meet some goals
 On track: basic education, gender and women
empowerment, child mortality rate, reduce the
spread of communicable diseases (TB)
 Insufficient
progress:
poverty,
maternal
health, malaria, HIV/AIDS and access to safe
drinking water and improved sanitation
5
Trend of the Number (Million People) and Percentage of Poor
Population (%) Based on National Poverty Line, 1976-2009
6
68
PROSIDING Goal 1: Prevalence of child malnourishment
37.5
40
35.5
31.6
35
29.5
Percent
30
27.3 27.5
26.4
25
24.6
26
Target MDG
22.5
26.1
19
20
13.5
15
Target RPJM: 20
9.5
10
5
Target RPJP: 9.5
0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Trend
2010
2015
2020
2025
Proyeksi (Depkes)
7
GOAL 2: ACHIEVE UNIVERSAL PRIMARY EDUCATION
120
100
95.1
92.5 92.2 92.7 92.3 92.9 92.7 92.6 93.0 93.3 94.7 94.9
88.7 91.3 92.2 91.6 91.6
92.5 96.2
Target MDGs
APM SD/MI = 100
dan
APK SLTP/MT = 100
88.7
80
70.5
64.4 65.7
60
74.2 73.1
79.9 81.1 82.2 82.3
76.0 77.5 78.3
61.1
55.6
40
20
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
0
APM SD/MI (7-12 Tahun)
APK SMP/MTs
NER primary and secondary
enrolment (SD/MI &SMP/MTS)
GER primary and secondary enrolment
(SD/MI and SMP/MTS)
8
69
PROSIDING GOAL 3:
PRMOTE GENDER
EQUALITY AND
EMPOWER WOMEN
103.4
101.3
100.60
100.1
101.7
101.1
99.90
100.20 99.80
95.20
94.70
98.00
99.70
99.60
103.2
104.2
104.8
102.5
102.6
100.10 103.20 103.70 100.30
99.90
100.10 100.30 100.10 100.10
97.10
98.30
101.6
102.51
103.51
100.0 99.3
99.42 99.51
100.02 100.37
98.90
95.60
96.10
92.80
Ratio of NER
(girls to boys)
by education
levels
102.2
100.10 99.98
90.00
93.60
89.90
87.10
85.10
82.20
83.60
85.30
81.80
2007
2006
2005
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1992
79.50
Rasio APM SMP/MTs Perempuan/Laki-laki (13-15)
Rasio APM SMA/MA Perempuan/Laki-laki (16-18)
Rasio APM Pendidikan Tinggi Perempuan/Laki-laki (19-24)
Rasio APM SD Perempuan/Laki-laki (7-12)
9
GOAL 4: INFANT AND CHILD MORTALITY
Deaths per 1.000 live births
120
AKB
91
AKBA
81
90
AKB RPJMN
68
AKBA MDG
57
58
AKB MDG
60
46
46
35
45
34
32
26
30
23
0
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
• Indonesia achieved CMR rate set at the World Summit for Children
(65 per 1.000 live birth) in 2000 – MDG Target would also be
achieved
• Gaps between provinces are high
70
10
PROSIDING GOAL 5: MATERNAL MORTALITY
kematian ibu per 100.000
kelahiran hidup
500
425
390
400
373
334
307
255
300
228
200
100
Target MDGs
AKI = 102
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0
Angka Kematian Ibu (AKI) (SDKI)
Target MDGs AKI
•
•
•
•
Slow progress; MDG target less likely to achieve
Birth attended by skilled personnel : 38.5 % (1992) – 71.9 % (2007)
Affected by social, economic and cultural factors
Difficulties to obtain MMR in remote rural areas
11
Goal 6: COMMUNICABLE DISEASES – HIV & AIDS
AIDS cases up to March 2008
12000
10000
AIDS Cases
Cumulative Cases
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
• HIV and AIDS prevalence is small but might rise fast
• Papua: Prevalence 2.4% and has been considered general epidemics
• Knowledge on HIV/AIDS improved
12
71
PROSIDING GOAL 7: ENSURE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
100
90
Rural
80
Urban 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Access to improved water
sources, urban and rural
CHALLENGES Not sufficiently focused on the poorest of the poor Global, aggregate figures mask discrepancies
Quantitative rather than qualitative
Technocratic nature, less on transforming power relations
The international accountability mechanisms for the MDGs are weak Developed countries need to fulfill their commitment to support the MDGs
14
72
PROSIDING CHALLENGES
Data availability and quality need improvement
 A need for systematic application in
planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation of
development
Awareness and understanding of different stakeholders
are limited
Contextualization at the local level needs to be
strengthened.
