Organizer: Steven Rood, University of the Philippines
Chair: Donald K. Emmerson, University of Wisconsin
Discussant: James J. Dalton, Associates in Rural Development
Pressure is building on Southeast governments to permit regional and/or local governments larger political and administrative roles. In the past few years, the Philippines has adopted a new local government code; Thailand nearly approved a constitutional amendment on local government; and Indonesia has undertaken a pilot project to grant more autonomy to local governments.
Regional or local governance and politics tend not to be covered in the existing literature on Southeast Asian politics. Most scholars study national politics, usually defined as what happens in a country's capital city. Others, proceeding anthropologically, examine a single local case. Few have attempted to make comparisons across regions within a country.
The papers in this panel begin to fill that gap. They examine the political and fiscal dimensions of local governments in Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines in order to better understand: (1) the sources of pressure on national governments to undertake decentralization; (2) the conditions that efforts to decentralize will confront; and (3) what the results have been in the context of national politics.
Fiscal Capacity and Political Struggle of Thai Local Governments
Chartchai Norasethaporn, Northern Illinois University
In Thailand, although the concept of decentralization was introduced several decades ago, it has had very little success. The central government still heavily controls the entire country economically, socially, and politically. Bangkok remains the spiritual and material center of the country, whereas the rural countryside is left far behind. For decades, local politicians and citizens have taken orders from the central government officers on how to run the affairs of their communities. The proponents of centralization, particularly from the Ministry of Interior, have continually claimed that a primary obstacle to the expansion of decentralization is the lack of fiscal self reliance of Thai localities. The findings of this paper, however, reject this assertion.
This paper focuses mainly on two major aspects. On the economic side, the paper uses a set of fiscal data collected from Provincial Administration Organization (PAO) around the country to reject the conventional wisdom of central government officers that Thai local governments remain heavily dependent on the central government for their funds. On the political side, the paper utilizes case studies and secondary sources to point out that fiscal capacity is not a real barrier for the expansion of decentralization; rather the struggle for administrative power seems to be the real barrier behind the scenes. The paper also attempts to explain why decentralization in Thailand has progressed very slowly, and to pinpoint the major players in this long overdue process.
Who is Running the Regions? Regional Political Leadership in Indonesia, 1965-1995
Michael Malley, University of Wisconsin, Madison
After taking power in 1966, Indonesia's New Order regime institutionalized a system of relations between the national and regional governments that declares regional executives the sole authorities in their districts and provinces, but keeps them subservient to the national executive. Since the early 1990s, this system has grown increasingly strained. Elections of regional leaders by regional legislatures, normally carefully controlled affairs, have produced unexpected results. Two central government ministries are attempting to shift more fiscal responsibilities to district-level governments; a pilot program ending in 1997 grants a sample of districts more autonomy, and drafts of a revised law on regional governments continue to circulate within the central government bureaucracy.
Despite these indications of ferment in the regions and concern in the center, little is known about regional government. On the basis of eighteen months of field research in three provinces, this paper examines the nature of political leadership at the district and provincial levels in three provinces over the past 30 years in order to identify general patterns and characteristics. Special attention is focused on the election of district and provincial executives (bupatis, mayors, and governors) in order to discover who is running regional governments, who supports them, and what are the most common sources of conflict and cooperation within regional governments, and between them and the central authorities.
Democratic Decentralization in the Philippines
Steven Rood, University of the Philippines
In 1991, the Philippines adopted a new Local Government Code. Despite widespread debate, nearly all observers agree that substantial powers, responsibilities, and resources were devolved to provincial, city, municipal and even barangay levels of government. Some worried that such devolution would only further entrench traditional local elites which have long been a feature of Philippine politics. Others, pointing to provisions of the Code that formalize non-governmental organizations' participation in local governance, regarded the Code as an opportunity to expand people's empowerment.
This paper examines the impact of the Local Government Code on governance and politics at the local level. The main question is whether local government has become more democratic, or whether local elites have grown stronger. To answer this question, this paper uses a wide variety of data from national and local levels, including opinion surveys, case studies, rapid field appraisals, and official government statistics. These data reveal that, although traditional elites remain strong, significant democratization has taken place.