2496. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
Budget deliberation
As part of the budget approval process, the Budget Committee formally
considers budget aggregates and sectoral committees review spending for
sector-specific appropriations. There is a formal debate on overall budgetary
policy following the introduction of the Executive’s budget proposal. The
budget proposal includes the following elements:
• fiscal policy objectives for the medium term
• macroeconomic assumptions
• budget priorities
• comprehensive annual financial plan encompassing all revenues and
expenditures, including off-budget expenditures and extra-budgetary
funds
• comprehensive table of tax expenditures (exemptions, deductions and
credits)
• non-financial performance targets for programmes and/or agencies
• medium-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (possibly in
the form of a medium-term expenditure framework)
• linkage of appropriations to administrative units (e.g. ministry, agency)
• text of legislation for policies proposed in the budget.
The Budget Proposal is comprehensive and is broadly in line with the
OECD recommendations. However, the compliance with the
recommendations could be improved by including some additional
budgetary documents in the Budget Proposal, such as:
• comprehensive annual financial plans encompassing revenues and
expenditures for all levels of government (including regional and local)
• long-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (10 or more
years)
• clearly defined appropriations to be voted by the Legislature.
The Legislature votes first on the total expenditure and holds subsequent
votes on specific appropriations. It may make amendments that do not
change the total deficit/surplus proposed by the Executive; the Parliament
approved 98.8% of spending proposed by the Government of Indonesia for
the financial year 2016. The Parliament has the right to approve the budget;
the GOI does not have the power to veto the approved budget.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
250 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
Transparency in budget documentation
In the annual budget documentation presented to the Legislature, new
revenue-raising measures and new policies are distinguished from current
commitments (see Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5. Format of the budget
Budget in I format
Revenue
1. Tax revenue
2. Non-tax revenue
3. Grant
Expenditure
1. Central government ministry
2. Non-line ministry
3. Transfer to the regions
4. Village fund
Primary balance
Surplus/deficit budget
Financing
1. Domestic financing
a. Banking
b. Non-banking
2. Foreign financing
a. Gross loan withdrawal
b. On-lending (SLA)
Debt repayment
Source: http://info-anggaran.com/.
Financial liabilities, state and municipal transfers and tax expenditure
with estimates of revenue foregone are part of the budget documentation
approved by the Legislature.
In Indonesia, the following budgetary information is publicly available
through the MoF’s website and through government communiqué:
• methodology and assumptions for establishing fiscal projections used in
the budget
• sensitivity analyses of fiscal and/or macroeconomic models
• budget circular
• executive budget proposal submitted to the Legislature
• fiscal policy objectives for the medium term
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2516. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
• comprehensive annual financial plan encompassing all revenues and
expenditures, including off-budget expenditures and extra-budgetary
funds
• medium-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (possibly in
the form of a medium-term expenditure framework)
• budget approved by the Legislature
• citizens’ budget and guide (explaining the budgetary process and actors
involved).
Notably, the Citizens’ Budget and other citizens’ guides such as the
Citizen’s Audit Report play a key role in informing the public about what
can often be opaque and technical topics.
In 2012, 16 OECD members reported preparing citizens’ budgets (see
Figure 6.6). Indonesia has produced informative, reliable and
understandable citizens’ budget documents in recent years as well. It is
important to note that timeliness is a crucial element of publishing citizens’
guides and budgets, as publishing them early enough in the budget cycle can
help enable citizens to develop informed opinions. In turn, this can engage
more citizens throughout the budgeting process, potentially leading to
greater inclusiveness.
Budgetary information encompasses a large number of areas in
Indonesia. The content and the timing of some budget documents and other
specific disclosures could be improved. The GOI could also increase budget
transparency by providing:
• independent reviews/analysis of macroeconomic and/or fiscal
assumptions
• underlying data and methodology related to the (macro) economic
assumptions
• Pre-Budget Report to the Legislature
• the main figures of the Pre-Budget Statement in advance of the
submission of the actual Budget Proposal
• comprehensive annual financial plan encompassing all revenues and
expenditures for all levels of government (including regional and local)
• the long-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (10 or more
years).
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
252 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
Figure 6.6. Use of citizens’ budgets in OECD countries in 2012
Countries Countries
with without
citizens' citizens'
budgets budgets (18)
(16)
United Kingdom
Source: 2012 OECD Survey on Budgeting Practices and Procedures.
In 2015, a new financial management information system (SPAN) was
launched by the Ministry of Finance of Indonesia with the goal of improving
transparency, efficiency and accountability. The system serves as a
centralised and integrated database of government financial transactions,
providing accounting and reporting systems for budget execution in real
time. As a tool for budget execution, it is appropriate for managing budget
allocations, expenditure commitments and spending limits, i.e. providing
comprehensive and timely information on the government’s financial
position. With the improvement of public financial management, planning,
decision making and resource allocation can all become more efficient.
Aggregated budget data provide useful information on budget
allocations, realisation of expenditures per financial sector unit, transfers
from central to local levels of government, etc. However, detailed
information on each of these areas (concerning the recipients, where and
how exactly budget allocations are spent, etc.) is not available. Publishing
relevant, detailed and timely budget data on a single website of the Ministry
of Finance would improve the quality and quantity of data and information
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2536. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
accessible to the public throughout the budget cycle. Continuing joint efforts
of the MoF and CSOs regarding open budget data would involve developing
an improved web-based solution to publish budget data in machine-readable
and user-friendly format on both central and local government levels.
While the Ministry of Finance has decided to make aggregated budget
data accessible at its official website2, other public agencies, such as line
ministries, committees or local governments, decide independently whether
to follow this practice. These public bodies are themselves users of budget
and other financial management data through the SPAN system, and in some
cases, detailed data are accessible through their websites. During the
parliamentary budget approval process, access to information could be
improved by introducing mandatory publication of minutes of meetings in
committees and making the decisions taken at the meetings available to the
public.
On the other hand, several good solutions are taking shape across
Indonesia, and among these local initiatives, we find good practices that are
potentially scalable. In Jakarta Province and Bojonegoro District, for
example, the local governments have initiated the establishment of open
budget data portals that link and use budget data as well as financial data of
the Ministry of Finance (see Box. 6.1).
Executive-led participation
The MoF holds public consultations and hearings on the budget prior to
approval by the Legislature, while line ministries do not hold public
consultations. The call for public hearings is published on the government’s
website, in social media and by direct invitation. Making public
consultations and public hearings a regular and recurring part of the budget
formulation and approval processes would support a realistic debate on the
trade-offs of the budget, and it has the potential to increase the credibility
and trust in government.
Budget execution and re-allocations
Limited re-allocation of funds is possible within the same
programme/activity without compromising the output target of a line
ministry, although line ministers need ex-ante approval of both the MoF and
Parliament to re-allocate funds within or between activities/programmes.
Borrowing against future appropriations is not possible (i.e. line ministries
and agencies cannot overspend in one year to cover operating and
investment expenditures and compensate for it in the next year).
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
254 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
In Indonesia, budget appropriations are often not exhausted by the end
of the financial year. Together with the application of a programme and
performance-based approach, this suggests the need for increasing the
flexibility of re-allocating funds within or between activities and
programmes.
Public participation in budgeting in Indonesia
Indonesia’s public finances include elements of public participation,
although participation in national development planning is at a more
advanced stage than participation in the budget cycle. Parliamentary
engagement in budget deliberations is in line with the OECD
recommendations, although public involvement is limited. The situation is
similar concerning public participation in budget implementation and
auditing.
This section first discusses the Musrenbang regional public consultation
forum for development planning, an existing form of public participation in
Indonesia that is related to the annual development planning process. In
connection with the newly enacted Village Law, this section then presents
the nascent system of participatory village planning, implementation and
oversight. This is followed by a case study of a district government
successfully implementing open and participative budgeting, as well as the
participative elements of Indonesia’s Gender Budgeting framework.
Thereafter, the section touches on budget phases lacking a significant level
of public involvement and presents good practices distilled mostly from
other countries’ experiences. The section concludes with a few suggestions
on how to increase citizen involvement throughout the budgeting process.
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the National Long-Term Development
Plan (RPJPN, the current one running 2005-25) and the National Medium-
Term Development Plan (RPJMN, currently running 2015-19) both lay out
the basis for the annual developmental planning and provide essential
background to the budget process.
The annual developmental planning process starts with a first draft
derived from the RPJMN. Bappenas, which is responsible for the strategic
planning, prepares a draft annual plan at the beginning of the annual process
and makes it available for the Musrenbang (the multi-stakeholder
consultation for development planning). The Musrenbang process has a long
track record, although it still has the potential to further increase civic
involvement and social inclusiveness. Every year, from January until March
(parallel to the start of the budgeting process), Musrenbang meetings take
place, starting on the village level, continuing on the sub-district then on the
local level (see Figure 6.7). The top row of the figure identifies the
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2556. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
participants of the corresponding level of Musrenbang/forum, whereas the
bottom row outlines the results and outputs of the actions taken.
Figure 6.7. Institutionalisation of participatory planning
Source: OECD work based on Fitra data.
After a reform on village funds implemented nationwide in 2015, the
decision to prioritise and spend village-level budget appropriations is
directly in the hands of the village assemblies (Musyarawarah Desa). The
Village Law is mainstreaming the National Program on Citizen’s
Empowerment (PNPM), a successful national programme for community
empowerment run for 15 years that combined poverty reduction efforts with
social accountability mechanisms. The Village Law re-allocated
expenditures so that direct transfers received by the villages will be
composed of 10% of districts’ fiscal balance funds, complemented by an
additional 10% from the central government. The 10% transferred from the
districts will be reached gradually over three years by 2017, increasing by
three percentage points each year (see 2015 and 2016 in Figure 6.8.).
