Open Government in Indonesia: OECD Public Governance Reviews

OECD Public Governance Reviews
Open Government
in Indonesia
Open Government
in Indonesia
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the
OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not
necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status
of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers
and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Please cite this publication as:

OECD (2016), Open Government in Indonesia, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD
Publishing, Paris.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
ISBN 978-92-64-26589-9 (print)

ISBN 978-92-64-26590-5 (PDF)
Series: OECD Public Governance Reviews

ISSN 2219-0406 (print)
ISSN 2219-0414 (online)
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli
authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights,
East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Photo credits: Cover © Maksim Kabakou-Fotolia.com.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at:

www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm.
© OECD 2016
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD
publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and
teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given.
All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org.
Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed
directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du
droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.
FOREWORD – 3
Foreword
Over the last two decades, Indonesia has shown a strong commitment to
applying the principles of good governance to become a modern democratic
state that delivers efficient and effective services to citizens. Indonesia has
also recognised the value of open government principles to generating
inclusive growth by promoting transparency, accountability and stakeholder
engagement.
As a founding member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in
2011 and a member of the OGP Steering Committee continuously since the
OGP’s launch, Indonesia has shown strong interest in disseminating open
government principles and practices across Southeast Asia and worldwide.
Furthermore, Indonesia’s contribution to the United Nations’ 2030
Sustainable Development Agenda, and its commitment to the priorities
expressed therein, reflect its unique perspective on how to connect national
open government reforms to the country’s complementary multi-lateral
reform agendas.
In the context of its ongoing efforts to broaden and deepen the impact of
its government reform initiatives, Indonesia requested that the OECD
conduct an Open Government Review to highlight its achievements in these
areas and identify potential improvements. This review, implemented thanks
to the financial contribution of USAID (US Agency for International
Development) Indonesia, provides a comprehensive, evidence-based
assessment of Indonesia’s open government reforms. It was prepared within
the framework of the OECD Open Government Project, which supports
countries in designing and implementing open government reforms in
co-operation with citizens and non-governmental organisations. The
opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of
USAID.
The review features a comprehensive assessment of open government
reforms in Indonesia, with a focus on co-ordination, citizen engagement,
integrity, digital government, budget transparency and innovation in the
public sector. It also looks at how these elements are linked to the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It analyses Indonesia’s
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

4 – FOREWORD
institutions, legal framework and policies, and highlights achievements and

provides recommendations on how to overcome bottlenecks. The review’s
recommendations will help guide Indonesia’s efforts to apply the principles
of open government both horizontally across its national ministries and
vertically to subnational governments.
The review’s key finding is that Indonesia’s policy and legal
frameworks offer sound support for open government, though challenges
remain to ensure that the various ongoing initiatives are implemented
completely and effectively. To build a truly transparent and participative
public administration, Indonesia will need to continue to promote a greater
understanding of the value and importance of open government reforms
within the public administration. It will also need to ensure that public
officials have the necessary capacity to implement the reforms, both at
national and local levels of government. For Indonesia to be successful in
these efforts, it will have to rely more on its well-established civil society
and encourage the emergence of more non-governmental actors capable of
playing a positive role in the country’s open government agenda. Finally,
Indonesia must continue to support the links between its open government
reform efforts and other multilateral reform efforts, such as the SDGs, to
ensure that the various initiatives are mainstreamed into the country’s
national development processes.
The OECD’s Open Government Reviews contribute to the work on
public administration and management reform conducted by the OECD
Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate. The
Directorate’s mission is to help government at all levels design and
implement strategic, evidence-based and innovative policies to strengthen
public governance, respond effectively to diverse and disruptive economic,
social and environmental challenges and deliver on government’s
commitments to citizens.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS – 5
Acknowledgements
The OECD Secretariat wishes to express its gratitude to all those who
made this report possible, starting with the Indonesian government, which
has shown great commitment to this project. In particular, the OECD would
like to thank Yanuar Nugroho, Deputy Chief of Staff, Executive Office of
the President and his team, as well as Raden Siliwanti, Director for State
Apparatus, Ministry of National Development Planning and her team for
their continuous support.
The OECD would also like to thank representatives from the Indonesian
civil society organisations, who have shared their insights and enthusiasm,
as well as the following public officials who acted as peer reviewers:
Otávio Moreira de Castro Neves (Co-ordinator for Open Government and
Transparency, Corruption Prevention and Transparency Secretariat, Office
of the Comptroller General, Federative Republic of Brazil); Pepe Tonin
(Finance and Control Analyst, Office of the Comptroller General, Federative
Republic of Brazil); YS Lee (Executive Principal, National Information
Society Agency, Republic of Korea); and Chul Jeong (Deputy Director,
Public Data Policy Division, Ministry of the Interior, Republic of Korea).
The OECD team also wishes to acknowledge the significant contributions
made by the representatives of the Government of Indonesia, in particular
Tara Hidayat, Fithya Findie, Husni Rohman and Muhammad Daud, who
have been instrumental in the production of the review, including defining
its scope, mobilising all relevant stakeholders and providing their feedback.
The OECD is also grateful for their help in organising the missions of
OECD staff and experts and facilitating data collection.
This Review was prepared by the Public Governance and Territorial
Development (GOV) Directorate of the OECD, headed by Rolf Alter. It is
part of the series of Open Government Reviews developed by the
Governance Reviews and Partnerships Division, under the responsibility of
Martin Forst. Alessandro Bellantoni, Co-ordinator of the OECD Open
Government Project, led the review and drafting process, provided extensive
comments on all chapters, and harmonised the narrative. Craig Matasick
provided support throughout the review process and drafted the
Introduction, Chapter 3 (Citizen participation) and Chapter 8 (on the link

6 – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
between open government and the UN Sustainable Development Goals) in

collaboration with Alessandro Bellantoni. The Review was written by a
team comprised of: Eva Beuselinck (Chapter 2 on Centre of government co-
ordination), Jeroen Michels (Chapter 4 on Public sector integrity),
Barbara Ubaldi and Rodrigo Mejia Ricart (Chapter 5 on Digital
government), Ronnie Downes and Annamaria Tuske (Chapter 6 on Budget
transparency) and Marco Daglio (Chapter 7 on Public sector innovation).
Sarah Puppini-Zaft and Nadjad Bacar provided administrative support.
Editorial work and quality control were provided by Will Bromberg, Julie
Harris and Ciara Muller, who prepared the manuscript for publication.
The United States Agency for International Development funded the
Indonesia Open Government Review. The OECD wishes to thank
Miles Toder, Zeric Smith, David Hoffman and Diah Januarti for their
generous support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 7
Table of contents
Acronyms and abbreviations ..................................................................................... 12

Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 15
Assessment and recommendations ............................................................................ 19
Chapter 1. Context and drivers of open government in Indonesia ......................... 45
Cultural, historical, and political context................................................................... 46
Economic context ...................................................................................................... 48
Perceptions of public institutions and the space for open government...................... 51
The principles of open government ........................................................................... 58
Legal, policy, and strategic framework for open government in Indonesia .............. 61
Beyond open government .......................................................................................... 66
Organisation of the open government review............................................................ 69
Notes.......................................................................................................................... 70
References ................................................................................................................. 71
Chapter 2. Steering and co-ordination of open government policies and
practices in Indonesia ................................................................................................. 73
The centre of government as a strategic player ......................................................... 74
Centre of government and public administration reform in Indonesia ...................... 80
The open government agenda .................................................................................... 90
Opportunities to strengthen open government through the centre of government .. 101
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 106
Notes........................................................................................................................ 107
References ............................................................................................................... 108
Chapter 3. Citizen engagement in Indonesia .......................................................... 111
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 112
OECD approach to citizen engagement................................................................... 112
Status of civil society in Indonesia .......................................................................... 117
Legal framework of citizen engagement in Indonesia ............................................. 120
Citizen engagement in practice ............................................................................... 127
Towards a strategic approach to civic engagement in Indonesia............................. 143

8 – TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notes........................................................................................................................ 149
References ............................................................................................................... 150
Annex 3.A1 Primary CSO partners on open government activities
in Indonesia ............................................................................................................. 153
Chapter 4. From transparency and participation to integrity in
Indonesia .................................................................................................................... 155
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 156
Participation in the policy cycle .............................................................................. 158
Strengthening the watchdog: Towards effective accountability
mechanisms for citizens .......................................................................................... 168
Awareness raising and citizen education ................................................................. 178
References ............................................................................................................... 182
Chapter 5. Digital government as an enabler for open government
in Indonesia ............................................................................................................... 187
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 188
Assessing the digital context of Indonesia .............................................................. 191
Scaling up existing initiatives that use ICTs to support an open,
transparent and participatory government ............................................................... 195
Achieving a whole-of-government approach in government use of
ICTs in support of open government ....................................................................... 200
Adopting a strategic approach to alternative ICT channels to maximise the
outreach of government in a cost-effective way ...................................................... 212
One Data for Sustainable Development .................................................................. 218
Notes........................................................................................................................ 231
References ............................................................................................................... 231
Chapter 6. Open, transparent and inclusive budgeting in Indonesia ................... 235
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 236
OECD principles for open, transparent and inclusive budgeting ............................ 238
Budget transparency in Indonesia ........................................................................... 242
Public participation in budgeting in Indonesia ........................................................ 254
Notes........................................................................................................................ 267
References ............................................................................................................... 267
Chapter 7. Public-sector innovation in Indonesia .................................................. 271
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 272
Institutional framework to support innovation in Indonesia.................................... 274
Barriers to public-sector innovation ........................................................................ 278

The role of networks of innovators ......................................................................... 281

Successful practices in public-sector innovation in Indonesia ................................ 282
Notes........................................................................................................................ 287
References ............................................................................................................... 287
Chapter 8. Open government in Indonesia and the link with the
UN Sustainable Development Goals ........................................................................ 289
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 290
Current thinking on the connection between the SDGs and broader
governance reform efforts ....................................................................................... 294
The substantive link between open government principles and the SDGs .............. 295
Open government support for the process of implementing the SDGs ................... 304
Examples from Indonesia ........................................................................................ 311
References ............................................................................................................... 317
Annex 8A.1 SDG targets clearly informed and supported by open government
policies and principles ............................................................................................. 319

10 – TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables
Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia ............................... 63
Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia (continued) ............ 64
Table 3.1. Number of PPID offices established within public institutions ............ 134
Table 5.1. Roles and responsibilities for digital government in Indonesia ............ 202
Table 6.1. Legal framework for budget transparency and public participation ..... 242
Table 6.2. Legal framework for gender budgeting and participation in
Indonesia ........................................................................................................ 260
Table 6.3. Key local government budgetary documentation ................................. 263
Figures
Figure 1.1. Level of real GDP in selected ASEAN countries .................................. 49
Figure 1.2. Absolute poverty rate (%), 2000-14 ...................................................... 49
Figure 1.3. Indonesia growth rates (2011-14) .......................................................... 50
Figure 1.4. Unemployment rates in Indonesia and selected countries ..................... 51
Figure 1.5. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and ASEAN countries (2014) 52
Figure 1.6. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and OECD countries (2014) ... 53
Figure 1.7. Is corruption widespread throughout the government in this
country, or not? (2015)..................................................................................... 53
Figure 1.8. Do you have confidence in the national government? (2015) ............... 54
Figure 1.9. Correlation between confidence in national government and
perception of government corruption (2015) ................................................... 55
Figure 1.10. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and ASEAN
countries (2014) ............................................................................................... 56
Figure 1.11. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and OECD
countries (2014) ............................................................................................... 57
Figure 1.12. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia (2003-14)............ 57
Figure 1.13. OECD open government theory of change .......................................... 59
Figure 2.1. Focus of the centre of government ........................................................ 75
Figure 2.2. National Open Government Secretariat: Organisational chart .............. 92
Figure 2.3. Monitoring of open government initiatives across OECD countries... 105
Figure 2.4. Impact evaluation of open government initiatives across
OECD countries ............................................................................................. 106
Figure 3.1. Defining information, consultation, and active participation .............. 113
Figure 3.2. Reasons for partnering with citizens and CSOs for public service
delivery .......................................................................................................... 114
Figure 3.3. Number of OECD countries with law on access to information ......... 121
Figure 3.4. Number of OECD countries with laws on ombudsman
institutions (1960-08) ..................................................................................... 126
Figure 3.5. Number of complaints received by the ORI 2009-15 .......................... 127

Figure 4.1. Interplay between citizens and the public sector for integrity ............. 157
Figure 4.2. Countries having adopted regulatory practices for lobbying ............... 168
Figure 5.1. Recommendation of the OECD Council on Digital Government
Strategies ........................................................................................................ 191
Figure 5.2. Internet users per 100 people in Indonesia .......................................... 192
Figure 5.3. Mobile cell phone subscriptions per 100 people in Indonesia ............. 192
Figure 5.4. Internet users as percentage of the entire population in selected
countries ......................................................................................................... 193
Figure 5.5. Per capita gross regional domestic product without oil and gas at
2000 constant market prices by province (thousand rupiahs), 2013 .............. 194
Figure 5.6. E-Participation Index ........................................................................... 196
Figure 5.7. Online Service Index ........................................................................... 196
Figure 5.8. UN e-Government Index ..................................................................... 201
Figure 5.9. ICT governance structures across the OECD ...................................... 203
Figure 5.10. Levers of ICT governance across OECD countries ........................... 205
Figure 5.11. Selected central government Twitter accounts .................................. 216
Figure 5.12. Indonesian institutional accounts on Facebook ................................. 216
Figure 5.13. OURdata Index: Open, useful and reusable government
data, 2014 ....................................................................................................... 228
Figure 6.1. OECD flowchart of budget transparency ............................................ 240
Figure 6.2. OECD flowchart of openness, inclusiveness and participation in
budgeting........................................................................................................ 241
Figure 6.3. Links between government developmental planning and budgeting... 244
Figure 6.4. Annual budget cycle of Indonesia1 ...................................................... 248
Figure 6.5. Format of the budget............................................................................ 250
Figure 6.6. Use of citizens’ budgets in OECD countries in 2012 .......................... 252
Figure 6.7. Institutionalisation of participatory planning....................................... 255
Figure 6.8. Transfers to regional development and village funds, 2005-16........... 256
Figure 6.9. Land and forest governance index in selected districts 2012 .............. 262
Figure 6.10. Composition of revenue on subnational levels of
government, 2008-12 ..................................................................................... 264
Figure 6.11. Composition of expenditure on subnational levels of
government, 2008-12 ..................................................................................... 264
Figure 8.1. Percentage of countries involved in various types of public
engagement .................................................................................................... 299
Figure 8.2. Stages of the policy cycle .................................................................... 308
Note: The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli
authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan
Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international
law.

12 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronyms and abbreviations
ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations

ATI Access to Information
Ministry of National Development Planning
Bappenas
(Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional)
Financial and Development Supervisory Agency
BPKP (Sejarah Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan
Pembangunan)
BPK RI Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia
CIO Chief Information Officer
CoG Centre of Government
CPI Corruption Perception Index
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DPD Regional Representatives Council
DPR House of Representatives
DPRD Regional House of Representatives
EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
FOI Freedom of Information
German Society for International Co-operation
GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit)
GOI Government of Indonesia
GRB Gender Responsive Budget
ICEL Indonesia Centre for Environmental Law
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
ICW Indonesia Corruption Watch
International NGO Forum on Indonesian
INFID
Development
IPC Indonesian Parliamentary Centre
IRM Independent Reporting Mechanism
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic
KemenPAN Reform (Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur
Negara)
KOPEL Komite Pemantau Legislatif
Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi
KPK
Pemberantasan Korupsi)

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS – 13
Institute of Public Administration (Lembaga

LAN
Administrasi Negara)
Indonesian Court Monitoring Society (Masyarakat
MaPPI
Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia)
MoF Ministry of Finance
MTEF Medium-Term Expenditure Framework
People's Consultative Assembly (Majelis
MPR
Permusyawaratan Rakyat)
NIS National Integrity System
OG Open Government
OGD Open Government Data
OGI Open Government Indonesia
OGP Open Government Partnership
OGR Open Government Review
OPSI OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation
National Ombudsman Commission (Ombudsman
ORI
Republik Indonesia)
Centre for Regional Information and Studies (Pusat
PATTIRO
Telaah dan Informasi Regional)
Documentation and Information Management
PPID Offices (Pejabat Pengelola Informasi &
Dokumentasi)
RPJMN Medium-Term Development Plans
RPJPN National Long-Term Development Plan
SAI Supreme Audit Institutions
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
Hajj Integrated Information and Computerised
SISKOHAT
System
National Anti-Corruption Strategy (Strategi
Stranas PPK Nasional Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan
Korupsi)
TI Transparency International
TI-I Transparency International Indonesia
Presidential Delivery Unit for Development
Monitoring and Oversight (Unit Kerja Presiden
UKP4
Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian
Pembangunan)
UNCAC United Nation Convention against Corruption
United States Agency for International
USAID
Development
WHO World Health Organization
Yayasan Penguatan Partisipasi, Inisiatif dan
YAPPIKA
Kemitraan Masyarakat Indonesia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 15
Executive summary
Indonesia has made continuous progress in promoting transparent and

inclusive policy making since its democratic reforms began in 1998. As a
founding member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and a leading
member and the largest economy in the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN), Indonesia has played a key role in disseminating open
government principles and practices. The administration of President Joko
Widodo (Jokowi) has reinforced Indonesia’s commitment to open
government and has maintained Indonesia’s leadership within the OGP and
in the design and drafting of the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs).
Indonesia must build on its legal, policy and institutional foundations to
address the challenges of aligning national and local reform priorities by
pursuing a whole-of-government “open state” approach. It should also seek
to ensure that its open government reforms support inclusive growth and
other multilateral reform initiatives, such as SDG implementation.
Steering and co-ordinating open government policies and practices
The centre of government plays an important role in policy development

and co-ordination, strategic planning, leading cross-departmental policy
initiatives and monitoring progress and outcomes. Since 1998, Indonesia has
sought to embed open government principles in its centre of government and
public administration reform activities. Throughout Indonesia’s public
administration reform efforts, strategic planning and performance
management activities, the principles of transparency and accountability are
gaining visibility and provide promising areas for expanding open
government activities. Indonesia’s centre of government should therefore
focus on helping to build capacity in the public administration to link open
government activities to its other public-sector reform priorities and on
ensuring that open government principles are reflected throughout the
design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting and
feedback of public policies.

16 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Citizen engagement in Indonesia
Decentralisation reforms and various laws allowing for increased

freedom of association and access to information have provided citizens
with new opportunities to engage with the government at all levels and to
participate in policy making and service delivery. The government has
supported participation through, for example, Public Information Offices,
legal protections for whistleblowers, public involvement in service
monitoring, participatory forums for national and local development
planning, and civil society involvement in developing the OGP Action Plan.
The government will need to respond more effectively to public inputs and
ensure that citizen engagement processes succeed in expanding public
involvement. Indonesia should also develop a more structured whole-of-
government strategy for civic engagement, clarify and consolidate
guidelines for citizen participation, continue to promote public access to
information and evaluate the impact of citizen engagement efforts more
systematically.
Open government, integrity and anti-corruption in Indonesia
The government of Indonesia is committed to tackling corruption and

building a culture of integrity in the public sector. In addition to the
Corruption Eradication Commission, several other citizen feedback channels
and complaint services (such as LAPOR) have been developed to encourage
government accountability. In several areas, however, Indonesia will need to
ensure that relevant laws are implemented effectively and that transparency
measures lead to real accountability. Indonesia should also improve the
connections between its reporting channels, provide better protection for
whistleblowers and enhance asset declaration regulations. Opportunities also
exist to further connect the Indonesian anti-corruption agenda with
international best practices, instruments and objectives.
Open and digital government
The digital transformations that have changed how people work, access
information and share data present opportunities and challenges for
Indonesia. Connected and informed constituencies are demanding more
tailored and agile interactions with governments, more effective policies and
improved public-sector performance. In addition to responding to these
demands, budgetary pressures and the search for efficiency gains have
prompted Indonesia to expand digitisation efforts, such as through the online
Hajj pilgrimage management tool and the central open data portal, which is
designed to provide access to key datasets and improve the transparency of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 17
public-sector activities. Indonesia will also need to address the digital

divide, where urban, relatively wealthy and younger citizens have much
higher Internet and mobile connections rates. Indonesia must therefore
develop multi-channel service delivery models to support its digital tools
and expand citizen engagement. Indonesia must also build government
capacity and develop a coherent approach to the use of digital technologies
to reap the full benefits offered by the information and communications
technology tools already in place.
Public financial management: Budget transparency and citizen

participation
Budget transparency promotes access to and openness about how

governments plan budgetary policy and raise and use financial resources.
While Indonesia’s budget process has generally reflected its movement
toward open government by formalising citizen engagement processes in the
development of the budget priorities, the later phases of the budget cycle,
particularly during the parliamentary budget review and approval processes,
have not yet fully integrated the principles of transparency, accountability
and inclusiveness. This could be improved by mandating the publication of
meeting minutes, data and decisions. Furthermore, Indonesia’s diverse
institutional landscape and strong subnational governments pose challenges
to ensuring the uniform implementation of national laws such as those on
budget information transparency and to disseminating good practices
throughout the public administration.
Innovation in the public sector
Indonesia is strengthening the institutional capacity of its public sector

to develop innovative solutions to drive change and increase government
openness. Open government principles can likewise promote innovation by
enhancing public involvement to collect information, share best practices
and generate ideas. Like many OECD countries, Indonesia does not have a
stand-alone whole-of-government policy on fostering innovation in the
public sector and lacks clear technical guidance, standard operating
procedures and a comprehensive incentive system to motivate public
officials to innovate. Nevertheless, Indonesia exhibits a number of important
examples of public-sector innovation at all government levels, touching on
areas including health, education, business licensing, access to services, etc.
Indonesia would benefit from scaling up relevant initiatives and
strengthening cross-government co-ordination to avoid duplication and to
help streamline efforts.

18 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Open government and the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
Linking the broad themes of improved governance, transparency and

inclusion found in both the OGP principles and the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development is particularly relevant for Indonesia, as the
country played a leading role in establishing the OGP and designing the
SDGs. Open government practices contribute to the substantive targets of
the SDGs primarily through Goal 16, though the principles of engagement,
transparency and accountability also support the implementation of all SDG
targets that seek to enhance social, economic, and political inclusion, expand
community engagement, and increase access to information. Importantly,
furthermore, open government principles can also support the process that
leads to the identification, implementation and monitoring of the SDGs.
Through its establishment of an SDG Secretariat to co-ordinate the
government’s response, Indonesia has recognised the importance of acting
strategically in pursuing the SDGs. Continuing to develop the linkages
between Indonesia’s open government activities, such as the OGP National
Action Plan development process, and the design and implementation
process for the SDGs, will also help ensure that the government’s open
government agenda simultaneously supports the SDGs.

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 19
Assessment and recommendations
The Government of Indonesia (GOI) has asked the OECD to assess how
open government policies and principles are integrated in and contribute to
Indonesia’s broader public governance reforms and to provide
recommendations based on OECD good practices, principles and
instruments. The present OECD Open Government Review (henceforth the
review) covers the following areas: open government context and drivers,
steering and co-ordination of open government policies and initiatives,
citizen participation, integrity and anti-corruption, ICTs and open data,
budget transparency, and innovation in the public sector. A final chapter is
dedicated to the links between open government and the UN Sustainable
Development Goals.
Given the country’s impressive though unfinished liberalisation process,
which started in 1998, the question identified by the current administration
is how open government principles and practices can help the country
expand on the successes made to date and how to address the areas still left
for improvement. While Indonesia’s focus on implementing open
government reforms dates back to 2011, the recent approval, in September
2015, of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
provides an opportunity to explore the links between the principles of
transparency, accountability and citizen participation with the national
development agenda, as explicitly requested by Indonesia.
Indonesia’s efforts to implement open government initiatives are an
extension and continuation of the country’s broader reform efforts. The fall
of President Suharto in 1998 initiated the Reformasi period, in which the
country pursued more open and liberal policies by, inter alia, providing for
greater freedom of speech and an enhanced role for civic participation. This
era of reform also led to broad decentralisation, whereby sub-national
governments have started to play a fundamental role in the provision of
government services.
Despite these efforts, however, Indonesia’s governance indicators show
a complex picture and suggest that the reform efforts are not yet complete.
On the one hand, citizen confidence in the government and the country’s
relative good performance within Southeast Asia regarding perceptions of

20 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
freedoms of expression, association and media suggest that Indonesia is well

positioned to continue to use open government reforms to build on these
achievements. Conversely, the citizens’ perception of high corruption and
relative low government effectiveness call to attention pressing governance
challenges.
These challenges are particularly important to tackle given that many of
the development challenges the country faces – including more and better
infrastructure, improving health and education outcomes, strengthening the
social safety net and fighting poverty and inequality, and responding to the
diverse needs of various ethno-cultural and regionally based groups – have
significant governance implications. Good governance, including the
government’s ability to set, co-ordinate, implement and monitor public-
sector reforms, is therefore key to ensuring that policy objectives can be
achieved efficiently and effectively (OECD, 2013).
Since the start of Indonesia’s democratisation process, the number of
civil society groups and the prominence of their role has grown due to
increasingly favourable policy and legal frameworks at the central level, as
well as to the de-centralisation process that has created new opportunities
for the public to engage in policy design and service delivery at the sub-
national level. Indonesia’s civil society organisations have played – and
continue to play – a crucial role in promoting and implementing open
government activities in the country.
The first dedicated push toward implementing specific open government
policies came during the administration of President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono. It was under President Yudhoyono that the country helped
found the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in September 2011 and
became compliant with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(EITI) in October 2014. The Yudhoyono administration also established the
Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan
(UKP4), which was tasked with supervising, co-ordinating and helping to
ensure the successful implementation of open government initiatives.
During the election campaign of 2014, President Jokowi pledged to
bring a more inclusive style of politics to the office of the president, and he
has maintained the administration’s focus on implementing open
government principles. Despite the continuity between administrations in
their support for open government policies, the transition between
administrations was disruptive nonetheless. With the change of government
at the end of 2014, the UKP4 was dissolved, and the new government did
not establish arrangements for the management of open government
initiatives until 2015. Importantly, however, many of the open government
programmes implemented under President Yudhoyono have remained, and

many of UKP4’s previous functions were taken over by the Ministry of

National Development Planning (Bappenas) and the Executive Office of the
President, which together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs now form the
National Open Government Secretariat that has the mandate to co-ordinate
the national and international open government agenda. Furthermore, the
country’s election to the OGP Support Unit Steering Committee for 2015-18
and the Jokowi administration’s commitment to serve as co-chair of the
OECD’s Network for Open and Innovative Government in Southeast Asia,
which was launched in Jakarta in March 2015, both highlight Indonesia’s
dedication to promoting open government globally.
Nevertheless, Indonesia is faced with the challenges of translating its
broad strategy into specific goals, synchronising its work with the local
level, and ensuring buy-in for the reform process across national ministries
and agencies. These challenges suggest that the Government of Indonesia
should seek to develop an “open state” that would formalise collaboration of
open government issues across the executive, legislative and judicial
branches to promote a whole-of-government approach. This OECD Open
Government Review will look at how Indonesia can respond to these
challenges and develop a comprehensive policy to streamline open
government and civic engagement.
Steering and co-ordination of open government policies and practices
Broadly, the institutions at the centre of government (CoG) – namely,

those institutions that provide direct support and advice to the head of
government – primarily direct the steering and co-ordination of Indonesia’s
open government policies and reforms at the national level. Indonesia finds
itself in a strong position to foster open government policies and practices.
First, being a co-founder of the OGP and having a tradition of national
institutional structures promoting the open government agenda, such as
UKP4 and more recently the National Open Government Secretariat, has
helped provide the institutional infrastructure to support open government.
Furthermore, Indonesia’s legal and regulatory framework on open
government generally supports transparency and accountability via the
Constitution, Freedom of Information Law of 2008, etc., and the country’s
key strategic policy documents such as the Presidential Priorities and the
Medium-Term National Development Plan 2015-19 all reflect open
government priorities.
Since the Reformasi era’s democratisation push, Indonesia has identified
openness in government as a tool to achieve its goals of providing better
access to and quality of public services. In addition to the country’s specific
focus on open government, three broad reform areas affect the

implementation of the country’s open government reforms: the bureaucratic

reform agenda, the country’s decentralisation and its strategic planning
process. Each of these three reform areas can be linked with specific open
government priorities and goals, such as increased transparency or increased
consultation and participation.
The country’s bureaucratic reform efforts show how open government
priorities such as transparency and accountability are part of the broader
public administration reform agenda. For example, the current 2015-19
Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap provides detailed plans to evolve toward a
bureaucracy that is clean, accountable, effective and efficient. Through its
leadership in the current Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, the Ministry of
Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (KemenPAN) plays an important
role as a CoG actor.
Second, Indonesia’s de-centralisation push since the turn of the 21st
century has changed the structure of the public administration, as well as the
state-citizen relationship, and as the decision-making process came
(physically) much closer to citizens, new opportunities for public
consultation and participation arose. Despite this shift, there have been
concerns about the lack of clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the
different levels of government as well as the relationships between them.
Moving forward, the challenge will be to grant both administrative and
financial autonomy to local governments while ensuring that central co-
ordination is performed in a way and to an extent that is locally acceptable
and that the central government’s national priorities are met. The country’s
CoG actors will play an important role in enabling open government and in
managing the complexity, size and different levels of capacity that affect the
multi-level governance dynamics.
Finally, the country’s strategic planning process and increased attention
to performance management offer possible entry points to anchor the open
government agenda. In response to Law No. 25 of 2004 on the National
Development Planning System, the Government of Indonesia is required to
draft National Long-Term Development Plans (RPJPN) every 20 years.
Within the long-term development plan cycle, the government is required to
draft National Medium-Term Development Plans (RPJMN) every five
years. These five-year cycles overlap with presidential terms of office so
that the administration’s plans align with the vision and mission of the
National Long-Term Development Plan.
The goal of the current National Medium-Term Development Plan
2015-19 with respect to public governance is to build a government that is
“clean, effective, democratic and reliable.” Importantly, the plan’s strategies
regarding public administration and open government reforms also support

the Jokowi administration’s National Priority Agenda (Nawa Cita), which

synthesises the nine presidential policy priorities for the 2014-19 period and
incorporates a clear reference to open government. The RPJMN also
informs the annual strategic planning process. Through this system,
Bappenas has established itself as a key CoG actor to foster strategic
coherence throughout the public sector.
By fostering its open government agenda at the international, national
and local level, the country’s multi-level approach to open government is
ambitious, although it also presents some challenges. In particular, there is a
risk that efforts to promote open government are somewhat scattered and
disconnected. The newly created National Open Government Secretariat,
staffed by personnel from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bappenas and the
Executive Office of the President (KSP) was designed in part to mitigate
that risk.
The government envisions six major functions for the National Open
Government Secretariat: public policy and co-ordination; open data and IT
platforms; capacity development; monitoring, evaluation and knowledge
management; public outreach and communication; and finance and
administration. The National Open Government Secretariat will also play a
co-ordinating role for provincial and district/municipality-level open
government efforts. Given the country’s de-centralisation process and,
hence, the fact that open government is to a large extent is expected to be
delivered at the sub-national level, the catalyst role of such sub-national
secretariats will be important.
The GOI has made important progress in developing the legal, policy
and institutional framework supporting open government. Moving forward,
the GOI must continue to focus on ensuring that these developments are
reflected throughout the policy cycle. Strong leadership from the CoG will
continue to be critical in guaranteeing that the government is able to
implement its open government priorities. The OECD recommends the
following proposals to support Indonesia’s centre of government co-
ordination efforts:
• Strengthen the connections across, and mutual reinforcement of,
different governance agendas, including the Presidential Priorities;
Annual, Medium- and Long-term National Development Plans; OGP
Action Plans; and other reform agendas such as the Bureaucratic Reform
Roadmap. This suggests, among other implications, that the CoG should
develop a coherent strategic approach, carefully consider
complementarity across initiatives and identify multiplier effects.

• Improve co-ordination horizontally (between the CoG and line

ministries) and vertically (between central government and de-
centralised levels of government) to help maintain broad ownership of
the open government agenda. Indonesia is characterised by a high level
of complexity when dealing with governance issues, both because of its
size and its de-centralised governance structure. The GOI should pursue
the active involvement of both line ministries and de-centralised
governmental structures throughout the policy cycle, as well as the
development of appropriate incentives to deliver the open government
agenda.
• Connect the planning process for open government initiatives with
strategic follow-up of deliverables, particularly by providing sufficient
resources for the monitoring and evaluation of results. Specifically, the
CoG should ensure that the OGP Action Plan cycle is linked to the
national planning and budget cycle to make sure that open government
activities have a secured budget and are part of the national monitoring
system. A major task – or challenge – of the National Open Government
Secretariat is, next to the promotion of the open government agenda, to
link the country’s efforts under the UN Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) with its ongoing public service reform efforts and to help ensure
that the SDGs are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans and
initiatives.
• Build local capacity and foster a culture among civil servants that
supports open government principles, so that understanding of and
support for open government reforms are central to the public sector’s
activities.
The role of citizens and civil society groups in public governance has
continued to grow in importance since the democratic reforms that began in
1998. This has been due to the dual effects of laws that have allowed for
increased freedom of association and access to information, as well as the
country’s de-centralisation process. Together, these reforms have provided
citizens with new opportunities to engage with the government at all levels,
as well as to participate in policy making and service delivery.
Good information on the make-up of the Indonesian civil society sector
is limited. While a detailed review of the sector in 2012 estimated that there
were roughly 2,300 active and viable civil service organisations (CSOs)
throughout Indonesia, the lack of details creates difficulties for other CSOs,
donors and the Government of Indonesia (GOI) to identify where the

organisations are operating, what they are working on and how to contact
them. The report also noted that most CSOs active in the field of open
government in Indonesia are located disproportionately in Jakarta, and they
generally focus on service delivery or organising communities for self-help
rather than on macro-level changes (AusAID, 2012) or on advocacy on
specific policy issues.
Despite the progress made by civil society organisations since
Indonesia’s democratisation, the legacy of the country’s political control
prevented the growth of a vibrant public sector, and it has only been over the
past two decades that CSOs have been able to play a key role in identifying
solutions. Another legacy of the country’s past repression of civil society
groups is that government officials have often considered the design and
delivery of public services as their domain and view citizens only as end
users, not as stakeholders. While this attitude is clearly changing, the
capacity of CSOs and the government to translate citizen preferences into
policies does not have deep roots in Indonesia (Antlöv et al, 2010) and
would benefit from greater support both by the government and by the
international community.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the country’s legal framework,
beginning with the 1945 Constitution and including subsequent laws,
regulations and presidential decrees, provides a sound foundation for
openness and citizen engagement. Namely, it recognises the public’s right to
participation, guarantees access to information and provides the mechanisms
through which information is disseminated, and establishes various
independent state agencies and accountability mechanisms.
The public right to information is broadly acknowledged in the 1945
Constitution and in Law No. 14/2008 on Freedom of Information. These
legal instruments guarantee access to information (ATI) and require
proactive publication by most public bodies (with the exception of some law
enforcement and judiciary offices) when part or all of their funds originate
from a government budget. Importantly, Indonesian law guarantees the
government’s obligation to provide information as well as the citizens’ right
to know. It also requires that public agencies establish an information and
documentation system to manage public information properly and efficiently
in order to ensure accessibility.
The mechanism through which government offices disseminate
information in Indonesia is primarily the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi &
Dokumentasi (PPID) offices. The law also establishes the support
mechanisms to decide on implementing procedures, settle disputes brought
by requesters of information and report on the implementation of the law to
the president and the parliament. Regarding the PPID offices, even though

the government implemented Law 14/2008 in 2010, as of March 2015, less

than 50% of the PPID units have been established across all levels of
government. Without PPID offices, the public’s access to information is
limited, as there is no other designated government unit designed to handle
requests for information.
One factor that has held back the institution of PPID offices has been the
extent to which the implementation depends on local governments that have
varying degrees of interest and capacity. Furthermore, many offices have not
faced much public pressure for improved access to public information and
thus have not prioritised the law’s implementation. The GOI’s approach is
therefore to enhance both the “supply” of information (the ability for the
government to provide information) and the “demand” for information (the
desire of the public to obtain information). Establishing PPID offices is a
critical step in supporting the supply of information and ensuring that the
law functions as intended.
The 1945 Constitution also recognises explicitly the right to associate,
assemble and express opinions. Subsequent laws and other legal instruments
have further ensured and delineated the rights of civil society organisations,
as well as the public’s right to monitor the delivery of public services and
participate in policy planning and evaluation. The country’s legal and policy
framework also provides support for the protection of whistleblowers and
establishes the foundation for public participation in the overview of public
service provision, including via the creation of the National Ombudsman
Commission (Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, or ORI) and through
platforms such as LAPOR, which serves as a public online platform that
provides a complaint-handling service at the national and sub-national
levels.
The primary legal vehicle that supports citizen participation is Law No.
25/2004 on National Development Planning, which seeks to “optimise
public participation” and delineates the public’s ability to participate
formally in government activities via the Multi-Stakeholder Consultation
Forum for Development Planning process (Musyawarah Rencana
Pembangunan, or Musrenbang). While the Musrenbang process is an
important formal opportunity to involve the public in determining
development priorities across all levels of government, both government and
CSO representatives noted its limitations, primarily involving identifying
the correct CSO partners, ensuring that public inputs are taken into account,
and reporting on their impact to citizens and civil society to avoid
consultation fatigue or – worse – mistrust and lack of participation in future
consultations.

The government’s explicit intention of improving its relationship with

citizens is also evidenced in the relevance of this topic in its National
Annual, Mid- and Long-Term Development Plans and the administration’s
governing platform, Nawa Cita. The mutually reinforcing nature of these
strategies signals the country’s formal recognition of the public’s essential
role in setting and monitoring policies and services. Because of this, CSOs
expressed the hope that the administration will pursue the open government
priorities expressed in the long-term and medium-term strategies by, for
example, ensuring that the National Open Government Secretariat is made
permanent, thereby giving a sign of stability and, in the future, helping to
smooth the transition between administrations.
The OECD has developed a number of recommendations based on the
analysis of current civil engagement practices and strategic opportunities in
Indonesia:
• Develop a more structured and consistent whole-of-government
policy to streamline open government and civic engagement.
Although open government and civil engagement priorities are included
in the country’s development strategies, Indonesia should focus on
translating its national vision on open government into specific actions,
including timelines, lead agencies and actors, etc.
• Clarify the guidelines for citizen participation. Establishing a
structured, systematic and transparent mechanism for citizen
engagement would help foster the involvement of a larger share of the
population. For example, the government could develop a Code of
Practice on Citizen Consultation to delineate the role of public
consultation in the law-making process, specify the opportunities for
public engagement and create mechanisms for government reviews on
how consultation processes influence policy.
• Promote a culture of civic engagement by communicating outcomes
and success stories with the public and civil servants. Investing in
outreach and communication capacities – such as providing guidelines
for public communication and training for government officials – is
essential to promoting effective engagement, as it helps give citizens the
sense that their time and efforts are meaningful. Clearer communication,
especially regarding success stories, can also help build support for open
government initiatives throughout the government.
• Support the capacity of the country’s civil society organisations to
engage actively in public governance activities. Despite the deepening
of the relationship between the public and the government in Indonesia,

there is still scope to increase the role of CSOs. To this end, the GOI
can:
− Provide tools and training opportunities for civil society
representatives and the public to help support the planning,
implementation and evaluation of government policies and to secure
their position as partners in the provision of government services.
Building CSOs’ capacity to advocate for the public and to take full
advantage of enhanced engagement mechanisms will be critical in
improving citizen engagement in Indonesia, particularly outside of
Jakarta.
− Identify opportunities to engage with the public in the co-delivery of
public services.
• Promote public access to information. Despite Indonesia’s legal
framework supporting ATI, the government could do more to ensure
freedom of information by helping to ensure the anonymity of
information requests and promoting access to information. Improving
sensitisation efforts to build knowledge of the FOI law and building
human resources capacity would also help facilitate the establishment of
PPID offices.
• Increase the country’s capacity to evaluate the impact of citizen

engagement efforts. For example, this could include enhanced tracking
of statistics and information on the number and results of public
consultations, as well as more consistent data collection of such
interactions at the local level. The national government could also
facilitate co-ordination across the public engagement tools that are
already in place and deepen its analysis of the value-added of public
consultations. Importantly, the GOI should also focus on building the
capacity of public officials to process information received during
consultations, such as the Musrenbang, and to report government
decisions back to the public. Together, these efforts will help ensure the
quality and effectiveness of public engagement and highlight the
public’s impact on public policy.
Open government, integrity and anti-corruption Indonesia
Tackling corruption, in all its forms, remains a priority in Indonesia, and

the government is committed to building a culture of integrity, in
collaboration with public officials at all levels, CSOs, the private sector and
ordinary citizens. From an open government perspective, citizens play a
prominent role in promoting a culture of integrity across three broad areas:

participation in the policy cycle, oversight and accountability, and

awareness raising.
The Government of Indonesia has shown its commitment to
collaborating with citizens and CSOs in promoting a culture of integrity
through consultation initiatives in the development of its anti-corruption
policies, the use of citizen feedback in monitoring anti-corruption progress
and by implementing joint awareness-raising activities. For example, in
addition to the corruption-specific whistleblower channel operated by the
Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), several channels
exist, such as LAPOR, the Ombudsman Offices, and complaint services
within line ministries and at the sub-national level. Together, these
contribute to improving government systems and corruption eradication.
Despite these multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional
arrangements, challenges arise in terms of processing capacity, willingness
to adopt structural changes and overlapping reporting channels, all of which
may further exacerbate capacity constraints. Moreover, with different
institutions and channels involved, issues of data security and privacy rights
of plaintiffs may pose important integrity issues in their own right.
Another avenue through which citizens can strengthen the demand for
integrity in the public sector and in society as a whole is through their role
as watchdogs, helped by CSOs, media and public institutions. In addition to
the KPK, relevant public integrity institutions include the two public audit
institutions, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the
Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), although these
have not yet been at the forefront in engaging with citizens.
In order to play this oversight and accountability role, ensuring the
availability of reporting channels, providing assurances of follow-up on the
part of the government and protecting whistleblowers are key conditions that
need to be in place. Effective protection of whistleblowers is particularly
important to help instil a culture of integrity, as it enables citizens to report
corruption, as well as to have confidence in the reporting mechanisms and in
public institutions more generally. Notably, Indonesia has established legal
and institutional provisions for the protection of whistleblowers through
several laws, though these laws could be strengthened, as they do not yet
provide comprehensive protection against discriminatory or retaliatory
action.
Asset disclosure is another key element of any public-sector integrity
framework, as it is an important tool for transparency and oversight of
public officials. The asset disclosure system in Indonesia covers a wide
range of public officials, and compliance with administrative and
bureaucratic procedures is increasing as more data become available online.

Nevertheless, Indonesia’s asset declaration system faces several challenges,

including that it does not stipulate clear-cut provisions on verification and
on administrative and criminal penalties. Moreover, the KPK may not have
sufficient resources to verify all asset reports and analyse them to detect
corruption.
Finally, in order to foster a culture of integrity across all levels of
society, the government should pursue awareness-raising activities, such as
citizen education initiatives, communication campaigns and information
exchanges. Notably, the KPK has implemented various awareness-raising,
public information and broadcast activities. As some of these activities are
carried out in partnership with CSOs, the KPK could use the OGP National
Action Plan development process to explore synergies with CSOs in civic
education and anti-corruption awareness raising.
Opportunities exist to further link the Indonesian anti-corruption agenda
with OECD and international standards, instruments and objectives,
including the United Nations 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals.
In several anti-corruption areas, including reporting channels, whistleblower
protection and asset declaration, Indonesia has made significant efforts in
recent years to increase transparency and accountability, as well as to
engage with citizens and CSOs. In order to build on the country’s efforts to
improve transparency in its anti-corruption efforts, the OECD has developed
the following recommendations designed to strengthen the three interrelated
roles of public participation in the policy cycle, oversight and accountability,
and awareness raising:
• Continue to involve CSOs throughout the anti-corruption policy
cycle, including in agenda setting, the policy development process,
and monitoring and evaluation activities. Specifically, further explore
synergies between the KPK and CSOs in civic education and anti-
corruption awareness raising. The GOI should also look to strengthen
co-operation between citizens and the two public audit institutions in
Indonesia – the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and
the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) – to
promote a culture of integrity.
• Explore how the multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional
arrangements can be more effective and efficient in producing
structural changes for good governance. This may require a thorough
assessment of processing capacity, analysis of gaps and overlap, and
examination of data security and privacy rights of plaintiffs throughout
the complaint-handling cycle.

• Examine the effectiveness of the legal and regulatory framework.

Namely, review the whistleblower protection regime and examine
how to make improvements, for example by including legislation that
stipulates disciplinary action, placing the burden of proof on the
employer to prove that any action taken against an employee is
unrelated to his or her whistleblowing, etc.
• Consider establishing a regulatory framework for lobbying, aiming
to enable public scrutiny and to further protect the policy cycle from
capture.
• Strengthen the effectiveness of the asset disclosure system for
corruption prevention and prosecution through setting priorities based
on a risk assessment and an evaluation of the processing capacity.
Open government, ICTs, social media and open data
The digital transformations that have changed how people work, access
information and share data present both opportunities and challenges for the
Government of Indonesia. More connected and informed constituencies are
demanding more tailored and agile interactions with the public
administration, more effective policies and improved public-sector
performance. In Indonesia, as is common globally, budgetary pressures and
the search for efficiency gains have also encouraged the government to
improve and scale up its digitisation efforts.
The use of ICTs to support open government and to satisfy the demands
of more transparent and participatory governance relies on infrastructural
enablers of digital government, such as access to the Internet. Although
Indonesia has benefited from sustained growth in the number of Internet
users and mobile subscriptions, the growth rate of Internet users has been
modest compared with regional peers or other countries facing similar
demographic or geographic challenges, with Internet users in Indonesia
representing merely 17.14% of the population. The GOI will also need to
respond to challenges presented by a digital divide across regions and
income levels. If not addressed, existing digital divides are likely to
aggravate regional inequalities as the country transitions toward a more
digital-intensive economy. Besides regional disparities, even in the best-
equipped urban areas, digital divides are still determined significantly by
gender, age and education levels (Sujarwoto and Tampubolom, 2013;
Utomo et al, 2013). This context hinders the impact of digitally enabled
participation, transparency and service delivery.
Addressing the existing digital divide requires significant levels of
investment. Ensuring the expected returns on investment, however, also

makes it necessary for the government to look at the demand for ICT use. In
certain regions, both public officials and citizens lack the knowledge and
skills to take advantage of the benefits of having access to the Internet,
highlighting that overcoming the divide depends on more than just access to
infrastructure and the affordability of technological devices. Despite the
limited access to ICTs for certain segments of the population, it is important
to note that Indonesian urban and tech-savvy youth have grasped the
opportunities provided by digital technologies. Broadly, Indonesian Internet
users are overwhelmingly young and very active on social media.
The Government of Indonesia has been able to produce digital public
services that represent an important step in the design of more citizen-
oriented services, supporting greater transparency and citizen engagement.
For instance, the Ministry of Religious Affairs developed SISKOHAT, an
innovative application that is helping Indonesian citizens monitor their
status in the queue for the Hajj pilgrimage.
Moreover, the Indonesian public sector is increasingly interested in
leveraging the creativity, skills and ideas for innovation existing outside of
the public sector to solve persisting problems while easing the financial
burdens of public authorities. These initiatives pursue a more citizen-driven
approach in the development of solutions and services, recognising citizens
as partners and giving them the opportunity to determine service priorities.
For instance, increasing awareness about the potential of user-driven
approaches has been the driving force for the organisation of thematic
hackathons, particularly at the local level. Such local-level initiatives
empower Indonesian citizens and developers to propose innovative solutions
to improve healthcare and education, fight corruption, manage disasters or
support small farmers. These activities have also provided local
governments with the opportunity to engage with service users and better
understand their needs.
These initiatives operate as small pockets of innovation and have not yet
benefited from the necessary co-ordination and scaling-up mechanisms.
Insufficient levels of interoperability of government information systems
have hindered the public sector’s ability to deliver transactional and
integrated services that encourage the use and uptake of online channels and
improve the quality of services and the management of its data. Scaling up
these initiatives to achieve systemic changes in digital service design and
delivery would require the development of governance frameworks,
standards and guidelines that can help civil servants design, prototype, test
and deploy services in more effective and participatory ways.
Furthermore, the Government of Indonesia has recognised the potential
represented by Open Government Data (OGD) – namely, the release of data

collected and produced by public organisations while performing their tasks

or of data commissioned with public funds – to enhance the transparency,
accountability, integrity and performance of the public sector. Indonesia’s
central open data portal, which is designed to provide easy access to key
datasets and improve the transparency of key public-sector activities, is
signalled as one of the country’s current OGP commitments, and the use of
open government data for anti-corruption is part of the country’s National
Strategy on Corruption Prevention and Eradication. Moreover, Indonesia
was an active contributor in the elaboration and adoption of the International
Open Data Charter and in the development and adoption of the G20 Open
Data Principles for Anti-Corruption. These engagements illustrate
Indonesia’s commitment and support for OGD as a tool to implement open
government reforms.
Reaping the full benefits and efficiency gains offered by ICTs requires
that Indonesia develop a coherent approach to the use of digital technologies
across levels of government despite significant levels of de-centralisation.
The Government of Indonesia will need to take steps toward creating more
transparent and inclusive decision-making processes and public-sector
activities in line with the “OECD Recommendation on Digital Government
Strategies” and outlined below:
• To unlock the transformative potential of technologies in the context of
changing government-society dynamics, the Government of Indonesia
should make substantive efforts to achieve scale on its key
initiatives. Participatory platforms should be expanded to achieve a
critical mass of users, and other potentially high-impact initiatives
should be strengthened and streamlined for the government to be able to
reap its full benefits (e.g. LAPOR, public dialogues, hackathons, service
design standards, etc.). This will require additional resources and plans
to develop institutional capacities, regulatory frameworks such as
standards for service design, robust co-ordination and peer-learning
mechanisms.
• The use of digital technologies should be framed by an overarching
policy to help ensure strategic coherence across the administration.
This policy should be aligned with broader policy objectives – such as
those on open government and sustainable development – and with
public-sector reform strategies and action plans. The policy should
provide coherent incentives to create a culture that strengthens the use of
technology for more open, innovative and participatory service design
and delivery. Involving the relevant stakeholders in the development of
the digital government policy will help ensure that the resulting
strategies appropriately reflect the different views. This will also help to

develop a common vision and align objectives with the required levels
of ownership for successful implementation and to deliver impact.
• The development of the policy with contributions from all stakeholders
also provides the opportunity to design sound institutional
frameworks with desirable levels of accountability, control and
transparency. This should include strong co-ordination mechanisms at
the strategic and operational levels to ensure alignment with the
government’s ambitions and institutional mechanisms. Institutional
arrangements should clarify roles and responsibilities in digital
government policy making, particularly between the Ministry of
Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform and the Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology. The Government of
Indonesia would also benefit from a Chief Digital Officer under the
National Chief Information Officer that can support the digital
transformation, making government digital by design.
• The Government of Indonesia should align incentives for public
institutions and civil servants to respond to national policy
objectives and facilitate a fundamental cultural shift across the
government toward more open, inclusive and citizen-driven processes
and toward the development of ICT and data skills. To achieve this, the
governance frameworks of digital government should equip the co-
ordinating unit with the adequate mix of policy levers (“carrots” and
“sticks”) to be able to induce the expected behavioural change across
public institutions.
• The development of the National E-Government Master Plan should
be complemented with the establishment of a business case
methodology and an ICT project management model that can help
public institutions better plan and structure their ICT investments.
These management tools would allow public institutions to clearly
identify expected benefits, manage risks, monitor the implementation of
ICT projects, identify drivers of failure and success, and make
adjustments as required. The creation of such a tool would allow the
Government of Indonesia to monitor and evaluate ICT initiatives both at
a micro and macro level more effectively.
• The Government of Indonesia should develop a strategic approach
to the use of alternative channels for public engagement and service
delivery, such as social media platforms and mobile phones. This new
approach should recognise the potential of social media and mobile
devices as sources of data, allowing the Government of Indonesia to use
predictive analytics to spot trends, analyse social interactions and
determine service users’ needs. A strategic approach in the use of this

channel can help the Government of Indonesia increase its outreach for
service delivery to vulnerable or excluded segments of the population
living in remote areas (e.g. m-services).
• The Government of Indonesia should recognise data as a strategic
asset and develop governance frameworks, infrastructure and
institutional capacities to support the strategic use of government
data for decision making. To avoid missing the opportunities of
government data and of the digital era more broadly, the Government of
Indonesia must create a vigorous broadband ecosystem that includes an
enabling legal and regulatory environment, as well as appropriate
market conditions supporting high-quality services.
• Make efforts to develop a dynamic open government data ecosystem,
which will require addressing legal and regulatory challenges and
limitations, raising awareness and ownership, developing data skills
across society, and actively engaging with data producers, providers and
users to identify valuable datasets and foster reuse that can deliver
social, economic and good governance value.
Public financial management with a focus on budget transparency and

citizen participation
Budget transparency promotes access to and openness about how

governments plan, raise and use financial resources, in the process
underpinning sound public financial management. It has therefore become a
broadly accepted principle of public financial management over the past two
decades and a cornerstone of public governance themes such as open
government, civic participation and public-sector performance.
Indonesia’s political democratisation process and movement toward
transparency, in addition to the advent of the inclusive national strategic
planning development process, have affected budgeting and public financial
management. In broad terms, Indonesia’s developmental planning
framework has some advanced and innovative features. These aspects of the
policy-development framework are compatible with the OECD
Recommendation on Budgetary Governance, which explicitly calls on
governments to “ensure that budget documents and data are open,
transparent and accessible” and to “provide for an inclusive, participative
and realistic debate on budgetary choices”. However, the later phases of the
budget cycle and other domains of public financial management have not
yet integrated transparency, openness and inclusiveness into their systems to
the same extent.

