What's wrong with RI's development planners?<\/p>\n
Budhi Santoso, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The Indonesian economic crisis of 1998 provoked a number of
\npractitioners and critics to review national development planning
\nsystems that had been implemented for 30 years during the New
\nOrder era.<\/p>\n
Simple questions were raised: What has the planning institute
\nbeen doing to allow such a severe crisis to occur?<\/p>\n
Some arguments have centered around theoretical debates
\nbetween centralistic and decentralistic approaches in the
\nimplementation of national development programs.<\/p>\n
It is argued that the centralistic method of development
\nplanning tends to locate planning in the hands of the state and
\ntechnocrats, where growth is more important than equity.<\/p>\n
As part of the economic development reform agenda, there are
\nsome changes in the system of planning and the budgeting of
\nnational development program that previously centered on sector
\ndepartments in Jakarta transferred to regions. The legalization
\nof this reform was been stipulated in Law No. 33\/2004 on
\nbudgetary matters and Law No. 32\/ 2004 on regional
\nadministrations.<\/p>\n
Considering that the national and centralized development
\nsystem is regarded as old fashioned and out of date, the system
\nwas replaced by the medium term expenditure term model (MTEF),
\nwhich was adopted in Law No. 17\/2004 on state finance.<\/p>\n
However, taking into consideration that the country needs
\nguidelines to adopt President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's vision
\nand mission in a national medium term development planning
\nprogram, the House of Representative enacted Law No. 25\/2004 on
\nthe National Development Planning System.<\/p>\n
The House probably thought that Law No. 17\/2004 did not
\nspecify guidelines for the future of the country, but rather how
\nmuch money would be spent over a period of time.<\/p>\n
Owen Podger wrote in this newspaper that the passing of Law
\nNo. 25\/2004 was a backward decision and against international
\ntrends in national planning. He cited Law No. 17\/2004 as the
\ncorrect way of planning. It is a pity that Podger did not mention
\nhow many countries have successfully adopted the method and how
\nmany countries were unsuccessful.<\/p>\n
This opinion does not intend to respond to the criticism
\nraised by Podger to the National Development Planning Board
\n(Bappenas) who's existence is supported by Law No. 25\/2004.
\nHowever, some interesting issues are worth raising.<\/p>\n
First, we should agree that planning without budgeting is only
\na dream. Budgeting without planning will result in wasteful
\nspending or widening the possibility of corruption by government
\nofficers.<\/p>\n
Good and correct planning will direct us where to go in the
\nfuture. It should have a clear vision and mission both in the
\nmedium and long term. Planning of national development for the
\nsake of short term need results in unpredictability.<\/p>\n
One can imagine a passenger on a plane intending to go to
\nBali, but when the plane has landed he realizes that he is in
\nManado. Law No. 25\/2004 is not designed to allow exclusive
\nplanning without adopting the elected president's vision and
\nmission. All of this should be written in an integrated planning
\nand budgeting document in conformity with the country's long term
\ngoal.<\/p>\n
The second issue is about coordination. Departments should be
\ngiven autonomy to coordinate their sectoral development plans.
\nBappenas will not act as a super agency who pretends to know and
\ncontrol everything.<\/p>\n
Budgeting functions (budgeting power) is no longer Bappenas'
\nresponsibility. Bappenas no longer coordinates how departments
\nformulate their own sector development program, but when there is
\na program which in its implementation is the responsibility of
\nmore than one ministry, a kind of planning coordination is
\nabsolutely necessary so that there will not be duplication or
\nlack of synchronization.<\/p>\n
The government has now adopted a development budget
\nadministration process using a performance basis in which
\nBappenas is only involved in planning, monitoring and the annual
\nevaluation. The task and function of planning and budgeting of
\nsector development is conducted by each department, the Ministry
\nof Finance and House of Representatives.<\/p>\n
The problem of how to achieve significant economic growth
\nevery year is merely a choice of either using the centralistic or
\ndecentralistic approach.<\/p>\n
As part of the reform agenda, the government has decided to
\nimplement a decentralistic approach that is to involve as much as
\npossible regional governments and civil society in formulating
\ndevelopment plans and its budgeting so that economic recovery can
\nbe achieved without ignoring the end users.<\/p>\n
As we know Indonesia prior to the crisis was one of the seven
\nemerging Asia Pacific countries lead by Japan to have
\ncontinuously high economic growth and reducing poverty at the
\nsame time for more than 25 years.<\/p>\n
By making detailed observations of the root of the problem
\nthat caused the Indonesian economic crash we can hopefully better
\nidentify between causes in the public or financial sector.<\/p>\n
We should also ask ourselves whether it is wise to blame
\ndevelopment planners in Bappenas while we know that by early 1998
\nthe key decisions were in the hands of economic cabinet ministers
\nwho were actually not economists?<\/p>\n
It should also be understood that the country's economy does
\nnot only depend on the public sector but also the private sector
\nwhich has a much bigger role in the national economy.<\/p>\n
The judgment thus should not be based on how development
\nplanning was formulated and implemented, but also what the
\nresults were?<\/p>\n
Finally, the importance of planning coordination is signified
\nin the ability to the government to secure a strategy which can
\nbe adopted by all departments. Some departments, until today,
\nstill implement a centralistic approach, a methodology closer to
\nthe project approach (for multi sector projects) rather than a
\nprograms approach.<\/p>\n
There are many reasons behind this, but basically by
\ncentralizing the program, this means budgeting power remains in
\nthe hands of the department.<\/p>\n
When you have budgetary power you can spend the money as you
\nlike, and you can save some of it for your own pocket. This is
\nanother reason why planning coordination is important, among
\nothers, to give direction to departments to consistently
\nimplement a new paradigm of development.<\/p>\n
The writer is head of the irrigation sub-directorate at
\nBappenas. The opinion's expressed here does not represent
\nBappenas' view.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/whats-wrong-with-ris-development-planners-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}