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
256 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
Figure 6.8. Transfers to regional development and village funds, 2005-16
Balance fund Special Autonomy Fund Other Transfer Funds Dana Privileges DIY Village fund Regional Incentive Fund
Trillion IDR 700.4
800
700
600 516.4
477.1
500 430.4
411.3
400 316.7 347.2
300
244 278.7 287.3
222.1
200 143.2 3.5 0.6 4 5.3 7.5 6.2 9.5 11.8 9.1 18.9 53.7 57.4 69.3 80.1 104.4
10.4 12 13.40.1 16.10.4 17.10.250.8 17.20.5475
100 1.8 5.5 2006 2007
0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 APBNP APBN
2005
2015 2016
Note: 2015 and 2016 values are estimates taken from the corresponding budget documents.
Sources: OECD work based on Budget Brief 2016, www.kemenkeu.go.id/Publikasi/informasi-apbn-
2016.
The village planning and budgeting process has to reflect the diversity
of the local community and include representatives of marginalised people,
women’s groups, religious leaders, farmers and fishermen. In order to
strengthen inclusive governance for marginalised groups (such as people
with disabilities, religious minorities and vulnerable youth), a group of
facilitators runs a social inclusion initiative. In this programme, local CSO
representatives receive training on how to bring the needs of marginalised
groups from the village to the district level as well as how to identify their
needs.
There is great potential in the village funds initiative with respect to
inclusive and participative budgeting. However, since the Village Law does
not regulate village financial management as a whole, it must be
complemented by arrangements to ensure accountability, including the
increase of local government oversight and co-ordination capacities. In the
first years of implementation, it is crucial to monitor and analyse outcomes
and include corrective mechanisms wherever necessary. Assistance provided
by village facilitators, socialisation and training are critical to building up
the necessary skills and good practices at the village level.
There is scope to increase further the inclusiveness of both the
Musrenbang and the village funding mechanisms by eliminating obstacles
facing certain sub-groups that may impede their participation in the public
consultation. Work is already under way within the GOI and the Parliament
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2576. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
to address perceived issues in the national consultative framework. These
initiatives include greater openness to the views of local representatives on
how resources are applied in their areas. A deeper impact could be achieved
through targeted training for local officials and citizens, leading to proposals
that fit local needs better and complement national development
programmes. Assisting certain sub-groups of the society (such as parents at
home and citizens with disabilities) that face difficulties in attending
meetings would promote the representative quality. Improving Internet
access in rural areas as well as applying web-based solutions would also
contribute to more active participation and inclusiveness.
Participation throughout the stages of the budgeting cycle is more
limited than during the development planning process. Good practices for
participative budgeting exist on the local level in Indonesia (see Box 6.1),
which may be applied more broadly after adapting them to local needs and
circumstances. In Indonesia, the Ministry of Finance sometimes holds public
hearings on the budget prior to approval by the Legislature. Building on the
leading role of the Indonesian MoF regarding budget transparency efforts,
Executive-led participation processes could be an option to consider for
budget implementation.
Box 6.1. Interaction of open and active participative budgeting
in Bojonegoro District
The Bojonegoro District government is among the pioneers in developing both
open budget data as well as ongoing, active public participation practices in
policy making, budgeting and public finance management. In order to implement
the agenda of public dialogue and to provide access to information in budgeting,
Bojonegoro District has applied a multi-faceted approach.
Specifically, the approach is to provide open budget information on multiple
websites in areas such as budget management and disbursement orders, and to
combine budget data from the national, province and local level to facilitate
analysis and to encourage involvement of the stakeholders throughout the district.
Public engagement on budgetary issues is fostered by the use of a direct and
in-person consultation opportunity every week at the Malowopati pavilion, as
well as via the submission of ideas or complaints using one of the numerous
facilities integrated with the LAPOR online service (including text messages to
the Malowopati radio programme, complaint boxes, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc.). To
ensure availability for people living in particularly remote or difficult-to-access
areas, off-road motorbikes are used to visit these villages and listen to public
opinion.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
258 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
Box 6.1. Interaction of open and active participative budgeting
in Bojonegoro District (continued)
Apart from providing information, open budgeting and open information on
policy making have various positive impacts. Reliable and up-to-date information
on budgets can help encourage active participation in decision making and
increase trust in governance. It may also lead to fewer mass demonstrations, more
efficient and effective local governance, and increased user satisfaction.
During the implementation of public participation in budgeting, Bojonegoro
District overcame a number of challenges, which may provide lessons for similar
programmes across the country, including: 1) geographic conditions, i.e.
mountainous regions that make it difficult to provide Internet access; 2) limited
human resources with IT skills; and 3) coping with changes for public servants.
Source: OECD Questionnaire on Good practices in Public financial management with a
focus on budget transparency submitted by Regency of Bojonegoro.
International examples demonstrate participative budgeting practices at
different entry points of the budget cycle. Notably, in a number of countries,
parliaments use their functions of passing legislation and providing
oversight to engage citizens in the corresponding phases of the budgeting
cycle. Key mechanisms include public committee hearings and asking for
public input. Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom issue press
releases to invite citizens to contribute. CSOs use additional tools such as
focus groups, consultations and web-based outreach to expand public input.
The Korean Special Committee on Budgets (SCB) invites a pre-selected
group of specialists (to ensure diversity of expertise) to a publicly
broadcasted hearing, evaluating economic and tax forecasts, fiscal position
and expenditure programmes. If necessary, the SCB then requests a query
session with the government to make adjustments. One of the benefits of
this system is its ability to disaggregate the budget and to focus on its key
elements separately. Similarly, Indonesia could strengthen public
participation by involving both the PBO and civil society in the legislative
phase.
Civil society could also have an enhanced role in the legislative phase
by having the right to submit alternatives to the proposed budget. In the
Philippines, for example, accredited CSOs are involved as an intermediary
in the legislative phase. Apart from being notified regarding hearings,
consultations and calls for written submissions, accredited CSOs can submit
budget proposals and alternatives to the proposed budget. They also have
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2596. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
access to data from the parliament, national government offices and local
government units.
In the implementation phase, CSOs can provide citizen monitoring of
ministries. One way of doing that is by having CSOs submit their reports to
parliamentary committees that can question policy decisions on a real-time
basis. If necessary, implementation can be adjusted mid-course in order to
meet the objectives of the budget.
Executive-led participatory processes can also play an important role.
To ensure value for money in budgeting in Indonesia, the government could
use LAPOR to collect suggestions and complaints related to the budget
process. For its part, the Korean government created a Budget Waste
Reporting Centre to allow citizens to report on inefficiencies experienced
during budget implementation. This centre has high a capacity since its staff
consists of retired budget officials who can send waste cases to relevant
units and otherwise respond to calls efficiently. Also, the Korean Budget
Office held a pilot competition on project ideas in 2012 that was publicised
nationwide. Suggestions were transferred to the related agencies and
checked for feasibility and the best ones were selected to be included in the
budget.
Gender budgeting
The gender perspective has become increasingly integrated into policy
planning and implementation starting from the 2000s in Indonesia (see
Table 6.2 for the primary legal documents related to budgeting). During this
period, the Gender Responsive Budget (GRB) and the National Programme
on Citizens’ Empowerment (PNPM) were introduced. GRB focuses on the
output of its activities that are incorporated into the budgeting system.
Budgets are allocated to meet gender-responsive objectives, not as
earmarked allocations for women and men separately.
The Indonesian Gender Mainstreaming Programme refers to:
1) consulting and training for the improvement of women’s position in
health, education, politics, leadership and poverty, as well as for the
reduction of violence against women; and 2) capacity building and skills
enhancement on in women empowerment. The idea is to involve key
stakeholders such as civil society, labour unions, academics and government
representatives from all levels to build co-operation, management and
accounting skills. This programme has been implemented in seven line
ministries as pilot projects since 2009, including the Ministry of Finance.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
260 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
Table 6.2. Legal framework for gender budgeting and participation
in Indonesia
Law/Regulation Relevance for gender budgeting
Presidential Instruction 9/2000 Gender mainstreaming in planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation for national and subnational
Law 17/2003 on National Public governments
Finance Performance-based budgeting
Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional
Governance Empowerment of women is one of the obligatory functions
Government Regulation 38/2007 on for subnational governments
Division of Functions between Empowerment of women is one of the obligatory functions
national and subnational for subnational governments
governments
Presidential Regulation 5/2010 on Gender mainstreaming is one of the instruments in
Mid-term National Development development policy
Planning (RPJMN 2010-14)
Ministry of Finance Decree on Implementation of gender mainstreaming via gender-based
Guidance for Annual Working Plan budgeting
and Budget since 2009
(the latest: #93/2011)
The MoF has started implementation with a pilot programme within the
ministry. Key priorities and achievements include introducing gender
mainstreaming among the topics of leadership training; the improvement of
facilities, including nursery rooms and childcare facilities; ensuring equal
treatment on training and scholarships; and offering maternity leave.
Indonesia has also integrated the gender perspective into both
developmental planning and budgeting. Gender Responsive Planning (GRP)
feeds into GRB, in which allocations for programme activities are
determined. Gender policies feature in long-term, mid-term and annual
developmental planning, followed by the annual working plan and the
budget.
