[Organization_for_Economic_Cooperation__Developme_324

491. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Figure 1.1. Level of real GDP in selected ASEAN countries

145 145
Indonesia 135
125
135 Malaysia 115

125 Philippines
Singapore

115 Thailand

105 105

95 95

85 85
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.

The economic gains and targeted government measures have also been
instrumental in reducing poverty (See Figure 1.2), which allowed the
country to have a strong poverty reduction record, posting a reduction by
half over the past two decades. Nevertheless, almost 30 million people still
live below the national poverty line, mostly in rural areas and in certain
provinces (Vujanovic, 2015).

Figure 1.2. Absolute poverty rate (%), 2000-14

25

20

15

10

5

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Source: OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Growth rate50 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Despite the gains in poverty reduction statistics, income inequality is
high and rose over the past decade. As measured by the Gini coefficient,
income inequality increased from 0.36 to 0.41 (compared to an OECD
average of 0.31), suggesting that the current mix of social programmes,
including cash transfers conditioned on school attendance and a subsidised
rice programme, are not targeted well-enough (OECD, 2015). In addition,
since 2011, the country’s growth rate has slowed (see Figure 1.3), reflecting
weaker international demand and slow investment growth due to lower
commodity prices, heightened regulatory uncertainty and infrastructure
bottlenecks (OECD, 2015).

Figure 1.3. Indonesia growth rates (2011-14)

7
6
5
4 GDP growth rate (real)
3 GDP growth rate (real, in

per capita terms)
2
1
0

2011 2012 2013 2014

Source: OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.

Broadly, Indonesia still struggles with poverty and unemployment –
which remains relatively high compared to neighbouring countries, as
shown in Figure 1.4 – inadequate infrastructure, corruption, a complex
regulatory environment, and unequal geographic resource distribution.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Unemployment rate 511. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Figure 1.4. Unemployment rates in Indonesia and selected countries

14

12

10
Indonesia

8
Malaysia

6 Philippines
Singapore

4 Vietnam
2

0

Source: OECD work based on Asian Development Bank's Statistical Database System
(SDBS) and national sources.

Ensuring continued increases in living standards for all Indonesians will
require maintaining macroeconomic stability, adopting a broad range of
structural reforms, and creating fiscal space to expand government
expenditures in priority areas such as education, health, poverty alleviation
and infrastructure. The removal of most fuel subsidies at the beginning of
2015 was a laudable step in this direction. There is also room to improve the
efficiency and targeting of public spending at both central and sub-national
levels (OECD, 2015).

Perceptions of public institutions and the space for open government

Similar to the important economic reforms of the Reformasi era that led
to the country’s economic success, political reforms in the country have also
been far-reaching. Despite the significant efforts carried out during the
Reformasi era, however, Indonesia’s public governance continues to face
persistent challenges. For example, Indonesia ranks in the bottom half
among its ASEAN peers (see Figure 1.5) in the World Bank Government
Effectiveness Indicator.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Government effectiveness rank52 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Figure 1.5. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and ASEAN
countries (2014)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of ASEAN countries (ranging from 0
[lowest] to 100 [highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest.
Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014.

Likewise, Indonesia does not perform favourably on this score when
compared to OECD member countries (see Figure 1.6). Furthermore, the
perception of corruption in Indonesia (more than 80%) is higher than in
most OECD and most ASEAN countries (see Figure 1.7).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Government effectiveness rank 531. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Figure 1.6. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and OECD countries (2014)Indonesia
Mexico
100 Italy
90 Turkey
80 Greece
70 Latvia
60
50 Hungary
40 Poland
30
20 Slovak Republic
10 Slovenia
0 Portugal

Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of OECD countries and Indonesia (ranging from 0Czech Republic
[lowest] to 100 [highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highestEstonia
Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014. Chile
Spain
Figure 1.7. Is corruption widespread throughout the government in this country, or Israel
not? (2015)
OECD average
100% Korea
90%
80% Belgium
70% France
60% United States
50% Iceland
40% Austria
30% Australia
20% Ireland
10% United Kingdom
0% Luxembourg
Germany
Notes: ASEAN data not shown. Canada
Source: Gallup World Poll 2015. Sweden
Denmark
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016 Norway
Japan
Netherlands
New Zealand
Finland
Switzerland

Perception of corruption

Confidence in national government54 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA
Nevertheless, per the 2015 Gallup World Poll, 65% of Indonesian’s

have confidence in the national government, higher than the OECD average
of 43% (see Figure 1.8), and similar to rates from Thailand (66%) and the
Philippines (67%) (Gallup World Poll, 2015).

Figure 1.8. Do you have confidence in the national government? (2015)

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Source: Gallup World Poll 2015.

While the perception of corruption has apparently not had a marked
impact on the country’s confidence in its government, the potential for a
decrease in the population’s confidence is notable given the extent to which
Indonesia is an outlier as compared to OECD countries in terms of the
relationship between confidence in the government and corruption
perceptions (see Figure 1.9).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

551. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Figure 1.9. Correlation between confidence in national government and perception of
government corruption (2015)

100% ITA R² = 0.5766
90% PRT
80% IND
70% SVN ESP SVK CZE
60% CHL
50%
40% MEX KOR USA ISR
30%
20% POL HUN FRA
10%
Government corruption LAT ISGL RC

JPN OECADUT TUR
EST
GABURS
BEL IRL CAN LUX
NLD

DEU

FIN CHE
SWE NOR DNK NZL

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
0% Confidence in national government

Source: Gallup World Poll 2015.

Additionally, it does not appear to be the case that Indonesia’s World
Bank Voice and Accountability score, which reflects perceptions of the
extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their
government, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and media
freedom, can explain Indonesia’s high degree of confidence level in its
government. While Indonesia scores higher than any of its ASEAN peers, it
scores toward the bottom as compared to OECD countries (see Figures 1.10
and 1.11, respectively).

The gap between Indonesia and most OECD member countries suggests
that Indonesia’s ongoing efforts to pursue open government reforms and
increase citizen voice are well-targeted and could build on the country’s
progress over the past 10 years (see Figure 1.12).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Voice and accountability rank56 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Figure 1.10. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and
ASEAN countries (2014)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of ASEAN countries (ranging from 0
[lowest] to 100 [highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest.
Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Voice and accountability rank 571. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Figure 1.11. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and OECD countries
(2014)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of OECD countries and Indonesia (ranging from 0 [lowest] to 100
[highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest.
Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014.

Figure 1.12. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia (2003-14)

55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

58 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Taken as a whole, Indonesia’s governance indicators paint a complex
picture. On the one hand, citizen confidence in the government and the
country’s strength in comparison with the rest of the region in terms of its
Voice and Accountability score both suggest that it is well-positioned to
continue to use open government reforms to build on its success.
Conversely, the scores for corruption perception and government
effectiveness call attention to the pressing governance challenges the
country faces.

Many development challenges – the need for more and better
infrastructure, improvements in health and education outcomes, the
strengthening of the social safety net and fighting poverty and inequality,
and a response to the diverse needs of various ethno-cultural and regionally-
based groups – have significant governance implications. Good governance,
including the state’s ability to set, co-ordinate, implement and monitor
public-sector reforms, is therefore key to ensuring that the government can
achieve its policy objectives efficiently and effectively (OECD, 2013).

The principles of open government

The OECD has been at the forefront of international efforts to promote
and disseminate open government policies and practices for more than ten
years. Since 2001, the OECD has collected and analysed data and
information demonstrating the importance of citizens’ participation in the
design and implementation of better public policies and the delivery of
public services.

The implementation of the open government policy principles, namely
citizen engagement, transparency, accountability and integrity, has led to
outcomes including better policies and services, and ultimately to improved
social well-being, quality of democracy and economic growth. These
improvements are likely to happen through the use of specific policy
instruments and catalysts that drive change and foster innovative processes.
Figure 1.13 illustrates the OECD’s theory of change, which it uses to frame
its analysis of open government reforms.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

591. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Figure 1.13. OECD open government theory of change

Policy principles Policy catalysts Policy outcomes

Citizen engagement Change management Intermediate:
Transparency Innovation - Quality of public services
Accountability ICTs Long-term:
Integrity - Quality of democracy
- Inclusive growth
Multiple - Trust in government
levels - Rule of law

Cross sector/ministry

OECD countries currently employ open government practices to reach a
variety of goals, including greater transparency, accountability, and citizen
participation. These outcomes can promote inclusive growth, improve social
cohesion and increase citizen compliance with the law (OECD, 2009b).
Indonesia’s commitment to implementing open government reforms to
improve transparency and increasingly engage citizens could similarly foster
public scrutiny, with a direct impact on the fight against corruption, while
inclusive policy making may lead to innovative and locally relevant policy
solutions that better use the opportunities presented by Indonesia’s political
decentralisation. In collaboration with senior public officials from member
countries committed to improve government-citizen relations, the OECD
developed a set of principles to guide the implementation of open
government policies and ensure their success (OECD, 2001; 2009b), shown
in Box 1.1.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

60 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 1.1. Guiding principles for open and inclusive policy making

1. Commitment: Leadership and strong commitment to open and inclusive policy
making is needed at all levels – politicians, senior managers and public officials.

2. Rights: Citizens’ rights to information, consultation and public participation in policy
making and service delivery must be firmly grounded in law or policy. Government
obligations to respond to citizens must be clearly stated. Independent oversight
arrangements are essential to enforcing these rights.

3. Clarity: Objectives for, and limits to, information, consultation and public
participation should be well defined from the outset. The roles and responsibilities of
all parties must be clear. Government information should be complete, objective,
reliable, relevant and easy to find and understand.

4. Time: Public engagement should be undertaken as early in the policy process as
possible to allow a greater range of solutions and to raise the chances of successful
implementation. Adequate time must be available for consultation and participation to
be effective.

5. Inclusion: All citizens should have equal opportunities and multiple channels to access
information, be consulted and participate. Every reasonable effort should be made to
engage with as wide a variety of people as possible.

6. Resources: Adequate financial, human and technical resources are needed for effective
public information, consultation and participation. Government officials must have
access to appropriate skills, guidance and training as well as an organisational culture
that supports both traditional and online tools.

7. Co-ordination: Initiatives to inform, consult and engage civil society should be co-
ordinated within and across levels of government to ensure policy coherence, avoid
duplication and reduce the risk of “consultation fatigue.” Co-ordination efforts should
not stifle initiative and innovation but should leverage the power of knowledge
networks and communities of practice within and beyond government.

8. Accountability: Governments have an obligation to inform participants how they use
inputs received through public consultation and participation. Measures to ensure that
the policy-making process is open, transparent and amenable to external scrutiny can
help increase accountability of, and trust in, government.

9. Evaluation: Governments need to evaluate their own performance. To do so
effectively will require efforts to build the demand, capacity, culture and tools for
evaluating public participation.

10. Active citizenship: Societies benefit from dynamic civil society, and governments can
facilitate access to information, encourage participation, raise awareness, strengthen
citizens’ civic education and skills, as well as to support capacity building among civil
society organisations (CSOs). Governments need to explore new roles to effectively
support autonomous problem-solving by citizens, CSOs and businesses.

Source: OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners; updated in OECD (2009), Focus on Citizens Public
Engagement for Better Policy and Services, OECD Studies on Public Engagement, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264048874-en.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

611. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Legal, policy, and strategic framework for open government in
Indonesia

Since the start of the country’s democratisation process, which began
with the fall of Suharto in 1998, Indonesia’s official development strategies,
interactions with the public and legal foundation have moved increasingly
toward openness and transparency. Importantly, the country’s official
development strategies, as discussed in Box 1.2, have officially established
the general strategic foundation for open government.

These documents highlight how Indonesia has explicitly identified
openness as a tool it can employ to improve the quality of public service
delivery, reduce corruption, and improve its responsiveness to public
demands. Donor agencies and local CSOs have also maintained the pressure
on public institutions at all levels of government to allow them increased
access. As a result, since the early 2000s several local governments have
independently formulated regulations on openness and participation that
complement and build on the national government’s initiatives.

In addition, since the 1998 democratic reforms, the number and
importance of civil society groups in Indonesia has grown. This has in part
been due to laws that have allowed for access to information, as well as to
the decentralisation process, which has created new opportunities for the
public to engage in policy design and service delivery. Indonesia’s civil
society organisations have played an active role in open government
activities, and are familiar with the open government trends and actors in the
country.

The country’s move toward openness has also been reflected in its legal
framework. Indonesia boasts a solid legal foundation for access to
information (ATI), which is enshrined both in the 1945 Constitution
(Article 28F) and in Law No. 14 of 2008 on Freedom of Information (FOI).
The FOI law in particular requires proactive publication by all public bodies,
political parties, state-owned enterprises and CSOs. The 1945 Constitution
also recognises the right to associate, assemble, and express opinions
(Article 28); subsequent laws have further clarified and delineated the
public’s right to monitor the delivery of public services and participate in
policy planning and evaluation (notably Law No. 25 of 2004 on National
Development Planning). The legal and strategic framework for open
government in Indonesia has been further articulated in the government’s
strategy documents (see Box 1.2) and codified via a number of laws,
regulations, presidential decrees and ministerial regulations (as shown in
Table 1.1).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

62 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 1.2. Primary government strategy documents outlining open government
priorities

The following documents lay the foundation for the government’s long- and medium-term
strategic planning priorities, and include the key elements of the country’s public-sector reform
initiatives.

2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan

The GOI is required to draft national long-term development plans (abbreviated RPJPN)
every twenty years. Specific topics related open government in the RPJPN include the
acknowledgement of the importance of civil society, openness, and public access to
information, as well as the importance of promoting citizen engagement in public life by
linking citizen engagement to broader good governance goals.

2015-19 Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN)

Within the long-term development plan cycle, the GOI is also required to draft National
Medium-Term Development Plans (abbreviated RPJMN) every five years. These five-year
cycles overlap with presidential terms of office so that the administration’s plans align with the
vision and mission of the National Long-Term Development Plan. The 2015-19 RPJMN
includes two targets specifically related to increasing citizen engagement in public life,
including targets on e-government, increasing access to information, and providing space for
public participation in formulating and overseeing the implementation of public policies.

Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy Reform – Bureaucratic Reform
Roadmap

In response to the 2015-19 RPJMN, the Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy
Reform developed a Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap in 2015. Regarding open government, it
highlights the role of e-government in supporting development priorities; the importance of
increasing access to public information transparency by, for example, supporting public
information offices and publishing all planning and budgeting documents on ministry websites;
and the importance of providing opportunities for the public to participate in drafting public
policies and monitoring their implementation.

President’s Jokowi’s government programme (Nawa Cita)

This document forms the basis of the current administration’s governing agenda. There are
9 agenda items that comprise the Nawa Cita document that serve as guidelines for the annual
national priorities. Specifically, agenda number 2 emphasizes “the presence of government
through implementation of clean, effective and democratic governance”. Furthermore, two sub-
agenda seek to booster open government by seeking to build transparent and accountable
government performance and improve public participation in the policy making processes.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

631. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia

Law Key points
Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Commission for
the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption This law updates Indonesia’s previous anti-corruption laws (namely, Law
No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption and Law
Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances No. 20 of 2001 on the Changes in Law No. 31 of 1999). This law also
formed the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
Law No. 15 of 2004 on the State Audit This law details the milestones and dates for the budget process, specifies
general principles and authorities for the management and accountability
Law No. 25 of 2004 on National Development of state finances, and establishes the financial relationship between the
Planning central government and other institutions. This law is the basis for
government regulations that inform budget transparency throughout the
Law No. 13 of 2006 on the Protection of budget cycle.
Witnesses and Victims This law outlines the operational framework of the Supreme Audit
President Regulation No. 1 of 2007 on the Institution of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK), and mandates it as a
Approval, Promulgation and Distribution of professional and independent institution required to submit its reports to
Laws and Regulations Parliament.
Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information This law seeks to “optimise public participation,” and lays out the process
Disclosure by which the public can participate in the creation of the country’s
development plans. It also institutionalises the creation of multi-
Law No. 37 of 2008 on the Ombudsman stakeholder consultation forums (Musrenbang) at all levels of government
for the long-term, medium- term and annual development plans.
This law is an essential component of the country’s protection of
whistleblowers and sets out regulations to help provide for the safety of
victims of and witnesses to crimes.
This law requires that government regulations be published and
disseminated to ensure that the general public understands and
comprehends the contents of the laws and regulations (OECD, 2012).
This law guarantees citizens’ right to information: Every interested person
who applies to obtain public information “shall be able to obtain Public
Information fast and promptly at low cost and in a simple manner (Chapter
1, Article 2)”. Specifically, it:
Mandates the creation of public information provision system, named the
Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID): Public agencies “shall
establish and develop an information and documentation system to
manage the Public Information properly and efficiently, so that it is easily
accessible (Part 4, Article 7)”;
Encourages public participation in decision-making processes;
Promotes transparent, accountable, effective and efficient governance.
The aims of the Ombudsman are to:
Contribute to a democratic, just and wealthy state, based on the rule of
law;
Improve the quality of government services in all sectors;
Improve the legal culture and awareness of the population

The functions of the Ombudsman are to:
Receive and investigate grievances concerning the maladministration of
public services;
Follow up on the grievances under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman;
Co-ordinate and collaborate with other government institutions or public
agencies as well as with non-governmental organisations and individuals.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

64 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia (continued)

Law Key points
Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Service
Provision The law is designed to improve the quality of public services by:
Establishing clear responsibilities and obligations of all parties related to
Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Establishment of the provision of public services;
Regulatory Legislation Ensuring the public services provided comply with the prevailing laws;
Giving legal protection and legal certainty to the public on the provision of
Law No. 17 of 2013 on Societal Organizations public services
Law No. 5 of 2014 on Civil Administrative Preparing and establishing service standards that take into account the
State ability of the provider, public needs and environmental conditions.4
Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Governance This law makes openness one of the principles to be applied in the
formation of good legislation by requiring the government (via the Minister
Presidential Instruction No. 5 of 2015 on of Law and Human Rights) to publish laws, government regulations,
Public Communication Management presidential regulations, and programmes.
This law replaces Law No. 8 of 1985 on Societal Organizations, and sets
Presidential Regulation No. 5 of 2015 on out the obligations and restrictions for societal organisations.
Medium Term Development Plan 2015-19 This law requires openness in civil service management and hiring
practices.
This law updates previous laws on regional governance, including Law No.
32 of 2004 on Regional Governance and Law No. 12 of 2008, and moves
some power back to the central government. Notably, this law is
supportive of innovative behaviour through its creation of a de facto “right
to innovate”, which ensures legal protection to local innovators.
This regulation instructs all ministerial level officers, governors, and
mayors to support the dissemination of government policies and
programmes co-ordinated by the Ministry of Communication and
Informatics.
This regulation elaborated the government’s five year vision, missions and
programmes, including national development strategies, general policies,
line ministry programmes and the macro economic framework.

The country’s first dedicated push toward implementing specific open
government policies came during the administration of President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono. It was under President Yudhoyono that the country
joined the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in September 2011 and
attained full compliance with the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative (EITI) in October 2014. The Yudhoyono administration also
established the Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian
Pembangunan (UKP4), which was tasked with supervising and co-
ordinating open government initiatives and with helping to ensure their
successful implementation.

The Government of Indonesia signed the OGP Declaration in September
2011 as a co-founder of the organisation, and in September 2012 Indonesia
and the United Kingdom became co-chairs of the OGP. Starting 31 October
2013, Indonesia served as the lead chair of OGP and co-ordinated the
direction of this worldwide initiative for its year-long term. During its
chairmanship of the OGP, Indonesia launched Open Government Indonesia
(OGI), which was a unit developed as the fruit of a collaboration between
government agencies, civil society organisations, and donors. The OGI

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

651. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

primarily served to advocate for and monitor open government activities;
through its OGI Forum, it also provided a venue for public sector and civil
society representatives to translate policies into specific activities. Seven
government ministries and seven civil society organisations (CSOs)
comprised the OGI’s Core Team,5 which was led by the Presidential
Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (UKP4).

The formal participation of CSOs in the OGI is particularly notable
given that Indonesia’s political history to a large degree marginalised the
role of civil society and the public in the design and delivery of public
policies and services. As evidenced by the country’s recent open
government progress, however, the country’s CSOs now play a prominent
role in helping to set open government priorities and are welcomed by the
relevant policy makers. As discussed further in Chapter 3, there remains
scope for increasing the involvement of CSOs, as they are
disproportionately located in Jakarta and are often focused on service
delivery or organising communities for self-help rather than on macro-level
changes (AusAID, 2012). Nevertheless, their inclusion in the national
government’s formal oversight of open government activities and
involvement in specific projects at the subnational level highlight their
integral role in pursuing open government in Indonesia.

During the election campaign of 2014, President Jokowi pledged to
bring a more inclusive style of politics to the office of the president.
President Jokowi and his Vice President Jusuf Kalla ran on an agenda called
“Nawa Cita” (referenced in Box 1.2). This document detailed the
candidate’s analysis of the main challenges facing Indonesia, as well as the
administration’s planned response. Of the plan’s nine priorities, the
proposals directly related to open government reforms were the following:
promote clean, effective, democratic, and reliable governance; reform the
justice system and create corruption-free and reliable law enforcement
institutions; and strengthen diversity and social restoration of Indonesia by
creating spaces of dialogue among citizens.

Despite the continuity between administrations in their support for open
government policies, the transition between them was nonetheless
disruptive. With the change of government at the end of 2014, the UKP4
was dissolved and new government did not clarify the management
arrangement of open government initiatives until well into 2015.
Importantly, however, many of the open government programmes
implemented under President Yudhoyono have remained, and many of
UKP4’s previous functions were taken over by the Ministry of National
Development Planning (Bappenas) and the Executive Office of the
President. Furthermore, the Jokowi administration confirmed the country’s
commitment to serve as co-chair of the OECD’s Network for Open and

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

66 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Innovative Government in Southeast Asia, which was launched in Jakarta in
March 2015, highlighting Indonesia’s dedication to promoting open
government regionally.

In 2015, a new National Open Government Secretariat was established
to oversee open government implementation and was staffed by personnel
from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bappenas, and the Executive Office of
the President. This secretariat will lead the government’s open government
initiatives and foster interaction between the different ministries and
agencies of the GOI, civil society, academics and the private sector. It will
be an independent and autonomous entity, funded through the national
budget.

In interviews with the OECD, the Executive Office of the President
expressed that the primary mechanisms to support open government reforms
moving forward will be: 1) ensuring high-level commitment to open
government initiatives; 2) supporting the implementation of the open
government national plan at the subnational level; and 3) identifying
champions of reform to showcase successful implementation of reforms.
These bureaucratic reform goals coincide with and reinforce the goals of
enhancing public engagement, facilitating access to information and
reducing corruption through increased transparency, as outlined in the
country’s strategic development documents (see Chapter 2 for a description
of how these documents frame the country’s open government reform
efforts).

Beyond open government

A major focus of the GOI as it pursues open government initiatives will
be to link the country’s open government programmes to its public service
reform efforts (further explored in Chapter 2) and to facilitate the
collaboration between government branches and institutions to create a
government-wide open state policy. For example, this will include forging
connections between open government initiatives and principles on the one
hand and the implementation of the broad-based UN Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) on the other. This will help ensure that the
SDGs are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans and key
government initiatives. To cite some examples, the targets specifically
related to the country’s open government reform efforts include:

• 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;

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

671. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and
political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race,
ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status;

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions
at all levels;

• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and
representative decision-making at all levels;

• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect
fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and
international agreements.

In addition to exploring how open government can contribute directly to
the targets listed above, this review will examine how open government
principles, policies and practices can also contribute to and support the
substantive achievement of all of the targets, as well as to the process that
leads to the identification and implementation of the SDGs (see Chapter 8).

The opportunity presented by binding together the country’s openness,
transparency, bureaucratic reform, and anti-corruption objectives and the
global SDG goals suggest that the time is ripe to expand the push for open
government reforms. While Indonesia’s focus on implementing open
government reforms has been relatively recent when compared to other
international leaders in the field of open government, the country has
nonetheless shown steady progress. The extent of its economic and political
reforms since 1998 and its global leadership in moving the open government
agenda forward – as recently illustrated by the country’s re-election to the
OGP Support Unit Steering Committee for 2015-18 – show the country’s
commitment to reform.

Though the country has a solid legal and strategic foundation, the
national government is faced with the challenges of synchronising its work
with the local level, translating its broad strategy into specific goals, and
ensuring that national ministries and agencies buy into the reform process.
Moreover, the inclusion of the legislative and judicial branches in the
national open government reform process has been so far limited. These
challenges suggest that the Government of Indonesia should seek to develop
an “open-state”. Specifically, this would formalise collaboration of open
government issues across the executive, legislative and judicial branches to
promote a whole-of-society approach to open government initiatives.

At the technical level, Indonesia could create open government contact
points or liaisons with the National Open Government Secretariat and the
Centre of Government in key government ministries, the Judiciary,

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

68 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Parliament, the Ombudsman and other independent agencies, and with
subnational governments. Together, these actors could work with the
National Open Government Secretariat and with civil society to create a
national open government and citizen engagement strategy. Similar to the
approach taken in Costa Rica (see Box 1.3), these actions would help
Indonesia move toward a holistic and integrated approach that includes all
branches of the national government, local governments, independent
institutions, civil society organisations, the business sector, media and
academia to build an open state.

Box 1.3. Declaration: Towards an open state (Costa Rica)

Consistent with the idea of building an Open State in Costa Rica, on 25
November 2015 the President of the Republic, the President of the Legislative
Assembly, the President of the Supreme Court and the President of the Electoral
Tribunal signed a declaration to promote transparency, fight corruption, increase
citizen participation in public affairs and improve access to information for
people through innovation in new technologies.

The document recognises that the principles of publicity, transparency,
accountability, access to information and citizen participation are fundamental to
the rule of law and for the daily work of the public branches. It acknowledges that
public information should be governed by the principles of openness and
proactive disclosure, only subject to a limited regime of exceptions, thereby
enabling the people, public opinion and mass media to have access to and
knowledge of what is discussed and agreed.

In the document, the Government of Costa Rica commits to:

• Promoting a policy of openness, transparency, accountability, participation

and innovation for all citizens.

• Building a plan of priority actions for open government, which will be

included in the institutional strategic plans of each branch.

• Instructing the administration to report annually to the President of each

branch the assessments and evaluations that demonstrate the fulfilment of
the plan.

• Promoting various forums for transparency and access to public

information.

• Strengthening and developing mechanisms for citizen participation that

contribute to a closer relation between civil society and the State, as well
as innovating with new technologies the access and participation of
citizens in public matters.

Source: OECD (forthcoming), Open Government in Costa Rica, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

691. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Organisation of the open government review

The review begins with a discussion of the steering and co-ordination of
open government policies at the centre of government (Chapter 2). It then
features a sector by sector analysis of Indonesia’s open government policy
goals, with chapters on: citizen participation in policy making and service
delivery (Chapter 3); the link between open government, integrity and anti-
corruption (Chapter 4); the role of digital government and open data in
supporting transparent government (Chapter 5); budget transparency
(Chapter 6); and the role of innovation in the public sector and its support of
open government (Chapter 7). The review concludes with a chapter on the
link between open government and the country’s efforts to design and
implement a comprehensive response to the UN 2030 Sustainable
Development Agenda (Chapter 8).

Each of the chapters in the review provides a summary of how the
specific policy area contributes to fostering open government, including a
description of the relevant instruments and practices developed by the
OECD and its members. Each chapter will also provide an overview of the
institutional framework in Indonesia that supports the design,
implementation and oversight of open government policies, the legal and
policy framework supporting open government and the alignment and
coherence of these policies with the broader public-sector reform agendas.
The chapters will also make an effort to document and evaluate measurable
results from open government initiatives in terms of outcomes such as:
better public services; higher citizen satisfaction; increased transparency of
the public sector; cost reductions; innovation led savings; etc.

A final section brings together the proposals made in each of the
chapters, presenting them in the form of proposals to be considered by the
national government, local governments, or specific ministries. These
proposals can help inform future iterations of the country’s OGP National
Action Plans, as well as the government’s public-sector reform efforts more
broadly.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

70 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Notes

1. The institutional framework for decentralisation was consolidated in Laws
No. 22/1999 on Subnational Government and No. 25/1999 on
Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations. In 2014, parliament passed the Law
No. 23 of 2014 on Local Government which aims to re-arrange
relationship between central and local government.

2. The reform process started by President Habibie (1998-99) has been
expanded upon by the presidents Abdurrahman Wahid (1999–2001),
Megawati Soekarnoputri (2001–2004), Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
(2004–2014) and Joko Widodo (October 2014–present).

3. Information provided by the Indonesia Ministry of Home Affairs, April
2016.

4. World Services Group, “Indonesia - Law on Public Services”; Makarin &
Taira S., October 2009.

5. This forum included representatives from government, academia and civil
society. The forum contained 14 members, split evenly between
government representatives (UKP4, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Kemkominfo, Bappenas, KIP, MOHA, KemPAN RB) and CSOs (TI-I,
Secretariat Fitra, Pattiro, ICEL, Motion Aceh, Indonesia JARI, KOPEL
Makassar) (OGI, 2012).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

711. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

References

Antlöv, H., Brinkerhoff, D. and Rapp, E. (2010) Civil Society Capacity
Building for Democratic Reform: Experience and Lessons from
Indonesia; Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, Vol. 21, No. 3 (September 2010), pp. 417-439.

AusAID (2012), NGO Sector Review: Phase I Findings,
https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/indo-ks15-ngo-
sector-review-phase1.pdf.

Cribb, R. (2002), "Unresolved Problems in the Indonesian Killings of 1965–
1966", Asian Survey 42 (4) July/August.