This section of the review looks at public financial management with a

focus on both budget transparency and citizen participation. The key
challenges faced by Indonesia in these areas primarily relate to the
management of a diverse institutional landscape across multiple levels of
government. Notably, this diversity leads to difficulties in ensuring the
uniform implementation of national laws (in particular those relating to
budget information transparency) and disseminating good practices
throughout the public administration.
Regarding budget transparency, the legal framework for budgeting and
public financial management that emerged following the 1997 Asian
financial crisis and the transition to democracy in 1998 comprises relevant
laws in the areas of development planning, budgeting, regional governance,
state auditing, fiscal balance and disclosure of public information. The
enactment of the laws related to the budget process were part of a broader
reform agenda moving away from the budget being conducted
predominantly by the centre of government toward a system in which the
parliament is more deeply involved in budget formulation, scrutiny,
approval and oversight. Recent reforms have refocused the parliament’s role
on the budgeting process, allowing the parliament a greater degree of
strategic input as opposed to its prior function of providing detailed budget
scrutiny.
Linking the national developmental planning and budgeting process at
every level of government is important to provide a solid foundation for
budget transparency. Together with involving all relevant stakeholders and
ensuring access to information, this integrated approach can help ensure that
the government achieves the best possible outcomes. Ensuring transparency
in the legislative, execution and auditing phases of the budgetary process
can support anti-corruption efforts, as well as evidence-based policy making
in priority areas such as social inclusion, education or healthcare.
While the Ministry of Finance has provided access to aggregated budget
data on their website, other public agencies, such as line ministries,
committees and local governments, decide independently whether to follow
this practice, and the practice is not yet universal. Nevertheless, several sub-
national governments have developed transparency initiatives that may
provide models for future expansion.
Regarding public participation in budgeting, while Indonesia’s public
finances include elements of participation, public involvement is more
advanced in national development planning than it is for the budget cycle.
Parliamentary engagement in budget deliberations is in line with the OECD
recommendations, although public involvement is limited. The situation is
similar concerning public participation in the budget’s implementation and

auditing phases. There is therefore scope to increase the inclusiveness of

already existing public participation initiatives, including the Musrenbang
meetings and the village funding mechanisms. One important goal would be
to eliminate obstacles facing certain sub-groups and to provide greater
openness to the views of local representatives on how resources are applied
in their areas.
Good practices for participative budgeting also exist throughout the
public administration, which may be applied more broadly after adapting
them to local needs and circumstances. Nationally, the Ministry of Finance
holds occasional public hearings on the budget prior to approval by the
legislature; building on this, the centre of government could look into
lessons to be derived from executive-led participation processes.
Finally, over the past 15 years, the GOI has increasingly integrated a
gender perspective into policy planning and implementation, and civic
engagement has been strengthened via an increasing focus on thematic
issues such as gender. During this period, the government introduced
gender-responsive budgets, which allocate funds to meet gender-responsive
objectives, as well as the National Program on Citizen’s Empowerment
(PNPM). Key priorities and achievements of these initiatives include
introducing gender mainstreaming in leadership training exercises, ensuring
equal treatment for training and scholarships, and offering maternity leave,
although it is unclear to what extent these initiatives have been
mainstreamed across the public sector.
Based on this review, the OECD has developed the following key
recommendations:
• Improve the quality and quantity of data and information accessible
for the public throughout the budget cycle. In part, this suggests that
the GOI should continue joint efforts of the Ministry of Finance and
CSOs to develop web-based solutions that provide open budget data at
both the central and local government levels using an integrated
platform. The GOI should also look to improve access to information
about indicative budget ceilings and programme priorities, including via
the Musrenbang process. Furthermore, during the budget approval
process, parliament could make the working sessions of the committees
more open, including by publishing minutes of meetings, data and
decisions.
• Improve the content and the timing of the budget documents. The
GOI should make available the main figures of the Pre-Budget
Statement in advance of the submission of the actual Budget Proposal.
This would facilitate stakeholders in engaging in a realistic and

constructive debate. The government should also publish the Citizens’

Budget as early as possible so that it can engage more citizens
throughout the process, potentially leading to greater inclusiveness of
budgetary priority setting. The GOI could also open the audit process to
public engagement through regular reporting of audit results and
soliciting the views of stakeholders on the quality and impacts of public
spending. This would enhance confidence in the integrity and efficacy
of public financial management.
• Strengthen public participation in the budget cycle. This could
include increasing the co-operation between the parliamentary budget
office and civil society organisations, for example by providing
opportunities to comment on the economic forecasts; improving the
inclusiveness of the Musrenbang meetings; granting public access to the
proposal of the budget and other budget-related meetings of the
parliament; and allowing, through a regulated mechanism, for
accredited/pre-selected CSOs to submit alternative suggestions to the
budget.
• Strengthen the monitoring of local governments by building their
capacity and encouraging the participation of local stakeholders.
This could include continuing efforts to implement participative gender
budgeting and other thematic approaches to budget monitoring.
• Deeper impact could be achieved through targeted training for local
officials and citizens, leading to proposals that fit local needs better and
complement national development programmes. Assisting certain sub-
groups of the society (such as and citizens with disabilities) that face
difficulties in attending meetings would promote the representative
quality of the budgeting process. Improving Internet access in rural
areas and applying web-based solutions would also contribute to more
active participation and inclusiveness.
Innovation in the public sector
In instituting its reform agenda, Indonesia is focused on strengthening

the institutional capacity of its public-sector organisations to learn from and
replicate international good practice while at the same time developing its
own innovative solutions. This section focuses on how innovation, while
often associated with other public-sector reform agendas, can also support
open government principles, the impact of policy reforms and the reach of
government initiatives. Similar to many OECD countries, however,
Indonesia does not have a stand-alone whole-of-government policy on
fostering innovation in the public sector. Furthermore, Indonesia may also

need to continue to develop a common understanding of what constitutes

public-sector innovation across the national government.
The enabling framework supporting innovation in Indonesia
encompasses both the legal provisions and strategic plans that reinforce the
development of innovative solutions in government. Notably, Law No. 25 of
2009 on Public Services and Law No. 5 of 2014 on the Civil Service provide
a context for government action to increase the quality of public services
and enhance the flexibility and transparency of the civil service.
Additionally, Law No. 23 of 2014 on Local Government supports innovative
behaviour through its creation of a de facto “right to innovate”, which
ensures legal protection to local innovators in case of failure. Furthermore,
the National Medium-Term Development Plan 2015-19 indicates public
innovation as instrumental to improving the quality of public services, and
the OGP 2014-15 Action Plan recognises the contribution of innovation to
“unlock Indonesia’s potential in the economy, public services and
innovation”. The OGP Action Plan also notes specifically that one of the
plan’s goals of increasing the availability of open data will improve
innovation, in addition to public services and economic growth.
While there are several initiatives that identify and acknowledge public-
sector innovation at the central government level in Indonesia, these efforts
appear to be isolated, and formal structures for ensuring co-ordination of
innovation from a central government perspective are not yet in place.
Notably, the GOI lacks a comprehensive incentive system to motivate public
officials to innovate; the lack of technical guidance and standard operating
procedures has also been flagged as a barrier facing government innovators
at the local level. The Ministry of Interior is looking into developing
partnership models to encourage government, community groups and the
private sector to come together to provide technical assistance and funding
mechanisms.
Nevertheless, Indonesia exhibits a number of important examples of
public-sector innovation at the national and local level, as well as those that
focus on service delivery for improved social outcomes. It is important to
recognise these examples, as experience from OECD member countries has
shown that using a variety of innovative approaches to increase the
transparency and the performance of public services can maximise impact.
The review has identified the following key recommendations regarding
the development of innovation in the public sector in Indonesia:
• Innovation happens across the country, and the GOI recognises and
rewards innovation efforts. The government has not, however,
implemented the systems and procedures to ensure that innovation
sticks, nor has it developed mechanisms for the systematic exchange

across the public sector of good experiences. The GOI should consider
taking a co-ordinated approach to identifying and tackling the
barriers to innovation creation and diffusion in the public sector.
Detailing a vision and plan of action with interventions could create
momentum to support a change agenda, as well as ensure buy-in and
support of responsible entities during implementation.
• Innovation needs to be insulated from changes in the policy cycle
by, for example, identifying formal structures for ensuring co-
ordination at the central government level. Indonesia might want to
consider approaches to innovation co-ordination and promotion
emerging from the experience of other countries (e.g. innovation units,
inter-agency committees and innovation strategies) while concurrently
examining adjustments to streamline administrative complexity.
• Indonesia might want to reflect on possible approaches to replicating
experience from the local to the national level, looking at the drivers
for scaling and potential benefits for diffusion of successful initiatives.
Similarly, roles should be clarified for government institutions that
provide capacity building at the local level for public-sector innovation.
• Within the overall context of its commitment to open government
reforms and its membership in the OGP, Indonesia could consider
prioritising the inclusion of innovative open government practices in
its OGP Action Plans. By doing so, the government could build on the
considerable momentum for open government initiatives to promote
innovation more effectively across the public sector.
Open government and the link with the UN 2030 Sustainable

Development Agenda
Linking open government reforms and initiatives related to the 2030

Agenda for Sustainable Development is particularly relevant for Indonesia,
as the country played a leading role both in designing the Post-2015
Development Agenda and in establishing the OGP. The broad themes of
improved governance and inclusion found in both the OGP principles and
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides an opportunity to
connect open government practices and approaches to the ambitions
represented by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Through its endorsement of the OGP Joint Declaration on Open
Government for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development in September 2015, Indonesia has already recognised the
potential value of linking these two initiatives. Specifically, the declaration
notes the “importance of harnessing [countries’] efforts and championing

the principles of transparency and open government as crucial tools for

ensuring the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.”
Open government principles, policies and practices contribute directly to
both the substantive targets of the SDGs (specifically through Goal 16,
which aims to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable
development, provide access to justice for all and build effective,
accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”), as well as to the process
that leads to the identification, implementation and monitoring of all the
SDGs. Notably, by making the policy cycle that underpins the SDG-related
activities inclusive and better tailored to the needs of the citizens, open
government contributes to and supports the achievement of the various
targets of each SDG (i.e. economic development, gender equality,
infrastructure development, etc.).
As evidenced by the public-sector reforms described throughout the
review, Indonesia has already made important progress in pursuing the kind
of initiatives necessary to realise the governance targets laid out under Goal
16 as well as support the process for inclusive design, implementation and
monitoring of all SDGs. Given that meeting these targets will
simultaneously support the country’s efforts to implement the universe of
goals laid out in the 2030 Agenda by promoting transparent, accountable
and inclusive government, it is important to take stock of the ongoing
initiatives that can help Indonesia reach its targets. The following projects,
initiatives and offices are already in place in Indonesia and are well placed
to exploit the synergies between open government policies and SDGs:
• The National SDG Secretariat, which was established in 2016 with
support from UNDP, is designed to co-ordinate the country’s SDG
implementation. The Secretariat is tasked with laying the groundwork
for the implementation and mainstreaming of the SDGs into
development planning at the national and sub-national level. Similar to
the National Open Government Secretariat, Bappenas provides general
oversight of the SDG Secretariat, thereby facilitating the linkages
between the two secretariats. The SDG Secretariat is professionally
staffed and will collect best practices, facilitate communications and
provide government-wide support to help oversee, facilitate, and
monitor the implementation of the SDGs.
• The National Open Government Secretariat has helped to formalise the
government’s relationship with CSOs and co-ordinate open government
horizontally across agencies and vertically across levels of government.
This office provides a model and useful template for how the centre of

government can reinforce inclusivity and accountability for transversal

agendas.
• The legal framework for transparency and access to information clearly

supports Target 16.10 of the 2030 Agenda (“Ensure public access to
information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with
national legislation and international agreements”).
• The legal and policy framework supporting citizen participation,

integrity and whistleblower protections, in combination with the work
of Indonesia’s oversight bodies, supports several governance targets of
the 2030 Agenda, such as Targets 16.6 and 16.7, as well as those targets
that seek specifically to promote the rule of law and to reduce
corruption and bribery, such as Targets 16.3 and 16.5. Additionally,
complaint-handling services (such as LAPOR) and citizen engagement
mechanisms (such as the Musrenbang) highlight how the country has
made tangible progress in promoting accountable, inclusive and
transparent government, which responds to the implementation of all
SDGs.
• Indonesia has launched a number of digital government tools that

support a wide range of SDGs. For example, through its technically
advanced and user-friendly central data portal, the central government is
striving to provide easy access to key datasets that will improve
transparency of key public-sector activities.
Given the recent adoption of the SDGs, governments are still in the
process of determining how their current initiatives and priorities will fit
with the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Nevertheless, the OECD sees
a number of steps the GOI can take to ensure that it takes full advantage of
the link between its open government agenda and the SDGs so that both
priorities are implemented as coherently, systematically and completely as
possible.
• Continue to develop the links between open government reform
efforts and the design and implementation of the SDGs to help
ensure that the government’s open government agenda supports the
SDGs. This will include supporting institutional collaboration
between the National SDG Secretariat and National Open
Government Secretariat, as well as:
− Explicitly linking the OGP National Action Plan development
process with the design and implementation process for the
SDGs. This could include discussing the SDGs in the context of the

development of the OGP National Action Plans and linking each

objective with relevant SDG goals or targets. This will help ensure
coherence between the two initiatives and will facilitate joint
monitoring of the progress and results of the two processes.
− Promoting the use of open data for reporting on SDG
achievements (see, for example, Mexico’s open data portal
designed to track the SDGs). This would not only support the role of
CSOs as watchdogs, but it would foster the reuse of public-sector
information in such a way that is specifically relevant for the
implementation of the SDGs.
− Developing a formal mechanism for capacity building and
sharing lessons to increase the staff that is familiar with both the
SDGs and the country’s open government priorities.
− Increasing the involvement of citizens in the policy cycle of each
SDG-related initiative to ensure that the initiatives are inclusive and
that they fully reflect public needs. This could be achieved by
ensuring that CSO actors and government representatives familiar
with the country’s open government activities and OGP reporting
cycles play a role in the design of the national SDG strategy, as well
as in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the
activities.
• Leverage existing regional and international platforms and networks
for policy dialogue, such as the OECD Network on Open and Innovative
Government in Southeast Asia, to identify good practices and lessons from
OECD and non-OECD members alike on how to link open government
agendas with SDG implementation activities.

1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 45
Chapter 1
Context and drivers of open government in Indonesia
This chapter provides an overview of the context and drivers of public-

sector reforms in Indonesia, including information on the cultural,
historical, political and economic contexts, as well as current perceptions of
public governance. It also introduces the concept of open government,
which the OECD defines as the transparency of government actions, the
accessibility of government services and information, and the
responsiveness of government to new ideas, demands and needs. It goes on
to discuss the key actors and the initiatives in which open government
policies are being developed and implemented.

46 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA
Cultural, historical, and political context
Indonesia is a sprawling and diverse nation of roughly 255 million

people – making it the world’s fourth largest nation, third largest
democracy, and largest Muslim-majority country – with over 200 major
cultural and language groups. The population inhabits over 6 000 islands,
although Java is the most populous and is home to over 100 million people,
15 million of them residing in the national capital, Jakarta (Vickers, 2005).
Indonesia’s cultural and geographic complexity is made more challenging
by the country’s exposure to natural disasters, as evidenced powerfully by
the 2004 tsunami.
The first regular contact between Europeans and the peoples of
Indonesia began in 1512, when Portuguese traders sought to trade in the
region. The physical boundaries of Indonesia were largely established by the
Netherlands, however, through their administration of the islands, first under
the Dutch East India Company, established in 1602, and later as the
dominant European power through the administration of the Dutch East
Indies (Ricklefs, 1991).
In 1942, Dutch rule effectively ended with the Japanese invasion of
Indonesia. The Japanese replaced much of the Dutch-created economic,
administrative and political infrastructure, and they actively encouraged
nationalist sentiment. Their involvement led to the creation of new
Indonesian institutions (including local neighbourhood organisations) and
elevated political leaders such as Sukarno, a leader of Indonesia’s nationalist
movement from the pre-war era. Two days after Japan’s surrender in World
War II, on 17 August 1945, Sukarno declared Indonesia’s independence. He
was appointed President, and went on to lead the four-year Indonesian
Revolution, culminating in the formal recognition of Indonesian
independence by the Dutch on 27 December 1949 (Vickers, 2005).
Under Sukarno, who served until 1967, Indonesia moved steadily
towards authoritarianism and close association with communist countries.
Public frustration at economic stagnation and tensions within the army and
society between left and right wing political factions culminated in an
attempted coup on 30 September 1965. The corresponding anti-communist
purge, led by anti-communist factions of the army and local vigilantes, led
to the killing of an estimated 500 000 people between late 1965 and early
1966 and to the destruction of the Indonesian Communist Party (Cribb,
2002).
This destruction of the Indonesian Communist Party, which had
supported Sukarno, helped lead to the rise of General Suharto, who was
named Acting President in March 1967 and formally appointed one year

later. His “New Order” stabilised the economy and brought the country
closer to Western powers, but his regime continued the previous
administration’s focus on personalism, which came at the cost of institution-
building (Elson, 2008). The corruption of his administration – Suharto, in
fact, was named on a list of heads of state that had extorted the most
personal wealth (Vickers, 2005) – ultimately fed discontent and increased
the country’s vulnerably to the Asian financial crisis. On 21 May 1998, after
popular protests in response to the financial crisis, Suharto announced his
resignation, upon which vice-president Habibie assumed the presidency.
The fall of President Suharto initiated the Reformasi period, in which the
country pursued more open and liberal policies in the form of greater
autonomy for sub-national governments, greater freedom of speech, and an
enhanced role for civic participation. The first two post-Suharto
administrations, under presidents Habibie (1998-99) and Wahid (1999-
2001), loosened controls on the press and pursued an ambitious programme
of decentralisation. 1 The country’s first free and fair general elections were
held in 1999, and direct elections of mayors and governors took place for the
first time in 2005 (Antlöv et al, 2010). Among the most notable
achievements during the Reformasi period were the reforms made to the
Constitution between 1999 and 2002. These reforms were designed to
respond to the problems that arose under the original constitution that had
allowed both Sukarno and Suharto to appropriate increasingly authoritarian
powers for themselves. Notably, they limited the powers of the president,
allowed for direct election of presidents and removed military seats from
parliament. The reforms also removed restrictions on civil society and
citizen participation, and allowed new political parties, labour unions, and
other civil society organisations to form (Elson, 2008). 2
President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) was inaugurated on 20 October 2014,
with Jusuf Kalla serving as his Vice President. As Indonesia is a presidential
representative democratic republic, President Jokowi serves as both chief of
state and head of government, and was directly elected for a five-year term,
renewable once. His government exercises executive power, while the
legislative power is vested in the bicameral People's Consultative Assembly
(Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, or MPR), which consists of the Regional
Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah) of 132 seats and the
House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat) of 560 seats. The
Government of Indonesia has 34 ministries.
Under the current arrangement, the state structure includes four levels:
34 Provinces (headed by a governor); regencies (415) and cities (93), which
constitute the municipal level; 3 districts; and villages. The regencies and
cities are situated at the same administrative level and each has its own local
government and legislative body (a regency is headed by a regent, while a

city is governed by a mayor). Both regencies and cities are further divided
into districts and sub-districts depending on the province.
Following the country’s decentralisation process, regencies and
municipalities have taken on the primary responsibility for providing most
government services. The municipal level in particular plays a key role in
the provision of services and the interaction with citizens and businesses, as
local leaders have the power to propose bills, oversee the regional budget
process and plan local infrastructure.
Despite the trend toward administrative decentralisation, the vast
majority of revenue is raised at the central government level, rather than by
provincial or municipal governments. Nevertheless, the budget is small,
even by the standards of comparable countries. Central tax revenue
(excluding non-tax resource revenue) is around 12% of GDP, where it has
remained for the past decade (OECD, 2015).
Economic context
In addition to the political evolution in Indonesia since the Reformasi

period, the country has also successfully maintained its general good
economic performance since the disruptions of the Asian financial crisis of
1997. Indonesia’s economy grew in the decade following that crisis thanks
to a prudent macroeconomic framework and policy reforms. Furthermore,
and contrary to its experience during the 1990s, Indonesia was one of only
three G20 countries to post economic growth during the global economic
turmoil that began in 2008, an achievement that also allowed the country to
outperform its ASEAN peers over that period (see Figure 1.1). This can be
attributed to both a robust consumer base and to sound macroeconomic
policies, such as inflation targeting and fiscal prudence (OECD, 2015).

Figure 1.1. Level of real GDP in selected ASEAN countries

145 145
Indonesia
135 Malaysia 135
Philippines
125 125
Singapore
115 Thailand 115
105 105
95 95
85 85
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.
The economic gains and targeted government measures have also been
instrumental in reducing poverty (See Figure 1.2), which allowed the
country to have a strong poverty reduction record, posting a reduction by
half over the past two decades. Nevertheless, almost 30 million people still
live below the national poverty line, mostly in rural areas and in certain
provinces (Vujanovic, 2015).
Figure 1.2. Absolute poverty rate (%), 2000-14

25
20
15
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.

Despite the gains in poverty reduction statistics, income inequality is

high and rose over the past decade. As measured by the Gini coefficient,
income inequality increased from 0.36 to 0.41 (compared to an OECD
average of 0.31), suggesting that the current mix of social programmes,
including cash transfers conditioned on school attendance and a subsidised
rice programme, are not targeted well-enough (OECD, 2015). In addition,
since 2011, the country’s growth rate has slowed (see Figure 1.3), reflecting
weaker international demand and slow investment growth due to lower
commodity prices, heightened regulatory uncertainty and infrastructure
bottlenecks (OECD, 2015).
Figure 1.3. Indonesia growth rates (2011-14)
5
Growth rate
4 GDP growth rate (real)
3 GDP growth rate (real, in

per capita terms)
2
0
2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.
Broadly, Indonesia still struggles with poverty and unemployment –

which remains relatively high compared to neighbouring countries, as
shown in Figure 1.4 – inadequate infrastructure, corruption, a complex
regulatory environment, and unequal geographic resource distribution.

Figure 1.4. Unemployment rates in Indonesia and selected countries
14
12
10
Unemployment rate
Indonesia
8
Malaysia
6 Philippines
Singapore
4
Vietnam
2
Source: OECD work based on Asian Development Bank's Statistical Database System
(SDBS) and national sources.
Ensuring continued increases in living standards for all Indonesians will

require maintaining macroeconomic stability, adopting a broad range of
structural reforms, and creating fiscal space to expand government
expenditures in priority areas such as education, health, poverty alleviation
and infrastructure. The removal of most fuel subsidies at the beginning of
2015 was a laudable step in this direction. There is also room to improve the
efficiency and targeting of public spending at both central and sub-national
levels (OECD, 2015).
Perceptions of public institutions and the space for open government
Similar to the important economic reforms of the Reformasi era that led
to the country’s economic success, political reforms in the country have also
been far-reaching. Despite the significant efforts carried out during the
Reformasi era, however, Indonesia’s public governance continues to face
persistent challenges. For example, Indonesia ranks in the bottom half
among its ASEAN peers (see Figure 1.5) in the World Bank Government
Effectiveness Indicator.

Figure 1.5. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and ASEAN

countries (2014)
100
90
Government effectiveness rank
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of ASEAN countries (ranging from 0
[lowest] to 100 [highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest.
Source: World Governance Indicators (database), World Bank, 2014.
Likewise, Indonesia does not perform favourably on this score when

compared to OECD member countries (see Figure 1.6). Furthermore, the
perception of corruption in Indonesia (more than 80%) is higher than in
most OECD and most ASEAN countries (see Figure 1.7).

Figure 1.6. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and OECD countries (2014)

100
90
80
Government effectiveness rank
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
New Zealand
Turkey
Poland
Slovak Republic
Chile
Spain
France
Austria
Estonia
Israel
Australia
Luxembourg
Belgium
Ireland
Germany
Sweden
Denmark
Italy
Greece
Hungary
Slovenia
United States
Indonesia
Portugal
United Kingdom
Japan
Netherlands
Finland
Switzerland
Mexico
Latvia
Czech Republic
OECD average
Korea
Iceland
Canada
Norway
Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of OECD countries and Indonesia (ranging from 0
[lowest] to 100 [highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest
Figure 1.7. Is corruption widespread throughout the government in this country, or

not? (2015)
100%
90%
80%
70%
Perception of corruption
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Notes: ASEAN data not shown.

Source: Gallup World Poll 2015.

Nevertheless, per the 2015 Gallup World Poll, 65% of Indonesian’s

have confidence in the national government, higher than the OECD average
of 43% (see Figure 1.8), and similar to rates from Thailand (66%) and the
Philippines (67%) (Gallup World Poll, 2015).
Figure 1.8. Do you have confidence in the national government? (2015)

90%
80%
70%
Confidence in national government
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
While the perception of corruption has apparently not had a marked

impact on the country’s confidence in its government, the potential for a
decrease in the population’s confidence is notable given the extent to which
Indonesia is an outlier as compared to OECD countries in terms of the
relationship between confidence in the government and corruption
perceptions (see Figure 1.9).

Figure 1.9. Correlation between confidence in national government and perception of

government corruption (2015)
100%
90% ITA R² = 0.5766

PRT
IND
80% SVN ESP SVK
CHL CZE
KOR USA
MEX
70% HUN ISR
POL FRA
LAT GRC
ISL
Government corruption
60%
OECD TUR
JPN AUT
50%
EST
GBR
AUS CAN
40% IRL
NLD
30% DEU
BEL LUX
20% FIN
NZL CHE
NOR DNK
SWE
10%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Confidence in national government
Additionally, it does not appear to be the case that Indonesia’s World

Bank Voice and Accountability score, which reflects perceptions of the
extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their
government, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and media
freedom, can explain Indonesia’s high degree of confidence level in its
government. While Indonesia scores higher than any of its ASEAN peers, it
scores toward the bottom as compared to OECD countries (see Figures 1.10
and 1.11, respectively).
The gap between Indonesia and most OECD member countries suggests
that Indonesia’s ongoing efforts to pursue open government reforms and
increase citizen voice are well-targeted and could build on the country’s
progress over the past 10 years (see Figure 1.12).

Figure 1.10. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and

ASEAN countries (2014)
60
Voice and accountability rank
50
40
30
20
10
Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of ASEAN countries (ranging from 0
[lowest] to 100 [highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest.

Figure 1.11. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and OECD countries
(2014)
100
90
80
70
Voice and accountability rank
60
50
40
30
20
10
Note: The figure shows global percentile rankings of OECD countries and Indonesia (ranging from 0 [lowest] to 100
[highest] ranks). Countries are arranged from lowest to highest.
Figure 1.12. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia (2003-14)

55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Taken as a whole, Indonesia’s governance indicators paint a complex

picture. On the one hand, citizen confidence in the government and the
country’s strength in comparison with the rest of the region in terms of its
Voice and Accountability score both suggest that it is well-positioned to
continue to use open government reforms to build on its success.
Conversely, the scores for corruption perception and government
effectiveness call attention to the pressing governance challenges the
country faces.
Many development challenges – the need for more and better
infrastructure, improvements in health and education outcomes, the
strengthening of the social safety net and fighting poverty and inequality,
and a response to the diverse needs of various ethno-cultural and regionally-
based groups – have significant governance implications. Good governance,
including the state’s ability to set, co-ordinate, implement and monitor
public-sector reforms, is therefore key to ensuring that the government can
achieve its policy objectives efficiently and effectively (OECD, 2013).
The principles of open government
The OECD has been at the forefront of international efforts to promote

and disseminate open government policies and practices for more than ten
years. Since 2001, the OECD has collected and analysed data and
information demonstrating the importance of citizens’ participation in the
design and implementation of better public policies and the delivery of
public services.
The implementation of the open government policy principles, namely
citizen engagement, transparency, accountability and integrity, has led to
outcomes including better policies and services, and ultimately to improved
social well-being, quality of democracy and economic growth. These
improvements are likely to happen through the use of specific policy
instruments and catalysts that drive change and foster innovative processes.
Figure 1.13 illustrates the OECD’s theory of change, which it uses to frame
its analysis of open government reforms.

Figure 1.13. OECD open government theory of change
Policy principles
Citizen engagement
Policy catalysts
Transparency
Change management
Policy outcomes
Accountability
Innovation
Integrity Intermediate:
ICTs
- Quality of public services
Long-term:
- Quality of democracy
levels
Multiple
- Inclusive growth
- Trust in government
- Rule of law
Cross sector/ministry
OECD countries currently employ open government practices to reach a

variety of goals, including greater transparency, accountability, and citizen
participation. These outcomes can promote inclusive growth, improve social
cohesion and increase citizen compliance with the law (OECD, 2009b).
Indonesia’s commitment to implementing open government reforms to
improve transparency and increasingly engage citizens could similarly foster
public scrutiny, with a direct impact on the fight against corruption, while
inclusive policy making may lead to innovative and locally relevant policy
solutions that better use the opportunities presented by Indonesia’s political
decentralisation. In collaboration with senior public officials from member
countries committed to improve government-citizen relations, the OECD
developed a set of principles to guide the implementation of open
government policies and ensure their success (OECD, 2001; 2009b), shown
in Box 1.1.

Box 1.1. Guiding principles for open and inclusive policy making
1. Commitment: Leadership and strong commitment to open and inclusive policy
making is needed at all levels – politicians, senior managers and public officials.
2. Rights: Citizens’ rights to information, consultation and public participation in policy
making and service delivery must be firmly grounded in law or policy. Government
obligations to respond to citizens must be clearly stated. Independent oversight
arrangements are essential to enforcing these rights.
3. Clarity: Objectives for, and limits to, information, consultation and public
participation should be well defined from the outset. The roles and responsibilities of
all parties must be clear. Government information should be complete, objective,
reliable, relevant and easy to find and understand.
4. Time: Public engagement should be undertaken as early in the policy process as
possible to allow a greater range of solutions and to raise the chances of successful
implementation. Adequate time must be available for consultation and participation to
be effective.
5. Inclusion: All citizens should have equal opportunities and multiple channels to access
information, be consulted and participate. Every reasonable effort should be made to
engage with as wide a variety of people as possible.
6. Resources: Adequate financial, human and technical resources are needed for effective
public information, consultation and participation. Government officials must have
access to appropriate skills, guidance and training as well as an organisational culture
that supports both traditional and online tools.
7. Co-ordination: Initiatives to inform, consult and engage civil society should be co-
ordinated within and across levels of government to ensure policy coherence, avoid
duplication and reduce the risk of “consultation fatigue.” Co-ordination efforts should
not stifle initiative and innovation but should leverage the power of knowledge
networks and communities of practice within and beyond government.
8. Accountability: Governments have an obligation to inform participants how they use
inputs received through public consultation and participation. Measures to ensure that
the policy-making process is open, transparent and amenable to external scrutiny can
help increase accountability of, and trust in, government.
9. Evaluation: Governments need to evaluate their own performance. To do so
effectively will require efforts to build the demand, capacity, culture and tools for
evaluating public participation.
10. Active citizenship: Societies benefit from dynamic civil society, and governments can
facilitate access to information, encourage participation, raise awareness, strengthen
citizens’ civic education and skills, as well as to support capacity building among civil
society organisations (CSOs). Governments need to explore new roles to effectively
support autonomous problem-solving by citizens, CSOs and businesses.
Source: OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners; updated in OECD (2009), Focus on Citizens Public
Engagement for Better Policy and Services, OECD Studies on Public Engagement, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264048874-en.

Legal, policy, and strategic framework for open government in

Indonesia
Since the start of the country’s democratisation process, which began

with the fall of Suharto in 1998, Indonesia’s official development strategies,
interactions with the public and legal foundation have moved increasingly
toward openness and transparency. Importantly, the country’s official
development strategies, as discussed in Box 1.2, have officially established
the general strategic foundation for open government.
These documents highlight how Indonesia has explicitly identified
openness as a tool it can employ to improve the quality of public service
delivery, reduce corruption, and improve its responsiveness to public
demands. Donor agencies and local CSOs have also maintained the pressure
on public institutions at all levels of government to allow them increased
access. As a result, since the early 2000s several local governments have
independently formulated regulations on openness and participation that
complement and build on the national government’s initiatives.
In addition, since the 1998 democratic reforms, the number and
importance of civil society groups in Indonesia has grown. This has in part
been due to laws that have allowed for access to information, as well as to
the decentralisation process, which has created new opportunities for the
public to engage in policy design and service delivery. Indonesia’s civil
society organisations have played an active role in open government
activities, and are familiar with the open government trends and actors in the
country.
The country’s move toward openness has also been reflected in its legal
framework. Indonesia boasts a solid legal foundation for access to
information (ATI), which is enshrined both in the 1945 Constitution
(Article 28F) and in Law No. 14 of 2008 on Freedom of Information (FOI).
The FOI law in particular requires proactive publication by all public bodies,
political parties, state-owned enterprises and CSOs. The 1945 Constitution
also recognises the right to associate, assemble, and express opinions
(Article 28); subsequent laws have further clarified and delineated the
public’s right to monitor the delivery of public services and participate in
policy planning and evaluation (notably Law No. 25 of 2004 on National
Development Planning). The legal and strategic framework for open
government in Indonesia has been further articulated in the government’s
strategy documents (see Box 1.2) and codified via a number of laws,
regulations, presidential decrees and ministerial regulations (as shown in
Table 1.1).

Box 1.2. Primary government strategy documents outlining open government

priorities
The following documents lay the foundation for the government’s long- and medium-term
strategic planning priorities, and include the key elements of the country’s public-sector reform
initiatives.
2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan

The GOI is required to draft national long-term development plans (abbreviated RPJPN)
every twenty years. Specific topics related open government in the RPJPN include the
acknowledgement of the importance of civil society, openness, and public access to
information, as well as the importance of promoting citizen engagement in public life by
linking citizen engagement to broader good governance goals.
2015-19 Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN)

Within the long-term development plan cycle, the GOI is also required to draft National
Medium-Term Development Plans (abbreviated RPJMN) every five years. These five-year
cycles overlap with presidential terms of office so that the administration’s plans align with the
vision and mission of the National Long-Term Development Plan. The 2015-19 RPJMN
includes two targets specifically related to increasing citizen engagement in public life,
including targets on e-government, increasing access to information, and providing space for
public participation in formulating and overseeing the implementation of public policies.
Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy Reform – Bureaucratic Reform

Roadmap
In response to the 2015-19 RPJMN, the Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy
Reform developed a Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap in 2015. Regarding open government, it
highlights the role of e-government in supporting development priorities; the importance of
increasing access to public information transparency by, for example, supporting public
information offices and publishing all planning and budgeting documents on ministry websites;
and the importance of providing opportunities for the public to participate in drafting public
policies and monitoring their implementation.
President’s Jokowi’s government programme (Nawa Cita)

This document forms the basis of the current administration’s governing agenda. There are
9 agenda items that comprise the Nawa Cita document that serve as guidelines for the annual
national priorities. Specifically, agenda number 2 emphasizes “the presence of government
through implementation of clean, effective and democratic governance”. Furthermore, two sub-
agenda seek to booster open government by seeking to build transparent and accountable
government performance and improve public participation in the policy making processes.

Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia

Law Key points
Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Commission for This law updates Indonesia’s previous anti-corruption laws (namely, Law
the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption and Law
No. 20 of 2001 on the Changes in Law No. 31 of 1999). This law also
formed the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances This law details the milestones and dates for the budget process, specifies
general principles and authorities for the management and accountability
of state finances, and establishes the financial relationship between the
central government and other institutions. This law is the basis for
government regulations that inform budget transparency throughout the
budget cycle.
Law No. 15 of 2004 on the State Audit This law outlines the operational framework of the Supreme Audit
Institution of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK), and mandates it as a
professional and independent institution required to submit its reports to
Parliament.
Law No. 25 of 2004 on National Development This law seeks to “optimise public participation,” and lays out the process
Planning by which the public can participate in the creation of the country’s
development plans. It also institutionalises the creation of multi-
stakeholder consultation forums (Musrenbang) at all levels of government
for the long-term, medium- term and annual development plans.
Law No. 13 of 2006 on the Protection of This law is an essential component of the country’s protection of
Witnesses and Victims whistleblowers and sets out regulations to help provide for the safety of
victims of and witnesses to crimes.
President Regulation No. 1 of 2007 on the This law requires that government regulations be published and
Approval, Promulgation and Distribution of disseminated to ensure that the general public understands and
Laws and Regulations comprehends the contents of the laws and regulations (OECD, 2012).
Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information This law guarantees citizens’ right to information: Every interested person
Disclosure who applies to obtain public information “shall be able to obtain Public
Information fast and promptly at low cost and in a simple manner (Chapter
1, Article 2)”. Specifically, it:
Mandates the creation of public information provision system, named the
Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID): Public agencies “shall
establish and develop an information and documentation system to
manage the Public Information properly and efficiently, so that it is easily
accessible (Part 4, Article 7)”;
Encourages public participation in decision-making processes;
Promotes transparent, accountable, effective and efficient governance.
Law No. 37 of 2008 on the Ombudsman The aims of the Ombudsman are to:
Contribute to a democratic, just and wealthy state, based on the rule of
law;
Improve the quality of government services in all sectors;
Improve the legal culture and awareness of the population
The functions of the Ombudsman are to:

Receive and investigate grievances concerning the maladministration of
public services;
Follow up on the grievances under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman;
Co-ordinate and collaborate with other government institutions or public
agencies as well as with non-governmental organisations and individuals.

Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia (continued)

Law Key points
Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Service The law is designed to improve the quality of public services by:
Provision Establishing clear responsibilities and obligations of all parties related to
the provision of public services;
Ensuring the public services provided comply with the prevailing laws;
Giving legal protection and legal certainty to the public on the provision of
public services
Preparing and establishing service standards that take into account the
ability of the provider, public needs and environmental conditions. 4
Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Establishment of This law makes openness one of the principles to be applied in the
Regulatory Legislation formation of good legislation by requiring the government (via the Minister
of Law and Human Rights) to publish laws, government regulations,
presidential regulations, and programmes.
Law No. 17 of 2013 on Societal Organizations This law replaces Law No. 8 of 1985 on Societal Organizations, and sets
out the obligations and restrictions for societal organisations.
Law No. 5 of 2014 on Civil Administrative This law requires openness in civil service management and hiring
State practices.
Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Governance This law updates previous laws on regional governance, including Law No.
32 of 2004 on Regional Governance and Law No. 12 of 2008, and moves
some power back to the central government. Notably, this law is
supportive of innovative behaviour through its creation of a de facto “right
to innovate”, which ensures legal protection to local innovators.
Presidential Instruction No. 5 of 2015 on This regulation instructs all ministerial level officers, governors, and
Public Communication Management mayors to support the dissemination of government policies and
programmes co-ordinated by the Ministry of Communication and
Informatics.
Presidential Regulation No. 5 of 2015 on This regulation elaborated the government’s five year vision, missions and
Medium Term Development Plan 2015-19 programmes, including national development strategies, general policies,
line ministry programmes and the macro economic framework.
The country’s first dedicated push toward implementing specific open

government policies came during the administration of President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono. It was under President Yudhoyono that the country
joined the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in September 2011 and
attained full compliance with the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative (EITI) in October 2014. The Yudhoyono administration also
established the Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian
Pembangunan (UKP4), which was tasked with supervising and co-
ordinating open government initiatives and with helping to ensure their
successful implementation.
The Government of Indonesia signed the OGP Declaration in September
2011 as a co-founder of the organisation, and in September 2012 Indonesia
and the United Kingdom became co-chairs of the OGP. Starting 31 October
2013, Indonesia served as the lead chair of OGP and co-ordinated the
direction of this worldwide initiative for its year-long term. During its
chairmanship of the OGP, Indonesia launched Open Government Indonesia
(OGI), which was a unit developed as the fruit of a collaboration between
government agencies, civil society organisations, and donors. The OGI

primarily served to advocate for and monitor open government activities;

through its OGI Forum, it also provided a venue for public sector and civil
society representatives to translate policies into specific activities. Seven
government ministries and seven civil society organisations (CSOs)
comprised the OGI’s Core Team, 5 which was led by the Presidential
Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (UKP4).
The formal participation of CSOs in the OGI is particularly notable
given that Indonesia’s political history to a large degree marginalised the
role of civil society and the public in the design and delivery of public
policies and services. As evidenced by the country’s recent open
government progress, however, the country’s CSOs now play a prominent
role in helping to set open government priorities and are welcomed by the
relevant policy makers. As discussed further in Chapter 3, there remains
scope for increasing the involvement of CSOs, as they are
disproportionately located in Jakarta and are often focused on service
delivery or organising communities for self-help rather than on macro-level
changes (AusAID, 2012). Nevertheless, their inclusion in the national
government’s formal oversight of open government activities and
involvement in specific projects at the subnational level highlight their
integral role in pursuing open government in Indonesia.
During the election campaign of 2014, President Jokowi pledged to
bring a more inclusive style of politics to the office of the president.
President Jokowi and his Vice President Jusuf Kalla ran on an agenda called
“Nawa Cita” (referenced in Box 1.2). This document detailed the
candidate’s analysis of the main challenges facing Indonesia, as well as the
administration’s planned response. Of the plan’s nine priorities, the
proposals directly related to open government reforms were the following:
promote clean, effective, democratic, and reliable governance; reform the
justice system and create corruption-free and reliable law enforcement
institutions; and strengthen diversity and social restoration of Indonesia by
creating spaces of dialogue among citizens.
Despite the continuity between administrations in their support for open
government policies, the transition between them was nonetheless
disruptive. With the change of government at the end of 2014, the UKP4
was dissolved and new government did not clarify the management
arrangement of open government initiatives until well into 2015.
Importantly, however, many of the open government programmes
implemented under President Yudhoyono have remained, and many of
UKP4’s previous functions were taken over by the Ministry of National
Development Planning (Bappenas) and the Executive Office of the
President. Furthermore, the Jokowi administration confirmed the country’s
commitment to serve as co-chair of the OECD’s Network for Open and

Innovative Government in Southeast Asia, which was launched in Jakarta in

March 2015, highlighting Indonesia’s dedication to promoting open
government regionally.
In 2015, a new National Open Government Secretariat was established
to oversee open government implementation and was staffed by personnel
from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bappenas, and the Executive Office of
the President. This secretariat will lead the government’s open government
initiatives and foster interaction between the different ministries and
agencies of the GOI, civil society, academics and the private sector. It will
be an independent and autonomous entity, funded through the national
budget.
In interviews with the OECD, the Executive Office of the President
expressed that the primary mechanisms to support open government reforms
moving forward will be: 1) ensuring high-level commitment to open
government initiatives; 2) supporting the implementation of the open
government national plan at the subnational level; and 3) identifying
champions of reform to showcase successful implementation of reforms.
These bureaucratic reform goals coincide with and reinforce the goals of
enhancing public engagement, facilitating access to information and
reducing corruption through increased transparency, as outlined in the
country’s strategic development documents (see Chapter 2 for a description
of how these documents frame the country’s open government reform
efforts).
Beyond open government
A major focus of the GOI as it pursues open government initiatives will

be to link the country’s open government programmes to its public service
reform efforts (further explored in Chapter 2) and to facilitate the
collaboration between government branches and institutions to create a
government-wide open state policy. For example, this will include forging
connections between open government initiatives and principles on the one
hand and the implementation of the broad-based UN Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) on the other. This will help ensure that the
SDGs are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans and key
government initiatives. To cite some examples, the targets specifically
related to the country’s open government reform efforts include:
• Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable
development, provide access to justice for all and build effective,
accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels;

• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and
political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race,
ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status;
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions
at all levels;
• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and
representative decision-making at all levels;
• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect
fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and
international agreements.
In addition to exploring how open government can contribute directly to
the targets listed above, this review will examine how open government
principles, policies and practices can also contribute to and support the
substantive achievement of all of the targets, as well as to the process that
leads to the identification and implementation of the SDGs (see Chapter 8).
The opportunity presented by binding together the country’s openness,
transparency, bureaucratic reform, and anti-corruption objectives and the
global SDG goals suggest that the time is ripe to expand the push for open
government reforms. While Indonesia’s focus on implementing open
government reforms has been relatively recent when compared to other
international leaders in the field of open government, the country has
nonetheless shown steady progress. The extent of its economic and political
reforms since 1998 and its global leadership in moving the open government
agenda forward – as recently illustrated by the country’s re-election to the
OGP Support Unit Steering Committee for 2015-18 – show the country’s
commitment to reform.
Though the country has a solid legal and strategic foundation, the
national government is faced with the challenges of synchronising its work
with the local level, translating its broad strategy into specific goals, and
ensuring that national ministries and agencies buy into the reform process.
Moreover, the inclusion of the legislative and judicial branches in the
national open government reform process has been so far limited. These
challenges suggest that the Government of Indonesia should seek to develop
an “open-state”. Specifically, this would formalise collaboration of open
government issues across the executive, legislative and judicial branches to
promote a whole-of-society approach to open government initiatives.
At the technical level, Indonesia could create open government contact
points or liaisons with the National Open Government Secretariat and the
Centre of Government in key government ministries, the Judiciary,

Parliament, the Ombudsman and other independent agencies, and with

subnational governments. Together, these actors could work with the
National Open Government Secretariat and with civil society to create a
national open government and citizen engagement strategy. Similar to the
approach taken in Costa Rica (see Box 1.3), these actions would help
Indonesia move toward a holistic and integrated approach that includes all
branches of the national government, local governments, independent
institutions, civil society organisations, the business sector, media and
academia to build an open state.
Box 1.3. Declaration: Towards an open state (Costa Rica)

Consistent with the idea of building an Open State in Costa Rica, on 25
November 2015 the President of the Republic, the President of the Legislative
Assembly, the President of the Supreme Court and the President of the Electoral
Tribunal signed a declaration to promote transparency, fight corruption, increase
citizen participation in public affairs and improve access to information for
people through innovation in new technologies.
The document recognises that the principles of publicity, transparency,
accountability, access to information and citizen participation are fundamental to
the rule of law and for the daily work of the public branches. It acknowledges that
public information should be governed by the principles of openness and
proactive disclosure, only subject to a limited regime of exceptions, thereby
enabling the people, public opinion and mass media to have access to and
knowledge of what is discussed and agreed.
In the document, the Government of Costa Rica commits to:
• Promoting a policy of openness, transparency, accountability, participation

and innovation for all citizens.
• Building a plan of priority actions for open government, which will be

included in the institutional strategic plans of each branch.
• Instructing the administration to report annually to the President of each

branch the assessments and evaluations that demonstrate the fulfilment of
the plan.
• Promoting various forums for transparency and access to public

information.
• Strengthening and developing mechanisms for citizen participation that

contribute to a closer relation between civil society and the State, as well
as innovating with new technologies the access and participation of
citizens in public matters.
Source: OECD (forthcoming), Open Government in Costa Rica, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Organisation of the open government review
The review begins with a discussion of the steering and co-ordination of

open government policies at the centre of government (Chapter 2). It then
features a sector by sector analysis of Indonesia’s open government policy
goals, with chapters on: citizen participation in policy making and service
delivery (Chapter 3); the link between open government, integrity and anti-
corruption (Chapter 4); the role of digital government and open data in
supporting transparent government (Chapter 5); budget transparency
(Chapter 6); and the role of innovation in the public sector and its support of
open government (Chapter 7). The review concludes with a chapter on the
link between open government and the country’s efforts to design and
implement a comprehensive response to the UN 2030 Sustainable
Development Agenda (Chapter 8).
Each of the chapters in the review provides a summary of how the
specific policy area contributes to fostering open government, including a
description of the relevant instruments and practices developed by the
OECD and its members. Each chapter will also provide an overview of the
institutional framework in Indonesia that supports the design,
implementation and oversight of open government policies, the legal and
policy framework supporting open government and the alignment and
coherence of these policies with the broader public-sector reform agendas.
The chapters will also make an effort to document and evaluate measurable
results from open government initiatives in terms of outcomes such as:
better public services; higher citizen satisfaction; increased transparency of
the public sector; cost reductions; innovation led savings; etc.
A final section brings together the proposals made in each of the
chapters, presenting them in the form of proposals to be considered by the
national government, local governments, or specific ministries. These
proposals can help inform future iterations of the country’s OGP National
Action Plans, as well as the government’s public-sector reform efforts more
broadly.

Notes
1. The institutional framework for decentralisation was consolidated in Laws

No. 22/1999 on Subnational Government and No. 25/1999 on
Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations. In 2014, parliament passed the Law
No. 23 of 2014 on Local Government which aims to re-arrange
relationship between central and local government.
2. The reform process started by President Habibie (1998-99) has been
expanded upon by the presidents Abdurrahman Wahid (1999–2001),
Megawati Soekarnoputri (2001–2004), Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
(2004–2014) and Joko Widodo (October 2014–present).
3. Information provided by the Indonesia Ministry of Home Affairs, April
2016.
4. World Services Group, “Indonesia - Law on Public Services”; Makarin &
Taira S., October 2009.
5. This forum included representatives from government, academia and civil
society. The forum contained 14 members, split evenly between
government representatives (UKP4, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Kemkominfo, Bappenas, KIP, MOHA, KemPAN RB) and CSOs (TI-I,
Secretariat Fitra, Pattiro, ICEL, Motion Aceh, Indonesia JARI, KOPEL
Makassar) (OGI, 2012).

References
Antlöv, H., Brinkerhoff, D. and Rapp, E. (2010) Civil Society Capacity

Building for Democratic Reform: Experience and Lessons from
Indonesia; Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, Vol. 21, No. 3 (September 2010), pp. 417-439.
AusAID (2012), NGO Sector Review: Phase I Findings,
https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/indo-ks15-ngo-
sector-review-phase1.pdf.
Cribb, R. (2002), "Unresolved Problems in the Indonesian Killings of 1965–
1966", Asian Survey 42 (4) July/August.
Elson, R.E. (2008), The Idea of Indonesia: A History, Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Gallup World Poll (2015), www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-
poll.aspx.
Ministry of National Development Planning (2014), “Rencana
Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019”, (Indonesian),
National Medium-Term Development Plan 2015-2019,
www.bappenas.go.id/index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968.
OECD (forthcoming), Open Government in Costa Rica, OECD Public
Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2015), OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2015, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-idn-2015-en.
OECD (2013), Colombia: Implementing Good Governance, OECD Public
Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202177-en.
OECD (2012), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Indonesia,
Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation,
www.oecd.org/indonesia/chap%202.%20Capacity%20for%20High%20
Quality%20Regulation%20in%20Indonesia.pdf.
OECD (2009a), Budgeting in Indonesia, OECD Journal on Budgeting,
Volume 2009/2, www.oecd.org/indonesia/45362389.pdf.

OECD (2009b), Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy

and Services, OECD Studies on Public Engagement, OECD Publishing,
OECD (2005), Modernising Government: The Way Forward, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264010505-en.
OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public
Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.
Policies for Inclusive and Sustainable Growth in Indonesia: Economics
Department Working Papers No. 1246, OECD, Petar Vujanovic.
Ricklefs, M. C. (1991) A History of Modern Indonesia since c.1300, Second
Edition. MacMillan.
Transparency International Indonesia (2014), “Scorecard Report: Law and
Policy of Open Governance in Indonesia”, March.
Vickers, A. (2005), A History of Modern Indonesia, Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Vujanovic, P. (2015), "Policies for inclusive and sustainable growth in
Indonesia", OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1246,
OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrxqbh40r35-en.

2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA – 73
Chapter 2
Steering and co-ordination of open government

policies and practices in Indonesia
This chapter looks at the capacity of the centre of government to design,

steer and support the implementation of open government policies. It
explores current policies and practices and provides guidance to frame the
response to pending challenges. Indonesia has been a frontrunner in
fostering the international agenda on open government. At the national
level, open government is incorporated in the Presidential Priorities and
some key policy documents, which helps to promote the issue’s visibility and
provides greater leverage for action. The country also has proven
experience in developing and implementing OGP Action Plans, having now
reached the fourth generation of its OGP Action Plan. In addition, in the
context of the country’s ongoing process of decentralisation, open
government objectives are increasingly linked to the idea of better service
delivery situated at the local level.

74 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA
The centre of government as a strategic player 1
From administrative support to policy co-ordination

The centre of government (CoG) is the body or group of bodies that
provides direct support and advice to the head of government and the
Council of Ministers. The CoG is known by different labels in different
countries, such as Chancellery, Cabinet Office, Office of the President,
Office of the Government, etc. Having moved beyond its traditional role of
serving the executive from an administrative perspective, the CoG is now
playing a more active role in policy development and co-ordination across
OECD countries. The centre in many countries now provides services that
range from strategic planning to real-time policy advice and intelligence,
and from leading major cross-departmental policy initiatives to monitoring
progress and outcomes (OECD, 2014b).
In a broad sense, the CoG not only refers to the Presidency or its
equivalent, but also comprises key strategic partners, such as the Ministry of
Finance (where policy priorities are matched with resources) and the
Ministry of Planning (with an important role in designing policy priorities
across the administration and the way these contribute to an overall strategic
plan). As such, and depending on the particular situation of a country in
terms of its institutional constellation, several actors can play a significant
role in CoG co-ordination. Additionally, central agencies responsible for
coherent human resources (HR), e-government, regulatory and open
government policies, etc. across different departments also contribute to
reinforcing cross-governmental co-ordination.
Despite playing a decisive role in key areas of public policy, the CoG in
most countries is relatively small. The apparent disconnect between the
centre’s broad responsibilities and its limited budget and human resources is
at least partly explained by the fact that almost all the resources and most of
the formal powers that are needed to design and implement (sector) policies
lie elsewhere in the public administration, outside the CoG. In most of its
activities, the centre is working with partner organisations that are much
larger and that are responsible and accountable for most, if not all, spending
on those activities. Generally speaking – i.e. across presidential,
parliamentary and other systems – the three key roles of the centre are:
1) supporting quality decision-making by the head of government; 2) policy
co-ordination across government; and 3) monitoring of the implementation
of government policies. With its ambition to mobilise and influence (very
often) larger budget-holding departments across government, the CoG’s
success depends not only on formal powers or structures but also, to a large
extent, on its capacity to lead and motivate.

As the role of the CoG can comprise different aspects, Figure 2.1
presents an overview of the primary focus of CoG institutions across OECD
countries. While it points to a certain degree of diversity across countries, it
also shows the extent of consensus as to the CoG’s core functions, such as
providing support to the head of government.
Figure 2.1. Focus of the centre of government

International development and aid
Relations with sub-national levels of government
Policy analysis
Supranational co-ordination/supranational policy issues (including relations with EU, G20, etc.)
Human resources strategy for the public administration as a whole
Risk anticipation and management/strategic foresight for the whole of government
Regulatory quality and coherence
Relations with parliament/legislature
Designing and implementing reform of the public administration
Communicating government messages to the public and to other parts of the public…
Monitoring the implementation of government policy
Preparation of the government programme
Strategic planning for the whole of government
Policy co-ordination across government
Co-ordinating preparation of Cabinet meetings
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: OECD (2014b), “Centre stage: Driving better policies from the centre of government”,
GOV/PGC/MPM(2014)3/FINAL, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/Centre-Stage-Report.pdf.
The OECD Survey of centres of government (OECD, 2013) also shows

that a majority of countries (59%) confirms that the number of cross-
ministerial policy initiatives has increased recently (2008-12), and almost all
respondents reported that leading policy co-ordination has now become one
of the priority tasks of the centre. The centre can lead such cross-ministerial
co-ordination by: 1) integrating cross-disciplinary perspectives (including its
own perspective – the centre is not “policy neutral”) into policy advice for
the head of government and/or Cabinet; 2) leading policy co-ordination via
both traditional committee architectures and more innovative and informal
channels; 3) facilitating resource sharing through a closer partnership with
ministries of finance; and 4) supporting experimentation and testing of new
delivery systems, many of which are based on shared service models.
Leading strategic initiatives is a delicate undertaking, particularly in
countries in which authority is highly decentralised. It is essential to offer
both short- and long-term gains to senior public officials as incentives to co-
operate in complex initiatives that involve sharing of risk, resources and
accountability. For example, the long-term gains of achieving cultural

change among senior civil servants in the area of collaboration should be

matched with short-term “rewards” for changing their behaviour and
investing time in new practices.
From vision, leadership and innovation to effective delivery

The OECD’s work on centres of government explores how governments
can adapt the institutions at the centre in order to play an expanded and more
outward-looking role (see Box 2.1). In spite of its prominent role in diverse
parts of the policy process, the precise nature of the work of the CoG is not
yet fully understood. International comparisons of centres of government are
rare, despite the potential “governance premium” that effective management
of policy from the centre can generate. The crisis of 2008 has, however,
helped to turn the spotlight onto the crucial role that the centre plays in
effective, decisive government. The widespread international decline in
public trust in government in the aftermath of the crisis (Gallup World Poll,
2013) has made the CoG’s leadership and innovative decision-making
capacity more decisive than ever before. Governments need to prove that
they have a clear vision for the future, are capable of engaging in dialogue
with the administration and citizens on this vision, and manage to deliver
results, which can further foster sustainable long-term growth and well-
being.
Box 2.1. The OECD Network of Senior Officials from Centres of Government
The OECD created a network of CoG senior officials in the 1980s, and it was consolidated
into an annual event in the 1990s. The network acts as a forum for informal discussion and
remains one of the OECD’s highest-level policy networks.
The network serves three main purposes:
• To review issues of how to make the centre of national government work more
effectively;
• To achieve a more in-depth understanding of decision and policymaking systems in the

host country; and
• To work on broad governance issues fundamental to achieving economic and social

public policy objectives.
Recent topics of discussion included, among others, the promotion of inclusive growth, how
to foster vision, leadership and innovation and how to recover public trust.
Source: www.oecd.org/gov/cog.htm.

Box 2.2 provides a more detailed overview of how vision, leadership

and innovation are central to the CoG’s daily business. Across these three
areas of vision, leadership and innovation, the capacity to bridge the
(potential) gap between political staff (ministries, state secretaries, political
advisors and senior civil servants in certain cases) and the civil service is
one of the challenges of incoming governments.
Box 2.2. Centre of government – observations and trends

The success of a government rests on its ability to define a vision for the country that reflects an
electoral mandate and that is typically designed to increase well-being, prosperity and international
competitiveness. In the years following the economic crisis, concern with budgets dominated in
most countries, crowding out any other vision. However, those days appear to be over, and
governments are seeking to be more forward-looking and strategic. Most OECD countries have
some sort of vision document these days. This vision has different, interlinked dimensions,
including a long-term vision for the nation, usually going beyond growth objectives to embrace
well-being and sustainability goals, and a vision for what the government of the day wants to
achieve.
The government no longer has a monopoly on defining the vision. While efforts to gather
citizens’ views could risk raising expectations that cannot be fulfilled, such bottom-up visions can
help validate and legitimise government policy. Vision depends on two crucial factors: trust and
communication. If citizens do not trust the government, they will not trust its vision. Taking steps to
strengthen trust in government more generally will help to ensure greater buy-in on more strategic
goals. Communication and ownership are also important. If the vision has a strong narrative,
connects to citizens’ lives and is well communicated, then it can help generate support for difficult
reforms. A particular problem faced by policy makers is that the reform process and its translation
into real benefits for citizens are often too slow, undermining confidence and enthusiasm for longer
term visions.
Leadership is crucial to drive policies that contribute to a strategic vision. In a complex and
challenging policy environment, characterised by low levels of trust in government, leadership is an
essential attribute of effective government. Room for manoeuvre of governments has probably
diminished at both the national level, because of budgetary pressure, and at the international level,
because of globalisation. Nevertheless, the centre guides in terms of substance and helps
departments understand how to align policies with broader objectives. The centre also has a role to
play in leading by example, promoting efficiency and good policy management by departments. A
key issue is to ensure that the civil service and the political staff do not become disconnected,
working as separate entities at the Centre.
Many centres of government actively promote innovation in their public services, with an
emphasis on encouraging a culture of innovation in public services and providing a stable frame for
policy innovation and creativity. The Centre can provide an impetus – particularly when it partners
with specialist agencies that can identify talented people, good ideas and “roll-out” techniques.
Some countries have successfully used innovation focal points or dedicated units to drive public-
sector innovation; at the same time, being the innovation leader requires appropriate financial and
HR resources.
Source: OECD (2014a), “Vision, leadership, innovation: Driving public policy performance”, 33rd Meeting of
Senior Officials from centres of government, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/summary.pdf.

In addition to the CoG’s responsibility to display vision, leadership and

innovative capacity, previous OECD Public Governance Reviews (OECD,
2014c) have shown that an effective CoG is also critical for:
• Accountability. The CoG is the steward of strategic vision. It is
accountable for overall results and oversight of the delegated
responsibilities. It is important, however, to avoid overly rigid
“command and control” structures and micromanagement, but to work
instead towards a system where the CoG can exert effective oversight
and clarify lines of accountability. Line ministries need to exercise
leadership for the actions and policies for which they are responsible,
within the overall framework of a shared collective commitment.
• Strategic planning, policy coherence and collective commitment. The
CoG needs the capacity to give a specific shape to its strategic vision, to
secure its coherence and to make it operational. A starting point is likely
to be the government programme or equivalent, putting into practice the
political manifesto of the party or parties in power. Making the strategic
vision operational is key. Otherwise, the vision has no value. The
doctrine of collective responsibility is crucial to bind both line ministries
and the CoG to a course of action. It is crucial for collective
commitment to be built, developed, discussed and agreed upon by the
whole range of actors that are engaged in public policy making,
implementation and service delivery.
• Communication. The CoG needs the capacity to communicate its
strategic vision, how it is being taken forward and how it is
implemented. Transparency and openness help to promote a sense of
purpose that is shared among stakeholders both outside and inside the
government. Clarity of communication within the administration is
important so that decentralised institutions can understand the vision and
share in its construction. In this way all parts of the public sector can
understand their role, responsibility and accountability for results.
Given its comprehensive set of responsibilities, the CoG also requires
continuity across political cycles (OECD, 2014c). CoG institutions are best
constructed, as far as possible, to withstand the vagaries of the political
cycle. To be sustainable over time, it is important to implement long-term
strategies. Stability of core functions and structures will boost confidence
that the strategic vision is taken seriously and that the country will have the
institutional capacity to carry out the vision over time.
The most recent work on CoG (OECD, 2015) also highlights a
(renewed) pressure for actual delivery, i.e. going beyond strengthened vision
and leadership. While many countries are still dealing with the legacy of the

crisis (e.g. low growth and persistent unemployment), governments are also
facing new, emerging challenges like large-scale migration and climate
change. In addition, global agendas such as the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and the Climate Change (COP21) require new
efforts from governments. These agendas are characterised by some shared
features, notably multidimensionality, high stakes, complex metrics, and
uncertainty. Citizens are increasingly aware of the scale of the challenges,
and they expect governments to look beyond political timetables or
ideological affiliations to find durable solutions and generate real change in
people’s lives. Box 2.3 provides some reflections on key elements to further
strengthen the CoG’s capacity to deliver on complex agendas.
Box 2.3. Centre of government – delivering on complex agendas

At the 2015 meeting of the OECD Network of Senior Officials from Centres of Government,
participants reflected on key aspects to further strengthen the CoG’s capacity to deliver on complex
agendas:
• the importance of setting clear goals and objectives from the outset, with mention made of
the welcome and trend towards more focused government programmes structured around
fewer but more strategic priorities;
• the relevance of efforts to reduce the number of participants around the table - while formal
Cabinet or government-wide deliberation and decision-making remain important, priority
initiatives can be more effectively driven by smaller ministerial teams;
• the common agenda should, where possible, be built around high-profile outcomes that offer
tangible rewards in terms of business or citizen impact for participating ministries;
• citizen input can be leveraged to generate momentum and overcome resistance either within
government or from other vested interests; for that purpose, the centre needs to better
communicate to citizens the goals of priority initiatives, particularly those with longer-term
impacts;
• mastering knowledge and evidence is crucial to many different aspects of the centre’s work,
and clear objectives need to be set at the planning stage, as without realistic and agreed upon
objectives, targets are meaningless and can waste effort and drain enthusiasm;
• a particular challenge regards the translation of data collected at national level into usable
advice for subnational governments, which are often the principal providers of public
services and to have evidence systems that provide the right data at the right time;
• to be effective, the centre needs to have a good understanding of the ‘organigram’ of
delivery; in other words, to grasp the relationships that have an impact on the delivery of
policies and how the centre can support these relationships; at the same time, the centre needs
to explore how to facilitate leadership by specialist line ministries so that the centre is not the
default option and to ensure that key policies are not “orphaned” or dumped on the centre.
Source: OECD (2015), “Meeting summary - 2015 meeting in Helsinki (Finland) of the OECD Network of Senior Officials from
Centres of Government on Promoting Inclusive Growth: A New Challenge for the Centre of Government”,
www.oecd.org/gov/cog.htm.

Centre of government and public administration reform in Indonesia
Key actors and mandate

Among the 34 ministries in the Government of Indonesia, Box 2.4 lists
the selected ministries which have a pivotal role as centre of government
actor and provides an overview of their key responsibilities.
Box 2.4. Centre of government actors

Ministry/Office Centre of government responsibility
President’s Office It co-ordinates the executive’s delivery and strategy.
This office assists the administration to identify
strategic issues, as well as directs the executive
branch’s public communications.
Ministry of National The Ministry is charged with formulating, co-

Development Planning ordinating, and synchronising national planning in all
(Bappenas) sectors, including economic, regional, and
infrastructure development, as well as data and
information planning. 2 Bappenas, in partnership with
the Ministry of Finance, helps draft the annual
budget. The staff of Bappenas maintains close
substantive relationships with the various sectoral
ministries. 3
Ministry of This ministry assists the President in formulating

Administrative and policies and co-ordinating policy implementation
Bureaucratic Reform related to Bureaucratic Reform activities, including
(KemenPAN) those related to public services, human resources, and
business processes. 4 The vision of the ministry is to
create a “professional and reliable state apparatus that
is conducive to good public governance.” 5 The
Ministry is also responsible for the supervision, co-
ordination, monitoring, and evaluation of all civil
service matters, including supervision and co-
ordination of the National Civil Service Agency and
the National Institute of Public Administration.
Ministry of Finance Responsible for managing financial and state assets.

The Ministry of Finance is in charge of drafting the
budget and providing technical guidance and
evaluation of revenues, expenditures, and financial
estimates; this ministry is also in charge of managing
the posting of budget data and representing the
government, along with Bappenas, during
Parliamentary oversight of budget discussions.

Centre of government in a changing context: public administration

reform in Indonesia (1945-present)
The history of public administration reform in Indonesia goes back to
Sukarno’s presidency (1945-67), following the country’s independence in
1945. Sukarno’s reform attempts were intended to reduce corruption in the
public sector and improve the ability of the state to respond to the many
social and economic challenges facing the country. These attempts,
however, proved insufficient and the fragile political situation of the time
made these efforts difficult (Budiarso, 2014). A subsequent phase occurred
during Suharto’s rule (1967-98) known as the ‘New Order Era’. The
difficult economic situation of the time, characterised by an inflation rate of
600%, stagnant economic production and trade and poor infrastructure
precipitated Suharto’s centralised policies which were intended to restore
and maintain economic stability. Under such circumstances public
administration reform received little attention. Strict loyalty was demanded
of civil servants and there was little room in the public administration for
introducing new ideas.
After Suharto stepped down in 1998 there was new impetus for public
administration reform as part of Indonesia’s broad reform programme
known as the Reformasi. It was acknowledged that the public sector in
general and public administration in particular had to play an important role
in supporting Indonesia’s economic and social development. Government
underperformance was found to be one of the main factors that hindered
development, and therefore creating competent public-sector institutions
was one of the main goals of the reform plan. The central idea underlying
the reforms, one that had a direct bearing on public administration reform,
was to create a democratic state and address systemic problems, which were
identified to be corruption, collusion, and nepotism (Korupsi Kolusi
Nepotisme or KKN).
In response to these challenges, the Reformasi leaders initiated a large-
scale, so-called “big bang” decentralisation process and took the first
significant steps to reform the civil service, thus paving the way for future
public administration reform. To create the basic systems and processes of
the newly-democratic state in the context of decentralisation, it was key to
put in place sound public financial management principles and practices.
Therefore, public financial management reform was and has remained a key
policy area on Indonesia’s reform agenda. The Ministry of Finance assumed
a leading role in developing financial management reform, along with tax
and customs reform. The Government introduced three bills in Parliament in
2000 to establish general principles of public finance and expenditure
management. The next phase of reforms of the public financial management

followed in 2003-05 with the adoption of Law No. 17 of 2003 on State

Finances, Law No. 1 of 2004 on the State Treasury and Law No. 15 of 2004
on Auditing Management and Accountability in the State Finances. These
three laws replaced colonial laws that had operated for more than five
decades in Indonesia (Budiarso, 2014).
In 2002, reforms aimed at improving the organisation, staffing and
career management of civil servants were introduced, while in 2004
significant steps were taken to improve strategic planning through the
adoption of Law No. 25 of 2004 on the National Development Planning
System. This law was further strengthened by Presidential Regulation 7 of
2005 on the 2004-09 Medium Term Development Plan. In addition, Law
No.17 of 2007 on the 2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan was issued to
ensure policy consistency between administrations.
As a result of these legislative changes, government institutions, both
central and local, were mandated to report on their performance and make
use of the existing performance management system, SAKIP, with the aim
of improving performance, transparency, and accountability in the short,
medium and long term. These goals were to be achieved through the
definition of visions, missions and clear goals and objectives. However,
mixed results were observed in terms of the implementation of the system
during those initial phases, which underlined the need for top leadership
involvement, strategic alignment between financial and operational
management and for a whole-of-government performance management
system (Budiarso, 2014; Jurnali and Siti-Nabiha, 2015).
Against the backdrop of these long-term public administration reform
efforts, three reform areas particularly affect the role of the centre of
government: the bureaucratic reform agenda, the strategic planning process
and the decentralisation process. Each of these three reform areas can be
linked to specific open government priorities and goals, such as increased
transparency or increased consultation and participation.
Bureaucratic reform
Public administration reform has become increasingly visible with the
adoption of the bureaucracy reform (reformasi birokrasi). The initiative was
introduced in 2006 by Sri Mulyani Indrawati, then Indonesia’s Minister of
Finance under President Yudhoyono, with the aim of supporting the ongoing
public financial management reform process. The focus, as originally
envisaged, was on reforming organisational structures and procedures, HR
policies and practices, as well as carrying out a modernisation programme
that included widespread organisational reforms and introducing
information and communication technologies (ICTs). It championed a

whole-of-government approach to public administration reform. The reform

was first piloted in three organisations in 2007, i.e. the Ministry of Finance,
the State Audit Office (BPK) and the National Supreme Court Office,
followed by implementation on a larger scale. The reform reflected the
President’s programme in the National Medium Term Development Plan
2004-09, which targeted good governance, improved supervision and
accountability, restructuring and better institutional management, improved
public service and HR management, and public service quality improvement
(Budiarso, 2014).
Until 2009, the reform fell under the Central Bureaucratic Reform Team
(TRBP). Subsequently, starting in 2010, implementation was primarily co-
ordinated by the Bureaucratic Reform Co-ordination Forum (FKRB) of the
Ministry of Finance. In addition, the reform fell under the mandate of the
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (Regulation 20 of 2010
concerning the roadmap for the bureaucratic reform 2010-14).
The current 2015-19 Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap is firmly anchored
in the country’s Medium and Long Term National Development Plans and
provides detailed roadmaps (with quantified indicators, but not necessarily
the identification of institutional responsibilities) to guide future action
towards:
• A clean and accountable bureaucracy (e.g. through commitment from
the leadership at central and local levels to prevent and eradicate
corruption and enhance transparency and integrity).
• An effective and efficient bureaucracy.
• A bureaucracy that exhibits qualities defining highly efficient and
functioning public services.
Through its leadership in the current Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, the
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (KemenPAN) has an
important formal role to play as a CoG actor. In addition, the priorities of the
Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap illustrate that open government priorities
such as transparency and accountability are part and parcel of the broader
public administration reform agenda.
Decentralisation and regional autonomy

Indonesia comprises 34 provinces, five of which have special status. 6
Each province has its own legislative body and governor. The provinces are
subdivided into regencies (kabupaten) and cities (kota) both of which are
further subdivided into districts (kecamatan or distrik in Papua and West
Papua), and further into villages, which represent the lowest level of

governmental administration (either desa, kelurahan, kampung, nagari in

West Sumatra, or gampong in Aceh). A village is further divided into
several community and neighbourhood groups.
The fall of Suharto’s New Order regime gave rise to a political climate
that was supportive of democratisation and subnational political and
administrative decentralisation. Two decentralisation laws were passed in
1999, Law No. 22 of 1999 on Regional Autonomy and Law No. 25 of 1999
on the Fiscal Balance between the Central Government and the Regions,
both of which went into effect in 2001. These laws transformed the structure
of public administration and introduced significant change in
intergovernmental relations in Indonesia, including the following (Australia
Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation, 2010):
• The responsibility for the delivery of key public services was devolved
directly to local (district and municipal) governments. The exceptions
(retained at the central level) were for such functions as security, foreign
affairs, monetary and fiscal policy, judiciary and religious affairs;
• The hierarchical relationship between local governments and provincial
governments was eliminated, making districts fully autonomous. The
district head (bupati) and head of municipality (walikota) were no
longer required to report to the provincial governor, but rather to the
locally elected district parliament (DPRD). In contrast, provinces
retained a hierarchical relationship with central government;
• Substantial parts of the national budget were allocated to provincial and
local governments, and they were given effective budgetary and
financial autonomy. For example, on average 30% of the national
budget (APBN) is now being channelled each year to provincial and
local governments, up from 12% in the mid-1990s.
These laws not only changed the structure of the public administration,
but they also had the potential to change the state-citizen relationship: as the
policy decision-making progress came (physically) much closer to citizens,
new opportunities for citizen consultation and participation were likely to
arise. However, these laws were later amended by Law No. 32 of 2004 on
Regional Administration and Law No. 33 of 2004 on the Fiscal Balance
between the Central Government and the Regional Governments, which
reconfigured the autonomy between the central, provincial and district level.
Some authority was given back to provincial governments in areas such as
supervision of local governments, capacity building, budget preparation and
local taxation. These changes also decreased to some extent the autonomy of
DPRDs locally, and their role started to be one of co-ordination based on
partnership rather than hierarchical supervision and control.

Despite this legislation, there have been concerns about the lack of
clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government
as well as the relationships between them. A subsequent regulation,
Government Regulation on Division of Authorities among Different Levels
of Government (GR 38 of 2007) was issued in 2007 to address these
concerns, but this change does not seem to have had a significant impact
(Australia Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation, 2010). There have
also been questions concerning the different types of autonomy that local
governments enjoy in reality. While by law they are entrusted with
significant administrative discretion, in reality they can only make use of it
as long as they possess an adequate degree of financial autonomy supported
by sufficient administrative capacity. By law local governments have
substantial financial autonomy, but in practice most of their revenue is still
earmarked to centrally determined priorities. The challenge therefore is to
grant both administrative and financial autonomy to local governments,
while ensuring that both the degree of central co-ordination and the form it
takes are locally acceptable. At the same time, this co-ordination must allow
for the central government’s national priorities to be met.
A number of government regulations were intended to create the
framework for the central government to evaluate the performance of
subnational governments. They include GR 78 of 2007 concerning the
guidelines for the formation, eradication, and merging of autonomous
regions, followed by GR 6 of 2008 on the evaluation of subnational
government performance and GR 8 of 2008 regarding the formulation,
monitoring, and evaluation of subnational development plans. Box 2.5
provides an overview of the primary roles and responsibilities of the
different levels of government. The box also illustrates how the CoG at the
national level has an important role to play in overall co-ordination, keeping
in mind that for many policy areas, its counterparts are not (only) sector
ministries at national level, but to a very large extent also subnational
governments.

Box 2.5. Multilevel governance in Indonesia
Level of Main responsibilities

government
National Ministry of Home Affairs, Bappenas and the Ministry of
government Finance are the key central institutions concerned with
decentralisation and resource allocation;
Allocation of most financial resources to provincial and
local governments
Legislative and regulatory power nationally;
Control over government staffing and performance
incentives.
Provincial Capacity building and supervision functions;
governments Close links to the national government as the de-
concentrated bodies of the national government.
District Primary responsibility for the provision of key public
governments services such as health, education and infrastructure.
Village Use financial resources from both district and provincial
governments governments’ budgets and from national programmes:
Do not have a formal responsibility in public service
delivery.
Source: Australia Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation (2010).
In 2014, Indonesia passed Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government

to replace the previous regulation. This law sought to clarify the division of
authorities between central and local government, and promoted public
participation and innovation at the local government.
Strategic planning and performance management

Under the terms of Law No. 25 of 2004 on the National Development
Planning System, the Government of Indonesia is required to draft national
long-term development plans (abbreviated RPJPN) every twenty years. The
vision and mission of the current RPJPN 2005‐2025 is to establish a country
that is “developed and self-reliant, just and democratic, and peaceful and
united.” Specifically, the plan aims to encourage development that:
1) ensures the widest possible equality in the country, supported by quality
human resources and infrastructure; 2) ensures the rule of law is applied
fairly and consistently and serves the public interest; and 3) provides
security and peace among all people.
Within the long-term development plan cycle, the Government of
Indonesia is additionally required to draft National Medium-Term

Development Plans (abbreviated RPJMN) every five years. These five year
cycles overlap with presidential terms of office so that the presidential
administration’s plans align with the vision and mission of the national long-
term development plan.
The goal of the current National Medium-Term Development Plan
2015-19 with respect to public governance is to build a government that is
“clean, effective, democratic and reliable.” The plan’s strategies regarding
public administration and open government reforms are comprised of the
following five areas:
• Continuing to consolidate democratic institutions to regain public trust,
for example by encouraging stronger partnerships between government,
the private sector and civil society, and by strengthening and
empowering civil society organisations to support their ability to work
with the government, media, and the public;
• Enhancing the role of female representation in politics and development,
for example by increasing the commitment of development actors to
integrate gender perspectives in development planning at the national
and regional level, as well as incorporating gender responsive budgeting
procedures in development planning;
• Building transparent and accountable government performance, for
example by creating a performance reporting system and increasing
public access to information about the performance of government
agencies. This strategy also seeks to implement more effective e-
government systems by strengthening e-government policies,
infrastructure systems and electronic procurement systems. Furthermore,
this area seeks to increase the implementation of open government
practices and informational transparency in all government agencies by
establishing PPID offices in every state public body; increasing public
awareness about job openings; publishing budget and budget
implementation reports; and providing space for public participation in
formulating and overseeing the implementation of public policy;
• Enhancing the quality of implementation of bureaucratic reform by, for
example, improving the management capacity of the civil service and by
fully implementing Law No. 25 of 2009 on the Public Service;
• Deepening public participation in the policy-making process, for
example by increasing the openness of and access to public information
(through the development of communication and information policies,
including public disclosure, management and dissemination of public
information, particularly through the establishment of PPID offices), as
well as by strengthening partnerships with local governments, civil

society organisations, the private sector and the media to educate the
public about the importance of public information and participate in the
process of preparing and monitoring policies. 7
Through an extensive annual planning system, including at the
subnational level (see description in Chapter 3 on the Development Planning
Forum or Musrenbang), Bappenas has established itself as a key CoG actor
to foster strategy and coherence throughout the public sector. In line with
the broader public administration reform agenda, strategic planning and
performance management (as part of the government’s effort to ensure the
implementation its strategies) have increasingly gained prominence and
have evolved through various stages and adaptations, as part of the whole-
of-government efforts to improve performance, as called for in the
bureaucracy reform. Before 1999, the main focus of the performance system
was to ensure the financial accountability of governmental agencies, but this
understanding has expanded to encompass non-financial in addition to
financial performance (Jurnali and Siti-Nabiha, 2015). Instrumental to this
gradual change was Presidential Instruction 7 of 1999, which mandated that
all government agencies implement a performance accountability system
(SAKIP) and issue an annual performance accountability report (LAKIP).
The main purpose of the regulation was to create the needed framework with
the ultimate aim to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness
of government institutions. This piece of legislation was further developed
in the operational guidelines for the performance accountability system and
reporting as regulated in Public Administration Agency Decree
589/IX/6/Y/1999, and later on amended by Decree 239/IX/6/8/2003. This
legislation further required government institutions to develop strategic
planning and performance management to fulfil and meet the vision,
mission and objectives of the organisation. It also mandated that government
institutions prepare well-defined performance targets, measurement
indicators and data collection systems, and it offered guidance on the
implementation and evaluation of public programmes (Jurnali and Siti-
Nabiha, 2015).
Furthermore, according to Regulation 9 of 2007 of the Ministry of
Administrative and Bureaucracy Reform, local governments must develop
key performance indicators based on the guidelines provided in Regulation 9
of 2007. Local governments are required to develop SMART outcome-based
indicators that reflect their strategic plans. Reporting on local governments’
performance was further elaborated in Regulation No. 9 of 2010 of the
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucracy Reform. The performance
accountability report must be sent no more than three months after the end
of the fiscal year and needs to include both financial and non-financial
information on the performance of local governments. The report is based

on self-assessments by local governments themselves (Jurnali and Siti-

Nabiha, 2015).
The bureaucracy reform introduced further changes to the performance
management system. On the one hand, more emphasis has been placed on
whole-of-government performance and improved co-ordination across
organisations and levels of government. Elsewhere, with the support of the
Ministry of Finance, the balanced scorecard (BSC) has been taken into
account since 2007 and was adopted in 2009 as a strategic performance
measurement and management tool to support the goals of the bureaucracy
reform agenda. Based on the experience with the implementation of BSC in
the Ministry of Finance, the following main lessons have been drawn: the
need to maintain the commitment on the part of leadership to cascade the
BSC down to the individual level, while developing capacity for managing
strategy and dealing with the whole of the Indonesian bureaucracy
(Budiarso, 2014).
The centre of government and public administration reform as

enablers for open government
Indonesia’s open government efforts are embedded in a broader public
administration reform process and in a CoG reality that have complex
influences on the government’s ability to affect change. For example:
• The country has a set of CoG actors that play an important role in
enabling open government, though the complexity, size and different
waves of de- and recentralisation that have affected the multilevel
governance dynamics of the country are likely to multiply the
challenges;
• Indonesia’s bureaucratic reform agenda has obtained a fairly prominent
place in the overall reform agenda over the last ten years (e.g. the
explicit link with the country’s national development plans) and open
government related principles such as transparency and accountability
are gaining increased visibility;
• The strong tradition of strategic planning and increased attention to
performance management offer possible entry points to anchor the open
government agenda.

The open government agenda
The institutional anchorage of open government

Since the Reformasi era’s democratisation push, the public has
demanded better access to public services and improved government
performance. Indonesia has identified openness in government as a tool to
achieve those goals. President Yudhoyono, who was inaugurated in 2004,
displayed a political commitment to instituting both an anti-corruption
agenda and a broad open government agenda. The Yudhoyono
administration also established the Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan
dan Pengendalian Pembangunan (Presidential Delivery Unit for
Development Monitoring and Oversight, UKP4), which was tasked with
supervising, co-ordinating, and helping to ensure the successful
implementation of the open government initiatives. The Government of
Indonesia signed the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Declaration in
September 2011 as a co-founder of the organisation, and in September 2012
Indonesia and the United Kingdom became co-chairs of the OGP. Starting
on 31 October 2013, Indonesia served as the lead chair of OGP and co-
ordinated the direction of this worldwide initiative for its year-long term.
During its chairmanship of the OGP, Indonesia launched the Open
Government Initiative (OGI) at the national level. The OGI Core Team
comprised seven government ministries and seven CSOs, led by UKP4 and
primarily served to advocate for, and monitor, open government activities,
and through the OGI forum provided a venue for public sector and civil
society representatives to translate policies into specific activities.
When President Jokowi took office in 2014, UKP4 was dissolved and
replaced by the Executive Office of the President. During this transition
period, Bappenas, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Office
of the President primarily took over the open government portfolio. These
three institutions divided the management of open government, where
Bappenas focused on linking the open government priorities with other
national priority agendas, the Executive Office of the President ensured the
support and involvement of the national leadership and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs handled diplomatic matters related open government.
The administration soon announced that the oversight and management
of its open government reforms would be managed by a newly created
National Open Government Secretariat, staffed by representatives from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bappenas, and the Executive Office of the
President (KSP). By the end of 2015, the National Open Government
Secretariat was established, while staff of Bappenas, MoFA and the
Executive Office of the President ensured follow-up of the open government

agenda during the transition period in 2014-5. A major task – or challenge –

of the National Open Government Secretariat is, along with the promotion
of the open government agenda, to link the country’s efforts under the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with its ongoing open government
reform efforts and to help ensure that the SDGs are mainstreamed into
Indonesia’s development plans and initiatives.
A background document on the institutional set-up of the National Open
Government Secretariat (Ministry of National Development Planning, 2015)
identifies six major functions for the Secretariat: public policy and co-
ordination; open data and IT platforms; capacity development; monitoring,
evaluation and knowledge management; public outreach and
communication; and finance and administration (see Figure 2.2 for the
organisational chart of the National Open Government Secretariat). It also
outlines the involvement of civil society organisations in the management of
the organisations and the formal process of their selection via elections
through the Civil Society Consultative Meeting. In addition, the same
document makes reference to the relevance of a subnational co-ordinating
role for the National Open Government Secretariat, and provincial and
district/ municipality-level districts (to be funded by their respective
governments). Given the country’s decentralisation process and, hence, the
fact that open government is to a large extent expected to be delivered at the
subnational level, the role of such subnational secretariats as catalysts is
considered essential, and the development of subnational open government
action plans is posed as an option in the medium term. See Box 2.6 for a
relevant example of how Brazil has organized its co-ordinating body to
manage its open government strategy.

Figure 2.2. National Open Government Secretariat: Organisational chart
STEERING COMMITTEE:
MINISTERIAL:
Bappenas, Kemlu, KSP
EXECUTIVE BOARD:
Chair: KSP
CoChair: CSO Representative
Members: Bappenas, Kemlu, Kemdagri,
Kemkominfo, KemPAN, KIP, CSOs
Representative(s) CSOs Consultative Meeting
Sub-national OGI Secretariat

Chair: Bappeda
Members: Other government
agencies, PPID and local CSO CHAIR OF THE EXECUTIVE TEAM: Local CSOs Consultative
partners
Bappenas Meeting
WORKING GROUPS
Chair: CSO Representatives
HEAD OF THE NATIONAL
Members: Relevant government SECRETARIAT
agencies, CSOs
OPEN DATA AND IT CAPACITY MONITORING, EVALUATION PUBLIC OUTREACH FINANCE AND
PUBLIC POLICY AND
AND KNOWLEDGE
COORDINATION PLATFORMS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATION
Specialist(s) Specialist and IT Staff Specialist(s) Specialist(s) Specialist(s) Manager and staffs
Box 2.6. Co-ordination of open government in Brazil

Brazil has established an inter-ministerial Committee for Open Government (Comitê
Interministerial Governo Aberto – CIGA) to manage its open government strategy. Formed by 18
public organisations, CIGA’s mission is to ensure that policies related to transparency,
accountability, integrity and social participation evolve transversally. CIGA has an Executive Group
(Grupo Executivo - GE), formed by seven ministries to manage its operation. The Executive Group
has a working group (CSO-WG) of seven civil society organisations that advises them.
Broadly, the committee seeks to develop an open government culture within the government and
to foster dialogue with civil society. To do so, the GE organizes workshops with public servants to
illustrate the importance of open government and promote new initiatives, holds events to share
good practices and organizes meetings with high-level authorities to build political support. Partly as
a result, 22 agencies proposed commitments to the country’s second OGP action plan.
The Executive Group also works with the CSO-WG to expand CSO involvement and promote
dialogue. Together, the two groups developed the methodology for creating and monitoring Brazil’s
third OGP action plan. The GE also monitors the execution of the national action plans, maintains
regular dialogue with people responsible for meeting commitments and updates the status of those
commitments through a public website.
Finally, the Executive Group has approached the Legislature and the Judiciary to promote their
involvement in open government initiatives and has prioritized actions to improve dialogue with
subnational governments to foster local level policies on open government. CIGA, its Executive
Group and the CSO Working Group were all legally established by formal regulations.
Source: Comptroller General of Brazil.

The constitutional and legal basis for open government

While the Constitution, as ratified in 1945, does not explicitly refer to
open government as such, it does provide the legal foundation for the
principles of transparency and participation in general. Article 28F
guarantees the rights of citizens to communicate freely and obtain
information, as it states that “Every person shall have the right to
communicate and to obtain information for the purpose of the development
of his/her self and social environment, and shall have the right to seek,
obtain, possess, store, process and convey information by employing all
available types of channels.” Article 23(1), furthermore, stipulates that “the
State Budget as the basis of the management of state funds shall be
determined annually by law and shall be implemented in an open and
accountable manner.”
The legal framework supporting open government has been further
codified via a number of laws, presidential decrees, and ministerial
regulations, as shown in Box 2.7. Through these laws, Indonesia’s legal
framework provides explicit recognition of citizens’ rights to access
information and to participate in public affairs. Most notably, Law No. 14 of
2008, which guarantees freedom of information and mandated the formation
of the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID) units responsible
for storing, documenting, and providing government information to the
public, provides a formal basis for promoting transparency in government
affairs.
Prior to the national government’s passing of Law No. 14 of 2008 on
Public Information, some subnational governments had already issued
regional regulations to guarantee access to government information and
encourage community participation in development planning and budgeting.
Examples of such laws include:
• West Kalimantan Provincial Law No. 4 of 2005 on Government
Transparency, which mandates that every public body be transparent in
its provision of information, its procedures, and its policy-making and
implementation processes.
• Bulukumba District Regulation No. 5 of 2005, which provides a similar
set of guidelines and regulations to that of the national Freedom of
Information Law.
• Palopo Regulation No. 5 of 2008, Garut Regional Regulation No. 17 of
2008, and West Java Provincial Regulation No. 11 of 2011, which
regulate transparency in governance affairs.

Box 2.7. Legal framework for open government in Indonesia

Law Key points
Law No. 25 of 2004 on National Encourages public participation in the formulation of the national
Development Planning System and local development plan.
President Regulation No. 1 of 2007 on Requires that government regulations are published and
the Approval, Promulgation and disseminated to ensure that the general public understands and
Distribution of Laws and Regulations comprehends the contents of the laws and regulations. 8
Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Guarantees citizens’ right to information: every interested person
Information Disclosure who applies to obtain public information “shall be able to obtain
Public Information fast and promptly at low cost and in a simple
manner” (Chapter 1, Article 2). Specifically, it:
• mandates the creation of the public information provision
system, named the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi &
Dokumentasi (PPID): Public agencies “shall establish and
develop an information and documentation system to
manage Public Information properly and efficiently, so
that it is easily accessible” (Part 4, Article 7);
• encourages public participation in decision-making
processes;
• promotes transparent, accountable, effective and efficient
governance.
Law No. 37 of 2008 on the Ombudsman The aims of the Ombudsman are to:
• contribute to a democratic, just and wealthy state, based
on the rule of law;
• improve the quality of government services in all sectors;
• improve the legal culture and awareness of the population
The functions of the Ombudsman are to:

• receive and investigate grievances concerning the
maladministration of public services;
• follow up on the grievances under the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman;
• co-ordinate and collaborate with other government
institutions or public agencies as well as with non-
governmental organisations and individuals.
Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Service Designed to improve the quality of public services by:
Provision • establishing clear responsibilities and obligations of all
parties related to the provision of public services;
• ensuring the public services provided comply with the
prevailing laws;
• giving legal protection and legal certainty to the public on
the provision of public services
• preparing and establishing service standards taking into
account the ability of the provider, public needs and
environmental conditions. 9
Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Makes openness one of the principles to be applied in the
Establishment of Regulatory Legislation development of new legislation by:
• requiring the government (via the Minister of Law and
Human Rights) to publish laws, government regulations,
presidential regulations, and programmes.
• requiring the national government to establish a five-year
National Legislative Program (Prolegnas). 10
Act No. 5 of 2014 on Civil Requires openness in civil service management and hiring practices.
Administrative State

The inclusion of open government in strategic policy documents

The National Priority Agenda (Nawa Cita) synthesises the nine
presidential policy priorities for the 2014-19 period and incorporates a clear
reference to open government. In particular priority number 2 (focussing on
clean, effective, democratic, and reliable governance by placing a priority
and dedicating efforts to the restoration of public confidence in democratic
institutions) and also priority number 4 (emphasising reforming the state
through corruption-free, dignified, and reliable law enforcement) reflect the
presidential interest in addressing open government issues.
In addition, a set of key policy documents incorporate a reference to
open government principles. These include Indonesia’s 2005-25 Long-Term
Development Plan (RPJPN), the 2015-19 Medium-Term Development Plan
(RPJMN), and the Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap.
The 2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN) has as its
objectives 1) to support the co-ordination among actors involved in
development in achieving national goals, 2) to ensure the integration,
synchronisation, and good synergy between the different functions within
the central and regional administration, 3) to ensure relevance and
consistency between planning, budgeting, implementation, and monitoring,
4) to ensure efficient, effective, just, and sustainable use of resources, and
5) to optimize the society’s participation. Eight National Development Goals
have been identified and civil society participation (as an example of open
government) is a recurring theme among them, with the plan underlining for
instance that “society’s participation in Indonesia’s governance and
administration, particularly in monitoring the bureaucratic system, needs to
continue and increase in order to further improve the quality of governance”
(Republic of Indonesia, 2007). At the same, substantial limitations of the
civil society are identified, stating that “the civil society […] still lacks
economic and educational prowess” (idem).
The 2015-19 Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN), which was
developed under the umbrella of the Long-Term Development Plan, has
nine National Development Agenda points, including the objective to “build
clean, effective, democratic and reliable governance”. This objective is
further broken down into a number of targets, including, among others,
target 6.2.3, which declares an intention to “build transparency and
accountability in government performance” and target 6.2.5, which calls on
the government to “increase public participation in the public policy making
process” (Republic of Indonesia, 2015).
Finally, the 2015-19 Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, which includes
references to the Nawa Cita, RPJPN and RPJMN, refers to the relevance of

applying open government ideas in order to increase the transparency and

accountability of government performance through:
• Establishing and appointing Information and Documentation Managing
Officers (PPID).
• Increasing public awareness of public information transparency
• Publishing all planning, budgeting and budget implementation processes
on the websites of all ministries/agencies.
• Providing opportunities for the general public to participate in the of
drafting public policies and monitoring of their subsequent
implementation.
• Developing a proactive and interactive information publication system
that is accessible to the public.
• Improving the management of the National Archive Information
Network and System.
Together, the Long-Term National Development Plan, the Medium-
Term National Development Plan and the Bureaucratic Roadmap provide a
high-level policy framework to promote open government policies and
practices across the public sector.
The OGP Action Plans

As a co-founder of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in 2011,
Indonesia has been a frontrunner in fostering the international agenda on
open government. The country also has proven experience in working on
open government at the national level under the OGP umbrella: it has now
reached the fourth generation of its OGP Action Plan.
Indonesia is currently implementing its third action plan, which was
designed to accelerate three out of the five transformative priorities as
identified by OGP (see Box 2.8), namely: improving public services;
improving the integrity of the government apparatus; and managing public
resources more effectively and transparently. These three priorities have
been targeted by the Government of Indonesia ever since the country joined
OGP in 2011.

Box 2.8. OGP Action Plans: Transformative open government

reform priorities
Open government commitments assumed under OGP membership need to

address at least two of the five following objectives (OGP, n.d.):
• improving public services

• increasing public integrity
• managing public resources more effectively
• creating safer communities
• increasing corporate accountability.
According to the OGP guidelines, an action plan needs to define a list of the
most transformative open government reform priorities based on the following
three criteria (OGP, 2015):
• ambitious: aiming to extend beyond existing reforms

• relevant: advancing transparency, accountability, participation and/or
technology and innovation
• SMART: specific, measurable, answerable, relevant and time-bound.

Sources: OGP (n.d.), “OGP national action plan guidance note”, Open Government
Partnership, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_
actionplan_guide%20FINAL_0.pdf (accessed 24 September 2015); OGP (2015a), “How it
works: Action plans”, Open Government Partnership, www.opengovpartnership.org/how-
it-works/action-plans (accessed 24 September 2015).
The first action plan, issued in 2012, was developed on the basis of the
so-called Triple Track Strategy. Each initiative was integrated into one of
the following three tracks:
• Track I: provides context to strengthen and accelerate implementation of
existing open government programmes and initiatives; these initiatives
are derived from recent presidential instructions and directives.
• Track II: focuses on establishing a common portal for public services,
public participation and public institution openness programmes.

• Track III: accommodates new innovations in open government both

from the central and regional government, with pilot locations selected
at the regional, city and district level.
Specific actions taken under the first action plan included the promotion
of transparency, accountability and public participation in areas as diverse as
the following: the government’s poverty reduction programmes; the
allocation of subsidies to elementary and junior high schools; the health
sector; the police and public prosecution service; Tax Court, Immigration,
Custom and Land Administration offices; civil service recruitment in central
and regional governments; the national budget; budget information at
district level; public procurement activities; forestry and other natural
resources, environment and spatial data management (OGP, 2011).
Most initiatives fell under Track I or II, with the exception of promoting
transparency, accountability and public participation in decisions involving
natural resources, the environment and spatial data management, all which
were seen as representing innovation in open government at different levels
of government. The goals were time-bound, specific and relevant and thus
satisfied the OGP criteria (see Box 2.8). The extent to which they are
ambitious enough (according to OGP criteria) merits further discussion,
considering that only a minority were seen as innovative while the rest
sought to strengthen existing programmes and initiatives. On the one hand,
this is legitimate given the need to ensure implementation of already-
existing initiatives, which is especially important in an environment
characterised by scarce resources. On the other hand, bold, innovative and
transformative steps in carrying out the OGP actions plans would provide
greater leverage through the OGP membership both domestically and in the
wider region.
The Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) assessing Indonesia’s
progress in implementing its first action plan indicated that the enforcement
of the Law on Freedom of Information was less effective than expected,
with less than a third of government bodies at different administrative levels
having established an information and documentation service unit (PPID).
Provincial information commissions were instituted in 20 out of the
34 provinces, indicating uneven implementation of the legal provisions
territorially (TIFA Foundation, 2013). Enforcement of the disclosure of
information also depended on the specific policy area and institution, with
some lagging behind, for example, the Indonesian National Police and
certain provincial administrations.
Similar implementation gaps were found in the other priority areas.
LAPOR, for example, which was designed as an integrated complaint
mechanism to support improvements in public services, enjoyed only partial

success due to limited coverage and functionality. The IRM recommended

intensifying the enforcement of the Law on Freedom of Information and the
Law on Public Services, which could in turn improve implementation of the
more specific initiatives in the three OGP Action Plan priority areas.
Overall, five out of the 12 total action plan commitments were fully met,
while the remaining seven were in progress, though work had started on all
of them (OGP, 2014). The IRM recommended:
• improving OGI as an instrument of the strong transparency framework
that Indonesia has instituted with its Freedom of Information Law
• selecting a strategic but ambitious scope for the next action plan
• deepening system transparency by strengthening structural incentives
and disincentives, rather than only by highlighting best practices
• strengthening the lead institution to enforce OGP implementation
• improving governance of the Core Team as a leading institution of OGI.
Despite these weaknesses, Indonesia made significant progress in
creating more overall visibility for open government within the framework
of the first action plan.
The second OGP Action Plan, issued in 2013, built on the first OGP
Action Plan to drive its further implementation and emphasised the need to
continue building the infrastructure for open government across the country,
thus seeking to address gaps identified in the course of the implementation
of the first OGP Action Plan. The second OGP Action Plan included
responsible institutions, achievement criteria and measures as well as
targeted deliverables.
To assess progress of the second action plan, the IRM released a Special
Accountability Report, prompted by the early release of the third action plan
and the change in administration during the period of evaluation. The
Special Accountability Report found that only two out of a total of
15 commitments were completed by the time of the drafting of the report.
On five commitments substantial progress had been made, whereas most
commitments had seen only limited implementation (OGP, 2015b).
Available evidence also suggests that in the case of most commitments (with
some notable exceptions) the involvement of civil society in the execution
of action plans for monitoring, evaluation and advocacy purposes was
limited (OGP, 2015b). Progress in this area was, however, made with the
creation of working groups in several fields by the CSO Coalition on Open
Government.