Gender participation in budgeting is critical to cope with the challenges
posed by the diverse cultural and traditional backgrounds in different
regions. In Indonesia, CSOs are therefore actively promoting gender
equality on both the national and local level. Nevertheless, gender
participation depends on a regulatory framework and the implementation of
mainstreaming to build on the active involvement of stakeholders. The
primary issues raised are the provision of job opportunities, as well as equal
access to education and health services. Female labour force participation is
still low, albeit increasing, and the female share of formal employment is
still lower than that of males.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2616. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
Women’s participation in land and forest governance
Women in Indonesia are often more adversely affected by de-forestation
and extractive industry expansion, yet women’s participation is very low in
forest and land governance. Their traditional role within the community
cannot be sustained with the deterioration of farming conditions due to
displacement, loss of land and environmental impacts that result in increased
dependence on men and the undermining of women’s productive and
leadership roles. Women’s advocacy and participation in decision making
and budgeting can mitigate these effects; however, complex solutions are
needed that take into account ethnic diversity, offer training and formal
employment, and allow for the sustainable production of non-timber forest
products.
Enhancing women’s participation in decision-making committees in
community forest institutions improves forest and land resource governance
and resource allocation, with a positive impact also on the sustainability of
forest and land resources (Agarwal, 2009). Additionally, Manfre and Rubin
(2012) demonstrate that, during the de-centralisation process, women’s
participation in forest governance mitigated the elites’ capability of
capturing benefits and lead to improved access to budgeting processes on
the district level. These findings point out that both budget transparency and
public participation in budgeting can be promoted by increasing women’s
participation in decision-making processes and natural resource
management, in particular on the local level.
Compared with other sectors such as health, education or infrastructure,
land and forest governance scores poorly regarding performance. A case
study of nine districts (Land and Forest Governance Index, 2013) has found
that the transparency of and participation in land and forest governance
(including budget planning) are poor, with considerable dispersion (see
Figure 6.9). It is clear from such results that participation in general is very
poor, let alone women’s participation.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
262 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
Figure 6.9. Land and forest governance index in selected districts 2012
North Kayong Transparency Index Berau Participation Index
Berau 2.1 Bulungan 5
Paser North Kayong 6.7
7.07
Sintang 7.68 Sintang 9.2
Banyuasin Muba 12.6
Kubu Raya 11.4 13.9
11.7 Kubu Raya 20.1
Mura 14.34 Mura 21.8
Bulungan 14.67 23.9
Banyuasin 26.6
Muba 16.01 Paser
17.17
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 Inde1x00
Index
Source: OECD work based on Land and Forest Governance Index - The Performance of District
Governments in Land and Forest Governance in Indonesia, 2013.
In Indonesia, environmental CSOs play an important role in addressing
gendered impacts and injustice, and these organisations are necessary to
ensure that the most vulnerable actors will benefit from forest and land
governance. Various tools are used for understanding gendered impacts of
land-based industry developments such as gender impact assessment and
collection of sex disaggregated data, which in turn are combined with
ethnographic research approaches and social analysis.
Strengthening the capacity of campaigners is crucial for the
improvement of women’s access and participation in local decision-making
processes, which can ensure the resolution of conflicts falling under the
themes of gender budgeting and environmental sustainability in forest
governance. Building on inter-sectoral interests, cross-sectoral co-ordination
mechanisms could be strengthened, along with the capacity building and the
improvement of access to information and the provision of opportunities for
community participation.
Budgeting at subnational levels of government
Currently, the central government, provinces, district/city governments
and villages all have budget authority, and Minister of Home Affairs
Regulation No. 13/2006 concerning “Guidelines for Management of Local
Finances” establishes the procedures for formulating and adopting local
government budgets (see Table 6.3 for the key local government budget
documents).
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2636. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
Table 6.3. Key local government budgetary documentation
Planning phase Discussion phase Implementation phase Accountability phase
o Local government o General o Local regulation o Report on first
work plans (RKPD) Budget adopting local semester
Policies (KUA) budget (APBD) budget
o Sectoral work plans of and outcomes
provisional o Local head of
local government budget o Local regulation
working priorities and government
units/departments ceilings (HoG) regulation on
(SKPDs) – three (PPAS) outlining details accountability
sectors: health, of APBD of APBD
education, public o Budget and implementation
works o Budget
work plans of o Information on
Source: Fitra. each local implementation
SKPD checklist (DPA) report on
for each local implementation
SKPD of local
governance
o Sectoral Budget (ILPPD)
Implementation o Reports on
Document (three
sectors: health, implementation
education and of local
public works) governance
(LPPD)
o Local
o Local
government
regulation government
adopting revised accountability
local budget report (LKPJ)
(APBD-P)
o Local HoG
regulation
providing details
of APBD-P
Processes at the local level mirror budget processes on the state level.
Most of the budget documents are not available for the public automatically,
although data requests can be submitted. Ensuring that the implementation
of the budget is followed by the various stakeholders and that their oversight
is granted by using open budget data at the local and national level could
strengthen social accountability and complement the oversight provided by
the corresponding levels of government.
Indonesia faces distinct and far-reaching challenges in public
governance arising from the geographical and cultural diversity of the
country. In meeting these challenges, the GOI has pursued a policy of de-
centralisation and de-concentration. The budgetary aspects of this approach
are still in development.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
264 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
On average, 80% of the budget of districts comes as transfer
(Figure 6.10). Provinces have bigger taxing power than districts/cities. At
the same time, most of human resources are employed at the state and
district level, so this leads to using more than 70% of fiscal transfers for
personnel expenditures (Figure 6.11). Fiscal transfers take into account
regional imbalances, although per capita imbalances are significant.
Figure 6.10. Composition of revenue on subnational levels of government, 2008-12
% Own source revenue Fiscal transfer Other revenue
100 11 14 13 11 12 14 18 16 16 10 11 10 10
9 77 74 69 67 66 20
90 44 43 42 40
12 12 13 17 18
80 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 34
70 City Average 46 46 49 50 46
60 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Provincial Average
50 85 83 80 80 82
40
30
20
10
06 6 6 7 7
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
District Average
Source: OECD work based on Fitra data.
Figure 6.11. Composition of expenditure on subnational levels of government, 2008-12
% Personnel Good and Services Capital Other
100
9 10 8 8 74775
9 25 24 19 20 21
90 19 22 19 20 21 32 26 29 28 37
80 29 26 21 23 24 49 49 55 53 52 21 24 23 21 18
70 21 26 24 26 24
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
60 18 16 18 18 City Average 25 24 24 25 20
50 17 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
40 Provincial Average
30 47 53 51 51
20 45
10
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
District Average
Source: OECD work based on Fitra data.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2656. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
The Musrenbang process could also be improved by providing access to
information about indicative ceilings and programme priorities in a timely
manner to inform stakeholders. The central government could also
contribute to capacity development of district governments to support their
oversight capacity to monitor the implementation of village funds.
Recommendations
• Improve the quality and quantity of data and information accessible to
the public throughout the budget cycle.
− Continue joint efforts of the MoF and CSOs in building on earlier
initiatives regarding the accessibility of budget data, in line with the
plan of the GOI to apply open data principles to budgeting. The
improved web-based solution aims to provide open budget data on
both central and local government levels using one platform,
meeting the needs of the various stakeholders.
− Improve access to information about indicative ceilings and
programme priorities in a timely manner to inform stakeholders of
the Musrenbang process.
− During the parliamentary budget approval process, make the
working sessions of the committees transparent, including the
mandatory publication of minutes of meetings, data and decisions
taken.
• Strengthen public participation in the budget cycle.
− Increase the co-operation between the PBO and civil society
organisations, for example by providing opportunities to comment
on the economic forecasts.
− Improve the representativeness and inclusiveness of Musrenbang.
− Make public consultations and public hearings a regular and
recurring part of the budget formulation and approval processes.
Specifically, this could include granting public access to the
submission of budget and other budget-related meetings of the
Parliament.
− Invite external stakeholders to participate in the discussions of the
Budget Committee by allowing them to contribute to the draft of the
budget proposal at each stage and otherwise comment on the records
of the proceedings.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
266 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
− Allow, through a regulated mechanism, for accredited/pre-selected
CSOs to submit alternative suggestions to the budget.
− During the parliamentary budget approval process, make the
sessions of the committees open to the public.
• Improve the content and the timing of the budget documents.
− Make available the main figures of the Pre-Budget Statement in
advance of the submission of the actual Budget Proposal. This
would facilitate stakeholders in engaging in a realistic and
constructive debate.
− Publish the Citizens’ Budget as early as possible so that it can
engage more citizens throughout the budgeting process, potentially
leading to greater inclusiveness in determining budget priorities.
• Improve the monitoring and oversight of village funds, involving social
monitoring as well as district-level oversight mechanisms.
• Open the audit process to public engagement through regular reporting
of audit results and soliciting the views of stakeholders on the quality
and impacts of public spending. This would enhance confidence in the
integrity and efficacy of public financial management.
• Use the momentum of trust in local governments and their adaptability
for speeding up the transition toward open budgeting and governance.
− Promote the development of a standardised framework of solutions
facilitating and enabling the dissemination of innovations and best
practices.
− Strengthen the monitoring of local government by encouraging the
participation of local stakeholders.
• Promote the internalisation of certain principles for public servants.
Instead of minimising risk-taking by, for example, not spending budget
appropriations, governments should adopt a practice of gradual
experimentation with a view to arriving at optimal solutions.
• Continue efforts to implement participative gender budgeting and other
thematic approaches to the budget.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2676. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
Notes
1. See Law number 25 of 2004.
2. www.kemenkeu.go.id.
References
Agarwal, B (2009), ‘Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s
participation in community forest governance’, Ecological Economics
vol. 68, pp. 2785–2799.
Anggriani, N. (2016), Indonesia’s Village Law: A Step Toward Inclusive
Governance, 17 February, Asia Foundation, http://asiafoundation.org/in-
asia/2016/02/17/indonesias-village-law-a-step-toward-inclusive-
governance/.
The Asia Foundation (2012), Gender in Indonesia,
https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/IDgender.pdf.
Australian Aid (2012), Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Pro-poor
Policy: The Knowledge Sector Initiative, Design Document,
https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/indo-ks-design.pdf.