Elson, R.E. (2008), The Idea of Indonesia: A History, Cambridge University
Press, New York.

Gallup World Poll (2015), www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-
poll.aspx.

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.

OECD (forthcoming), Open Government in Costa Rica, OECD Public
Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.

OECD (2013), Colombia: Implementing Good Governance, OECD Public
Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202177-en.

OECD (2012), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Indonesia,
Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation,
www.oecd.org/indonesia/chap%202.%20Capacity%20for%20High%20
Quality%20Regulation%20in%20Indonesia.pdf.

OECD (2009a), Budgeting in Indonesia, OECD Journal on Budgeting,
Volume 2009/2, www.oecd.org/indonesia/45362389.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

72 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

OECD (2009b), Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy
and Services, OECD Studies on Public Engagement, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264048874-en.

OECD (2005), Modernising Government: The Way Forward, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264010505-en.

OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public
Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.

Policies for Inclusive and Sustainable Growth in Indonesia: Economics
Department Working Papers No. 1246, OECD, Petar Vujanovic.

Ricklefs, M. C. (1991) A History of Modern Indonesia since c.1300, Second
Edition. MacMillan.

Transparency International Indonesia (2014), “Scorecard Report: Law and
Policy of Open Governance in Indonesia”, March.

Vickers, A. (2005), A History of Modern Indonesia, Cambridge University
Press, New York.

Vujanovic, P. (2015), "Policies for inclusive and sustainable growth in
Indonesia", OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1246,
OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrxqbh40r35-en.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

732. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Chapter 2
Steering and co-ordination of open government

policies and practices in Indonesia

This chapter looks at the capacity of the centre of government to design,
steer and support the implementation of open government policies. It
explores current policies and practices and provides guidance to frame the
response to pending challenges. Indonesia has been a frontrunner in
fostering the international agenda on open government. At the national
level, open government is incorporated in the Presidential Priorities and
some key policy documents, which helps to promote the issue’s visibility and
provides greater leverage for action. The country also has proven
experience in developing and implementing OGP Action Plans, having now
reached the fourth generation of its OGP Action Plan. In addition, in the
context of the country’s ongoing process of decentralisation, open
government objectives are increasingly linked to the idea of better service
delivery situated at the local level.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

74 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

The centre of government as a strategic player1

From administrative support to policy co-ordination

The centre of government (CoG) is the body or group of bodies that
provides direct support and advice to the head of government and the
Council of Ministers. The CoG is known by different labels in different
countries, such as Chancellery, Cabinet Office, Office of the President,
Office of the Government, etc. Having moved beyond its traditional role of
serving the executive from an administrative perspective, the CoG is now
playing a more active role in policy development and co-ordination across
OECD countries. The centre in many countries now provides services that
range from strategic planning to real-time policy advice and intelligence,
and from leading major cross-departmental policy initiatives to monitoring
progress and outcomes (OECD, 2014b).

In a broad sense, the CoG not only refers to the Presidency or its
equivalent, but also comprises key strategic partners, such as the Ministry of
Finance (where policy priorities are matched with resources) and the
Ministry of Planning (with an important role in designing policy priorities
across the administration and the way these contribute to an overall strategic
plan). As such, and depending on the particular situation of a country in
terms of its institutional constellation, several actors can play a significant
role in CoG co-ordination. Additionally, central agencies responsible for
coherent human resources (HR), e-government, regulatory and open
government policies, etc. across different departments also contribute to
reinforcing cross-governmental co-ordination.

Despite playing a decisive role in key areas of public policy, the CoG in
most countries is relatively small. The apparent disconnect between the
centre’s broad responsibilities and its limited budget and human resources is
at least partly explained by the fact that almost all the resources and most of
the formal powers that are needed to design and implement (sector) policies
lie elsewhere in the public administration, outside the CoG. In most of its
activities, the centre is working with partner organisations that are much
larger and that are responsible and accountable for most, if not all, spending
on those activities. Generally speaking – i.e. across presidential,
parliamentary and other systems – the three key roles of the centre are:
1) supporting quality decision-making by the head of government; 2) policy
co-ordination across government; and 3) monitoring of the implementation
of government policies. With its ambition to mobilise and influence (very
often) larger budget-holding departments across government, the CoG’s
success depends not only on formal powers or structures but also, to a large
extent, on its capacity to lead and motivate.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

752. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

As the role of the CoG can comprise different aspects, Figure 2.1
presents an overview of the primary focus of CoG institutions across OECD
countries. While it points to a certain degree of diversity across countries, it
also shows the extent of consensus as to the CoG’s core functions, such as
providing support to the head of government.

Figure 2.1. Focus of the centre of government

International development and aid
Relations with sub-national levels of government

Policy analysis
Supranational co-ordination/supranational policy issues (including relations with EU, G20, etc.)

Human resources strategy for the public administration as a whole
Risk anticipation and management/strategic foresight for the whole of government

Regulatory quality and coherence
Relations with parliament/legislature
Designing and implementing reform of the public administration
Communicating government messages to the public and to other parts of the public…
Monitoring the implementation of government policy
Preparation of the government programme
Strategic planning for the whole of government
Policy co-ordination across government
Co-ordinating preparation of Cabinet meetings

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: OECD (2014b), “Centre stage: Driving better policies from the centre of government”,
GOV/PGC/MPM(2014)3/FINAL, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/Centre-Stage-Report.pdf.

The OECD Survey of centres of government (OECD, 2013) also shows
that a majority of countries (59%) confirms that the number of cross-
ministerial policy initiatives has increased recently (2008-12), and almost all
respondents reported that leading policy co-ordination has now become one
of the priority tasks of the centre. The centre can lead such cross-ministerial
co-ordination by: 1) integrating cross-disciplinary perspectives (including its
own perspective – the centre is not “policy neutral”) into policy advice for
the head of government and/or Cabinet; 2) leading policy co-ordination via
both traditional committee architectures and more innovative and informal
channels; 3) facilitating resource sharing through a closer partnership with
ministries of finance; and 4) supporting experimentation and testing of new
delivery systems, many of which are based on shared service models.

Leading strategic initiatives is a delicate undertaking, particularly in
countries in which authority is highly decentralised. It is essential to offer
both short- and long-term gains to senior public officials as incentives to co-
operate in complex initiatives that involve sharing of risk, resources and
accountability. For example, the long-term gains of achieving cultural

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

76 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

change among senior civil servants in the area of collaboration should be
matched with short-term “rewards” for changing their behaviour and
investing time in new practices.

From vision, leadership and innovation to effective delivery

The OECD’s work on centres of government explores how governments
can adapt the institutions at the centre in order to play an expanded and more
outward-looking role (see Box 2.1). In spite of its prominent role in diverse
parts of the policy process, the precise nature of the work of the CoG is not
yet fully understood. International comparisons of centres of government are
rare, despite the potential “governance premium” that effective management
of policy from the centre can generate. The crisis of 2008 has, however,
helped to turn the spotlight onto the crucial role that the centre plays in
effective, decisive government. The widespread international decline in
public trust in government in the aftermath of the crisis (Gallup World Poll,
2013) has made the CoG’s leadership and innovative decision-making
capacity more decisive than ever before. Governments need to prove that
they have a clear vision for the future, are capable of engaging in dialogue
with the administration and citizens on this vision, and manage to deliver
results, which can further foster sustainable long-term growth and well-
being.

Box 2.1. The OECD Network of Senior Officials from Centres of Government

The OECD created a network of CoG senior officials in the 1980s, and it was consolidated
into an annual event in the 1990s. The network acts as a forum for informal discussion and
remains one of the OECD’s highest-level policy networks.

The network serves three main purposes:

• To review issues of how to make the centre of national government work more

effectively;

• To achieve a more in-depth understanding of decision and policymaking systems in the

host country; and

• To work on broad governance issues fundamental to achieving economic and social

public policy objectives.

Recent topics of discussion included, among others, the promotion of inclusive growth, how
to foster vision, leadership and innovation and how to recover public trust.

Source: www.oecd.org/gov/cog.htm.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

772. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Box 2.2 provides a more detailed overview of how vision, leadership
and innovation are central to the CoG’s daily business. Across these three
areas of vision, leadership and innovation, the capacity to bridge the
(potential) gap between political staff (ministries, state secretaries, political
advisors and senior civil servants in certain cases) and the civil service is
one of the challenges of incoming governments.

Box 2.2. Centre of government – observations and trends

The success of a government rests on its ability to define a vision for the country that reflects an
electoral mandate and that is typically designed to increase well-being, prosperity and international
competitiveness. In the years following the economic crisis, concern with budgets dominated in
most countries, crowding out any other vision. However, those days appear to be over, and
governments are seeking to be more forward-looking and strategic. Most OECD countries have
some sort of vision document these days. This vision has different, interlinked dimensions,
including a long-term vision for the nation, usually going beyond growth objectives to embrace
well-being and sustainability goals, and a vision for what the government of the day wants to
achieve.

The government no longer has a monopoly on defining the vision. While efforts to gather
citizens’ views could risk raising expectations that cannot be fulfilled, such bottom-up visions can
help validate and legitimise government policy. Vision depends on two crucial factors: trust and
communication. If citizens do not trust the government, they will not trust its vision. Taking steps to
strengthen trust in government more generally will help to ensure greater buy-in on more strategic
goals. Communication and ownership are also important. If the vision has a strong narrative,
connects to citizens’ lives and is well communicated, then it can help generate support for difficult
reforms. A particular problem faced by policy makers is that the reform process and its translation
into real benefits for citizens are often too slow, undermining confidence and enthusiasm for longer
term visions.

Leadership is crucial to drive policies that contribute to a strategic vision. In a complex and
challenging policy environment, characterised by low levels of trust in government, leadership is an
essential attribute of effective government. Room for manoeuvre of governments has probably
diminished at both the national level, because of budgetary pressure, and at the international level,
because of globalisation. Nevertheless, the centre guides in terms of substance and helps
departments understand how to align policies with broader objectives. The centre also has a role to
play in leading by example, promoting efficiency and good policy management by departments. A
key issue is to ensure that the civil service and the political staff do not become disconnected,
working as separate entities at the Centre.

