This paper solely focuses on the issue of decentralization. As this administrative reform theme is arguably the most influencing in both countries, this special focus seems well fitting. To do so in the course of this paper, the historical developments in both countries will firstly be examined to highlight its common grounds. In a second step the Indonesian and Filipino problems and challenges in the path of decentralization will be collected and comparatively assessed. Thirdly, the reform efforts in both cases will be outlined to set the stage for the last conclusive step in addressing the similarities and differences in decentralization implementation in both countries.
Table of Contents
1. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
2. CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
2.1 OUTSIDER AWARENESS
2.2 GOVERNMENT AWARENESS
3. THE REFORMS
3.1 THE PHILIPPINE REFORM
3.2 THE INDONESIAN REFORM
4. THE RESULT
4.1 THE PHILIPPINE RESULTS:
4.2 THE INDONESIAN RESULTS
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines and compares the historical paths, challenges, and implementation of decentralization reforms in Indonesia and the Philippines. It analyzes how both nations transitioned from centralized governance to local autonomy, the obstacles encountered during this process, and the outcomes of these administrative shifts.
- Historical evolution of centralized governance and reform movements.
- Comparative analysis of challenges such as globalization, economic change, and donor influence.
- Specific implementation features of the Philippine Local Government Code and Indonesia's "big bang" devolution.
- Assessment of results regarding local participation, financial accountability, and capacity building.
Excerpt from the Book
EUROPEAN COLONIZATION
Some of the shared similarities most arguably have their origin in the European colonization of all almost all Southeast Asia. This colonial rule had a profound effect on the Philippines, mostly ruled by the Spanish, and the Indonesians, ruled by the Dutch. Unlike the evolution of public administration in Western nations in line with their own societal conditions, the formations of administrative systems in these two countries have been based on the imitation of Western models. Whether in the Indonesian case, the hierarchical bureaucratic model left by the Dutch, or in the Filipino case, the Spanish civil service methods. These imported colonial institutions according to European standards like a state bureaucracy, courts of law and print media and to a smaller extent, modern education, then proved to be the seed of fledgling independence movements in the Indonesian and Filipino territories. In both countries, these notions grew, which
Summary of Chapters
1. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: This chapter outlines the post-Cold War transition from authoritarianism to democratic decentralization in Indonesia and the Philippines, highlighting shared colonial roots and political shifts.
2. CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS: This section details the academic and governmental obstacles faced by both nations, including globalization, economic shifts, and the urgent pressure to decentralize.
3. THE REFORMS: This chapter describes the specific legislative frameworks, such as the Philippines' 1991 Local Government Code and Indonesia's 2001 devolution laws, used to initiate decentralization.
4. THE RESULT: This section evaluates the mixed outcomes of these reforms, focusing on successes in local participation and ongoing struggles with financial accountability and capacity building.
Keywords
Decentralization, Indonesia, Philippines, Governance, Devolution, Public Administration, Local Autonomy, Reformasi, Local Government Code, Capacity Building, Fiscal Decentralization, Political Participation, New Order, Colonialism, Regional Development.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper provides a comparative study of decentralization processes in Indonesia and the Philippines, examining how both countries transitioned from centralized power structures to systems emphasizing local government autonomy.
What are the primary themes discussed in the work?
The main themes include historical colonial influence, the shift from authoritarianism to democracy, challenges of implementation, financial devolution, and the role of civil society in local governance.
What is the main objective or research question of this study?
The objective is to comparatively assess the reform efforts in Indonesia and the Philippines to understand the similarities and differences in how these two nations implemented and experienced decentralization.
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author utilizes a comparative case study approach, analyzing historical developments, policy implementation, and the results of decentralization efforts in both countries to draw lessons for developing nations.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the historical roots of governance, specific challenges like globalization and the New Public Management, the legislative details of the Philippine and Indonesian reforms, and a critical analysis of the post-reform results.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
The research is characterized by terms such as decentralization, devolution, local autonomy, public administration, and regional reform.
How did the colonial era influence the administrative structures in these countries?
The colonial era introduced Western-style administrative models—Dutch models in Indonesia and Spanish civil service methods in the Philippines—which served as the basis for the institutional structures that were later subject to decentralization.
What distinguishes the Indonesian "big bang" approach from the Philippine model?
Indonesia's "big bang" approach is noted for its rapid and comprehensive implementation starting in 2001, whereas the Philippine process began earlier with the 1991 Local Government Code and involved a more gradual integration of local government units.
What is the primary conclusion regarding decentralization as a solution?
The author concludes that decentralization is not a "magic cure" for all governmental problems; it requires long-term commitment, clear legal mandates, and a balance between local autonomy and central macroeconomic management.
Why is monitoring so crucial for these decentralization efforts?
Monitoring is essential because, in environments where corruption and patronage persist, lack of oversight can lead to the misuse of local funds, the failure of service delivery, and the exacerbation of regional disparities.
- Quote paper
- Andreas Bruckner (Author), 2011, Decentralization in Indonesia and the Philippines, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/176428