A need for coherent and explicit strategy (Road Map)
that provides clear and concrete direction to all
stakeholders for realization of the MDGs
15
 Establish MDGs at the
core of national and sub
national development
plans
 Integrate MDG financing
in national and subnational budgets
 Build capacities
systematically with a
long-term horizon
through to 2015
 Track progress through
disaggregated data
Empower
communities to seize
opportunities, create
wealth, assert their
claims
 Establish effective
laws, institutions, tran
sparency and
accountability
 These are crucial
for the MDG
achievement and
hence for
sustainable human
development
16
73
PROSIDING Example: MDG Scorecard
Goal 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Target 1A: Halve, between 1990 & 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than on dollar a day
of Poor kin (%
People) (%)
R asProportion
io penduduk mis
28,97
L O MB O K B AR AT 2007
24,99
NT B 2007
% of poor people in this district far higher than those of the provincial, national and global target
16,60
Nas ional 2007
MD G s T arget 2015
7,5
‐
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
Lagging behind Likely to achieve Already achieved
25,0
30,0
35,0
Source : BPS –NTB 2007
25.58 %
Analysis of Utilization of Budget for Education ‐ TTS District
DINAS PENDIDIKAN Belanja Langsung Barang dan Jasa
9.53%
DINAS PENDIDIKAN Belanja Langsung Modal
16.05%
4.24%
Year 2008
Development Expenditure 25.58 %
DINAS PENDIDIKAN Belanja Langsung Pegawai
70.18%
DINAS PENDIDIKAN Belanja Tidak Langsung Pegawai
Staff Salary & others 74.42 %
Analysis of APBD 2008 TTS District According to MDGs 74
PROSIDING Example: MDG‐Based Maps Poverty Map VS Budget Allocation for Poverty Alleviation (Belu, 2008)
Malnutrition vs Budget (Flores Timur, 2008)
Thank You 75
PROSIDING UNDERSTANDING WELFARE
FROM PHILOSOPHY TO IMPLEMENTATION
AN LDS CHARITIES PERSPECTIVE
BY:
DR. LOWELL K. ANDERSON
OBJECTIVES
1- To understand an LDS CHARITIES
view on welfare
2- To understand how LDS Charities
functions
3- To understand our view of the
solution to welfare
DR. Anderson LDS Material
76
2
PROSIDING WELFARE
Public definition:
A hand‐out when in need‐‐‐‐
financial, material & emotional support
DR. Anderson LDS Material
3
THE CHALLENGE
The problem of WELFARE
Massive– every body wants help
Resources are limited
DR. Anderson LDS Material
77
4
PROSIDING Welfare
Needs
IMMEDIATE
LONG TERM
DR. Anderson LDS Material
5
TWO APPROACHES TO WELFARE 1‐ GOVERNMENT
2‐ NGO’s
DR. Anderson LDS Material
78
6
PROSIDING GOVERNMENT
 The Big Picture
 Co‐ordinate Resources
 Direct the efforts
DR. Anderson LDS Material
7
NGO’s
 Address local needs
 Follow governments direction DR. Anderson LDS Material
79
8
PROSIDING REACHING OUT TO HELP
DR. Anderson LDS Material
9
A world‐wide organization for relief called LDS Charities
To provide immediate relief to disaster victims
To help rebuild lives
To improve the quality of life
To help eliminate disease
To provide comfort and give hope
To help people see a brighter tomorrow
DR. Anderson LDS Material
80
10
PROSIDING A World wide organization
• 13 + million members
• Members in 165 countries
• Most members live outside the U.S.
• In U.S. – 4th largest membership of all churches
• Continued growth through‐out the world
DR. Anderson LDS Material
11
LDS CHARITIES
IMMEDIATE
LONG TERM
DR. Anderson LDS Material
81
12
PROSIDING HOW IS LDS CHARITIES FUNDED
DR. Anderson LDS Material
13
Members of the church world‐
wide donate money and time
• Members world wide fast 24 hours, skipping 2 meals—
every month
• Money saved from those meals, is donated for the relief of the suffering
• Money is administered throughout the world, when & where needed
DR. Anderson LDS Material
82
14
PROSIDING WORLDWIDE STRUCTURE
PACIFIC REGION
EUROPE
SOUTH AMERICA
H.Q . SLC‐UTAH
NORTH AMERICA
AFRICA
ASIA
DR. Anderson LDS Material
15
NETWORKING LINE OF AUTHORITY
ASIA AREA PRESIDENCY
COUNTRY DIRECTOR
DR. Anderson LDS Material
83
16
PROSIDING INDONESIA
TAIWAN
MALAYSIA
COUNTRY DIRECTOR
CAMBODIA
VIETNAM
THAILAND
DR. Anderson LDS Material
17
LDS CHARITIES COUNTRY DIRECTOR
GOVERNMENT
NGO’S
DR. Anderson LDS Material
84
18
PROSIDING OUR FOCUS ON WELFARE
 ADDRESS IMMEDIATE NEEDS
 TO HELP LESS FORTUNATE PEOPLE TO HELP THEMSELVES
DR. Anderson LDS Material
19
After the devastation , then what?
