| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
128528
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The year 2011 marked the tenth anniversary of the implementation of Indonesia's regional autonomy laws. This paper considers implications of more than a decade of decentralized governance for urban development in Indonesia. After a brief historical overview and consideration of the rationale for political and administrative decentralization issue image_86_4_Bunnellin that national context, we examine a range of critical perspectives on policy outcomes. Both media coverage and academic analyses have overwhelmingly cast decentralized governance as it has been implemented in Indonesia in a negative light. As a corrective to this, we have sought to identify positive outcomes and possibilities associated with Indonesia's large-scale decentralization project. In particular, we detail the cases of two cities which have been cast in a variety of rankings and media representations as success stories of urban development through decentralized governance: Solo (or Surakarta as the city is also formally named) and Surabaya. In the final section of the paper, we critically evaluate these two cases and discuss their wider implications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
181827
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
One of the objectives of Indonesia’s 2001 decentralization reform was to enable the country’s subnational regions (provinces, cities and regencies) to realize their unique potential and, thus, implicitly, maximize their competitive advantage. While we have seen some improvements in socio-economic development and democratic accountability, stark variations in economic outcomes across regions remain. Why are some more successful than others in achieving competitiveness? Focusing primarily on district-level data from 1998 to 2016, this paper systematically examines the factors that may influence variations in subnational competitiveness in Indonesia. We found significant correlations between competitiveness and fiscal decentralization measures and, separately, between competitiveness at the province level and elements of democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|