Decentralization in Nation State Building of Indonesia

Introduction：Today, many countries, regardless of developed or developing, are trying to promote decentralization. According to Manor, as his quoting of Nickson’s argument, decentralization stems from the necessity to strengthen local governments as proxy of civil society to fill the yawning gap between the state and civil society (Manor [1999]: 30). With the end to the Cold War following the collapse of the Soviet Union rendering the cause of the “leadership of the central government to counter communism” meaningless, Manor points out, it has become increasingly difficult to respond flexibly to changes in society under the centralized system. Then, what benefits can be expected from the effectuation of decentralization? Litvack-Ahmad-Bird cited the four points: attainment of allocative efficiency in the face of different local preferences for local public goods; improvement to government competitiveness; realization of good governance; and enhancement of the legitimacy and sustainability of heterogeneous national states (Litvack, Ahmad & Bird [1998]: 5). They all contribute to reducing the economic and social costs of a central government unable to respond to changes in society and enhancing the efficiency of state administration through the delegation of authority to local governments. Why did Indonesia have a go at decentralization? As Maryanov recognizes, reasons for the implementation of decentralization in Indonesia have never been explicitly presented (Maryanov [1958]: 17). But there was strong momentum toward building a democratic state in Indonesia at the time of independence, and as indicated by provisions of Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution, there was the tendency in Indonesia from the beginning to debate decentralization in association with democratization. That said debate about democratization was fairly abstract and the main points are to ease the tensions, quiet the complaints, satisfy the political forces and thus stabilize the process of government (Maryanov [1958]: 26-27). 　　　What triggered decentralization in Indonesia in earnest, of course, was the collapse of the Soeharto regime in May 1998. The Soeharto regime, regarded as the epitome of the centralization of power, became incapable of effectively dealing with problems in administration of the state and development administration. Besides, the post-Soeharto era of “reform (reformasi)” demanded the complete wipeout of the Soeharto image. In contraposition to the centralization of power was decentralization. The Soeharto regime that ruled Indonesia for 32 years was established in 1966 under the banner of “anti-communism.” The end of the Cold War structure in the late 1980s undermined the legitimate reason the centralization of power to counter communism claimed by the Soeharto regime. The factor for decentralization cited by Manor is applicable here. 　　　Decentralization can be interpreted to mean not only the reversal of the centralized system of government due to its inability to respond to changes in society, as Manor points out, but also the participation of local governments in the process of the nation state building through the more positive transfer of power (democratic decentralization) and in the coordinated pursuit with the central government for a new shape of the state. However, it is also true that a variety of problems are gushing out in the process of implementing decentralization in Indonesia. 　　　This paper discusses the relationship between decentralization and the formation of the nation state with the awareness of the problems and issues described above. Section 1 retraces the history of decentralization by examining laws and regulations for local administration and how they were actually implemented or not. Section 2 focuses on the relationships among the central government, local governments, foreign companies and other actors in the play over the distribution of profits from exploitation of natural resources, and examines the process of the ulterior motives of these actors and the amplification of mistrust spawning intense conflicts that, in extreme cases, grew into separation and independence movements. Section 3 considers the merits and demerits at this stage of decentralization implemented since 2001 and shed light on the significance of decentralization in terms of the nation state building. Finally, Section 4 attempts to review decentralization as the “opportunity to learn by doing” for the central and local governments in the process of the nation state building. 　　　In the context of decentralization in Indonesia, deconcentration (dekonsentrasi), decentralization (desentralisasi) and support assignments (tugas pembantuan; medebewind, a Dutch word, was used previously) are defined as follows. Dekonsentrasi means that when the central government puts a local office of its own, or an outpost agency, in charge of implementing its service without delegating the administrative authority over this particular service. The outpost agency carries out the services as instructed by the central government. A head of a local government, when acting for the central government, gets involved in the process of dekonsentrasi. Desentralisasi, meanwhile, occurs when the central government cedes the administrative authority over a particular service to local governments. Under desentralisasi, local governments can undertake the particular service at their own discretion, and the central government, after the delegation of authority, cannot interfere with how local governments handle that service. Tugas pembantuan occur when the central government makes local governments or villages, or local governments make villages, undertake a particular service. In this case, the central government, or local governments, provides funding, equipment and materials necessary, and officials of local governments and villages undertake the service under the supervision and guidance of the central or local governments. Tugas pembantuan are maintained until local governments and villages become capable of undertaking that particular service on their own.