DR. Anderson LDS Material
85
20
PROSIDING All victims of disasters need help, hope and life saving support
DR. Anderson LDS Material
21
LDS CHARITIES Humanitarian efforts include
 Long term help to help rebuild lives and homes
 To help rebuild communities & provide hope & stability
 Emergency relief with food, water and medicine
DR. Anderson LDS Material
86
22
PROSIDING Three new medical clinics & hospital wing were rebuilt in Indonesia
DR. Anderson LDS Material
23
New Community Center was built
DR. Anderson LDS Material
87
24
PROSIDING In Indonesia 24 village water projects were completed reaching over 200,000 people DR. Anderson LDS Material
25
NEW SCHOOLS IN INDONESIA
15 new schools were built by LDS Charities.
Thousands of young children were helped
DR. Anderson LDS Material
88
26
PROSIDING NEW HOMES BUILT
OVER 900 NEW HOMES BUILT
HOMES INCLUDED BEDS & KITCHEN SUPPLIES
DR. Anderson LDS Material
27
World wide humanitarian distributions and projects
 Wheel chairs‐
200,000 plus
 Clean water projects in over 2,500 communities
 People helped through clean water projects‐ 3,560,000
 All funded by LDS Charities
DR. Anderson LDS Material
89
28
PROSIDING Fighting measles worldwide
DR. Anderson LDS Material
29
World Health Organization estimates 6‐
8 million children die annually
 LDS CHARITIES contributed 54,784 volunteers
 Vaccination program was performed in 28 countries
 189,261,345 children vaccinated since 2003
DR. Anderson LDS Material
90
30
PROSIDING STARFISH STORY
DR. Anderson LDS Material
31
ONE AT A TIME
DR. Anderson LDS Material
91
32
PROSIDING FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
INDIVIDUAL SELF RELIANCE
FAMILY IS THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCK OF SOCIETY
DR. Anderson LDS Material
92
33
PROSIDING AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE
INDIVIDUAL SELF RELIANCE IS THE CORE SOLUTION
DR. Anderson LDS Material
35
SAVE THE SEAGULLS
DR. Anderson LDS Material
93
36
PROSIDING CYCLE OF WELFARE DEPENDENCE
SELF RELIANCE BREAKS THIS CYCLE
DR. Anderson LDS Material
37
BECOMING SELF RELIANT
“—requires work. Work is a basic source of happiness, self‐
worth, and prosperity. As people become self‐reliant, they are better prepared to endure adversities and are better able to care for others in need”
DR. Anderson LDS Material
94
38
PROSIDING SIX AREAS OF SELF RELIANCE
HOME STORAGE
EDUCATION
SPIRITUAL STRENGTH
EMPLOYMENT HEALTH
FINANCES
DR. Anderson LDS Material
39
LEARNING SELF SUFFICIENCY
DR. Anderson LDS Material
95
40
PROSIDING President Marion G. Romney taught:
“Without‐self reliance one cannot exercise the innate desires to serve. How can we give if there is nothing there? Food for the hungry cannot come from empty shelves. Money to assist the needy cannot come from an empty purse. Support and understanding cannot come from the emotionally starved. Teaching cannot come from the unlearned. And most important of all, spiritual guidance cannot come from the spiritually weak”.
DR. Anderson LDS Material
41
EDUCATION
• One of our highest values is  EDUCATION
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
ONE OF THE LARGEST PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN AMERICA
DR. Anderson LDS Material
96
42
PROSIDING Perpetual Education Fund
 Provide scholarships & loans to members of the LDS Church from developing nations
 To provide a means to receive higher education or training in skills
 To provide a brighter future for their countries
DR. Anderson LDS Material
43
PHYSICAL HEALTH
PRACTICE SOUND PRINCIPLES OF NUTRITION
AVOID HARMFUL SUBSTANCES
PHYSICAL FITNESS & WEIGHT CONTROL
DR. Anderson LDS Material
97
44
PROSIDING Strong Families Build A Strong Nation
DR. Anderson LDS Material
45
WHAT TO EXPECT
DR. Anderson LDS Material
98
46
PROSIDING Definition of personal & Family Preparedness
 Personal & Family preparedness, isn’t just preparation for some kind of disaster, it’s preparation for LIFE ‐‐‐the foreseen and the unexpected
 For us it is a culture‐‐‐ a way of life
DR. Anderson LDS Material
47
EMOTIONAL & SPIRITUAL STRENGTH
 Learn to communicate with God through prayer
 Learn to reach out & share
 Develop strong family relationships
DR. Anderson LDS Material
99
48
PROSIDING DR. Anderson LDS Material
49
Families are forever
DR. Anderson LDS Material
100
50
