Special autonomy policy evaluation to improve community welfare in Papua province Indonesia

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Special Autonomy policy to improve the community welfare of Papua Province.

Design/methodology/approach

This study was carried out using a qualitative approach assessing program activities and client satisfaction. It focused on program activity, target and implementation effectively and efficiently, involving the client’s evaluation process. Research data was obtained from the Papua Regional Development Planning Agency and separated into primary and secondary sources. Primary data was obtained through observation, interview and documentation from several informants. The informants were determined based on the role and involvement in the Papua Province Special Autonomy. Secondary data sources were obtained through field studies, scientific journals, previous research, written documents from relevant agencies, internet and electronic and print media.

Findings

This study exhibits characteristics of Papua Province Special Autonomy, which are identical to an asymmetric decentralization model, although it took 20 years of implementation because of the lack of evaluation and improvement. It disproves Katorobo’s (2004) theory that the said asymmetric decentralization model is more effective than symmetrical decentralization. Material requirement planning (MRP) empowerment or abolition should be considered important because of the lack of positive results. Otsus needs to improve the system and financial management, considering financial distribution for developed regions in the coastal areas and plains rather than mountainous regions.

Originality/value

This research was conducted because of the phenomenon of Papua Province Special Autonomy, also driven by the problems in the implementation of Special Autonomy Policy for Papua Province that had not borne optimum results. This study aimed to make recommendations for the Special Autonomy policy of the Papua Province to improve community welfare.

Citation

Prabowo, P.A., Supriyono, B., Noor, I. and Muluk, M.K. (2021), "Special autonomy policy evaluation to improve community welfare in Papua province Indonesia", International Journal of Excellence in Government, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 24-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEG-06-2019-0011

1. Background

History exhibits that the territory of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), as proclaimed on August 17, 1945, in de jure was to cover the entire territory of the former Dutch East Indies (Djojosoekarto, 2008). The Indonesian leaders endeavored to integrate West Papua into the NKRI region starting from the 1946 Malino Conference and the Round Table Conference [Konferensi Meja Bundar (KMB)] in Hague, The Netherlands, 1949 (Rahmadi and Fakhruddin, 2016, p. 62). Based on the memorandum of understanding between the government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of The Netherlands in the KMB, the West Irian region was handed over. However, the memorandum was denied by the Kingdom of The Netherlands. It encouraged a reaction from the Indonesian Government in 1963. West Irian territory was integrated into the Republic of Indonesia in May 1963. Subsequently through the Act passed through UN Resolution No. 2504 (XXIV) date 9 November 1969, West Irian joined NKRI legally according to international law (Rahmadi and Fakhruddin, 2016, p. 63). The process of rejoining Papua into the NKRI was long and complicated. This caused distrust from several neighboring countries that could disrupt the development process to improve the community welfare in Papua Province.

The dynamic Papua security conditions increase the complexity of the problems. This issue requires special directed attention and efforts to solve. Several cases are disrupting the stability of regional development because of the armed criminal group’s movement. This armed criminal group’s movement disturbs the security forces, the agencies and the community. Efforts to resolve the issue face many difficulties. Prolonged conflicts have hampered development in Papua, which in turn affects economic growth, education, health, infrastructure and the provision of basic facilities and infrastructure for social mobility in Papua.

Development policies in the Papua region are currently carried out differently from other regions. It indicates broad implications for the political, economic and social aspects of development. The Papua Province, which was originally founded on the legal basis of Law No. 12 of 1969 and Law No. 45 of 1999, generally runs with special treatment different from other provinces in Indonesia. The Papua Province is granted Special Autonomy status through Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning Papua Province Special Autonomy. President Megawati issued a Presidential Decree (Keppres) No. 1 of 2003 that divides Papua Province into two: Papua and West Irian Jaya. The laws and regulations were made to ensure that Special Autonomy implementations run well.

Government, Provincial Government, Regency/City Government and institutions under it were directed to provide the best community service and empowerment. The central government endeavored to develop Papua through the Special Autonomy policy. Also, there is an Acceleration Unit for the Development of Papua and West Papua Province (UP4B) that facilitates development programs to increase development focus.

UP4B improves the quality of coordination and troubleshooting. It possesses direct access to the highest ranks of State Leaders. UP4B endeavors to encourage administration and development planning. However, misperceptions and problems continue to arise. Since 2001, the implementation of the Special Autonomy policy for Papua has been facing difficulties and obstacles. Achievement of development results does not meet Special Autonomy goals and ideals. This condition is exhibited through community life expectancy, literacy, education and living standards level.

