Leaders, Elites and Coalitions: The Politics of Free Public Services in Decentralised Indonesia

What factors have shaped the way district governments in Indonesia have responded to their newly acquired responsibilities with respect to the delivery of basic education and health services? This paper explores this question, focusing on the issue of user fees for these services.

Since decentralization was implemented in Indonesia in 2001, district governments have had primary responsibility for education and health policy. Many have done little with this authority to support the provision of free basic education and health services in their districts, but a small number have adopted well-funded programs with this objective. By focusing on the role of leaders and how they work politically to advance their careers, this study seeks to explain this cross-district variation in four Indonesian districts and to assess the policy implications for donors and other development actors interested in improving access to basic education and health services.

The paper analyses the politics of free public services in two pairs of Indonesian districts: Jembrana and Tabanan in Bali, where it focuses on the issue of free health care, and Sleman and Bantul in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, where it focuses on the issue of free basic education.

Key findings:

The key determinant of district governments’ responses to the issue of free public services has been the nature of district leadership—in particular, the nature of bupatis’ (district heads’) strategies for maintaining and advancing their political careers. Where bupati have pursued strategies of ‘political entrepreneurship’—that is, where they have sought to develop a popular base among the poor—and become dependent upon their electoral support to remain in power, district governments have been more likely to promote free public services than where political leaders have focused on consolidating patronage networks.

Bupati’s choices in relation to their political strategies have in turn reflected the incentives created by their respective personal networks, alliances, and constituencies. Where bupati have been relatively autonomous of predatory interests or more closely aligned with other groups in society, they have incorporated political entrepreneurship into their strategies because it has helped them generate the popular support needed to promote their political careers and bolster their positions vis-à-vis local parliaments, political parties and elites. By contrast, where bupati have relied on the backing of predatory business and criminal interests, they have been more likely to pursue strategies of patronage distribution because of their need to provide special favours to these elements and use party machines and patronage networks to mobilise votes.

Recommendations:

Proponents of free public services in developing countries need to find ways of encouraging political leaders to incorporate political entrepreneurship into their respective strategies for promoting their political careers. Democratization will not be enough on its own to ensure political entrepreneurship because the incentive for leaders to pursue this strategy may be outweighed by competing incentives to engage in patronage distribution, particularly where they rely on the backing of predatory elements in business, the military, the bureaucracy and criminal gangs.

Three ways in which proponents of free public services in developing countries, including donor organizations, can potentially promote political entrepreneurship without breaching sovereignty, breaking international law, or running the risk of being thrown out of the country by governments for over-stepping the mark are: promoting awareness of ‘success stories’; providing support to anti-corruption NGOs and agencies by providing them with adequate funding to carry out their activities; and collaborating with such NGOs and agencies to produce the evidence required to bring down leaders who pursue strategies of patronage distribution.

Proponents of free public services and, in particular donor organizations, should be selective about where they put their effort and money and draw on political analysis in determining whether to engage in particular countries or regions. To get value for their money, proponents need to carry out analyses of potential recipient countries/regions’ political contexts, focusing on leaders’ political strategies, and in turn build these analyses into their decision-making and planning processes.

Summary