PROSIDING CAPACITY BUILDING FOR PROMOTING POLICY NETWORKING*) Oleh : Ketua Umum Asosiasi Pemerintah Kabupaten Seluruh Indonesia (APKASI) PENDAHULUAN Penyelenggaraan Negara pada hakekatnya adalah bertujuan untuk kesejahteraan rakyat. Hal ini sejalan dengan pernyataan yang dikemukakan pada Pembukaan UUD 1945 alenia ke empat yang berbunyi sebagai berikut : Kemudian dari pada itu untuk membentuk suatu Pemerintah Negara Indonesia yang melindungi segenap bangsa Indonesia dan seluruh tumpah darah Indonesia dan untuk memajukan kesejahteraan umum, mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa, dan ikut melaksanakan ketertiban dunia yang berdasarkan kemerdekaan, perdamaian abadi dan keadilan sosial, maka disusunlah Kemerdekaan Kebangsaan Indonesia itu dalam suatu Undang‐Undang Dasar Negara Indonesia, yang terbentuk dalam suatu susunan Negara Republik Indonesia yang berkedaulatan rakyat dengan berdasarkan kepada Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa, Kemanusiaan Yang Adil dan Beradab, Persatuan Indonesia dan Kerakyatan yang dipimpin oleh hikmat kebijaksanaan dalam Permusyawaratan/Perwakilan, serta dengan mewujudkan suatu Keadilan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia. Disini sangat jelas bahwa terbentuknya pemerintahan Negara yang akan menyelenggarakan Negara adalah ditujukan salah satunya untuk mewujudkan kesejahteraan rakyat. Amanat tersebut juga mengandung makna negara berkewajiban memenuhi kebutuhan *)
Makalah disajikan pada International Conference on Building Capacity and
Policy Networking for Effective Welfare Development, Lembaga Administrasi
Negara (LAN), Jakarta, 17-19 Nopember 2009.
101
PROSIDING setiap warga negara melalui suatu sistem pemerintahan yang mendukung terciptanya penyelenggaraan pelayanan publik yang prima dalam rangka memenuhi kebutuhan dasar dan hak sipil setiap warga negara atas barang publik, jasa publik, dan pelayanan administratif. Upaya mewujudkan kesejahteraan rakyat tentu tidak terlepas dari kebijakan yang ditetapkan atau diambil oleh penyelenggara Negara. Kebijakan sebagai produk pengambilan keputusan politik antara legislatif dan eksekutif maupun kebijakan sebagai produk pengambilan keputusan yang dilakukan oleh eksekutif dalam penyelenggaraan Negara sehari‐hari. Perumusan dan pengambilan keputusan oleh penyelenggara Negara yang akan melahirkan suatu kebijakan sangat dipengaruhi berbagai faktor internal dan eksternal dari suatu Negara. Demikian juga halnya bagi penyelenggara Negara di tingkat lokal/daerah, kebijakan yang dihasilkan disamping sangat ditentukan oleh kondisi kebutuhan dan kemampuan masing‐masing daerah juga sangat dipengaruhi dan ditentukan oleh kebijakan penyelenggara Negara di tingkat nasional. Dan bahkan kebijakan di tingkat lokal ini juga dipengaruhi oleh faktor‐faktor regional dan internasional. KEBIJAKAN PUBLIK Apa itu kebijakan publik? Kebijakan publik adalah suatu istilah atau konsep yang tidak asing lagi di kalangan penyelenggara negara maupun di kalangan masyarakat. Banyak pendapat ahli yang mengemukakan tentang pengertian kebijakan publik. Secara umum dapat kita lihat terdapat dua kelompok besar yaitu; pertama, kebijakan publik adalah tindakan‐tindakan pemerintah, dan kedua, kebijakan publik adalah keputusan‐keputusan pemerintah yang mempunyai maksud dan tujuan tertentu. Dengan demikian secara umum kebijakan publik dapat diartikan sebagai keputusan‐keputusan yang merupakan pilihan dari 102
PROSIDING pemerintah untuk maksud dan tujuan tertentu yang pada akhirnya akan melahirkan tindakan‐tindakan nyata dari pemerintah. Kebijakan publik tentu saja tidak lahir begitu saja, namun lahirnya kebijakan publik tentu melalui beberapa proses dan tahapan. Berdasarkan pendapat beberapa ahli proses kebijakan publik terdiri atas beberapa langkah yaitu : 1. policy germination, penyusunan konsep kebijakan sebagai akibat adanya kebutuhan yang dirasakan. 2. policy recommendation, pengumpulan saran pendapat sebagai bahan pengambilan keputusan. 3. policy analysis, telaahan dan kajian terhadap bahan yang telah dikumpulkan. 4. policy formulation, perumusan terhadap kebijakan yang diambil. 5. policy decision, pengambilan keputuasan melalui bentuk pengesahan secara formal oleh lembaga berwenang. 6. policy implementation, pelaksanaan dari kebijakan yang dijabarkan melalui berbagai program dan kegiatan. 7. policy evaluation, monitoring dan evaluasi secara berkala terhadap pelaksanaan kebijakan, serta pengkajian terhadap dampaknya. Kebijakan publik di tingkat lokal/daerah selayaknya juga mengalami proses tahapan sebagaimana di atas. Namun dalam kenyataannya proses lahirnya kebijakan publik kadang kala hanya muncul secara mendadak demi kepentingan sesaat dan kepentingan pihak tertentu. Kondisi ini sering kali menyebabkan terjadinya konflik kepentingan baik secara horizontal maupun vertikal. Lahirnya kebijakan publik tanpa melalui proses dan tahapan secara benar mempunyai dampak terhadap implementasi kebijakan tersebut. Bahkan kebijakan tersebut jauh dari tujuan ideal penyelenggaraan negara untuk mewujudkan kesejahteraan rakyat. 103
