Decentralization and Public Service Provision: A Case Study of the Education Sector in Jayawijaya District, Papua, Indonesia.

AuthorEfriandi, Tbi

In 2001, Indonesian Law 21/2001 granted special autonomy status to Papua province. This status provided the provincial government of Papua with greater authority than other provinces, and increased financial support from the central government. From 2009 to 2017, as much as Rp40 trillion (approximately US$2.8 billion) was allocated to Papua in support of its special autonomy. (1) One of the aims of special autonomy for Papua was to improve the provision of education in the province. However, the degree to which better educational levels have been accomplished has been disappointing. Development indicators in Papua still lag behind Indonesia's other provinces, including the low mean years of schooling. The maximum number of school years in Indonesia is 15, but Papua had a mean of just 6.3 years in 2017, which compares unfavourably to the national level of 8.1 years. (2) However, this outcome is not due to the lack of schools or teachers, but rather the high rates of teacher absenteeism that has contributed to the high proportion of student dropouts. (3)

The aim of this article is to explain why the public service provision of primary education in Jayawijaya is still underperforming despite the extra resources allocated by the central government through decentralization. By employing a qualitative case study design and combining data from the literature, policy studies and in-depth interviews, the article identifies three major barriers which hinder the delivery of primary education services in Jayawijaya: first, the uniformity of national educational policies and standards that fail to recognize and accommodate local circumstances; second, the ineffectiveness of incentive structures to meet the local needs of schools and teachers; and third, the problem of monitoring due to the lack of coordination between the local government's territorial and functional administrations. These findings contribute to the existing literature on multi-level governance by showing the emergence of vertical and horizontal governance problems between district governments, schools as service providers, and subdistrict governments. In addition, this article enriches agency theory by applying the theory to analyse state policy implementation, particularly in the provision of public services.

The article first lays out the definition and concepts of decentralization, multi-level governance and agency theory as the framework for analysis, followed by a discussion of the article's research design. It goes on to analyse the empirical findings based upon the results of interviews. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the research findings and offers recommendations for policymakers and further research.

Theoretical Background

Decentralization: Definition, Concept and Practice

Decentralization is one of the key instruments for reforming the governance structure of a nation. It changes the relationship between the central and local governments by transferring authority, resources and responsibility from the central government to local governments. (4) As decentralization implies a movement away from the centre, it raises questions over what and how authority should be distributed. Taking a broad view, decentralization can be classified into two categories: the degree and the type of authority devolved. (5) The former category classifies decentralization according to the distribution of power and/or functions to local governments. Three classes can be discerned: de-concentration, delegation and devolution. (6) The second category of decentralization is the type of authority transferred to local governments. Three types are defined: political decentralization, administrative decentralization and fiscal decentralization. (7)

Decentralization has become an important issue for both academics and policymakers in many countries. Bringing the government closer to the people is widely believed to generate benefits to governance and development, particularly in the provision of public services. Advocates of decentralization argue that devolving authority to the local government increases government accountability and responsiveness to citizens. (8) This is because decentralization opens up greater opportunities for local citizens to participate in policy design and decision-making processes that affect them. (9) It is asserted that development plans and programmes on public service delivery will be tailored and be more responsive to the specific needs of heterogeneous regions and groups. (10)

In practice, however, decentralization can also be hampered by the problem of recentralization. (11) In Uganda, for example, decentralization has suffered from a lack of independence from central government control due to strong ties between the national party and local governments, which has led to a lack of effectiveness in the provision of high-quality public services. (12) Recentralization also emerged in China as the central government's commitment to decentralize the educational system was in conflict with its desire to maintain control while simultaneously being responsive to the needs of the new market economy. (13) The tendencies to recentralize indicate that decentralization is not an end point in reforming. Since decentralization empowers local people and local politicians at the expense of national politicians and bureaucrats, it results in the central government being reluctant to transfer their authority or a desire to regain it because it might attenuate the reforms. (14) However, recentralization is not only due to the motivation of the central authorities to regain powers that have been transferred. The inadequacy of capacity at the local level, local fiscal dependency on the central government, the risk of local elite capture and local decision-makers' lack of accountability provide incentives for the central government to reassert control over local governments. (15)

Another crucial factor that affects the fluctuation between recentralization and decentralization is the trade-off "between uniformity of national standards and territorial variations", particularly in the provision of public services. (18) On the one hand, the establishment of standards or common sets by the central government is intended to ensure the equality of public services for citizens in different regions. On the other hand, there are various circumstances at the local level in terms of geographical conditions, cultural diversity and socio-economic development that affect the capacity of the local institutions to meet those national standards. (17) Detailed central rules that diminish local discretion might hinder the local government's effort to customize public service provision to local needs and conditions. (18)

Multi-level Governance

As decentralization distributes authority from the central government to local governments, the question of how such a reallocation of authority should be organized in a governance structure arises. In addressing this question, multi-level governance (MLG) theory offers a conceptual basis. MLG refers to "the explicit or implicit sharing of policy-making authority, responsibility, development and implementation at different administrative and territorial levels". (19) The arrangement of MLG can take the form of either a vertical or horizontal relationship. (20)

The vertical relationship relates to the distribution of authority in a hierarchical administrative system. (21) In decentralization, this vertical dimension is often closely related to the territorial characteristics of a country where authority allocation is based on a hierarchical territorial-oriented structure. Authority is distributed to a level of government that is geographically closer to public service providers and clients; for example, from the central government to the provincial, district or city, subdistrict or village governments. (22) Liesbet Hooghe and Garry Mark define such government structures as Type I MLG which has several distinct characteristics. (23) First, there is a government unit at each level that exercises a wide range of functions and responsibilities, but is limited by territorial boundaries. Second, due to these boundaries, the unit's jurisdiction does not intersect with others.

The second form is a horizontal relationship, which refers to the distribution of authority among government units that are at equal administrative levels. This relationship can be classified into two types based on the two different levels of government. The first is upper horizontal, which involves the distribution of tasks and functions to different ministries and/or public agencies at the central government level. The second is lower horizontal, which is the distribution of tasks and functions to different departments or agencies at local government levels. (24) The horizontal relationship also relates to functional governance in which authority is designated to a particular agency or department to manage a particular government function. The horizontal relationship emphasizes the governmental function rather than the geographical arrangement of the administration. (25) In the dichotomy of MLG, Hooghe and Marks classify horizontal relationship as Type II MLG because, first, the jurisdiction of ministries/local government agencies is "not aligned on just a few levels but operate at numerous territorial scales". (26) For instance, at the national level, the territorial jurisdiction of a ministry may overlap with the administrative border of the provincial or municipal (district/city] governments, while at the district/city level, the territorial jurisdiction of local government departments or agencies may cross the administrative border of the subdistricts and village governments. Secondly, the task and function of each government unit are designed around a particular service or policy problem, such as transport, education or healthcare. (27)

While Type I and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT