Achievements and poverty alleviation

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

111 next. The condition has not changed in 2011 that services still become the major contribution.

Figure 5-16 Gross Regional Domestic Product City C

5.1.4. Achievements and poverty alleviation

In general, there are six categories for national/international awards received.

The categories are healthcare, education, environment, tourism, facilities and infrastructure and finally governance and public services. Between 2003 and 2011, City A had received at least 87 awards. There are 11 awards for healthcare, 5 awards for education, 12 awards for environment, 5 awards for tourism, 12 awards for facilities and infrastructure category and finally 42 awards for governance and public services category. Meanwhile, based on limited data of the City B rewards, the city has received at least 36 awards from the following categories: agriculture (1), environment (16), social cultural (7), education, governance & public services (8), tourism (2), facility & infrastructure (1) and technology (1). Moreover, County D had received awards that include categories of governance & public services, public administration, technology and social cultural. However, there is no available data

Source: City C in Figure 2002 & 2011

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

112

regarding its quantity. Importantly, county D has been rewarded as the region with reasonable opinion without exception by the State Financial Review Board for their financial report in four consecutive times. Finally, City C had received mostly the award for healthcare and environmental categories. The Adipura Award received for six years in consecutive time between 2006 and 2012, and only in 2011 the city had missed it.

Among the regions, City B has received more awards in the social cultural category which is related to poverty alleviation. Two innovative programs were launched to overcome the poverty. These are Bantuan Rehabilitasi Rumah Kumuh (BR2K/Slums Rehabilitation Assistance) and Gerakan Perang Melawan Kemiskinan (GPMK/Fighting Against Poverty Movement). Under mayor B leadership‟s 1,385 houses were rehabbed. However, the GPMK program was not too effective to alleviate the poverty (Rachmawati 2010). The problem is twofold, first more direct subsidy was proposed at the village level and second, most of the poor do not understand about the mechanism. This indicates that to alleviate the poverty, direct subsidy is not too effective to improve the living condition of the poor and additionally, socialization is needed.

City A also received award in the poverty alleviation. The program called Segoro Amarto (Semangat Gotong Royong Agawe Majune Ngacity A/ the spirit for mutual cooperation for the future of City A) Movement. This differs from City B‟s program, to alleviate poverty in City A the government empowers the fortunate community to stimulate the unfortunate community to work together to achieve the commonwealth. Basically, this program focuses on the cultural changes. Based on the

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

113 evaluation conducted by the Development and Planning Board of City A in 2010, the program was found effective to decrease the poverty.

In county D, to alleviate the poverty, a program to empower the poor was designed. The source of funds is from the local financial budget and the government allocates the money every year. The funds are used to empower the poor by facilitating them in business management training. The business is particularly aimed for the agriculture sector or plantation such as coffee. Finally, in City C, it is likely that the government has no specific program for the poverty alleviation, but they facilitate the poor for healthcare and education access. To improve local people‟s income, the government provides a group of people with training to create small business, for example is making rendang¹⁰ for souvenirs.

The Figure 5.17 illustrates the poor population of each region in year 2002 and 2011. We provide these in order to show the performance of the government in regard to poverty alleviation. In terms of percentage of poor population in 2002, County D has the highest percentage while City C is the lowest. While in 2011, poor population in county D decreases more than other regions achieved. The city C in contrast seems to fail to overcome the poor population in the city. The number tends to increase in 2011. We assume that the program implemented in city C to alleviate the poverty was not too effective. In terms of poverty line, in 2002, the income per capita of City A was the highest (Rp. 132,059) while City B is the lowest (Rp. 98,479).

10 Rendang is the famous culinary from Minang.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

114

Figure 5-17 Poverty Rate of the regions

In 2011, all regions showed a significant improvement of their income per capita. County D has the most significant improvement that the income increased from 110,114 rupiah to 360,044 rupiah whereas City B remains the lowest.

Figure 5-18 Income per capita of the regions

Source: The Data and Information of Poverty - the Statistical Bureau of Indonesia year 2002 & 2011

Source: The Data and Information of Poverty - the Statistical Bureau of Indonesia year 2002 & 2011

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

115 In summary, the regions in this study have received several awards regarding their performance in different categories. The awards are important to stimulate not only the government but also the people of the region to collaborate. The collaboration is intended to improve or maintain their performance so that people will get benefits from this. Although the regions received a number of national or international awards, it turns out that only a few of these represent the poverty alleviation achievement. For example City C, its performance contrasts the poverty alleviation performance that although the city economy is growing but on the other the poverty also increases.

Moreover, regarding the healthcare services, we found that the four regions were able to improve the facility. This improvement has made the healthcare services more accessible to public. Furthermore, regarding the education performance, we found that County D is the newest region that established education institution for a university level. The university was established in 2011. The number of schools remains the same, only one or two schools were added. The four regions commonly prefer to do intensification rather than extensification. The quality of school buildings improved, as well as the quality of teachers.

Finally, regarding the economic performance we found that the amount of fund balance of City A is almost similar to county D revenue. However, City A seems to use the money more effective than County D that the figure shows the own source revenue (OSR) of City A was higher than county D and it increases every year. On the other hand, City B and City C have almost similar fund balance revenue, their OSR performance are not too different. In terms of Growth Regional Domestic Product (GRDP), generally leaders have been able to improve the GRDP of their regions every year.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

116

To conclude, on the performance of each region there are both similarities and differences. As far as similarities, they were able to improve the performance of each sector while the differences include the local financial capacity, the resources available and the poverty rate changes. The effectiveness of the performance achieved, usually seen by the human development index (HDI). In 1993, the HDI of Aceh Province was ranked at 7^th whereas the West Sumatera province was ranked at 9^th. The Yogyakarta province was at 8th and finally East Java province was ranked at 19th. In 2011, Aceh province fall into 18th, West Sumatera province maintains its position at 9th, Yogyakarta province at 4th and finally East Java at rank 17th. There are 33 provinces were ranked in this matter. Based on the Human Development Index 2010-2011 of Indonesian Statistical Board, among 497 counties/cities in Indonesia there are 7 county/cities which are categorized as low HDI. There are 35 counties/cities with average HDI. In addition, 455 counties/cities were categorized with high HDI. City A maintains its position as the highest HDI for city/county level.