Local Government Budget Management Performance: A Survey of 41 Local Governments in Indonesia

Transcription

1 LocalGovernment BudgetManagementPerformance: A Survey of 41 Local Governments in Indonesia 1

2 Acknowledgements This Report on Local Government Budget Management Performance in 2008 is the resultofcooperationbetweenseknasfitraandtheasiafoundation.theseknasfitra team was coordinated by Yuna Farhan, with Yenni Sucipto, Muhammad Maulana and Hadi Prayitno as the members; The Asia Foundation s team was coordinated by John Brownlee and had as its members R. Alam Surya Putra, Hana Satriyo, Erman Rahman andharikusdaryanto. This report was written based on the results of field research performed by local researchers from around 30 civil society organizations: Afrizal, Baihaqi and Nasrudin (Gerak Aceh), Diba Suraya (FITRA Sumut), Aryadie Adnan and Wibawadi Murdwiono (PKSBE West Sumatra), Fahriza (FITRA Riau), Novi Ramadhona and Rozidateno Putri Hanida (Maarif Institute), Agus Sugandhi (PINUS Garut), Yenti Nurhidayat (Sanggar Bandung), Hirzuddin, Muhammad Efril, Muhit Effendi, Syaiful Mustai n(pp Lakpesdam NU), Alif Basuki, Andwi Joko Mulyanto, Aminuddin Aziz, Arifin, Dini Inayati, Ermy Sri Ardhiyanti, Nur Hidayat, Zazad Djuaini (Pattiro), Dahkelan (FITRA Tuban), Heri Ferdian andjimmywilopo(inisiatif),dwiendah(pwaisyiyaheastjava),akhdiansyah(lensa), Dwi Arisanto (Legitimed), Jumarim (YPKM), Suhaimi (LSBH), Andi Nilawati Ridha, Sudirman,Wildayanti(YLP2EM),St.Hasmah(LPPBone),Rosniaty(Yasmib),NhasirDjalil (KPPA),ArtenH.Mobonggi,M.GandhiTapu(LP2G),Ngusmanto(Fakta)andMuttaqien (LabdaJogjakarta).FielddatawereverifiedbyateamofverifierscomprisingHendriadi (Somasi), Rosniaty (Yasmib), Ermy Sri Ardhiyanti (Pattiro), Devi (Maarif Institute) and Dahkelan (FITRA Tuban). The process of analysis and writing of the report was performedjointlybymuhammadmulana(seknasfitra)andr.alamsuryaputraand HanaSatriyo(TheAsiaFoundation).Assistanceindataprocessingwasprovidedbythe latedr.rizalhikmat(universityofindonesia). ThisactivitywascarriedoutwithfundingsupportfromtheDepartmentforInternational Development(DfID)oftheUnitedKingdomgovernment.However,allopinions,findings, interpretations and conclusions in this report are the views of the civil society groups andnotthoseoftheasiafoundationanddfid. 2

3 APBD APBDP APBN Bappeda Bappenas BPK DAK DAU DPA DPRD ILPPD KUA PPAS LKPD Musrenbang MusrenbangCam MusrenbangKab/Kot Perkada List of Terms and Abbreviations : AnggaranPendapatandanBelanjaDaerah,Local GovernmentRevenueandExpenditureBudget : AnggaranPendapatandanBelanjaDaerahPerubahan, RevisedLocalGovernmentRevenueandExpenditure Budget : AnggaranPendapatandanBelanjaNegara,StateRevenue andexpenditurebudget : BadanPerencanaanPembangunanDaerah,Local DevelopmentPlanningAgency : BadanPerencanaanPembangunanNasional,National DevelopmentPlanningAgency : BadanPemeriksaKeuangan,StateAuditAgency : DanaAlokasiKhusus,SpecialAllocationFund : DanaAlokasiUmum,GeneralAllocationFund : DokumenPelaksanaanAnggaran,BudgetImplementation Document : DewanPerwakilanRakyatDaerah,RegionalPeople s RepresentativeAssembly : InformasiLaporanPertanggungjawabanPemerintahan Daerah,LocalGovernmentAccountabilityReport Information : KebijakanUmumAnggaran PrioritasdanPlatfom AnggaranSementara,GeneralBudgetPolicy Provisional BudgetPrioritiesandCeiling : LaporanKeuanganPemerintahDaerah,LocalGovernment FinancialStatements : MusyawarahPerencanaanPembangunan,Development PlanningConference : MusyawarahPerencanaanPembangunanKecamatan, DistrictDevelopmentPlanningConference : MusyawarahPerencanaanPembangunanKabupaten/ Kota,District/MunicipalityDevelopmentPlanning Conference : PeraturanKepalaDaerah,RegulationoftheHeadofthe Region 3

4 Permendagri Perda Pokja PP PUG RAPBD Renja Renstra RKA RKPD RPJMD SKPD : PeraturanMenteriDalamNegeri,MinisteroftheInterior Regulation : PeraturanDaerah,LocalRegulation : KelompokKerja,WorkGroup : PeraturanPemerintah,GovernmentRegulation : PengarusUtamaanGender,GenderMainstreaming : RancanganAnggaranPendapatandanBelanjaDaerah, DraftLocalGovernmentRevenueandExpenditureBudget : RencanaKerja,WorkPlan : RencanaStrategis,StrategicPlan : RencanaKerjadanAnggaran,WorkPlanandBudget : RencanaKerjaPemerintahDaerah,LocalGovernment WorkPlan : RencanaPembangunanJangkaMenengahDaerah,Local Medium TermDevelopmentPlan : SatuanKerjaPemerintahDaerah,LocalGovernmentWork Unit 4