PROSIDING Kebijakan yang lahir demi kepentingan sesaat ini sering membawa dampak yang kurang baik terhadap upaya mewujudkan kesejahteraan rakyat. PENTINGNYA JEJARING KEBIJAKAN Penyelenggaraan negara di tingkat lokal yang diselenggarakan oleh Pemerintahan Daerah juga tidak terlepas dari proses penetapan kebijakan. Untuk dapat menyelenggarakan fungsi tersebut pemerintahan daerah yang terdiri dari komponen pemerintah daerah (eksekutif) dan DPRD (legislatif) melahirkan kebijakan dalam bentuk Peraturan Daerah. Kemudian sebagai pelaksanaan dari kebijakan tersebut Kepala Daerah sebagai pimpinan eksekutif juga melahirkan berbagai bentuk kebijakan seperti Peraturan Kepala Daerah, Keputusan Kepala Daerah, instruksi dan lain sebagainya. Semenjak bergulirnya reformasi dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintahan daerah yang diawali dengan lahirnya Undang‐Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah yang kemudian diikuti dengan lahirnya Undang‐Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2004 telah terjadinya perubahan yang sangat signifikan dalam proses lahirnya kebijakan dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintahan daerah. Jika sebelumnya kebijakan penyelenggaraan daerah oleh pemerintahan daerah sangat dipengaruhi secara dominan oleh pemerintahan pusat, maka dengan lahirnya UU 22/1999 dan UU 32/2004 telah memberikan ruang dan kebebasan bagi pemerintahan daerah untuk lebih kreatif dalam menetapkan kebijakan penyelenggaraan pemerintahan daerah. Kebebasan dalam melahirkan kebijakan tersebut kadang kala juga melahirkan kebijakan yang bertentangan dengan kepentingan umum dan bahkan dapat menyebabkan terjadinya konflik antar daerah sehingga mengakibatkan tidak dapat dibangunnya sinergi antar daerah dalam mewujudkan kesejahteraan rakyat. 104
PROSIDING Untuk mengatasi adanya hambatan dan konflik kepentingan antar daerah maka Undang‐Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 1999 pasal 115 mengakomodir terbentuknya Asosiasi Pemerintah Daerah. Yang dimaksud dengan Asosiasi Pemerintah Daerah adalah organisasi yang dibentuk oleh Pemerintah Daerah dalam rangka kerja sama antar‐Pemerintah Propinsi, antar Pemerintah Kabupaten, dan/atau antar‐Pemerintah Kota berdasarkan pedoman yang dikeluarkan oleh Pemerintah. Sebagai tindak lanjut ketentuan pasal 115 ini maka lahirlah asosiasi pemerintah daerah yaitu APPSI (Asosiasi Pemerintah Propinsi Seluruh Indonesia), APEKSI (Asosiasi Pemerintah Kota Seluruh Indonesia) dan APKASI (Asosiasi Pemerintah Kabupaten Seluruh Indonesia). Melalui asosiasi pemerintah daerah dibangun kerjasama yang diharapkan melahirkan sinergi antar pemerintah daerah dalam mewujudkan kesejahteraan masyarakat. Semenjak terbentuknya asosiasi pemerintah daerah tersebut telah dijalin kerjasama dalam memperjuangkan kepentingan daerah. Melalui wadah ini dilakukan berbagai upaya fasilitasi dan inisiasi terhadap lahirnya berbagai kebijakan nasional untuk kepentingan daerah serta kebijakan daerah yang selaras dan sejalan dengan kepentingan nasional. Kenapa jejaring kebijakan ini menjadi penting dalam penyelenggaraan negara baik di tingkat nasional dan tingkat lokal/daerah? Perumusan kebijakan dalam rangka pembangunan suatu negara juga tidak bisa dilepaskan dari pengaruh lingkungan strategis di tingkat kawasan (regional) maupun konstelasi internasional. Dimensi kebijakan publik yang menjadi ciri kedaulatan dan kewenangan sebuah negara harus bisa membuka diri terhadap dinamika lingkungan luar. Sehingga pembelajaran antar negara menjadi penting untuk dilakukan. Demikian juga halnya dalam perumusan kebijakan dalam rangka pembangunan daerah tentu tidak bisa terlepas dari pengaruh dari daerah lainnya baik daerah tetangga langsung maupun daerah 105