Blöndal, J. et al. (2009), “Budgeting in Indonesia”, OECD Journal on
Budgeting, Vol. 2009/2, www.oecd.org/indonesia/45362389.pdf.
Farhan, Y. (2013), Participatory Planning and Budgeting in Indonesia,
Bonn Symposium, 28-29 November, www.sef-
bonn.org/fileadmin/Die_SEF/Veranstaltungen/BoSy/2013_bosy_farhan_
presentation_en.pdf.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
268 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
Hadi, S. (2015), The Role of CDD and Village Law in Promoting Village
Development and Community Empowerment in Indonesia: Best-Practice,
Mainstreaming, Implications, Implementation, and Challenges, Asia
Regional Conference on Community Driven Development Cebu,
Philippines, 25 March.
House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (n.d.),
www.dpr.go.id/en/akd/komisi.
IMF (2010), Indonesia: Report on the Observance of Standards and Codes –
Fiscal Transparency Module – Update, IMF Country Report No. 10/342,
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10342.pdf.
Indonesian Forum for Budget Transparency (2014-2015), Website
Development: (info-budget.com), http://info-anggaran.com/,
www.seatti.org/index.php/partner/68-sekretariat-nasional-forum-
indonesia-untuk-transparansi-anggaran-indonesian-forum-for-budget-
transparency.html.
H.E. Muhammad Jusuf Kalla (2015), Vice President of the Republic of
Indonesia, Global Leaders’ Meeting on Gender Equality and Women’s
Empowerment: A Commitment to Action, New York, 27 September,
www2.unwomen.org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/initiatives/
stepitup/commitments-speeches/indonesia-stepitup-commitmentspeech-
201509-en.pdf?v=1&d=20150928T213346.
Manfre, C. and Rubin, D. (2012), Integrating gender into forestry research:
a guide for CIFOR scientists and programme administrators, CIFOR,
Bogor, Indonesia.
Marchessault, L. (2015), Public participation and the budget cycle: lessons
from country examples, Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency,
www.fiscaltransparency.net/resourcesfiles/files/20151116137.pdf.
Ministry of Finance – Republic of Indonesia (n.d.), Launch of Treasury
System and the State Budget (SPAN) and Guidance to the declaration of
taxpayer (2015), www.kemenkeu.go.id/en/node/45607.
Ministry of Finance – Republic of Indonesia (2016), Budget Brief 2016,
www.kemenkeu.go.id/Publikasi/informasi-apbn-2016.
Ministry of Finance – Republic of Indonesia (n.d.), Budget data,
www.kemenkeu.go.id/en/katalogdata.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2696. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA –
OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance,
OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/
Recommendation-of-the-Council-on-Budgetary-Governance.pdf.
OECD (2012), Budget Practices and Procedures Survey for Asian Countries.
OECD (2005), Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/
4205101e.pdf.
OECD (2002), OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency, OECD
Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/Best%20Practices%20Budget%20Transpa
rency%20-%20complete%20with%20cover%20page.pdf.
OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners : OECD Handbook on Information,
Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.
Petrie, M. and Shields, J. (2010), “Producing a Citizens’ Guide to the
Budget: Why, What and How?” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol.
2010/2.
Rahman, Y. et al, The Asia Foundation (2014), Land and Forest
Governance Index: The Performance of Local Governments in Land and
Forest Governance in Indonesia,
https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/LandandForestGovernanceInde
x.pdf.
Regency of Bojonegoro, Province of East Java (2015), Implementation of
Public Dialogue and Open Public Information; Integrated Public
Aspiration System with Online Public Aspiration Service, (mimeo).
Sinergantara (2014), Open Data Initiative of Ministry of Finance – on
National Budget Transparency in Indonesia,
www.opendataresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/Open%20Data
%20Initiative%20of%20Ministry%20of%20Finance%20on%20National
%20Budget%20Transparency%20in%20Indonesia.pdf.
World Bank (2015), Indonesia: Centralized Database of Government
Financial Transactions Improves Budget Spending and Accountability,
Press Release, www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2015/11/11/indonesia-centralized-database-of-government-
financial-transactions-improves-budget-spending-and-accountability.
World Bank (2015), Indonesia: New financial management information
system at Finance Ministry to improve transparency, efficiency and
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
270 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
accountability, Press Release, www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2015/04/29/new-financial-management-information-system-at-
finance-ministry-to-improve-transparency-efficiency-and-accountability.
World Bank (n.d.), A1.35. Working with the Legislature to Promote Budget
Transparency, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1193949504055/4348035-
1380737852287/EAP.pdf.
World Bank (n.d.), A1.36. Using Budgets to Advocate for Expanding Health
Security for the Disabled, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-
1193949504055/4348035-1380737852287/EAP.pdf.
World Bank (n.d.), A1.37. Improving Websites of Targeted Ministries to
Increase Public Knowledge of Government Spending,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Reso
urces/244362-1193949504055/4348035-1380737852287/EAP.pdf.
World Bank Group (2015), Indonesia Country Summary Brief – Village
Law, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTCDD/Resources/430160-
1435154813801/Indonesia_Country_Brief.pdf.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2717. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA–
Chapter 7
Public-sector innovation in Indonesia
This chapter provides an overview of how the Government of Indonesia has
used innovative approaches and tools to help drive open government
reforms. It broadly defines public-sector innovation and lays out some of the
challenges and barriers facing governments in their efforts to pursue
innovation. The chapter also discusses the institutional framework that
supports innovation in Indonesia, provides an overview of successful public-
sector innovation practices in Indonesia and suggests how the country might
build on them as it expands its open government reforms.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
272 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA
Introduction
Innovation in the public sector is about getting the most out of the
resources and capacities invested in the public sector in order to deliver on
the promise of better outcomes for all. It goes beyond just improving the
direct performance or output of the organisation itself, and includes actions
to strengthen the capacity of citizens, businesses and other public-sector
institutions to become agents of change. Innovating means finding ways to
enhance trust in government and confidence in public services in an effort to
attain wider legitimacy of policy results by involving citizens and the third
sector in the innovation process, and these core principles of innovation are
supported by the Open Government Partnership.
The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) has been
engaged in systematic collection of data and analysis of government
innovation in order to better understand the role of innovation in promoting
transparency and reforms, making governments more inclusive and open
and restoring citizen trust in governments and market institutions (Box 7.1).
Beyond collecting instances of innovations, the Observatory has fostered the
creation of a community of practice of innovators who gather together,
exchange ideas and discuss how to work differently.
Box 7.1. The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI)
Launched in 2014, the OPSI platform (www.oecd.org/governance/
observatory-public-sector-innovation/home/) includes a database of 282
innovations from 37 countries, including Indonesia.
The database of innovations includes a description of the innovation, the
results, the development process, and lessons learned. By providing a consistent
and clear structure for presenting innovations, the database provides a useful
platform for comparisons and knowledge sharing. Cases can also be sorted by,
among other variables, level of government; sector; year of launch; type of
innovation (including digital, organisational design, etc.); and implementation
and development partners.
In addition to the case list, the OPSI also provides a library with relevant
research on public-sector innovation from a range of sources, including the
OECD, national governments, academia and research institutions, as well as
information on upcoming events and articles posted by internationally recognised
experts.
Source: OPSI.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2737. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA–
While there is not an established definition of public-sector innovation,
the work of the Observatory has identified common elements that help
clarify some of its key characteristics:
1. Novelty – an innovation must be either new to the organisation or a
significant improvement on an existing practice.
2. Implementation – an innovation must be implemented and not just an
idea.
3. Impact – an innovation must specifically aim to improve public
results, such as efficiency, effectiveness, or user or employee
satisfaction.
Innovation is widespread within and across levels of government;
however, the policy framework supporting public-sector innovation is still
fragmented. The OECD has recognised the instrumental role that effective
co-ordination of public-sector innovation efforts play in overcoming
fragmentation and “silos”; ensuring replicability and transferability of
experience across departments and agencies; and enabling top-down and
bottom-up dissemination of innovative ideas – not least from frontline staff.
In OECD countries, there is no single model for co-ordinating and
supporting public-sector innovation efforts. Countries have adopted different
solutions depending on their institutional circumstances, degree of
decentralisation of governing functions and formal allocation of public-
sector reform portfolios.
Regarding the link between innovation and open government, it is
important to note that the OGP Open Government Declaration commits
countries to “engaging civil society and the business community to identify
effective practices and innovative approaches,” as well as to “fostering
innovation and spurring progress.”1 Furthermore, as noted in the OECD’s
theory of change, used to frame its analysis of open government reforms
(see Figure 1.13 in Chapter 1), innovation is one of the policy catalysts that
help drive successful change. If appropriately applied, innovation can
increase the openness of government, the impact of policy reforms and the
reach of government initiatives. By enhancing the involvement on the part
of citizens, businesses, public officials and civil society, innovation can
directly support open government principles.
This chapter explores how the Government of Indonesia has developed
innovative approaches and tools with a focus on enhancing transparency and
quality of public service delivery. It will provide examples of innovative
solutions in the Indonesian public sector and discuss the policy and legal
environment supporting innovation efforts in the country. The chapter will
place these efforts in the context of past and current administrative reforms
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
274 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA
in the country and of current public-sector innovation trends in OECD
countries.
Institutional framework to support innovation in Indonesia
In many countries, innovations in service delivery have targeted efforts
to increase the access, quality and transparency of services, and to
strengthen new forms of collaboration with actors from across society in the
co-design and co-creation of innovative solutions. Similar to other countries,
these efforts in Indonesia have been the fruit of a combined process of
gradual adaptation and of accelerated development of new solutions tailored
to the country’s administrative context and needs. While progressing in its
reform agenda, Indonesia is facing the challenge of strengthening the
institutional capacity of public-sector organisations to learn from and
replicate international good practice while developing their own innovative
solutions based on their own needs.
Interviews held during the peer review mission indicated that there is
not a common understanding as to what constitutes public-sector innovation
across the various parts of the national government. The notion of an
innovation policy is often associated with other public-sector reform
agendas (e.g. see Chapter 5 on digital government). Similar to many OECD
countries, Indonesia does not have a stand-alone whole-of-government
policy on fostering innovation in the public sector. This is consistent with
OECD country practices, where few countries have developed overarching
strategies for innovation in the public sector or provided details on
co-ordinated action to generate and sustain innovation (see Box 7.2 for
examples from OECD countries of governments that have thought
strategically about their support for public-sector innovation). Public-sector
innovation tends to exist as part of the body of practice of governments,
often with a low degree of institutionalisation within budget plans and
procedures.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2757. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA–
Box 7.2. Examples of dedicated strategies to support innovation
The following cases highlight examples from OECD countries of efforts made
to develop policies and frameworks for supporting public-sector innovation.
Finland has long taken a strategic approach to innovation, focusing on the
private sector and on new technology, to build economic capacity and growth. In
2008, it developed a national innovation strategy that moves beyond existing
technological models of innovation and gives greater importance to the role of the
public sector itself as an innovator. The strategy identified the need to enhance
the innovation capacity of the public sector and to incentivise significant change
and promote risk taking.
In Australia, the public-sector innovation policy landscape builds on
longstanding efforts undertaken by the Australian government to build a
framework for embedding innovation in its work and achieving better outcomes.
In 2009, the report Empowering Change: Fostering Innovation in the Australian
Public Service looked at the ‘state of play’ for innovation in Australia and
identified barriers that public servants face when innovating. The report looked at
the sources of innovation and at the actors who can help design, implement and
deliver change. It outlines what agencies, team, and individuals can do to foster
innovation. The report made twelve recommendations grouped into the following
five themes: strategy and culture; leadership; systemic/structural issues;
resourcing and managing innovation in the Australian Public Service (APS); and
recognition, sharing and learning. More broadly, the annual Australian Innovation
System Reports explore the impact of innovation and related activities on
business, industry and national performance and build on the commitment by the
Australian Government in Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st
Century. The APS Innovation Action Plan 2011 was endorsed at the highest
levels of the APS, and in it can be found the principles and actions to be taken to
achieve a more innovative public sector built around citizen engagement and new
methods for service delivery. In July 2015, Departmental Secretaries endorsed a
public-sector innovation agenda which strongly emphasises connecting public
servants to one another to share ideas and experiences, and at the same time it
fosters initiatives to share, develop, test and grow good ideas.
Source: OECD.
The framework enabling innovation in Indonesia encompasses both the
legal provisions and strategic plans that reinforce the development of
innovative solutions in government:
• Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Services and Law No. 5 of 2014 on the
Civil Service provide a context for government action to increase the
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
276 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA
quality of public services and enhance the flexibility and transparency of
the civil service. Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government
promotes decentralisation and provides a framework to guide
innovation-oriented actions by regional governments. The country’s
movement away from centralised management has allowed motivated
and capable local governments, especially those with a strong
commitment from regional leaders, to develop and pursue successful
public-sector innovations (Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Otonomi, 2014).
More recently, Law No. 23 of 2014 on local government offered further
support for innovative behaviour through its creation of a de facto “right
to innovate”, which ensures legal protection to local innovators in case
of failure.
• The country’s strategy documents reference innovation as central to the
government’s efforts to reform the public sector and instrumental to
achieve its broader transparency goals. Notably, the National Medium-
Term Development Plan 2015-19 highlights public innovation as
instrumental to improving the quality of public services and moving
towards greater transparency and enhanced accountability. The plan’s
provisions regarding public administration and open government
reforms place emphasis on efforts to identify new ways to provide
information to the public, on the development of e-government systems,
and on the strengthening of public participation in formulating public
policy. The current administration’s government programme (Nawa
Cita), also commits the government to encouraging innovation and the
development of information and communication technology.
• In addition, the OGP 2014-15 Action Plan recognises the contribution of
innovation to help “unlock Indonesia’s potential in the economy, public
services and innovation”. The OGP Action Plan also specifically notes
that one of the plan’s goals, to increase the availability of open data, will
encourage innovation, in addition to enhancing public services and
fostering economic growth.
While there are several initiatives that identify and acknowledge public-
sector innovation at the central government level in Indonesia, these efforts
appear to be isolated, and formal structures for ensuring the co-ordination of
innovation from a central government perspective are not yet in place. A
number of actors play a role in this space:
• The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (KemPAN)
has a central role in providing incentive programmes for innovations and
facilitates knowledge sharing. The Ministry has launched Public Service
Innovation competitions for public-sector organisations with the goal of
collecting, disseminating and enhancing the replicability of innovative
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2777. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA–
solutions (see Box 7.3 for a description of additional examples of
innovation competitions). The One Agency One Innovation Initiative –
developed in collaboration with Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GiZ) – supports national and local
institutions in documenting and sharing their best practices.
Box 7.3. Public-sector innovation awards – selected examples
A common means of promoting the spread of best practices is the use of
innovation awards to promote innovation in the public administration and other
sectors. The use of awards can also influence staff motivation and shape
organisational culture. There are a number of such awards that bring together and
share examples of innovation, including:
• The Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Public Sector Management,
which aim to encourage and recognise better practices and innovation at all
levels of the government in Australia, and are designed to honour the
achievements of public-sector work groups, units or teams rather than
individuals. The awards – administered by the Institute of Public
Administration Australia (IPAA) and facilitated by the ACT Division,
focus on specific initiatives that are the result of methodical and
sustainable approaches to improving an organisation's practices in client
satisfaction, leadership, people management, change management,
planning, governance and innovation. In 2016, the IPAA will also
separately present its annual Australia Public Service Awards to recognise
innovations being implemented.
• The Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) Award for
Innovative Management recognises innovators in the public service in
Canada. Sponsored by IBM, the IPAC Award for Innovative Management
recognises government organisations whose innovations address the wide
variety of issues in society. The award also encourages innovation across
all levels of government, and provides employees the opportunity to share
ideas with each other. The award focuses on innovations that advance
knowledge management systems and structures, enhance the use and
management of public funds, improve transparency, accountability and
responsiveness, and increase public participation.
Discussions among innovation award leaders at the OPSI conference in
November 2014 indicated that to realise the potential benefits of innovation
awards, it is important to consider what sort of incentives all entrants (both
winners and losers) to innovation award schemes should receive. This includes
training to improve and expand projects, feedback, coaching and visibility.
Rewarding the replication of existing innovations in new sectors and contexts
could also help inspire others and promote better learning across the public
sector.
Source: OECD.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
278 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA
• The Ministry of Interior is responsible for the local government
development and, through the National Institute of Public
Administration (LAN), for training civil servants. The ministry prepares
legislation concerning local government affairs. A draft regulation on
local innovation is currently being prepared, touching on issues related
to public services and community empowerment. Discussions with
officials in the ministry highlighted that central government
representatives understand the challenges involved in promoting
innovation at the local level, though they noted that the clarity of the
structure for co-ordinating interventions among different institutions and
supporting capacities of local entities are two major areas where
improvements are needed.
• As the training centre for civil servants, LAN is responsible for
conducting capacity development programmes for newly recruited
public servants (up to the Director General level) and for trainers.
Presidential Regulation 57 also gives LAN an additional role in the
promotion of an innovation culture in the public administration.
Recently, LAN has developed new programmes (“Innovation
Laboratories”) aimed at supporting local government in its efforts to
become more innovative. The Lab uses a five-step methodology to
“drum up, diagnose, design, deliver, display” innovations to train local
government civil servants to innovate. The programme started in 2014
and so far has been rolled out to five provinces. LAN has also developed
and maintains a database of innovations in local governments (currently
with 160 entries) and organises a gathering for “innovation champions”
each year.
• The Executive Office of the President has a broad role in co-ordinating
and ensuring the harmony of policies in a range of policy areas included
in the government agenda. It was suggested that a stronger co-ordination
role in this area could help provide policy guidance to other
organisations to foster innovation and its diffusion as well as develop
innovation in the policy-making process (Ministry of National
Development Planning, 2014).
Barriers to public-sector innovation
As discussed above, Indonesia has a general framework of laws and
institutions that support innovation, though without the systematic or
strategic approach that is most clearly associated with government-wide
innovation initiatives. In large part, the same barriers to innovation that
confront public administrations globally also encumber the GOI;
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2797. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA–
specifically, these barriers to innovation can be broken down according to
the environment in which they operate:
• Barriers that arise from within the bureaucracy/organisation: These
take the form of a lack of sufficient human or financial resources, lack
of management support, a risk-averse culture within the organisation,
staff resistance, and a lack of incentives to innovate in the organisation
as a whole or for individual staff members. Obstacles may also be of an
inter-organisational nature, stemming from difficulties in co-ordinating
organisations, potentially due to turf wars and “silos”.
• Barriers that arise primarily in the political environment: These
include inadequate funding/resources, budgetary rules, legislative or
regulatory constraints, a lack of incentives for organisations to innovate
and political opposition as well as a lack of political commitment.
• Barriers that exist in the external environment: This refers to
uncertainty in terms of which innovations will be accepted and the
prospect of general public scepticism or even opposition. Being subject
to media scrutiny might also curb the willingness to take chances, as
might conflicting external interests and difficulties in reaching the
programme’s target group.
To overcome these barriers, OECD research points to four main
dimensions that constitute an operating framework to support innovation in
the public sector. It is toward these dimensions that efforts should be
directed to strengthen organisations’ capacities to innovate (OECD, 2015):
• People: How civil servants are motivated within an organisational
setting to explore new ideas and experiment with new approaches, and
how this affects their propensity to innovate. Leadership and the way
staff are selected, rewarded, socialised and managed also shapes an
organisation’s innovative capacity.