Many centres of government actively promote innovation in their public services, with an
emphasis on encouraging a culture of innovation in public services and providing a stable frame for
policy innovation and creativity. The Centre can provide an impetus – particularly when it partners
with specialist agencies that can identify talented people, good ideas and “roll-out” techniques.
Some countries have successfully used innovation focal points or dedicated units to drive public-
sector innovation; at the same time, being the innovation leader requires appropriate financial and
HR resources.

Source: OECD (2014a), “Vision, leadership, innovation: Driving public policy performance”, 33rd Meeting of
Senior Officials from centres of government, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/summary.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

78 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

In addition to the CoG’s responsibility to display vision, leadership and
innovative capacity, previous OECD Public Governance Reviews (OECD,
2014c) have shown that an effective CoG is also critical for:

• Accountability. The CoG is the steward of strategic vision. It is
accountable for overall results and oversight of the delegated
responsibilities. It is important, however, to avoid overly rigid
“command and control” structures and micromanagement, but to work
instead towards a system where the CoG can exert effective oversight
and clarify lines of accountability. Line ministries need to exercise
leadership for the actions and policies for which they are responsible,
within the overall framework of a shared collective commitment.

• Strategic planning, policy coherence and collective commitment. The
CoG needs the capacity to give a specific shape to its strategic vision, to
secure its coherence and to make it operational. A starting point is likely
to be the government programme or equivalent, putting into practice the
political manifesto of the party or parties in power. Making the strategic
vision operational is key. Otherwise, the vision has no value. The
doctrine of collective responsibility is crucial to bind both line ministries
and the CoG to a course of action. It is crucial for collective
commitment to be built, developed, discussed and agreed upon by the
whole range of actors that are engaged in public policy making,
implementation and service delivery.

• Communication. The CoG needs the capacity to communicate its
strategic vision, how it is being taken forward and how it is
implemented. Transparency and openness help to promote a sense of
purpose that is shared among stakeholders both outside and inside the
government. Clarity of communication within the administration is
important so that decentralised institutions can understand the vision and
share in its construction. In this way all parts of the public sector can
understand their role, responsibility and accountability for results.

Given its comprehensive set of responsibilities, the CoG also requires
continuity across political cycles (OECD, 2014c). CoG institutions are best
constructed, as far as possible, to withstand the vagaries of the political
cycle. To be sustainable over time, it is important to implement long-term
strategies. Stability of core functions and structures will boost confidence
that the strategic vision is taken seriously and that the country will have the
institutional capacity to carry out the vision over time.

The most recent work on CoG (OECD, 2015) also highlights a
(renewed) pressure for actual delivery, i.e. going beyond strengthened vision
and leadership. While many countries are still dealing with the legacy of the

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

792. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

crisis (e.g. low growth and persistent unemployment), governments are also
facing new, emerging challenges like large-scale migration and climate
change. In addition, global agendas such as the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and the Climate Change (COP21) require new
efforts from governments. These agendas are characterised by some shared
features, notably multidimensionality, high stakes, complex metrics, and
uncertainty. Citizens are increasingly aware of the scale of the challenges,
and they expect governments to look beyond political timetables or
ideological affiliations to find durable solutions and generate real change in
people’s lives. Box 2.3 provides some reflections on key elements to further
strengthen the CoG’s capacity to deliver on complex agendas.

Box 2.3. Centre of government – delivering on complex agendas

At the 2015 meeting of the OECD Network of Senior Officials from Centres of Government,
participants reflected on key aspects to further strengthen the CoG’s capacity to deliver on complex
agendas:

• the importance of setting clear goals and objectives from the outset, with mention made of

the welcome and trend towards more focused government programmes structured around
fewer but more strategic priorities;

• the relevance of efforts to reduce the number of participants around the table - while formal

Cabinet or government-wide deliberation and decision-making remain important, priority
initiatives can be more effectively driven by smaller ministerial teams;

• the common agenda should, where possible, be built around high-profile outcomes that offer

tangible rewards in terms of business or citizen impact for participating ministries;

• citizen input can be leveraged to generate momentum and overcome resistance either within

government or from other vested interests; for that purpose, the centre needs to better
communicate to citizens the goals of priority initiatives, particularly those with longer-term
impacts;

• mastering knowledge and evidence is crucial to many different aspects of the centre’s work,

and clear objectives need to be set at the planning stage, as without realistic and agreed upon
objectives, targets are meaningless and can waste effort and drain enthusiasm;

• a particular challenge regards the translation of data collected at national level into usable

advice for subnational governments, which are often the principal providers of public
services and to have evidence systems that provide the right data at the right time;

• to be effective, the centre needs to have a good understanding of the ‘organigram’ of

delivery; in other words, to grasp the relationships that have an impact on the delivery of
policies and how the centre can support these relationships; at the same time, the centre needs
to explore how to facilitate leadership by specialist line ministries so that the centre is not the
default option and to ensure that key policies are not “orphaned” or dumped on the centre.

Source: OECD (2015), “Meeting summary - 2015 meeting in Helsinki (Finland) of the OECD Network of Senior Officials from
Centres of Government on Promoting Inclusive Growth: A New Challenge for the Centre of Government”,
www.oecd.org/gov/cog.htm.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

80 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

Centre of government and public administration reform in Indonesia

Key actors and mandate

Among the 34 ministries in the Government of Indonesia, Box 2.4 lists
the selected ministries which have a pivotal role as centre of government
actor and provides an overview of their key responsibilities.

Box 2.4. Centre of government actors

Ministry/Office Centre of government responsibility
President’s Office
It co-ordinates the executive’s delivery and strategy.
This office assists the administration to identify
strategic issues, as well as directs the executive
branch’s public communications.

Ministry of National The Ministry is charged with formulating, co-
Development Planning ordinating, and synchronising national planning in all
(Bappenas) sectors, including economic, regional, and
infrastructure development, as well as data and
information planning.2 Bappenas, in partnership with
the Ministry of Finance, helps draft the annual
budget. The staff of Bappenas maintains close
substantive relationships with the various sectoral
ministries.3

Ministry of This ministry assists the President in formulating
Administrative and policies and co-ordinating policy implementation
Bureaucratic Reform related to Bureaucratic Reform activities, including
(KemenPAN) those related to public services, human resources, and
business processes.4 The vision of the ministry is to
create a “professional and reliable state apparatus that
is conducive to good public governance.” 5 The
Ministry is also responsible for the supervision, co-
ordination, monitoring, and evaluation of all civil
service matters, including supervision and co-
ordination of the National Civil Service Agency and
the National Institute of Public Administration.

Ministry of Finance Responsible for managing financial and state assets.
The Ministry of Finance is in charge of drafting the
budget and providing technical guidance and
evaluation of revenues, expenditures, and financial
estimates; this ministry is also in charge of managing
the posting of budget data and representing the
government, along with Bappenas, during
Parliamentary oversight of budget discussions.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

812. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Centre of government in a changing context: public administration
reform in Indonesia (1945-present)

The history of public administration reform in Indonesia goes back to
Sukarno’s presidency (1945-67), following the country’s independence in
1945. Sukarno’s reform attempts were intended to reduce corruption in the
public sector and improve the ability of the state to respond to the many
social and economic challenges facing the country. These attempts,
however, proved insufficient and the fragile political situation of the time
made these efforts difficult (Budiarso, 2014). A subsequent phase occurred
during Suharto’s rule (1967-98) known as the ‘New Order Era’. The
difficult economic situation of the time, characterised by an inflation rate of
600%, stagnant economic production and trade and poor infrastructure
precipitated Suharto’s centralised policies which were intended to restore
and maintain economic stability. Under such circumstances public
administration reform received little attention. Strict loyalty was demanded
of civil servants and there was little room in the public administration for
introducing new ideas.

After Suharto stepped down in 1998 there was new impetus for public
administration reform as part of Indonesia’s broad reform programme
known as the Reformasi. It was acknowledged that the public sector in
general and public administration in particular had to play an important role
in supporting Indonesia’s economic and social development. Government
underperformance was found to be one of the main factors that hindered
development, and therefore creating competent public-sector institutions
was one of the main goals of the reform plan. The central idea underlying
the reforms, one that had a direct bearing on public administration reform,
was to create a democratic state and address systemic problems, which were
identified to be corruption, collusion, and nepotism (Korupsi Kolusi
Nepotisme or KKN).

In response to these challenges, the Reformasi leaders initiated a large-
scale, so-called “big bang” decentralisation process and took the first
significant steps to reform the civil service, thus paving the way for future
public administration reform. To create the basic systems and processes of
the newly-democratic state in the context of decentralisation, it was key to
put in place sound public financial management principles and practices.
Therefore, public financial management reform was and has remained a key
policy area on Indonesia’s reform agenda. The Ministry of Finance assumed
a leading role in developing financial management reform, along with tax
and customs reform. The Government introduced three bills in Parliament in
2000 to establish general principles of public finance and expenditure
management. The next phase of reforms of the public financial management

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

82 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

followed in 2003-05 with the adoption of Law No. 17 of 2003 on State
Finances, Law No. 1 of 2004 on the State Treasury and Law No. 15 of 2004
on Auditing Management and Accountability in the State Finances. These
three laws replaced colonial laws that had operated for more than five
decades in Indonesia (Budiarso, 2014).

In 2002, reforms aimed at improving the organisation, staffing and
career management of civil servants were introduced, while in 2004
significant steps were taken to improve strategic planning through the
adoption of Law No. 25 of 2004 on the National Development Planning
System. This law was further strengthened by Presidential Regulation 7 of
2005 on the 2004-09 Medium Term Development Plan. In addition, Law
No.17 of 2007 on the 2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan was issued to
ensure policy consistency between administrations.

As a result of these legislative changes, government institutions, both
central and local, were mandated to report on their performance and make
use of the existing performance management system, SAKIP, with the aim
of improving performance, transparency, and accountability in the short,
medium and long term. These goals were to be achieved through the
definition of visions, missions and clear goals and objectives. However,
mixed results were observed in terms of the implementation of the system
during those initial phases, which underlined the need for top leadership
involvement, strategic alignment between financial and operational
management and for a whole-of-government performance management
system (Budiarso, 2014; Jurnali and Siti-Nabiha, 2015).