A third OGP Action Plan with commitments for 2014-15 was released
in September 2014, one year ahead of schedule, and preserved the three
grand challenges identified at the outset. The action plan set out to
strengthen the Triple Track Strategy, align the action plan with Indonesia’s
OGP Lead Chairmanship theme of promoting public participation, re-
emphasise implementation of commitments in provinces and cities, and
further push the implementation of the Law on Freedom of Information
(Open Government Indonesia, 2014). Compared with the previous
iterations, the third action plan includes more detailed information on the
action’s plan development process, emphasising the role and mechanisms of
public participation. To this end, a crowdsourcing platform (SOLUSIMU)
was created to gather ideas that would then be incorporated into the action
plan itself. Via the OGI website, the public was encouraged to provide ideas,
and youth in particular were encouraged to participate. Furthermore,
Indonesian CSOs initiated a national forum to develop recommendations
coming from the wider civil society, thus going beyond the specific CSOs
that were already members of the core OGI team. Most of the initiatives are
new, while only three remain from the previous action plans (Open
Government Indonesia, 2014). The action plan included four main groups of
commitments:
• strengthen open governance infrastructure to support better public
services
• improve quality of openness in basic public services (i.e. education and
health)
• accelerate open and good governance practices in corruption-prone areas
• improve quality of openness in common public interest areas.
The commitments generally conform to OGP guidelines (but unlike in
the previous action plans they are not time-bound) and hold the potential to
be transformative. The governance process was strengthened by the creation
of clearer monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, both internal and
external. Responsible institutions were established for each commitment, but
issues remained concerning both the availability of the financial and human
resources necessary to make good on these new commitments and the way
to ensure actual enforcement and implementation given that no penalties are
specified in case of lack of compliance.

Opportunities to strengthen open government through the centre of

government
Indonesia has a fairly strong starting position to foster open government

policies and practices:
• It is a co-founder of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and
signed the OGP declaration in September 2011.
• It has a well-developed legal and regulatory framework on open
government (e.g. references to transparency and accountability in the
Constitution; Freedom of Information Law of 2008; etc.).
• It has reflected open government ideas in key strategic policy documents
like the Presidential Priorities and the Medium-Term National
Development Plan 2015-19.
• It has a tradition of institutional structures promoting the open
government agenda, such as UKP4 under the Yudhoyono
administration, and more recently the Open Government Indonesia
National Secretariat.
By fostering its open government agenda at the international, national
and local level, the country’s multilevel approach to open government is
ambitious and inspiring, although it also faces some challenges. In
particular, there is a risk that efforts to promote open government are
somewhat scattered and poorly connected. These efforts could be improved
by enhanced formalisation and communication. In a context of limited
human and financial resources, it is important that open government
initiatives at different governmental levels are mutually reinforcing. This
implies, among other things, that the CoG should act to develop a coherent
strategic approach, carefully consider complementarity across initiatives and
identify multiplier effects.
Connecting different governance agendas

Whereas the importance of the open government agenda is generally
acknowledged and promoted by the CoG actors, other transversal agendas
(such as anti-corruption and bureaucratic reform) also require substantial
time and energy of those same CoG actors. This results in a situation where
some CoG actors are more actively involved in the open government agenda
than others (e.g. Bappenas versus KemenPAN) and it may also result in a
situation where opportunities are missed to connect these transversal reform
agendas more explicitly. If it gains a better grasp of the connections and
possible mutual reinforcement at play in these policy areas, the CoG might

avoid missing out on opportunities or even working at cross purposes in

implementing these reforms.
In a similar vein, different instruments exist in parallel to promote
connected policy priorities across government. The existence of the planning
(and monitoring) of Presidential Priorities, short-, medium- and long-term
NDP goals, and an OGP Action Plan can become overwhelming and can
create substantial transaction costs. In addition, the status of less visible
reform agendas (e.g. bureaucratic reform) is somewhat unclear, and
opportunities to foster an integrated governance reform approach with a
limited set of mutually reinforcing objectives are likely to be missed.
The connection between different governance agendas could also be
strengthened at the institutional level. Whereas there are some initiatives for
institutional collaboration in the area of open government – such as the
LAPOR initiative where four institutions collaborate through a formal MoU
– it appears that a good share of the potential for more proactive
collaboration remains untapped and could be encouraged through measures
such as involving the Ministries of Home Affairs or Bureaucratic Reform
more closely in the design, implementation and monitoring of open
government initiatives.
Connecting horizontal (CoG and line ministries) and vertical

(central and subnational level) co-ordination
Indonesia is characterised by a high level of complexity when dealing
with governance issues, both because of its size and its decentralized
governance structure. This makes the ownership of transversal agendas like
open government across levels of government an even bigger challenge. For
that reason, the CoG should be particularly attentive to fostering the
coherence of the open government both horizontally and vertically:
• horizontally, i.e. between the CoG on the one hand, and line ministries
on the other
• vertically, i.e. between central government on the one hand, and
decentralised levels of government, on the other.
Whereas strong open government leadership by the CoG is valuable –
which was the case under UKP4 and thanks to the current role of the
National Open Government Secretariat – there is also a risk of disconnection
between the understanding and promotion of open government by the
central co-ordinating body and the ownership of the open government
agenda by the other governmental actors. In that sense, a balanced
involvement of both line ministries and decentralised governmental
structures in open government (throughout the policy cycle, i.e. planning,

implementation, monitoring and evaluation of open government initiatives)

and the development of appropriate incentives to deliver upon the open
government agenda are all essential. This also suggests the opportunity for
the government to pursue an open state approach to more systematically
connect government bodies to open government principles. Box 2.9 outlines
how the Government of New Zealand has sought to clarify and structure
how ministries work together, and there may be lessons here to apply to
Indonesia’s centre of government co-ordination efforts, including those for
open government.
Box 2.9. Fostering collective commitment: The case New Zealand
New Zealand’s Crown entity system is a principles-based framework designed to help

Ministers, statutory entities and monitoring departments improve the way they work together to
achieve better results. Crown entities supply many of the services provided to New Zealanders,
and so delivering services better requires the government and Crown entities to work well
together.
To get the best results from government investment in Crown entities, all parties in the
engagement process need to understand the system as a whole and where they fit within it. The
operating expectations framework sets out in one place how the respective roles and
responsibilities underpinning those relationships are aligned. It is a tool for Ministers, statutory
entity board members and staff, and monitoring departments to foster collective commitment.
The expectations are aligned horizontally so that each of the three parties is aware of what is
expected of the other parties. Statutory Crown entities operate with three sets of expectations:
• The Enduring Letter of Expectations from the Ministers of Finance and State Services.
• Ministerial expectations, which inform entities’ strategic direction over the next four
years (set out in their statements of intent) and priorities for the coming year (set out in
their statements of performance expectations).
• Operating expectations, which guide engagement between the statutory entity, its
responsible minister and the monitoring department. These are intended to help the
parties achieve trusting, productive relationships.
The following four principles guide the expectations’ framework:
• clear roles and responsibilities;

• strategic alignment;
• efficient and effective monitoring; and
• trusted engagement.
Source: Ministry for Culture and Heritage of New Zealand (2014), Statutory Crown Entities – It Takes
Three: Operating Expectations Framework, Crown Copyright, www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/it-takes-
three-operating-expectations-framework.pdf.

More active involvement of line ministries in the development of the

OGP Action Plan (as a consensus-building exercise to identify open
government priorities and as a feasibility check of deliverables requested
from line ministries), as well as ensuring the existence of sufficient
institutional capacity both within line ministries and at the level of
decentralised governmental actors (promoted and supported by the CoG) are
critical enablers of this horizontal and vertical co-ordination.
Connecting planning with implementation and strategic follow-up

Connecting an appropriate legal and regulatory framework for open
government initiatives with actual implementation capacity and a strategic
follow-up of deliverables remains a challenge for many countries, including
Indonesia. As phrased by one of the interviewees, “a lot of time is spent on
designing, printing and socialising, but not implementation”. Broadly, this
suggests that for the future open government agenda, the CoG should more
explicitly connect, and rebalance where necessary, the work on policy
development and policy implementation, as well as provide sufficient
resources for monitoring and evaluation of results. Therefore, the CoG
should also emphasize the roll-out and follow-up of open government-
related activities, rather than primarily focusing on legal and regulatory
framework, policy design, etc. It is important to set up mechanisms and
establish implementation details to guide technical operations. The
government needs to strengthen the OGP Action Plans to help guide the
government’s open government efforts, as well as ensure that all elements of
the Freedom of Information Law are followed.
In addition, it is advisable to further foster the efforts aimed at fine-
tuning the OGP Action Plan planning cycle with the national planning and
budget cycle, to make sure that open government activities have a secured
budget and are part of the national monitoring system. Moreover, as the
country has now reached the fourth generation of its OGP Action Plan, it is
also important to push for further mainstreaming of open government
policies and practices and to promote the sharing of success stories and
occasional failure.
In order to assure strategic follow-up of open government efforts, it is
important to invest in appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. A
recent OECD survey on open government shows that almost all of the
respondents confirm the use of monitoring instruments for their open
government initiatives. As shown in Figure 2.3, furthermore, the
mechanisms most commonly used by OECD countries include using normal
monitoring activities of relevant public institutions; OGP assessments; and
specific offices tasked with monitoring open government initiatives.

Figure 2.3. Monitoring of open government initiatives across OECD countries

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Through a single institution/office in Through an ad hoc monitoring Through the normal monitoring Through OGP assessments (self-
charge of monitoring all open mechanism. activities of each public institution assessment and IRM, if your country is
government initiatives of the involved in open government initiatives part of OGP)
Government.
Note: 1. Only countries which answered to monitor open government initiatives were asked this
question (n=OECD 30).
Source: OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD
Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Beyond monitoring activities, nearly half of OECD countries confirm

that the government also assesses the impact of open government initiatives.
Figure 2.4 shows that the most common instruments to measure impact
among those OECD countries that monitor open government initiatives
include via the normal activities of relevant public institutions; the OGP
assessment process; surveys of citizens and stakeholders; and independent
assessments conducted by NGOs.

Figure 2.4. Impact evaluation of open government initiatives across OECD countries
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Through an ad hoc Through the normal Through surveys Through surveys Through government Through independent Through independent Through the OGP
evaluation evaluation activities of among citizens and among public officials conducted studies on assessments assessments assessments (self-
mechanism focusing each public institution stakeholders the impact of open conducted by NGOs conducted by private assessment and IRM)
on impacts involved in the Open government initiatives companies
Government Strategy in specific areas
Note: 1. Only countries which answered to evaluate open government initiatives were asked this
question (n=OECD17).
Connecting strategies with attitudes and practices

Open government reforms have as much to do with instituting a shared
culture and developing shared competences as they do with the mere
formulation of open government-related policy priorities. Some scepticism
appears to exist on the part of both civil service and civil society
representatives concerning the government’s ability to deliver on its open
government activities. Primarily, these concerns were related to challenges
posed by the country’s history and scale, and to specific concerns regarding
local capacity, bureaucratic culture, etc. This scepticism might be rooted in
observed reality, but aspects such as capacity and culture also lie at the heart
of genuine open government innovations. Therefore, a focus on soft issues
and skills like culture, debate and exchange, and building competencies, etc.
are essential to fostering both the supply of, and the demand for, open
government reforms.
Recommendations
The GOI has made important progress in developing the legal, policy
and institutional framework needed to support open government. Moving
forward, the GOI must continue to focus on ensuring these changes are
reflected throughout the policy cycle. Strong leadership from the CoG will

continue to be critical in guaranteeing that the government’s open

government priorities are implemented by the whole range of government
actors. Additionally, the OECD recommends that the GOI:
• Further strengthen the connections between, and mutual reinforcement
of, different governance-related agendas, including the Presidential
Priorities, short-, medium- and long-term NDP goals, OGP Action
Plans, and other reform agendas such as the bureaucratic reform
roadmap.
• Improve horizontal and vertical co-ordination to help maintain broad
ownership of the open government agenda. This suggests the GOI
should pursue the active involvement of both line ministries and
decentralised governmental structures throughout the policy cycle, as
well as the development of appropriate incentives to deliver the open
government agenda.
• Better connect the policy planning process with actual implementation
and strategic follow-up, particularly by providing sufficient resources
for monitoring and evaluation of results. Specifically, the CoG should
ensure that the OGP Action Plan cycle is linked to the national planning
and budget cycle to make sure that open government activities have a
secured budget and are part of the national monitoring system. A major
task – or challenge – of the National Open Government Secretariat is,
next to the promotion of the open government agenda, to link the
country’s efforts under the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
with its ongoing public service reform efforts and to help ensure that the
SDGs are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans and
initiatives.
• Focus on building local capacity and fostering a culture among civil
servants that supports open government principles so that understanding
of, and support for, open government reforms is central to the public
sector’s activities.
Notes
1. This section is based on OECD (2015), complemented with information

from the 2015 meeting in Helsinki (Finland) of the OECD Network of

Senior Officials from Centres of Government on “Promoting Inclusive

Growth: A New Challenge for the Centre of Government”.
2. Presidential Regulation No. 66 of 2015 on Ministry of National
Development Planning.
3. Blöndal et al., 2009.
4. Presidential Regulation No.47 of 2015 on Ministry of State Apparatus and
Bureaucratic Reform.
5. Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform
www.indonesia.go.id/en/ministries/ministers/state-minister-for-the-
empowerment-of-stat apparaturs/1645-profile/269-kementerian-negara-
pendayagunaan-aparatur-negara-dan-reformasi-birokrasi (accessed 24
June 2015).
6. The provinces of Aceh, Jakarta, Yogyakarta and West Papua have a
greater degree of legislative and executive autonomy from the central
government than the other provinces.
7. Ministry of National Development Planning, 2014; “Rencana
Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019”. Access to the
Medium-Term Development Plan and the 2015 Annual Plan can be found
here: www.bappenas.go.id/index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968.
8. OECD, 2012.
9. World Services Group, “Indonesia - Law on Public Services”, Makarin &
Taira S., October 2009,
www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp?action=article&artid=305
8.
10. OECD, 2012.
References
Australia Indonesia Partnership for Indonesia (2010), “Delivery Strategy

2010-2015”, Australian Aid, http://dfat.gov.au/about-
us/publications/Documents/AIPD-delivery-strategy.pdf (accessed 8 July
2015).

Budiarso, A. (2014), Improving Government Performance in Indonesia: The

Experience of Balanced Scorecard in the Ministry of Finance, PhD
Thesis, University of Canberra, May.
Jón R. Blöndal, Ian Hawkesworth and Hyun Deok Choi (2009), "Budgeting
in Indonesia", OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 9/2,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/budget-9-5ks72wv89p48.
Jurnali, T. and Siti-Nabiha, A.K. (2015), “Performance Management System
for Local Government: The Indonesian Experience”, Global Business
Review, 16(3): 351-363.
Gallup (n.d.), “Gallup World Poll”,
www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx.
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (n.d.), 2015-2019
Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, www.indonesia.go.id/en/
ministries/ministers/state-minister-for-the-empowerment-of-state-
apparaturs/1645-profile/269-kementerian-negara-pendayagunaan-
aparatur-negara-dan-reformasi-birokrasi (accessed 15 June 2015).
Ministry of National Development Planning (2007), Rencana Pembangunan
Jangka Panjang Nasional Tahun 2005-2025 (Indonesian), National
Long-Term Development Plan 2005-2025, http://bappeda.ntbprov.
go.id/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/naskah-ruu-rpjpn-tahun-2005-
2025.pdf (accessed 15 July 2015).
Ministry of National Development Planning (2015), “Design of the National
Secretariat of Open Government Indonesia (OGI).
Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019 (Indonesian), National Medium-
Term Development Plan 2015-2019, www.bappenas.go.
id/index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968 (accessed 15 July 2015).
OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way
Forward, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2015), Lithuania: Fostering Open and Inclusive Policy Making,
OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235762-en.
OECD (2014a), “Vision, leadership, innovation: Driving public policy
performance”, 33rd Meeting of Senior Officials from centres of
government, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/summary.pdf.
OECD (2014b), “Centre stage: Driving better policies from the centre of
government”, GOV/PGC/MPM(2014)3/FINAL, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd.org/gov/Centre-Stage-Report.pdf.

OECD (2014c), Kazakhstan: Review of the Central Administration, OECD

Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/9789264224605-en.
OECD (2013), “Survey of centres of government”, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd.org/gov/cog-2015-session-notes.pdf.
OECD (2012), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Indonesia 2012:
Strengthening Co-ordination and Connecting Markets, OECD
Open Government Indonesia (2014), “Indonesia 2014-2015, OGP Action
Plan”, Open Government Indonesia.
OGP (n.d.), “OGP national action plan guidance note”, Open Government
Partnership,
www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_action
plan_guide%20FINAL_0.pdf (accessed 24 September 2015).
OGP (2015a), “How it works: Action plans”, Open Government Partnership,
www.opengovpartnership.org/how-it-works/action-plans (accessed
24 September 2015).
OGP (2015b), “Indonesia, Special Accountability Report”, Open
Government Partnership and Centre for Regulation Policy and
Governance.
OGP (2014a), “Indonesia Progress Report 2011-2013”, Independent
Reporting Mechanism, Open Government Partnership.
OGP (2011), “Indonesia, Open Government Partnership”,
www.opengovpartnership.org/country/indonesia (accessed 24 September
2015).
TIFA Foundation (2013), “Implementation of Open Government Partnership
in Indonesia 2012-2013, Independent Report Monitoring”, TIFA
Foundation, Indonesia.
World Services Group (2009), “Indonesia - Law on Public Services”,
Makarin and Taira S., October,
www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp
?action=article&artid=3058 (accessed 15 July 2015).

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA – 111
Chapter 3
This chapter will examine the strategic leverage points and the best
approaches to promote citizen engagement across the Government of
Indonesia. It will first lay out the OECD approach to citizen engagement,
including definitions, key factors to consider and general best practices. It
will then provide an overview of Indonesia’s civil society sector, legal
foundation and policy framework for public engagement and access to
information, as well as a review of the key mechanisms for civic engagement
being employed by the government. The chapter will conclude with a review
of strategic approaches to instituting civic engagement practices in the
country and specific recommendations.

112 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA
Introduction
Enhancing citizen engagement and ensuring public involvement both in

shaping government decision-making and in the design, monitoring, and
delivery of public services are fundamental aspects of open government. As
one of eight founding members of the Open Government Partnership, these
are principles that Indonesia has committed to pursuing and in which the
country has made significant progress. However, as noted earlier, particular
challenges faced by Indonesia include managing geographic and cultural
diversity across the country’s islands and co-ordinating reform efforts across
multiple ministries and levels of government.
This chapter will therefore begin with a review of OECD principles of
citizen participation before turning to a discussion of the legal, policy, and
institutional framework in this area. It will also provide an overview of how
the country’s current citizen engagement initiatives can be supported,
expanded and linked to develop a more strategic approach to citizen
engagement.
OECD approach to citizen engagement
In an effort to promote open government reforms, the OECD, together

with its member countries, has identified key principles and good practices
regarding citizen engagement that will guide the analysis of the efforts of the
GOI to involve citizens in public governance. Specifically, this work is built
on the belief that governments, in order to benefit fully from active
interaction with their population, should inform, consult and engage with
them not merely as subjects, but as partners in the design, delivery and
evaluation of policies and services. The OECD therefore defines the
relationships between citizens and public administrations in increasing
levels of engagement, as described below (see also Figure 3.1):
• Information provision is a one-way relationship in which the
government produces and delivers information to be used by citizens. It
covers both “passive” access to information upon citizens’ demands and
“active” measures by government to disseminate information. Examples
include: allowing access to public records and developing government
websites.
• Consultation is a two-way relationship in which citizens provide
feedback to the government. While this step requires access to
information and depends on citizen participation, governments still
define the issues for consultation, set the questions and manage the

consultative process. Examples include: disseminating public opinion

surveys and seeking comments on draft legislation.
• Active participation is a relationship based on partnership with the
government, in which citizens engage in defining the process and
content of policy making. Active participation acknowledges equal
standing for citizens in setting the agenda, proposing policy options and
shaping the policy dialogue, though the responsibility for the final
decision or policy formulation rests with the government. Examples
include: hosting consensus conferences and citizens’ juries (OECD,
2001).
Figure 3.1. Defining information, consultation, and active participation
Source: OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.
Generally, when governments encourage public consultation and

engagement, they are able to receive new ideas and feedback from citizens
on policies and services, thereby enhancing both their quality and
compliance with them. Broadly, citizen engagement (i.e. the combination of
information, consultation and active participation initiatives) has positive
effects on the quality of a country’s democratic life and has the potential to
promote socio-economic development and generate the conditions for
inclusive growth.
Another element of citizen engagement is the concept of “co-
production” of policies and services, or those collaborative approaches
whereby citizens engage in partnerships with service professionals in the
design and delivery of a public service (OECD, 2011b). Co-production is
seen primarily as contributing to greater user involvement and improved

service outputs and outcomes, with less emphasis on cost cutting. Survey
results (see Figure 3.2) indicate that in the large majority of cases (69%)
reported by countries across all service categories, the reason for engaging
in co-producing is to achieve stronger user and citizen engagement (OECD,
2011b).
Figure 3.2. Reasons for partnering with citizens and CSOs for public service delivery
As a % of cases reported by countries across all service categories
80%
69%
70%
61%
60% 57%
49%
50%
40%
40%
28%
30%
20%
10%
0%
To cut budget To increase To build citizen's To improve To improve service To increase the
expenditures and productivity trust and confidence effectiveness, quality involvement of
costs in governments outcomes and users or citizens
achieve greater
value for money
Source: OECD survey on “Innovation in Public Services: Working Together with Citizens for Better
Outcomes”, 2010; 22 OECD countries, Brazil, Egypt, Russia and Ukraine responded to the survey.
The OECD has found that the three most commonly cited factors for
successful co-production activities include top-level commitment and
leadership; government willingness and capacity at all levels to engage; and
clarity of strategies and objectives. Successful implementation of co-
production, furthermore, can help make better use of resources and contain
costs; increase effectiveness; help identify solutions to complex problems
and contribute to enhancing societal, as well as individual, well-being; and
can improve democratic governance and build public trust (OECD, 2011b).
Nevertheless, for co-production (and citizen engagement more broadly)
to achieve these outcomes, it is important that citizen engagement is
conducted following certain criteria. The OECD Principles for Open and
Inclusive Policy Making (see Box 1.1 in Chapter 1) support countries in
designing and implementing an effective framework for citizen engagement
and are based on good practices implemented by OECD member countries.

In particular, the principles first highlight the importance of co-ordination of

engagement initiatives across the whole of government in order to avoid
consultation fatigue and to create a coherent and systematic approach.
Second, the principles stress the key role of accountability mechanisms,
which implies reporting back to citizens about the impact of their inputs.
Third, the role of monitoring and evaluation of participation initiatives to
capture their effectiveness and outcomes is also underlined and, lastly, the
principles emphasise the relevance of promoting an active citizenship that is
capable of engaging with the government.
To manage consultation and co-operation in an effective manner, it is
essential that government, CSOs, and other stakeholders establish and use a
set of consistent guidelines that translate the principles into practical
procedures. Box 3.1 presents a number of factors that should be considered
when designing a specific consultation and tailoring the overall guidelines to
the needs of a particular case.
Box 3.1. Understanding key factors in citizen participation
Citizen participation can take a wide variety of forms depending on the

following key factors:
• Size. Size of process can range from a few participants to hundreds or

thousands, and online processes potentially involve millions.
• Purpose. Processes are used for many reasons: to explore an issue and
generate understanding, to resolve disagreements, to foster collaborative
action, or to help make decisions, among others (NCDD, 2008).
• Goals. Objectives can include informing participants, generating ideas,

collecting data, gathering feedback, identifying problems, or making
decisions, among others.
• Participants. Some processes involve only expert administrators or

professional or lay stakeholders, while others involve selected or diffuse
members of the public.
• Participant recruitment. Processes may use self-selection, random

selection, targeted recruitment, and incentives to bring people to the table.
• Communication mode. Processes may use one-way, two-way, and/or

deliberative communication.
• Participation mechanisms. Processes may occur face-to-face, online,

and/or remotely.

Box 3.1. Understanding key factors in citizen participation

(continued)
• Named methodology. Some processes have official names and may even
be trademarked; others do not employ named methodologies.
• Locus of action. Some processes are conducted with intended actions or

outcomes at the organisational or network level, whereas others seek
actions and outcomes at the neighbourhood or community level, the
municipal, state and national levels, or even the international level.
• Connection to policy process. Some processes are designed with explicit

connections to policy and decision-makers (at any of the loci listed above),
while others have little or no connection to policy and decision-makers,
seeking instead to invoke individual or group action or change.
Source: Nabatchi, T. (2012), A Manager’s Guide to Evaluating Citizen Participation, IBM
Center for Business of Government,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan048340.pdf.
Ultimately, the extent to which shifts toward public engagement

contribute to improved policies and development outcomes depends on the
degree to which the changes are able to overcome existing power structures
resistant to such changes, such as an entrenched bureaucracy, a culture of
entitlement among officials or patronage networks. Where these hurdles
exist, methods should be sought to identify civil society organisations and
innovative or pro-reform government officials to reinforce their efforts to
challenge existing power structures (Antlöv and Wetterberg, 2011).
Based on more than a decade of data collection and policy analysis,
OECD member countries have shown that open government policies can
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration, as well as
increase the transparency and accountability of the public sector. The focus
of the remainder of this chapter will therefore be on how to make
government decision-making and service provision more transparent and
participative in Indonesia and how to empower citizens individually and
civil society organisations collectively in such a way as to improve good
governance and democracy, enhance citizens’ trust, and ultimately generate
inclusive growth.

Status of civil society in Indonesia 1
Though civil society organisations have seen their roles expand and
change in critical ways since the democratic reforms of 1998, the beginnings
of civil society activity, marked by organised and relatively independent
community groups focused on education, social issues, religion, economics
and even politics, can be traced back to the time of Dutch colonialism in the
beginning of the 20th century (Ibrahim, 2006). Throughout most of
Indonesia’s history, however, civil society organisations have not had the
scope to be involved in the political process. This was particularly notable
during the New Order regime under President Suharto (1966-98), when the
political system was designed to exert strict control over civil society though
the prohibition of freedom of association and expression (Ibrahim, 2006).
Toward the end of the Suharto era, several organisations focused on
human rights advocacy and democracy were established in Indonesia, in line
with the growing global focus, and funding prioritisation, of these issues
(Ibrahim, 2006). Since 1998, the growth of civil society groups, from the
national to the local level, has also been supported by donor programming
for democratisation and governance reforms, with the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID, 2007) providing significant
assistance to Indonesian CSOs. To date, funding and support from
international donors remain essential for CSOs in Indonesia (Antlöv et al,
2010).
As a direct consequence of the 1998 democratic reforms, the role of
civil society groups in Indonesia has grown in importance. Notably, CSOs
have moved from their previous stance in opposition to the state to more
constructive relationships with state institutions in conducting institutional
reform projects (ICNL, 2015). This has been due to the dual effects of laws
that have allowed for increased freedoms of association and access to
information, as well as to the country’s decentralisation process. Together,
these reforms have provided citizens with new opportunities to engage with
the government at all levels, as well as to participate in policy-making and
service delivery. Although within the public sector there remain pockets of
suspicion of civil society, a 2012 report by AusAID noted that space for co-
operation between CSOs and the government continues to expand, and civil
society representatives “rarely experience violence or legal restrictions.” In
fact, CSO leaders are joining political parties and the government at a rate
that would have been impossible under Suharto (AusAID, 2012).
It should also be noted that while labour unions have grown in number
and importance since the fall of Suharto, 2 they are not closely linked with
open government activities in the country. Until the end of the Suharto
regime, only one labour organisation was acknowledged by the government,

while others were often persecuted or accused of communist links. Many

organisations were only formed after Law No. 21/2000 Concerning Trade
Unions/Labour Unions was passed. 3 For the most part, labour associations
are principally involved in issues related to social security and do not
participate in the national development planning or budgetary planning
process. They are also not involved in the OGP National Action Plan
development process. 4
Despite its relatively recent liberalisation, Indonesia is nonetheless
ranked 49 out of 167 in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2014 Democracy
Index. Indonesia’s highest scores were for its civil liberties (7.35/10) and
electoral process and pluralism (7.33/10), while the country’s scores for
political participation (6.67/10) and political culture (6.25/10) were lower.
The lack of wide variation in Indonesia’s scores in the Democracy Index’s
categories highlights that there is ample room for the strengthening of the
country’s democratic underpinnings. The report noted the importance of the
victory of Joko Widodo in Indonesia’s presidential election in July 2014,
however, as it broke the grip on power of a small political elite (EIU
Democracy Index, 2014).
Good information on the make-up of the Indonesian civil society sector
is limited. While a detailed review of the sector in 2012 estimated that there
were roughly 2 300 active and viable CSOs throughout Indonesia, the lack
of details creates difficulties for other CSOs, donors, or the GOI, to identify
where the organisations are operating, what they are working on and how to
contact them. The report also noted that most CSOs in Indonesia are
disproportionately located in Jakarta, and are focused on service delivery or
organising communities for self-help rather than focusing on macro-level
changes (AusAID, 2012).
Challenges faced by civil society in Indonesia

Despite the progress made by civil society since the country’s
democratisation, the legacy of the country’s political control has had a
considerable impact on it, as for more than three decades they were treated
as “part of problem” (Ibrahim, 2006) rather than as key actors in the
identification of solutions. Since some public officials still question the
legitimacy of CSOs’ role as a watchdog, there remain communication
barriers even when organisations have valid critiques. As also noted by
AusAID, these barriers are more evident in some regions and can be more
prominent when dealing with land or labour issues or with culturally
sensitive issues like gender or LGBT rights (AusAID, 2012).
Another legacy of the country’s past repression of civil society groups is
that government officials have often considered the design and delivery of

public services as their exclusive domain and view citizens only as end
users, not as stakeholders. While this attitude is clearly changing rapidly,
CSO capacity to aggregate citizens’ interests and translate preferences to
policy makers does not have deep roots in Indonesia (Antlöv et al, 2010).
Building CSO capacity to effectively advocate for the public and to take full
advantage of enhanced engagement mechanisms will be critical in
improving citizen engagement in Indonesia, particularly outside of Jakarta.
Financial and operational issues also continue to present challenges to
the CSO sector in Indonesia. Operational obstacles include the quality of the
Indonesian education system and a lack of mentorship and capacity building
opportunities (AusAID, 2012). There is also a gender component to staffing
issues, as men make up the majority of CSO employees, whether on a
voluntary, semi-voluntary or salaried basis (Suryadarma et al, 2011).
Furthermore, many CSOs operate on short-term, project-based funding
cycles. Many lack money for operational costs and access to Indonesian-
language training and information, and few organisations request support
from donors for such matters. Subnational organisations also shared their
perception that donors favoured Jakarta/Java-based organisations even when
strong organisations exist locally (AusAID, 2012).
Specifically regarding citizen engagement, some CSOs noted that the
link between the national planning and budgeting process remains obscure.
Since the budgeting process is less open to external participation than the
planning process, CSOs expressed their concern that they have limited
access and information on which to base their analysis. CSOs also noted that
the planning and budgeting process is not accessible enough to women and
minorities, a problem that is particularly notable in more rural regions.
Gender impact assessments (GIAs) are one type of tool that policy
makers can use to assess the impact that new legislation or policies may
have on women. Building awareness and understanding among policy
makers of the potentially different effects of policy choices on men and
women is key to inclusive policy making. According to the OECD Survey
on Gender, Public Policies and Leadership, of the OECD responding
countries, 84% (16 countries) reported having requirements for ex ante (e.g.
before the proposed law or policy has been approved or gone into effect)
GIAs on primary legislation compared to 37% (7 countries) for ex post (e.g.
following implementation). In general, however, it seems the majority of
responding countries reserve GIAs for primary and secondary legislation
rather than for policies and programmes (OECD, 2013). Expanding the use
of such a tool would prove useful to Indonesia in helping it to gather
additional information on the potential effects of public policies, data that
would help inform discussions.

Civil society representatives have also expressed their desire to clarify

their relationship with the government and advance the conversation on how
to increase citizen engagement. The protracted transition between different
administrations’ management of open government in Indonesia and the
change in formal governance mechanisms with the dissolution of UKP4 and
OGI in December 2014 made it difficult for CSOs to consolidate and co-
ordinate their approach. The establishment of the National Open
Government Secretariat in November 2015 will provide clarity and facilitate
the engagement of civil society at the national level.
Legal framework of citizen engagement in Indonesia
Overview
The 1945 Constitution, and subsequent laws, regulations and
presidential decrees provide a sound foundation for citizen engagement.
Together, the country’s legal framework recognizes the public’s right to
participation, guarantees access to information and establishes the
mechanisms through which information is disseminated, and provides
various independent state agencies and accountability mechanisms.
Nevertheless, despite this supportive legal framework and the political
commitment placed on open government in Indonesia, in practice public
institutions do not automatically operate openly, nor do they provide
consistent access to citizens. This is partly a legacy of the more than three
decades of authoritarian rule, which prevented citizen access to or
involvement in government affairs (Transparency International-Indonesia,
2014), but it is also due to a generalised lack of awareness of and capacity to
implement open government initiatives in public institutions at central as
well as local levels.
Access to information
As noted by Transparency International, Indonesia is “very advanced” in
regulating transparency. The right to information is broadly acknowledged
in the 1945 Constitution (Article 28F) as well as in Law No. 14/2008 on
Freedom of Information (Transparency International-Indonesia, 2014), and
further supported by Government Regulation No. 61/2010, which sought to
clarify and speed up the implementation of the public provision of
information. Together, these legal instruments guarantee access to
information (ATI) and require proactive publication by most public bodies
(with the exception of some law enforcement and judiciary offices) that
receive part or all of their funds from a government budget. Law No.
14/2008 is the primary vehicle through which the public is given the right to
access information. The law, which came into effect in May 2010,

recognizes that “the right to obtain information is a human right and

transparency of public information is a significant characteristic of a
democratic state that holds the sovereignty of the people in high esteem;”
the law also recognizes the role of information to “materialize good state
management”. (See Figure 3.3 for an illustration of how ATI laws have
grown within OECD countries.)
Figure 3.3. Number of OECD countries with law on access to information
2001-2008 29
1991-2000 24
1981-1990 13
1971-1980 7
1961-1970 5
Before 1960 2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Source: OECD (2009), Government at a Glance 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/9789264075061-en.
Importantly, Indonesia’s law guarantees both the government’s

obligation to provide information and the citizens’ right to know. It requires
that public agencies establish an information and documentation system to
manage public information properly and efficiently in order to ensure
accessibility. This is primarily achieved through the Pejabat Pengelola
Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID) offices (see below for additional
information). The law also establishes the Information Committee, which
consists of a Central Committee, Provincial Information Committees and
District/Municipal Information Committees. Collectively, their role is to
decide on implementing procedures, settle disputes brought by requesters of
information and report on the implementation of the law to the President and
the Parliament.
The law requires that public information applicants be Indonesian
citizens or Indonesian corporations; in 71% of OECD countries, conversely,
there are no restrictions on who can file a request (OECD, 2011a).
Applicants in Indonesia must also show identification and provide their
name, address and subject of the information, and CSOs must provide their
registration information. Together, these requirements prevent anonymity.
The law also does not require public institutions to transfer information

requests to other offices if they do not have the information, nor does it
guarantee access for court decisions or provisions and funding information
regarding law enforcement bodies (Transparency International-Indonesia,
2014). Other limits on information provision include information that could
obstruct the process of law enforcement; information relating to protection
of businesses from unhealthy competition; information relating to personal
medical, financial, or family situations; and information that may be
hazardous to the defence and security of the state, as well as to the national
economic security of the country. Furthermore, while the country has passed
a code of conduct that obliges all public officials, including legislators and
judges and their families, to file a financial disclosure form at least once a
year, the law does not explicitly require that interest declaration forms be
made public (Law No. 5/2014 on Civil Administrative Servants, articles 3
and 4).
Law No. 14/2008 does, however, provide for the proactive publication
of certain types of information, including information on the financial
performance of public agencies and any information that may threaten the
life of the people and public order. This practice compares favourably with
OECD countries, 94% of which also proactively disclose budget documents
(OECD, 2011a). The public agency that receives the information request is
obliged to respond within ten days (with a seven day extension, if needed),
which is in line with most OECD countries, almost all of which have
established standards for timely responses, usually within 20 working days
or less (OECD, 2011a). Any refusal to provide information must be justified
in writing within the ten day window; refused applicants can appeal to the
Information Committee for adjudication. Box 3.2 describes Brazil’s access
to information law and procedures, as well as potential lessons concerning
the institutional operation and monitoring of the law’s implementation.

Box 3.2. Co-ordination for the implementation of the Law on Access to

Information in the Federal Government of Brazil
Brazil’s Law on Access to Information (Law 12 527/2011) regulates the constitutional right that
allows citizens to obtain information from the government freely, similar to Indonesia’s Law No. 14
of 2008. Brazil’s ATI law states that government information is public by default and can only be
denied to citizens for specific purposes, such as the protection of taxpayers’ information or to
preserve national security. The law was passed in 2011 and was implemented in May 2012.
By the end of 2015, more than 300 public organisations (including companies) had made
information available for request through an online platform and through bureaus created in each of
the organisations. More than 334 000 requests have been made and more than 99% of the requests
have been answered. It takes an average of 11 days to answer a request and information is denied
less than 10% of the time.
The implementation of Brazil’s ATI law provides potential lessons regarding both freedom of
information in Indonesia and for other transversal policies that involve co-ordination of multiple
government organisations.
Design: In order to help ensure widespread buy-in, the ATI law was designed with the
involvement of CoG organisations, as well as with agencies that hold a large amount of confidential
documents and those that could expect the bulk of the requests.
Planning: Each public organisation was required to prepare a roadmap to facilitate the
implementation of the law. The roadmaps established deadlines for tasks, such as nominating the
responsible representatives, organising information within the agency, creating internal processes to
answer to requests, etc.
Co-ordination and Monitoring: The Office of the Comptroller General (CGU) is charged with
co-ordinating and monitoring the implementation of the law and sharing good practices. The CGU
gathers data on the performance of each organisation and tracks the number of requests and answers,
the profile of the requesters, popular topics and other relevant information. Reports on the
performance of each organisation are available publicly.
Training: Agencies and public companies offered staff training. Courses offered by the CGU
included procedures, how to use the web platform and legal issues.
Procedures: The procedures to make and respond to information requests and appeals are
detailed in regulations put forth by the federal government. Similar to the PPID’s role in Indonesia,
each government unit was obligated to create a Service of Information to Citizens Office (Serviço de
Informação ao Cidadão, or SICs) to manage requests and provide support to citizens. An online
platform called e-SIC (sic.gov.br) allows citizens to make information requests to any agency.
Citizens can use the platform to make requests and receive answers, make appeals, save their
requests and access the database with questions and answers made by others. In part due to the
flexibility provided by e-SIC, 85% of Brazil’s 5 570 municipalities have at least one active
requester.
Sponsorship: The ATI law states that each organisation must appoint a high-level official to
oversee the compliance of the law.
Networking: The CGU organized a network of SICs to exchange experiences and provide
continuous training. The CGU also works with civil society organisations to improve its monitoring
the law and encourages third party assessments of its performance.

Citizen involvement in policy making and accountability

The 1945 Constitution explicitly recognizes the right to associate,
assemble, and express opinions (Chapter X, Article 28). Subsequent laws
and other instruments have further guaranteed and delineated the rights of
civil society organisations, as well as the public’s right to monitor the
delivery of public services and participate in policy planning and evaluation.
Indonesia’s constitutional amendments in 1999-02 codified a set of human
rights provisions mirroring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Indonesia also ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights in 2006, which provides protection of fundamental freedoms, such as
expression and assembly. Law No. 17 of 2013 on Societal Organizations
(which replaced Law No. 8 of 1985 on Societal Organizations, a measure
that had given the Suharto administration broad controls over the civil
society sector) regulates the oversight of CSOs in the country and builds
upon the legal framework that guarantees freedom of association and
expression (ICNL, 2015).
Regarding the country’s decentralisation process, as discussed in
Chapter 2, one of the factors motivating the country’s decentralisation was a
desire to bring government closer to the public and, as expressed by
President Yudhoyono when presenting the regional development policy,
allow the government to “provide better services and satisfy community
needs in better, faster and more appropriate ways (USAID, 2007).” Notably,
Law No. 32/2004 on Regional Governance devolves authority over a
number of sectors to regional governments, and it makes public participation
a primary means to address community welfare objectives. The law is meant
to create a sense of public ownership of local governance, ensure greater
transparency and accountability, and facilitate the ability to transform
community aspirations into tangible programmes and services (USAID,
2007).
The primary legal vehicle that supports citizen participation is Law
No. 25/2004 on National Development Planning, which seeks to “optimize
public participation (Article 2),” and lays out the process by which the
public can participate in the creation of the country’s development plan.
Law No. 25/2004 also institutionalizes the creation of multi-stakeholder
consultation forums (Musrenbang) (Articles 1, 10-12, 16-18, 22-24) at all
levels of government for the long-term, medium- term and annual
development plans.
Law No. 25/2009 on Public Services provides additional clarity to the
relationship between the public and the government (Articles 1, 18, 20).
This law states that the public must be involved in organising public services
and that society is entitled to oversee the implementation and setting of

service standards, as well as to receive responses to complaints filed. This

law provides the regulatory framework for public participation in the
delivery of public services, including mechanisms to participate in their
implementation, mechanisms for joint public / private provision of public
services and for citizen and community monitoring (Article 39). 5
Furthermore, Law No. 12/2011 on the Establishment of Legislation
(Article 96) sets out a general requirement mandating that government
agencies at the national, local, and service delivery levels consult with
citizens and stakeholders in their decision-making processes. It should be
noted, however, that the legal framework does not consider citizen
participation in the budget process.
In addition to ensuring the public’s right to express opinions and to
participate in the creation of public policy, the country’s legal framework
also creates specific mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of laws
and government activities. Indonesia has established numerous independent
state agencies and accountability mechanisms, including the Supreme Audit
Institution, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the National
Public Procurement Agency (LKPP), and the Financial and Development
Supervisory Agency (BPKP), and has established a code of conduct and
financial disclosure requirements for state administrators. These will be
discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
Similarly to most OECD members, 6 the country’s legal framework also
provides for the protection of whistleblowers, as well as for formal
mechanisms for the public to file complaints. The whistleblower protection
legislation (including Law No. 31/1999 and Law No. 20/2001 on the
Eradication of Corruption; Law No. 30/2002 on the Commission for the
Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption [Article 15]; and Law No.
13/2006 on Witness and Victim Protection) broadly protects citizens who
reveal wrongdoing. The legal framework protects public and private
employees who report corruption and bribery cases, and it provides
mechanisms through which citizens and public officials can report
corruption, graft, and abuse of power or resources (Transparency
International-Indonesia, 2014). Note that these laws are explained in more
detail in Chapter 4.
The country has also laid a legal foundation for public participation in
the oversight of public service provision, including via the creation of the
National Ombudsman Commission (Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, or
ORI). The ORI was established in 2000 by Presidential Decree Number
44/2000 to fight corruption, process complaints and initiate investigations
into irregularities in the public sector; Law No. 37/2008 on the Ombudsman
strengthened the legal basis for the ORI by making it an official state
institution. Among other goals, one of the Ombudsman’s primary objectives

is to “encourage government and public administration which is free from

corruption, collusion, nepotism; clean, open, fair, effective and efficient
(Article 4).” (See Figure 3.4 for an illustration of how laws related to
ombudsman institutions have grown within OECD countries.)
Figure 3.4. Number of OECD countries with laws on ombudsman institutions (1960-08)
2001-2008 27
1991-2000 24
1981-1990 19
1971-1980 13
1961-1970 7
Before 1960 3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Source: OECD (2009), Government at a Glance 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264075061-en.
The ORI is an independent institution and is free from the intervention

of other authorities (Article 2); it also publishes its yearly reports on its
website. As noted in the law, any Indonesian citizen or resident is entitled to
file a grievance to the Ombudsman free of charge (Article 23), and since its
inception in 2000, the Ombudsman has received more than 17 000
complaints, with particularly impressive growth coming more recently, as
shown in Figure 3.5.
The legislation discussed above provides essential guarantees for public
participation in creating government policy and in monitoring its
implementation. Despite this supportive legal framework for citizen
engagement in Indonesia, however, the country faces a number of
challenges in ensuring effective implementation of the laws. As discussed in
more detail below, inconsistent implementation of the country’s laws is
especially problematic for laws that depend on local implementation and
that allow for some discretion in their implementation (for example, the
freedom of information law allows public institutions to determine what
documents are secret and leaves it up to local offices to staff the PPID).
Moving forward, the GOI should look to ensure more consistent oversight of
the implementation of these laws.

Figure 3.5. Number of complaints received by the ORI 2009-15

8 000
6 677
7 000 6 859
6 000
5 000 5 173
4 000
3 000
2 209
2 000
1 867
1 000
1 237 1 137
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Source: OECD work based on 2015 Ombudsman Annual Report,

www.ombudsman.go.id/index.php/laporan/laporan-tahunan.html.
Citizen engagement in practice
Despite the relatively recent opening of the country with the end of the
Suharto administration, Indonesia has made rapid advancements in its ability
to engage civil society in public affairs. The government at all levels has
widely, though not uniformly, recognised the importance of public
involvement in policy design and in the monitoring and provision of public
services, and has embraced reforms that have provided avenues for citizen
engagement, though work remains to be done to improve effectiveness.
Citizen participation in policy and strategic framework documents
National Development Strategies

The primary vehicles through which the Government of Indonesia lays
out its strategic and policy direction are its overlapping Long-Term and
Medium-Term Development Plans, along with each presidential
administration’s government programmes, such as current President
Jokowi’s Nawa Cita agenda. In addition to its role in supporting open
government reforms, Bappenas is also in charge of developing the planning
documents. The role that Bappenas and these documents play in setting the

country’s strategic direction is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2; their

importance to citizen engagement, however, is reflected in both the open
government principles and initiatives they promote as well as in the method
by which the documents are drafted.
The current National Long-Term Development Plan covers the years
2005-25. Within the long-term development plan cycle, the GOI is also
required to draft National Medium-Term Development Plans (abbreviated
RPJMN) every five years. These five year cycles overlap with presidential
terms of office so that the each administration’s plans align with the vision
of the national long-term development plan. At the time of publication, the
GOI is working under RPJMN 2015-19.
The goals of the 2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan refer generally
to the importance of civil society, openness, and public access to
information. One of the eight National Development Priorities that laid the
groundwork for the subsequent medium-term development plans is to
“establish more solid democratic institutions; strengthen the role of civil
society… (and) ensure the development of the media and freedom of the
media.” The RPJPN also refers to the importance of citizen engagement in
public life by noting that, “The progress of democracy has also seen the
development of consciousness of the rights of people in political life,
which…is expected to further stimulate people to more actively participate
in…the management of public affairs. Progress cannot be separated from the
development of the role of political parties, non-governmental organisations
and other civil society organisations.”
The RPJPN also explicitly links citizen engagement to broader good
governance goals. For example, it states that, “public access to information
that is free and open…will further facilitate the control over the fulfilment of
the public interest. The role of free media is crucial in the process of
discovering, preventing and publishing various forms of abuse of power and
corruption.” The RPJPN also notes that strengthening the role of civil
society is a key component of achieving a “fair and democratic Indonesia.”
Given that the RPJPN provides the primary strategic context for the country
through 2025, its recognition of the role of open government and the value
of citizen engagement both as a means to ensure good governance and as a
valuable goal in and of itself is noteworthy.
The Medium-Term Development Plans (RPJMN) of 2010-14 and 2015-
19 have further outlined the framework establishing the importance of
citizen engagement in public life outlined by the RPJPN. For example, the
RPJMN of 2010-14 described as one of its priorities the importance of
strengthening the role of civil society in national life. More explicitly, the
Medium-Term Development Plan of 2015-19 has identified a number of

targets that directly relate to increasing citizen engagement. One of its nine
National Development Agenda points is to “Build Clean, Effective
Democratic and Reliable Governance,” which includes two targets directly
related to increasing citizen engagement in public life. First, Target 6.2.3
seeks to “Build Transparency and Accountability in Government
Performance,” which includes efforts to “establish PPID offices; and
provide space for public participation in formulating and overseeing the
implementation of public policies.” Additionally, Target 6.2.5 specifically
seeks to “Increase Public Participation in Public Policy-Making Process.”
Part of the strategy to achieve this target, which includes “increasing
implementation of open government in all government agencies,” is to
“strengthen partnerships with local governments, civil society organisations,
the private sector and the media to educate the public about the importance
of public information and participate in the process of preparing and
monitoring policy.” This target also seeks to “strengthen the role of the
PPID role in managing and providing quality information services and
encourage local governments to increase public participation in the making
of public policy, public policy programmes, and public decision-making
processes.”
Based on the publication of the Medium-Term Development Plan for
2015-19, the Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy Reform
developed a Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap in 2015 that establishes the role
that bureaucratic reform will play in supporting the country’s national
development priorities. Regarding open government and citizen
engagement, the Roadmap notes that the “principles of good governance are
not fully applied and that the government is not yet fully able to open their
space and encourage involvement of the general public in their operations
and development.” It also lists citizen engagement as a key element to
improving the functioning of the government, and it seeks to improve the
quality of the national bureaucracy by moving to meet the 2015-19
RPJMN’s goals of: establishing and appointing PPID offices; increasing
public awareness on public information transparency; publishing all
planning, budgeting and budget implementation processes on ministry
websites; providing opportunities for the public to participate in the drafting
of public policies and monitoring their subsequent implementation; and
developing a proactive, interactive, and accessible information publication
system.
Notably, the RPJMN for 2015-19 reflects President’s Jokowi’s
government programme, or Nawa Cita. Specifically, it links to Nawa Cita
agenda item two, which seeks to realize “a sustainable society and
developed democratic state based on the rule of law (by) encouraging public

participation in the process of public policy and to improve people's active

participation in public policy-making.”
The mutually reinforcing nature of the country’s development strategies,
reform efforts and government programme in the areas of open government
and citizen engagement signals the country’s formal recognition of the
public’s essential role in setting and monitoring policies and services. CSOs
have noted that if they are unable to link their work to Nawa Cita, it is
difficult to for them obtain government support for their agenda. Given the
Jokowi administration’s explicit support for improving public participation,
CSOs have expressed the hope that the administration will actively pursue
the open government priorities expressed in the long-term and medium-term
strategies. They noted, for example, that such support could take the form of
ensuring that the national open government secretariat is made permanent,
thereby helping to smooth the transition between presidential
administrations moving forward.
Open Government Partnership

In addition to Indonesia’s national strategies and the Jokowi
administration’s governing programme, Indonesia’s membership in – and
leadership of – the OGP provides a valuable opportunity to increase and
deepen citizen engagement. As regards community engagement, however,
the country’s experience in implementing its three National Action Plans has
to date produced mixed results.
In the country’s first Action Plan (2011-13), the stakeholders accepted
that the development of the action plan would help establish OGI and
provide an opportunity for the government to focus on building the process
and institutions of open government. The first Independent Reporting
Mechanism (IRM), which are progress reports issued by external experts on
each country participating in OGP that assess the development and
implementation of OGP action plans, commended the government for
ensuring that the process and timeline for public consultation was available
online prior to beginning consultations. Unfortunately, CSO representation
was heavily skewed to those based in Jakarta and the surrounding areas,
although the CSOs that participated did represent a diverse range of sectors
and issues. CSO representatives also raised concerns that the selection
process for CSOs was not participative, though the IRM noted that
considering Indonesia’s diversity, it would be difficult to reach out to all
relevant stakeholders. Ultimately, the IRM concluded that the consultation
was meaningful in the sense that the government provided a space for
stakeholders to make recommendations on the government’s action plan.
The downside to this strategy, however, was that it led to a plan that was too
large for government to be able to deliver on it (IRM 1).

