The paradox of regional autonomy
Empowered regions are not a threat to Indonesia; empowered regions are the foundation of Indonesia’s strength.
Jakarta (ANTARA) - There is a paradox in our regional autonomy. Regional heads are directly elected by the people and are expected to take responsibility for education, health, poverty, infrastructure, investment, employment, and public services. Yet the weight of that responsibility is not matched by the limited fiscal space and policy authority they actually possess.
This is where regional autonomy needs to be re-examined. Autonomy is not merely a division of governmental affairs, but a division of authority, responsibility, and trust.
Indonesia is too vast and diverse to be managed with a single development formula. The problems of archipelagic regions differ from those of mountainous areas. Industrial cities differ from agricultural districts. Border regions cannot be treated the same as metropolitan cities.
National policy requires a common direction, but the means of achieving it need not be uniform.
The development paradox
The development paradox continues to unfold before us. We see regions with fertile soil where farmers remain poor, expansive coastal areas where fishermen live in deprivation, or areas rich in minerals and oil and gas where the level of public welfare is not commensurate with that wealth.
In political economy literature, this phenomenon is known as the resource curse — the reality that abundant natural wealth does not automatically transform into public welfare.
The issue is not merely how much wealth a region possesses, but how far a region is able to convert that potential into added value, employment, income, and welfare for local communities.
Another paradox emerges in fiscal matters. Many regions remain dependent on central government transfers. Some even face pressure in financing basic needs and personnel expenditure. Responsibility has been decentralised, but the capacity to carry it out has not fully followed.
In theory, Wallace Oates, through the concept of fiscal federalism, explains that public services tend to be more efficient when decisions are made closer to the community.
In line with this, Dennis Rondinelli positions decentralisation as the transfer of planning and decision-making authority to levels of government closer to citizens.
Jean-Paul Faguet has also shown that decentralisation can improve government responsiveness and accountability, provided it is supported by strong institutions and oversight.
The logic is simple: regions possess local knowledge that the centre does not always understand.
Archipelagic communities understand the intricacies of sea transport better, farmers are more familiar with seasonal patterns, distribution chains, and markets, while city governments know best about waste, congestion, and housing availability. All of this contextual knowledge will never be fully captured through data tables, applications, or national-level technical guidelines alone.