Against the backdrop of these long-term public administration reform
efforts, three reform areas particularly affect the role of the centre of
government: the bureaucratic reform agenda, the strategic planning process
and the decentralisation process. Each of these three reform areas can be
linked to specific open government priorities and goals, such as increased
transparency or increased consultation and participation.

Bureaucratic reform

Public administration reform has become increasingly visible with the
adoption of the bureaucracy reform (reformasi birokrasi). The initiative was
introduced in 2006 by Sri Mulyani Indrawati, then Indonesia’s Minister of
Finance under President Yudhoyono, with the aim of supporting the ongoing
public financial management reform process. The focus, as originally
envisaged, was on reforming organisational structures and procedures, HR
policies and practices, as well as carrying out a modernisation programme
that included widespread organisational reforms and introducing
information and communication technologies (ICTs). It championed a

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

832. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

whole-of-government approach to public administration reform. The reform
was first piloted in three organisations in 2007, i.e. the Ministry of Finance,
the State Audit Office (BPK) and the National Supreme Court Office,
followed by implementation on a larger scale. The reform reflected the
President’s programme in the National Medium Term Development Plan
2004-09, which targeted good governance, improved supervision and
accountability, restructuring and better institutional management, improved
public service and HR management, and public service quality improvement
(Budiarso, 2014).

Until 2009, the reform fell under the Central Bureaucratic Reform Team
(TRBP). Subsequently, starting in 2010, implementation was primarily co-
ordinated by the Bureaucratic Reform Co-ordination Forum (FKRB) of the
Ministry of Finance. In addition, the reform fell under the mandate of the
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (Regulation 20 of 2010
concerning the roadmap for the bureaucratic reform 2010-14).

The current 2015-19 Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap is firmly anchored
in the country’s Medium and Long Term National Development Plans and
provides detailed roadmaps (with quantified indicators, but not necessarily
the identification of institutional responsibilities) to guide future action
towards:

• A clean and accountable bureaucracy (e.g. through commitment from
the leadership at central and local levels to prevent and eradicate
corruption and enhance transparency and integrity).

• An effective and efficient bureaucracy.

• A bureaucracy that exhibits qualities defining highly efficient and
functioning public services.

Through its leadership in the current Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, the
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (KemenPAN) has an
important formal role to play as a CoG actor. In addition, the priorities of the
Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap illustrate that open government priorities
such as transparency and accountability are part and parcel of the broader
public administration reform agenda.

Decentralisation and regional autonomy

Indonesia comprises 34 provinces, five of which have special status.6
Each province has its own legislative body and governor. The provinces are
subdivided into regencies (kabupaten) and cities (kota) both of which are
further subdivided into districts (kecamatan or distrik in Papua and West
Papua), and further into villages, which represent the lowest level of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

84 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

governmental administration (either desa, kelurahan, kampung, nagari in
West Sumatra, or gampong in Aceh). A village is further divided into
several community and neighbourhood groups.

The fall of Suharto’s New Order regime gave rise to a political climate
that was supportive of democratisation and subnational political and
administrative decentralisation. Two decentralisation laws were passed in
1999, Law No. 22 of 1999 on Regional Autonomy and Law No. 25 of 1999
on the Fiscal Balance between the Central Government and the Regions,
both of which went into effect in 2001. These laws transformed the structure
of public administration and introduced significant change in
intergovernmental relations in Indonesia, including the following (Australia
Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation, 2010):

• The responsibility for the delivery of key public services was devolved
directly to local (district and municipal) governments. The exceptions
(retained at the central level) were for such functions as security, foreign
affairs, monetary and fiscal policy, judiciary and religious affairs;

• The hierarchical relationship between local governments and provincial
governments was eliminated, making districts fully autonomous. The
district head (bupati) and head of municipality (walikota) were no
longer required to report to the provincial governor, but rather to the
locally elected district parliament (DPRD). In contrast, provinces
retained a hierarchical relationship with central government;

• Substantial parts of the national budget were allocated to provincial and
local governments, and they were given effective budgetary and
financial autonomy. For example, on average 30% of the national
budget (APBN) is now being channelled each year to provincial and
local governments, up from 12% in the mid-1990s.

These laws not only changed the structure of the public administration,
but they also had the potential to change the state-citizen relationship: as the
policy decision-making progress came (physically) much closer to citizens,
new opportunities for citizen consultation and participation were likely to
arise. However, these laws were later amended by Law No. 32 of 2004 on
Regional Administration and Law No. 33 of 2004 on the Fiscal Balance
between the Central Government and the Regional Governments, which
reconfigured the autonomy between the central, provincial and district level.
Some authority was given back to provincial governments in areas such as
supervision of local governments, capacity building, budget preparation and
local taxation. These changes also decreased to some extent the autonomy of
DPRDs locally, and their role started to be one of co-ordination based on
partnership rather than hierarchical supervision and control.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

852. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Despite this legislation, there have been concerns about the lack of
clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government
as well as the relationships between them. A subsequent regulation,
Government Regulation on Division of Authorities among Different Levels
of Government (GR 38 of 2007) was issued in 2007 to address these
concerns, but this change does not seem to have had a significant impact
(Australia Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation, 2010). There have
also been questions concerning the different types of autonomy that local
governments enjoy in reality. While by law they are entrusted with
significant administrative discretion, in reality they can only make use of it
as long as they possess an adequate degree of financial autonomy supported
by sufficient administrative capacity. By law local governments have
substantial financial autonomy, but in practice most of their revenue is still
earmarked to centrally determined priorities. The challenge therefore is to
grant both administrative and financial autonomy to local governments,
while ensuring that both the degree of central co-ordination and the form it
takes are locally acceptable. At the same time, this co-ordination must allow
for the central government’s national priorities to be met.

A number of government regulations were intended to create the
framework for the central government to evaluate the performance of
subnational governments. They include GR 78 of 2007 concerning the
guidelines for the formation, eradication, and merging of autonomous
regions, followed by GR 6 of 2008 on the evaluation of subnational
government performance and GR 8 of 2008 regarding the formulation,
monitoring, and evaluation of subnational development plans. Box 2.5
provides an overview of the primary roles and responsibilities of the
different levels of government. The box also illustrates how the CoG at the
national level has an important role to play in overall co-ordination, keeping
in mind that for many policy areas, its counterparts are not (only) sector
ministries at national level, but to a very large extent also subnational
governments.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

86 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

Box 2.5. Multilevel governance in Indonesia

Level of Main responsibilities

government

National Ministry of Home Affairs, Bappenas and the Ministry of

government Finance are the key central institutions concerned with

decentralisation and resource allocation;

Allocation of most financial resources to provincial and

local governments

Legislative and regulatory power nationally;

Control over government staffing and performance

incentives.

Provincial Capacity building and supervision functions;

governments Close links to the national government as the de-

concentrated bodies of the national government.

District Primary responsibility for the provision of key public

governments services such as health, education and infrastructure.

Village Use financial resources from both district and provincial

governments governments’ budgets and from national programmes:

Do not have a formal responsibility in public service

delivery.

Source: Australia Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation (2010).

In 2014, Indonesia passed Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government
to replace the previous regulation. This law sought to clarify the division of
authorities between central and local government, and promoted public
participation and innovation at the local government.

Strategic planning and performance management

Under the terms of Law No. 25 of 2004 on the National Development
Planning System, the Government of Indonesia is required to draft national
long-term development plans (abbreviated RPJPN) every twenty years. The
vision and mission of the current RPJPN 2005‐2025 is to establish a country
that is “developed and self-reliant, just and democratic, and peaceful and
united.” Specifically, the plan aims to encourage development that:
1) ensures the widest possible equality in the country, supported by quality
human resources and infrastructure; 2) ensures the rule of law is applied
fairly and consistently and serves the public interest; and 3) provides
security and peace among all people.

Within the long-term development plan cycle, the Government of
Indonesia is additionally required to draft National Medium-Term

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

872. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Development Plans (abbreviated RPJMN) every five years. These five year
cycles overlap with presidential terms of office so that the presidential
administration’s plans align with the vision and mission of the national long-
term development plan.

The goal of the current National Medium-Term Development Plan
2015-19 with respect to public governance is to build a government that is
“clean, effective, democratic and reliable.” The plan’s strategies regarding
public administration and open government reforms are comprised of the
following five areas:

• Continuing to consolidate democratic institutions to regain public trust,
for example by encouraging stronger partnerships between government,
the private sector and civil society, and by strengthening and
empowering civil society organisations to support their ability to work
with the government, media, and the public;

• Enhancing the role of female representation in politics and development,
for example by increasing the commitment of development actors to
integrate gender perspectives in development planning at the national
and regional level, as well as incorporating gender responsive budgeting
procedures in development planning;

• Building transparent and accountable government performance, for
example by creating a performance reporting system and increasing
public access to information about the performance of government
agencies. This strategy also seeks to implement more effective e-
government systems by strengthening e-government policies,
infrastructure systems and electronic procurement systems. Furthermore,
this area seeks to increase the implementation of open government
practices and informational transparency in all government agencies by
establishing PPID offices in every state public body; increasing public
awareness about job openings; publishing budget and budget
implementation reports; and providing space for public participation in
formulating and overseeing the implementation of public policy;

• Enhancing the quality of implementation of bureaucratic reform by, for
example, improving the management capacity of the civil service and by
fully implementing Law No. 25 of 2009 on the Public Service;

• Deepening public participation in the policy-making process, for
example by increasing the openness of and access to public information
(through the development of communication and information policies,
including public disclosure, management and dissemination of public
information, particularly through the establishment of PPID offices), as
well as by strengthening partnerships with local governments, civil

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

88 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

society organisations, the private sector and the media to educate the
public about the importance of public information and participate in the
process of preparing and monitoring policies.7

Through an extensive annual planning system, including at the
subnational level (see description in Chapter 3 on the Development Planning
Forum or Musrenbang), Bappenas has established itself as a key CoG actor
to foster strategy and coherence throughout the public sector. In line with
the broader public administration reform agenda, strategic planning and
performance management (as part of the government’s effort to ensure the
implementation its strategies) have increasingly gained prominence and
have evolved through various stages and adaptations, as part of the whole-
of-government efforts to improve performance, as called for in the
bureaucracy reform. Before 1999, the main focus of the performance system
was to ensure the financial accountability of governmental agencies, but this
understanding has expanded to encompass non-financial in addition to
financial performance (Jurnali and Siti-Nabiha, 2015). Instrumental to this
gradual change was Presidential Instruction 7 of 1999, which mandated that
all government agencies implement a performance accountability system
(SAKIP) and issue an annual performance accountability report (LAKIP).
The main purpose of the regulation was to create the needed framework with
the ultimate aim to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness
of government institutions. This piece of legislation was further developed
in the operational guidelines for the performance accountability system and
reporting as regulated in Public Administration Agency Decree
589/IX/6/Y/1999, and later on amended by Decree 239/IX/6/8/2003. This
legislation further required government institutions to develop strategic
planning and performance management to fulfil and meet the vision,
mission and objectives of the organisation. It also mandated that government
institutions prepare well-defined performance targets, measurement
indicators and data collection systems, and it offered guidance on the
implementation and evaluation of public programmes (Jurnali and Siti-
Nabiha, 2015).