Allocation efficiency in China : an extension of the dynamic Olley-Pakes productivity decomposition

This paper develops a quantitative measure of allocation efficiency, which is an extension of the dynamic Olley-Pakes productivity decomposition proposed by Melitz and Polanec (2015). The extended measure enables the simultaneous capture of the degree of misallocation within a group and between groups and parallel to capturing the contribution of entering and exiting firms to aggregate productivity growth. This measure empirically assesses the degree of misallocation in China using manufacturing firm-level data from 2004 to 2007. Misallocation among industrial sectors has been found to increase over time, and allocation efficiency within an industry has been found to worsen in industries that use more capital and have firms with relatively higher state-owned market shares. Allocation efficiency among three ownership sectors (state-owned, domestic private, and foreign sectors) tends to improve in industries wherein the market share moves from a less-productive state-owned sector to a more productive private sector.

Effectiveness of promoting energy efficiency in Thailand -- the case of air conditioners

This paper aims to identify the magnitude of energy efficiency improvement, which has been promoted through energy efficiency labeling and the Minimum Energy Performance Standard, and to compare this against the increase in the number of products and the average increase in cooling capacity. Air conditioners (ACs) are one of the major contributors to energy consumption in a household. To assess the magnitude of this factor, we developed a formula to decompose total energy consumption from ACs into the number of ACs, their average cooling capacity, and energy efficiency. In the case of ACs in Thailand, energy efficiency improvement has offset the increase in the average AC cooling capacity. However, energy consumption from ACs increases with the number of ACs.

Energy efficiency standard and labeling program and consumer welfare : a case of the air conditioner market in China

Improving energy efficiency is an unarguable emergent issue in developing economies and an energy efficiency standard and labeling program is an ideal mechanism to achieve this target. However, there is concern regarding whether the consumers will choose the highly energy efficient appliances because of its high price in consequence of the high cost. This paper estimates how the consumer responds to introduction of the energy efficiency standard and labeling program in China. To quantify evaluation by consumers, we estimated their consumer surplus and the benefits of products based on the estimated parameters of demand function. We found the following points. First, evaluation of energy efficiency labeling by the consumer is not monotonically correlated with the number of grades. The highest efficiency label (Label 1) is not evaluated to be no less higher than labels 2 and 3, and is sometimes lower than the least energy efficient label (Label UI). This goes against the design of policy intervention. Second, several governmental policies affects in mixed directions: the subsidies for energy saving policies to the highest degree of the labels contribute to expanding consumer welfare as the program was designed. However, the replacement for new appliances policies decreased the welfare.

Should energy efficiency be traded off for other product attributes? : an analysis of air-conditioner regulation in Japan

This paper examines the functioning of energy efficiency standards and labeling policies for air conditioners in Japan. The results of our empirical analysis suggest that consumers respond more to label information, which benchmarks the energy efficiency performance of each product to a pre-specified target, than to direct performance measures. This finding provides justification for the setting, and regular updating, of target standards as well as their use in calculating relative performance measures. We also find, through graphical analysis, that air conditioner manufacturers face a tradeoff between energy efficiency and product compactness when they develop their products. This tradeoff, combined with the semi-regular upward revision of minimum energy efficiency standards, has led to the growth in indoor unit size of air conditioners in recent years. In the face of this phenomenon, regulatory rules were revised so that manufacturers could adhere to less stringent standards if the indoor unit size of their product remains below a certain size. Our demand estimates provide no evidence that larger indoor unit size causes disutility to consumers. It is therefore possible that the regulatory change was not warranted from a consumer welfare point of view.