After the Special Autonomy policy for the Papua Province carried out, the conditions of Papuan community welfare have increased. However, the improvement was not as significant as expected. This is exhibited through the high percentage of the Papuan people’s poverty rate compared to the national scale. The poverty rate percentage decreased by 41.80 per cent in March 2001 to 28.40 in September 2016. In the first five years of Papua Special Autonomy (Otsus) (2001-2005), the poverty rate percentage decreased by 0.97 per cent, namely, from 41.80 to 40.83 per cent. In the second five years of the implementation of Special Autonomy (2006-2010), the poverty rate percentage decreased by 4.72 per cent. The largest decrease in the poverty rate percentage occurred in March 2010-March 2011 period. About 4.82 per cent of the population whose income below the poverty line in 2010 shifted above the poverty line. According to the type of region, poor people in Papua are concentrated in rural areas. In September 2016, 37.07 per cent of the poor lived in rural areas and 4.21 per cent rural area. Compared with March 2016 period, there was a decrease in the poverty rate percentage in urban areas by 0.21 percentage points (4.85 per cent). In rural areas, the number of poor people has decreased by 0.07 percentage points (0.18 per cent).

Despite the declining poverty rate, the September 2016 SUSENAS data exhibits that the poverty rate percentage in West Papua Province and Papua possess the largest poverty rate percentage in Indonesia, 24.88 and 28.40 per cent, respectively (BPS Papua Province: Important Indicator of Papua Province, May 2017 Edition: 8). This indicates that the implementation of the Special Autonomy policy for Papua Province does not remain optimal to boost welfare level.

There are several problems in the health sector such as access and quality of health services. These remained inadequate and less affordable. There is still a lack of health workers’ force, types and quality. These health workers are unevenly distributed. Health Center Ratio/100,000 population in 2013: 11.81; Ratio of General Practitioners/100,000 population in 2013: 18.3 (Indonesia R DU: 37, 2); and 2013 Hospital/100,000 population ratio: 33.7. Health promotion and community empowerment are not optimal (Sandhu et al., 2016, pp. 31-36).

The number of HIV patients in the population aged 15-49 years (Prevalence) in Papua is 2.4 per cent and in West Papua is 3.2 per cent. It is above the national average of 0.4 per cent. In addition to facilities, infrastructure and limited health workers, there is a low health awareness level. The implementation of the Papua Province’s Special Autonomy policy has not improved public health awareness and behavior, in general.

Other community welfare indicators are exhibited through the Human Development Index (HDI). The Papua Province HDI level exhibits a dissatisfactory picture. The implementation of the Papua Special Autonomy policy exhibits that the achievement of the HDI at the Regency/city level in Papua in 2016 is varied. Districts/cities with “high” HDI status are Jayapura, Biak Numfor, Mimika and Jayapura City. Regency with “moderate” HDI status are Merauke, Nabire, Yapen Islands, Sarmi, Keerom, Waropen and Support. However, the majority of districts in Papua are categorized as “low”.

There are existing prominent problems based on Papua Province Special Autonomy implementation since 2011. These require comprehensive handlings such as infrastructure development, poverty alleviation, improvement of education and health services. The Regional Government of Papua Province control in the regional development process have not aligned with the progress of other provinces in Indonesia. Papua region development achievements are not optimal. The development progress could be learned based on the relative comparison of other provinces in Indonesia. Therefore, the researchers tried to describe several problems. The empirical, theoretical and normative problems in the implementation of Special Autonomy policies in the Papua Province are described in the following paragraph.

1.1 Empirical problem

To understand the empirical problem of the Papua Province, after the enactment of the Special Autonomy policy, the following matters would be described about matters that directly or indirectly greatly affect the level of community welfare. The implementation of the Special Autonomy policy for the Papua Province proved ineffective to improve the welfare level. The empirical problem is described as follows:

First, the authority regulation and application between the Central Government and the Regional Government were carried out with the principle of specificity. However, the government failed to conduct it according to the principles of delegation of authority. There is an overlapping understanding of the applicable laws and regulations regarding the provision and implementation of decentralized authorities. The implementation of the delegation of authority according to Law Number 32 of 2004, which regulates Regional Government, needs to be synchronized with Law Number 21 of 2001, concerning Papua Province Special Autonomy both at the provincial and regency/city levels. Special matters such as the delegation of authority to manage education, health, community economy level and the construction of basic infrastructure require further approach.

Second, the recognition and respect for the basic rights of indigenous Papuans and their strategic empowerment have not been implemented well. Basic rights of education exhibit a lack of school infrastructure and facilities. Also, there is limited teaching staff in primary, secondary and high education institutions. There is low quality of environment and culture in undertaking formal education. A prominent problem in the education sector is exhibited through high illiteracy level (15-24 years ABH: 15.16 per cent) and low teacher-to-student ratio (Sandhu et al., 2016, p. 53). Therefore, recognition and respect for the basic rights of education have not been optimally fulfilled.

The recognition and respect for basic rights in the health sector face several problems such as the access and quality of health services. These are inadequate and less affordable. There is a lack of health workers’ number, types and quality. The health workers are distributed unevenly. Health Center Ratio/100,000 population in 2013: 11.81; Ratio of General Practitioners/100,000 population in 2013: 18.3 (Indonesia R DU: 37, 2); and 2013 Hospital/100,000 population ratio: 33.7. Health promotion and community empowerment are not optimal (Sandhu et al., 2016, pp. 31-36). The recognition and respect for basic rights in the community economy have not been able to effectively and efficiently boost the Papuan welfare level. This issue is caused by various economic activity carried out by economic actors originated from outside Papua. In reality, the economic actors of the Papuan community require assistance in economic activities management. The local community quality and experience require implementation time and protection.

Third, there is a lack of good governance because of the following reasons: First, the implementation of the development activities program has not exhibited improvement. Second, the implementation of community welfare development programs requires improvements. Third, the community participation in planning, implementing and supervising government administration, as well as the development implementation through customary, religion and women institution representative participation, has been implemented. However, in reality, it does not involve real representation. Fourth, the regional government response is exhibited through the following aspect. Since 2010, the Papua Province has 28 regency regions and 1 city. Among them, 19 were formed during the Reformation era (since 1998). The implementation of regional government is carried out by referring to Law No. 32 of 2004 concerning the Regional Government. In the framework of Law No. 32 of 2004, the regional government has several regional instruments such as the Regional Secretariat (Sekda), the Council Secretariat (Sekwan), the Agency and the Office. Furthermore, to improve government services, the Provincial Government of Papua with these agencies carried out bureaucratic reforms in 2009. This reform resulted in the following bureaucratic order: Regional Secretary Work Unit in charge of 3 assistants and 8 bureaus and the Council Secretariat Work Unit oversees 4 fields, 15 offices, 11 agencies, 1 office, 2 hospitals, and 1 civil service police. A total of 32 regional work units [Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah (SKPD)] were under the Council Secretariat Work Unit. In addition to referring to UU32/2004, the Government of Papua Province also carries out government duties under the orders of Law No. 21 of 2001. Fifth, transparency in budget execution exhibits problem-based on internal supervision reports. Sixth, the lack of financial accountability exhibited by a unit that organizes accounting and prepares SKPD financial reports. The accounting and financial reports have not been implemented by the Papua Regional Government because of a lack of accounting HR in terms of quantity and quality. Furthermore, internal inspection in the local government is carried out by the Inspectorate (formerly known as the Bawasda). However, this examination has not been optimally carried out because of various internal constraints. Accountability could not be realized properly and required commitment from involved parties.

Fourth, the clear division of authority, duties and responsibilities among the legislative, executive, judicial bodies and the Papuan People’s Assembly is the cultural representation of indigenous Papuans. It could not run well because of various individuals/groups’ interests. The division of authority requires institutional harmonization to ensure each aspect of governance, institutions and customs may conduct according to their intended functions.

1.2 Normative problem

The current administration of the Papua Province is based on autonomy adjusted to the mandate of the 1945 Constitution. The Republic of Indonesia adheres to the principle of government administration decentralization by providing regional autonomy. Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution stated that the regional government has the authority to regulate and manage government affairs (decentralization) according to the principle of autonomy and co-administration. The first law on regional government in the reform era (Law No. 22 of 1999) mandated that the principle of regional autonomy uses the principle of broad autonomy.

Hoessein (2011, p. 111) describes that Law No. 22 of 1999 is the result of two forces: First, the country’s internal strength in the form of a reform movement with demands for democratization in all life sectors. Second, supranational power in the form of globalization with various consequences and implications that require a process of adjustment to the structure and mechanism of democratic governance at the local level.

After the reform era, the radical decentralization policy created new problems that rendered Law No. 22 of 1999 a failure to encourage progress and change in the region (Agustin et al., 2013, p. 31). The principle of broad autonomy is reaffirmed in Law No. 32 of 2004 that is a substitute for Law No. 22 of 1999.

Marbun (2005, p. 156) asserts that as a correction of some of the weaknesses of the regulations on Law No. 22 of 1999, then Law No. 32 of 2004, emphasizes the principle of establishing legislation: clarity of purpose; the right institution or organization; compatibility between the type and material; implementation capability; usefulness; clarity of formulation; and transparency.

Granting regional autonomy aimed to accelerate the realization of regional community welfare through improving services, empowerment and community participation. It is to increase competitiveness by using the principles of democracy, equity, justice, privilege, potential and regional diversity in the Republic of Indonesia.

In consideration of Law No. 22 of 1999, the implementation of Regional Autonomy, it is deemed necessary to emphasize the principles of democracy, community participation, equity and justice, and pay attention to the potential and diversity of regions. The region diversity subsequently gave birth to asymmetric decentralization, known as “Special Autonomy”.

The Papua Province is one of the regions in the Republic of Indonesia that was granted Special Autonomy status through Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning Papua Province Special Autonomy. This Special Autonomy Law is an acknowledgment by the Indonesian Government to protect the rights of Papuans to their land, water and wealth. It is a prerequisite for uplifting Papuans from underdevelopment compared to central and eastern regions. The division of Papua Province into Papua Province and West Papua Province was written in Law No. 21 of 2001 stipulated by Government Regulation Number 1 of 2008 concerning Amendments to Law Number 21 of 2001.

According to the mandate of Law No. 21 of 2001, Special Autonomy is a special authority recognized and granted to the Papua Province to regulate and manage the local community interest according to Papuan aspirations and rights. The authority of the Papua Province involved every sector apparatus except the foreign politics, defense, monetary and fiscal, religious, judicial fields and other authorities as stipulated by legislation. Also, as a manifestation of Special Autonomy status, the Papua Province receives a large amount of funding from the government as stipulated in annual APBN (National Budget).

In general, there are two main objectives to be achieved through the implementation of the Special Autonomy Law. First, the law is expected to be a powerful legislative tool to solve fundamental problems in Papua that crucially affect the integrity of the NKRI. These problems are categorized as follows:

• human rights violations, including economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous Papuans;

• development inequality between Papua and other regions; and

• acute and widespread poverty, especially among indigenous Papuans.

Second, by resolving the three problems correctly, thoroughly and with dignity, the integrity of the Republic of Indonesia in Papua can be maintained and strengthened. Also, the Special Autonomy Law of the Papua Province encourages reconciliation and resolution of problems in the Papua Province as a whole, providing recognition and respect for the basic rights of indigenous Papuans, as well as strategic and fundamental empowerment.

The Province is intended to realize justice, uphold the law, respect human rights, accelerate economic development and improve Papuan community welfare and development. The status of Special Autonomy as stipulated in Law No. 21 of 2001, de facto and de jure, states that local governments and the Papuan community have the power and authority similar to those of a country. Should this political opportunity be used intelligently and correctly, the Special Autonomy status of the Papua Province by Law No. 21 of 2001 is a reliable means to improve Papuan community welfare by community initiatives, conditions and local diversity.

Issues concerning the Papua Province Special Autonomy exhibits that the special autonomy status should be used as a means to improve the welfare of the Papuan people. The government and community possess the authority to regulate and manage local interest according to their initiatives, including regulating the use of Papua’s natural wealth for community welfare and prosperity.

Hendratno (2009, pp. 251-260) explained that the implementation of the policy contained several material contents in Act number 21 of 2001, which needs to be examined properly as it exhibits similarities with the government affairs distribution system. An incorrect implementation may deter Special Autonomy achievements.

Law No. 21 of 2001 stipulates that the authority of the Papua Province encompasses authority in all fields of government, except the property of the Central Government, determined based on legislation. This provision is in line with the provisions concerning the system of distribution of government functions regulated by Law No. 32 of 2004 that reflects similarities to the system of surrendering the remaining authority or reserve of powers in the Federal State. This provision exhibits that residual authority to administer regional government is left to the Papua Province. The articles in Law No. 21 of 2001 mentions the system of division of government affairs: Article 4 Paragraph (1): The authority of the Papua Province includes authority in the government sector, except foreign policy, defense, monetary and fiscal, religion, and judiciary and other sectors determined in accordance with the laws and regulations. According to Article 4 Paragraph (2): In addition to the authority as referred to in paragraph (1), in the framework of implementing Special Autonomy, the Papua Province was granted special authority.

Based on Law No. 21 of 2001, the MRP was granted duties and authority, among others: give consideration and approval to the candidates for Governor and Deputy Governor proposed by the DPRP (Regional House of Representatives); give consideration and approval to candidates for members of the MPRRI (People’s Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia) as regional representatives of the Papua Province; and give consideration and approval to the Perdasus Draft submitted by the DPRP and the Governor. The MRP task and authority exhibits that MRP is an institution that influences executive decisions making the process(the Papua Provincial Government) and the legislature (Papuan House of Representatives). The MRP authority exhibits that Papua Province applies the mechanism of a country in the process of political policy. It uses a relationship framework among the executive, legislative and people representative institutions. The authority of the MRP as a representation of the interests of the Papuan people implies similarity to the United States’ House of Representatives.

Law No. 21 of 2001 states that the legislative power of the Papua Province is carried out by the Papuan People’s Representative Council (DPRP) that amounts to 1.25 (one quarter) times and the number of DPRD members as stipulated by legislation. These different legislative authority numbers resemble the authority to determine the number of state legislative members in federal states that vary between states. The number of different legislative members exhibits that the Papua Province has legislative powers different from the Indonesian legislative system.

Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning Papua Province Special Autonomy grants authority to the Papua Province to establish a Special Regional Regulation (Perdasus), namely, the Regional Regulation of the Papua Province in the context of implementing the Special Autonomy Law. This authority exhibits similar characteristics to a federal country’s state authority in drafting its laws and regulations.

The articles in Law No. 21 of 2001 regulates regional regulations specific to the Papua Province are: Article 1 Letter i: Special Regional Regulation, hereinafter referred to as Perdasus, is the Regional Regulation of the Papua Province in the context of implementing certain articles in this Law. Article 1 Letter j: Provincial Regional Regulation, hereinafter referred to as Perdasi, is the Regional Regulation of the Papua Province in the framework of implementing the authority as stipulated in the legislation.

Because of perception differences in implementing Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning the Special Autonomy of Papua, in normative matters, there are still delays in the process of drafting implementing regulations both in the form of Government Regulations (PP) for the implementation of Papua Special Autonomy and the subsequent drafting of Provincial Regulations (Perdasi) and Special Regional Regulations (Perdasus). In the implementation of the Papua Province Special Autonomy, the law stipulates implementing regulations at the regional level consisting of 13 special regional regulations (Perdasus) and 18 provincial regional regulations (Perdasi).

1. Issues arisen from synchronization and harmonization problem of the Act are described as follows:

   • The objective of Papua’s Special Autonomy can only be achieved properly if the arrangement is carried out in a clear, realistic and complete manner. According to Law No. 21 of 2001 and Law No. 35 of 2008 Special Autonomy for Papua and West Papua is granted to the province. Regencies/cities are regulated by Law No. 32 of 2004 concerning the Regional Government. The regulation of two different government levels with different laws causes disharmony between levels of government (provinces and regencies/cities) because of lack of clarity in the construction of authoritative relations originating from different laws. The unclear division of functions obscures relations between provinces and regencies/cities (Ramses, 2013, pp. 83-103).

2. Arrangements in the Special Autonomy Law that are out of sync and not consistent with the relevant laws.

   • Article 28 of Law No. 21 of 2001 provided an opportunity for the arrangement of asymmetrical political parties with local parties (at the beginning of the integration of local parties known in West Irian), but the Law on Political Parties No. 2 of 2011 concerning Political Parties does not regulate political party despite Article 28 Paragraph (2) mandates the regulation in the law. Inconsistency in legislation impedes the formation of local parties and access to indigenous Papuan occupation of the party system, whereas the recognition of the political existence of indigenous Papuans is very likely to be represented in the party system.

   • According to Article 48 Paragraph (3) and Paragraph (4) Law No. 21 of 2001, police duties in the public order are regulated in the Perdasi, including the financing. The implementation of police duties in public order is accountable to the Governor. This provision diverts the function of the civil service police and thus the civil service police should be liquidated. This provision also places the Papua Provincial Police, in addition to carrying out the functions of the National Police, as well as the functions of the regional police. The asymmetric regional police position in Papua and West Papua should be regulated in Law No. 2 of 2001 concerning the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia, or government regulations. The arrangement of asymmetrical regional police in Papua is not without purpose. This arrangement is intended in addition to ensuring law enforcement and transparency.

   • Law No. 21 of 2001 regulates asymmetric acceptance in Papua’s Special Autonomy framework. Asymmetric acceptance is represented by 2 per cent of the national general allocation fund (DAU) platform and additional funds. In addition to asymmetric acceptance, Papua and West Papua receive asymmetric acceptance by Law No. 32 of 2004. All revenues in the framework of Special Autonomy should be financing the implementation of Special Autonomy. However, Law No. 21 of 2001 and guidelines for regional financial allocation systems exhibit no instructions. It implied weak accountability, unfocused project and lack of transparency regarding financial relationships between provinces and districts/cities.

In general, normative problems arise because of the lack of transparency of the existing laws and regulations for the implementation of Papua’s Special Autonomy. Also, the Perdasus and Perdasi were unable to accommodate the need for implementing the Papua Special Autonomy policy (Ramses, 2013, p. 93). These normative problems lead to several fraudulent policies such as low transparency, corruption, administrative complexity, decreasing the quality of public services, central disputes with the regional government, regional and regional government disputes and community disputes with regional officials.

1.3 Formulation of the problem

Autonomy policy is related to the freedom of a region to manage its area to achieve prosperity (Wolman and Goldsmith, 1990). The Special Autonomy policy of the Papua Province was implemented in the form of decentralization as a political design. This policy implicitly contained administrative needs to maintain the framework of the National Unity, namely, the Republic of Indonesia.

The welfare autonomy goal is a challenge that must be resolved by a country. The purpose of this autonomy can be achieved by deconcentration, delegation and devolution approaches (Bray, 1999), which are all related to delegation of authority. The Special Autonomy in the Papua Province does not only cover mere authority.

The implementation of the Papua Province Special Autonomy has not exhibited the appropriate results. It requires a policy model to accommodate the Papuan community development. This study aims to evaluate the Special Autonomy policy to improve the community welfare of Papua Province.

The aims of this study are as follows: identifying the current policy of Special Autonomy in Papua Province; knowing and describing the institutional policy of the Special Autonomy Province of Papua to improve the welfare of the people of the Province of Papua; knowing and describing the authority of the Papua Province Special Autonomy policy to improve the welfare of the people of the Papua Province; knowing and describing the financial policies of the Special Autonomy Province of Papua to improve the welfare of the people of the Province of Papua; and finding a Special Autonomy policy model for the Papua Province to improve the welfare of the people of the Papua Province.

2. Research method

This study used a qualitative approach with a type of formative evaluation research that refers to the opinion of Bingham, R.D. It consists of two approaches, namely, daily task monitoring and assessing program activities. The research used the second approach, assessing program activities and client satisfaction to services. This approach focused on program participants. It focused on program activity, target, and implementation effectively and efficiently. The clients were involved in the evaluation process.

The location of this study was carried out mostly in Papua Province. The research site chosen was Bapeda (Regional Development Planning Agency), Papua Province. The Government of the Papua Province is a government entity that implements the Papua Special Autonomy policy. This is confirmed in Law 21/2001 stating that Papua Special Autonomy is a special authority recognized and given to the Papua Province to regulate and manage the interests of the local community according to their initiatives based on the aspirations and basic rights of the Papuan people (Article 1 Letter b). The consequence of this special authority arrangement is that the Special Autonomy fund is allocated to the entity of the Papua Provincial Government. The funds were distributed to regency/city governments with a significant comparison.

Data collection used primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources are data sources that directly provide data. Secondary sources are sources that do not directly provide data, for example, through other people or documents. Primary data was obtained through observation, interview and documentation. Secondary data sources were obtained through field studies, literature, scientific journals, previous research, written documents from relevant agencies, national journals, international journals, electronic media, the internet and print media. Primary data were obtained from several informants related to the research theme. The informants were determined based on the role and involvement in the Papua Province Special Autonomy. Secondary data were taken from research journals, magazine articles, reports and various documents related to the Papua Province Special Autonomy.

2.1 Informant

The informant involved in this research consists of the Provincial Government of Papua officials, members of the DPRP, members of the MRP, Regency/City Government officials and observers (experts) of Papua Special Autonomy. The key informant in this study was the Head of Bapeda Papua Province who provided information, opinions and expectations related to the focus of this study. Other informants were selected purposively with the snow-ball principle considering individuals who are directly involved in the tasks and functions of the Regional Government possess the data and information relevant to this study, and/or observe the Papuan Special Autonomy policy issues, development and evaluations.

2.2 Document

The documents used in this study were Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for Papua Province, Law No. 34 of 2004 concerning Regional Government, Perdasus, Perdasi of Papua Province, Lakip 2013, 2014, and 2015, Papuan Documents in 2017 by the Central Agency Papua Province Statistics.

Data analysis is done by organizing data, describing it into units, synthesizing, composing into patterns, choosing what is important and what will be studied and making conclusions that can be told to others. According to Creswell, “data analysis is intended to interpret data in the form of text or images” (Cresswell, 2016, p. 260). This effort involves segmenting and sorting out data and rearranging it. In general, this research step by Miles et al., Huberman and Saldana (2014) interactively integrated into several concurrent activity flows between data collection, data condensation, data display and then the process of drawing conclusions and verification (conclusion drawing/verification), as shown below.

3. Findings and discussion

3.1 Papua Province Special Autonomy

3.1.1 Characteristics of institutions of Papua Province Special Autonomy.

The comparison between previous studies with the Papua Province Special Autonomy exhibits an existing institution of special autonomy characteristic. The Institution of Special Autonomy in the Papua Province has the following characteristics:

• Specific regulations and implementation, separate from Central Government intervention.

• MRP and DPRP for legislative functions, and Provincial Government for executive functions.

• MRP and DPRP have arranged all administrative matters independently.

• Papua Province Special Autonomy does not have a multi-functional territorial body in each village and an institutional state enterprise.

• Institutions such as the MRP and DPRP have been formed into special functional bodies.

3.1.2 Characteristics of the Special Autonomy Authority of the Papua Province.

The comparison between previous studies with the Papua Province Special Autonomy exhibits characteristics of special autonomy authority. The Papua Province Special Autonomy has the following characteristics:

• Authority is formed on the basis of a political compromise between Papuans and the Central Government.

• Authority not only manages fiscal problems independently but also education, health, economy, and infrastructure.

• Authority in the Papua Province Special Autonomy grants the Government of Papua Province the freedom to act.

• The authority delegated from the Central Government has the freedom to make special regulations for the Papua Province.

• Authority in Papua Province Special Autonomy opens the opportunity for Papuans to participate in government.

• Authority in Papua Province Special Autonomy is granted the freedom to regulate and manage the Papuan people.

• The authority related to personnel matters, the Papua Province Special Autonomy has not yet exercised authority in a clear manner.

3.1.3 Characteristics of the Special Autonomy Financial Arrangement of the Papua Province.

The comparison between previous studies with the Papua Province Special Autonomy exhibits characteristics related to financial regulation in the Papua Province Special Autonomy. The Papua Province Special Autonomy financial arrangement exhibits the following characteristics:

• Central Government assistance to the regions is 2 per cent of the total DAU (General Allocation Fund).

• Financial division of various sectors. Education by 30 per cent, health by 15 per cent, economy by 25 per cent, and infrastructure 20 per cent.

• Direct Tax Withdrawal to the Government of the Papua Province and partly to the Central Government.

• Financial arrangements are included in special regional regulations that regulate the details of the budget allocation from the Special Autonomy fund for the welfare of the Papuan people.

• The regulation of local resources from the Papua Province is carried out to help the economy of the Papua Province.

• This financial arrangement is carried out to answer important issues in achieving the welfare of the Papuan people.

The characteristics exhibited by the Papua Province Special Autonomy in terms of institutions, authority and uniqueness arrangements have in common with the characteristics of asymmetric decentralization. It can be concluded that the Special Autonomy model of the Papua Province is a form of asymmetric decentralization. Asymmetric decentralization is decentralization that provides a transfer of special authority given to certain regions to maintain the existence of the region.