PROSIDING lainnya dalam suatu negara. Daerah yang berbatasan secara langsung akan saling mempengaruhi dalam melahirkan kebijakan untuk daerahnya. Demikian juga antara yang dianggap sudah maju dengan yang berkembang. Biasanya daerah maju akan menjadi rujukan bagi daerah berkembang dalam merumuskan dan menetapkan kebijakan. Undang‐Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah mengatur tentang adanya kerjasama antar daerah yaitu : Pasal 195 (1) Dalam rangka meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyat, daerah dapat mengadakan kerja sama dengan daerah lain yang didasarkan pada pertimbangan efisiensi dan efektifitas pelayanan publik, sinergi dan saling menguntungkan. (2) Kerja sama sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dapat diwujudkan dalam bentuk badan kerja sama antar daerah yang diatur dengan keputusan bersama. (3) Dalam penyediaan pelayanan publik, daerah dapat bekerja sama dengan pihak ketiga. (4) Kerja sama sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dan ayat (3) yang membebani masyarakat dan daerah harus mendapatkan persetujuan DPRD. Pasal 196 (1) Pelaksanaan urusan pemerintahan yang mengakibatkan dampak lintas daerah dikelola bersama oleh daerah terkait. (2) Untuk menciptakan efisiensi, daerah wajib mengelola pelayanan publik secara bersama dengan daerah sekitarnya untuk kepentingan masyarakat. (3) Untuk pengelolaan kerja sama sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dan ayat daerah membentuk badan kerja sama. 106
PROSIDING (4) Apabila daerah tidak melaksanakan kerja sama sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dan ayat (2), pengelolaan pelayanan publik tersebut dapat dilaksanakan oleh Pemerintah. Dari ketentuan pasal 195 dan 196 Undang‐Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2004 dapat disimpulkan kenapa diperlukan adanya jejaring kebijakan, diantaranya yaitu : 1. Kemampuan daerah terbatas Perbedaan potensi sumber daya yang dimiliki masing‐masing daerah, baik sumber daya manusia, sumber daya alam maupun sumber daya finansial mengakibatkan adanya perbedaan kemampuan antar daerah. Perbedaan kemampuan daerah ini menyebabkan adanya keterbatasan kemampuan daerah dari berbagai aspek. Karena keterbatasan kemampuan ini maka daerah memerlukan adanya kerjasama dan proses pembelajaran antar daerah. Melalui kerjasama dan jejaring kebijakan ini diupayakan untuk mengatasi keterbatasan kemampuan daerah yang pada akhirnya akan meningkatkan kapasitas daerah dalam penyelenggaraan urusan‐urusan guna mewujudkan kesejahteraan rakyat pada masing‐masing daerah khususnya dan rakyat Indonesia pada umumnya. 2. Dampak hubungan lintas daerah Pembagian wilayah administrasi pemerintahan daerah tidak begitu saja dapat memisahkan rakyat dalam beraktifitas. Hubungan lintas daerah membawa dampak yang signifikan terhadap daerah yang saling berbatasan. Daerah sedang berkembang yang berbatasan langsung dengan daerah maju akan terpengaruh dengan daerah tetangganya dan akan termotivasi untuk meningkatkan kapasitas untuk mendekati bahkan berupaya mengejar ketertinggalannya. Disisi lain hubungan lintas daerah juga bisa membawa dampak negatif, seperti daerah yang tidak terurus dan semrawut akan 107
PROSIDING membawa pengaruh kepada daerah tetangga yang sudah tertib dan teratur. 3. Efektifitas dan efisiensi Keterbatasan kemampuan suatu daerah mengharuskan suatu daerah untuk berupaya optimal memenuhi kebutuhan masyarakatnya. Melalui kerjasama antar daerah akan membantu daerah dalam mewujudkan kesejahteraan rakyat tersebut. Dengan membangun kerjasama dan jejaring kebijakan antar daerah tersebut maka masing‐masing daerah akan mendapatkan kemudahan dan keringanan dalam penyediaan sarana prasarana, pembiayaan dan sebagainya sehingga akan terwujud efisiensi dalam penyelenggaraan daerah. 4. Sinergi hubungan antar daerah Sinergi hubungan antar daerah akan mendorong efektifitas pencapaian tujuan dan target pembangunan masing‐masing daerah. Masing‐masing daerah tidak bisa berjalan sendiri dan untuk itu perlu adanya sinergi antar daerah. Sejalan dengan konsep Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia, maka sinergi antar daerah merupakan suatu keharusan karena melalui sinergi tersebut akan dapat dikukuhkan persatuan dan kesatuan bangsa. 5. Proses Pembelajaran Pengalaman masing‐masing daerah dalam mengelola dan penyelenggaraan daerah akan dapat dijadikan oleh daerah lainnya sebagai rujukan dan proses pembelajaran menuju penyelenggaraan daerah yang lebih baik, efektif dan efisien. Demikian juga halnya pengalaman ”best practises” yang ada pada di berbagai pemerintahan lokal maupun nasional di berbagai negara. 108