• Data, information and knowledge: These elements are essential to
innovation, and the way they are managed can support or hinder
innovation. The challenge is to build the capacity to pool available
knowledge to improve public decisions about innovative solutions and
to share knowledge to encourage social innovation.
• Organisational design: The way work is structured within and across
organisations may have an impact on innovation in the public sector.
This includes the development of spaces and innovative methods to
structure teams, break down silos and work in partnerships across
organisations and even sectors.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
280 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA
• Rules and processes: Formal and informal rules, processes and
procedures that guide the daily operations of public agencies may
provide an architecture that either creates a flexible environment for
innovation, or one that results in a web of complexity, hindering the
capacity to innovate.
In each of these areas, governments can use a mix of different polices
and tools to lower barriers that exist at all government levels, from the top of
the policy-making hierarchy down to service delivery. An aspect of this is
incentive structures, both for individuals and the organisation itself. It has
been argued that there is a prevalent tradition of higher penalties for failed
innovations than rewards for successful ones in the public sector. As
discussed in Box 7.4, motivating professional public servants to be
innovative requires careful consideration of the range of incentives and
disincentives that operate simultaneously within an organisation.
Box 7.4. Factors related to employee motivation
Many central governments face significant challenges in motivating innovative
behaviour from their employees. Some of these challenges are rooted in the
bureaucratic nature of public-sector organisations. For example, multiple levels of
hierarchy often separate staff from the decision-making level, and the
administrative nature of many of the jobs can result in a feeling of removal from
the impact of their work. Some of these challenges result from the public and
political nature of the work. Other examples of factors that can influence
employee incentives include:
• Extrinsic factors: These factors can include the way that pay is structured;
the way promotions are granted; the quality of relationships among staff
and management; the way teamwork is used; and the way effort is
recognised.
• Intrinsic factors: Motivation can be affected by, for example, the way that
staff are made aware of the impact of their work; how close they are to the
beneficiaries of the policies that they develop; and how they see value
created as a result of their ideas and their labour.
Source: OECD (2015), The Innovation Imperative in the Public Sector: Setting an Agenda
for Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264236561-en.
Interviews with government officials in Indonesia’s central government
indicated that the lack of an incentive system to motivate public officials to
innovate, the lack of co-ordination among different parts of the government,
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2817. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA–
and limited integration with other policies are the main barriers to
innovation. A lack of technical guidance and of accepted standard operating
procedures has also been flagged as a barrier facing government innovators
at the local government level. Mechanisms that allow governments to pool
resources to fund innovations (e.g. central innovation funds) were said to be
missing, as well. The Ministry of Interior is looking into developing
partnership models to encourage government, community groups and the
private sector to come together to provide technical assistance and funding
mechanisms. For example, the law on companies’ social responsibility
already provides such a legal framework, but its application to innovation
financing has not yet been fully examined.
The role of networks of innovators
Spreading information across organisations and units is an important
part of increasing their innovative potential and helping identify ideas and
promising practices for common learning. Systems to spread innovative
ideas are often linked to the practice of innovation awards (see above) but
can also be formalised in knowledge management systems.
In Indonesia, networks of innovators bringing together different entities
have emerged over the last few years in an effort to increase knowledge
sharing and exchange of experiences to overcome a siloed mentality,
recognise and reward positive behaviours and foster a culture of
participation and innovation in public service delivery. The Ministry of
Interior has fostered the creation of informal networks to support the
interaction of local public officials, with the participation of private sector
and CSOs. Given that public servants often do not have experience talking
to the private sector or community representatives because of established
norms and rules, informal mechanisms outside the Ministry have been
established to work around these bottlenecks. The network encompasses 220
periphery locations which provide support (training, capacity building, and
use of IT) to local innovators and support documentation of their innovation
experience. Networks across public entities have also emerged. For
example, KEMPAN, LAN, the Ministry of Home Affairs, BBPT
(Technology application and research and development agency), LP3AI
(Independent body to promote innovation in economy) and GiZ are working
together to develop an innovation hub that is expected to help foster the
harmonisation of regulations and policies in the area of innovations.
Furthermore, many efforts to develop networks for the sharing of good
practices and learning have emerged from the co-operation between
Indonesia and the donor community. Through its Transformasi programme,
GiZ has been working to build public service innovation networks in
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
282 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA
selected regions to improve frontline services by fostering joint learning
from innovations and providing stakeholders with new tools to innovate.
The network in East Java, for instance, includes ministries, the provincial
government and development partners in the promotion of learning from the
local to the national level and works to strengthen evidence-based policy
making. The network seeks to foster teamwork, experimentation, evidence-
based decisions and user-centred design.
Further analysis will need to be conducted to better assess the barriers to
innovation in the public sector.
Successful practices in public-sector innovation in Indonesia
Innovation can help countries achieve many of the key objectives related
to building an open and inclusive government, including increasing the
availability of information about governmental activities; fostering civic
participation; and harnessing the potential of new technology for greater
accountability.
OECD member countries have taken a variety of approaches to the use
of innovation to increase the transparency and the performance of their
public services, ranging from service integration and user tailoring to
participatory design and electronic delivery. Many innovations use a mix of
tools for maximum impact. For example, digital technology tools are often
used as part of a partnership in delivery with citizens or service users.
Innovation at the national level
In Indonesia, the OECD identified numerous efforts across the public
sector to use innovation to enhance the transparency and availability of
public information. An example of this is the “hajj” application system,
which manages citizen requests for pilgrimages to Mecca. The app –
developed by the Ministry of Religion - helps citizens to manage the online
application process and provides information related to prayers, religious
performances and locations, buildings, hotels, transportation and medical
services (see the chapter 5 on digital government).
Another example of increased transparency through innovation is the
Ministry of Trade’s monitoring of commodity prices. The system allows the
government to produce constant and real-time information on the prices of
basic commodities. The data input on prices is not fully automated, as it still
requires human input, but this already represents a step forward by linking
policy making to real-time data collection.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2837. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA–
The use of ICTs to modernise traditionally front-line bureaucratic
processes in government service delivery is one key feature of the
innovation landscape in Indonesia. With about 70% of the country’s
Ministry of Public Works funds for central and regional projects awarded
via tenders, and with the geographical difficulties the country faces due to
its archipelagic nature, the e-procurement system – Data Management
Centre – has helped to address issues of accessibility, transparency, and
effectiveness, particularly in remote regions. A more simplified and
transparent online procurement process has reduced transportation and
processing costs, opening up the system to allow a wider range of potential
bidders to take part in official tenders.
Innovation at the local level
While the examples below do not provide general lessons regarding the
systematic role of innovation across the Indonesian government, they do
highlight the types of programmes the government and citizens prioritise.
Additionally, a number of innovations at the subnational level focus on
providing more effective responses to public needs and to rising
expectations. The practices in these examples aim to draw in both the
citizens and the market dynamics that can sometimes fall outside the reach
of government service systems through better accessibility and improved
and more transparent service delivery. Transparency and a reduction in
bureaucracy have also been improved using ICTs in five examples affecting
citizens and business directly: an Internet-connected mobile land permit
unit; an online passport simplification and modernisation application
process; a licensing services programme for businesses; a programme to
encourage birth certificate ownership for children; and a local government
public information and complaint service.
• The land permitting process in Karanganyar Regency in Central Java
Province was inconvenient and difficult to access given the regency’s
large geographical distances, poor transportation infrastructure and
lengthy bureaucratic processes. This made it difficult for citizens to
access any centralised service, resulting in a low rate of certification of
land ownership. The regency created a mobile land office housed in
sports utility vehicles or vans offering services that were previously only
offered on-site in the Karanganyar Land Office, in order to bring
frontline services directly to citizens. Called LARASITA, these mobile
units reduced the difficulty and number of visits required by citizens to
obtain land permits by visiting villages on pre-announced dates, and by
accessing and processing information in real time through the physical
land registry’s ICT system. This resulted in an increase in productivity
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
284 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA
in issuing documents and an increase in the number of end users, as well
as an increase in accessibility through direct contact with applicants.
• The South Jakarta immigration office initiated and promoted an online
passport simplification and modernisation process, improving a
citizen service that was often slow, unpredictable, cumbersome and
prone to corruption by middlemen. By implementing a first-come first-
serve policy through an electronic queueing system, the online passport
applications and payment process became more reliable and predictable,
resulting in an increase of 10 000 citizens using the service from 2012 to
2013, and a 5% increase in public satisfaction.
• Licensing services for businesses in Barru, a rural district in South
Sulawesi, involved a long and complex process, until the local
government transferred and consolidated licensing authority for
129 types of permits from 14 different government departments in a One
Stop Shop. By streamlining and deregulating business licensing services
while bringing standards up to the national level, the number of valid
business permits increased from 26% to 45% in 2011 to 2013. With a
reduction of 70% in the types of required business licenses and the
implementation of the One Stop Shop, the licensing process time was
reduced by 50%. Surveys also indicated an increase in customer
satisfaction from 77.3% in 2012 to 82% in 2013.
• The Children Incentive Card in Surakarta City encourages birth
certificate ownership among children under the age of 17 from
vulnerable economic backgrounds by providing access to targeted public
and private services including health insurance and scholarships. The
improved online and in-person application has led to a 40% increase in
the number of users from 2009 to 2013, and to a decrease in the length
of time needed to receive a card from 30 to five days.