5 Executive Summary Budgets(boththeStateBudget(APBN)andlocalgovernmentbudgets(APBD))arean importantinstrumentforgovernmentstocarryouttheirprograms,whicharetosome extent influenced by how the budget is managed. The government budget is a reflectionofpoliticaldecisionsbetweentheexecutiveandthelegislature,whichreflect whatthegovernmentdoeseachyear.thesepoliticaldecisionshaveabroadimpacton thepublic sstandardofliving,particularlyintheefforttoprovidebetterbasicservices to residents, especially women and the poor. It is assumed that how the budget is managed from planning through accountability will influence how effectively the budgetcanstimulateeconomicgrowthandprovidebetterbasicservices. This report presents the results of research performed to assess Local Government Budget Management Performance (Kinerja Pengelolaan Anggaran Daerah, KiPAD) basedonfouraspectsofgoodgovernance.thebudgetmanagementprocessassessed by KiPAD covers the stages of planning, budget deliberation, implementation, and accountability.budgetmanagementperformanceinthesefourstagesisassessedbased on four aspects of good governance: transparency, participation, accountability, and gender equality. The scores for each local government in these four aspects of good governanceareaggregatedintheformofakipadindextoeasecomparisonbetween districts/municipalities. Researchwasconductedin41districts/municipalitiesin16provinces,anditishoped that the results can be used as a reference to improve KiPAD in the respective districts/municipalities.researchwasdoneonlocalgovernmentdataanddocuments fortheyears2007(fortheaccountabilitystage)and2008(fortheplanning,discussion, andbudgetimplementationstages),andontheapplicabledocumentsforyear2008(for themedium termplanningdocuments).itishopedthatthisassessmentwillspurlocal governments to continuously improve their performance in applying the principles of goodgovernance.itisalsohopedthattheassessmentwillenhancerelationsbetween governmentsandtheircommunities.forthecentralandprovincialgovernments,which playaroleinsupervisingdistrict/municipalitygovernments,thisassessmentcanhelpin prioritizingtheattentionandsupportthatcanbegiven. The level of transparency is relatively high in the first three stages of budget management,butrelativelylowintheaccountabilitystage.theexistenceoflawno. 14of2008onOpennessofPublicInformationseemstohavehadareasonablypositive impact in the relatively high public access to budget related documents. However, aroundathirdofthelocalgovernmentsstudiedhavenotproducedlocalgovernment AccountabilityReportInformation(InformasiLaporanPertanggungjawabanPemerintah Daerah,ILPPD),andaroundathirdofthosethathavepreparedILPPDdonotgrantthe general public access to it. One major challenge for local governments is managing publicdocumentsthroughanadequatearchivingsystem.notonelocalgovernmenthas 5

6 such a system, so even when in principle the information can be accessed, most local governmentsstillrequirebureaucraticproceduresandinformalrelationshipswithlocal governmentofficialstoobtainit. The participation performance of the local governments studied is relatively low, particularlyinthebudgetdiscussionandaccountabilitystages.inthebudgetplanning stage, most local governments provide vehicles for participation, although these are relatively low for sectoral planning, such as in the formulation of the Strategic Plans (Rencana Strategis, Renstra) and Work Plans (Rencana Kerja, Renja) of Local Government Work Units (Satuan Kerja Pemerintah Daerah, SKPD). In the budget discussion stage draftingofthegeneralbudgetpolicy/provisionalbudgetpriorities and Ceiling (Kebijakan Umum Anggaran Prioritas dan Plafon Anggaran Sementara, KUA PPAS)andtheDraftLocalGovernmentBudget(RancanganAnggaranPemerintah Daerah, RAPBD), in the executive and the legislature around 60% of the local governmentsstudieddonotconductanypublicconsultationinthedraftingprocess.in theimplementationstage,fewerthan50%ofthelocalgovernmentsstudiedprovidea means to accommodate citizen complaints. The situation is even worse in the accountability stage; only one region provides a vehicle for participation before promulgating the Local Government Financial Statements (Laporan Keuangan PemerintahDaerah,LKPD). Intheaspectofaccountability,theperformanceofthe41localgovernmentsstudiedis relatively high, though there is still room for improvement. A majority of the local governments already have price standards, which are updated each year, for procurementofgoodsandservicesintheirregions,thoughveryfewlocalgovernments are undertaking reform in this sector. With regard to time for discussion and establishment of the budget, most of the local governments studied do not provide enoughtimeforthelegislaturetodeliberatethekua PPAS,RAPBDandRevisedRAPBD, which leads to delays in passing the APBD and Revised APBD. This clearly reduces the opportunity for local governments to make investments and provide public services. Meanwhile,basedontheresultsofauditsbyBPK(BadanKeuanganNegara,theState Audit Agency), most of the local governments studied received Qualified Opinions, sevenreceivedadverseopinions,andfourreceiveddisclaimersofopinion. Effortstoimproveequalityforwomeninbudgetmanagementgenerallyremainlow, especially in the implementation and accountability stages. Very few local governments provide vehicles for participation by women, such as special discussions for women at the community level or representation for women in the planning process.furthermore,onlyaroundhalfofthelocalgovernmentsstudiedhaveformed gendermainstreamingworkgroups(pokjapug),andmorethanhalfofthesehavenot been officially established. Only five districts/municipalities have established gender mainstreamingfocalpointsineachskpd.withregardtouseofdisaggregateddataas partoftheworkplanandbudget(rencanakerjadananggaran,rka)planningprocess, again only five regions use disaggregated data, and even then it is not yet used in draftingtherka.specialvehiclestomonitorbudgetimplementationandaccountability arealsoveryseldomprovidedbylocalgovernments. 6

7 Overall,SumedangDistrict,PadangPanjangMunicipalityandSlemanDistricthavethe highest KiPAD index ratings. Regions with relatively limited fiscal capability hold the topkipadratings,whileregionswithsubstantialfiscalcapabilityareinthelowerranks. Meanwhile, no significant difference was found between municipality and district governments in the KiPAD rankings, or between local governments in Java and those outsidejava.however,secondarymunicipalitiesseemtohavebetterkipadratingsthan large(metropolitan)municipalities. 7

