Govt needs to keep decentralization on track<\/p>\n
Indonesia has pursued decentralization since 2001, however,
\nuntil now no authoritative measurement has been adopted to
\nactually assess its progress. The Jakarta Post's Riyadi Suparno
\ninterviewed Roy Bahl, an expert in fiscal decentralization from
\nGeorgia State University, United States, on the issue of
\nperformance measurement of local government. Bahl, who has been
\nengaged in Indonesia's decentralization process for some years,
\nparticipated in a seminar organized by the World Bank and the
\nMinistry of Home Affairs on performance measurement in Bali on
\nMonday. The following is an excerpt from the interview.<\/p>\n
Question: Why do we need performance measurement of local
\ngovernment?<\/p>\n
Answer: Decentralization means letting local units do what
\nthey want, but at the same time, having a monitoring system
\nallows you to check the excesses. Decentralization is about
\ngetting government closer to people. So, if it works, local
\nofficials become accountable down to the voters. Performance
\nmeasurement sort of feels like local officials being accountable
\nup to who's doing the monitoring.<\/p>\n
Some local officials argue that they are accountable to local
\nvoters more than to the central government, because ultimately it
\nis the voters who determine their fate? Your opinion?<\/p>\n
All over the world, there are monitoring systems. There are
\ngood and legitimate reasons why central government opts to
\nmeasure the performance of local governments. For example,
\nconditional grants, or what you call here DAK (Special Allocation
\nFund): If you give a grant with a condition, then, you have to
\nmonitor whether local governments meet the condition. Another
\nexample, in order to have good financial practice, all local
\ngovernments have to have financial accounts in the same format.
\nThe central government has to set that and monitor it. Also,
\nevery local government has to have their books audited, and the
\ncentral government has to do that.<\/p>\n
Every country has a limit on what local governments can do.
\nLike in my country, the United States, local governments have a
\ngreat deal of freedom, but they may be limited in terms of tax
\nrates or in terms of their borrowing rate. Somebody has to
\nmonitor that. So, really, it's about striking the balance.<\/p>\n
As the central government has to do the assessment, as you
\nsuggest, what areas need to be assessed by the central
\ngovernment?<\/p>\n
If I were the central government, the Ministry of Home Affairs
\nor the Ministry of Finance, I would be worried about how well
\ndecentralization is doing. I would want to monitor the
\nperformance of decentralization so that I can change policy to
\nmake it better.<\/p>\n
If we put all these local governments on the learning curve of
\nfinance, for example, I might want to monitor how quickly they
\nare learning financial management practices. Are their financial
\nmanagement practices proper? If not, what short of capacity
\nbuilding, training, procedural changes do we need?<\/p>\n
So, I think, it's pretty broad. There are a lot of things to
\ndo. It would be a mistake to say that we would just watch after
\nthe local governments if they are doing the good job. That's part
\nof it. To me, in Indonesia right now, what the central government
\nmost needs to know is whether they are succeeding in
\ndecentralization.<\/p>\n
But measuring the success of decentralization is more than
\njudging the performance of local governments, isn't it?<\/p>\n
The point is it isn't just you judging each local government
\non how well they succeed in decentralization. What you are
\njudging is also whether the central policy is any good.<\/p>\n
One thing that should happen with this decentralization is
\nthat local governments should generate more revenues from their
\nown sources, i.e. user charges and local taxes. You may find out
\nthat across the country that's not happening. Maybe it's because
\nthere are deficiencies in local administrations that need to be
\ncorrected. Maybe the central government does not give enough
\ntaxing power to the local governments.<\/p>\n
So, the central government is doing the monitoring, but, in
\nessence, they are monitoring themselves.<\/p>\n
When the central government has conducted the monitoring, what
\nneeds to be done with the results, and what should be the
\npriority?<\/p>\n
Different things. In Indonesia, you are very concerned about
\ndisparity between rich and poor regions. If it is found that the
\nnext year, the disparity has widened in this country, this might
\nlead you back to DAU (General Allocation Fund) to solve the
\nproblem. The question is whether the DAU is narrowing this
\ndisparity or widening it.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/govt-needs-to-keep-decentralization-on-track-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}