PROSIDING PENINGKATAN KAPASITAS JEJARING KEBIJAKAN Memperhatikan pentingnya jejaring kebijakan dalam mewujudkan kesejahteraan rakyat maka upaya membangun atau peningkatan kapasitas menjadi tujuan penting yang perlu segera diwujudkan. Oleh sebab itu dalam membangun kapasitas tersebut perlu adanya masukan pemikiran dan perumusan kesepahaman yang meliputi : 1. Bentuk jaringan kebijakan Bentuk jaringan kebijakan yang akan dibangun memperhatikan kebutuhan dan kemampuan sumber daya yang ada. Bentuk jaringan dapat mengadopsi best practises dari berbagai negara yang sudah mengembangkannya. 2. Pengelolaan jaringan Mekanisme pengelolaan jaringan serta titik simpul kendali jaringan yang akan dibangun perlu dilegalkan dan diterima semua pihak 3. Penajaman tujuan dan sasaran Tujuan dan sasaran yang akan dicapai melalui jejaring kebijakan ini harus mempunyai tujuan dan sasaran yang jelas dan tegas. 4. Menetapkan prioritas Perlu adanya penetapan skala prioritas terhadap tahapan yang akan dilaksanakan dan tujuan yang akan dicapai 5. Peranan masing‐masing stakeholders Karena jejaring kebijakan ini melibatkan berbagai unsur maka perlu pengaturan peranan dari masing‐masing pihak. 6. Pengelolaan sumber daya dan pembiayaan Sumber daya yang ada serta pembiayaan jejaring kebijakan ini perlu ditata secara komprehensif sehingga dapat tercapainya efektifitas dan efisiensi. 109
PROSIDING Bagi jajaran pemerintahan di daerah upaya peningkatan kapasitas jejaring kebijakan ini perlu adanya penyamaan persepsi dan visi antara unsur pemerintah daerah (eksekutif), DPRD (legislatif), dunia usaha, akademisi dan stakeholders lainnya. Dan yang sangat penting disini adalah bagaimana terbangunnya persamaan persepsi tentang kesejahteraan rakyat di antara komponen eksekutif dan legislatif di daerah. ASOSIASI PEMERINTAH KABUPATEN SELURUH INDONESIA Ketua Umum, H. Sujono Bupati Pacitan 110
PROSIDING PENGEMBANGAN KAPASITAS DALAM JEJARING KEBIJAKAN
Disampaikan pada:
International Conference on Building Capacity and Policy Networking for Effectiveness Welfare Development
Jakarta, 19 November 2009
APEKSI


Dideklarasikan pada tanggal 25 Mei 2000 pada
saat Munas para Wali Kota Seluruh Indonesia
di Surabaya
Saat ini Apeksi beranggotakan 98 pemerintah
kota di seluruh Indonesia
111
PROSIDING VISI
Terwujudnya organisasi yang strategis
untuk pemberdayaan kota‐kota dalam
rangka pelaksanaan otonomi di Indonesia
MISI
Menjadikan organisasi yang terpercaya, profesional di
bidang perkotaan dalam mendukung dan melaksanakan
upaya terbaik bagi pemerintahan kota melalui
pembangunan yang demokratis, transparan, otonomi
yang bertanggung jawab, sebagai bagian dari masyarakat
baru pada struktur pemerintahan di Negara Kesatuan
Republik Indonesia
LINGKUP PROGRAM KERJA 2008‐2012
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Pengembangan Kapasitas Kota
Advokasi
Kerjasama Antar Daerah
Komunikasi dan Informasi
Kemitraan
Konsolidasi Organisai
112
PROSIDING KESEJAHTERAAN : DALAM TATARAN NORMATIF (UUD NEGARA RI 1945)
Ditegaskan dalam Alinea IV Pembukaan UUD Negara RI 1945
“Kemudian daripada itu, untuk membentuk suatu
Pemerintahan Negara Indonesia yang melindungi
segenap bangsa Indonesia dan seluruh tumpah darah
Indonesia dan untuk memajukan kesejahteraan
umum, mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa…. dst
Kesimpulan : Pemerintah RI dibentuk untuk
melindungi (Law and Order) dan mensejahterakan
rakyat (Welfare)
BAGAIMANA MENCIPTAKAN KESEJAHTERAAN OLEH PEMERINTAH
DEKONSENTRASI
(PEMERINTAH WILAYAH/FIELD ADMINISTRATION)
FUNCTIONAL FIELD
ADMINISTRATION;
KANDEP/KANWIL
INTEGRATED FIELD
ADMINISTRATION;
KEPALA WILAYAH
PEMERINTAH PUSAT
POWER SHARING
1. OTONOMI TERBATAS
(ULTRA VIRES)
2. OTONOMI LUAS (GENERAL COMPETENCE)
DESENTRALISASI
(PEMERINTAH DAERAH)
Sumber: I Made Suwandi
113
PROSIDING URGENSI KEBERADAAN PEMERINTAH DAERAH
1. Keberadaan Pemda untuk melindungi dan mensejahterakan masyarakat secara demokratis
2. Kesejahteraan diukur dengan Indeks Pembangunan Manusia (Human Development Index), dengan indikator utamanya (i) penghasilan; (ii) kesehatan; dan (iii) pendidikan.