8 Chapter I Introduction: Assessing the Local Government Budget Management Process A. Background This report present the results of research performed to assess the execution of the budget management process in certain regions. The budget management process is definedastheactivitiesperformedbyalocalgovernmentinplanningactivityprograms and drafting the budget (the planning stage), deliberating and deciding on activity programs and budgets (the discussion stage), implementing the budgeted activity programs (the implementation stage) and providing accountability for the implementationoftheactivityprogramsandbudgets(theaccountabilitystage). Budget management should ideally be done by internalizing the principles of good governancesothatthebudgetpolicyandimplementationproducedaccommodatethe interestsofthestakeholders.thepowersheldbythegovernmentconstituteamandate that derives from the voice of the people. The government is entrusted to implement theoperationsofthepoliticalorganizationofthestateinordertobringprosperitytoall thepeople thosewhograntedthemandate.thus,thecitizensarethetrueholdersof powerandauthority.thegovernmentcannotactarbitrarilyinmakingpublicpolicies.it is important to apply the principles of good governance because the citizens and the governmentoften have different perceptions and interests as stakeholders in budget planning,whichmaybedetrimentaltoonesideortheother. Government budgets (both APBN and APBD) are an important instrument for the government to set development program priorities at both the national and local levels. We could even say that the government budget is a reflection of political decisionsbetweentheexecutiveandthelegislature.thesepoliticaldecisionsobviously haveatremendousimpactonthelivingstandardsofthepublic,dependingonhowwell thedevelopmentbudgetallocationspromoteeffortstoprovidebetterbasicservicesto residents,especiallywomenandthepoor.therefore,thebudgetisalsoameasurement tooltoevaluatethegovernment ssupportforitscitizens. FindingsbySeknasFITRAin2007and2008indicatethatlocalgovernmentbudgetsstill donotreflectpoliciesthatcreatepublicprosperity.theresultsofanalysisin2007in30 localitiesshowedthatthedirectexpendituresforeducationandhealth,afterdeducting DAK(SpecialAllocationFunds),wereonaveragestillverylow.Intheeducationsector, the local governments direct expenditure allocations were only around 8.3% of the 8

9 total APBD expenditure. And on average, only 4.6% of total APBD expenditure was allocated for the health care sector. In 2008, the average direct expenditure allocated foreducationin29localitieswasonly15.3%ofthetotaleducationexpenditure,while theindirectexpenditureallocatedforeducationwasmuchhigher,at76%.inthehealth sector,theaveragedirectexpenditureallocatedwas39.5%,whileindirectexpenditure was44.9%oftotalhealthexpenditure 1. Several studies 2 have also described the serious problems faced by the public in becominginvolvedinlocalgovernmentbudgetplanning.first,limitedpublicspacefor involvement in determining budget allocations. The existing development planning is not significantly correlated with the budgeting process. As a consequence, often the results of community planning are not used as a reference or basis in drafting the budget. Second, although some localities have developed policies that ensure transparencyofpublicdocuments,thepublicstillhasdifficultygainingaccesstobudget documents. This means that budget documents such as the Work Plans and Budgets (Rencana Kerja Anggaran, RKA) and Budget Implementation Documents (Dokumen Pelaksanaan Anggaran, DPA) of local government agencies and offices, and the Local Government Revenue and Expenditure Budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah, APBD) documents, are still hard for the public to access. Third, some local governmentsstilldonotcomplywiththeadministrationoftheplanningandbudgeting processesasstipulatedinlawsandregulations;forexample,budgetsarenotpassedon time, and the content of the budget documents is inadequate. This situation disrupts theimplementationofdevelopmentprograms,whichmeansthatservicestothepublic aredisruptedaswell. This research is one way for civil society groups to be involved in monitoring and evaluation of the conduct of local government, specifically in the planning and budgetingprocesses.thecentralandprovincialgovernmentshaveanimportantrolein monitoringandevaluatingthelocalgovernmentsbelowthem,asmandatedinlawno. 32 of However, the involvement of civil society groups needs to be developed throughvariousactivities,suchasthisresearch. 1 Refleksi Penganggaran 2008: Selusin Dosa Besar Pengelolaan Anggaran 2008 (Reflections on Budgeting 2008: A Dozen Major Sins in Budget Management in 2008), Seknas FITRA, Inovasi Demokratisasi Penganggaran Daerah: Refleksi Gerakan Advokasi Anggaran Mewujudkan Kedaulatan Rakyat atas Anggaran (Innovations in Democratization of Local Budgeting: Reflections of the Budget Advocacy Movement Realizing People s Sovereignty over the Budget), Seknas FITRA, The Asia Foundation and Yayasan TIFA, 2007, containing a collection of research results by budget advocacy activists. 9

10 B. Research Aims Thisresearchisaimedatseeingtowhatextentthepracticesofbudgetmanagement in the regions are conducted applying the principles of good governance: transparency, participation, accountability and gender equality. Specifically, this research is intended to provide input to local governments to improve their performanceinplanningandbudgetingprocessesthatbetteremphasizetheprinciples ofparticipation,transparency,accountability,andgenderequality. Inaddition,itisalsohopedthatthisresearchcanbeusedbythecentralgovernment asareferenceforevaluatingandimprovingpoliciesonthelocalbudgetmanagement process.thisresearchwillalsobeusefultoaddtothefindingsofpreviousresearchand to serve as basic data for improving the performance of local governments in conducting planning and budgeting processes that pay more attention to the public interest. C. Methodology Thisresearchwasperformedbytracingdocumentsonthelocalbudgetmanagement cycle in four stages: documents on the planning, discussion, implementation, and accountability stages. These documents were then assessed by observing to what extentthebudgetmanagementprocessappliedtheprinciplesofgoodgovernance. Four principles of good governance are used as the bases for the analysis in this research: transparency, participation, accountability, and gender equality 3. Each of theseprinciplesisusedasatooltoanalyzetheentirebudgetmanagementcycle,from planning,throughdiscussionandimplementation,toaccountability.eachindicatorhasa limiteddefinition,basedonthefollowingconditions: - Transparencyisformulatedasasystematiceffortbygovernmentforopenness inproviding,andgrantingaccessto,informationinallstagesofbudgetplanning. Theindicatorsusedforpresenceorabsenceoftransparencyareavailabilityand public accessibility of budget documents, and completeness of the content of budgetdocuments. - Participationisformulatedasthelevelofcitizeninvolvementindecisionmaking ateachstageofbudgetplanning.themattersnotedinthisindicatoraremeans forparticipationprovidedbythegovernment,theparticipantswhoareinvolved, regulatoryguarantees,anddecisionmakingauthorityinparticipatoryprocesses. 3 These indicators are adapted from the principles of good governance. 10