The IRM produced after the second OGP NAP noted that the
consultation process “did not conform to OGP guidelines,” as neither the
timeline nor the schedules of the consultations were available to the public
prior to the stakeholder consultation events. The consultation group also
relied heavily on CSO Core Team members. Nevertheless, the IRM noted
that the CSOs that were involved in the NAP development process had a
stronger and clearer relationship with the government than those that had
participated in the first NAP process, and that this led to more active
participation and ultimately more success in including their priorities in the
final version of the Action Plan (IRM 2).
The third IRM report noted that progress had been made in increasing
public participation, but it suggested that more outreach was needed to align
citizen-driven demands with available open government solutions.
Specifically, the development of the third National Action Plan sought to
address criticism from previous IRM reports. The most notable change was
the creation of a public contest wherein citizens could submit ideas for
improving public services for inclusion in the Action Plan. However, the
“lack of advance notice, lack of evidence of consultation events, and lack of
clarity on the incorporation of citizen-generated ideas in the action plan
undermined the government’s increased public participation efforts
(IRM 3).”
The lessons from the country’s previous National Action Plans suggests
that the consultative process that Indonesia has undertaken as part of its
OGP related activities could be improved, both in terms of ensuring a
sufficient and representative sample of citizens’ voices, as well as in
clarifying when and under what circumstances public input is included in
the National Action Plans. A formalized OGI structure will also help
provide a consistent platform for citizen engagement and help insulate
action plan implementation from political changes (IRM 3).
Formal mechanisms for citizen engagement
Musrenbang
As directed by Law No. 25/2004 on National Development Planning,
the Government of Indonesia has instituted the Musrenbang (Musyawarah
Rencana Pembangunan, or Multi Stakeholder Consultation Forum for
Development Planning), which are multi-stakeholder fora that seek to
identify and prioritize community development policies. The meetings are
held during the first half of the calendar year and the priorities put forward
are made public.

Musrenbang held at the community level serve to define programme

priorities of local government departments to be funded from the local
annual budget and village allocation funds. Representatives selected from
the community level Musrenbang attend the meetings at sub-district level
and district level, where the function of the Musrenbang is to agree on the
final draft of the Annual Local Government Work Plan and Budget. As
noted in interviews with the OECD, furthermore, some local and regional
governments have embraced the potential of the Musrenbang to expand their
citizen engagement activities beyond the requirements of the law. For
example, Bandung has set a formal target via local regulation and its
strategic plan to allocate more than 30% of its local budget to be used to
facilitate Musrenbang priorities. Furthermore, Bandung, along with other
subnational governments such as Jakarta, have instituted online (or e-
Musrenbang) platforms to expand the reach of the fora and facilitate the link
between the Musrenbang and complaint management systems.
While the Musrenbang process is an important formal opportunity to
involve the public in determining development priorities, both government
and CSO representatives noted their limitations. For example, as noted in
interviews conducted by the OECD, many of the fora have seen a decline in
the number of participating CSOs, leading to claims that the Musrenbang are
not participatory or representative. Some government representatives have
also noted that enthusiasm from CSOs is decreasing, primarily because
CSOs have said it is not clear whether their inputs are taken into account.
Government representatives noted that it is often difficult to identify the
correct CSO partners, and many local governments do not have a history of
working with CSOs, so their relationship with them is still developing 7. For
their part, CSOs at the local level often display limitations in their
understanding of the planning process and their ability to push for greater
transparency or participation (Antlöv and Wetterberg, 2011). Nevertheless,
the government has stressed that several steps have been taken to improve
the quality of the Musrenbang, such as socialisation to try to build a culture
of participation and engagement, as well as measures to ensure concrete
follow-ups (Siliwanti, 2014). Increasing the transparency of the process by
which citizen feedback is included and illustrating to the public the
importance of their participation could be other ways to provide more
credibility to the process. Continuing to pursue these activities will be
essential to help this avenue of citizen engagement to achieve its potential.
Access to information
Given the critical role that information and data have in ensuring that
citizens can play an active role in the design and oversight of public policies,
continuing the push to enhance access to information should remain one of

the GOI’s primary goals. Backed by information, civil society groups can sit
down with government agencies and discuss public service improvements.
Data on staffing and service quality, for example, can give citizens’ groups
the information that they need to hold public agencies accountable for their
actions, granting citizens the necessary resources to become political actors
in their own right. Generally speaking, improved data gathering has become
a powerful tool for community empowerment that can lead to changes in
government policy and practices (Antlöv and Wetterberg, 2011).
In addition to providing the legal basis for public access to information,
Law No. 14/2008 on Public Information Disclosure also mandated the
creation of the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi
(Documentation and Information Management Offices, or PPID) responsible
for storing, documenting, and providing government information to the
public. Institutions such as the PPID and the Information Committee that
help co-ordinate and implement access to information also play an important
role in OECD countries.
The establishment of these offices is a critical step toward increasing the
transparency of national and local governments, and remains a clear priority
for the government. With the presence of other initiatives such as the House
of Representatives’ Alun-Alun Demokrasi platform, described in interviews
with the OECD as an information system designed to allow people to track
legislation, allow comments, and ultimately improve the relationship
between the public and the Members of Parliament, Indonesia has a number
of initiatives that could significantly broaden the public’s range of
opportunities to access information.
Regarding the PPID offices, even though Law 14/2008 was
implemented in 2010, as Table 3.1 shows, as of March 2015, less than 50%
of the PPID units have been established across all levels of government as of
2015. Without PPID offices, the public’s access to information is limited, as
there is no other designated government unit to uniformly handle requests
for information.

Table 3.1. Number of PPID offices established within public institutions
Year
Institution Number 2013 2014 2015
# % # % # %
Ministerial 34 34 100% 34 100% 34 100%
Central agencies 129 36 27.91% 41 31.78% 43 33.33%
Provincial govt 34 23 69.70% 30 88.24% 30 88.24%
District govt 399 98 24.56% 168 42.11% 174 43.61%
City govt 98 38 38.77% 60 61.22% 60 61.22%
Total 694 227 32.76% 333 47.98% 341 49.14%
Source: PPID Kemkominfo, http://ppid.kominfo.go.id/regulasi/konsultasi-publik/r-p-m/fk-ppid/
(accessed 21 March 2016).
One factor that has held back the creation of PPID offices has been the
extent to which the implementation depends on local governments that have
varying degrees of interest and capacity. Some entities, especially at the
local level, have had the perception that establishing and supporting PPID
offices is a distraction from their day-to-day work. It was noted in
interviews with the OECD that this perception has been exacerbated by the
practice of some citizens who have used their rights to effectively blackmail
public bodies into offering them jobs or contracts by threatening them with
unmanageably large information requests, thereby distracting public
officials from their tasks, though the extent of this tactic remains unclear.
Another factor that has held back the implementation of PPID offices
has been a perception among some government agencies that only general
information should be published. Efforts to raise awareness and expand
knowledge of the FOI law and to build human resources capacity would also
help facilitate the establishment of PPID offices. Finally, many offices,
particularly at the local level, have not faced much public pressure for
improved access to public information, so they have not prioritized the law’s
implementation.
Garnering support for establishing PPID offices and improving access
information more generally will require a concerted response to develop
understanding and capacity at the national level, but also at the local level,
which is where much of the actual implementation will take place. Before it
was dissolved, UKP4 was in charge of facilitating the establishment of PPID
offices. Due to the initial slow progress once the law came into effect in
2010, the Yudhoyono administration issued Government Regulation
No. 61/2010, which sought to clarify the role of public offices in providing
information and to ensure that all PPID offices would be established by
2011.

Since local governments do not face sanctions for failing to set up PPID
offices and often may not see the incentive to open data, the Jokowi
administration has focused on building understanding within the government
and encouraging public demand for information as a means to increase
access. The Executive Office of the President continues to monitor
implementation based on the reports of the Information Commission, an
independent institute that monitors and supports the implementation of the
law by providing technical directives and settling disputes that arise from
information requests. The Ministry of Home Affairs supports the
establishment of PPID offices at the local level, while the Ministry of
Communication and Informatics has helped establish standard operating
procedures and oversees their implementation at the national level. As noted
in interviews with the OECD, the Ministry of Communication and
Informatics also provides capacity building support to PPID offices in
government agencies, though it focuses less on assisting PPID offices in
non-governmental organisations. In 2015, The Ministry of Communication
and Informatics also helped found the Forum for PPID (FKPPID), whose
aim is to help share good practices, build capacity and help PPID offices co-
ordinate and respond to information demands. The Forum is currently only
working with PPID officers based in Jakarta, but plans to expand to the
provincial level.
Broadly, the GOI’s approach is to boost both the “supply” of
information (the government’s ability to provide information) and the
“demand” for information (the public’s desire to obtain information).
Establishing PPID offices is therefore the first step in supporting the supply
of information and ensuring the law functions as intended. The GOI
understands, however, that the publication of the data on its own will not
necessarily lead to increased awareness, involvement, or participation. To
create public participation, in addition to having access to information,
citizens need to understand their rights and take the initiative to access and
use the data.
For those institutions that have not yet established a PPID office, the
Ministry of Communication and Informatics is therefore also pushing to
increase the demand for information from citizens to make the case for the
creation of PPID offices. In 2013, the Ministry of Communication and
Informatics launched its “Let’s Ask; Let’s Open” campaign, which
highlighted both the public’s right to know and the government’s obligation
to allow access to information. In order to educate the public on how to use
their rights correctly, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics has
instituted a “Right to Know Day” (28 September), which is used to inform
the public about the use of the law. While the limited budget for this activity
has to-date precluded its expansion beyond Jakarta, this is an important

effort to broaden the public’s understanding and appreciation of their right

to access information.
A primary challenge in implementing access to information initiatives in
Indonesia has been ensuring consistency across the government. The GOI
will need to increase its focus on providing consistent guidance and support
to the offices in charge of providing public information and serving as
platforms for citizen engagement. This is especially true in light of the abuse
of the PPID offices discussed above, which will require a co-ordinated
response and support from the national government to those offices that may
be unwilling or unable to cope with such demands. In addition to continued
efforts on the part of the Ministry of Communication and Informatics, the
Information Commission, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Executive
Office of the President, the GOI could take concrete steps to enhance ATI
by, for example, reintroducing a focus on access to information in the OGP
National Action Plans. The government could also ensure consistent and
clear budgetary support for ATI capacity building efforts, such as for PPID
offices, and awareness building among both the government and public on
the importance of promoting access to information.
Civil society organisations have noted the importance of using data in
their efforts to support public involvement in the national development
planning processes. Budget information in particular can be difficult to
obtain; the lack of data can lead the public to make uninformed requests,
which results in those requests being dismissed (CSO meeting). Bappenas
recognizes the importance of CSO engagement and the role that data plays
in bringing the public into the national planning process, though it
acknowledges that often citizens are not yet treated as full partners in the
law-making and strategy-setting processes. Identifying ways to involve a
wider range of stakeholders, and helping to ensure they have the information
to meaningfully contribute to policy making and strategic decisions, could
increase the positive impact of open government policies and ultimately the
country’s socio-economic development.
Another challenge faced by Indonesia regarding promoting access to
information is responding to the digital divide in the country, especially
outside of Java. Even as government ministries and local governments have
moved more information online, if it is not posted via other formats as well,
the digital gap will inhibit access (see Chapter 5 for further discussion of
this topic). Other access points, including the PPID offices, therefore play a
critical role in expanding access to information, especially for people who
do not have access to electronic files.

Ombudsman
Generally, ombudsman offices establish a point of contact for citizen
complaints, appeals and petitions for redress in their dealings with public
organisations. Almost all OECD member countries have an ombudsman
office, although their functions, roles and independence vary in accordance
with each country’s political-administrative system (OECD, 2012). In
Indonesia, as noted above, the ORI is an independent institution that reports
to Parliament. Founded in 2000, the office has 32 provincial offices in
Indonesia (out of 34 provinces), with a staff of roughly 500. Notably, the
ORI’s budget was doubled by the Jokowi administration in 2015, to USD 10
million. The Ombudsman has two primary functions: prevention of corrupt
and poor government administrative practices (referred to as
maladministration) and complaint handling. The ORI sees the prevention of
maladministration, including corruption and poor or unfair service
provision, as the key to improving government services. In addition to its
primary activities, the ORI therefore also produces an annual survey to
measure how well government institutions follow Law No.25 of 2009 on
Public Service, publishes manuals to educate public officials on how to
handle and prevent maladministration, and it provides trainers to the
Institute of Public Administration (Lembaga Administrasi Negara, or LAN)
to disseminate its principles.
Their second goal, that of responding to complaints, has grown as the
public has focused more on public service provision. Moving forward, the
Ombudsman will allow people to check the progress of their complaints
online. Per the Ombudsman’s office, public complaints have been increasing
rapidly - rising from 1137 reports in 2010 to 6859 in 2015 (ORI, 2015) –
and are forecasted to continue to do so. The ORI’s annual reports are public
(the most recent statistical update is from 2015), and provide a good
overview of the primary public complaints. For example, in 2014, the
complaints were directed primarily at local governments (42% of the cases,
or 2853), whereas almost 12% (806) were directed at police departments,
and 10% (663) were directed at Ministries or Agencies. These figures were
very similar to those of the previous year.
Per the ORI’s 2014 Annual Report, 25% of the complaints (1712) were
related to delays in services. Examples included licensing procedures not
being resolved in a timely manner, petitions for land certificates not being
resolved quickly enough and court rulings not being carried out. Other
leading sources of complaints were lack of services (14%) and abuse of
authority (12%) (ORI, 2014). Again, these results were very similar to those
of 2013.

Ombudsman representatives highlighted a number of changes that

would facilitate their efforts. For example, they recommended that they be
given the ability to advise officials on relevant fines and punishments; as of
now they can only report to Parliament and the media, but they have no
enforcement or sanctioning power. Increased involvement in the penalty
process would allow them to keep their autonomy while simultaneously
giving them more power. The ORI representatives also noted their desire for
additional institution building, particularly around how to expand their use
of ICT.
LAPOR
In addition to the ORI, one of the GOI’s primary means of increasing
citizen participation in overseeing public service provision is the People’s
Online Services and Complaints Aspiration System (more commonly
referred to as LAPOR; its acronym in Indonesian, means “report”), which is
an online platform that provides a complaint-handling service for the public
at the national and subnational levels. Launched in November 2011, this was
one of the most notable citizen engagement projects implemented by the
Yudhoyono administration (http://lapor.go.id/).
The system includes a Web and SMS-accessible platform and allows
citizens to monitor and verify the delivery of government services in real
time. Submitted reports are verified by LAPOR for clarity and completeness
and subsequently forwarded to the related ministry or office no later than
three business days after the reporting is verified. The relevant ministry or
office subsequently has five business days to respond. In addition to
bringing complaints to light, the government also uses this information to
improve its allocation of public resources in areas ranging from education
and health to energy and defence (McKinsey and Company, 2012).
If a citizen does not receive a response to their complaint within five
working days, LAPOR officials contact the agency’s liaison officer, after
which they send a report to the relevant senior official. If LAPOR still does
not receive a response, the agency can be reported to the ORI, which will
investigate the case and issue a binding order to the agency (GovInsider,
2015). The system assigns unique numbers to each case to facilitate tracking
and searching on the platform. Each report can also be labelled with the
geographic location, topic, status reports, and the relevant institutions so that
the government and the public can monitor the issue visually. This
functionality was used to good effect during flooding in Jakarta in 2012 and
2014 as a reference tool to assist in the distribution of aid. The platform also
allows for anonymity, and reports can be restricted for use by only the
relevant agency, measures which the designers hope will encourage the

reporting of sensitive or private issues. LAPOR was shortlisted for a Bright

Spot Award and presented at the 2013 OGP Summit in London.
As of September 2015, LAPOR has had over 300 000 users, and it
receives 800 reports per day. 8 LAPOR has been integrated with 81
Ministries/Agencies, six local governments, and 44 state-owned companies
in Indonesia (LAPOR website). The platform plans to increase its
integration with government offices and expand its ability to facilitate
community involvement with government authorities. LAPOR’s
management team is piloting in provinces first to expand as quickly as
possible, at which point the province will invite its cities and regencies to
connect (GovInsider, 2015). By allowing for co-ordination between agencies
as well as between the centre and subnational levels of government, LAPOR
provides a useful tool to improve citizen participation in the provision of
public services. Its primary drawback, however, is that it has yet to provide a
truly government-wide system, thereby limiting its utility and potentially
creating unreasonable public expectations of improvements to government
services.
Examples from local level

Given Indonesia’s size and political decentralisation, subnational level
governments play a critical role in providing channels for citizens to engage
in policy making and service delivery. The rule-making power given to
subnational governments through regulations (peraturan) and decisions
(keputusan) passed by heads of local governments - or by local laws enacted
by provincial, district, or municipal legislatures (perda) - provide
opportunities for local governments to promote transparency and deepen
consultative approaches. Decentralisation can provide the political space to
encourage legislative experimentation, while online and social media tools
give local governments and citizens additional avenues to identify new ways
to participate and interact (see Chapter 5).
Indonesia’s relatively recent decentralisation, however, raises the risk
that campaigns to enhance citizen engagement mechanisms will be inhibited
by capacity constraints and political barriers at the local level. Prior to the
country’s democratisation, local governments channelled programmes
designed by the central government, which made them dependent on central
planning and actively hampered local creativity and innovation. Under this
system, the Indonesian civil service was oriented towards responding to
higher levels of authority rather than to input from citizens (Antlöv and
Wetterberg, 2011). A major challenge to building citizen engagement in
Indonesia thus lies in ensuring the government at all levels fully appreciates
the role of the public and the opportunities that can derive from their greater
participation in the policy-making cycle.

At the same time, decentralisation can serve to expand the arenas for
policy dialogue and decision-making. Furthermore, a critical determinant of
CSO capacity to interact with government and advocate effectively on
behalf of citizens is the degree of operational and political space these
organisations are afforded by a country’s politics, governance, laws, and
public administration. (Antlöv et al, 2010). To this end, the central
government, under both the Yudhoyono administration and the Jokowi
administration, has facilitated the implementation of open government pilot
projects throughout the country, initiatives that illustrate how subnational
governments are seeking to enhance citizen engagement in their particular
contexts. For example, in Ambon, the regional administration is focused on
improving the transparency of its budget (one result of this programme is the
publication of the Ambon province financial report on its website); in
Kalimatan Tengah (Central Borneo), the government is publishing school
performance data; and in Indragiri Hulu, the government is publishing data
on the health budget and results. The Jakarta Provincial Government has
implemented a Smart City website that is designed to allow citizens to report
problems in real-time as well as give the government the ability to monitor
officials and track how quickly and effectively they follow up on
complaints.
In Bojonegoro Regency, the government implemented a Public
Dialogue and Open Public Information programme in 2008. This is a public
forum held every Friday, attended by high-level officials who take note of
and respond to issues raised by the audience. Approximately 175 people
attend the dialogue weekly, and the events are broadcast on two local radio
stations, allowing most of Bojonegoro Regency to hear the discussion.
Furthermore, the questions and complaints addressed in the dialogue are
published on the website of Department for Communication and Informatics
of Bojonegoro Regency. The Regency’s commitment to open information
and data predates the implementation of Law Number 14/2008. As the
government has found, providing both a forum for consistent
communication as well as reliable and up-to-date information can encourage
participation from communities and their involvement in supporting
decision making. See Box 3.3 for an additional example of a programme in
Indonesia that is using enhanced data sharing and transparency to improve
public services at the local level, and Box 3.4 for an example of how the
Government of Brazil has partnered with CSOs and the public to improve
the provision of healthcare services at the national and local level.

Box 3.3. Case Study: Nusantara Sehat, Indonesian Ministry of Health

The Nusantara Sehat programme is a nationwide effort led by the Indonesian Ministry of Health
to improve medical care via community-based teams consisting of five to nine health professionals
(including doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, community health workers, environmental health
personnel and nutrition and pharmacy personnel). In addition to promoting access and quality of
basic health services, the programme seeks to maintain the sustainability of such services by
improving the retention of health workers, to mobilize community development and to provide
integrated care. Nusantara Sehat also focuses on preventive care, particularly in poor and rural
regions in accordance with Nawa Cita, which expresses a commitment to implementing policies to
improve health outcomes for people in remote areas (website).
Regarding citizen engagement, the Ministry of Health, particularly under the Jokowi
administration, has focused on obtaining and publishing better community health data, including the
location of the nearest health centres, the number of staff on hand, the number of beds available, etc.
Internally, the Ministry of Health has also prioritized the transparency of the programme’s processes
and has integrated its planning and budgeting procedures. Moving forward, and in partnership with
the Ministry of Home Affairs, the programme will focus on improving its efforts to share
information with subnational governments and with professional and civil society organisations.
The programme’s data transparency efforts have faced challenges, including resistance to making
research data public and capacity issues, within the Ministry and by CSOs that are not trained to use
the data. Currently, the Ministry’s website is the primary tool to dispense data. While each hospital
has its own website, relevant information is often difficult to identify and locate, and the IT
management is not centralized, which can pose a problem given that IT infrastructure is often
lacking in rural areas. The programme’s focus will be on identifying ways to more clearly
communicate and present data to the public. Nevertheless, Nusantara Sehat’s efforts to provide
community-based care and increase access to local health data, and to go about this in a transparent
manner, are important.
Sources: Nusantara Sehat website; Interview with Diah Saminarsih, Ministry of Health.
Box 3.4. Health Councils – a history of engagement with civil society in Brazil
Brazil established its first National Health Council in the 1930s aiming to fight countrywide
epidemics. Formed by researchers and government representatives, the Council organized
national conferences to debate health issues throughout the country. After the transition to
democracy in the 1980s, the Council began including civil society organisations and users of
the health services in its activities.
This experience allowed for the discussion of local realities, which led to the establishment
of local health councils focused on issues related specifically to states and municipalities.
Currently, Health Councils and conferences play a prominent role in planning and monitoring
health-related budgets and programmes. For example, local councils are empowered to oversee
spending and transfers made by the federal level to the local governments to help ensure that
the money is spent as assigned.

Box 3.4. Health Councils – a history of engagement with civil society in Brazil
(continued)
The National Council supports the creation of the country’s overall healthcare strategy and
also focuses on:
• Helping to define the methodology used to identify priorities to allocate budgets in

subnational governments
• Supporting the assessment and monitoring of local councils

• Advising the legislature on its oversight role of government resources
• Participating in the definition of strategies for the Health Sector
The stability and representation of health councils is also supported by their permanent legal
status and in that their member ship includes health professionals, government officials, service
providers and users of public health services. In this way, the councils help to both promote
inclusiveness and transparency, while at the same time improving public service provision.
OECD countries also provide relevant examples of citizen engagement

initiatives that help ensure that input from local governments and citizens is
taken into consideration. For example, the Civil Evaluation Initiative in Italy
shows how collaborative approaches can be carried out to promote both
greater participation and more inclusive service delivery (see Box 3.6).
The central government, specifically the Office of the President and
Bappenas, place great importance on the role they play in highlighting the
success of exemplary citizen engagement policies in order to encourage
greater implementation of such initiatives. Publicising and sharing the
lessons from such cases will help build consensus across governments and
civil society as to how best to carry this process forward.

Box 3.6. Civic Evaluation Initiative (Italy)
The Civic Evaluation Initiative was launched in 2008 as a pilot by the Department of Public
Administration in partnership with Cittadinanzattiva (national civic association). The general
aim of the project is to promote collaboration between the public administration and citizens
(users) in assessing public services. The initiative adopts a user-oriented perspective to build
evaluation tools and methodologies, which are then applied to real cases. It is not meant to
provide a structured assessment (like an inspection), but to engage citizens in a shared
evaluation in partnership with the administrations and civic associations.
In the first phase of the project, citizens in selected municipalities were involved in
evaluating school and front-office services (e.g., general information, tax payment,
demographic services). The second phase of the project started in 2009 and focused on “urban
quality”, aiming at evaluating services in urban areas of local municipalities (road
maintenance, street lighting, urban waste, state of public buildings). The dimensions of the
indicators applied within the citizens’ special monitoring were chosen following a participative
approach involving experts, representatives of administrations and of non-governmental
associations, and citizens.
The dimensions selected included: security, access and reliability, information, sociability,
transport and traffic, cleanliness, waste management and maintenance.
An evaluation of the preliminary results of the Initiative conducted in July 2010 indicates
that positive results are being achieved. The programme has facilitated the collection of an
evidence-base for decision making, fosters networking and social communications, and
increases public understanding of the problems faced daily by local administrations. The
initiative will be further expanded to make it widely available as a civic and participative tool
for improving administrations’ services and performance.
Source: OECD (2011), Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society, OECD
Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843-en.
Towards a strategic approach to civic engagement in Indonesia
Indonesia’s role as a co-founder of the Open Government Partnership

and an initial signatory of the OGP Declaration in September 2011 illustrate
the country’s commitment to the open government and citizens’
participation. As noted by the OGP, openness in Indonesia has been gaining
momentum in parallel with the country’s democratic transition since 1998
(OGP website). Under the Yudhoyono administration, Indonesia’s open
government activities were driven by the Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang
Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan (UKP4). This signalled the
administration’s prioritisation of open government, but the centralized

management structure did not ensure that other ministries and local
governments would fully buy in to the initiatives. This top-down approach
taken by the Yudhoyono administration did not consistently achieve the
same degree of acceptance outside of the executive branch. The Jokowi
administration has instead pursued open government as a tool to pursue its
anti-corruption and citizen engagement priorities; as the country’s re-
election to the OGP Steering Committee shows, however, Indonesia is still
very much engaged in the international support structures of open
government.
While it is true that the Jokowi administration has maintained the
commitment to the underlying principles of open government, the transition
between administrations in October 2014 nevertheless disrupted the
implementation of open government initiatives. Despite the support for open
government in the national strategy documents and the co-ordinating
impetus provided by the OGP, the government transition hindered the
provision of central strategic direction and led to fragmented
implementation. The current administration has viewed open government
through the lens of identifying how such policies can tangibly benefit the
people and how they can be linked even more closely to the national
development plan.
As noted in Chapter 1, the key priorities outlined by the Office of the
President in terms of open government are to: 1) ensure high-level
commitment to open government initiatives; 2) ensure the national agenda
for such reforms is implemented at the subnational level; and 3) identify
champions to showcase successful implementation of reforms. The section
below discusses the elements the GOI should focus on as it pursues these
priorities and implements a more consistent strategic approach to citizen
engagement.
Communication
A foundational component of providing a more integrated and co-
ordinated approach to enhancing citizen engagement will consist of efforts
to guarantee that the broad definition, objectives, and importance of open
government are clearly communicated, both within the government and
between the government and its citizens. A key internal challenge for the
government is to clarify what exactly it means by citizen engagement across
all levels of the public administration. By providing a clear definition of
what they hope to achieve through increasing the involvement of citizens,
the GOI will be able to increase understanding and ownership of the concept
throughout the government.

This remains a particularly important step in Indonesia, as these policies

were actively discouraged in the era prior to the democratic transition. Even
under the Yudhoyono administration, officials acknowledged in interviews
with the OECD that the government’s reform efforts would have been aided
by a greater focus on ensuring more comprehensive buy-in across ministries
and levels. While a number of government agencies and ministries had
frequent and valuable collaboration with relevant civil society partners,
these agencies often lacked a broader understanding of open government
principles, and they did not have a clear sense of how their interactions with
the public fit into the country’s larger open government priorities.
Additionally, the GOI would benefit from improving its communication
with citizens regarding its open government priorities and successes. A first
step will be to help build the capacity of public officials to process
information gathered during consultations, such as the Musrenbang, and to
report government decisions back to the public. In addition, investing in
outreach and communication capacities – such as providing guidelines, tools
and training opportunities to civil servants – is also essential to promoting
open government and effective citizen engagement, as it gives citizens the
sense that their time and efforts are meaningful. Clearer communication can
therefore help build broader support for open government initiatives.
Expanding the public’s role in designing and monitoring public

services
As Indonesia implements its citizen engagement strategy, it will need to
consider how best to move along the spectrum from the one-way,
information provision relationship with the public to more comprehensive
forms of interaction, including co-production of public services. Enhancing
the role of citizens and CSOs in public decisions and actions broadens the
role of citizens beyond that of being objects of state policy or recipients of
government funding to a role in which the public assumes greater
responsibility. Providing avenues for citizens and their elected officials to
work together to design better public governance can therefore improve the
quality of democracy, both at the local and national levels (Antlöv and
Wetterberg, 2011), as well as support CSOs directly through providing
opportunities to identify funding, as well as collaborate and engage with
government and other like-minded organisations.
Moving beyond the traditional view of the public as consumers or
clients of public services – as people who receive the services delivered to
them – requires an understanding that in many areas of government activity,
the public may indeed play a necessary role in producing the services
(OECD, 2011b). To that end, the GOI should use its implementation of open

government initiatives to look for opportunities to co-deliver and co-produce

government services with the help of citizens, and in some cases this is
already happening. For example, one of the country’s more active CSOs in
this arena has worked with local governments in Indonesia to co-deliver
health care services. The Centre for Regional Information and Studies
(PATTIRO) is partnering with local governments to develop an SMS-based
platform for health promotion texts, emergency notifications and maternal
health information, and it is helping to provide access to information for
disabled citizens. PATTIRO is also helping local governments manage data
more efficiently (CSO Meeting). As these cases continue to proliferate, the
government will need to focus on identifying and spreading any lessons to
facilitate more widespread and effective implementation.
Open government link with the SDGs

Ultimately, Indonesia’s ability to link open government policies with its
other development priorities will be a critical factor in determining the
extent to which open government policies are implemented throughout the
government. While the Jokowi administration has made linking open
government to its national development plans a priority, the approval in
September 2015 of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
provides the administration with another avenue to help ensure that its open
government priorities are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans
and initiatives.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that came out of the 2030
Agenda seek to be transformative and inclusive, as well as to integrate
actions in different parts of the government. Citizen engagement will
therefore play a critical role in supporting the government’s efforts to ensure
the SDGs are representative of and responsive to the public. This may take
the form of civil society advocacy in favour of the inclusion both of SDG-
related goals within the country’s OGP NAP and of the principles of
transparency, accountability and participation in the SDG-related policy
cycle (i.e. the identification, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
the SGDs). See Chapter 8 for a more detailed discussion of the role of
citizen engagement in implementing the SDGs.
Recommendations
The OECD has developed a number of recommendations based on the

analysis of current civic engagement practices and the strategic
opportunities presented in this chapter. Open government reforms are part of
a larger process; the recommendations below provide broad goals for the

GOI, with specific actions that can be taken to help move the process
forward.
• Develop more structured and consistent whole-of government
policies for open government and for civic engagement. Although
open government and civic engagement priorities are included in the
country’s development strategies, developing such policies will support
open government reforms and streamline civic engagement within
current public-sector reform processes by translating the national vision
on open government into specific actions, including timelines, lead
agencies and actors, etc.
• Clarify the guidelines for citizen participation. Establishing a
structured, systematic and transparent mechanism for citizen
engagement would help foster the involvement of a larger share of the
population. For example, the government could develop a Code of
Practice on Citizen Consultation (potentially based on UK, Finland, and
other examples, see OECD Focus on Citizens) to delineate the role of
public consultation in the law-making process, specify the opportunities
for public engagement and create mechanisms for government reviews
on how consultation processes influence policy. Using IRM guidance
based on the development of the country’s OGP National Action Plans
would be a useful starting point to promote citizen participation.
• Promote a culture of civic engagement by communicating outcomes
and success stories to the public and civil servants. Investing in
outreach and communication capacities – such as providing guidelines
for public communication and training to government officials – is
essential to promoting effective citizen engagement, as it helps give
citizens the sense that their time and efforts are meaningful. Clearer
communication, especially regarding success stories, can also help build
support for open government initiatives throughout the government.
This is essential to building high-level support and is also useful in
gaining the support of mid-level reformers whose technical expertise is
often required to carry out reforms (Brockmyer and Fox, 2015).
• Support the capacity of the country’s civil society organisations to
engage actively in public governance activities. Despite the deepening
of the relationship between the public and the government in Indonesia
since the country’s democratisation, there is still room to increase the
role of CSOs. One of the critical drivers of success for multi-stakeholder
initiatives, such as open government reforms, is the participation of
influential and capable representatives who have the access, influence,
and ability to deliver results (Brockmyer and Fox, 2015). To this end,
the GOI can:

− Provide tools and training opportunities for civil society

representatives and the public to help support the planning,
implementation and evaluation of government policies and to secure
their position as partners in the provision of government services.
− Identify opportunities to engage with the public in the co-delivery of
public services.
• Promote public access to information. Despite Indonesia’s strong ATI
guarantees, the government could do more to ensure freedom of
information. For example, the requirements to show personal
identification or organisational registration information, as well as to
provide a rationale for requests for information, could be removed. This
would help ensure the anonymity of information requests and promote
access to information. The Government should also continue to support
the PPID offices and the Information Commission to ensure that there is
an effective and accountable structure for the provision of public
information.
• Build the country’s capacity to evaluate the impact of citizen
engagement efforts. For example, this could include enhanced tracking
of statistics and information on the number and results of public
consultations, and more consistent data collection on such interactions at
the local level. The national government could also facilitate co-
ordination among the various public engagement tools already in place,
and deepen its analysis of the added value of public consultations.
Importantly, the GOI should also focus on building the capacity of
public officials to process information received during consultations
such as the Musrenbang and to report government decisions back to the
public. Together, these efforts will help ensure the quality and
effectiveness of public engagement and highlight the public’s impact on
public policy.

Notes
1. The organisations listed in Annex 8A.1 are some of the primary civil
society organisation partners regarding open government issues in
Indonesia; most of the organisations were members of the Open
Government Indonesia (OGI) Core Team.
2. The reform era for labour unions largely began under President Habibi,
when Indonesia ratified the International Labour Organization (ILO)
convention on freedom of association and passed Law No. 21/2000 on
labour organisations.
3. This legislation extended the rights of freedom of association and
organisation and provided every worker with the right to form or become
a union member, as well as provided for unions’ rights to negotiate
collective agreements, represent workers in industrial dispute settlements,
and to defend members.
4. Per information gathered by the OECD during a meeting with the
Confederation of Indonesia Prosperity Trade Union (KSBSI).
5. See also Government Regulation No. 96/2012, articles 41-47).
6. As of 2015, 88% of OECD countries surveyed have a whistleblower
protection law or legal provision that calls for the protection of
whistleblowers (OECD, 2015).
7. Meeting with Bappenas – Director of Political Affairs and
Communications.
8. Dr. Raden Siliwanti; 7 September 2015.

References
Antlöv, H. and Wetterberg, A. (2011), Citizen Engagement, Deliberative

Spaces and the Consolidation of a Post-Authoritarian Democracy: The
Case of Indonesia; Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy,
Working Paper No. 8, April, Visby, Sweden.
Antlöv, H. et al. (2010), Civil Society Capacity Building for Democratic
Reform: Experience and Lessons from Indonesia; Voluntas: International
Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, Vol. 21, No. 3,
September, pp. 417-439.
AusAID (2012), NGO Sector Review: Phase I Findings,
https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/indo-ks15-ngo-
sector-review-phase1.pdf.
Brockmyer, B. and Fox, J. (2015), Assessing the Evidence: The
Effectiveness and Impact of Public Governance-Oriented Multi-
Stakeholder Initiatives, September, Transparency and Accountability
Initiative.
Economist Intelligence Unit (2014), Democracy Index 2014, Economist
Intelligence Unit, www.sudestada.com.uy/Content/Articles/421a313a-
d58f-462e-9b24-2504a37f6b56/Democracy-index-2014.pdf.
EIU Democracy Index (n.d.),
www.sudestada.com.uy/Content/Articles/421a313a-d58f-462e-9b24-
2504a37f6b56/Democracy-index-2014.pdf.
GovInsider (2015), “Inside LAPOR, Indonesia’s complaints unit”, Medha
Basu, https://govinsider.asia/innovation/inside-lapor-indonesias-
complaints-unit/.
IBC (n.d.), http://ipc.or.id/.
Ibrahim, R. (2006), Indonesian Civil Society 2006: A Long Journey to a
Civil Society; CIVICUS Civil Society Index Report for the Republic of
Indonesia, Jakarta.
Independent Reporting Mechanism (n.d.), Indonesia Progress Report, 2011–
2013, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/178320622-
Indonesia-IRM-Report.pdf.

Independent Reporting Mechanism (n.d.), 2013 Special Accountability

Report: Indonesia,
www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Indonesia_
Special_Acc_Report_Public.pdf.
Independent Reporting Mechanism (n.d.), Indonesia Progress Report, 2013-
2014,
www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Indonesia%20Special%2
0Report%20Draft%20for%20Public%20Release_bahasa_final.pdf.
International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) (2015), “NGO Law
Monitor: Indonesia,” 16 November,
www.icnl.org/research/monitor/indonesia.html (accessed 22 March
2015).
Kemitraan (n.d.), www.kemitraan.or.id/indonesia-governance-index.
KOPEL (n.d.), http://kopel-online.or.id/profil-kopel.
LAPOR (n.d.), www.lapor.go.id/.
McKinsey and Company (2012), “Innovation in government: Indonesia and
Colombia,”www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-
insights/innovation-in-government-indonesia-and-colombia.
MaPPI (n.d.), http://mappifhui.org/.
MediaLink (n.d.), http://medialink.or.id/tentang-medialink-or-id/.
Nabatchi, T. (2012), A Manager’s Guide to Evaluating Citizen
Participation, IBM Center for Business of Government,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-
dpadm/unpan048340.pdf.
NCDD (2008), Engagement Streams Framework, National Coalition for
Dialogue and Deliberation, www.thataway.org/?page-id=1487 .
OECD (2015), Government at a Glance 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2015-en.
OECD (2012), OECD Integrity Review of Brazil: Managing Risks for a
Cleaner Public Service, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD
Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264119321-en.
OECD (2011a), Government at a Glance 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris,

OECD (2011b), Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with

Citizens and Civil Society, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264075061-en.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.
OGP (n.d.), www.opengovpartnership.org/country/indonesia.
Ombudsman Republik Indonesia (ORI) (2015), Statistical Report 2015,
www.ombudsman.go.id/index.php/publikasi/laporan.html.
Ombudsman Republik Indonesia (ORI) (2014), Annual Report 2014,
www.ombudsman.go.id/index.php/publikasi/laporan.html.
PATTIRO (n.d.), http://pattiro.org/?page_id=357&lang=en.
Seknas Fitra (n.d.), http://seknasfitra.org/perihal/?lang=en.
Siliwanti (2014), “Measuring Civic Engagement for Better Open
Government Policies and Services,” OGP Asia Pacific Regional
Conference, May.
Suryadarma, D., Pomeroy, J. and Tanuwidjaja, S., (2011). Economic
Factors Underpinning Constraints in Indonesia's Knowledge Sector.
Indonesia: AusAID Publications.
Transparency International-Indonesia (2014), Scorecard Report Law and
Policy of Open Governance in Indonesia, Jakarta.
Transparency International-Indonesia (n.d.),
www.ti.or.id/index.php/profile/ti-indonesia.
USAID (2007), Good Governance Brief: Musrenbang as a Key Driver in
Effective Participatory Budgeting, Key Issues and Perspectives for
Improvements; Volume 1, June.
YAPPIKA (n.d.), www.yappika.or.id/tentang-kami/visi-misi/.

Annex 3.A1
Primary CSO partners on open government activities in

Indonesia
Organisation Description
Indonesia Centre for Environmental Law (ICEL) ICEL specializes in research, capacity building, advocacy
http://icel.or.id/ and community empowerment, particularly regarding the
public’s rights with respect to the environment and natural
resources.
Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) The ICW’s mission is to fight corruption and strengthen
http://antikorupsi.info/id citizen participation in the policy-making and oversight
process. ICW seeks to:
Encourage public awareness of corruption issues;
Build the capacity of the public to be involved in policy
making and oversight;
Encourage public reporting of corruption;
Mobilize public campaigns to press for corruption
eradication reforms.
International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development INFID is a network of Indonesian NGOs that aims to
(INFID) ensure that the formulation and implementation of policies
www.infid.org/ regarding development, investment and trade are made
with consideration of the poor and disadvantaged. It also
aims to strengthen democracy through the expansion of
public participation.
Indonesian Parliamentary Centre (IPC) IPC specializes in parliamentary capacity building and the
http://ipc.or.id/ promotion of political reform for improved democracy and
parliamentary accountability (IPC website).
Kemitraan Promoting open governance is a key area of focus for
www.kemitraan.or.id/ Kemitraan. Their goals, per their 2012-16 Strategic Plan,
are to: strengthen the political participation of citizens in
elections; promote the capacity of citizens to participate in
the process of planning and implementing development
and enhance the complaints management mechanisms
and community oversight.
Kemitraan also developed the Indonesia Governance
Index, which is the first comprehensive governance
database in Indonesia. The database provides rankings of
all provinces and data related to the Gender Balance
Index, as well as statistics on health, education, and
poverty allocation information (Kemitraan website).

Organisation Description
Komite Pemantau Legislatif (KOPEL) Founded in 2000, KOPEL’s goal is to promote dialogue
http://kopel-online.or.id/ between the legislature and the community. Specifically,
KOPEL aims to:
Support Parliament and civil society in promoting
government accountability;
Strengthen the capacity of civil society organisations to
monitor the Parliament to encourage responsiveness and
trustworthiness;
Advocate for and assist in that formulation of government
policy that is pro-poor and gender-responsive (KOPEL
website).
Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia (MaPPI) The goal of the Indonesian Court Monitoring Society is to
http://mappifhui.org/ expand public participation and policy reform in the
judicial system, as well as to monitor policies, systems,
and judicial practice in Indonesia (MaPPI website).
Perkumpulan Media Lintas Komunitas (MediaLink) MediaLink is a non-governmental organisation focused on
http://medialink.or.id/ issues of media freedom and democratisation of
information. Founded in 2010, MediaLink aims to
strengthen democracy by promoting the open and
equitable flow of information (MediaLink website).
Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional (PATTIRO) PATTIRO (the Centre for Regional Information and
http://pattiro.org/ Studies), was established in 1999 as a research and
advocacy institution. It focuses on three main sectors:
public service improvement; improvement in public
finance management; and the reform of public policy
(PATTIRO website).
Sekretariat Nasional Forum Indonesia untuk FITRA is a budget advocacy organisation that provides
Transparansi Anggaran (Seknas Fitra) data on state budgets; analyses budget priorities and
www.seknasfitra.org expenditures; raises public awareness regarding the need
to promote budget transparency; and promotes the
dissemination of budget information (Seknas Fitra
website).
Transparency International Indonesia (TII) Transparency International Indonesia (TII) is the local
www.ti.or.id/ chapter of Transparency International, a global network of
anti-corruption NGOs that promote transparency and
accountability on the part of state institutions, political
parties, businesses, and civil society (TII website).
Yayasan Penguatan Partisipasi, Inisiatif dan Kemitraan YAPPIKA aims to strengthen the capacities of civil society
Masyarakat Indonesia (YAPPIKA) organisations to advocate for policies that meet people's
www.yappika.or.id/ basic rights, that encourage the development of a healthy
civil society, and that promote the development of
synergies between civil society organisations in order to
fight for democracy and basic rights (YAPPIKA website).

4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA – 155
Chapter 4
From transparency and participation

to integrity in Indonesia
Integrity and the fight against corruption remain important issues in

Indonesia. This chapter will review the country’s integrity framework and
the interplay between the public sector and citizens in fostering a culture of
integrity. Specifically, it will look at the areas of participation in the policy
cycle, civic oversight and awareness raising. While Indonesia has taken
significant steps to prevent corruption through transparency and open
government measures, the main challenge remains building a culture of
integrity in the public sector and throughout all levels of society.
Accordingly, the chapter will provide recommendations discussing how
Indonesia can further improve upon the implementation, effectiveness and
compliance of its good policies and practices already in place.

156 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA
Introduction
Corruption, in all its forms, remains a widely recognised problem in

Indonesia. Transparency International ranked Indonesia 88th out of 168
countries in its 2015 index measuring how corrupt countries’ public sectors
are considered to be. That places the country below India, China and four of
the ten countries belonging to the Association of South-East Asian Nations
(ASEAN) (Transparency International, 2016). Indonesians consistently
complain about paying bribes to public officials or police officers. The issue
of political corruption continues to make daily headlines in the Indonesian
media, and business analysts point out that foreign and domestic businesses
in Indonesia regard corruption and ineffective rule of law as “serious
problems”.
Street protests as well as voting behaviour show citizens’ discontent
with corrupt practices. Indonesians, and especially younger generations,
however, are reportedly relatively permissive towards fraudulent behaviour
(Transparency International Indonesia, 2014). Bending the rules seems to be
deemed acceptable when helping a family member, settling traffic violations
or seeking public employment (Transparency International Indonesia, 2014).
Moreover, many Indonesians appear to doubt whether they should report
instances of corruption. Some do not know to whom they must report
corruption or how to report it, or they fear the consequences of reporting.
There is also a large degree of public mistrust in the ability and willingness
of the institutions that receive the complaint to follow up on the matter
(Transparency International, 2013a).
Against this backdrop, the government of Indonesia is committed to
building a culture of integrity, and to doing so in collaboration with public
officials at all levels, civil society organisations (CSOs), the private sector
and ordinary citizens. From an open government perspective, three
interrelated mechanisms or roles emerge as prominent in the interplay
between the public sector and citizens in fostering a culture of integrity
(Figure 4.1):
• Participation in the policy cycle: Citizens can contribute at every stage
of the anti-corruption policy cycle, for example via CSO consultation in
the development of anti-corruption policies, or via measuring progress
through citizen feedback indicators and mechanisms. In addition,
citizens can contribute to good governance in policy implementation and
public-sector service delivery in various sectors, through reporting
channels such as ombudsman services.
• Oversight and accountability: This is the classic “watchdog” role of
citizens, where public involvement strengthens the demand for integrity

in the public sector and in society as a whole and is supported by CSOs,

the media and relevant public institutions, such as supreme audit
institutions.
• Awareness raising: This includes citizen education initiatives,
communication campaigns and information exchange with the aim of
improving mutual understanding and bringing about change in attitudes
and behaviour in the areas of integrity and anti-corruption.
Figure 4.1. Interplay between citizens and the public sector for integrity
One important caveat needs specific attention: open government and

transparency in public service are indeed strongly related with integrity and
anti-corruption, but this relationship is not automatic. Several conditions
need to be in place. First, when governments call upon citizens and civil
society to contribute to policy development, appropriate channels need to be
available, effective and reliable. Moreover, civil society organisations
(CSO) require sufficient resources and leeway to participate effectively.
Second, in order for citizens and civil society organisations to fulfil an
oversight role, as a so-called watchdog, data availability needs to be paired
with data quality, processing capacity, effective whistleblower protection,
and freedom of the press. Third, governments and CSOs must tailor
awareness raising initiatives that promote integrity both in the public sector
and in society at large to specific target groups in order to yield results.
Moreover, the best awareness raising campaign in the long run is often a
fair, efficient and consistent rule of law system.
The legal framework for integrity and anti-corruption (see Box 4.1) that
has developed since 1998 provides the government’s definition of
corruption and bribery, establishes the institutional anti-corruption
framework and outlines the public’s rights and responsibilities to collaborate
in the fight against corruption.