• A public information and complaint service unit in the City of
Yogyakarta was created through an ICT-driven feedback mechanism
and management instrument to allow citizens to ask for information or
submit a complaint online, by SMS, phone, or letter. With the dramatic
growth of mobile phone penetration, online and text message services
have become increasingly important for service delivery and citizen
engagement. The city government receives 10-15 complaints or requests
daily and responds within 2-6 working days. A Community Satisfaction
Index survey has shown that this improved process has resulted in
nearly 97% citizens viewing the tool as easy or very easy to access.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2857. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA–
Innovation for social outcomes
The review has also identified innovations in service delivery for
improved social outcomes. These innovations have been effective in
addressing the needs of economically deprived youth through leveraging
local inputs, as well as through the use of co-production schemes and the
involvement of service users in delivering outcomes. For example:
• The district administration of Luwu Utara uses a participatory approach
to address uneven teacher distribution between urban and rural areas,
which resulted in inequitable education services. A lack of data
regarding the impact of teacher shortages and a corresponding lack of
political will or public support for the redistribution of teachers
prevented the government from addressing the issue. By conducting an
in-depth analysis of teacher distribution and forming a multi-stakeholder
forum between government, communities, and NGOs, a pilot
programme to reassign 165 primary and secondary school teachers was
made possible through engagement, promotion, and public oversight of
the issue.
• Maternal and infant mortality rates were improved in Aceh Singkil
through a pilot partnership programme involving local Traditional Birth
Attendants (TBAs) and medically-trained midwives. The initiative
aimed to connect the well-respected and trusted TBAs to the midwives
who were often considered too young and inexperienced or were unable
to speak the local language, particularly in cases where complications
put the mother or infant’s health at risk. The number of births attended
by both a midwife and a TBA increased from 5% to 27% in three Aceh
Singkil villages from 2012 to 2014, making professional healthcare
services accessible to women and babies in the region.
The innovations listed above provide a good start and help identify a
path forward for building on innovation in Indonesia. The diversity of
sectors represented by the programmes and the numerous examples from
subnational governments, furthermore, may help enable the government to
benefit from continuous learning and may allow ideas to be developed and
re-developed to ensure a good fit more broadly.
Recommendations
This review has identified the following as key recommendations
regarding development of innovation in the public sector in Indonesia:
• Innovation happens across the country and innovation efforts are being
recognised and rewarded. However, the government has not
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
286 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA
implemented systems and procedures to ensure that this innovation takes
a more permanent hold, nor are there mechanisms to systematically
exchange good experiences across the public sector. The GOI should
consider taking a structured approach to identifying and tackling the
barriers to innovation and its diffusion in the public sector. Detailing a
vision and plan of action with interventions could create momentum to
support a change agenda and ensure buy-in and support of responsible
entities during implementation.
• The predominant rule-based administrative culture in Indonesia works
against experimentation and risk-taking, both of which are core elements
of innovation. Innovation needs to be insulated from changes in the
policy cycle by, for example, identifying formal structures for ensuring
co-ordination at the central government level. Indonesia might want to
consider approaches to innovation co-ordination and promotion
emerging from the experience of other countries (e.g. innovation units,
inter-agency committees, and innovation strategies) while considering
appropriate adjustments to fit the administrative complexity and
challenges of the country.
• The potential to expand the successful experiences with networks of
service delivery units (e.g. Ministry of Health’s network of primary
carers) from the local to national level could be further examined.
Indonesia might want to reflect on possible approaches to replicating
experiences from the local level on the national level, looking at the
drivers for scaling and potential benefits for diffusion of successful
initiatives at the national level.
• The role of institutions such as LAN in building capacity at the local
level for public-sector innovation should be clarified.
• Within the overall context of its commitment to open government
reforms and its membership in the OGP, Indonesia could consider
prioritising the inclusion of innovative open government practices in its
OGP Action Plans. By doing so, the government could build on the
considerable momentum for open government initiatives to better
streamline innovation across the public sector.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2877. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA–
Notes
1. See www.opengovpartnership.org/about/open-government-declaration.
References
The Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Otonomi (2014), Study on Sustainable
Innovations and Good Practices of District/City Governments Winning
Autonomy Awards in East Java (2004-2013).
Ministry of National Development Planning (2014), Rencana Pembangunan
Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019, (Indonesian), National Medium-
Term Development Plan 2015-2019, www.bappenas.go.id/
index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968 (accessed 25 February 2016).
OECD (2015), The Innovation Imperative in the Public Sector: Setting an
Agenda for Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
9789264236561-en.
Open Government Indonesia (2014), “Indonesia 2014-2015, OGP Action
Plan”, Open Government Indonesia.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2898. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –
Chapter 8
Open government in Indonesia and the link with the
UN Sustainable Development Goals
This chapter provides a general overview of how open government links
with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It discusses how open
government can support the substance (by directly contributing to the
achievement of policy outcomes) of SDG implementation as well as the
process by which Indonesia can pursue its SDGs and targets throughout the
policy cycle (namely, during the design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of the SDGs). It also reviews practices and programmes already
in place in Indonesia that will support the link between the country’s open
government agenda and its SDG implementation; finally, it provides
recommendations for how to expand and build on the link.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
290 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Introduction
The approval of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in
September 2015 provides a useful occasion to look into how open
government reform priorities can inform and help define the steps countries
will take to respond to the global ambitions put forward in the Agenda.
Linking open government reforms and the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) outlined in the 2030 Agenda priorities is particularly relevant for
Indonesia, as the country played a leading role both in designing the Agenda
and in establishing the Open Government Partnership (OGP).
The 17 SDGs will help shape the priorities for public governance reform
in the coming years. Furthermore, the broad themes of improved governance
and inclusion found in both the OGP principles and the SDGs provides an
opportunity to connect open government practices and approaches to the
ambitions represented by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The SDGs deepen and expand upon the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), which were less interrelated and complex. For their part, the SDGs
set out an ambitious agenda that aspires to be:
• Universal: Goals will be applicable to all countries regardless of their
level of development. The framework will cover most policy areas and
address global public goods, development challenges and framework
conditions. The universal nature of the SDGs will have implications for
all governments, which should set their own national targets according
to differing national circumstances, capacities and priorities.
• Integrated: The SDGs will integrate the three core dimensions of
sustainable development (economic, social and environmental), which
implies a more holistic view of development, focusing on the overall
outcomes for people, societies and the planet.
• Transformational: Delivering on the vision of the SDGs will require
fundamental change in the way economies and societies interact. It also
means mobilising a wide range of key stakeholders at different levels,
including civil society organisations and the private sector (SG Note,
2015).
The 17 SDGs (see Box 8.1) are further supported by 169 targets that
help delineate specific objectives; based on these targets, countries will
measure their performance in achieving the goals set out in the 2030
Agenda.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2918. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –
Box 8.1. 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals
Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote
sustainable agriculture.
Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong
learning opportunities for all.
Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation
for all.
Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and clean energy for all
Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and
productive employment and decent work for all.
Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable
industrialisation and foster innovation.
Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries.
Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable.
Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for
sustainable development.
Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land
degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development,
provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive
institutions at all levels.
Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global
partnership for sustainable development.
Source: UNDP (n.d.), www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-
goals.html (accessed 15 April 2016).
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
292 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
As this chapter will illustrate, open government principles, policies and
practices contribute directly to both the substantive targets of the SDGs
(specifically through Goal 16) as well as to the process that leads to the
identification, implementation and monitoring of all the SDGs. Specifically,
open government principles can inform countries’ efforts to implement the
SDG priorities by helping them respond to a wide range of public and
private actors, reinforce transparency and accountability, and facilitate
co-ordination horizontally across line ministries and vertically between
national and subnational governments. Ultimately, utilising tools and
strategies informed by open government principles will help the actors in
charge of implementing the 2030 Agenda in their respective countries meet
the broad range of targets presented by the SDGs.
Indonesia’s involvement in the development of the SDGs began with its
appointment as the Co-Chair of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons by
the UN Secretary General. Indonesia also served as the Co-Chair for the
Global Partnership Draft Concept framework document for the Post-2015
Agenda, and it was one of the 30 nations that served on the Open Working
Group on the SDGs. As a founder of the OGP as well, Indonesia is well
suited to take the lead in exploring how the two agendas can complement
and reinforce each other.
Through its endorsement of the OGP Joint Declaration on Open
Government (see Box 8.2) for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development in September 2015, Indonesia has already
recognised the potential value of linking these two initiatives. Specifically,
the declaration notes the “importance of harnessing [countries’] efforts and
championing the principles of transparency and open government as crucial
tools for ensuring the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.”
Box 8.2. Joint Declaration on Open Government for the Implementation of the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
As participants in the Open Government Partnership, committed to the principles enshrined in the
Open Government Declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations
Convention Against Corruption and other relevant international instruments related to effective and
inclusive institutions and human rights, we:
• Recognise the importance of harnessing our efforts and championing the principles of
transparency and open government as crucial tools for ensuring the effective implementation
of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2938. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –
Box 8.2. Joint Declaration on Open Government for the Implementation of the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (continued)
• Acknowledge this is an ambitious global plan of action for achieving inclusive sustainable
development in its economic, political, social and environmental dimensions, in a balanced
and integrated manner to end poverty and combat inequality within and among countries.
• Welcome the inclusion in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of goals and targets
related to transparency, accountability, integrity and citizen participation. They are essential
for promoting the rule of law, reducing corruption, and promoting public access to
information and the development of effective and accountable institutions.
• Applaud the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for recognising that peaceful and
inclusive societies are vital components of sustainable development.
• Value and welcome the participation of civil society organisations in the implementation of
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
• Promote the Open Government Partnership as a platform for voluntary co-operation and peer
exchange and learning. The experience of its participating governments and civil society
organisations can be drawn on to encourage transparent, accountable, participatory and
technology-enabled implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Together, we declare our commitment to:
1. Promote the rule of law consistent with international standards at the national, regional and
international level through transparency, openness, accountability, access to justice and
effective and inclusive institutions. This is consistent with Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.