11 - Accountabilityisformulatedasaneffortbythelocalgovernmentadministration toopenlyaccounttothelegislatureandthepublicforthebudgetthathasbeen managed. The indicators include the means used for conveying accountability, timelinessincompletingbudgetdocuments,andthebpk sopinionontheresults ofitsauditoflocalfinances. - Genderequalityisformulatedasaneffortbythegovernmenttoprovidespace for participation by the poor and women in the budget planning cycle. The mattersseenfromthisindicatorarevehiclesprovidedbythegovernmentforthe poorandwomen,consideringtheirconditionsandpositioninsociety,toenable them to take part and be considered in planning and budgeting; availability of managementinstitutions;andregulatoryguarantees. Forthesereasons,thisresearchobtainsacross cuttingviewofthebudgetmanagement cycleandtheprinciplesofgoodgovernance.seventy fivequestionswereasked,which weredistributedasshowninthefollowingtable. Principle Cycle Table1.1.DistributionofResearchQuestionsbyCycleand PrinciplesofGoodGovernance Planning Discussion Implementation Accountability Numberof questions Transparency Participation Accountability Equality Total questions Belowistheprocessflowofputtingintooperationtheconceptoftheprinciplesofgood governanceinthebudgetmanagementcycle: 11

12 Research Objective Penalties GG Principle Selected Operational Definition Operationaliz ation of concept Chart1.FlowChartofOperationalizationofResearchConcepts To know levels of transparency, participation, accountability, and gender equality in local government planning and budgeting processes TRANSPARENCY PARTICIPATION ACCOUNTABILITY EQUALITY Government openness in systematically providing and opening access to information in all stages of planning and budgeting Availability of budget documents Accessibility of budget documents Adequacy of information Level of citizen involvement in decision making at each stage of budget planning Vehicles and participants Decision making authority Regulatory guarantees Budget Management Cycle Nevertheless,furtherconfirmationwassoughtfromlocalgovernmentadministrations, thepublic,andlocallegislatures(dprd)regardingtheresearchers preliminaryfindings inordertoobtainthebestpossibleanswers.twotypesofdocumentswereexamined: planning documents and budgeting documents. In all, a total of 20 documents were traced.belowisachartofthedocumentsthatweretracedinthisresearch. Emphasis on extent to which budget managed by Local government can be accounted for Timeliness Level of budget misallocation Audit results Examines extent to which local government provides vehicles for participation and involves the poor and women in the budget planning process Vehicles and participants Institutions Regulatory guarantees Planning Discussion Implementation Accountability The standards used to measure the above four dimensions refer to international standardsforbudgetmanagementandthenationallegalframeworkonplanningand budgetingintheregions.amongtheinternationalstandardsusedasreferencesarethe CodeofGoodPracticesonFiscalTransparencyreleasedbytheInternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) and the Open Budget Index (OBI) published by the International Budget Partnership (IBP). Meanwhile, the national legal framework refers to the statutory regulations relating to planning and budgeting processes in the regions, which are discussedfurtherinchapter2. Twenty budget management cycle documents were examined. Each stage in the budgetmanagementcycleproducesquiteafewdocuments.itisestimatedthatover30 documentsneedtobeproducedduringtheentirebudgetmanagementcycle.however, 12

13 this research traced only 20 documents out of the entire budget management cycle, distributedasillustratedinthefollowingchart. Chart2:Documentstracedintheresearch Nearly all documents examined used data for year In the planning stage, all documentsexamineduseddatafor2008,exceptthelocalmedium TermDevelopment Plan(RPJMD),whichwasbasedontheyearinwhichthemostrecentlyelectedheadof the region was sworn in by the central government. All the documents for the discussion and implementation stages used data for However, in the accountabilitystage,thereweresomedocumentsthatdidnotusedatafor2008:local Government Financial Statements (LKPD) and Local Regulations on Accountability for LocalGovernmentFinances,whichstillused2007data.Thisisbecausethesetwotypes ofdocumentsarepromulgatedafterthebudgetyearends,asstipulatedingovernment Regulation No. 8 of 2008 on Procedures for Planning and Evaluation of Local Development. This research employs the expert judgment method 4 in which the researchers, as experts, have the authority to give scores for the key questions based on specified verificationtools.thescoresgivenbytheresearchersserveasthebasisfortheprocess of ranking the performance of local governments in their budget management processes. Generally, the researchers, who come from civil society organizations, are 4 This method is adopted from research performed by the International Budget Partnership (IBP) when it determines the budgeting indices of countries, Open Budget Index (OBI), years , adapted to the local context. 13

14 experts in the research topic and actively involved in similar activities. Around 30 civil societyorganizationswereinvolvedinthisresearch.thelistofcivilsocietyorganizations involvedcanbeseeninappendix1. The ranking scores for local government performance are obtained by adding up all the scores obtained for the four indicators selected, i.e. the four principles of good governance.allresearchindicatorshavethesamescoreorweight.thisapproachwas used based on the consideration that each indicator has the same level of urgency as the others, and they all complement one another. For local governments, public participationisjustasurgentastheaspectsoftransparency,accountabilityandequality ofwomen.thesameappliesfortheotherindicators,whichhaveimportanceforother indicatorsforthelocalgovernment.theregionswiththehighesttotalscoresarejudged to be the best local governments in terms of their performance in management of regionalfinances. D. Limitations of the Research Thisresearchisthefirstisaseriesofannualresearchstudiesthataretobeconducted. As the first in the series, this research obviously has several limitations, including the following: TimeoftheresearchwaslimitedtotheperiodMarch August2009.Therefore, matters relating to events occurring after that period are not portrayed, for exampleifalocalgovernmentissuedapolicyaftertheperiodoftheresearch. Thesampleoflocalitiesinthisresearchrepresentsonlyafewoftheexisting local governments. This research takes as its sample only 41 districts/municipalitiesin16provinces. This research does not portray in detail the entire budget planning process, such as village and district level Musrenbang (Development Planning Conferences)asstipulatedintheregulationsonregionalfinances. E. Research Locations This research was conducted in 41 districts/municipalities located in 16 provinces of Indonesia. Fifteen municipalities were studied; the other 26 local governments were districts.thetablebelowshowsthedistributionoftheresearchlocalities,byprovince. 14