3. Untuk meningkatkan pencapaian HDI dilakukan melalui pelayanan publik yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan masyarakat
4. Kebutuhan masyarakat terdiri dari : (i) Kebutuhan Pokok (Basic Needs); dan Kebutuhan Pengembangan Sektor Unggulan (Core Competences). Sektor unggulan dapat diidentifikasi dari sintesis PDRB, mata pencaharian, dan pemanfaatan lahan. Pasal 18A UUD Negara RI
(1) Hubungan wewenang antara Pemerintah dan pemerintah daerah provinsi, kabupaten, dan kota, atau antara provinsi dan kabupaten dan kota diatur dengan undang‐undang dengan memperhatikan kekhususan dan keragaman daerah.
Kesimpulan :
1. Pemerintah Pusat, Provinsi, dan Kabupaten/Kota
berkewajiban dan mempunyai kewenangan untuk
menciptakan ketentraman dan ketertiban serta
kesejahteraan masyarakat
2. Dalam rangka menciptakan ketentraman dan ketertiban
serta kesejahteraan masyarakat wajib bersinergi.
114
PROSIDING Misi utama Pemda adalah : Menyediakan pelayanan dasar (Basic Services) dan mengembangkan sektor unggulan (Core Competences) dengan cara‐cara yang demokratis
Outputs / end products Pemda adalah :
a. Public
Goods;
barang‐barang
kebutuhan
masyarakat, seperti : jalan, pasar, sekolah, RS, dsb.
b. Public
Regulations;
masyarakat, seperti KTP,
Kelahiran, dsb.
Kesimpulan :
pengaturan‐pengaturan
KK, IMB, HO, Akte
Pemda harus mempunyai kewenangan‐kewenangan yang
memungkinkan mereka dapat menghasilkan public goods dan
public regulations yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan masyarakat
(kebutuhan dasar dan pengembangan sektor unggulan)
SIKLUS KEBIJAKAN (Kebijakan ‐> Pembangunan Kesejahteraan)
PENJARINGAN ASPIRASI
KEBIJAKAN:
PENGAWASAN
Pembangunan
Kesejahteraan
PENYUSUNAN
PELAKSANAAN
115
PROSIDING STRATEGI APEKSI
SIKLUS
KEBIJAKAN
•Revisi UU 32/2004
PENJARING
AN
ASPIRASI
Focus Group
Discussion dan
seminar untuk
penjaringan
masukan terhadap
suatu perundangan
•Revisi PP 38/2007
•Revisi UU Pajak dan
Retribusi Daerah
•PP tentang Pelabuhan dan
Bandara
•Posisi terhadap perubahan
iklim
PENYUSUN
AN
PELAKSAN
AAN
Pelatihan dan
workshop
penyusunan
kebijakan
Repat Kerja
Teknis, Pelatihan, W
orkshop, Magang, S
tudi
banding, Penerbitan
buku
• Pelatihan/workshop
penyusunan anggaran
• Pelatihan/workshop
penyusuan perda
• Pelatihan/workshop
penyusunan laporan
keuangan
• Rapat teknis bagi Sekda
untuk implementasi UU
baru: sampah,
penanggulangan bencana,
perubahan iklim
• Magang manajemen
pemerintahan ke Korea
PENGAWAS
AN
Pelatihan dan
workshop
pengawsan/analisis
tentang suatu
kebijakan baik
nasional, di tingkat
daerah/kota
• Peberbitan buku Best
Practice, pinjaman dan
obligasi daerah
• Workhsop Hasil Studi
pencegahan tindak pidana
korupsi
116
PROSIDING ASOSIASI
PEMERINTAHAN
DAERAH: APEKSI,
APKASI, ADEKSI,
ADKASI, APPSI
JARINGAN
ASOSIASI
PEMERINTAHAN
DAERAH DUNIA :
UCLG, VNG
MEDIA MASSA
LEMBAGA
INTERNASIONAL:
CITYNET, KAS,
UNDP, GTZ, dsb.
INSTANSI
PEMERINTAH :
DEPDAGRI,
DEPKEU, KLH, KPP,
MENPAN
JEJARING
KEBIJAKAN :
STAKEHOLDERS
ORNOP :
KPPOD, PSHK,
dsb
DPR/DPD
PERGURUAN
TINGGI/AKADEMIS
I/PUSAT STUDI :
UI, UGM, dsb
Rasuna Office Park Lt. 3 Unit WO 06‐09
Komplek Rasuna Episentrum
Jl. H.R. Rasuna Said, Kuningan – Jakarta 12960
Telp. (021) 8370 4703, 9393 890
Fax. (021) 8370 4733
Website: www.apeksi.or.id
Email: [email protected]
117