Furthermore, according to Regulation 9 of 2007 of the Ministry of
Administrative and Bureaucracy Reform, local governments must develop
key performance indicators based on the guidelines provided in Regulation 9
of 2007. Local governments are required to develop SMART outcome-based
indicators that reflect their strategic plans. Reporting on local governments’
performance was further elaborated in Regulation No. 9 of 2010 of the
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucracy Reform. The performance
accountability report must be sent no more than three months after the end
of the fiscal year and needs to include both financial and non-financial
information on the performance of local governments. The report is based

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

892. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

on self-assessments by local governments themselves (Jurnali and Siti-
Nabiha, 2015).

The bureaucracy reform introduced further changes to the performance
management system. On the one hand, more emphasis has been placed on
whole-of-government performance and improved co-ordination across
organisations and levels of government. Elsewhere, with the support of the
Ministry of Finance, the balanced scorecard (BSC) has been taken into
account since 2007 and was adopted in 2009 as a strategic performance
measurement and management tool to support the goals of the bureaucracy
reform agenda. Based on the experience with the implementation of BSC in
the Ministry of Finance, the following main lessons have been drawn: the
need to maintain the commitment on the part of leadership to cascade the
BSC down to the individual level, while developing capacity for managing
strategy and dealing with the whole of the Indonesian bureaucracy
(Budiarso, 2014).

The centre of government and public administration reform as
enablers for open government

Indonesia’s open government efforts are embedded in a broader public
administration reform process and in a CoG reality that have complex
influences on the government’s ability to affect change. For example:

• The country has a set of CoG actors that play an important role in
enabling open government, though the complexity, size and different
waves of de- and recentralisation that have affected the multilevel
governance dynamics of the country are likely to multiply the
challenges;

• Indonesia’s bureaucratic reform agenda has obtained a fairly prominent
place in the overall reform agenda over the last ten years (e.g. the
explicit link with the country’s national development plans) and open
government related principles such as transparency and accountability
are gaining increased visibility;

• The strong tradition of strategic planning and increased attention to
performance management offer possible entry points to anchor the open
government agenda.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

90 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

The open government agenda

The institutional anchorage of open government

Since the Reformasi era’s democratisation push, the public has
demanded better access to public services and improved government
performance. Indonesia has identified openness in government as a tool to
achieve those goals. President Yudhoyono, who was inaugurated in 2004,
displayed a political commitment to instituting both an anti-corruption
agenda and a broad open government agenda. The Yudhoyono
administration also established the Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan
dan Pengendalian Pembangunan (Presidential Delivery Unit for
Development Monitoring and Oversight, UKP4), which was tasked with
supervising, co-ordinating, and helping to ensure the successful
implementation of the open government initiatives. The Government of
Indonesia signed the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Declaration in
September 2011 as a co-founder of the organisation, and in September 2012
Indonesia and the United Kingdom became co-chairs of the OGP. Starting
on 31 October 2013, Indonesia served as the lead chair of OGP and co-
ordinated the direction of this worldwide initiative for its year-long term.
During its chairmanship of the OGP, Indonesia launched the Open
Government Initiative (OGI) at the national level. The OGI Core Team
comprised seven government ministries and seven CSOs, led by UKP4 and
primarily served to advocate for, and monitor, open government activities,
and through the OGI forum provided a venue for public sector and civil
society representatives to translate policies into specific activities.

When President Jokowi took office in 2014, UKP4 was dissolved and
replaced by the Executive Office of the President. During this transition
period, Bappenas, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Office
of the President primarily took over the open government portfolio. These
three institutions divided the management of open government, where
Bappenas focused on linking the open government priorities with other
national priority agendas, the Executive Office of the President ensured the
support and involvement of the national leadership and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs handled diplomatic matters related open government.

The administration soon announced that the oversight and management
of its open government reforms would be managed by a newly created
National Open Government Secretariat, staffed by representatives from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bappenas, and the Executive Office of the
President (KSP). By the end of 2015, the National Open Government
Secretariat was established, while staff of Bappenas, MoFA and the
Executive Office of the President ensured follow-up of the open government

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

912. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

agenda during the transition period in 2014-5. A major task – or challenge –
of the National Open Government Secretariat is, along with the promotion
of the open government agenda, to link the country’s efforts under the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with its ongoing open government
reform efforts and to help ensure that the SDGs are mainstreamed into
Indonesia’s development plans and initiatives.

A background document on the institutional set-up of the National Open
Government Secretariat (Ministry of National Development Planning, 2015)
identifies six major functions for the Secretariat: public policy and co-
ordination; open data and IT platforms; capacity development; monitoring,
evaluation and knowledge management; public outreach and
communication; and finance and administration (see Figure 2.2 for the
organisational chart of the National Open Government Secretariat). It also
outlines the involvement of civil society organisations in the management of
the organisations and the formal process of their selection via elections
through the Civil Society Consultative Meeting. In addition, the same
document makes reference to the relevance of a subnational co-ordinating
role for the National Open Government Secretariat, and provincial and
district/ municipality-level districts (to be funded by their respective
governments). Given the country’s decentralisation process and, hence, the
fact that open government is to a large extent expected to be delivered at the
subnational level, the role of such subnational secretariats as catalysts is
considered essential, and the development of subnational open government
action plans is posed as an option in the medium term. See Box 2.6 for a
relevant example of how Brazil has organized its co-ordinating body to
manage its open government strategy.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

92 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

Figure 2.2. National Open Government Secretariat: Organisational chart

Sub-national OGI Secretariat STEERING COMMITTEE: CSOs Consultative Meeting
Chair: Bappeda MINISTERIAL:
Local CSOs Consultative
Members: Other government Bappenas, Kemlu, KSP Meeting
agencies, PPID and local CSO EXECUTIVE BOARD:

partners Chair: KSP
CoChair: CSO Representative
WORKING GROUPS Members: Bappenas, Kemlu, Kemdagri,
Chair: CSO Representatives Kemkominfo, KemPAN, KIP, CSOs
Members: Relevant government
Representative(s)
agencies, CSOs
CHAIR OF THE EXECUTIVE TEAM:
Bappenas

HEAD OF THE NATIONAL
SECRETARIAT

PUBLIC POLICY AND OPEN DATA AND IT CAPACITY MONITORING, EVALUATION PUBLIC OUTREACH FINANCE AND
COORDINATION PLATFORMS DEVELOPMENT AND KNOWLEDGE AND COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATION
MANAGEMENT
Specialist(s) Specialist and IT Staff Specialist(s) Specialist(s) Manager and staffs
Specialist(s)

Box 2.6. Co-ordination of open government in Brazil

Brazil has established an inter-ministerial Committee for Open Government (Comitê
Interministerial Governo Aberto – CIGA) to manage its open government strategy. Formed by 18
public organisations, CIGA’s mission is to ensure that policies related to transparency,
accountability, integrity and social participation evolve transversally. CIGA has an Executive Group
(Grupo Executivo - GE), formed by seven ministries to manage its operation. The Executive Group
has a working group (CSO-WG) of seven civil society organisations that advises them.

Broadly, the committee seeks to develop an open government culture within the government and
to foster dialogue with civil society. To do so, the GE organizes workshops with public servants to
illustrate the importance of open government and promote new initiatives, holds events to share
good practices and organizes meetings with high-level authorities to build political support. Partly as
a result, 22 agencies proposed commitments to the country’s second OGP action plan.

The Executive Group also works with the CSO-WG to expand CSO involvement and promote
dialogue. Together, the two groups developed the methodology for creating and monitoring Brazil’s
third OGP action plan. The GE also monitors the execution of the national action plans, maintains
regular dialogue with people responsible for meeting commitments and updates the status of those
commitments through a public website.

Finally, the Executive Group has approached the Legislature and the Judiciary to promote their
involvement in open government initiatives and has prioritized actions to improve dialogue with
subnational governments to foster local level policies on open government. CIGA, its Executive
Group and the CSO Working Group were all legally established by formal regulations.

Source: Comptroller General of Brazil.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

932. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

The constitutional and legal basis for open government

While the Constitution, as ratified in 1945, does not explicitly refer to
open government as such, it does provide the legal foundation for the
principles of transparency and participation in general. Article 28F
guarantees the rights of citizens to communicate freely and obtain
information, as it states that “Every person shall have the right to
communicate and to obtain information for the purpose of the development
of his/her self and social environment, and shall have the right to seek,
obtain, possess, store, process and convey information by employing all
available types of channels.” Article 23(1), furthermore, stipulates that “the
State Budget as the basis of the management of state funds shall be
determined annually by law and shall be implemented in an open and
accountable manner.”