15 Table1.1.DistributionofResearchLocalities No Province Districtsstudied Municipalitiesstudied 1 NangroeAceh Darussalam AcehBarat,AcehUtara,Aceh Besar 2 NorthSumatra SerdangBedagai 3 WestSumatra Padang,Padang Panjang 4 Riau Dumai 5 Lampung BandarLampung 6 WestJava Garut,Sumedang Banjar 7 CentralJava Pekalongan,Kendal,Boyolali, Cilacap,Semarang Pekalongan,Semarang, Surakarta 8 YogyakartaSpecial Region(DIY) Sleman 9 EastJava Situbondo,Bondowoso, Pasuruan,Malang,Bojonegoro 10 WestNusaTenggara LombokBarat,LombokTimur, SumbawaBarat,Dompu Blitar,Surabaya 11 SouthSulawesi Wajo,Sidrap,Bone Parepare 12 WestSulawesi Polman 13 CentralSulawesi Palu 14 Gorontalo GorontaloUtara Gorontalo 15 CentralKalimantan Palangkaraya 16 WestKalimantan Pontianak Thegeographicdistributionoftheresearchlocationscanalsobeseeninthefollowing map: 15

16 The selection of the research locations was based on the distribution of the human developmentindex(hdi)andgenderdevelopmentindex(gdi)oftheregions.inother words,thisresearchtriestoexaminebudgetmanagementperformanceinregionswith high, medium, and low HDI and GDI scores. On the other hand, because this research useslocalexperts,theavailabilityofinstitutionswithanactivityfocusonlocalbudget advocacywasalsoaneedthathadtobeconsidered.thus,thisresearchalsoconsidered theavailabilityoflocalresources. 16

17 Chapter II The Regulatory Framework for Local Government Budget Management A. Policy Framework for Local Government Planning and Budgeting The policy framework for local government planning and budgeting in Indonesia is regulatedintwodifferentspheres.planningpolicyisregulatedinaseparatelaw,which places the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) as the authorized institution. Meanwhile, financial management policy is regulated through a different Law,withtheauthorityheldbytheMinistryofFinance. LocalgovernmentdevelopmentplanningisregulatedbytheLawonLocalGovernance, whichsignaledthestartoftheeraofdecentralizationinindonesia:lawno.22of1999, amended by Law No. 32 of However, before amending the Law on Local Governance, the Indonesian Government also issued Law No. 25 of 2004 on the National Development Planning System. As implementation of that Law, the government issued Government Regulation (PP) No. 8 of 2008 on Procedures for Regional Development, which serves as the basic reference for the Minister of the InteriorandtheNationalDevelopmentPlanningAgency(Bappenas)informulatingthe Joint Circular(SEB) that regulates the mechanism for implementation of Development PlanningConferences(Musrenbang)fromthevillagelevel,throughdistrict,district,and provinciallevels,uptothenationallevel.thiscircularisissuedbythesetwoagencies eachyear. Meanwhile, local financial management policy is regulated by Law No. 17 of 2003 on StateFinances.ThisLawwasthenreinforcedthroughLawNo.33of2004onFinancial BalancebetweentheCentralandLocalGovernments.Further,thetechnicalapplication ofthesetwolawsisstipulatedthroughgovernmentregulation(pp)no.58of2005on Management of Local Government Finances and Minister of the Interior Regulation (Permendagri) No. 13 of 2006 on Management of Local Government Finances, as revisedthroughpermendagrino.59of2007.alloftheseregulationsstipulateindetail theproceduresforconductoflocalgovernmentbudgeting,fromtheformulationofthe General Budget Policy (Kebijakan Umum Anggaran, KUA) to the placement of each accountcodeintheapbd. 17

18 Table2.1.RegulatoryFrameworkBasedonStagesofLocalGovernmentBudget Management No Stage RegulatoryFramework 1 Planning LawNo.25/2004onNationalDevelopmentPlanning System(SPPN) LawNo.32/2004onLocalGovernment PPNo.8/2008onProceduresforPlanningandEvaluation ofregionaldevelopment JointCircularonMusrenbang 2 Drafting/Discussion Law17/2003onStateFinances Law32/2004onLocalGovernment Law33/2004onFinancialBalancebetweenCentraland LocalGovernments PP58/2005onGuidelinesforManagementofLocal GovernmentFinances Permendagri13/2006andPermendagri59/2007on GuidelinesforManagementofLocalGovernment Finances PermendagrionGeneralGuidelinesforDraftingAPBD (issuedeachyear) 3 Budget Implementation (revisedbudget) 4 Budget Accountability Law17/2003onStateFinances Law1/2004ontheStateTreasury Law32/2004onLocalGovernment Law33/2004onFinancialBalancebetweenCentraland LocalGovernments PP58/2005onGuidelinesforLocalGovernmentFinances PP65of2005onMinimumServiceStandards Permendagri13/2006andPermendagri59/2007on GuidelinesforManagementofLocalGovernment Finances Keppres80of2004anditsrevisionsonProcurementof PublicGoodsandServices Law17/2003onStateFinances Law15/2004onAccountabilityforStateFinances Law32/2004onLocalGovernment Law33/2004onFinancialBalancebetweenCentraland LocalGovernments PP58/2005onGuidelinesforLocalGovernmentFinances Permendagri13/2006andPermendagri59/2007on GuidelinesforManagementofLocalGovernment Finances PP3of2007onReportsontheConductofLocal Government 18