Box 4.1. Indonesia’s legal anti-corruption framework
The primary laws related to anti-corruption in Indonesia include:
• Law Number 31 of 1999 on The Eradication of Corruption and its

amendment Law Number 20 of 2001. Together, these laws provide a
definition of corruption and specify the maximum punishments.
Indonesia’s main bribery offences are listed under Articles 5-12 and 12B
of Law Number 31 of 1999 and Law Number 20 of 2001. Notably, Law
Number 31 of 1999 acknowledges the role and rights of the public in the
fight against corruption.
• Government Regulation Number 71 of 2000 on Procedures for

Implementation of Public Participation and Provision of Appreciation
in the Prevention and Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption
gives certain rights to the public to obtain responses from the authorities
regarding complaints or information provided to the authorities. It also
tries to provide protection to members of the public who offer information.
• Law Number 30 of 2002 on The Corruption Eradication Commission

and Law Number 46 of 2009 on Corruption Criminal Court clarify the
institutional mechanisms to fight corruption.
There are also several Presidential Regulations that relate to corruption
eradication, such as Presidential Regulation Number 55 of 2012 and
Presidential instruction (Inpres) No. 7 of 2015. These regulations require all
ministries and government institutions to co-ordinate with Bappenas in the fight
against graft, and oblige local administrations to co-ordinate with the Home
Ministry, with the support of Bappenas, in their anti-corruption efforts.
This chapter discusses the dimensions of civic participation in the policy

cycle and the mechanisms of oversight and accountability and awareness
raising in the context of Indonesia, and it concludes with a consideration of
opportunities to further strengthen a culture of integrity through open
government practices and finally with a set of policy recommendations.
Participation in the policy cycle
Citizen participation in the policy cycle can lead to increased integrity in

the public sector and in society as a whole in several ways. First, citizens
can contribute to the development and monitoring of the anti-corruption
policy cycle. Civil society organisations specialising in good governance can
function, through formal and informal consultation processes, as expert
voices in the development and adjustment of anti-corruption strategies and

work plans. Citizens can also monitor and evaluate the implementation of
anti-corruption plans, for example through perception surveys or social audit
mechanisms.
Second, citizens can also contribute to good governance in policy
implementation and public-sector service delivery, for example in health,
education or public administration, through reporting and feedback
mechanisms, such as ombudsman services. The reports and complaints
received from citizens can not only address individual cases of unfair
treatment, administrative mismanagement or even abuse, but can also
improve public-sector management in a structural way, through fine-tuning
processes of service delivery and closing administrative loopholes, thus
preventing leakage of funds and fraud.
In addition, although citizen consultation is in principle a positive
element of policy making in line with open government principles, the
integrity of public policies can also be affected by policy capture through
undue lobbying activities. Given that policy makers need information and
insights from citizens, interest groups and companies to make informed, fair
and balanced policy decisions, public participation in the policy cycle
should be encouraged in principle. Nevertheless, the risk exists that narrow,
private interests can capture the policy-making process to serve their
interests rather than the public good. Therefore, promoting responsible
lobbying is also important in fostering integrity and transparency in public
policy making.
This section will examine these three aspects of integrity as they affect
citizen participation in the policy cycle in Indonesia, and will provide
suggestions for improvements as well as refer to international good
practices.
Citizen participation in shaping and monitoring the anti-corruption

strategy
The Government of Indonesia has shown its commitment to partner with
citizens and CSOs in promoting a culture of integrity in different ways,
among them the role of consultation initiatives in the development of its
anti-corruption policies, the use of citizen feedback in monitoring anti-
corruption progress and the implementation of joint awareness-raising
activities.
Over the years, Indonesia has consulted CSOs during the development
process of anti-corruption strategies and assessments, including the UNCAC
Gap Analysis in 2006 and the National Strategies and Action Plans on
Corruption Eradication 2010-25. Prior to the ratification of UNCAC in 2006

and to the establishment of the UNCAC Review Mechanism, an UNCAC

Compliance Review and Gap Analysis (UNCAC Gap Analysis) was
conducted in Indonesia, which entailed a participatory process and
consultations with CSOs (Box 4.2). Domestically, the relevance of the Gap
Analysis is demonstrated by its long-term impact on the Indonesian national
anti-corruption framework. Indeed, the findings from the 2006 Gap Analysis
have been a critical source of information for the National Anti-Corruption
Strategy (Strategi Nasional Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Korupsi, or
“Stranas PPK”, discussed below).
Box 4.2. Indonesia’s UNCAC Gap Analysis experience

In 2006, Indonesia became the first country to conduct a comprehensive and
voluntary self-assessment of its compliance with the UNCAC as part of its
commitment to fight corruption and implement UNCAC. Unlike most other State
parties, Indonesia initiated this “Gap Analysis” prior to ratifying the Convention.
With no formal guidance for this process available then, Indonesia devised its
own methodology. While not as comprehensive as the checklists developed by
the UNCAC Conference of State Parties, the matrix used had a similar intent and
content.
The Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) assigned the Gap
Analysis to a team of Indonesian academics and foreign experts supported by the
German Development Agency GTZ (now GIZ). The local team of experts was
responsible for the initial gathering and analysis of information on relevant laws,
institutions and processes. These findings were then jointly analysed by the local
and foreign experts and completed through broad consultation with key
government agencies and relevant actors from civil society, the private sector and
academia. A final multi- stakeholder workshop served to verify and generate
broad buy-in for the key findings and recommendations. Indeed, that the Gap
Analysis has enjoyed a high degree of national ownership and widespread
acceptance is largely attributable to the use of this inclusive process.
The findings of the Gap Analysis have provided relevant stakeholders with a
comprehensive understanding of key weaknesses and gaps in the Indonesian legal
and institutional framework’s ability to combat corruption, and with an overview
of the country’s overall level of compliance with the standards set by UNCAC.
As such, and in combination with findings from the pilot self-assessment and peer
review process, in which Indonesia participated between 2007 and 2009, they
provided a solid basis for Indonesia to participate in the official UNCAC review
mechanism in 2010.

Box 4.2. Indonesia’s UNCAC Gap Analysis experience (continued)

The findings from the gap analysis were widely disseminated (in English and
Bahasa Indonesia) domestically and internationally. As such, all stakeholders at
the national and international level were informed about the recommendation and
about Indonesia’s efforts in implementing UNCAC. Finally, Indonesia’s
pioneering efforts to review its compliance with UNCAC led other countries to
undertake similar efforts; due to these efforts, a network of likeminded countries
who regularly share experience in these matters has evolved.
Indonesia’s experience exemplifies that with a domestically endorsed
participatory approach to understanding, reviewing and implementing UNCAC, it
is possible to enable substantial endorsement of international standards at the
national level and hence improve quality, focus, effectiveness and co-ordination
of national anti-corruption reforms.
Source: UNDP (2010) Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments.
The UNCAC Peer Review of Indonesia was subsequently undertaken by

Uzbekistan and the United Kingdom and the executive summary of the
report was published in 2012 (Box 4.3). As one of its conclusions, the
UNCAC Peer Review pointed to the consultation process undertaken by the
Gap Analysis as a good practice. Unfortunately, the full report UNCAC Peer
Review of Indonesia has to date not been made public, thereby preventing
the analysis and recommendations from being available for domestic and
international stakeholders.
Box 4.3. UNCAC Review: Overall findings (2012)

Since democracy was restored to the country in 1999, Indonesia has made a
forceful start on tackling corruption, through both legislation and the creation of
the KPK with its investigative and prosecutorial powers. There is a high degree of
political commitment to the eradication of corruption in both the public and
private sectors. The National Strategies and the Action Plans on Corruption
Eradication 2010-25, developed by the government in consultation with civil
society representatives, identify strategic efforts in the framework of accelerating
corruption eradication, including steps to implement the Convention in Indonesia.
The need to amend relevant existing laws regulating these subjects is justified or
clarified by the review’s findings.

Box 4.3. UNCAC Review: Overall findings (2012) (continued)
Good practices
The KPK and the Court of Corruption were considered good practices with
regard to their capacity, mandate and the positive results of their work.
Established in 2002, the KPK is a special independent government body that
deals with top-level cases of corruption. The KPK appears to have the necessary
independence and is endowed with considerable powers under Law No. 30/2002
on the Commission for the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption. It has
brought cases against former Ministers, Members of Parliament, senior officials,
mayors, company directors and one of its own staff. The KPK is widely trusted
by the public and is respected by international law enforcers and NGOs. The
reviewers recommended that any legislative changes that take place on
eradication of corruption not result in any changes to the current legal mandate of
the KPK to investigate and prosecute the cases of corruption that fall within its
mandate.
The Court of Corruption has proved an effective partner for the KPK in
handling corruption cases. The first Court of Corruption was established by Law
No. 30/2002 and was based in Jakarta and granted jurisdiction over cases brought
by the KPK. Since 2010, the country has established other Courts of Corruption
throughout the country, with 33 Courts of Corruption having been set up by 2012.
The reviewers fully supported the Government’s plan to expand the number of
such courts so that they could handle all corruption cases, and not only the
KPK’s.
Challenges
The reviewers concluded that the main challenge in implementation lies in
enhancing co-operation between enforcement agencies — the KPK, the Attorney
General's office and the Police. The reviewers welcomed the heightened
awareness within all these agencies of the challenge posed by the lack of co-
operation and co-ordination, and their willingness to deal constructively with
these challenges and overcome them. Additional steps to improve and strengthen
co-operation and co-ordination are essential.
The reviewers stressed that co-operation would be enhanced by a
comprehensive analysis of the state of corruption, its structure, dynamics and
trends, as well as analysis of the activity on detection and prevention of crime in
order to identify the main future directions for countering corruption. To this end,
the centralised collection of statistics, unified reporting on corruption cases and
consolidation of the reports by a single body, and regularly convened co-
ordination councils of the law enforcement and supervising bodies are needed.
Source: Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against
Corruption (2012), Executive summaries.

CSOs have also been consulted throughout the development process of

National Anti-Corruption Strategies (Stranas PPK and its predecessors) and
its related instruments, as well as for the 2012 baseline study “Zero
tolerance for Corruption”, led by Bappenas, which measured corruption
perceptions in Indonesia.
The Bappenas Directorate for Analysis of Law and Regulation co-
ordinated the creation of the 2012-25 National Strategy to Eradicate
Corruption, or “Stranas PPK”. The Stranas PPK is composed of six sub-
strategies, namely:
• prevention
• law enforcement
• harmonising rules and regulations
• international co-operation and asset recovery
• anti-corruption education and culture
• reporting mechanisms.
Taking a longer-term view compared to its predecessors, the Stranas
PPK is to be rolled out gradually over 13 years, in accordance with
Presidential Regulation No. 55 of 2012 on the Stranas PPK (the “Stranas
PPK Perpres”). The first major national anti-corruption strategy, the
National Action Plan for Corruption Eradication 2004-09, was implemented
per Presidential Instruction Number 5 of 2004. This was followed by the
issuance of Presidential Instruction Number 9 of 2011 (on the Action Plan
for Corruption Prevention and Eradication, 2011) and Presidential
Instruction Number 17 of 2011 (on the National Action Plan for Corruption
Prevention and Eradication, 2012). The Indonesian President regulated
several strategic steps with Presidential Regulation Number 55 of 2012 on
the Long-Term (2012-25) and Medium-Term (2012-14) National Strategies
on Prevention and Eradication of Corruption.
Indeed, the Long-Term Strategy is underpinned by medium-term
strategies and a roadmap with specific objectives connected with three key
indicators: (1) improving the national score on corruption perception,
reflected in (the national equivalent of) the Corruption Perception Index by
Transparency International; (2) full transposition of the UNCAC provisions
into national legislation and regulations; and (3) development of a National
Integrity System.
It is relevant to observe that the open government principles of
transparency and citizen participation are linked with the goals of Stranas
PPK in at least 3 areas: prevention, anti-corruption education and culture,

and reporting mechanisms. Moreover, the use of perception indicators to

measure the success of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy demonstrates
the government’s willingness to change the lives of citizens and to enhance
the public image of the government and its institutions, as well as to boost
the reputation of Indonesia internationally.
Transparency International Indonesia (TI-I), the national chapter of the
international anti-corruption CSO Transparency International (TI), conducts
an annual survey and publishes the Corruption Perception Index for
Indonesia, based on TI’s methodology of the International Corruption
Perception Index (CPI). The Indonesia CPI is one of the official key
indicators for the Long-Term 2012-25 National Strategy on Prevention and
Eradication Corruption, and has therefore become one of the most important
governance indicators used by policy makers and the private sector in
Indonesia to inform their decisions. Citizen-action groups and the media
also use the index to measure the progress of anti-corruption efforts in
Indonesia.
Nevertheless, perception indicators are often criticized because of
methodological limitations. Indeed, increased media attention or effective
uncovering of corruption can affect the perception measurement negatively
while possibly signalling in reality increased integrity awareness, greater
press freedom or successful prosecution efforts.
CSOs are also active in other areas of the Stranas PPK, and they are
essential partners for integrity in Indonesia. A group of civil society
organisations has actively monitored the progress of the fight against
corruption in Indonesia, resulting in an Independent Report by Indonesian
civil society organisations on the Implementation of the UNCAC (the
“Independent Report”). This Report is intended to act as a companion and
comparison piece to the Indonesian Government’s Formal Report, as well as
to the Independent Review Mechanism Reports on Indonesia prepared by
appointed Member States.
Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW, http://antikorupsi.info/id) has as its
mission the fight against corruption and the strengthening of citizen
participation in the policy-making and oversight processes. ICW seeks to:
1) encourage public awareness of corruption issues; 2) build the capacity of
the public to be involved in policy making and oversight; 3) encourage
public reporting of corruption; and 4) mobilize public campaigns to press for
corruption eradication reforms.
Transparency International-Indonesia (TI-I, www.ti.or.id/) combines the
work of a think tank and a social movement organisation. As a think tank,
TI-I conducts policy reviews and drafts policy and legislation and it takes
part in policy reforms within government and law enforcement agencies. In

addition to studies like the Youth Integrity Survey (YIS), TI-I’s main
activities in this area relate to the operationalisation of anti-corruption
approaches and tools in policy areas such as procurement, transparency in
public budgets and participatory budgeting. Moreover, Transparency
International-Indonesia is also implementing the Open Government
Scorecard, a baseline assessment of open government in Indonesia.
Kemitraan (www.kemitraan.or.id/) has been taking part in the
consultation process related to the National Strategy on the Prevention and
Eradication of Corruption. Kemitraan’s focus is to strengthen the political
participation of citizens in elections; promote the capacity of citizens to
participate in the process of planning and implementing development; and
enhance the complaints management mechanisms and community oversight.
Kemitraan also developed the Indonesia Governance Index, which is the
first comprehensive governance database in Indonesia. The database
provides rankings of all provinces and data related to the Gender Balance
Index, as well as statistics on health, education, and poverty allocation
information.
Other CSOs have a more direct focus on democratic institution building
and parliamentary oversight. For its part, the Indonesian Parliamentary
Centre (IPC) (http://ipc.or.id/) specialises in parliamentary capacity building
and the promotion of political reform for improved democracy and
parliamentary accountability. The Komite Pemantau Legislatif (KOPEL,
http://kopel-online.or.id/) promotes dialogue between the legislature and the
community. Specifically, KOPEL aims to: (1) support Parliament and civil
society in promoting government accountability; (2) strengthen the capacity
of civil society organisations to monitor the Parliament to encourage
responsiveness and trustworthiness; and (3) advocate for and contribute to
government pro-poor and gender-responsive policies.
In addition, the Indonesian Court Monitoring Society or Masyarakat
Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia (MaPPI, http://mappifhui.org/) aims to
expand public participation and policy reform in the judicial system, as well
as to monitor policies, systems and judicial practice in Indonesia. As a voice
of the demand side of justice, MaPPI thereby contributes to the further
development of a fair, efficient and consistent rule of law system, a
cornerstone of integrity in society.
Feedback channels to close loopholes and address mismanagement

The development of various reporting and feedback channels in the
public sector demonstrates the efforts of the government of Indonesia to
increase responsiveness; however, it is important that these efforts be
matched with efficient complaint handling mechanisms, adequate processing

capacity and effective protection of those who report. Individual reports

from any of the country’s feedback channels can rectify individual instances
of administrative mismanagement, thereby contributing to the perception of
fairness and trust in public institutions. Moreover, reports may also lead to
structural improvements in public service processes, thereby improving
management systems and identifying leakages, nepotism and corruption.
This section will discuss general reporting channels; specific reporting
mechanisms for corruption and fraud will be addressed in in the next section
as part of the discussion the oversight and watchdog roles.
Complementary to the corruption-specific whistleblower channel
operated by the KPK (discussed below), several other channels exist,
including LAPOR (a public complaint management system, discussed in
more detail in Chapter 3), the Ombudsman Offices and complaint services
within line Ministries and at the subnational level, all of which contribute to
varying degrees to improving government systems and bringing about
corruption eradication.
The National Ombudsman Commission (Ombudsman Republik
Indonesia, or ORI) was established in 2000 by a presidential regulation to
fight corruption, process complaints and initiate investigations of
irregularities in the public sector. As noted in Chapter 3, Law No. 37/2008
on the Ombudsman has strengthened the legal basis for the ORI by making
it an official state institution. The ORI publishes its yearly reports,
accessible on its website, and has no threshold for complaints and accepts all
cases. However, in order to ensure individual follow-up and response, the
ORI does not accept anonymous complaints; it nevertheless guarantees
confidentiality. A Memorandum of Understanding between ORI and KPK
addresses the treatment of corruption cases and their handover to KPK. An
agreement is also in place with LAPOR, stipulating that any complaints
received through LAPOR left unaddressed for 30 days will automatically be
transferred to the ORI. Unlike the KPK, the responsibility to act upon the
ORI’s findings lies with the Indonesian police and judiciary. As a result of
the case handling, the ORI issues non-binding recommendations to the
respective public service and publishes anonymised overviews of these
recommendations in its annual report.
ORI has made significant efforts to ensure its accessibility throughout
the country. ORI has 32 regional offices, covering the entire country of
Indonesia, and it operates a web portal. In addition, a network of partner
CSOs called “Friends of the Ombudsman” undertakes sensitisation
campaigns around the country and facilitates the collection of complaints.
As a result, the number of registered complaints has risen from 1867 in 2011
to 6679 in 2014. In order to support ORI in its role for good governance and
citizen participation, the Government of Indonesia has recently (July 2015)

decided to more than double the annual budget of ORI to IDR 140 billion
per year.
Despite these multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional
arrangements, challenges arise in terms of processing capacity, willingness
to adopt structural changes and overlapping reporting channels, all of which
may further exacerbate capacity constraints. Moreover, with different
institutions and channels involved, issues of data security and the privacy
rights of plaintiffs may pose important integrity issues in their own right.
Regulating lobbying: An opportunity to prevent policy capture

A sensitive area in the interplay between citizens and policy makers is
lobbying, and Indonesia could do better in reflecting OECD and
international good practices in this policy area by adopting regulatory
practices for lobbying. Indeed, there are currently no specific regulations in
place related to this issue in the country.
One common and potentially effective way to manage lobbying activity
is through self-regulation, where lobbyists come together in professional
groups to police their activities, mostly voluntarily, through the creation of:
(i) a code of conduct; (ii) a registry; and/or (iii) a monitoring and
enforcement system. In general, self-regulation focuses more on codes of
conduct and registers than on monitoring and enforcement. Self-regulation
alone is sometimes insufficient to alleviate influence peddling by private
donors, however; ultimately, the responsibility for safeguarding the public
interest and rejecting undue influence lies with public officials.
According to the 2013 OECD Survey on Lobbying, as many as 84% of
surveyed legislators and 64% of lobbyists are of the opinion that information
on the contributions lobbyists make to political campaigns should be made
publicly available through, for example, a register. However, out of the
surveyed OECD Member countries with lobbyist registers of, only Slovenia
and the United States disclose information on lobbyists’ contributions to
political campaigns. In Slovenia, lobbyists must report the type and value of
donations made to political parties and the organisers of electoral and
referendum campaigns. Total contributions per year to political parties are
not allowed to exceed ten times the average monthly wage in Slovenia.
Elsewhere, the UK enacted the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party
Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act in the UK in 2014.
While the bill does not directly require lobbyists to disclose their political
contributions, it increases transparency in relation to spending by some non-
party campaigners/third party campaigners by requiring them to publish and
record more information about their spending, donations, accounts and
board members.

Since 2010, the number of countries regulating lobbying practices has

almost doubled (Figure 4.2). Indonesia could set an example by
implementing a regulatory framework for lobbying, aiming to further protect
the policy cycle from capture. Through increased transparency on lobbying
activities, citizens and CSOs can contribute to improving integrity standards
to prevent policy capture.
Figure 4.2. Countries having adopted regulatory practices for lobbying
Source: OECD (2015a), “Financing Democracy: Funding of Political Parties and

Election Campaigns and the Risk of Policy Capture”, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Strengthening the watchdog: Towards effective accountability

mechanisms for citizens
Citizens can strengthen the demand for integrity in the public sector and
in society as a whole through their role as watchdogs with the help of CSOs,
the media and the relevant public institutions, such as supreme audit
institutions. In order for citizens to play this oversight role and demand
accountability, a number of conditions need to be in place, including the
availability of reporting channels, assurances of follow-up on the part of the
government and protection for whistleblowers. Relevant public-sector
information, such as assets of senior public officials and government
spending and revenue information should also be transparent and open to
public consultation. See Box 4.4 for a description of Brazil’s Transparency
Portal, which allows the public to track relevant information and play a
more active role in the country’s anti-corruption efforts.

Box 4.4. Brazil’s Transparency Portal: Fighting corruption with transparency
Brazil’s flagship effort to fight corruption is its Transparency Portal

(www.transparencia.gov.br), a website that allows citizens to track how the government is
spending money and to whom and where it is sent. Launched in 2004, the portal surpassed 16
million visits in 2015. By providing a broader view of government spending – as opposed to
each agency publishing their own data – the Transparency Portal provides an opportunity to
understand spending across sectors and agencies. The Portal provides information on:
Spending and Income: Citizens can track spending by government agency, programme or
area (such as health). One of the Portal’s main attractions – which could be relevant to
Indonesia’s decentralisation policies – is the information provided on transfers from the federal
government to subnational governments. Through the Portal, citizens can follow up on
agreements made between levels of government and track how much money was committed
from each part and how much was actually sent. This allows citizens to monitor the
implementation of specific projects and report when money was transferred but not spent.
Information is also provided on specific programmes. For example, it is possible to identify
beneficiaries of federal government social programmes, such as those that transfer money for
citizens in extreme poverty conditions. This allows other citizens to note when the resources of
those programmes are being misused (if, for example, public servants or politicians receive
money). The transparency of spending data allows for a more complete understanding of what
kinds of expenses the government prioritises and the type of organisations that receive money,
and can therefore help fight embezzlement, collusion and misuse of public money. The Portal
also allows the public to track the origins of government income, thereby allowing citizens to
understand how the government obtains money to finance its actions.
Public servants: The Portal provides information on who works for the government, their
positions, roles and salaries. Information on public servants is used to fight conflicts of interest,
nepotism and other issues.
Debarment lists: The Portal provides lists of organisations and individuals prevented from
contracting with the government due to prior misconduct. This list also includes information on
public servants that have been expelled from the government.
Other information: The Portal also provides information on government properties used by
public servants, government credit cards, emergency response funds and other datasets.
The Transparency Portal was designed with features to help citizens understand the
information and navigate easily. Using glossaries, FAQs and clear language, the Portal seeks to
increase citizen involvement in overseeing the spending of public money – especially in local
governments to whom the federal government sends resources but cannot monitor as
thoroughly.
The Office of the Comptroller General maintains the Transparency Portal and is managing a
restructuring project focused on: improving the user experience; providing more interaction
with users; improving the quality of open data formats; integrating additional databases;
creating new search and sorting functions; and developing a larger network of government
information.
Source: Office of the Comptroller General, Brazil.

Reporting of corruption cases

In addition to the more general reporting mechanisms discussed above,
the KPK operates a hotline specifically for the purposes of taking reports on
corruption, supported by a web portal (https://kws.kpk.go.id/), which
guarantees confidentiality to the person reporting the case. The criteria that
must be met for the KPK to take on a case are set out in the provisions of
Article 11 of Law No. 30/2002: the case needs to involve law enforcement
officers, state officials, and possibly others in connection with criminal acts
of corruption committed by law enforcement officers or state officials.
There also needs to be a degree of harm to society and/or the case must
concern state losses of at least IDR 1 000 000 000. Furthermore, plaintiffs
are expected to clearly state the details of the situation (who did what, when,
where, why and how) and present preliminary evidence (data, documents,
images and recordings) pointing towards an act of corruption. If the
complaint meets the requirements, a Commission officer will process it
further.
In 2014, the KPK received and processed 9 432 public complaints,
which is an increase of about 50% compared to 2010, and about half of them
(4 587) contained indications of corrupt practices. The KPK annual report
publishes detailed statistics on the complaints, including breakdowns in
terms of regions and topics (KPK, 2015b). In order to promote the hotline
across the population, the KPK has set up a communication strategy,
including broadcasts via radio and TV. Moreover, information on the hotline
is also provided through awareness raising activities such as public
celebrations on Anti-Corruption Day, the Anti-Corruption Film Festival,
anti-corruption education programmes and outreach activities for the
business sector.
Despite KPK’s efforts to promote the hotline across the central
government, civil society organisations in Indonesia still report a deep-
rooted reluctance among citizens to report cases of corruption. Some people
are unaware of the appropriate reporting channels or methods and of the
rights they would enjoy as whistleblowers, or they fear possible
consequences of reporting. More generally, the reluctance to report can
point to a profound distrust in public institutions (Transparency
International, 2013a). Therefore, it may be useful to explore how the
information and confidence gap could be bridged. Partnerships with civil
society organisations could be fruitful in this respect.
According to KPK reports (KPK, 2015b), the human and budgetary
resources have not followed a similar increase, which may lead to questions
of processing capacity of the KPK, especially if the increase continues
(Wolfe et al., 2014). A capacity assessment and review of relevant

procedures could shed more light on possible limitations of the effectiveness

of the whistleblower system. Moreover, citizens may also report corruption
cases to the police, but it is unclear how the co-operation between KPK and
the police functions in practice when it comes to corruption complaints and
whistleblower protection. The institutional arrangements may need to be
analysed in detail, with a focus on coherence, co-ordination and efficiency,
in order to ensure an optimal system for citizens.
Towards improved effectiveness of whistleblower protection

Effective protection of whistleblowers is a cornerstone of a culture of
integrity, not only enabling citizens to report corruption, but also instilling
confidence in the reporting mechanisms and in public institutions more
generally. While Indonesia has established legal and institutional provisions
for the protection of whistleblowers through several laws (including Law
No. 13/2006 on the Protection of Witness and Victim; Law No. 31/1999 on
Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption), a number of weaknesses can
be identified, which taken together point to a need for a deeper
understanding of the effectiveness of the whistleblower protection regime
and for structural improvements concerning both the legal framework and
the institutional setup.
Article 15 of Law No.30/2002, establishing the KPK, obligates the KPK
to protect witnesses and whistleblowers, namely by ensuring their security
through measures such as police protection or a new identity and
guaranteeing them legal protection. The KPK is therefore responsible for the
protection of witnesses and victims in corruption investigations. The KPK
has established an internal reporting mechanism in the form of an online
platform and a whistleblower hotline enabling anonymous reporting of
corruption cases. Based on these reports, the KPK can initiate investigations
of cases of corruption, if they consider the whistleblower reliable. The KPK
has also been promoting the protection of whistleblowers in the workplace
within government ministries and state-owned enterprises (OECDb, 2012).
As a result, several ministries, for example health, public works,
home, forestry, national education, agriculture and finance, have joined the
KPK whistleblower system (The Jakarta Post, 2010).
Although various laws address aspects of whistleblower protection, the
current Indonesian framework lacks a precise definition of the term
whistleblower, and the legal framework does not clarify what constitutes a
threat or protection. Therefore, Indonesia could consider reviewing the legal
framework and introducing a whistleblower protection law that clearly
defines the guaranteed protections. For example, the Korean Act on the
Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers specifies actions that are

understood as disadvantageous measures against which whistleblowers

should be protected (Box 4.5).
Box 4.5. Comprehensive whistleblower protection in Korea
Korea’s Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers defines the

items against which protection is provided. “The term “disadvantageous
measures” means an action that falls under any of the following items:
a) Removal from office, release from office, dismissal or any other
unfavorable personnel action equivalent to the loss of status at work.
b) Disciplinary action, suspension from office, reduction in pay, demotion,
restriction on promotion and any other unfair personnel actions.
c) Work reassignment, transfer, denial of duties, rearrangement of duties or
any other personnel actions that are against the whistleblower’s will.
d) Discrimination in the performance evaluation, peer review, etc. and
subsequent discrimination in the payment of wages, bonuses, etc.
e) The cancellation of education, training or other self-development
opportunities; the restriction or removal of budget, work force or other
available resources, the suspension of access to security information or
classified information; the cancellation of authorisation to handle
security information or classified information; or any other
discrimination or measure detrimental to the working conditions of the
whistleblower.
f) Putting the whistleblower’s name on a black list as well as the release
such a blacklist, bullying, the use of violence and abusive language
toward the whistleblower, or any other action that causes psychological
or physical harm to the whistleblower.
g) Unfair audit or inspection of the whistleblower’s work as well as the
disclosure of the results of such an audit or inspection.
h) The cancellation of a license or permit, or any other action that causes
administrative disadvantages to the whistleblower”.
Source: Korea’s Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers (2011), Act No.
10472, 29 March, Article 2 (6).
Moreover, whistleblowers face a risk of retaliation, often in the form of

disciplinary actions or workplace harassment. Whistleblower protection
laws should therefore provide comprehensive protection against
discriminatory or retaliatory personnel action. The majority of OECD

countries have penalties in place for retaliating against a whistleblower in

the public sector (OECD, forthcoming). The whistleblower protection
framework in Indonesia does not protect whistleblowers from retribution. To
strengthen the protection of whistleblowers, Indonesia could introduce
legislation that stipulates disciplinary action, including placing the burden of
proof on the employer to prove that any conduct taken against the employee
is unrelated to his or her whistleblowing.
Asset disclosure and its role in strengthening integrity

Asset disclosure is a key element of any public-sector integrity
framework, as it is an important tool for transparency concerning the assets
of public officials. The disclosure of all assets, including property,
valuables, financial portfolios, liabilities such as debts and mortgages, and
all sources of income, such as directorships, investments, and consulting
contracts, provides a complete picture of a public official’s financial
situation. Therefore, asset declaration systems promote accountability
among public officials (OECD, 2011). In addition, asset disclosure holds the
potential to boost public confidence in the integrity of the government
because it ensures that public officials are subject to public scrutiny.
The asset disclosure system in Indonesia has certain merits, such as its
breadth; however, its effectiveness may be improved by setting priorities
based on a risk assessment. The Department for the Wealth Reports of State
Officers within the Prevention Division of the KPK manages Indonesia’s
income and asset declaration system. Since the system’s inception in 2001,
the KPK has focused on establishing the mechanisms and the capacity for
managing its wealth-reporting system and on building compliance among
the officials required to submit a declaration. The scope of the system is
very broad and encompasses all elected and non-elected public officials,
regardless of function or rank. Under this regime, 148 355 people declared
their assets in 2014, representing the executive, legislative and judiciary
branches as well as Central Government-owned companies (Badan Usaha
Milik Negara - BUMN) and Regional Government-owned companies
(Badan Usaha Milik Daerah - BUMD).
Although compliance with administrative and bureaucratic procedures is
increasing and data are available online, Indonesia’s asset declaration
system faces several challenges: the asset declaration regulation does not
stipulate clear-cut provisions on verification and on administrative and
criminal penalties, which weakens the system. Moreover, the KPK may not
have sufficient resources to verify all asset reports and analyse them to
detect corruption. Furthermore, issues of data security and privacy rights
may pose their own important integrity issues. Finally, the publication of
wealth data for low-ranking officials adds to the processing capacity and

verification problems. Therefore, priority setting, based on a risk assessment

and an evaluation of processing capacity, may be a useful exercise. In
Sweden, the focus of asset disclosure is on high-ranking public officials
(Box 4.6), and some OECD countries focus on the executive and legislative
branches, rather than on the judiciary (Box 4.7).
Box 4.6. Asset declaration in Sweden

In Sweden, asset declaration requirements put emphasis on senior public executives. The
content of statements disclosing personal financial interest includes information on assets and
liabilities, loans, sources and levels of income, additional employment, gifts, and employment
history. The reports filled by elected officials and senior public servants are available online.
There are no legal sanctions and no strictly defined legal consequences for violations of the
requirements but rather soft measures to achieve compliance. In this sense, if a member of
parliament, for example, fails to submit information to the register, this compliance failure is
announced at the plenary meeting.
Source: OECD (2011), “Asset Declaration for Public Officials: A Tool to Prevent Corruption”, OECD
Publishing, Paris.
Box 4.7. OECD data on asset disclosure

Experience has shown that asset and private interest disclosure by decision makers
continues to be an essential tool for managing conflicts of interest.
Although it continues to be common practice in OECD countries, there are different levels
of disclosure in the three branches of government. Disclosure practices are considerably higher
in the executive and legislative branches than in the judiciary. For example, disclosure is not
required for judges and prosecutors in the Czech Republic, France, Luxembourg and New
Zealand. In Luxembourg, there are no disclosure requirements for decision makers in any of
the three branches of government. Of the private interests covered, countries give the highest
attention to paid outside positions as well as the receipt of gifts, by either prohibiting these or
by requesting their disclosure.
From those OECD countries that have disclosure requirements in place, over 80% verify
that disclosure forms are submitted. However, less than half perform internal audits of the
submitted information for accuracy. Ireland, Italy, Switzerland and Turkey take no action
following the collection of the disclosure forms. However, in Ireland and Italy, most of the
disclosed information is available to the public, allowing citizens themselves to scrutinise the
information submitted.
Source: OECD (2014), “Conflict of interest and asset disclosure”, in OECD Factbook 2014: Economic,
Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OGP Action Plans, which have to date focused on anti-corruption issues

related to service provision, such as business licensing, might also focus on
identifying how the public can be involved in a systematic and thorough risk
assessment process to help to set priorities. This could include discussions
about which officials should be covered (depending on function and rank),
about what data should be made publicly available and about which data
should be verified and how this could be done.
Public audit institutions in Indonesia: New allies for citizen

oversight?
Despite good examples from other countries in the region and across the
globe, the two public audit institutions in Indonesia, the Audit Board of the
Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the Financial and Development
Supervisory Agency (BPKP), have not yet been at the forefront in engaging
with citizens. BPKP operates a whistleblower system, allowing citizens to
report wrongdoings of BPKP staff. Beyond this, however, additional
opportunities exist to promote citizen oversight and a culture of integrity
more generally through public engagement. The BPK RI and BPKP may
therefore want to explore how public engagement can contribute to
promoting citizen oversight (through, for example, public involvement in
risk assessments and audits) and a culture of integrity more generally.
Globally, Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) are slowly but steadily
moving beyond their traditional role of verifier of public accounts, in light
of the broader transformations in government roles and increased interaction
with citizens. Based on evidence from both individual audit reports and
multi-year strategic reviews, SAIs increasingly contribute to the policy cycle
as providers of insight and foresight information to policy makers (OECD,
2015c).
SAIs have become increasingly aware of the potentially powerful role
citizens can play as watchdogs, with a shared goal of increasing the
accountability and quality of governance from within (SAIs) and outside the
government (citizens) respectively. One notable example is the irregularities
found by the Indonesia's Supreme Audit Agency in the use of Post-Tsunami
Emergency Funds (2006, irregularities estimated at USD 650 million,
www.worldwatch.org/node/4196). Both citizens and SAIs use and depend
on good quality information to expose problems and identify areas for
improvement. Moreover, SAIs are citizens’ agents entrusted with keeping
the government and governance process accountable. As the ultimate
beneficiaries of a better use of public funds, citizens are the most important
stakeholders of supreme audit institutions. A regional example includes the
Philippines (Box 4.8).

Box 4.8. SAI-CSO Co-operation in the Philippines
Conducting participatory audits as a joint undertaking

In the Philippines, the government's SAI, the National Commission on Audit
(COA), co-operates with a non-governmental organisation called the Concerned
Citizens of Abra for Good Government (CCAGG) to conduct participatory audits
as a joint undertaking. CCAGG monitors infrastructure projects within its
province and uses the assistance of local monitors and volunteers drawn from the
area to verify whether government projects are executed as per contract norms.
This exercise is focused on performance audits, which assess the impact of the
audited government programme or project to determine whether it has achieved
its anticipated results. Audit teams include members from COA and
nongovernmental organisations. The teams receive joint training on conducting
participatory audits before conducting audits.
Providing CSOs access to agency documents and seeking their assistance

Officials of COA also co-operate with a CSO called Procurement Watch, Inc.
to test a tool that measures corruption and inefficiency in public procurement. To
do this, the COA is providing Procurement Watch, Inc. access to procurement
documents of agencies that it is auditing. Procurement Watch, Inc. specialises in
building systems of transparency and accountability into government contracting
and procurement practices. This tool seeks to determine the real (fair-market) cost
of a publicly procured good or service, and then compares that to the cost that
was paid for the good or service; when actual payments are higher than the items'
fair-market value, the difference can be attributed to corruption or inefficiency.
Source: International Journal of Government Auditing (2014), Engaging Civil Service
Organizations in SAI Audit.
In practice, SAIs and citizens can strengthen one another through co-
operation in two directions. On the one hand, SAIs have an important role in
providing assurance that the information on financial management and
policy implementation delivered by government is complete, objective,
reliable, relevant, and understandable. In addition to their quality assurance
role, SAIs can also publish their reports, findings and recommendations.
Both practices are relevant for strengthening the watchdog role of citizens
and CSOs, and can increase the impact and visibility of the work of SAIs.
Indeed, SAIs can strengthen the impact of audit reports by building ongoing
relationships with auditees and other key stakeholders like media, CSOs,
citizens, and their legislative representatives who can support the SAI’s

work by pressing for needed change, introducing new laws, implementing

change and monitoring implementation of recommendations.
On the other hand, SAIs can benefit from citizens’ participation and
information to fulfil their mandate. For example, CSOs, through social
audits and other such processes can provide information that can
complement and augment the work of the SAI. Such specific information, as
well as the general feedback received by SAIs from the public on their audit
findings, can help SAIs focus their future audits on areas of great concern to
citizens. Reacting to citizens’ complaints in the course of the audit process
may give the SAI an indication of suspected fraud and high-risk areas, and
can make SAI audits more responsive and targeted.
In Indonesia, the two public audit institutions, the Audit Board of the
Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the Financial and Development
Supervisory Agency (BPKP), have yet to take their first significant steps in
engaging with citizens to promote accountability and integrity. BPK RI, first
established in 1946, has the mandate to conduct audits related to the
management of state finances and responsibilities undertaken by the central
government, local government and other state institutions, Bank Indonesia,
State-Owned Enterprises, the Public Service Board, the Regional Owned
Enterprises and institutions or other agencies that manage state finances.
BPK RI submits the results of its examinations to the House of
Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) and
the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) according to their respective
authority. To build its relationships with the key stakeholders, the BPK RI
established the “Forum BPK Mendengar” (BPK Listening Forum) to
promote effective communication, collect inputs, thoughts and advise from
the public and strengthen the co-operation among stakeholders. This forum
is held regularly with the active participation from CSO representatives,
elected officials, media, and representatives from local governments and
national ministries.
The Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (Sejarah Badan
Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan, or BPKP) was formed in 2006
after having been reorganised based on a previous audit institution.
Presidential Decree No. 192/2014 made BPKP responsible to the President
and gave the office the task of financial control and supervision over
national development. The BPKP is also tasked with increasing state
revenue and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of budgetary
spending by the national and regional governments. Its activities include
conducting audits and evaluations on the collection and management of tax
revenues, non-tax state revenues, regional revenue streams and national
development. Furthermore, it is tasked with evaluating the application of the
system of internal controls in order to detect and deter corruption, as well as

with investigating financial irregularities. It receives regular funding and is

professionally staffed. However, efforts to build relationships directly with
citizens have been minimal to date.
Media as information channel and reporting platform

The media can inform citizens about integrity-related issues and can
serve as a last-resort corruption-reporting platform, thereby holding public
officials accountable for public financial management. A precondition for
this is press freedom and independence. In Indonesia, the constitution and
subsequent legal provisions guarantee the freedom of press, and the media
and press are diverse and relatively free. However, as reported by the human
rights organisation Article 19, many journalists are self-censoring due to
acts of intimidation, threats (or worse) to journalists by both state and non-
state actors. The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) reported that the
number of incidents of violence against the press remained steady in 2014,
with 41 cases reported. Many of the 2014 cases involved harassment and
assaults on reporters as they attempted to cover sensitive news stories
related to corruption or protests.
Moreover, the media and political landscape are highly interwoven, with
the possible risk of media bias, news filtering and political interference.
According to a 2011 study conducted by the non-profit groups Hivos
Southeast Asia and the Center for Innovation, Policy, and Governance,
nearly all of the 12 most prominent media companies have ties to political
parties in some respect. These 12 companies also own the country’s
10 major national television stations and five of the six major newspapers.
This may raise concerns for citizens who depend on media for news
gathering or for potential whistleblowers who may rely on the media as a
last-resort reporting channel.
Awareness raising and citizen education
In order to foster a culture of integrity across all levels of society,

awareness raising campaigns and citizen education activities run by
government bodies, civil society or both can help, especially if the
programmes are tailored to a specific sector or target group. As such,
awareness raising campaigns complement the preventive effect of a well-
functioning justice system and of information campaigns promoting
reporting mechanisms.
In addition to the communication activities described above, and in line
with its formal mandate and the Stranas PPK roadmap, the KPK has
implemented various awareness raising and public information activities,

from public celebrations on Anti-Corruption Day to an Anti-Corruption

Film Festival, the development of anti-corruption education programmes in
schools (Box 4.9) and outreach activities to the business sector (KPK,
2015b). Moreover, KPK also operates a broadcasting service over radio and
TV in order to raise awareness on integrity and anti-corruption issues (Box
4.10). As some of these activities are carried out in partnership with CSOs,
KPK could use the OGP NAP development process to further explore
synergies with CSOs in civic education and anti-corruption awareness
raising, for example in the development, implementation and evaluation of
activities, programmes and campaigns.
Box 4.9. KPK’s efforts to promote anti-corruption education in schools

In 2014, the KPK reached out to school teachers through the Competition on Anti-
Corruption Learning Model Innovation (Ide BerAksi). The objective was threefold: first, to
foster the creativity of teachers at various levels of education on anti-corruption teaching.
Second, to produce effective anti-corruption learning models to be used at schools. Third, to
roll out the anti-corruption learning models across a range of schools and regions.
“The role of the teacher in anti-corruption education is huge. Teachers are not only expected
to master the learning material, but to present students with attractive patterns and methods.
Otherwise students would be bored and the goal of education would not be achieved.”
The competition resulted in various model courses for different age groups. The model
courses are currently being piloted in various educational programmes in Indonesia. When
proven successful, model courses will be scaled up and expanded to more schools to reach
more students.
Source: KPK (2015b), Annual report 2014, Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia.
Box 4.10. Anti-Corruption TV broadcasting by KPK

As KPK’s latest tool to complement existing communication media, including KanalKPK
Radio, Integrito magazine and various social media channels, KanalKPK TV was launched on
Aug. 17, 2014, amid the commemoration of the 69th Independence Day, in order to reach out to
the population of Indonesia to promote the Commission’s anti-corruption efforts.
“KanalKPK TV is not competing against mainstream media, whether print, electronic or
online media. The channel has its own missions that are entirely different from the mainstream
media. It serves as a reference on KPK’s works and to disseminate anti-corruption messages to
prevent corruption. In this context, KanalKPK TV complements the approach of other media,
which mostly prioritise information on enforcement.”
KanalKPK TV, a streaming-based television channel, can be accessed at
www.kpk.go.id/kanalKPK, and it is considered KPK’s answer to the younger generation who
make electronics an important part of their communication. To enrich its content, KanalKPK
TV accepts materials and creative contributions from anti-corruption CSOs.
Source: KPK (2015b), Annual report 2014, Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia.

Recommendations
While Indonesia has taken important steps to prevent corruption through

transparency and open government measures, the main challenge remains to
build a culture of integrity in the public sector and throughout all levels of
society. A number of good policies and practices are in place, but
implementation, effectiveness and compliance can be further improved. This
chapter has examined how Indonesia can accelerate its progress towards
greater integrity and suppression of corruption by fostering the collaboration
between the public sector and citizens, notably in the areas of participation
in the policy cycle, civic oversight and awareness raising.
Recommendations, some pointing towards increased effectiveness and co-
ordination of ongoing reforms and others towards measures for curbing
policy capture, can be made to further strengthen integrity in Indonesia in
line with open government principles.
The open government agenda and the anti-corruption framework in
Indonesia are intertwined, both strategically and in terms of organisations.
First, as was also the case in its previous versions, the current National Anti-
Corruption Strategy of Indonesia explicitly mentions open-government-
related objectives, activities and monitoring practices. Moreover, the GOI
developed the Strategy in consultation with civil society organisations.
Second, anti-corruption organisations support the open government agenda
through their own respective focus on transparency, accountability and
citizen participation, often in partnership with the government. This
organisational connection is exemplified by the fact that Transparency
International – Indonesia, an anti-corruption outfit, is implementing the
Open Government Scorecard, a baseline assessment of open government.
Opportunities have arisen to further link the Indonesian anti-corruption
agenda with OECD and international standards, instruments and objectives,
including the Sustainable Development Goals (see Chapter 8). The National
Anti-Corruption Strategy already uses the UNCAC and CPI as the model for
its objectives and monitoring framework, thereby aligning the Strategy with
international integrity standards and emphasising the value of citizen
perceptions. The recently adopted Goal 16 on peace and justice sets targets
on the reduction of corruption, institutional effectiveness, accountability and
transparency, and open decision-making processes. Indonesia’s efforts to
meet these targets present an opportunity to further align the national anti-
corruption efforts with the international development framework.
Furthermore, the National Anti-Corruption Strategy refers to the
implementation of a National Integrity System (NIS), an internationally
recognised practice. Although progress has been limited in this field to date,
increased efforts, including during the OGP Action Plan development

process, could have positive consequences in the international anti-

corruption arena, making Indonesia a regional example in the
implementation of the NIS.
In several anti-corruption areas, including reporting channels,
whistleblower protection and asset declaration, Indonesia has made
significant efforts in recent years to increase transparency and
accountability, and to engage with citizens and CSOs. In order to build on
the country’s efforts to improve transparency in its anti-corruption efforts,
the GOI should adjust its anti-corruption instruments to leverage their
impact on integrity, by focussing on implementation, effectiveness and risk-
based priorities. This may require a more profound assessment of specific
laws and measures and their desired and undesired effects, in order to gain a
better understanding of how they contribute to integrity. For instance, such a
review could seek to investigate:
• How the asset disclosure system could yield more of an impact on
corruption prevention and prosecution.
• How to make whistleblower protections more effective so citizens feel
more confident reporting wrongdoing. This could also entail exploring
new partnerships and moving into new anti-corruption areas to prevent
policy capture.
More specifically, the Government of Indonesia could consider the
following integrity-related recommendations, aimed at strengthening the
three interrelated roles of participation in the policy cycle, oversight and
accountability and awareness raising in the interplay between citizens and
public-sector institutions:
• Continue to involve CSOs throughout the anti-corruption policy cycle,
including in agenda setting, the policy development process and
monitoring and evaluation activities. Specifically, further explore
synergies between the KPK and CSOs in civic education and anti-
corruption awareness raising.
• Explore how the multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional
arrangements can be made more effective and efficient in producing
structural changes for good governance. This may require a thorough
assessment of processing capacity, analysis of gaps and overlap, and
examination of data security and privacy rights of plaintiffs throughout
the complaint handling cycle.
• Examine the effectiveness of the legal and regulatory framework.
Namely, review the whistleblower protection regime, with the aim of

contributing to structural improvements in the legal framework, for

example by including disciplinary action, and the institutional setup.
• Strengthen the effectiveness of the asset disclosure system for
corruption prevention and prosecution, through setting priorities based
on a risk assessment and an evaluation of processing capacity.
• Consider establishing a regulatory framework for lobbying, with the aim
of enabling public scrutiny and further insulating the policy cycle from
capture by private or narrow interests.
• Strengthen co-operation between citizens and the two public audit
institutions in Indonesia, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia
(BPK RI) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency
(BPKP), to jointly promote a culture of integrity.
• Disclose the full UNCAC Peer Review Report on Indonesia, in order to
share the insights with citizens and anti-corruption partners, both
domestically and internationally, and to enable scrutiny by citizens and
CSOs.
References
Article 19 (2014), Indonesia: Press Freedom, Free Expression Still Under

Threat, www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37807/en/
indonesia:-press-freedom,-free-expression-still-under-threat.
Baimyrzaeva M. and H. O. Kose (2014), The Role of Supreme Audit
Institutions in Improving Citizen Participation in Governance
International Public Management Review Vol. 15, Iss. 2, www.ipmr.net.
Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against
Corruption (2012), Executive summaries.
Freedom House (2015), Freedom of Press: Indonesia,
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2015/indonesia.
G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group (2010), Anti-Corruption Action Plan
G20 Agenda for Action on Combating Corruption - Promoting Market
Integrity, and Supporting a Clean Business Environment, G20, Seoul.

G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group (2014), Accountability Report

Questionnaire 2014 Indonesia, G20, Australia.
Government of Indonesia (2012), Presidential Decree No 55 Year 2012
Annex National Strategy of Corruption Prevention and Eradication Long
Term (2012-2025) and Medium Term (2012-2014), Government of
Indonesia, Jakarta.
Hendradi, T. (n.d.), Securing Protection And Co-operation Of Witnesses
And Whistle-Blowers,
www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_GG4_Seminar/Fourth_GGSeminar_
P68-75.pdf.
International Journal of Government Auditing (2014), Engaging Civil
Service Organizations in SAI Audit.
KPK (2006), Gap Analysis Study Report, Identification of Baps between
Law/Regulations of the Republic of Indonesia and the United Nations
Convention Against Corruption.
KPK (2015a), Whistleblower System, Corruption Eradication Commission
of Indonesia, http://kws.kpk.go.id/.
KPK (2015b), Annual report 2014, Corruption Eradication Commission of
Indonesia.
Nurhayati, D. (2014), Agency to be established to protect crime witnesses,
victims, The Jakarta Post, 14 November,
www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/14/agency-be-established-
protect-crime-witnesses-victims.html.
OECD (forthcoming), Committing to Effective Whistleblower Protection,
OECD, Paris.
OECD (2015a), Financing Democracy: Funding of Political Parties and
Election Campaigns and the Risk of Policy Capture, OECD Publishing,
OECD (2015b), Open Government in Morocco, OECD Public Governance
Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226685-en.
OECD (2015c), Supreme Audit Institutions and good governance:
Oversight, insight and foresight, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264263871-en.
OECD (2014), “Conflict of interest and asset disclosure”, in OECD
Factbook 2014: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD
Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2012a), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Indonesia 2012:

Strengthening Co-ordination and Connecting Markets, OECD
OECD (2012b), Study on G20 Whistleblower Protection. Frameworks,
Compendium of Best Practices and Guiding. Principles for Legislation,
OECD, Paris.
OECD (2011), Asset Declaration for Public Officials: A Tool to Prevent
Corruption. OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095281-en.
OECD (2009), “Towards a Sound Integrity Framework: Instruments,
Processes, Structures and Conditions for Implementation”,
GOV/PGC/GF(2009)1, OECD, Paris.
International Budget Partnership (2010), Open Budget Survey.
Republic of Indonesia (1999), UU RI No. 31/1999 Eradication of the
Criminal Act of Corruption, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.
Republic of Indonesia (2002), UU RI No. 30/2002 Commission for the
Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, Republic of Indonesia,
Jakarta.
Republic of Indonesia (2006), Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 13
of 2006 Concerning Protection of Witness and Victim, Republic of
Indonesia, Jakarta.
The Economist (2015), A damnable scourge. Jokowi’s arduous task in
cleaning up the government (accessed 6 June 2015).
The Jakarta Post (2015) “Where’s the resource governance” (accessed 19
October 2015).
The Jakarta Post (2010), Ministries get KPK whistle-blower system, The
Jakarta Post, 26 August,
www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/26/ministries-get-kpk-
whistleblower-system.html.
Transparency International (2013a), Global Corruption Barometer.
Transparency International (2013b), International Principles for
whistleblower legislation, Transparency International.
Transparency International Indonesia (2014), Integrity and Corruption in
Rural Areas of Indonesia: Results of the 2013 Youth Integrity Survey.
Transparency International (2016), Corruption Perceptions Index 2015
www.transparency.org/cpi2015/#results-table.