2. Promote public access to timely and disaggregated information and open data on
government activities related to the implementation and financing of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, in line with national legislation and international commitments.
We support development of the International Open Data Charter and intend to explore its
implementation in our countries.
3. Support citizen participation in the implementation of all the goals and targets in the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, including decision-making, policy formulation,
follow-up and evaluation processes.
4. Uphold the principles of open government, as described in the Open Government
Declaration, when defining international, regional and national indicators for measuring the
implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, taking into account
national circumstances and development priorities. We will identify and share lessons
learned and good practices to strengthen country capacity for implementation.
5. Use our Open Government Partnership National Action Plans to adopt commitments that
serve as effective tools to promote transparent and accountable implementation of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Source: www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_declaration.pdf.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
294 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
This chapter will provide an overview of some of the current analysis on
the link between the SDGs and open government, an overview of the ways
in which open government principles can support both the substance of the
SDGs as well as the process of their implementation, examples from
Indonesia that illustrate how open government principles support efforts to
achieve the SDG targets, and will conclude with recommendations on how
to strengthen the bond between open government principles and the SDGs.
Current thinking on the connection between the SDGs and broader
governance reform efforts
Despite the relatively recent adoption of the SDGs, international
organisations have already begun to think critically about how public-sector
reform initiatives and priorities can link with the SDGs. For its part, the
OECD has discussed broadly how the SDGs may affect policy making, as
well as specific recommendations on the next steps in two Notes of the
Secretary General, Towards an OECD Strategic Response to the Sustainable
Development Goals (2016) and Supporting the Post-2015 Agenda for
Sustainable Development: The Role of the OECD and its Members (2015).
The OECD has noted that non-state actors, including civil society
organisations (CSOs), the private sector and the academic world, will all
play key roles in the realisation of the SDGs (OECD, 2015).
The OECD has also highlighted that principal issues for governments
with respect to the SDGs will be how to align their policies to respond to the
breadth and complexity of the Goals; improve upon the mixed track record
of most governments in working horizontally; and respond to the need to
include a wide range of public and private actors in both policy formulation
and implementation (OECD, 2016b). As will be discussed in more detail
below, open government principles provide important guidance on how to
include and incorporate a broad range of participants in order to align
policies across broad and complex areas. The OECD has also discussed the
role of the centre of government in supporting the SDG agenda, for example
through its convening power and ability to pressure departments and
ministries to enact its policies. The centre of government will need to help
co-ordinate initiatives across line ministries, as technical offices may have
little experience in driving cross-disciplinary policies (OECD, 2016b).
Furthermore, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
considered how transparency and accountability could lead to smarter policy
decisions. Specifically, given that increasing citizen engagement can
promote government efficiency and effectiveness, the UNDP pointed to the
importance of using open government data and citizen involvement in
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2958. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –
monitoring and reporting to ensure more accurate and inclusive
implementation of the SDGs (UNDP, 2015).
The Bertelsmann Stiftung Foundation also highlighted the link between
the SDGs and open government and citizen engagement principles. Their
report noted that the United Nations responded to the perception of lack of
opportunities for participation during the conception of the MDGs by
conducting the largest consultation exercise in its history to ensure wide
ownership of the goals (Kroll, 2015). For its part, the OGP has also explored
how governments can use open government principles – and the OGP tools
in particular – to implement the SDGs. It has been noted that the 2030
Agenda and the OGP reinforce similar messages about the importance of
giving greater visibility to the role of transparency, civic participation,
public-sector accountability and technological innovation as enablers of
sustainable development for just and peaceful societies (Lagunes and Bapna,
2015). Notably, the OGP has focused on how an open government approach
can spur progress across the 17 SDGs, including in improving public
services. Many OGP countries are already tackling these challenges by
promoting transparency and accountability, empowering citizens and civil
society, fighting corruption, and harnessing new technologies in their
national action plans (Transparency and Accountability Initiative, 2015).
The mutually reinforcing focus areas of both the SDGs and open
government reform efforts therefore suggest an opportunity for linkages
between the two initiatives.
Finally, the OGP Joint Declaration on Open Government calls for the
endorsing countries to promote the OGP Partnership as a platform for
voluntary co-operation and peer exchange and learning, as well as to draw
on the experience of its participating governments and civil society
organisations to encourage transparent, accountable, participatory and
technology-enabled implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. It also commits signatories to use OGP National Action Plans
to adopt commitments that serve as effective tools to promote transparent
and accountable implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development (Joint Declaration on Open Government).
The substantive link between open government principles and the
SDGs
The aims of Goal 16 to build effective, accountable and inclusive
institutions align clearly with the open government goals of enhancing
transparency, accessibility and accountability (see OECD’s definition of
open government). Notably, Commitment 1 of the OGP Joint Declaration on
Open Government specifically refers to Goal 16 and commits the signatories
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
296 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
to “Promote the rule of law consistent with international standards at the
national, regional and international level through transparency, openness,
accountability, access to justice and effective and inclusive institutions. This
is consistent with Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.” Additionally, Goal 16 contains three targets that correspond
directly to the broad goals of open government. The section below discusses
each of those targets and provides an overview of the practical open
government implications.
Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent
institutions at all levels
Open government principles support the three objectives of Target 16.6.
For instance, encouraging citizens to spend time and effort on public issues,
both in the design and monitoring of public policies and services, can lead to
more effective policy outcomes, as the information and insights that the
public provides the government translate into a stronger basis for policy
making and ultimately lead to more effective governance (OECD, 2001).
Similarly, the public’s provision of feedback, consultation or active
participation helps ensure that governments are held accountable. To
increase this accountability, administrations need to facilitate an open and
transparent policy-making process amenable to external scrutiny and review
(OECD, 2001). Furthermore, the active involvement of citizens in
government activities increases transparency by highlighting the link
between citizen inputs and government actions. By exposing information,
activities, and monitoring and provision of services to public scrutiny, open
government policies clearly support Target 16.6.
For their part, OECD member countries have recognised the importance
of the components of Target 16.6. For example, over half of the OECD
countries have indicated that open and inclusive policy making is
“important” or “very important” in helping to improve government
transparency and accountability (61%), with a smaller share recognising the
impact of open government on effectiveness (43%). Additionally, over half
of the OECD countries noted that they sought to implement open and
inclusive policy making in an effort to improve transparency and
accountability (52%), as well as effectiveness and efficiency (39% each)
(OECD, 2009).
Broadly, the objective is to inform, communicate with and involve
citizens at all stages of the decision-making process to secure real interest
and commitment, and to avoid engaging citizens too late and creating a
sense of meaningless participation (OECD, 2009). Examples of specific
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
2978. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS –
policies that may support this target, including some already in place in
Indonesia, include:
• Applying open government policies to promote public-sector integrity;
for example, administrations can open data on procurements and involve
the public in audits of procurement procedures and infrastructure
projects, promote asset declarations, and facilitate public consultation in
the development of the anti-corruption policies (see Chapter 4).
• Establishing a legal framework that supports the public’s ability to hold
the government accountable by, for example, providing accessible
procedures for reporting misconduct and sufficient protection for
whistleblowers. Such a framework enables citizens to report corruption
and to have confidence in the reporting mechanisms and in public
institutions more generally. Therefore, effective whistleblower
protection is vital not only for investigation and prosecution but also for
the prevention of corruption. As discussed in Chapter 4, while Indonesia
has passed various laws to address aspects of whistleblower protection,
the government could improve the current framework by providing
clearer definitions of whistleblowers, what constitutes a threat and forms
of protection.
• Using citizen feedback indicators to measure progress and policy
implementation, including through complaint management systems such
as LAPOR (see Chapter 3).
• Investing in digital government tools to increase transparency and
accountability, improve access to, and quality of, public services and
facilitate more inclusive decision-making processes, for example
through more comprehensive open government data policies and
ensuring the free use, reuse and distribution of government data.
Indonesia has made important steps in this direction; however, as noted
in Chapter 5, the country may consider efforts to address legal and
regulatory challenges and limitations, raise awareness and ownership,
and develop data skills and relationships across levels of government
and with data producers. A strategic approach to digital technologies can
be a powerful tool to support a substantial change in government-society
relations by amplifying the reach and effects of democratic and good
governance principles such as transparency, accountability and public
participation.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
298 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and
representative decision making at all levels
Open government policies also directly support Target 16.7. While open
government policies can help contribute to the goals outlined in this target at
all levels of government, it is also helpful to consider the range of
approaches and activities administrations can pursue to ensure
responsiveness, inclusiveness, participation and representation. This ranges
from government provision of information (e.g. websites) to consultation
(e.g. seeking citizens’ views or feedback) to participation (e.g. citizens
contributing to resource and policy decisions through online networks or
community meetings) (OECD, 2009). Furthermore, the OECD Guiding
Principles for Open and Inclusive Policy Making (Box 1.1 in Chapter 1) are
built on the premise that governments, in order to benefit fully from active
interaction with their population, should inform, consult and engage with
them as partners in the design, delivery and evaluation of policies and
services. This speaks directly to Target 16.7.
The OECD Open Government Survey has shown that OECD countries
principally engage with citizens via consultation (Figure 8.1), which
provides governments with feedback and new ideas and allows stakeholders
to offer inputs, thereby enhancing both the quality and capacity of policies
to achieve the intended outcome. As countries move beyond consultation
toward more advanced forms of participation, citizens and businesses have
the opportunity to be involved in the co-design and co-delivery of public
services, as exhibited by the Musrenbang development planning process in
Indonesia. These practices all improve the responsiveness, inclusiveness and
participatory nature of public-sector activities.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
[Organization_for_Economic_Cooperation__Developme_324
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search