3.2 Good governance criteria for Papua Province Special Autonomy

The criteria for good governance in the Papua Province Special Autonomy are reviewed based on institutional, authority and financial arrangements. Based on data processing in terms of the institutional aspect, the following results were obtained:

• The Special Autonomy of Papua Province Education Institution exhibits low effectiveness and transparency. Therefore, it needs to be run better.

• This health-related institution was found to have low effectiveness and responsiveness. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure good cooperation between the local government and the Ministry of Health.

• Economy-related institution exhibits low effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. Therefore, it requires evaluation by adjusting duties and functions to ensure no overlap between institutions.

• Infrastructure institution exhibits low effectiveness, transparency, accountability and responsiveness. Therefore, the Public Works Agency needs to improve its functions.

The criteria for good governance in the Papua Province Special Autonomy are then reviewed based on authority. Based on data processing in terms of authority, the following results were obtained:

• The authority related to education exhibits low effectiveness and efficiency.

• The authority related to health exhibits low effectiveness, transparency and responsiveness.

• The authority related to economy exhibits low efficiency, effectiveness and participatory level.

• The authority related to infrastructure exhibits low effectiveness, transparency, accountability and responsiveness.

The criteria for good governance in the Papua Province Special Autonomy were then reviewed based on financial arrangements. Based on data processing in terms of financial arrangements, the following results were obtained:

• Education financial management exhibits low effectiveness, transparency and accountability.

• Health financial management exhibits low effectiveness, participatory level and responsiveness.

• Economy Financial management exhibits low effectiveness, efficiency and participatory level.

• Infrastructure Financial management low effectiveness, accountability and responsiveness.

The implementation of the Papua Province Special Autonomy exhibits that the Special Autonomy policy exhibits ineffectiveness. Failure to correct it would cause policy failure.

3.3 Special Autonomy decentralization model for the Papua Province

Based on the previous discussion, the problems found in the Special Autonomy model of the Papua Province is caused by the following factors:

• Legal provisions are not mutually supportive. Most of the legislation is constructed to support a partial system. These regulations must be reformed to support the central government’s efforts comprehensively in the implementation of decentralization.

• There is a lack of Special Autonomy human resources. There is a lack of required personnel, skills, knowledge, motivation and good network.

• There is a lack of office infrastructure and facilities, requiring renovation, repair, improvement and development.

• The existing procedure and process system are suitable for centralized government systems. However, it is not specifically suited for a decentralized regional government system.

• The data collection, information system and information technology contained in the Special Autonomy Government exhibit weak hardware and software. Local governments are not familiar with modern information technology.

• Special Autonomy funding is less without regional revenue support. Limited regional administration increases obstacles in paying local taxes. This is one of the major obstacles to the decentralization process of the Papua Special Autonomy.

• Because of the absence of a network, optimal development of the implementation of special autonomy is currently impossible.

Furthermore, the asymmetric decentralization model on the Papua Province Special Autonomy needs to pay attention to the following matters:

• Increasing the Human Resources Capacity, by conducting activities such as improving the human resources skills and improving attitudes and motivations.

• The action strategy is carried out to improve government system capacity.

• The capacity-building strategy for human resources is conducted through training, recruitment, etc.

The Special Autonomy development model to improve the community welfare of the Papua Province is described in Figure 1.

4. Research implications

This research was conducted because of the phenomenon of Papua Province Special Autonomy. In addition, this research was also driven by the problems in the implementation of the Special Autonomy Policy for the Papua Province that had not borne optimum results. This study aims to make recommendations for the Special Autonomy policy of the Papua Province to improve community welfare.

To achieve the objectives of this study, research steps were carried out. The study reviewed legislation relating to the Special Autonomy of Papua Province, literature studies on Regional Autonomy models, development of research frameworks, data collection, and analysis and research conclusions and recommendations.

The research framework included three variables that play an important role in the Special Autonomy of Papua Province, namely, institutional, authority and financial arrangements. Each variable was used to determine Papua Province Special Autonomy indicators, namely, education, health, economy and infrastructure.

Furthermore, the institutional variables related to the implementation of the Papua Province Special Autonomy exhibits the following:

• Educational institution supported by the Papua Provincial Education Office exhibits low effectiveness and transparency.

• Health regulation institution supported by the Papua Provincial Health Office exhibits low effectiveness and responsiveness.

• Economic regulation institution supported by the Special Autonomy Bureau of the Papua Provincial Secretariat Sub-Division of Administration Bureau, Office of Tourism and Creative Economy, Regional Financial and Asset Management Agency (BPKAD) of Papua Province exhibit low effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability.

• Infrastructure regulation institution supported Papua Province Public Works Agency exhibits low effectiveness, transparency, accountability and responsiveness.