19 TheemergenceofLawNo.14of2008onOpennessofPublicInformation,whichwill come into force in 2010, provides a new spirit for transparency in local government budgetmanagement.inthecontextofopennessofpublicinformationasabasicright, citizens access to public information, including budget planning information, is mandated in the Constitution and the various statutory regulations that specifically regulatebudgetplanning.theemergenceoflawno.14of2008onopennessofpublic Information provides a foundation for the public to gain access to budget planning information.inbudgettransparency,thepublichastherighttoobtaininformation,for example in the form of documents on the process for implementation of budget planning activities, including the Provisional Budget Ceiling and Priorities (Plafon dan Prioritas Anggaran Sementara, PPAS), General Budget Policy (Kebijakan Umum Anggaran,KUA),RKA SKPD,RAPBD,andsoon.Meanwhile,thegovernmentisobligedto discloseandpublishbudgetplanningdocumentsandactivitiestothepublic. Diagram2.1.StagesofGovernmentBudgetManagement B. Procedures for Local Government Budget Management NationalandLocalDevelopmentPlanningincludeslong term,20 yearplanning,referred to as the (Local) Long Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang/Daerah,RPJP/D);medium term,five yearplanning,referredtoasthe(local) Medium Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah/Daerah, 19

20 RPJM/D); the Strategic Plans (Rencana Strategis, Renstra) of Ministries/ Institutions/ Local Government Work Units; and annual plans, referred to as (Local) Government Work Plans(Rencana Kerja Pemerintah/Daerah, RKP/D) and the Work Plans(Rencana Kerja,Renja)ofMinistries/Institutions/LocalGovernmentWorkUnits. TheLocalMedium TermDevelopmentPlan(RPJMD)isformulatedbasedonthevision andmissionoftheelectedheadoftheregionthroughthemusrenbangmechanismand promulgated no later than six months after the Head of the Region is inaugurated. In termsoftheregulatoryarrangements,therearesomeissuesthatcreateconfusionfor localgovernments.inlawno.25/2004,therpjmdisstipulatedthrougharegulationof theheadoftheregion,whilelawno.32/2004mandatesthattherpjmdisestablished through a Local Regulation. Apart from the RPJMD, Law No. 25/2004 and PP No. 08/2008 also mandate sectoral medium term documents or Strategic Plans of Local GovernmentWorkUnits(RenstraSKPD).TheseRenstraSKPDaretheelaborationofthe RPJMD,whichservesasthereferenceintheirdrafting.TheRPJMDandRenstraSKPD, accordingtoppno.8/2008,providemeansforcommunityparticipationinthedrafting processthroughthemusrenbangmechanismorpublicconsultations. Withregardtoannualplanning,therearetwodocumentsthatserveasthereferencein drafting the budget: the RKPD (Local Government/Development Work Plan) and the RenjaSKPD(WorkPlansofLocalGovernmentWorkUnits) 5.TheRKPDandRenjaSKPD constitute the output of the planning process in the Local Development Planning Conferences(Musrenbang). The policy framework already accommodates representation and involvement of women in the planning process. The annual planning, for which the Musrenbang mechanism is designed in the Joint Circular (SEB), is procedurally quite an open mechanism and provides the opportunity for participation by all elements of the community. In fact, the Musrenbang mechanism provides special communication channels for women and other vulnerable groups to ensure that their participation is equal to that of other groups. Before conducting the Village Musrenbang, the Musrenbang organizing committee is asked to facilitate a special pre Musrenbang forum for women and other vulnerable groups. At each level of the Musrenbang, a Musrenbangdelegationischosen,whichisrequiredtoincludeacertainyangquotaof women srepresentatives. Localgovernmentdevelopmentplanningconferencesrunfromthevillageleveltothe district/municipalitylevel.localdevelopmentplanningstartsatthevillagelevelwitha Village Musrenbang involving elements of the village administration and the village community,andproducesproposalsforactivityprogramstobefinancedbythevillage Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBDes, Anggaran Pendapatan Belanja Desa), and 5 In Law No , RKPD is the abbreviation for Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Daerah (Local Government Work Plan), while in Law and PP 8/2008, it stands for Rencana Kerja Pembangunan Daerah (Local Develpment Work Plan). 20

21 thefirstandsecondlevelapbd.atthedistrict levelmusrenbang,delegationsfromthe Village Musrenbang and district administration officials attend, as well as members of thedprd(locallegislature)fromtherelevantconstituenciesasresourcepersons.the District Musrenbang discusses village priorities to be designated as district priorities. Ideally,thedistrict levelmusrenbangshould provideinformationonindicativeceilings for localities and sectors, to assist the forum in setting the priorities of planning proposals. Next,theresultsoftheDistrictMusrenbangaresynchronizedwiththeprioritiesofthe SKPD (Local Government Work Units) in the SKPD Forums, which produce Draft SKPD Work Plans. The results of the District Musrenbang and SKPD Forums, which also include participation by the District Musrenbang delegations, are synchronized in the District/MunicipalityMusrenbang,andthenestablishedastheLocalGovernmentWork Plan(RKPD)document.TheRKPDdocumentthenservesastheguidelinefordraftingthe APBD. The RKPD document must be established no later than the May before the comingbudgetyear.belowistheflowoflocalgovernmentplanningandbudgeting. Diagram2.2.FlowofLocalGovernmentPlanningandBudgeting Source:ModuleonBudgetAdvocacyforIslamicMassOrganizations; SeknasFITRA TAF(2007) LawNo.17of2003statesthatdeliberationofthebudgetbeginswiththesubmission ofthegeneralpolicyontheapbd,whichisinlinewiththerkpd,tothedprdinmid June. After it is approved, the APBD General Policy serves as the referencefor setting the provisional budget priorities and ceiling, to serve as the reference for the SKPD. 21