UNDP (2010), Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2004), United Nations
Convention Against Corruption, United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime, New York.
Wolfe S. et al. (n.d.), Whistleblower Protection Laws in G20 Countries.
Priorities for Action, Blueprint for Free Speech et. al.
World Bank Institute (2010), Access to Public Information and Citizen
Participation in Supreme Audit Institutions.

5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA – 187
Chapter 5
Digital government as an enabler for open government

in Indonesia
The changes brought about by more connected and informed citizens, as

well as the desire by the government of Indonesia to increase efficiency and
live up to its open government commitments, have encouraged the country to
expand its digital government efforts. This chapter reviews the digital
government policies and practices used in Indonesia to support the open
government agenda, as well as key programmes and initiatives. It also
discusses how the government can scale up existing ICT initiatives and how
it can pursue a whole-of-government approach to utilising ICTs in support
of open government. A set of recommendations provides Indonesia with
ideas on how to implement more strategic uses of ICTs and open
government data to achieve its public-sector reform priorities.

188 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA
Introduction
The digital transformation is changing how people relate with one

another, how they access and share information and how they work, think
and solve problems. Digital technologies are changing the economy and the
way in which private sector firms operate, as well as affecting social
interactions, policy making and service delivery. This wave of change has
implications in the form of opportunities but also challenges that the
Government of Indonesia should assess to make decisions that maximise the
efficiency and effectiveness of its public administration, the well-being of
citizens and the competitiveness of its business environment. This chapter
will concentrate on how the use of digital technologies in the Indonesian
public sector can support its open government and broader government
reform agendas.
While public institutions in Indonesia have been slow to adapt to the
digital era, societal changes are leading them to revise their functioning and
make readjustments. More connected and informed constituencies are
demanding more tailored and agile interactions with the public
administration, more effective policies and improved public-sector
performance. Moreover, budgetary pressures, the search for efficiency gains
and Open Government Partnership (OGP) commitments have also
encouraged the Government of Indonesia to improve and scale up its
digitisation efforts.
When used strategically, digital technologies can be a powerful tool to
support substantial change in the government’s relationship with the public
and can help achieve open government goals. In particular, digital
technologies can help increase transparency and accountability, improve
access to and quality of public information and services and facilitate
decision-making processes that are more inclusive, which can ultimately
lead to greater trust in governments. Digital technologies can also help
enhance public-sector intelligence1 through better data management and
use, thus allowing for improved policy-making and smarter organisational
and operational arrangements. This can have an impact on public-sector
productivity and create institutions that are more competitive. Hence, digital
government strategies have become critical to overcoming power
imbalances and creating more participatory governance models to drive
inclusive growth and reduce productivity gaps between less and more
advanced economies.
The OGP Open Government Declaration explicitly recognises the
opportunity offered by new technologies as cross-cutting tools to foster
openness and accountability by providing new ways for information
dissemination, government-society collaboration, and alternative and more

efficient forms of civic engagement and participation (see Box 5.1).

Furthermore, Shim and Eom (2008) show that the use of information and
communications technologies (ICTs) can effectively improve the internal
and managerial control of government operations, in the process
significantly reducing space for corrupt behaviour and improving
transparency and accountability.
Box 5.1. The Open Government Partnership recognises the role of ICTs in
supporting the open government agenda
The Open Government Declaration of 2011 reads:

“Increase access to new technologies for openness and accountability: New technologies
offer opportunities for information sharing, public participation, and collaboration. We intend
to harness these technologies to make more information public in ways that enable people to
both understand what their governments do and to influence decisions. We commit to
developing accessible and secure online spaces as platforms for delivering services, engaging
the public, and sharing information and ideas. We recognise that equitable and affordable
access to technology is a challenge, and commit to seeking increased online and mobile
connectivity, while also identifying and promoting the use of alternative mechanisms for civic
engagement. We commit to engaging civil society and the business community to identify
effective practices and innovative approaches for leveraging new technologies to empower
people and promote transparency in government. We also recognise that increasing access to
technology entails supporting the ability of governments and citizens to use it. We commit to
supporting and developing the use of technological innovations by government employees and
citizens alike. We also understand that technology is a complement, not a substitute, for clear,
useable, and useful information.
We acknowledge that open government is a process that requires ongoing and sustained
commitment. We commit to reporting publicly on actions undertaken to realise these
principles, to consulting with the public on their implementation, and to updating our
commitments in light of new challenges and opportunities.
We pledge to lead by example and contribute to advancing open government in other
countries by sharing best practices and expertise and by undertaking the commitments
expressed in this declaration on a non-binding, voluntary basis. Our goal is to foster innovation
and spur progress, and not to define standards to be used as a precondition for co-operation or
assistance or to rank countries. We stress the importance to the promotion of openness of a
comprehensive approach and the availability of technical assistance to support capacity- and
institution-building.
We commit to espouse these principles in our international engagement, and work to foster
a global culture of open government that empowers and delivers for citizens, and advances the
ideals of open and participatory 21st century government.”
Source: Open Government Declaration (2011) www.opengovpartnership.org/about/open-government-
declaration (accessed on 19 December 2015).

This is consistent with the OECD approach to the use of digital

government to promote open, innovative and participatory governments to
foster more inclusive and effective governance. On 15 July 2014, the OECD
Council adopted its “Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies” as
the first international policy instrument in the field of digital government.
The Recommendation seeks to provide policy guidance to support
governments’ efforts in moving from e-government to the more advanced
stage of digital government.
For the OECD, e-government “refers to the use by the governments of
information and communication technologies (ICTs), and particularly the
Internet, as a tool to achieve better government” (OECD, 2014), whereas
digital government “refers to the use of digital technologies, as an integrated
part of governments’ modernisation strategies, to create public value. It
relies on a digital government ecosystem comprised of government actors,
non-governmental organisations, businesses, citizens’ associations and
individuals which supports the production of and access to data, services and
content through interactions with the government” (OECD, 2014).
The OECD Recommendation consists of twelve principles structured
around three pillars that seek to bring governments closer to citizens and
businesses. The first pillar is dedicated to the use of digital technologies to
support government openness and the engagement of citizens and businesses
in finding innovative digital solutions to outstanding social problems
(Figure 5.1). This pillar emphasises the relevance of coherent and
responsible data management in using technology to enable open
government.

Figure 5.1. Recommendation of the OECD Council on Digital Government Strategies
Openness and Governance and Capacities to support

engagement coordination implementation
5) Leadership and political

1) Openness, transparency 9) Development of clear
commitment
and inclusiveness business cases
6) Coherent use of digital
2) Engagement and 10) Reinforced institutional
technology across policy
participation in a multi-actor capacities
areas
context in policy making and
service delivery 7) Effective organizational and 11) Procurement of digital
governance frameworks to technologies
3) Creation of a data-driven
coordinate 12) Legal and regulatory
culture
8) Strengthen international framework
4) Protecting privacy and
cooperation with other
ensuring security
governments
Creating value through the use of ICT
Source: OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies, 2014.
Assessing the digital context of Indonesia
The use of ICTs to support open government and to achieve more

transparent and participatory forms of governance relies on certain
infrastructural enablers of digital government, such as access to the Internet.
Indonesians have benefited from the global trend toward increased
connectivity, showing sustained growth in the number of Internet users
(Figure 5.2) and mobile subscriptions (Figure 5.3). The Indonesian
population is also particularly young, with 46.03% of the population under
25 years old, and increasingly urban, with 50% living in urban areas (2010
national census).

Figure 5.2. Internet users per 100 people in Indonesia
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2001 2003 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014
Source: World Development Indicators.
Figure 5.3. Mobile cell phone subscriptions per 100 people in Indonesia
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2001 2003 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014
Despite this steady progress, the growth rate of Internet users in

Indonesia has been modest compared with regional peers or other countries
facing similar demographic or geographic challenges, with Internet users
representing merely 17.14% of the Indonesian population (Figure 5.4),
although this still equates to 42.85 million people. To avoid missing out on
the opportunities of the digital era for the creation of an open government

and to support sustainable development, the Government of Indonesia must

create a vigorous broadband ecosystem, which includes establishing an
enabling legal and regulatory environment, appropriate market conditions
that support competition and high-quality services, and initiatives to increase
demand for quality Internet services, among other factors.
Figure 5.4. Internet users as percentage of the entire population in

selected countries
100
80
60
40
20
0
2001 2003 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014
Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand

Viet Nam Brazil Korea Mexico
With an adult literacy rate standing at 93.88%, Indonesia has made

extraordinary progress in the area of education (UNESCO). Notwithstanding
this progress, productivity and access to economic opportunities remain
unequally distributed across the territory (Figure 5.5). If these issues are not
addressed, existing digital divides are likely to aggravate regional
inequalities as the country transitions toward a more digital-intensive
economy. In addition to regional disparities, even in the best-equipped urban
areas, digital divides are still significantly determined by gender, age and
education levels (Sujarwoto and Tampubolom, 2013; Utomo et al, 2013).
This context substantially hinders the impact of digitally enabled
participation, transparency and service delivery.

Figure 5.5. Per capita gross regional domestic product without oil and gas at 2000
constant market prices by province (thousand rupiahs), 2013
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Nusa Tenggara…
Nusa Tenggara…
Kep. Bangka…
Sumatera Barat
Riau
Banten
Kalimantan Tengah
Kalimantan Selatan
Kalimantan Timur
Sulawesi Utara
Sulawesi Barat
Papua
Aceh
Jawa Barat
Bali
Bengkulu
Lampung
Sulawesi Tenggara
Papua Barat
Jambi
Sumatera Selatan
DKI Jakarta
DI Yogyakarta
Kalimantan Barat
Kepulauan Riau
Sulawesi Tengah
Gorontalo
Sumatera Utara
Jawa Tengah
Sulawesi Selatan
Jawa Timur
Maluku
Maluku Utara
Source: OECD work based on Badan Pusat Statistik (Statistics Indonesia).
Addressing the existing digital divide in terms of access to high-quality

Internet and broadband requires significant levels of investment. Ensuring
the expected returns on investment, however, also requires the government
to consider the demand side. In certain regions, public officials and citizens
frequently lack the knowledge and skills necessary to reap the profits of
having access to the web, highlighting the multi-dimensional nature of the
digital divide and reinforcing the notion that overcoming the divide depends
on more than simple access to infrastructure and the affordability of
technological devices. Programmes to reduce the existing forms of the
digital divide also call for continuity and sustainability, overcoming the
potential instability of political cycles and agendas (Mariscal et al., 2012). In
2014, the Government of Indonesia unveiled its new five-year plan for ICT
development (2015-19). This plan is consistent with the previous one (2010-
14), but it places a greater emphasis on the expected benefits of connectivity
for digital government and economic growth. The plan focuses on
broadband development and aims to connect 71% of households and 100%
of public institutions by the end of the period. For this purpose, the
Government of Indonesia has allocated IDR 278 trillion. It also aims to
connect all public schools and, through them, develop a programme for ICT
skills development. It is still too early to assess the results of the plan in
addressing the digital divide.
Despite the limited access to ICT for important segments of the
population, urban and tech-savvy youth in Indonesia have quickly grasped
the opportunities provided by digital technologies and changed their social
habits. Indonesian Internet users are overwhelmingly young and very active

on social media. According to the Internet User Profile Survey of 2014

produced by the Indonesian Internet Service Provider Association, 49% of
Internet users are between 18 and 25 years old (APJII, 2014). According to
Semiocast, a social media analytics firm, Jakarta produced the most tweets
of any city in the world in June 2012, and Indonesia produced 7.5% of the
world’s tweets in the same month. Similarly, eMarketer, a market research
firm, estimates that 94.2% of Internet users in Indonesia are Facebook users,
making Indonesia the fourth-ranked country in the world in terms of the
overall number of users of the popular social network (eMarketer, 2012).
The Indonesian tech sector is also experiencing profound changes. With
the number of Indonesian middle-class and affluent consumers expected to
double by 2020 (BCG, 2013), large companies in the tech sector have
manifested growing interest in the country’s perspectives both as a growing
market and as an investment location, while the local start-up scene is
rapidly developing. For instance, Tokopedia, a local e-commerce start-up,
recently received investments of USD 100 million from SoftBank and
Sequoia Capital 2. Similarly, large global companies in the tech sector, such
as Twitter, Facebook and Uber, are opening offices in Indonesia. These
stakeholders provide the Government of Indonesia with a wide range of
partners with whom to co-create an ICT-enabled open government
ecosystem and co-produce data, policies and innovative services.
Scaling up existing initiatives that use ICTs to support an open,

transparent and participatory government
Reaping the full benefits and efficiency gains offered by ICTs requires
that Indonesia develop a coherent approach to the use of digital technologies
across levels of government despite significant levels of de-centralisation.
The Government of Indonesia will also need to take decisive steps toward
the creation of more transparent and inclusive decision-making processes
and public-sector activities. The Republic of Indonesia still has room for
progress in ICT-enabled participation and service delivery. This section will
highlight trends and good practices in the use of ICT by the public sector to
support open government in the country and to meet the challenges
associated with achieving sufficient scale.
In relation with countries that share similar demographic, geographic
and developmental challenges, the Republic of Indonesia still has room for
progress in ICT-enabled participation (Figure 5.6) and service delivery
(Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.6. E-Participation Index
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Brazil Indonesia Malaysia Mexico Philippines Korea Thailand Viet Nam
Source: UN e-Government Index.
Figure 5.7. Online Service Index
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Brazil Indonesia Malaysia Mexico Philippines Korea Thailand Viet Nam
Source: UN e-Government Index.
ICTs can provide a transparent and cost-effective channel to support the

engagement of citizens in actively defining the process and content of

decisions, service design and policy making, acknowledging equal standing

for citizens in setting political agendas, in proposing policy options, in
shaping the policy dialogue and in co-producing public services. In a broad
sense, one of the main challenges for online service delivery in the public
sector is to complete the transition from government-centred use of
technologies to citizen-centred use and finally to a predominantly citizen-
driven approach to service design and delivery. This paradigm change
supports usability and overall convenience of digital public services for its
target users. A citizen-driven approach contributes to citizen empowerment
and can help redress inequitable resource and power distribution that lead to
inequality, poverty and social stress.
The Government of Indonesia has been able to produce some ground-
breaking digital public services that represent an important step in the design
of more citizen-oriented services, supporting greater transparency and
citizen engagement. For instance, SISKOHAT (see Box 5.2), an innovative
app developed by the Ministry of Religious Affairs, is helping Indonesian
citizens monitor their status on the waiting list for the Hajj pilgrimage
organised by the Ministry (see Chapter 7 for more information). This app
significantly improves the transparency and convenience of the Hajj
application process. The design of the app respects high technical standards
and has a strong focus on the administration’s perception of user needs.
Box 5.2. SISKOHAT: Promoting transparency in Hajj
The Hajj is an annual Islamic pilgrimage to the Mecca and one of the five
pillars of Islam. Muslims must complete this pilgrimage at least once in their
lifetime if they are physically and financially capable of doing so. Demand for
participation in the pilgrimage is extremely high, which led to the establishment
of a quota system. The Ministry of Religious Affairs of Indonesia is in charge of
organising the pilgrimage for Indonesian citizens, managing the applications and
the waiting list for the religious journey. Being incorporated into the waiting list
may be costly (fees are determined by a presidential decree and vary depending
on departure location), and the waiting period can take several years.
To enhance the transparency of the process, the Ministry of Religious Affairs
developed the Hajj Integrated Information and Computerised System
(SISKOHAT) with a complementary android-based app that allows applicants to
monitor the queue and check their status on the waiting list. The platform
provides the candidates with relevant practical and logistical information to
prepare their travel arrangements and once they are on location. The system is
interoperable with payment systems, allowing for real-time follow-up of
payments, and it utilises a secure electronic authentication mechanism.

Moreover, the Indonesian public sector is increasingly interested in

leveraging the creativity, skills and ideas for innovation existing outside of
the public sector to solve persisting problems while easing the financial
burdens of public authorities. These initiatives pursue a more citizen-driven
approach in the development of solutions and services, recognising citizens
as partners and giving them the opportunity to determine service priorities.
Increasing awareness about the potential of user-driven approaches has been
the driving force for the organisation of thematic hackathons, particularly at
the local level. Initiatives such as the Bandung Data Summit, HackJak and
Hackathon Merdeka seek to empower Indonesian citizens and developers,
allowing them to propose innovative solutions to improve healthcare and
education, fight corruption, manage disasters or support small farmers.
These activities have also provided local governments with the opportunity
to engage with service users and better understand their changing needs.
Their scale, however, limits these powerful initiatives. They currently
operate as small pockets of innovation, but the necessary co-ordination and
scaling-up mechanisms seem to be absent. Digital services are still
developed with a greater focus on the priorities of the public administration,
leading to services that are less user oriented. Insufficient levels of
interoperability of government information systems hinder the public
sector’s ability to deliver transactional and integrated services that can
favour the use and uptake of online channels and improve the quality of
services and the management of data.
Scaling up these initiatives to achieve systemic changes in digital
service design and delivery would require the development of governance
frameworks, standards and guidelines that can help civil servants design,
prototype, test and deploy services in more effective and participatory ways.
These should be complemented with the policy levers, co-ordination
mechanisms and institutional capacities required for the implementation of
strategies and policies. Opening up the service design process would
necessitate that the public sector be equipped with the right skills, tools and
incentives to facilitate and promote the engagement of relevant stakeholders
in a more systematic way, thus progressively building a whole-of-
government approach in using ICTs for open government.
LAPOR (see Chapter 3 for more information) is another digitally
enabled practice that can support open government. It is a multi-channel
reporting mechanism that helps the administration collect, monitor, process
and provide a solution or answer to citizen aspirations and complaints. The
platform seeks to empower citizens by allowing them to report misconduct
or malfunctioning public services, policies or programmes through a
website, email, mobile app or text message. Citizens are able to enclose
pictures or videos as evidence to support their complaint. The administration

validates the report’s accuracy within three working days and then transfers
the complaint to the responsible ministry or agency. This initiative has
attracted international attention for its potential to bring the government
closer to citizens and their demands.
Similarly, some initiatives are promoting more direct and responsive
relations between citizens and local governments. For instance, the Regency
of Bojonegoro has put in place weekly public dialogues (see Box 5.3). All
citizens interested in participating are invited to join the dialogue in person
or listen to it on the radio. This practice allows citizens to ask questions to
local government representatives in person or through SMS and provides the
opportunity for public officials to explain their policies and disseminate
information and data.
Box 5.3. Public dialogue and public information in Bojonegoro
Launched in March 2008, the Public Dialogue and Information programme in

the Bojonegoro Regency takes place every Friday and is presided over by the
Regent of Bojonegoro. The initiative gives the citizens of the regency the
opportunity to interact directly with representatives of the local government to
address governance or public services issues. The dialogue is open to the public,
has an average attendance of 175 people and is simultaneously radio broadcasted.
Citizens can also engage in the process through text messages to which the local
government will respond. The Regency of Bojonegoro participates in the LAPOR
platform and has its own open data portal. The Regency of Bojonegoro benefits
from these weekly meetings to socialise open data on a diversity of issues,
especially using simple visualisation to make data more accessible to citizens
lacking data skills.
If they were applied on an adequate scale, these initiatives would be able

to positively change government-society dynamics, improve the quality of
public services and, if the Government of Indonesia is able to be sustainably
and effectively responsive, could contribute to citizen trust in the
government. However, unlocking the full potential of such initiatives can be
challenging. For instance, the lack of participation in the programme by
most subnational governments (key players in the delivery of public
services) hinders LAPOR’s potential and reduces awareness of the platform.
Streamlining and scaling up LAPOR, and consequently increasing its
institutional capacity and enabling the Government of Indonesia to continue
to respond effectively and efficiently, would help maximise the benefits of
the initiative.

These and several other digitally enabled open government initiatives

have great transformative potential. The Government of Indonesia should
now focus on the creation of institutional frameworks and capacities that
help scale up these initiatives and achieve a whole-of-government approach
in the use of ICTs for open government.
Achieving a whole-of-government approach in government use of ICTs

in support of open government
As with many other governments around the world, the Government of

Indonesia has encountered substantial challenges in keeping pace with
technological change. While several interesting and potentially
transformative digital government initiatives exist within the central
government, the Government of Indonesia would benefit from scaling up
these initiatives and strengthening cross-government co-ordination to avoid
duplication and to help streamline efforts. The establishment of peer-
learning and knowledge-transfer mechanisms would also help rapidly spread
good practices in the use of ICTs in the public sector and share lessons
learned, which would in turn help build capacities across government
institutions. To achieve this, public authorities must take action to strengthen
the networks of digital government practitioners within and across levels of
government.
As governments evolve and achieve new levels of maturity in the use of
ICTs, they can achieve consistent progress only through a structured
approach, supported by a strategy that sets clear goals and establishes clear
and effective governance frameworks for the oversight and management of
ICT policies that align with national policy objectives. This is a challenging
task for any government, and even more so for a country with the size,
geography and social and ethnic realities of Indonesia. It is, nevertheless, a
necessity if the government wants to move forward to the next stage of its
open government agenda supported by the use of ICTs. The lack of such an
approach may be a strong explanatory factor for the inconsistent progress
made by Indonesia in the UN’s e-Government Index (Figure 5.8) compared
with most governments in Southeast Asia.

Figure 5.8. UN e-Government Index
0.9
0.8
Brunei Darussalam
0.7 Cambodia
Indonesia
0.6 Lao People's Democratic Republic
Malaysia
0.5
Myanmar
Philippines
0.4
Singapore
0.3 Thailand
Timor-Leste
0.2 Viet Nam
0.1
0
2003 2004 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014
Source: UN e-Government Survey.
Developing institutional frameworks to support the strategic use of

digital technologies
The Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic
Reform for 2015-19 identifies digital government as an essential tool to
achieve a more efficient, transparent and open government that supports
sustainable development in Indonesia. Similarly, the ICT White Paper
elaborated by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics recognises
the central role of government as an enabler and catalyst of the information
society, recognising digital government as a key element of the ecosystem of
the digital economy. These objectives are clearly synergetic and require a
strong alignment to ensure the coherent and consistent progress of
Indonesia’s digital agenda. However, the country’s institutional design and
its allocation of responsibilities do not necessarily facilitate such co-
ordination. The Deputy Minister for Institutions and Governance from the
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (MENPAN) oversees
the work of the Deputy Assistant for the Co-ordination of e-Government

Policy Formulation. This policy-making authority co-exists with the

Director General of ICT Application in the Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology, which is responsible for governance and policy
formulation and implementation in the field of e-government in accordance
with Presidential Regulation No. 54 of 2015 concerning the Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology.
While the Ministry of Communications and Informatics has taken the
lead in the implementation of e-government policies as well as on public-
sector infrastructure for ICTs, its role is less evident when it comes to
establishing policies, standards or guidelines (see Table 5.1). The absence of
clarity in the distribution of roles and responsibilities increases the risk for
redundancy, as well as the lack of collaboration and co-operation, and
increases the chances of incoherence in the policy framework. Overlapping
scopes of responsibilities also diminish the clarity of institutional design and
the accountability of public authorities, leading to inefficient and ineffective
government operations.
Table 5.1. Roles and responsibilities for digital government in Indonesia
Deputy Minister for Institutions and Governance,

Director General of ICT Application, Ministry of
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic
Communications and Informatics
Reform
Formulate digital government policy Prepare norms, standards, procedures and
Co-ordinate and synchronise the implementation criteria
of digital government Provide technical guidance and supervision
Monitor and evaluate the implementation of Monitor, evaluate and report on digital
digital government government
Sources: Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform 2015-2019;
Presidential Regulation No. 54 of 2015. on Ministry of Communication and Informatics;
Presidential Regulation No.47 of 2015 on Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform.
The Government of Indonesia has identified the need to strengthen its

governance framework as part of the digital government policy that is
currently being prepared (Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Administrative
and Bureaucratic Reform, 2015-19). The new institutional framework
should provide the Government of Indonesia with tools and mechanisms to
ensure greater coherence in the use of ICTs in the public sector. OECD
countries have explored a wide range of structures and institutional set-ups
to achieve effective governance of the public sector’s use of digital
technologies. The figure of the Central/Federal Government Chief
Information Officer (CIO) or equivalent position has become the most
common form of co-ordinating an entity for digital government activities. In
some cases, institutions or units that are more experimental complement the
CIO’s role depending on governments’ priorities and efforts (see
Figure 5.9).

Figure 5.9. ICT governance structures across the OECD
1
0.8824
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 0.3529 0.3529
0.3
0.1818 0.1765 0.1765
0.2
0.1
0
Chief Chief Chief Chief Data Chief Chief Digital
Information Information Technology Officer Innovation Officer
Officer Security Officer Officer
Officer
Source: 2014 OECD Survey on Open Government Data and Desk Research.
Traditionally, the role of the CIO has focused on supporting the strategic
use of technology by government in order to achieve its goals, frequently
driven by efficiency gains and the administration’s own priorities. However,
following recent trends, these governing bodies have increasingly moved
toward more user-centred and user-driven approaches. As governments seek
to improve digital public services and public-sector intelligence, CIOs
across the OECD have developed units with the mission of improving user
engagement, service design and delivery, and data management. Some other
countries have opted for a model that includes a Chief Digital Officer, either
reporting to the CIO (as is the case in New Zealand or the United States), as
a separate structure (as in Australia) or accumulating the functions of the
CIO (as in the United Kingdom). To date, these Chief Digital Officers have
been more disruptive in nature than the traditional CIO, breaking down
silos, introducing ways of working that parallel start-ups (such as agile
methodologies) and maintaining a strong focus on service delivery and
citizen participation. In the case of Indonesia, the Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology seems to rely on its technical

expertise and policy development authority to play the role of a traditional

national government CIO.
Nevertheless, in strengthening the use of digital technologies to foster an
open government, the government should consider the addition of a Chief
Digital Officer reporting to the national government CIO. The role of such
an authority would include making government operations and services
digital by design, instead of simply putting forms online. This includes the
transformation of back-office operations and setting digital service
standards. The Chief Digital Officer is expected to identify quick wins in
digital service delivery, use innovative service design and technology
deployment techniques and foster user engagement and participation.
The mandate and responsibilities of the units or bodies leading digital
government activities vary greatly across the OECD, as do the policy levers
at their disposal to ensure compliance with digital government rules and
regulations. Certain successful countries have opted for more coercive
levers, such as New Zealand, while others rely mostly on soft levers, such as
Denmark and Sweden (see Figure 5.10), suggesting that there is no one-size-
fits all model. Governments should make sure, however, that the tools
provided are coherent with the overall public governance ecosystem and
adapted to existing co-ordination mechanisms, institutional capacities, legal
and regulatory frameworks, and the political and administrative cultures in
the public sector.
The ultimate role of the unit co-ordinating digital government is to
provide an incentive structure that can foster change and accelerate the
digital transformation of government. While more coercive levers, if
appropriately used and implemented, can provide the co-ordinating body
with significant leverage to ensure coherence, this authority and the overall
institutional arrangement should provide positive incentives (“carrots”) to
promote cultural change and limit resistance among public institutions. For
instance, countries like Estonia, Portugal and Uruguay are not only able to
review, approve or stop ICT projects, but they have also put in place funds
dedicated to digital government. The objective of these funds is to finance
high-impact digital government projects that are in alignment with the
overarching digital government strategy. Public institutions have incentives
to access these funds and save resources from their own budgets. All
projects financed through these centralised funds must comply with
government regulations in the field of digital government and be in
alignment with all relevant public-sector strategies.

Figure 5.10. Levers of ICT governance across OECD countries

What are the main responsibilities of the unit/body leading and co-ordinating ICT deployment in the
central government?
Percent of responding countries

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Advising strategy development “Soft”

levers
are in
Monitoring strategy implementation
place
in the
Reviewing ICT projects across the government majority
as needed of central
co-
Prioritisation of ICT projects across the ordination
government
Approve - or stop - ICT projects across the Coercive

government as needed levers are
less
Mandating external reviews of ICT projects common
across the government
Other
Source: OECD Survey on Digital Government Performance, 2014.
Building institutional capacities for implementation

The ability to steer the use of digital technologies in the public sector to
support broader policy objectives does not exclusively rely on institutional
design and governance frameworks. Governments should be able to have
clear visibility of existing assets, ICT projects and contracts as well as
previous ICT supplier performance in order to make strategic investment
decisions. Moreover, the management of ICT projects has become
increasingly complex in terms of budget, the stakeholders involved and the
choice of technologies available. The Government of Indonesia should work
on developing its ability to structure investments and manage the associated
risks, ensure efficiency in project implementation, and monitor the
realisation of the expected returns.

The Strategic Plan of the Ministry for Administrative and Bureaucratic

Reform for 2015-19 proposes the development of E-Government Master
Plans for the entire government, which may be included in the new digital
government policy currently being drafted. Such Master Plans would be
developed in collaboration with Bappenas and require each public institution
to develop an ICT or e-government plan that includes ICT projects, their
timelines, KPI and funding in agreement with national strategic planning
mechanisms and annual budgeting. These plans would then be validated and
aggregated into a National E-Government Master Plan.
These planning mechanisms would considerably strengthen the ability
of the Government of Indonesia to plan and monitor ICT activities and
investments in the public sector. However, this system would not ensure that
individual ICT projects – which would be planned separately and then
aggregated – are being adequately conceived, that their resources are being
rationally allocated and shared across the administration or that project
managers have the tools they need to identify drivers of failure or success
and make the necessary adjustments throughout the implementation phase.
The experience across OECD countries has shown that sound business case
or similar value proposition methodologies can help public institutions
better structure and monitor specific ICT investments (Principle 9 of the
OECD Recommendation).
Adopting a mandatory business case methodology (or similar value
proposition approach) for ICT projects would support strategic planning and
strengthen the capacity to define return on investment and monitor
implementation (see Box 5.4 for an example). It would also enable the
institution responsible for co-ordinating digital government to capture
information on previous successes and failures in project implementation
that can strengthen institutional knowledge.
Similarly, the use of standardised and mandatory ICT project
management models for structuring costly or complex projects can support
project managers and help clarify roles and responsibilities, times of
intervention and assessment, thus reducing the risk of failure (Principle 10
of the OECD Recommendation). These tools would represent a significant
contribution to the ability of the government of Indonesia to strategically
plan and implement ICT projects that support its efforts to make government
more open, transparent, efficient and effective.

Box 5.4. Ensuring efficiency of ICT projects: Danish business case methodology
The Danish Digitisation Agency is responsible for developing the business case
methodology for ICT projects in the public sector. The methodology helps project managers
analyse the costs, expected benefits and risks associated with ICT investments in the public
sector. It helps the Government of Denmark decide on the implementation of ICT projects
based on different possible scenarios of implementation and non-implementation of the project,
including the impact on operating costs. The methodology helps calculate the expected value
from the project and monitor its implementation and success.
A standardised project management model complements the Danish business case
methodology. The Danish ICT Project Model provides a standardised way of managing ICT
projects across the government administration. With clear reference to the UK ICT project
model Prince2, it provides guidelines for how to organise and manage ICT projects and
delivers concrete templates for all generic products in the process. The overall phases covering
all projects are illustrated below:
Analysis Acquisition Completion

Idea Management Specification - Management Realisation
phases > Tenders phases
The Ministry of Finance has created a unit establishing good practices on e-government
projects, including both mandatory and recommended elements. The model has enabled the
establishment of a specific governance structure, for example requiring approvals of well-
developed business cases, as well as ongoing approvals – so called “stop-go” decisions – each
time a project passes from one phase to the next.
Sources: www.digst.dk/Styring/Business-case-model ; www.digst.dk/Styring/Projektmodel.
Finally, the digital transformation puts pressure on all levels of

government to develop the necessary human resources. This means not only
developing strategies to attract, develop and retain the required ICT skills in
the public sector but also developing the necessary skills to engage
effectively with external stakeholders. Developing skills for engagement and
overcoming the traditional administrative culture is a challenging yet
essential task for the use of ICTs for open government.
Achieving coherence within and across levels of government

The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform has identified
the need to improve the co-ordination between national and subnational
governments in the field of digital government in order to deliver the
expected results (Strategic Plan, 2015-19).

A whole-of-government approach is built on political commitment to a

shared vision. This is crystallised in an overarching strategy or policy
instrument and supported by adequate governance frameworks, thereby
enabling policy alignment and co-ordination at the strategic and operational
levels. Experiences across the OECD highlight the crucial role of strategic
prioritisation of digital government in achieving a shared vision of public-
sector modernisation. Securing political support for the digital
transformation agenda is an additional critical factor of success. In that
sense, the process of developing a digital government policy provides a
valuable opportunity to leverage the efforts and investments already made to
spur ICT use within the public sector, which the Government of Indonesia
should not miss.
The development of the digital government policy also provides the
opportunity for governments to embed a vision and rationale for using
digital government as an enabling tool for broader policy outcomes by all
relevant stakeholders. This stage provides the Government of Indonesia with
a unique opportunity to build a shared vision of how governments can use
ICTs to improve open government, sustainable development and societal
well-being, as well as develop a common understanding of the role of digital
technologies in a modern public sector.
Achieving a coherent use of digital technologies across levels of
government in Indonesia requires integrating the views and interests of the
different stakeholders in the development of the strategy and the
establishment of the appropriate co-ordination mechanisms. If it is supported
by an effective communication strategy, this can allow the government to
build a strong consensus and sense of ownership, as well as to gain support
for the digital transformation agenda within the public sector and the society
as a whole. Moreover, experience shows that the best results come when the
vision statement embedded in the digital government strategy links to
higher-level policy objectives, as this can help secure the commitment of the
political leadership. Such a commitment is necessary for the government to
be able to bring down existing political and cultural barriers to change and
implement cross-cutting public-sector reform efforts.
Co-ordination is an equally essential element of achieving a whole-of-
government approach (see Box 5.5 for an example). The unequal progress in
the use of digital technologies for open government across policy areas and
levels of government as well as the duplication of efforts and initiatives
suggests that there is substantial room for improvement of co-ordination
mechanisms. This is particularly challenging in Indonesia given both the
administrative structure (strong de-centralisation) and the size of the country
(in geographic and demographic terms).

Box 5.5. Denmark: Achieving coherence in a context of de-

centralisation
Denmark has found an original and sustainable mechanism for achieving co-
ordination and commitment to the national strategy across the public sector. The
Steering Committee for Cross-Government Co-operation – Styregruppen for
Tværoffentlige Samarbejder (STS) was set up as a result of an agreement between
the Government, Danish regions and local governments in Denmark in 2005.
The STS is a cross-government co-ordination body aiming at creating common
ground in the work on digital government. The overall framework for the co-
ordination is confirmed in the annual negotiations on the coming year’s budgets
between the Government and the representatives for the regions as well as for the
municipalities. The STS consists of high-level representatives (on the level of
permanent secretaries/managing directors) from the five most important
ministries for e-government implementation from the central government and the
associations representing the municipalities and the regions. STS is responsible
for determining overarching principles and coherent framework conditions for
digital government, co-ordinating initiatives in order to use public resources more
efficiently, deciding on resource allocation and determining models for digital
government operations and project maintenance.
Source: OECD (2010), Denmark: Efficient e-Government for Smarter Public Service
Delivery.
The co-ordination mechanisms for digital government should have at

least two levels of articulation to ensure adequate performance and coherent
use of digital technologies within and across levels of government:
• High-level strategic co-ordination: This level should serve as the high-
level political governance mechanism. This co-ordination level should
include relevant stakeholders for decision making, such as those at the
highest level of responsibility for digital government, as well as those
responsible for the reform of the public sector (Centre of Government or
co-ordinating ministry), finance, open government co-ordination, ICT
infrastructure and subnational governments. In Indonesia, the National
ICT Council, chaired by the President of Indonesia, plays this role.
• Operational co-ordination: This level should deal with implementation
challenges and bottlenecks and involve all relevant actors for the
specific ICT projects. Digital government authorities and the CIOs of
public institutions involved in relevant projects should serve as chairs

(e.g. CIO Councils). This level should include institutional mechanisms

of knowledge sharing and peer learning to facilitate capacity building.
The National ICT Council is a multi-stakeholder institution in the field
of ICT created by Presidential Decree No. 01 of 2014. It is responsible for
providing the general policy and strategic direction for the development of
ICTs to support national development efforts. The National ICT Council is a
broad co-ordinating body that brings together relevant stakeholders,
including public authorities, state-owned enterprises, private sector
representatives and academics to build consensus around key strategic issues
in the development of ICTs in the country. The National ICT Council is
subsequently divided in sub-bodies that cover ICT infrastructure, ICT for
government (digital government), ICT for health, ICT for education, the
digital economy, the ICT industry and the Meaningful Broadband City
Initiative.
Chaired by the President, this body has the potential to provide ICT
initiatives with the required visibility and political support. Moreover, the
number of actors that participate in the council can help build ownership of
the efforts on this front. However, subnational governments seem to lack
adequate representation, thus hindering the potential of the council to foster
coherent approaches across levels of government3.
The Ministry of Home Affairs is responsible for overseeing the
implementation of national legislation at the local level. It has an important
role to play in ensuring that all national digital government norms applicable
to the subnational level are effectively implemented. For this reason, it
seems important to consider its participation in existing co-ordination
mechanisms such as the National ICT Council, in which it is not currently
included.
At the operational level, a dynamic CIO Council would provide a good
forum to address implementation challenges. This type of council could
operate at both the national and regional level. For such mechanisms to
deliver the expected results, however, all public institutions should have a
CIO in place that would be responsible for following up with the work of the
CIO Council. To complement these formal co-ordination mechanisms,
national and subnational governments should also take action to foster
informal networks and communities of practice, both offline and online,
enabling public institutions and practitioners to share data, information,
knowledge and experiences in tackling common challenges (see Box 5.6 for
examples). Such mechanisms contribute to mitigate the uneven distribution
of ICT and project management skills across the territory, bridging regional
divides. The government of Canada, for instance, has developed internal
social media that allow civil servants to collaborate more effectively. Such a

resource could help Indonesian civil servants spread across a vast territory to
be in touch and share experiences in a more agile way.
Box 5.6. Co-ordination mechanisms in selected countries
Australia
There is a strategic-level committee, the Digital Transformation Committee of Cabinet,
which sits under the Cabinet and is chaired by the Prime Minister.
Service Delivery Leaders is a steering committee comprising senior public servants from
major government departments. Service Delivery Leaders is an early consultation point for
Digital Transformation Office activities with a whole-of-government impact, including advice
on strategy and co-ordinated service delivery activity throughout the government. Service
Delivery Leaders may also create subordinate boards, working groups or other bodies to
undertake specific work.
Portugal
The Agency for Administrative Modernisation (AMA, for its Portuguese name) chairs the
“E-Government Network” that meets regularly to monitor the implementation of the E-
Government Action Plan by public institutions. The AMA is responsible for the approval of
ICT projects over EUR 10 000, in observance of the norms and guidelines defined by the
network. The network gathers relevant stakeholders, such as the AMA and the ICT Shared
Service Centre, and functions at both the high political level and the operational level.
Moreover, the AMA follows a Programme Management Officer (PMO) Structure led by the
Director of E-Government. This team is in continuous contact with focal points at institutions
relevant for the implementation of digital government projects to follow up on the
implementation, and it prepares E-Government Network meetings and organises specific
workshops to discuss trending topics or issues in the area of e-government.
Spain
The ICT Strategy Commission (CETIC) – the inter-ministerial body at the highest political
level comprising senior officials from all ministries – defines the strategy that, once approved,
goes to the Council of Ministries. The CETIC also defines the services to be shared, determines
the priorities for investment, and reports on draft laws, regulations and other general standards
with the purpose of regulating ICT matters for the General State Administration. Furthermore,
the CETIC promotes collaboration with the autonomous regions and local authorities for the
implementation of integrated inter-administrative services.
The Committee of the Directorate for Information Technologies and Communication
includes 25 CIOs of the different ministries (13) and agencies (12), as well as the deputy
directors for ICT of all ministries, and the unit leads the co-ordination of the implementation of
ICT projects.

Box 5.6. Co-ordination mechanisms in selected countries (continued)
Uruguay
The Honorary Directive Board is distinctive in terms of the regularity of its meetings (once
a week) and in that it is responsible for virtually all high-level decisions of the Agency of E-
Government and Information Society (AGESIC). It is composed of five members, including
the delegate of the president (formally the Pro-Secretary of the Presidency, in practice the
Director General of the Presidency by delegation) and representatives from the private sector,
academia and the technical community and the CEO of the agency. A complementary advisory
board includes the CIOs of the different public institutions.
The AGESIC has a division dedicated to government bodies and processes (“organismos y
procesos”) that is in charge of managing relationships with other public institutions and seeks
to monitor and support the implementation of digital government policies, co-ordinate cross-
cutting projects and perform change management. AGESIC also has a strong PMO structure,
providing a centralised follow-up and support mechanism for digital government project
implementation.
Sources: OECD, 2016; OECD 2010; Desk research; Phone interviews.
Adopting a strategic approach to alternative ICT channels to maximise

the outreach of government in a cost-effective way
Despite the steady progress concerning Internet access in Indonesia

(19.16% Internet user growth per year since 2001), the number of Internet
users remains limited to 17.14% of the total population (WDI). Given this
reality, it seems necessary for the government to adopt strategies that ensure
inclusiveness and cost-effectiveness in service design and delivery, in order
to avoid risking new inequalities and digital divides. This suggests that the
Government of Indonesia needs to develop a sound and more structured
multi-channel service delivery approach that includes experimentation with
new channels for engagement in the design and delivery of services. Such an
approach has proven successful in the case of Chile (Box 5.7). Using
different platforms and delivery systems that reach out to a broader segment
of the population should be commended and encouraged.

Box 5.7. ChileAtiende
“ChileAtiende” offers a national multi-channel one-stop shop for citizens to

carry out their business with government. It has a national network of more than
200 offices, a national call centre and a digital platform (web and social
networks), as well as ChileAtiende vans that can cover remote rural areas,
through which citizens can access multiple services and benefits without having
to contact multiple government offices. Previously, citizens needing to complete a
procedure with the state had to identify which institution delivered the service,
where its offices were located and contact it directly to find out the requirements
to access the service. This was costly in terms of time and money.
The project was evaluated in 2014 by an external consultancy. The
conclusions indicated that the service had saved Chilean citizens up to 2 165 193
hours of their time and CLP 10 600 million (Chilean pesos) or USD 14.9 million
between 2012 and 2014.
Source: www.oecd.org/gov/chile-chileatiende.pdf.
For instance, by 2002, the Department of International Development of

the United Kingdom (DFID) realised that, in countries like Botswana,
Ghana and Uganda, mobile airtime, which was easily transferable, was been
used as a proxy currency. It later found the same pattern in Kenya and
Tanzania as well. Vodafone developed a mobile payments platform, M-Pesa
(literally mobile money), for Kenya and Tanzania, providing government,
companies, NGOs and citizens with an efficient, fast, secure and transparent
way to make cash transfers. The government and the central bank of Kenya
worked along with Vodafone to develop an appropriate regulatory
framework for mobile payments that respected security standards. Several
stakeholders and specialists were consulted, including the DFID, the United
Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the payment card
industry, to understand how best to adapt the Know Your Customer (KYC)
requirements for payment regulations. Regulators provided a special licence
allowing the new system to operate through branchless banking to reduce
costs and foster financial inclusion with success. Today, Kenyans are able to
complete a wide variety of transactions using their phones, including paying
for public transportation4. This service does not require a data plan, and
account fees are very low, which helps include the poorest section of the
population. Beyond specific mobile platforms for providing public services,
some governments have sought to implement broader mobile government
programmes within their digital government strategies, such as in the case of
Singapore (Box 5.8).

Box 5.8. Singapore: Mobile Government Programme
The Mobile Government Programme is part of Singapore’s broader digital

government strategy and has three key objectives for the 2011-15 fiscal years:
• Support and guide agencies to deliver feature-rich government mobile

services (m-Services) to enhance customer experience and satisfaction;
• Aggregate demand for mobile research, tools and services that help
agencies in the efficient and consistent implementation of mobile services;
and
• Improve or maintain Singapore’s standing in international rankings,

through the delivery of high-quality services via the mobile channel.
Today, more than 300 mobile government information sources and services
are available. “M-Gov” also established a whole-of-government central short-
messaging-service platform, known as OneSMS, to facilitate the development of
m-services by government agencies through demand aggregation. The
programme was co-developed by the Ministry of Finance and the Infocomm
Development Authority of Singapore as part of the Integrated Government 2010
(“iGov2010”) e-government master plan for the years 2005-10, motivated by the
increasing penetration rate of mobile phones, especially smartphones, and the
increasing number of transactions through mobile phones, either through mobile
browsers or native mobile applications.
Sources: www.ida.gov.sg/Programmes-Partnership/Store/M-Government;
www.un.org/esa/socdev/egms/docs/2013/ict/KarenTan.pdf.
The limited access to fixed broadband and rapid uptake of mobile

technologies in Indonesia, which counts over 120 mobile phone
subscriptions per 100 people, provides the Government of Indonesia with an
additional channel to deliver and improve its services (OECD/ITU, 2011).
The massive adoption of mobile communications not only provides citizens
with a convenient way of communicating with each other and accessing
information and services but also allows governments to reach out to a
greater number of people than ever before, even in remote and inaccessible
regions. Governments increasingly use mobile technologies to provide
information, exchange data and deliver services. M-Government refers to
the use of mobile technologies to support public-sector operations and
service delivery for improved public-sector performance. However, these
programmes should not put the emphasis on the use of mobile technologies
but rather on the needs of end users and the public sector (OECD/ITU,

2011). Such an approach can help the Government of Indonesia provide

more convenient access to existing services as well as enable the design and
delivery of new services (e.g. m-health and telemedicine; see Box 5.9).
Box 5.9. Denmark: Digital welfare – Tele-medical ulcer assessment
Municipal nurses used to care for ulcers in the home of the patient.
Traditionally, when in doubt or if the ulcer was deteriorating, the nurse had to
send the patient to the hospital for assessment. After the implementation of the
tele-medical ulcer assessment programme, municipal nurses still care for ulcers at
the home of the patient; now, however, they communicate directly with the
hospital through a web journal from their cell phones or tablets. They also upload
photos to the online platform containing the journal of the ulcers. In most cases,
this enables hospital experts to assess the ulcer without seeing the patient,
providing financial benefits for regions and municipalities and convenience
benefits for patients, who no longer need to travel to the hospital as often.
The use of social media allows citizens to express their views,

politicians to frame their opinions and governments to better understand
social interactions, public opinion and human behaviour, as well as
encourage collaboration and leverage ideas (Mickoleit, 2014). Regardless of
the dynamic use of social media by the urban youth mentioned earlier in this
chapter, the Government of Indonesia has not been able to develop a
significant online or social media relationship with the public. Despite the
dynamism of young users in the social media scene, the outreach capacity of
institutional accounts remains low on both Twitter and Facebook, two of the
most popular social platforms available (see Figures 5.11 and 5.12). The
Government would benefit from a structured and strategic approach to social
media use that helps increase its outreach, engage with stakeholders,
crowdsource ideas, deliver services, monitor impact, analyse data and
identify social trends.

Figure 5.11. Selected central government Twitter accounts

Number of followers as percentage of the domestic population as of March 2015
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Presidencia_Ec | Ecuador 0.06
Number10gov | United Kingdom 0.048
tcbestepe | Turkey 0.028
WhiteHouse | United States 0.019
PresidenciaMX | Mexico 0.0107
bluehousekorea | Korea 0.0036
IstanaRakyat | Indonesia 0.0013
Source: Twiplomacy 2015; World Development Indicators, 2014.
Figure 5.12. Indonesian institutional accounts on Facebook
Engagements per follower Likes as % of the total population

Ecuador Singapore
France Ecuador
United States United States
Philippines Korea
Germany Philippines
Brazil Colombia
Indonesia United Kingdom
India Brazil
Singapore France
Colombia Germany
United Kingdom India
Korea Indonesia
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Only institutional accounts for the head of state or the head of government are considered. Likes,
comments and shares of posts are considered forms of engagement. Likes as % of the total population
considers the number of people that like/follow the official page of the institution.
Source: World Leaders on Facebook 2016, World Development Indicators, 2014.

The OECD has noticed that, while governments are increasingly present
on social media, they still primarily use this channel as a traditional
communications tool rather than for opening up policy processes or for
innovative ways of delivering public services. Only 50% of the countries
responding to the OECD Survey on Social Media use by Governments
(2013) have a strategy or clearly identified objectives, and only 19% are
using metrics to assess the impact of their social media usage.
The strategic use of social media can help the Government of Indonesia
promote political inclusion and participation of younger segments of the
population through channels that are better adapted to their preferences. To
achieve this, however, the GOI must adapt its approach to ensure that the
language it uses and its responsiveness is in tune with the public’s
expectations.
Moreover, crowdsourcing ideas and increasing participation in the
design of policies and services through social media or alternative channels
would require dedicating substantial resources to participative development
and follow-up procedures to ensure responsiveness. The GOI may therefore
consider exploiting synergies with existing initiatives to maximise impact.
There seems to be substantial room for collaboration and resource sharing in
the public consultation forums, such as LAPOR, which may produce
economies of scale and facilitate more coherent and efficient management
and monitoring of citizen feedback.
While most governments are still at the very early stages in their use of
social media, some countries are already making substantial progress in this
area, paving the way for a new level of maturity in the area of social media
policy. For instance, in Australia, the structured monitoring and analysis of
social media activity led to the realisation that there was space for the
government to provide information for young people about the financial
support available to help them study (OECD, 2014). In Spain, the national
police have developed an approach to social media use that seeks to support
its mission and deliver better services to citizens (see Box 5.10).