Authority variables relating to the implementation of the Papua Province Special Autonomy exhibits the following factors:

• The implementation of education regulation authority exhibits low effectiveness and responsiveness. It exhibits APK decline and increasing HDI;

• The implementation of health regulation authority exhibits low effectiveness, transparency, and responsiveness. It exhibits a large number of HIV/AIDS sufferer;

• The implementation of economic regulation authority exhibits low effectiveness, efficiency, and participatory level. It is exhibited through low economic growth; and

• The implementation of infrastructure development authority exhibits low effectiveness, transparency, accountability and responsiveness. It is exhibited through a low increase in the number of roads and bridges.

The financial regulation variables relating to the implementation of the Papua Province Special Autonomy is exhibited in the following factors:

• The implementation of educational development financial management exhibits low effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. A minimum allocation of 30 per cent of education funds outlined in Non-Formal and Formal ECD (5 per cent), 9-Year Elementary Education Elementary School (35 per cent), 9 Year-Junior High School Basic Education (25 per cent), High School (10 per cent), Vocational Middle School (5 per cent), Non-formal and Informal Education (10 per cent), Other relevant Higher Education and Education (10 per cent).

• The implementation of health regulation financial management exhibits low effectiveness, participatory level and responsiveness. It exhibited a minimum funding allocation of 15 per cent.

• Implementation of economic regulation financial management exhibits low effectiveness, efficiency and participatory level. It exhibited a minimum allocation of 25 per cent.

• Implementation of infrastructure development financial management exhibits low effectiveness, accountability and responsiveness. It exhibited a minimum allocation of 20 per cent.

This study exhibits the characteristics of the Papua Province Special Autonomy. The characteristics are identical to the asymmetric decentralization model. Its 20 years of implementation had not borne results. Lack of evaluation or improvement would deter the success of Special Autonomy for Papua Province.

Based on Katorobo’s (2004) asymmetric decentralization model, the local government of Papua Province possesses the authority to formulate policies and implement it independently without influence from the Central Government. This has been reflected in the existing institutional, authority and financial framework. However, to deter failure, it is also necessary to pay special attention and increase human resources capacity and improve supervision on institutions, authorities and financial arrangements related to education, health, economy and infrastructure.

Katorobo (2004) explains that decentralization can be classified into symmetrical decentralization and asymmetric decentralization. The asymmetric decentralization model is considered to be more effective than symmetrical decentralization.

However, research results exhibited low effectiveness of the asymmetric decentralization model of the Papua Province Special Autonomy. Katorobo’s (2004) theory stating that the asymmetric decentralization model is more effective than symmetrical decentralization cannot be proven here.

The effectiveness of decentralization does not depend on the symmetrical or asymmetrical implementation of decentralization systems. Other influential factors such as institutional systems, current transfer of authority and financial management directly related to welfare levels such as education, health, economic empowerment and infrastructure development.

Based on Katorobo’s (2004) theoretical research, the success of the asymmetric decentralization model requires determining factor, namely, the need for decentralizing governance. Governance values such as effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, responsiveness, accountability and participatory level must go hand in hand in implementing the asymmetric decentralization model. Decentralizing governance is very crucial in achieving the success of Papua’s Special Autonomy.

In terms of institutions, the possibility of empowerment or even the abolition of the MRP institution is an important consideration. The MRP institution places Papuan autonomy despite a lack of positive results. After Papua Province has been divided into Papua Province and West Papua, however, MRP institution of West Papua Province does not function.

In terms of finance, the amount of the national allocation of 2 per cent allocated for Otsus is divided into two provinces. The amount of funds accounts for about half of the Papua Province APBD funds. Should Otsus cease operation, it would cause substantial loss of development funds. Otsus needs to remain operational with system improvements and financial management. It could be conducted by considering financial distribution for developed regions in the coastal areas and plains rather than mountainous regions.

5. Suggestion

This study aimed to evaluate and recommend Special Autonomy policies to improve the community welfare of the Papua Province. However, further research needs to be done:

• The institutional formation has not been carried out effectively according to the appropriate authority. Based on the results of interviews from research sources, there were proposals to divide the Papua Province into several new Provinces based on the culture or ecosystem proximity. It is necessary to conduct further research related to institutional effectiveness in a smaller area.

• The authority of the Papua Province Government during the implementation of Special Autonomy is supported by financial policies different from other Provinces in Indonesia. The Special Autonomy scenario for the Papua Province is equal to 2 per cent of the national general allocation fund and additional infrastructure funds occupies a portion of around 58-61 per cent of Papua’s regional budget funds. Further research needs to be done on the continuation and improvement of the financial regulation model in the Papua Province Special Autonomy, especially on funds allocation and control.

• Financial arrangements for the Special Autonomy for Papua Province do not distinguish between high or low HDI levels. Regencies/cities with “high” HDI status such as Jayapura, Biak Numfor, Mimika, and Kota Jayapura do not require Special Autonomy treatment. Regencies with “moderate” status HDIs such as Merauke, Nabire, Yapen Islands, Sarmi, Keerom, Waropen and Supiori require Special Autonomy financial review. Papuan Regencies possessing of “low” HDI should continue Special Autonomy treatment.

Figures

Figure 1.

The Papua special autonomy model