The legal framework supporting open government has been further
codified via a number of laws, presidential decrees, and ministerial
regulations, as shown in Box 2.7. Through these laws, Indonesia’s legal
framework provides explicit recognition of citizens’ rights to access
information and to participate in public affairs. Most notably, Law No. 14 of
2008, which guarantees freedom of information and mandated the formation
of the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID) units responsible
for storing, documenting, and providing government information to the
public, provides a formal basis for promoting transparency in government
affairs.

Prior to the national government’s passing of Law No. 14 of 2008 on
Public Information, some subnational governments had already issued
regional regulations to guarantee access to government information and
encourage community participation in development planning and budgeting.
Examples of such laws include:

• West Kalimantan Provincial Law No. 4 of 2005 on Government
Transparency, which mandates that every public body be transparent in
its provision of information, its procedures, and its policy-making and
implementation processes.

• Bulukumba District Regulation No. 5 of 2005, which provides a similar
set of guidelines and regulations to that of the national Freedom of
Information Law.

• Palopo Regulation No. 5 of 2008, Garut Regional Regulation No. 17 of
2008, and West Java Provincial Regulation No. 11 of 2011, which
regulate transparency in governance affairs.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

94 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

Box 2.7. Legal framework for open government in Indonesia

Law Key points
Law No. 25 of 2004 on National Encourages public participation in the formulation of the national
Development Planning System and local development plan.
President Regulation No. 1 of 2007 on Requires that government regulations are published and
the Approval, Promulgation and disseminated to ensure that the general public understands and
Distribution of Laws and Regulations comprehends the contents of the laws and regulations.8
Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Guarantees citizens’ right to information: every interested person
Information Disclosure who applies to obtain public information “shall be able to obtain
Public Information fast and promptly at low cost and in a simple
Law No. 37 of 2008 on the Ombudsman manner” (Chapter 1, Article 2). Specifically, it:

• mandates the creation of the public information provision
system, named the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi &
Dokumentasi (PPID): Public agencies “shall establish and
develop an information and documentation system to
manage Public Information properly and efficiently, so
that it is easily accessible” (Part 4, Article 7);

• encourages public participation in decision-making
processes;

• promotes transparent, accountable, effective and efficient
governance.

The aims of the Ombudsman are to:

• contribute to a democratic, just and wealthy state, based
on the rule of law;

• improve the quality of government services in all sectors;

• improve the legal culture and awareness of the population

Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Service The functions of the Ombudsman are to:
Provision
• receive and investigate grievances concerning the
Law No. 12 of 2011 on the maladministration of public services;
Establishment of Regulatory Legislation
• follow up on the grievances under the jurisdiction of the
Act No. 5 of 2014 on Civil Ombudsman;
Administrative State
• co-ordinate and collaborate with other government
institutions or public agencies as well as with non-
governmental organisations and individuals.

Designed to improve the quality of public services by:

• establishing clear responsibilities and obligations of all
parties related to the provision of public services;

• ensuring the public services provided comply with the
prevailing laws;

• giving legal protection and legal certainty to the public on
the provision of public services

• preparing and establishing service standards taking into
account the ability of the provider, public needs and
environmental conditions.9

Makes openness one of the principles to be applied in the
development of new legislation by:

• requiring the government (via the Minister of Law and
Human Rights) to publish laws, government regulations,
presidential regulations, and programmes.

• requiring the national government to establish a five-year
National Legislative Program (Prolegnas).10

Requires openness in civil service management and hiring practices.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

952. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

The inclusion of open government in strategic policy documents

The National Priority Agenda (Nawa Cita) synthesises the nine
presidential policy priorities for the 2014-19 period and incorporates a clear
reference to open government. In particular priority number 2 (focussing on
clean, effective, democratic, and reliable governance by placing a priority
and dedicating efforts to the restoration of public confidence in democratic
institutions) and also priority number 4 (emphasising reforming the state
through corruption-free, dignified, and reliable law enforcement) reflect the
presidential interest in addressing open government issues.

In addition, a set of key policy documents incorporate a reference to
open government principles. These include Indonesia’s 2005-25 Long-Term
Development Plan (RPJPN), the 2015-19 Medium-Term Development Plan
(RPJMN), and the Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap.

The 2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN) has as its
objectives 1) to support the co-ordination among actors involved in
development in achieving national goals, 2) to ensure the integration,
synchronisation, and good synergy between the different functions within
the central and regional administration, 3) to ensure relevance and
consistency between planning, budgeting, implementation, and monitoring,
4) to ensure efficient, effective, just, and sustainable use of resources, and
5) to optimize the society’s participation. Eight National Development Goals
have been identified and civil society participation (as an example of open
government) is a recurring theme among them, with the plan underlining for
instance that “society’s participation in Indonesia’s governance and
administration, particularly in monitoring the bureaucratic system, needs to
continue and increase in order to further improve the quality of governance”
(Republic of Indonesia, 2007). At the same, substantial limitations of the
civil society are identified, stating that “the civil society […] still lacks
economic and educational prowess” (idem).

The 2015-19 Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN), which was
developed under the umbrella of the Long-Term Development Plan, has
nine National Development Agenda points, including the objective to “build
clean, effective, democratic and reliable governance”. This objective is
further broken down into a number of targets, including, among others,
target 6.2.3, which declares an intention to “build transparency and
accountability in government performance” and target 6.2.5, which calls on
the government to “increase public participation in the public policy making
process” (Republic of Indonesia, 2015).

Finally, the 2015-19 Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, which includes
references to the Nawa Cita, RPJPN and RPJMN, refers to the relevance of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

96 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

applying open government ideas in order to increase the transparency and
accountability of government performance through:

• Establishing and appointing Information and Documentation Managing
Officers (PPID).

• Increasing public awareness of public information transparency

• Publishing all planning, budgeting and budget implementation processes
on the websites of all ministries/agencies.

• Providing opportunities for the general public to participate in the of
drafting public policies and monitoring of their subsequent
implementation.

• Developing a proactive and interactive information publication system
that is accessible to the public.

• Improving the management of the National Archive Information
Network and System.
Together, the Long-Term National Development Plan, the Medium-

Term National Development Plan and the Bureaucratic Roadmap provide a
high-level policy framework to promote open government policies and
practices across the public sector.

The OGP Action Plans
As a co-founder of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in 2011,

Indonesia has been a frontrunner in fostering the international agenda on
open government. The country also has proven experience in working on
open government at the national level under the OGP umbrella: it has now
reached the fourth generation of its OGP Action Plan.

Indonesia is currently implementing its third action plan, which was
designed to accelerate three out of the five transformative priorities as
identified by OGP (see Box 2.8), namely: improving public services;
improving the integrity of the government apparatus; and managing public
resources more effectively and transparently. These three priorities have
been targeted by the Government of Indonesia ever since the country joined
OGP in 2011.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

972. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Box 2.8. OGP Action Plans: Transformative open government
reform priorities

Open government commitments assumed under OGP membership need to
address at least two of the five following objectives (OGP, n.d.):

• improving public services
• increasing public integrity
• managing public resources more effectively
• creating safer communities
• increasing corporate accountability.

According to the OGP guidelines, an action plan needs to define a list of the
most transformative open government reform priorities based on the following
three criteria (OGP, 2015):

• ambitious: aiming to extend beyond existing reforms
• relevant: advancing transparency, accountability, participation and/or

technology and innovation

• SMART: specific, measurable, answerable, relevant and time-bound.

Sources: OGP (n.d.), “OGP national action plan guidance note”, Open Government
Partnership, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_
actionplan_guide%20FINAL_0.pdf (accessed 24 September 2015); OGP (2015a), “How it
works: Action plans”, Open Government Partnership, www.opengovpartnership.org/how-
it-works/action-plans (accessed 24 September 2015).

The first action plan, issued in 2012, was developed on the basis of the
so-called Triple Track Strategy. Each initiative was integrated into one of
the following three tracks:
• Track I: provides context to strengthen and accelerate implementation of

existing open government programmes and initiatives; these initiatives
are derived from recent presidential instructions and directives.
• Track II: focuses on establishing a common portal for public services,
public participation and public institution openness programmes.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

98 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

• Track III: accommodates new innovations in open government both
from the central and regional government, with pilot locations selected
at the regional, city and district level.

Specific actions taken under the first action plan included the promotion
of transparency, accountability and public participation in areas as diverse as
the following: the government’s poverty reduction programmes; the
allocation of subsidies to elementary and junior high schools; the health
sector; the police and public prosecution service; Tax Court, Immigration,
Custom and Land Administration offices; civil service recruitment in central
and regional governments; the national budget; budget information at
district level; public procurement activities; forestry and other natural
resources, environment and spatial data management (OGP, 2011).

Most initiatives fell under Track I or II, with the exception of promoting
transparency, accountability and public participation in decisions involving
natural resources, the environment and spatial data management, all which
were seen as representing innovation in open government at different levels
of government. The goals were time-bound, specific and relevant and thus
satisfied the OGP criteria (see Box 2.8). The extent to which they are
ambitious enough (according to OGP criteria) merits further discussion,
considering that only a minority were seen as innovative while the rest
sought to strengthen existing programmes and initiatives. On the one hand,
this is legitimate given the need to ensure implementation of already-
existing initiatives, which is especially important in an environment
characterised by scarce resources. On the other hand, bold, innovative and
transformative steps in carrying out the OGP actions plans would provide
greater leverage through the OGP membership both domestically and in the
wider region.

The Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) assessing Indonesia’s
progress in implementing its first action plan indicated that the enforcement
of the Law on Freedom of Information was less effective than expected,
with less than a third of government bodies at different administrative levels
having established an information and documentation service unit (PPID).
Provincial information commissions were instituted in 20 out of the
34 provinces, indicating uneven implementation of the legal provisions
territorially (TIFA Foundation, 2013). Enforcement of the disclosure of
information also depended on the specific policy area and institution, with
some lagging behind, for example, the Indonesian National Police and
certain provincial administrations.

Similar implementation gaps were found in the other priority areas.
LAPOR, for example, which was designed as an integrated complaint
mechanism to support improvements in public services, enjoyed only partial

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016