22 Then, the Heads of the SKPD draft the RKASKPD and submit them to the DPRD to be deliberatedintheinitialdiscussiononthedraftlocalgovernmentbudget(rapbd).the results of the RKA discussions are forwarded to the Local Government Financial ManagementofficerasmaterialfordraftingtheDraftLocalRegulation(Raperda)onthe APBD, together with supporting documents, no later than the first week of October. TheDPRDmustmakeitsdecisionnolaterthanonemonthbeforethenewbudgetyear begins.inaddition,pursuanttolawno.32of2004,oncetherapbdisapprovedbythe DPRD, District/Municipality RAPBD shall be submitted to the Provincial Government, andprovincialrapbdshallbesubmittedtotheministeroftheinterior,tobeevaluated ontheparameterthattheydonotconflictwiththepublicinterestorthelaws. The regulatory framework guarantees that the public has the right to provide input, orally or in writing, in the deliberation of laws and regulations, including the Local Regulation on the APBD. Permendagri No. 13/2006 also signals the need for disseminatinginformationontheraperdaapbdanditsattachments.similarly,lawno. 32 of 2004 states that the public has the right to provide input, in writing or orally, regardingdraftlocalregulations(raperda).sincetherapbdisproposedintheformof a Raperda, the local administration and/or DPRD should conduct public consultations duringthebudgetdeliberationprocess. Implementation of the Local Government Budget is marked by the establishment of theapbd.theapbdisestablishedthroughaperdaandthenelaboratedinaregulation of the Head of the Region(Perkada) which is a compilation of the DPA SKPD(Budget Declaration Documents of Local Government Work Units). The period of implementationofthelocalgovernmentbudget,pursuanttolawno.17/2003andlaw No. 1/2004, is one budget year, running from 1 January through 31 December. Since manyapbdarenotestablishedontime,thebudgetimplementationperiodisreduced. Typically,localitiesthathavenotestablishedtheAPBDbythespecifieddeadlineusethe previousyear sapbdasareference. Changes in macroeconomic conditions and shifts of expenditures between activity programs and units create the opportunity for the local government to revise the APBD. The Law limits the time for establishing revision of the APBD to no later than threemonthsbeforetheendofthebudgetyearconcerned.theprocessfordeliberation oftherevisedapbdisthesameasthatfortheinitialapbd.themechanismforrevision oftheapbdisperformedbysubmittingarevisedkuappaswhichexplainsthereasons fortheneedtorevisethebudget. Implementation of the local government budget, particularly for direct expenditure, is done through direct provision of public services (such as Community Health Centers, licensing,etc.)orprocurementofgoodsandservicesthroughopentenderforamounts overrp50million.presidentialdecreeno.80of2003anditsrevisionsstatetheneed for an institution for procurement of public goods and services that is integrated in a singleunittopromoteefficiencyinthetenderprocess. 22

23 Withregardtopublicservices,littleregulatoryreformhastakenplace.Althoughthe centralgovernmenthasissuedppno.65/2005onminimumservicestandards(spm),in theimplementationfewsectorshaveasyetformulatedtheirspm.onlythehealthand EducationsectorshaveSPM.Furthermore,fewlocalgovernmentshavemechanismsfor citizenstosubmitcomplaintsaboutpoorlocalgovernmentservices. Budget accountability is the final process in the budget cycle, after the one year budget implementation period has ended. Three months after the budget implementationends,thelocalgovernmentmustsubmititslocalgovernmentfinancial Statements (LKPD) to the BPK (State Audit Agency) to be audited. Later, the BPK presents the results of its audit to the DPRD. The BPK audit result may state any of several categories of opinions on the LKPD, from the best, Unqualified Opinion, to QualifiedOpinion,AdverseOpinion,andfinallyDisclaimerofOpinion. Separatefromthefinancialstatements,pursuanttothemandateofPPNo.03/2007,the local government is obliged to prepare a Local Government Accountability Report (LPPD)asaformofbothverticalandhorizontalaccountability.TheLPPDissubmittedto thecentralgovernment(ministryoftheinterior),thedprd,andthepublic.infact,the LPPD Information that is conveyed to the public requires provision of space for those who wish to submit comments. Although such a mechanism is stipulated, few local governments actually apply LPPD in a timely way or provide means for citizen participation to provide comments on the Local Government Accountability Report Information(ILPPD). 23

24 Chapter III Performance in Transparency of Local Government Budget Management A. Introduction The existence of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Openness of Public Information creates the opportunity for the public to obtain clear, full information on public services from publicagencies,includinglocalgovernments.thelawstatesthatallpublicdocuments may be accessed by the public including governmentwork plan documents(central, provincialandlocal)andgovernmentbudgetdocuments withoutexception.thislaw willcomeintoforcein2010.forthisreason,governmentsneedtoimmediatelyprepare informationserviceapparatus,proceduresandinstitutionstoensureeasier,moreopen accesstoinformation. Transparency performance, in this research, refers to two indicators: availability of localgovernmentplanningandbudgetingdocuments,andaccessibilityofdocuments. These indicators aim to discover the degree of transparency of local governments in systematicallyprovidingandopeningupaccesstoinformationateachstageofbudget planning. Twenty budget planning documents were tested for budget transparency performance. There are actually over 30 local government planning and budgeting documents, but this research focuses only on the 20 documents that are considered important to observe local governments performance in opening access to budget documents. The selected documents were then categorized based on the local government budgeting cycle: planning, discussion, implementation and accountability stages.thetypesofdocumentsselectedcanbeseeninchapter1,specificallyinchart1. B. Findings Localgovernments effortstoprovideandopenaccesstolocalgovernmentplanning and budget documents show fairly good progress. This is indicated by the increasing numberofpublicdocumentsthatarenowavailableandcanbeaccessedbythepublicin theplanning,discussionandimplementationstages.thisresearchindicatesthatthese three stages of local government budget management have an adequate level of transparency. The progress of local governments in promoting the process of transparencydeservesappreciation,particularlyinthediscussionstage.inthisstage,we found several governments that are providing and opening up access to budgeting documents,specificallyrkaskpdandrapbd.meanwhile,intheplanningstage,local governmentsgenerallyprovideandgrantaccesstoplanningdocumentsbecausethese documentsareusuallyintheformofpolicydirectionandactivityprograms,withoutany 24

