Decentralization and Democracy in Indonesia: A Critique of Neo‐Institutionalist Perspectives

This article assesses some of the major premises of neo-institutionalist explanations of decentralization policy and practices, but focuses especially on the relationship between decentralization and democracy, in the context of the recent and ongoing Indonesian experience with decentralization. In the last two decades ‘decentralization’ has become, along with ‘civil society’, ‘social capital’ and ‘good governance’, an integral part of the contemporary neo-institutionalist lexicon, especially that part which is intended to draw greater attention to ‘social’ development. The concern of this article is to demystify how, as a policy objective, decentralization has come to embody a barely acknowledged political, not just theoretical, agenda. It also suggests alternative ways of understanding why decentralization has often failed to achieve its stated aims in terms of promoting democracy, ‘good governance’, and the like. What is offered is an understanding of decentralization processes that more fully incorporates the factors of power, struggle and interests, which tend to be overlooked by neo-institutionalist perspectives. The current Indonesian experience clearly illustrates the way in which institutions can be hijacked by a wide range of interests that may sideline those that champion the worldview of ‘technocratic rationality’.

[1]  J. Knote Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community , 2004 .

[2]  R. Robison,et al.  Reorganising power in Indonesia: The politics of Oligarchy in an age of markets , 2004 .

[3]  V. Hadiz 8. POWER AND POLITICS IN NORTH SUMATRA: THE UNCOMPLETED REFORMASI , 2003 .

[4]  Pedro Tamayo Social Capital versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium , 2003 .

[5]  G. Guiheux Luigi Tomba éd., East Asian Capitalism. Conflicts, Growth and Crisis , 2003 .

[6]  R. Robison,et al.  Theorising South-East Asia’s boom, bust and recovery , 2001 .

[7]  J. Harriss,et al.  Depoliticizing development: The World Bank and social capital , 2001 .

[8]  Ben Fine,et al.  Social Capital Versus Social Theory , 2000 .

[9]  R. Mcvey Money and Power In Provincial Thailand , 2000 .

[10]  V. Hadiz,et al.  The Politics of Economic Development in Indonesia: Contending Perspectives , 1999 .

[11]  J. Manor,et al.  Democracy and Decentralisation in South Asia and West Africa: Participation, Accountability and Performance , 1998 .

[12]  David G. Timberman The Philippines : new directions in domestic policy and foreign relations , 1998 .

[13]  Kanishka Jayasuriya Authoritarian liberalism, governance and the emergence of the regulatory state in Post-crisis East Asia , 1998 .

[14]  J. Fitzmaurice Economy and Society , 1998 .

[15]  J. Wunsch Decentralization, Local Government and the Democratic Transition in Southern Africa: A Comparative Analysis , 1998 .

[16]  Gary S. Becker,et al.  Accounting for Tastes , 1997 .

[17]  S. Aiyar The political economy of democratic decentralization , 1996 .

[18]  G. Rodan Theorising political opposition in East and Southeast Asia , 1996 .

[19]  G. White,et al.  Civil society, democratization and development (I): Clearing the analytical ground , 1994 .

[20]  P. Burke Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste , 1989 .

[21]  James William Coleman,et al.  Competition and the Structure of Industrial Society: Reply to Braithwaite , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[22]  J. Coleman,et al.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.