Indonesia s Plan on ANSSR Bureaucratic Reform Measurement and Implementation

Transcription

1 2011/SOM3/EC/WKSP/008 Indonesia s Plan on ANSSR Bureaucratic Reform Measurement and Implementation Submitted by: Indonesia Workshop on Approaches to Assessing Progress on Structural Reform San Francisco, United States September 2011

2 2 The Legal Basis It is the first priority under the 2nd phase ( ) of the Mid-Term Development Plan (RPJMN II) under the President Regulation No. 5/2010 on National Medium Term Development Plan. The Grand Design of Bureaucratic Reform is stipulated under Presidential Regulation No. 81/

3 The Fundamental Elements 3 Governance : A clean government, free from corruption, collusion and nepotism Accountability and Capacity: Accountable and capable bureaucracy; in terms of the performance and resposibility. Public Service : How good the government institution serves the public. The three elements then transformed into three the target using both international and national indicators. Indicators and the Target of Bureaucratic Reform is adopted in the Grand Design of Bureaucratic Reform. 3 Bureaucratic Reform Qualitative/Quantitative Indicators (as stated in Presidential Regulation No. 81/2010) 4 Target The realization of A clean and free from corruption, collusion and nepotism government Improved quality of public services Increased capacity and accountability of the bureaucracy performance Indicators Corruption Perception Index*) BPK s WTP/ Unqualified Opinion Baseline (2009) Target (2014) Central 42.17% 100% Local 2.73% 60% Integrity of Central 6,64 8,0 Public Service Local 6,46 8,0 "Ease of Doing Business" rank Government Effectiveness Index **) Accountable Government Agencies -0,29 0,5 24% 80% *) Scale of 0 10 **) Scale of 2.5 to 2.5 4

4 Governance Indicator- Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 5 1/2 Published annually by Transparency International. Perception-based, by experts and opinion surveys. Corruption: The misuse of public power for private benefit. Scale: 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (very clean). Sub-indicators: bribery to government officials kickbacks from government procurements embezzlement of public funds the implementation and effectivity on anti-corruption measurements Good CPI will influence investors confidence and improve investment climate. 5 Governance Indicator- Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 6 2/2 The consideration to use CPI as an indicator: 1. It may reflect the condition/ situation of governance, especially corruption in a country. 2. It has international recognition and commonly/globally used as the reference to measure the corruption. 3. The number s fluctuation illustrates how respondents and nonagency appreciate the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures conducted by their government. 4. It may reflect how anti-corruption campaigns and good governance match public expectation. 5. The index published each year. 6

5 Governance Indicator: Unqualified Opinion 7 1/2 The best category of audit opinion conducted by Indonesia Supreme Audit Board (BPK). The audit is conducted through the examination of annual financial reports of the ministries / agencies and local governments mainly on 4(four) criteria: Conformity with government-accounting standards Adequate disclosures or transparency Regulatory compliance The effectiveness of internal control systems 7 Governance Indicator: Unqualified Opinion 8 2/2 There are 4 (four) types of audit opinion: 1. unqualified opinion (best) 2. qualified opinion 3. adverse opinion 4. disclaimer (worst) It shows that the utilization of state-budget by the respective ministries, government agencies and local government is in accordance with the law and regulations. It may also reflect that the bureaucracy is clean and free from corruption. 8

6 Indicator of Public Service: Integrity of Public Service Agencies Index score reflects whether the public service law and regulations are implemented properly. The score is based on the annual survey conducted by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) on several public service agencies responsible for providing service on immigration, taxation, customs, business licensing, vehicle registration, both in central and local governments. The score is calculated based on the average value of 2 (two) variables (experienced integrity and potential integrity); elaborated into 6 (six) indicators, namely: 1. the experience of corruption; 2. the perception of corruption; 3. work environment; 4. administrative system; 5. behavior of individuals; and 6. prevention corruption 9 9 Indicator of Public Service: Ease of Doing Business 10 Ease of Doing Business is measured through the survey on regulatory reform in doing business on a number of countries. It is measured in the form of Doing Business Ranking based on the Doing Business Survey Report, published annually by The IFC- World Bank. It is used as one indicator in improving the quality of public service, with some consideration: 1. It gives a fairly complete picture of the investment climate 2. It becomes a reference for international investors whether regulations in a country are conducive to businesses. 10

7 Indicator of Accountability and Capacity of Bureaucracy Government Effectiveness Index It is one of the component in the World Governance Indicators It measures: 1. the quality of public service, 2. the quality of the bureaucracy, 3. the capacity of human resources in public service, and 4. degree of independency of human resources in public service from political pressure. This index describes the ability of the government to adopt policies and conduct effective public services. 11 1/2 11 Indicator of Accountability and Capacity of Bureaucracy Government Effectiveness Index 12 It consists of six main index of governance, namely: 1. Voice and accountability (VA); 2. Political stability and absence of violence (PV); 3. Government effectiveness (GE); 4. Regulatory Quality (RQ); 5. Rule of law (RL); 6. Control of corruption (CC). The consideration to use it as an indicator : 1. it provides an overview on a country's bureaucratic capacity; 2. It is one of international reference to assess the posturity and quality of the bureaucracy; 3. It is published regularly. 2/2 12

8 Indicator of Accountability and Capacity of Bureaucracy- Government Accountability 13 It is obtained based on an evaluation of the government agencies performance accountability on both central and local government (SAKIP) by the Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform. The indicator used is in the form of rating. The minimum rating CC or equivalent to 50 points. 1/2 13 Indicator of Accountability and Capacity of Bureaucracy- Government Accountability 14 The consideration of the utilization of Government Accountability Agencies as an indicator is as follows: It measures to what extent the progress of implementing performance management is achieved. It records the success of developing measurement systems, data collection and performance reporting. It records the monitoring performance and evaluation activity in particular strategic program. It records the development and progress of the level of accountability performance. Five major components of performance management are assessed, i.e., planning, measurement, reporting, evaluation, achievements. 2/2 14

9 Implementation Strategy Quick wins (directly or indirectly tangible to the public) Institutional Governance Human Resources Supervisory & Accountability Changing Mindset and Culture Set Clean and Free from Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism Bureaucracy Improvement of Capacity and Accountabilty Performance Improvement of Public Service Quality Monitoring & Evaluation Change Management Knowledge Management 15 Level of Implementation Bureaucratic Reform Implementation Level Scope of reform Macro Improvement of laws and regulations on bureaucratic reform Organization Governance HRD Management Internal Supervison Accountability Public Services Meso Micro Coordinating the implementation of bureaucratic reform in the government agencies and local government Implementation of bureaucratic reform in government agencies and local governments.

10 Organizational Structure on the National Level National Bureaucratic Reform Managerial Unit 17 18