25 budgetinformationprovided.likewise,intheimplementationstage,governmentshave ahighleveloftransparencybecause the budget documents available, Graph 3.1 Levels of Budget Transparency in such as the APBD, are products of Stages of Local Government Budget policies that have been established Management as Perda (local regulations) that mustbepublished. Local governments face quite serious challenges with regard to the transparency of local government budget management documents in the accountability stage. In the accountability stage, local governments show a lower level of transparency than in the other stages (see graph 3.1). From the availability and accessibility testing, it was found that documents in the accountabilitystagetendtobelessavailableandlessaccessible.thisfindingindicates that the efforts of local governments to open public access to documents on the outcomesofimplementationofannualprogramsremainlow.governmentsstilltendto concealinformationrelatingtotheaccountabilityreportfromthepublic.publicspaceto becomeinvolvedintheprocessofevaluatingdevelopmentimplementationisrestricted bythelackofaccessandavailabilityofthesebudgetdocuments. Withregardtoavailabilityofdocuments,localgovernmentshavegenerallyproduced theexistingdocuments,apartfromilppd.theilppd(localgovernmentaccountability ReportInformation)isthedocumentmostoftennotprovidedbylocalgovernments.We found that 34.1% of local governments did not produce ILPPD documents. This document differs from the LKPD, which is a report on the local government s accountability to the members of the legislature as representatives of the people. In contrast, the ILPPD is a document that the government must produce to provide information to the public on its accountability report on the execution of its developmentprogramsovertheyear.thisisinlinewiththemandateofppno.3/2007 onreportsontheconductoflocalgovernments,whichrequireslocalgovernmentsto produce and publish ILPPD to the public. There are two reasons for this scarmunicipality: First, governments have not paid enough attention to building mechanisms for public accountability and transparency through the ILPPD document; andsecond,severalofthelocalgovernmentssurveyedsaidthattheywerenotawareof theexistenceoftheregulation,andthereforedidnotproduceilppd. 25

26 Graph3.2TypesofBudgetManagementDocumentsthatareNotProduced, Inaccessible,Accessible,andPublishedbyLocalGovernments Of the 20 types of local government budget management documents examined, 17 (41.5%) of local governments did not produce one or two of the budget planning documents. These 17 localities were distributed throughout nearly all the provinces studied. Only in the province of Central Java did all local governments produce all budgetplanningdocuments.apartfromtheillpd,otherdocumentsnotproducedwere therenjaskpdforeducationinlombokbaratandmalangdistricts,thekua PPASinthe Municipality of Blitar, the Semester I APBD Realization Report and Perda on APBD AccountabilityinPasuruanDistrict,andthePerdaonRevisedAPBDandthePerkadaon ElucidationofAPBDPinAcehBesar. Withregardtoaccessibility,localgovernmentshaveopenedaccesstoobtainplanning and budgeting information documents, upon request through either formal or informal mechanisms, at each stage of budget management. Over 75% of local governmentsconductsuchpractices.oneformalchannelcommonlyusedisarequest letter to the local government. Informal channels include the use of key informants, eithermembersofthelegislatureoradministrationofficials.thisfindingindicatesthat the governments efforts to open access to planning and budgeting documents and informationaremovinginapositivedirectioninresponsetotheenactmentoflawno. 14of2008onOpennessofPublicInformation. Although most documents can be obtained through request letters, the bureaucratic channels still create difficulty in accessing planning and budgeting documents. As a result, not all budget planning documents studied were accessible. In only 11 local 26

27 governments (26.8%) were all the documents accessible. Most of the other local governments(30governments,or73.2%)didnotprovideaccesstouptoninetypesof planning and budgeting documents, even using formal request letters and the applicableprocedures.therewasevenonelocalgovernmentwhere18ofthe20budget documents studied were inaccessible. This research also found that ease in obtaining documents depended on who the request letter was addressed to. Several Heads of ServicesandBappedaintheresearchregionsobjectedtorequestlettersbeingdirected tothemasthepartiesthatcouldgrantaccesstoinformation/documents.theyfeltthat suchrequestsshouldbeaddresseddirectlytotheregentorregionalsecretary,asthey did not have the authority to grant the researchers access to the documents. Meanwhile, in several regions, we had to request a research permit beforehand to obtain access to documents. Not one region had a clear mechanism for obtaining documents. This indicates that openness of access to planning and budgeting documentsandinformationhasnotbeenconstructedsystematicallyfortheinterestsof thegeneralpublic. Notonelocalgovernmenthadanadequatefilingsystemforplanningandbudgeting documents. Planning and budgeting documents were stored inadequately in all Local Government Work Units(SKPD). Even the SKPD did not have places for filing all their own planning and budgeting documents. Generally, the heads of SKPD and bureau Box 3.1: Budget Documents Kept at Home A researcher in Bojonegoro District conducted a focus group discussion (FGD) with local government officials to test the availability and accessibility of documents. During the FGD, the researcher gave a presentation on his preliminary assessment based on the data testing and then asked the participants to comment. In his findings, the researcher noted that one SKPD had not produced its Renstra SKPD document. But a government official from the SKPD concerned disagreed with this assessment, saying the documents were in fact available. When asked where the documents were, the official explained that he kept the documents at home because it was often difficult to find the planning and budgeting documents when they were kept at the office. heads below them maintained the documents personally. In several local governments, it wasfoundthatthedocuments were taken by individuals and kept at their homes. Furthermore, the Bappeda, an important agency that coordinates the planning and budgeting processes, also did not have filing systems for budget documents. The researchers were often referred to other agencies or the respective SKPD when seeking the documents they needed. This situation indicates that local governments do not have a one roof documentrequestmechanismthatwouldenablethepublictoeasilyaccessdocuments. Local governments are more open with budget planning documents that deal with generalpolicybuttendtobemoresecretivewiththosedealingwithsectoralpolicies. TheRPJMDandRKPDarethedocumentsmostoftenpublishedbylocalgovernments.In contrast, sectoral budget planning documents (Education, Health, and Public Works) such as Work Plans, RKA, and DPA SKPD are the documents that are most often not publishedornotevenaccessibletothepublic.thissituationwasfoundinaround30% 27