Published date: Mar 19 2024

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: IAPA 2023 Annual International Conference

Pages: 130–146

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v9i7.15471

Mohammad Thahir Haningthahir.haning@unhas.ac.idDepartment of Administrative Science, Faculty of Social and Political, Universitas Hasanuddin

Andi Ahmad YaniDepartment of Administrative Science, Faculty of Social and Political, Universitas Hasanuddin

Badu AhmadDepartment of Nutrition, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Hasanuddin

Andi Imam AundhanDepartment of Nutrition, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Hasanuddin

There is a limited amount of research being undertaken on emerging autonomous areas, particularly in the evaluation of local governments capabilities in meeting the demands of autonomy, especially concerning the enhancement of public service delivery. This study seeks to address the existing research gap by evaluating the quality of public services provided by the newly established autonomous region administration, with a specific focus on the basic education sector. This study focuses on the Central Mamuju Regency, a recently established autonomous unit within the West Sulawesi Province. The researcher employed a mixed method approach in their study. Data gathering for quantitative approaches typically involves the administration of surveys, whereas qualitative data is often gathered through Focus Group Discussions (FGD). The survey was administered to a sample of basic education service providers, comprising 116 elementary schools and 37 secondary schools, resulting in a total of 153 participants. The primary objective of this study is to examine the minimal service standards on four key components, specifically facilities and infrastructure, educators and education personnel, curriculum, and education quality assurance. Data analysis methods employ statistical techniques to describe and analyze quantitative data, while utilizing interpretive approaches to analyze qualitative data. The findings of the study indicate that the newly established autonomous government faces challenges in enhancing the provision of basic education services, mostly owing to constraints in infrastructure. Another factor that adds to the deficiency in quality is the insufficient quantity of teachers who possess proper certification as educators.

Keywords: public service, service standard, local government, new autonomy area

[1] Shair-Rosenfield S, Marks G, Hooghe L. A Comparative Measure of Decentralization for Southeast Asia. J East Asian Stud (Seoul). 2014;14(1):85–108.

[2] Malesky EJ, Hutchinson FE. “Varieties of Disappointment: why Has Decentratralization not delivered on its promises in southeast asia”. J Southeast Asian Econ. 2016;33(2):125–38.

[3] Ciptawaty U. Pola pertumbuhan ekonomi daerah otonomi baru berdasarkan tipologi klassen. Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan. 2019;8(2):229–41.

[4] Marta S. Formulasi pembentukan daerah otonom baru sebagai upaya peningkatan kesejahteraan masyarakat. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum De Jure. 2022;3(2):306–35.

[5] Dick Sagoe C. Decentralization for Improving the Provisionn of Public Service in Developing Countries. Cogent Econ Finance. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1804036.

[6] Mulyadi B, Sudirman I, Muazansyah I. “Analisis Pembentukan Daerah Otonom Baru,” Jurnal Ekonomi Manajemen dan Akuntansi, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 53-67, 2023.

[7] Oswald K. Indonesia’s Decentralization Experiment: Motivations, Successes, and Unintended Consequences. J Southeast Asian Econ. 2016;33(2):139–16.

[8] Talitha T, et al. Welcoming Two Decades of Decentralization in Indonesia’s a Regional Development Perspective. Territ Politic Gov. 2019;8(5):609–708.

[9] Martinez-Vasquez J. FIscal Decentralization in Asia: Challenges and Opportunities, Mandaluyong City. Philippines: Asian Development Bank; 2011.

[10] Unger D, Mahakanjana C. Decentralization in Thailand. J Southeast Asian Econ. 2016;33(2):172–87.

[11] Eng N, Ear S. Decentralization Reforms in Cambodia. J Southeast Asian Econ. 2016;33(2):209–23.

[12] Ninh K, Arnold MNB, Arnold M. “Decentralization in Myanmar: a Nascent and ecolcing Process,”. J Southeast Asian Econ. 2016;25(3):224–41.

[13] Brosio G. Decentralization and public service delivery in asia. SSRN. 2014. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2479233.

[14] Siburian ME. Fiscal decentralization and corruption: a case of Indonesia. Appl Econ Lett. 2022.

[15] Yunan ZY, et al. “Spread of corruption in Indonesia after decentralization: a spatiotemporal analysis,” exford development studies, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 198-215, 2023.

[16] Asian Development Bank. Infrastructure for supporting inclusive growth and poverty reduction in asia. Asian Development Bank; 2012.

[17] Sujarwoto S. “Why Decentralization works and does not works? a systematic literature review,” Journal of Public Administration studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2017.

[18] Shair-Rosenfield S, Marks G, Hooghe L. A comparative measure of decentralization for southeast asia. J East Asian Stud (Seoul). 2014;14(1):85–108.

[19] Maulana A. “Faktor-faktor pembentukan daerah otonomi baru dan dampaknya terhadap keuangan negara,” jurnal pendidikan ekonomi, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 53-67, 2019.

[20] Sulistiowati R. Implementasi desentralisasi dan otonomi daerah pada daerah otonomi baru (dob) (Studi di Kabupaten dan Kabupaten Pringsewu Provinsi Lampung). Sosiohumaniora. 2014;16(3):270–81.