Box 5.10. @Policia – Purpose-oriented social media use by the

Spanish national police
Policing depends heavily on people’s confidence and co-operation to deliver

an effective public service. The Spanish national police force (Cuerpo Nacional
de Policía de España) identified the potential of social media early on. In 2009, it
committed to using social media as an additional lever to improve its services.
The commitment was backed up with financial and human resources, notably the
recruitment of a social media expert, Carlos Fernandez, to lead the effort. Today,
a dedicated team of ten people interacts on various social media platforms to
prevent, dissuade and combat crime.
The Spanish police’s constant and genuine engagement is catching on with the
public. At the time of writing, the @Policia Twitter account has over 1.25 million
followers (@Policia), its Facebook page has over 220 000 fans (PoliciaNacional)
and the videos on its YouTube channel were viewed over 5.6 million times
(Policia).
A large part of this social media success is due to a deliberate choice of topics
and style. Unlike many other government institutions, the Spanish police force
does not use social media for “corporate” communications such as relaying the
agendas of its leadership or to issue traditional press releases. Instead, it uses
social networks to support the police’s primary mission by sending content-rich
messages that use “plain” language, often humorous or provocative, in order to
attract a large audience.
Such genuine community interaction has led to several mission-critical
successes. One of those was the recent arrest of a murderer who had been on the
loose for months after his conviction in 2013. On 14 January 2014, the Spanish
national police launched a co-ordinated media campaign with heavy use of social
media to diffuse photos and information about the wanted individual. The posts
went viral, i.e. they were replicated and diffused by a very large number of social
media users, and triggered several citizen reports leading to the arrest of the
convict in less than one day
One Data for Sustainable Development
The use of ICTs can also have a substantial impact on the public sector’s
ability to make decisions based on evidence, thereby improving the
transparency and accountability of such decisions and leading to enhanced
public-sector performance in the form of better policies, services and
communication with citizens and businesses. To this end, the Government of
Indonesia must recognise the value of public-sector data as a strategic asset.

The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Religious Affairs have

separately looked to enhance data management inside their ministries
through the development of guidelines and draft ministerial decrees. These
and other intra-institutional initiatives to improve data quality, governance
and handling signal that the current level of institutional development calls
for an overarching policy focused specifically on providing a government-
wide framework for data management and governance. The Executive
Office of the President has already identified this need and in 2014 launched
the “One Data for Sustainable Development” initiative. It has two main
objectives: 1) enhance data management across the public administration to
support evidence-based decision-making; and 2) support open government
data efforts.
Improving public-sector intelligence through enhanced data

management
As noted in interviews with the OECD by the Executive Office of the
President, the “One Data” initiative is currently working on a data policy
and guidelines for public institutions. These would provide a common
framework to limit redundant efforts and improve the quality, management,
interoperability and integration of government data and metadata, and foster
a data-driven public sector (Principle 3 of the OECD Recommendation) to
support openness, transparency and sustainable development. The objectives
of such a policy should include: 1) better exploiting digital technologies and
data analysis to understand societal problems; 2) embedding data use
throughout the policy cycle; and 3) putting in place governance
arrangements to ensure responsible and coherent use of data that benefits
citizens and strengthens public trust.
Making this policy successful will require considering the structural
enablers for its success, such as infrastructure, knowledge and skills, as well
as the overall incentive structure that will lead to the digital and data-driven
transformation of the public administration in support of openness and
sustainable development.
The development of this essential policy tool will also offer the
Government of Indonesia a favourable occasion to determine a strategic
approach that will enable it to seize the opportunities provided by big data
analytics (see Box 5.11 for how Pulse Lab Jakarta is using analysis of social
media to understand public perceptions of immunisation). The digitisation of
society has exponentially accelerated the production of data. The increasing
availability and accessibility of data is a result of the increased use of digital
devices such as computers, mobile phones and tablets. The increase in data
production has also been driven by the development of the Internet of

Things, 5 the growing use of digital cameras and recorders and the
digitisation of books, records and archives. The digital era has made
available a massive amount of data and an equally diverse number of data
storage possibilities.
Box 5.11. Understanding public perceptions of immunisations using

social media
This project examined how the use of social media data and big data analytics
could be used to understand public perceptions of immunisation. In collaboration
with the Ministry of Development Planning (Bappenas), the Ministry of Health,
UNICEF and the World Health Organisation (WHO) in Indonesia, Pulse Lab
Jakarta filtered tweets for relevant conversations about vaccines and
immunisation. Findings included the identification of perception trends, including
concerns around religious issues, disease outbreaks, side effects and the launch of
a new vaccine. The results built on Global Pulse’s previous explorations in this
field, confirming that real-time information derived from social media
conversations could complement existing knowledge of public opinion and lead
to faster and more effective response to misinformation, since rumours often
spread through social networks.
Source: www.unglobalpulse.org/immunisation-parent-perceptions.
Big data analytics refers to the data processing techniques for analysing
these new data sources that are available in high volume, highlighting
patterns and trends, uncovering unfamiliar correlations and other valuable
information for sound decision making. The availability of these data and
data processing techniques is having a particularly strong impact in the field
of public policy and social sciences and significantly improving the
understanding of human behaviour. The distinctive features of today’s big
data in terms of velocity, volume and variety of data have been enabled by
“recent exponential increases in telecommunication bandwidth that connects
a network of centralised and decentralised data storage systems, which are
processed thanks to digital computational capacities” (Hilbert, 2016).
The amount of data produced by digital behaviour can often become an
efficient alternative to traditional data sources, such as surveys. Big data
analytics can, for instance, successfully predict the spread of diseases and
accurately estimate unemployment with real-time data. Big data can provide
powerful insights in the areas of economic activity, healthcare, public
transportation and urban planning (Box 5.12), disaster and risk management,
service design and delivery and policy-making in general, ultimately

enhancing public-sector performance and productivity. This new data

processing technique is opening up a broad range of opportunities for both
the private and the public sector. Not taking a strategic approach in this
domain could lead to accentuated digital divides within and across countries,
as well as loss of productivity and competitiveness for an emerging
economy such as Indonesia.
Box 5.12. Singapore: Using open data and big data analytics for
better urban transport
Like other metropolitan hubs, Singapore has faced the inevitable problem of
heavy congestion at peak hours. However, significant improvements have been
made thanks to the use of data from the smart travel cards and GPS data.
These data provided the opportunity to develop detailed models for how bus
users move through the city, helping the government understand traffic patterns,
how citizens use the urban transport system and key problems with the existing
bus routes.
Using these data, developers based in California created an analytical platform
that is able to identify traffic patterns and provide authorities with precise
information mapping active trains and buses, with meters letting them know how
full each one is, as well as how many commuters are at each station and what the
estimated waiting times are. The analysis of this information helps the authorities
decide where more buses and trains are needed or how to provide incentives for
users to take different routes. The system produced a 13% drop in peak time
travel. This experience has since been replicated in Bangalore and São Paulo to
improve public transport.
Since 2012, Indonesia has benefited from a pilot project of the UN

Global Pulse that seeks to create capacity and promote data innovation for
policy making. This initiative, called Pulse Lab Jakarta, includes UN staff,
the Ministry of National Development and Planning (Bappenas), the
Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Communication and Informatics. The
Pulse Lab Jakarta regularly organises thematic data innovation days with
civil servants to highlight the potential of using big data and other
innovative data sources and techniques that can support evidence-based
policy making (Box 5.13). The initiative holds great potential for building
capacity at the central government and would benefit from the strategic and
financial support of the Centre of Government to maximise the impact of the
initiative, as the period of financial support from the UN Global Pulse is
approaching its end. Providing stability to this initiative could ensure a sense
of ownership by the Indonesian public sector.

Box 5.13. Pulse Lab Jakarta: Mining citizen feedback data for
enhanced local government decision making
The Pulse Lab Jakarta performed a feasibility study on the use of

crowdsourcing as a tool to provide real-time data to local governments to support
decision making. The UN Global Pulse summarises the project:
“This feasibility study used crowdsourcing to track commodity prices in near
real-time in areas where the availability of other data sources was limited. High-
resolution and high-frequency food price trends were derived from reports
generated by ‘citizen reporters’. The study was conducted in Nusa Tenggara
Barat, one of Indonesia’s poorest provinces, comprised almost exclusively of
informal, cash-only markets and stalls. The study involved recruiting a trusted
network of local citizen reporters to submit food price reports via a customised
mobile phone application. The tested crowdsourcing method could be improved
by developing a standardised approach to the ‘bunch measurement’ of staples so
that it could be effectively deployed in locations where standardised weights and
measures are absent. Crowdsourcing technologies, which capture high-frequency
data on local trends, are best deployed in areas where traditional data collection
methods are difficult or costly due to a lack of geographic proximity, high
insecurity or high food price volatility.”
Source: www.unglobalpulse.org/projects/feasibility-study-crowdsourcing-high-frequency-
food-price-data-rural-indonesia.
Building an Open Government Data ecosystem

A growing number of governments have developed policies and
initiatives to design and implement Open Government Data (OGD) within
the broader strategic frameworks for digital government. OGD refers to the
release of data collected and produced by public organisations while
performing their tasks or to data commissioned with public funds. The goal
is that OGD is released in open formats that allow for their free use, re-use
and distribution by anyone, subject only to (at the most) the requirement that
users attribute the data and that they make their work available to be shared
as well (Ubaldi, 2013). Box 5.14 provides a description of the legal and
institutional infrastructure for open government data in Korea, as well as
examples of how the data has been utilised to provide applications that have
enhanced service provision.

Box 5.14. Open Data in Korea
Korea’s Open Data Law and institutional framework

Korea's Open Data Law provides the legal basis for access to data and for its commercial
usage. The Law also lays out the open data governance framework, which is led by a high-
level council co-chaired by the Prime Minister and a private sector representative. The council
also includes central and local government representatives as well as civil society
organisations. This framework facilitates cross-government co-ordination and public-private
sector co-operation.
The Ministry of Interior leads open data management and the Open Data Centre at the
National Information Society Agency provides policy and technical support, including the
operation of the open data portal, data.go.kr. In addition to the governance framework, the Law
provides a mechanism for dispute resolution between citizens and public-sector organisations
through the creation of the Open Data Mediation Committee.
Notably, the legal basis for open government data is different from the laws and processes
concerning access to information (governed through the Information Disclosure Act and
housed at open.go.kr). The legal foundation provided by the open data law helps to ensure the
stability of open data policy in Korea and provides a focus on creating economic and social
value.
Case studies of open data applications in Korea

The growth of open data in Korea is reflected in by part by the number of applications
registered on the Open Data Portal (data.go.kr), which increased from 42 at the end of 2013 to
over 800 in April 2016. Some notable examples include:
Bus information applications (e.g. Seoul Bus App), which use bus data from local and
central governments to provide real time information on bus arrivals. Parking information
applications (e.g. Moduparking, ParkingPark) use parking data from local governments to
allow drivers to search and compare nearby parking spaces (from both public and private lots)
and relevant information such as operating hours, prices, capacity, etc.
In healthcare, hospital information applications (e.g. Medilatte, Hidoc, Goodoc) use hospital
data from the Ministry of Health and Welfare and related agencies to allow citizens to search
and compare nearby hospitals and clinics and relevant information such as services provided,
doctors, prices, operating hours, etc. This provides citizens with a tool to find health services
that suit their needs.
Source: Government of Korea.
The Government of Indonesia has recognised on several occasions the

potential OGD could have in enhancing the transparency, accountability,
integrity and performance of the public sector. Its central open data portal is

one of Indonesia’s current Open Government Partnership commitments, and

the use of OGD for anti-corruption is part of the country’s National Strategy
on Corruption Prevention and Eradication. Moreover, Indonesia was an
active contributor in the elaboration and adoption of the International Open
Data Charter, to the development and adoption of the G20 Open Data
Principles for Anti-Corruption and has published data related to its
extractive industries collected through its membership in the Extractive
Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) (Box 5.15). All of these
engagements prove Indonesia’s commitment and support for OGD as tool to
foster an open government.
In line with these commitments and policy objectives, the Government
of Indonesia has taken decisive steps to develop a technically advanced and
user-friendly central data portal, which it launched in May 2014. The central
government has made significant efforts in providing easy access to key
datasets to improve transparency of key public-sector activities. However,
these efforts have encountered significant challenges in maximising the
impact of the government’s Open Data initiative. First, while the existing
Public Information Disclosure Act of 2008 (FOI) serves as a foundation for
Open Data, it does not mention that the disclosure of data must be done in
open formats, leading public authorities to feel that providing data in open
formats is optional, thus creating barriers to data re-use. Furthermore, over a
year and a half since its launch, the central government open data portal still
offers only 1 042 datasets from 27 government institutions and 3 subnational
governments, showing the lack of awareness of the relevance of opening up
government data and the lack of ownership of the OGD agenda across the
public sector. Finally, the overall lack of data skills across society is
currently undermining the government’s ability to provide high-quality
datasets and the society’s ability to re-use the data to create public value.
These challenges suggest that there is a need to revise the existing legal
and regulatory frameworks to set an “open by default” standard, to which
Indonesia has already committed internationally 6, to develop a coherent
national OGD strategy with strong ownership across levels of government
and a sense of collective commitment among civil servants. Indonesia
should also develop a plan to enhance ICT and data skills across society to
reduce existing forms of the digital divide that tend to reinforce inequality
and political and social exclusion.

Box 5.15. Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative: Indonesia

The Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) is a global standard for transparency
in government revenues from extractive industries that was launched in 2002. The initiative
requires governments to report their revenue from the extractive sector and for companies
within the same sector to report their payments to government in the form of taxes, royalties or
payments in kind. An independent auditor assesses these two reports, published online. A
multi-stakeholder group composed of government institutions, extractive industry private
sector firms and civil society organisations governs the Indonesian chapter of EITI. Indonesia
became an EITI candidate in 2010 and was declared compliant by the EITI International Board
on 15 October 2015.
EITI Indonesia has amassed a considerable amount of valuable data concerning the
country’s extractive industries. To improve transparency and accountability, the initiative has
been working to open up its data through the national Open Data Portal. The national chapter is
currently developing a new data portal, allowing the initiative to publish data in open formats.
Through this portal, Indonesian citizens will be able to produce visualisations of the data. This
tool is expected to improve the understanding of the data in a context of limited data skills.
Sources: http://data.go.id/organization/about/eiti-indonesia; http://eiti.org; Interview.
Furthermore, it is important to highlight that, while the OGD agenda can

help make progress in public-sector transparency, accountability, integrity
and performance, opening up valuable datasets in a dynamic OGD
ecosystem can help societies find innovative ways to solve social problems,
creating substantial social and economic value. For instance, Mexico City
was able to find a smart solution to the increasing insecurity related to fake
taxis robbing customers using open government data (see Box 5.16). In
Denmark, HusetsWeb, a start-up, uses open government data to develop
technological solutions that provide households useful information on their
energy consumption patterns and tips for energy optimisation.
Box 5.16. Hacking insecurity in Mexico City

Using taxis in Mexico City entails incurring security risks. Criminals often use vehicles
camouflaged to look like licenced taxis to rob customers, with as many as 400 taxi robberies
reported in 2013. This phenomenon has been driving users to avoid taxis and opt for more
expensive transportation services. Mexico City’s innovation lab, Laboratorio para la Ciudad,
has developed an innovative app using open government data to help tackle the security
concerns of taxi users. This app allows users to enter the licence number on the side of the car
or snap a photo of the cab’s licence plate. The app will then cross-reference this information
with city data to determine if it is a registered taxi. The app also includes a button that
automatically alerts the police department in case the user runs into trouble.
Source: http://citiscope.org/story/2014/mexico-city-experimental-think-tank-city-and-its-government.

To achieve such a level of maturity, the government must also take

decisive steps to support the development of an ecosystem that is able to
realise the full potential of OGD, including fostering innovation. Taking
OGD to the next level requires that data be seen as a strategic asset, which
has implications for the public sector in terms of governance to support the
whole data and information value chain, including skill requirements and
investments in data infrastructure. To foster innovation by using data, the
Government of Indonesia should systematically promote the engagement of
and collaboration with the communities of data producers, providers and
users to identify and release valuable datasets. The effective re-use of
government data – which is an essential condition to deliver value – entails
that open data is relevant, easily accessible and re-usable by all.
Governments can use different tools to stimulate the use of OGD for
value creation. Good practices include the development of one-stop-shop
portals for open government data that serve as a single window/point of
access for data users to access available datasets in open formats, ideally
having undergone a process of quality assurance and being complemented
with useful metadata (see Box 5.17 for the example of the Jakarta Smart
City Portal). Furthermore, strategic use of hackathons, awards, grants and
other pro-active approaches to promoting data re-use can play a decisive
role in fostering innovation and value creation.
To assist governments measuring the impact of their OGD initiatives,
the OECD has developed the OURdata Index (Open, Useful and Re-usable
data index), launched in the OECD publication “Government at a glance
2015”. This index assesses governments’ efforts in relation to three fronts:
1) increasing data availability on the national portal; 2) increasing data
accessibility on the national portal; and 3) providing active support for the
re-use of data.
Box 5.17. Jakarta Smart City Portal
To support Jakarta’s transformation into a smart city, the government of the

City of Jakarta has launched a Smart City Portal. The portal allows citizens to
understand the components of a smart city, access the map of the city, and access
and request information. The website links to the city portal, which allows
citizens to make public complaints, access public services and open data, as well
as use the apps developed with open data of the government of Jakarta. If
complemented with the right innovation ecosystem, this portal may serve as a
tool that contributes to the transformation of Jakarta into a smart urban
agglomeration characterised by large economies of scale, an innovative economy,
a highly skilled workforce, smart urban and transport arrangements, lower
environmental impact and high living standards.

Data accessibility and availability are necessary, but insufficient

conditions to ensure the re-use of data can limit the capturing of OGD
benefits from a social, economic and good governance perspective (e.g.
transparency, integrity, accountability). Re-use of data by the public sector,
civil society organisations, the private sector and a host of other actors is a
sine qua non condition to delivering the benefits of open data. In this sense,
the OURdata Index aims to help strengthen governments’ focus on effective
outcomes and keep the focus on the overall objective of actively fostering
stakeholders' engagement in data re-use. The OURdata Index is based on the
OECD methodology for measuring Open Government Data (Ubaldi, 2013)
and on the G8 Open Data Charter, encapsulating the first internationally
agreed-upon set of principles on open data. This is essential, as the OURdata
Index is also intended to help governments monitor their progress in
implementing their international OGD commitments. Ultimately, the
OURdata Index aims to support governments in designing and
implementing OGD strategies that deliver value to the public.
The OECD assessment (Figure 5.13) shows that the Government of
Indonesia has made considerable progress in its OGD agenda in the fields of
data availability and accessibility, comparable to the highest OECD
standards. However, considerable progress can still be made in the
promotion of the re-use of OGD. While the Government of Indonesia has
certainly started making efforts in this front, with, for example, the
organisation of hackathons, these initiatives would benefit from being more
systematic and structured. Based on the objective of the hackathon or event,
public authorities should identify audiences. NGOs, start-ups and civic
developers have different priorities and datasets of preference when working
with open data. Moreover, depending on their stage of development, these
different stakeholders may be looking for datasets with distinctive
characteristics or levels of sophistication.

Figure 5.13. OURdata Index: Open, useful and reusable government data, 2014
Composite index from 0 lowest to 1 highest
Data availability Data accessibility Government support to re-use

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
No national OGD portal

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1. Data for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Israel and Luxembourg are not available. Data
for Indonesia are for 2015.
Source: 2014 OECD Survey on Open Government Data.
Hackathons also offer an opportunity to engage with users, strengthen

bonds within the data-user communities and listen to their needs. Creating
and strengthening feedback loops can help governments better understand
the needs of the different audiences and groups of data users to respond
better to their data needs.
Recommendations
• To unlock the transformative potential of technologies in changing

government-society dynamics, the Government of Indonesia
should make substantive efforts to achieve scale for its key
initiatives. Participatory platforms should be expanded to achieve a
critical mass of users, and other initiatives of potentially high impact
should be strengthened and streamlined for the government to be
able to reap its full benefits (e.g. “LAPOR”, public dialogues,
hackathons, service design standards). This will require additional
resources and plans to develop institutional capacities, regulatory

frameworks – e.g. standards for service design – robust co-

ordination and peer-learning mechanisms.
• The use of digital technologies should be framed by an
overarching policy to help ensure strategic coherence across the
administration. This policy should be aligned with broader policy
objectives – such as those on open government and sustainable
development – and with public-sector reform strategies and action
plans. A successful policy would provide coherent incentives to
create a culture that strengthens the use of technology for more
open, innovative and participatory service design and delivery.
Involving the relevant stakeholders in the development of the digital
government policy will help ensure that the resulting strategies
appropriately reflect the different views. This will also promote the
development of a common vision and align objectives with the
required levels of ownership for successful implementation and to
deliver impact.
• The development of the policy with contributions from all
stakeholders also provides the opportunity to design sound
institutional frameworks with desirable levels of accountability,
control and transparency that should include strong co-ordination
mechanisms at the strategic and operational levels, ensuring
alignment with the government’s ambitions and institutional
mechanisms to facilitate its implementation. Institutional
arrangements should clarify roles and responsibilities in digital
government policy making, particularly between the Ministry of
Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform and the Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology. The Government of
Indonesia would also benefit from a Chief Digital Officer under the
National Chief Information Officer that can support the digital
transformation, making government digital by design.
• The Government of Indonesia should align incentives for public
institutions and civil servants to respond to national policy
objectives and facilitate a fundamental cultural shift across the
government toward more open, inclusive and citizen-driven
processes and toward the development of ICT and data skills. To
achieve this, the governance frameworks of digital government
should equip the co-ordinating unit with the adequate mix of policy
levers (“carrots” and “sticks”) to be able to induce the expected
behavioural change across public institutions.

• The development of the National E-Government Master Plan

should be complemented with the establishment of a business
case methodology and an ICT project management model that
can help public institutions better plan and structure their ICT
investments (Principles 9 and 10 of the OECD Recommendation).
These management tools would allow public institutions to clearly
identify expected benefits, manage risks, monitor the
implementation of ICT projects, identify drivers of failure and
success and make adjustments as required. The combination of the
tool would allow the Government of Indonesia more effectively to
monitor and evaluate ICT initiatives at both a micro and macro
level.
• The Government of Indonesia should develop a strategic approach
to the use of alternative channels for public engagement and
service delivery, such as social media platforms and mobile phones.
This new approach should recognise the potential of social media
and mobile devices as sources of data, allowing the Government of
Indonesia to use predictive analytics to spot trends, analyse social
interactions and determine service users’ needs. A strategic
approach in the use of this channel can help the Government of
Indonesia increase its outreach for service delivery to vulnerable or
excluded segments of the population living in remote areas (e.g. m-
services).
• The Government of Indonesia should recognise data as a strategic
asset and accordingly develop governance frameworks,
infrastructure and institutional capacities to support the
strategic use of government data for decision making (Principle 3
of the OECD Recommendation). Aside from the development and
implementation, an initial step in building capacities could be
supporting the expansion, sustainability and streamlining of the UN-
sponsored Pulse Lab Jakarta to build data analytics capacity in the
public sector.
• Indonesia should make efforts to develop a dynamic open
government data ecosystem, which will require addressing legal
and regulatory challenges and limitations, raising awareness and
ownership, developing data skills across society, and actively
engaging with data producers, providers and users to identify
valuable datasets and foster re-use that can deliver social, economic
and good governance value.

Notes
1. Referring to the ability of the public sector to collect, process and

interpret data to inform public action and decision making.
2. “Investors set their sights on Indonesia’s tech sector” in Financial Times,
7 December 2014, www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4fd5286e-7c32-11e4-a695-
00144feabdc0.html#axzz3wHg3HHYr (accessed 18 December 2015).
3. www.detiknas.go.id/profil/.
4. www.betterthancash.org/news/blogs-stories/the-better-than-cash-journey-
kenya-and-rwanda.
5. The Internet of Things refers to the network of physical objects embedded
with software, sensors and network connectivity allowing these objects to
collect and exchange data. Principle 1 of the G20 International Open Data
Charter: “Open by default”.
References
APJJI (2014), Profil Pengguna Internet Indonesia,

www.slideshare.net/internetsehat/profil-pengguna-internet-indonesia-
2014-riset-oleh-apjii-dan-puskakom-ui (accessed 22 January 2016).
Boston Consulting Group (2013), Asia’s Next Big Opportunity: Indonesia’s
Rising Middle-Class and Affluent Consumers. BCG Perspectives.
www.bcg.fr/documents/file128797.pdf (accessed 22 January 2016).
Government of Indonesia (2012), National Strategy on Corruption
Prevention and Eradication (2012-2025).
Hilbert, M. (2016), “Big Data for Development: A Review of Promises and
Challenges” in Development Policy Review, 34 (1): 135-174.

Mariscal, J. and Bambrilla, C. (2012), “Conectividad institucional: El caso

de México” in Information technologies and international development
journal, Vol 8, Issue 4 Winter (Special Bilingual Issue: Research on
ICT4D from Latin America).
Mickoleit, A. (2014), "Social Media Use by Governments: A Policy Primer
to Discuss Trends, Identify Policy Opportunities and Guide Decision
Makers", OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 26, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxrcmghmk0s-en.
OECD (forthcoming), OECD Public Governance Review of Spain.
OECD (2015), Digital Government Toolkit.
OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government
Strategies. www.oecd.org/gov/public-innovation/Recommendation-
digital-government-strategies.pdf (accessed 22 January 2016).
OECD/ITU (2011), M-Government: Mobile Technologies for Responsive
Governments and Connected Societies, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118706-en.
OECD (2010), Denmark: Efficient e-Government for Smarter Public Service
Delivery, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264087118-en.
Open Government Partnership (2015), Independent Reporting Mechanism
Report: Indonesia,
www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Indonesia_Special_Acc_
Report_Public.pdf (accessed 18 December 2015).
Shim, D.C. and Eon, T.H. (2008), “E-Government and Anti-Corruption:
Empirical Analysis of International Data” in International Journal of
Public Administration, February, 31(3):298-316,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900690701590553.
Sujarwoto and Tampubolon G. (2013), “Deepening Digital Divide and
Widening Spacial Gaps in Indonesia 2005-2009”,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2348729 (accessed
23 December).

Ubaldi, B. (2013), "Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of

Open Government Data Initiatives", OECD Working Papers on Public
Governance, No. 22, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k46bj4f03s7-en.
Utomo, A. et al.. (2013), “Digital inequalities and Young Adults in Greater
Jakarta: a Socio-Demographic Perspective” in International Journal of
Indonesian Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 79-109.

6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA – 235
Chapter 6
Open, transparent and inclusive budgeting in Indonesia
Applying open government principles to the budget process is an important

component of instituting open, transparent and inclusive government. The
OECD has developed principles for budgetary governance and has
highlighted best practices for budget transparency. This chapter assesses
public financial management in Indonesia against these principles and
standards, starting with an outline of principles, followed by an overview of
the situation in Indonesia. This chapter covers budget transparency, public
participation in budgeting and good practices in Indonesia; it also surveys
gender budgeting in Indonesia and assesses linkages between women’s
participation in budgeting and environmental sustainability. The
recommendations point to approaches and actions that could provide for
sound public financial management, strengthening budget transparency and
inclusiveness in Indonesia.

236 – 6. OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE BUDGETING IN INDONESIA
Introduction
Budget transparency has become a broadly accepted principle of public

financial management over the past two decades. Budget transparency
promotes access to and openness about how financial resources are planned,
raised and used by governments. The principle of budget transparency
underpins sound public financial management and has in turn become a
cornerstone of public governance themes such as open government, civic
participation and public-sector performance.
Open, transparent and inclusive budgetary practices strengthen the
integrity, accountability and strategic focus of overall public governance. A
more transparent budget process promotes responsive and evidence-based
policy making, which in turn supports accountability for how public
resources are allocated and used. Although the budgeting process can often
be opaque and technical, proactive engagement between public bodies and
citizens can lead to more transparency.
The framework of how to promote these principles has been laid out in
two OECD publications. The OECD Best Practices for Budget
Transparency (2002) covers the preparation of the national budget and other
budget reports; specific disclosures and accounting practices for the budget;
and practices to promote integrity, control and accountability in budgeting.
In 2015, the OECD introduced the Recommendation on Budgetary
Governance, which broadens the traditional concept of fiscal transparency to
encompass civic engagement while making explicit the links with open data,
integrity and anti-corruption policy. The drive toward greater openness and
transparency in budgeting also supports broader OECD-wide priorities for
trust in government and for inclusive growth.
With regard to Indonesia, since 1998, the country has undergone an
extensive democratisation process that has led to fundamental changes in the
constitution and the legal framework to support transparency, participation
and accountability. As part of a broader reform agenda, the current National
Development Planning System1 and the de-centralisation process have
affected budgeting and public financial management. Specifically, within
the budgeting process, the House of Representatives (DPR, herein referred
to as Parliament) has become more closely involved in budget formulation,
approval and oversight.
As noted in Chapters 1 and 2, Indonesia’s system of national
development planning includes a long-term, medium-term and annual
strategic planning process, the latter directly feeding into the budgeting
process. This National Development Planning System encourages a
transparent and participatory approach and helps to foster linkages with

national and international strategic frameworks through, for example, the

OGP National Action Plan and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.
In broad terms, Indonesia’s developmental planning framework has
some advanced and innovative features. These aspects of the policy-
development framework may be characterised as broadly compatible with
the OECD Recommendation on Budgetary Governance, which explicitly
calls on governments to “ensure that budget documents and data are open,
transparent and accessible” and to “provide for an inclusive, participative
and realistic debate on budgetary choices”. The later phases of the budget
cycle and other domains of public financial management in Indonesia,
however, have not yet integrated transparency, openness and inclusiveness
into their systems to the same extent.
The key challenges faced by Indonesia in the area of budget
transparency and public financial management relate to the management of a
diverse, fragmented institutional landscape, also including the various levels
of government. This fragmentation leads to specific challenges in the area of
budget transparency: 1) uniform implementation of national laws, in
particular those relating to information transparency, regarding budget data
at every level of government and budget documents at every stage of the
budgeting process; and 2) the dissemination of good practices throughout all
reaches of public administration.
Furthermore, to ensure the best use of public funds, budget allocations
should reflect public needs, priorities and risks. Transparent and
participative practices can help promote such an alignment. To improve
these aspects of budgetary formulation in Indonesia, the government could
develop stronger structures to improve the engagement of the general public,
civil society and experts across the various phases of the budget cycle.
Indonesia’s strengths in terms of geographical and societal outreach could
also be leveraged further to promote equal opportunities of engagement for
the wider public.
The de-centralisation process in Indonesia started after 1998, and it
continues today. Multi-level budgetary governance poses challenges in
many countries, and given Indonesia’s geographical diversity, such
challenges are particularly acute in this country. Addressing these challenges
will involve: 1) finding the optimal balance for the provision of public
services and goods and responsibilities between the central and local level,
including enhanced co-ordination between the levels; 2) adopting a culture
of transparency, responsiveness and co-operation with local stakeholders at
each level of government; and 3) establishing efficient oversight
mechanisms linked to the increased responsibilities of the local government.

OECD principles for open, transparent and inclusive budgeting
The 2015 OECD Recommendation on Budgetary Governance identifies

transparency, openness, participation, integrity and accountability as pillars
of modern budgetary governance. This section briefly presents outlines how
these principles should be assessed in practice, before applying them to the
case of Indonesia.
Budget documents should be open, transparent and accessible

Clear and factual budget reports as well as audit reports are needed to
inform key stages of the budget process such as policy formulation,
consideration and debate as well as implementation and review. Information
quality can be improved by focusing on relevance, accuracy, objectivity,
machine readability (open data) and reliability. The presentation of
budgetary information in a consistent format at key stages of the budget
process promotes effective decision making, accountability and oversight.
Citizens, civil society organisations and other stakeholders should be able to
routinely access full budget reports in a timely manner. The impact of
budget measures should be presented in a standard and user-friendly format,
which can be achieved by using a budget summary or a Citizen’s Budget.
Budget data should be designed and used in a way that facilitates other
important government objectives such as open government, integrity,
programme evaluation and policy co-ordination across national and
subnational levels of government.
Active management, monitoring and audit of the implementation of

the budget
Budget allocations should be implemented fully and faithfully by public
bodies, with oversight throughout the year by the Central Budget Authority
and line ministries as appropriate. Special-purpose funds and ear-marking of
revenues for particular purposes should be kept to a minimum. Ministries
and agencies should be allowed some limited flexibility, within the scope of
parliamentary authorisations, to re-allocate funds throughout the year in the
interest of effectiveness. Well-planned and well-designed budget execution
reports, including in-year and audited year-end reports, can inform future
budget allocations and contribute to accountability. The supreme audit
institution should be supported in its role of dealing authoritatively with all
aspects of financial accountability, including the publication of its audit
reports in a manner that is timely and relevant for the budgetary cycle.
Internal and external systems of audit and control should focus on the cost-
effectiveness of individual programmes, as well as assessing the quality of
performance accountability and governance frameworks more generally.

Figure 6.1 highlights good practices in the three main aspects of the
transparent budget process, beginning at the bottom with the foundational
requirement for clearly defined roles and responsibilities, adequate
resourcing of the various actors and use of tools that support openness, such
as Citizens’ Guides. A transparent budget process produces high-quality
information for decision making and meets the quality standards for the
process itself.
Providing for an inclusive, participative and realistic dialogue

throughout the budget process and in particular on budgetary
choices
The parliament and its committees should be offered opportunities to
engage with the budget process using a strategic approach at key stages of
the budget cycle, both ex ante and ex post, as appropriate. All important
stakeholders – beginning with the parliament but also including citizens and
civil society organisations – should be engaged in order to pursue a realistic
debate about key priorities, trade-offs, opportunity costs and value for
money. Information on performance, outputs and impacts can help
parliament and citizens to understand not just what is being spent but also
what is being bought on behalf of citizens – i.e. what public services are
actually being delivered, to what standards of quality and with what levels
of efficiency. After the careful consideration of budgetary choices, all major
decisions should be handled within the context of the budget process.
Figure 6.2 highlights good practices in the three main aspects of an open
and inclusive budget process, beginning at the bottom with framework
conditions for clearly defined roles, scopes and objectives, adequate
resourcing of the various actors and use of tools that support participation in
budgeting, such as Citizens’ Guides. Similar to the progressive interaction
between government and citizens outlined in Chapter 3, citizen participation
in the budget process includes a range of degrees of interaction. For
example, a transparent budget process is one in which citizens’ access to
budgetary information is granted. Consultation goes one step further by
establishing a two-way relationship with citizens, who can provide feedback
to the public body soliciting input from them. Finally, active participation
refers to the case when citizens actively engage in a dialogue with a public
body, which does not necessarily have to initiate the process. A system of
active participation establishes a productive and respectful partnership
between the different parties, although the responsibility for the final
decision rests with the public body involved in the process. In the right
conditions and with proper supports, an inclusive and participative budget
process can produce high-quality outputs for budgeting, thus strengthening
social inclusion, accountability and trust.

Figure 6.1. OECD flowchart of budget transparency

Figure 6.2. OECD flowchart of openness, inclusiveness and participation in budgeting

Budget transparency in Indonesia
Legal framework
The legal framework for budgeting and public financial management
that emerged following the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the transition to
democracy in 1998 comprises relevant laws in the areas of development
planning, budgeting, regional governance, state auditing, fiscal balance and
disclosure of public information. In addition to laws that deal with citizen
engagement and strategic planning more generally (such as Law No.
25/2004 on State Planning, Law No. 23/2014 on Regional Governance and
Law No. 14/2008 on Public Information Openness), the primary legal
documents that govern the budgeting and financial system in Indonesia, as
shown in Table 6.1, include:
Table 6.1. Legal framework for budget transparency and public participation
Law/Regulation Relevance for gender budgeting

Law No. 17/2003 on State Finances This law details the constitutional provisions of the budget process, mandates
specific milestones and dates for the preparation and adoption of the budget,
specifies general principles and authorities for the management and
accountability of state finances and establishes the financial relationship
between the central government and other institutions. As such, this law is the
basis for government regulations that qualify as part of budget transparency
across the budget cycle or during the public finance process.
Minister of Home Affairs regulation No. Together with other ministerial edicts, these guidelines regulate the budget
13/2006 on Guidelines for Management of formulation and adoption of local governments.
Local Finances
Law No. 1/2004 on the State Treasury This law outlines the responsibilities of the Treasury and articulates the
creation of treasurers in government ministries and agencies, together with
general principles on the management and accountability of public funds.
Law No. 33/2004 on the Fiscal Balance This law outlines the responsibility of regional governments for managing their
own public finances, their revenue-raising authority and the system of
transfers from the national government. It replaced an earlier law from 1999.
Law No. 15/2004 on the State Audit This law outlines the operational framework of the Supreme Audit Institution of
the Republic of Indonesia (BPK) and mandates the BPK as a professional and
independent institution required to submit its reports to Parliament.
Law No. 6/2014 – The Village Law These regulations change the legal status of villages by increasing their
(January 2014) and Government authority and responsibility, establishing a new institutional set-up for
Regulation No. 43/2014 on the community development in villages. The law increases direct transfers to the
Implementation of the Village Law (June villages – districts have to transfer 10% of fiscal balance funds to villages,
2014) complemented by an additional 10% arriving from the central government.
Government Regulation No. 60/2014 on These regulations cover the scheme, prioritisation and reporting of funds
Village Grants (July 2014) and received from the national budget.
Government Regulation No. 22/2015 (May
2015)
Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional This law and regulation outline how governance authority is shared between
Governance and Government Regulation the central and local governments.
38/2007

Along with the democratisation process, 2008 marked the adoption of

the Public Information Disclosure Act, which became effective in 2010,
providing a solid basis for budget transparency and paving the way for
public participation in the budgeting process.
The role of Parliament

The enactment of the laws related to the budgetary process were part of
a broader reform agenda, moving away from the budget process being
conducted predominantly by the government toward a system in which the
Parliament is more deeply involved in budget formulation, scrutiny,
approval and oversight. Since these reforms led to the excessive use of
parliamentary time in the detailed scrutiny of the budget, in 2014, the
Constitutional Court withdrew the Parliament’s authority to scrutinise the
budget proposal in such detail, in order to strengthen the strategic input of
the Parliament’s feedback and amendments during the legislative phase of
the budget process. As a result, the role of Parliament in the budgetary
process is evolving, allowing for improved quality outputs and strategic
oversight of the budget.
Linked to the Parliament, the Bureau for Analysis of State Budget and
Annual Budget Implementation (a form of “parliamentary budget office” or
PBO), with a capacity of around 40 people, strengthens the independent
input to macroeconomic forecasts and analysis, and more generally, it
supports the role of the Parliament in the budgeting process. The bureau’s
activities comprise conducting research and producing reports and analyses
that can be requested by the Budget Committee, other committees, members
of Parliament and by the PBO itself on its own initiative. The reports and
analyses produced by the PBO include economic forecasts, baseline
estimates, analysis of the executive’s budget proposals, cost estimates of
proposed policies or legislation, budget options resulting from changes in
spending and taxation, economic impact analysis of regulation, more
extensive economic analysis, tax analysis, policy briefs and medium-term
analysis. The impact of the PBO could be improved by: 1) increasing the
skill profile of experts available to the PBO who can focus effectively on
each area; 2) including long-term sustainability analysis as a distinct
function; and 3) making most of the reports (e.g. those that are requested by
committees and the PBO’s own reports) available to the public.
Aligning budgeting with national planning

Indonesia’s planning framework provides a strong input in strategic
planning and essential background to the budget cycle. The National
Development Planning System (SPPN) has three elements. The National

Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN, the current one running 2005-25)

and the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN, currently
running 2015-19) both lay out the basis for the annual developmental
planning. The annual developmental planning process starts with a first draft
derived from the RPJMN.
The National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), which is
responsible for strategic planning, prepares a draft annual plan at the
beginning of the annual process and makes it available for the Musrenbang
(the Regional Development Planning Consultation, a multi-stakeholder
consultation forum for development planning). Aligning the medium and
annual development plan with the budget policies and the budget draft is a
complex process (depicted in Figure 6.3). Bappenas, the Ministry of
Finance, the different levels of Musrenbang and various stakeholders of the
Regional Level Working Unit (SKPD) forum participate in it. This forum
takes place between the sub-district and local level Musrenbang, with the
participation of all government institutions, including line ministries, civil
society organisations (CSOs) and the delegations elected by sub-district
level of Musrenbang, in order to reach a consensus about the sectoral
priorities and suggestions to be included in the draft annual plan.
Figure 6.3. Links between government developmental planning and budgeting
Source: OECD work based on Fitra data.

Linking the national developmental planning and budgeting process at

every level of government is important to provide a solid foundation for
budget transparency. Together with involving all relevant stakeholders and
ensuring access to information, this integrated approach can help ensure that
the government achieves the best possible outcomes.
Budget formulation
Government policy affecting public expenditure and taxation originates
in the executive branch of government, i.e. the president, prime minister and
cabinet, whereas proposals for new programmes and changes to existing
departmental programmes usually come from ministers. Supporting the
formulation of the budget, models and methodology of macro and fiscal
projections are prepared by the Fiscal Policy Office (FPO) of the MoF with
inputs from Bappenas, central bank, statistics bureau and the Ministry of
Energy. Long-term macroeconomic and fiscal projections span up to five
years and are updated every year. Long-term fiscal projections include
economic growth rate, short-term and long-term interest rates on
government debt, exchange rate, fiscal gap projections, effects of significant
policy reforms (e.g. pensions, health), civil servants’ pension obligations
and unfunded pension liabilities.
Two fiscal rules limit fiscal policy: a budget balance and a debt rule.
The debt rule prescribes that the gross government debt ratio must not
exceed 60%, consistent with the Maastricht Treaty. The total budget deficit
(both central and subnational government) must not exceed 3% of GDP.
Currently, none of the fiscal rules are binding, and according to the long-
term fiscal projection, the goal is to reduce the budget deficit to 1% of GDP
and to reduce the debt to 24% of GDP, with a tax ratio of 16% of GDP by
2019.
Indonesia has a medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) in place,
with MTEF ceilings set for overall expenditures, for programmes and at the
organisational level. The MTEF ceilings have a four-year timespan, revised
annually on a rolling basis. However, there are no commitments made to
guarantee that the MTEF is applied in the budget for the following years;
rather, the MTEF is used as a basis for the indicative budget. According to
the new MTEF instructions effective as of 2017, top-down planning replaces
bottom-up budget planning; i.e. instead of assigning money to functions,
money will be assigned to programmes, allowing for more realistic three-
year forward estimates.
The government imposes budget ceilings on the initial overall spending
requests of the line ministries. The budget circular serves as a guideline for
line ministries’ preparations of budget estimates. It contains a set of rules for

the budget process and the main forms to be used in the submission of
estimates, the macroeconomic assumptions to be used in the budgetary
process, information on government priorities and spending ceilings or
targets. Line ministries’ capital and operating budget requests are integrated.
In case of multi-year capital projects, the budget requests are funded
incrementally each year until the project is completed.
The Judiciary, the Supreme Audit Institute (SAI) and the Legislature
budgets are subject to the same procedures as any other governmental
organisation included in the government’s budget proposal, although they
have more flexibility regarding budget implementation, with more discretion
on allocations and standard costs depending on the nature of the work in
each branch. Loan guarantees, pending lawsuits and unfunded pension
liabilities are considered as contingent liabilities, requiring legislative
authorisation. The produced reports are sometimes publicly available or
available upon request.
Supported by good practices across OECD countries, macro and fiscal
projections are shown to be less biased if produced by independent bodies,
e.g. PBOs or Independent Fiscal Institutions. To improve the information
base of the budget, long-term fiscal projections could cover also migration
flows, demographic changes, health care costs and inter-generational
accounting. Similarly, risks and shocks could be taken into account for
entitlement spending such as personal salaries, health insurance, pension
obligations, office operation, interest repayment and arrears. To ensure the
separation and independence of powers, in many countries, the preparation
of the budget of the Judiciary, SAI and Legislature is not subject to the same
procedures and policies as other governmental bodies and their
independence is granted through the provision of a solid budgetary
background.
Budget cycle
Extending transparency in the legislative phase of the budgetary process,
during budget execution and during auditing can support anti-corruption
efforts, as well as promote evidence-based policy making in priority areas
such as social inclusion, education or health care. Greater transparency
improves public accountability and enhances effectiveness and efficiency
throughout the budget cycle.
Figure 6.4 outlines the budget cycle, encompassing one fiscal year, from
January until December. The process includes planning, drafting, discussing
and adopting a budget at the national level. The fiscal year starts in January.
During the second week of January, the MoF starts preparing
macroeconomic estimates and projections of tax, non-tax, grant and

expenditures categories. The resource envelope/fiscal capacity is discussed

with the line ministries during the second week of February. As mentioned
above, Musrenbang takes place parallel to the budgeting process, from
January until April of the planning year, feeding into the draft annual plan
and then into the budget proposal. In April, indicative budget ceilings are
communicated to line ministries and the line ministries submit draft annual
work plans and budget proposals to the MoF. The government’s work plan
is sent to Parliament for preliminary discussion in May.
In June, the Parliament’s Budget Committee and government officials
form working groups, and this is followed by discussions involving
Parliament’s 11 sectorial commissions. These commissions hold meetings
with the representatives of ministries corresponding to their sector, and at
the end of the preliminary discussions, the Budget Committee takes over to
discuss further the budgetary outline. July marks the issuance of the decree
of the Minister of Finance on the budget ceiling, which is followed by the
submission of the proposed budget and the supporting documentation to the
Parliament in mid-August, when the President delivers his budgetary speech
before the Parliament. From August until October, plenary sessions are held
in the Parliament, and then the budget law is enacted in October/November.
The Citizens’ Budget is published in November. The checklists of budget
implementation (DIPA) for each ministry/public agency are prepared and
sent in December, leading up to the implementation of the budget, which
starts the following year as of 1 January.
During the budget cycle, the MoF is responsible for developing the
Executive Budget Proposal, authorising line ministries’ outlays, producing
supplemental budgets and producing mid-year reports.
The consolidated Mid-Year report is issued in July, and End-Year
reports of public-sector entities are issued in February of the following year.
In April of the following year, the consolidated, central government End-
Year report is issued. The SAI publishes its End-Year audit report in June of
the following year. Parliamentary discussions of End-Year reports begin in
July of the following year.

Figure 6.4. Annual budget cycle of Indonesia1
• Preparation of fiscal capacity

Jan-Mar
• Indicative ceiling set by Ministry of

Apr Finance and Bappenas
• Submission of Macroeconomic Framework

and Fiscal Policy Principles to the House of
May Representatives
• Discussion of preliminary draft

May-Jul budget
• Decree of the Minister of Finance on

Jul budget ceiling
• Speech of President of Finance and

submission of proposed budget
Aug memorandum
• Discussions with Parliament

Aug-Oct
• Plenary session establishment - draft

Oct state budget
• State budget enacted into law

Nov
• Presidential regulation - details of the

Nov budget
• Submission of list of budget

Dec implementation
• Implementation of the budget

• Ministry of Home Affairs regulation
Next Year appears
1. Not including items and events due in year n+1, e.g. the audit of the budget.
Source: OECD work based on Budget Brief 2016,
www.kemenkeu.go.id/Publikasi/informasi-apbn-2016.

Budget deliberation
As part of the budget approval process, the Budget Committee formally
considers budget aggregates and sectoral committees review spending for
sector-specific appropriations. There is a formal debate on overall budgetary
policy following the introduction of the Executive’s budget proposal. The
budget proposal includes the following elements:
• fiscal policy objectives for the medium term
• macroeconomic assumptions
• budget priorities
• comprehensive annual financial plan encompassing all revenues and
expenditures, including off-budget expenditures and extra-budgetary
funds
• comprehensive table of tax expenditures (exemptions, deductions and
credits)
• non-financial performance targets for programmes and/or agencies
• medium-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (possibly in
the form of a medium-term expenditure framework)
• linkage of appropriations to administrative units (e.g. ministry, agency)
• text of legislation for policies proposed in the budget.
The Budget Proposal is comprehensive and is broadly in line with the
OECD recommendations. However, the compliance with the
recommendations could be improved by including some additional
budgetary documents in the Budget Proposal, such as:
• comprehensive annual financial plans encompassing revenues and
expenditures for all levels of government (including regional and local)
• long-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (10 or more
years)
• clearly defined appropriations to be voted by the Legislature.
The Legislature votes first on the total expenditure and holds subsequent
votes on specific appropriations. It may make amendments that do not
change the total deficit/surplus proposed by the Executive; the Parliament
approved 98.8% of spending proposed by the Government of Indonesia for
the financial year 2016. The Parliament has the right to approve the budget;
the GOI does not have the power to veto the approved budget.

Transparency in budget documentation

In the annual budget documentation presented to the Legislature, new
revenue-raising measures and new policies are distinguished from current
commitments (see Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5. Format of the budget

Budget in I format
Revenue
1. Tax revenue
2. Non-tax revenue
3. Grant
Expenditure
1. Central government ministry
2. Non-line ministry
3. Transfer to the regions
4. Village fund
Primary balance
Surplus/deficit budget
Financing
1. Domestic financing
a. Banking
b. Non-banking
2. Foreign financing
a. Gross loan withdrawal
b. On-lending (SLA)
Debt repayment
Source: http://info-anggaran.com/.
Financial liabilities, state and municipal transfers and tax expenditure

with estimates of revenue foregone are part of the budget documentation
approved by the Legislature.
In Indonesia, the following budgetary information is publicly available
through the MoF’s website and through government communiqué:
• methodology and assumptions for establishing fiscal projections used in
the budget
• sensitivity analyses of fiscal and/or macroeconomic models
• budget circular
• executive budget proposal submitted to the Legislature
• fiscal policy objectives for the medium term


expenditures, including off-budget expenditures and extra-budgetary
funds
• medium-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (possibly in
the form of a medium-term expenditure framework)
• budget approved by the Legislature
• citizens’ budget and guide (explaining the budgetary process and actors
involved).
Notably, the Citizens’ Budget and other citizens’ guides such as the
Citizen’s Audit Report play a key role in informing the public about what
can often be opaque and technical topics.
In 2012, 16 OECD members reported preparing citizens’ budgets (see
Figure 6.6). Indonesia has produced informative, reliable and
understandable citizens’ budget documents in recent years as well. It is
important to note that timeliness is a crucial element of publishing citizens’
guides and budgets, as publishing them early enough in the budget cycle can
help enable citizens to develop informed opinions. In turn, this can engage
more citizens throughout the budgeting process, potentially leading to
greater inclusiveness.
Budgetary information encompasses a large number of areas in
Indonesia. The content and the timing of some budget documents and other
specific disclosures could be improved. The GOI could also increase budget
transparency by providing:
• independent reviews/analysis of macroeconomic and/or fiscal
assumptions
• underlying data and methodology related to the (macro) economic
assumptions
• Pre-Budget Report to the Legislature
• the main figures of the Pre-Budget Statement in advance of the
submission of the actual Budget Proposal
expenditures for all levels of government (including regional and local)
• the long-term perspective on total revenue and expenditure (10 or more
years).

Figure 6.6. Use of citizens’ budgets in OECD countries in 2012
Countries
without
Countries citizens'
with budgets (18)
citizens'
budgets
(16)
United Kingdom
Source: 2012 OECD Survey on Budgeting Practices and Procedures.
In 2015, a new financial management information system (SPAN) was

launched by the Ministry of Finance of Indonesia with the goal of improving
transparency, efficiency and accountability. The system serves as a
centralised and integrated database of government financial transactions,
providing accounting and reporting systems for budget execution in real
time. As a tool for budget execution, it is appropriate for managing budget
allocations, expenditure commitments and spending limits, i.e. providing
comprehensive and timely information on the government’s financial
position. With the improvement of public financial management, planning,
decision making and resource allocation can all become more efficient.
Aggregated budget data provide useful information on budget
allocations, realisation of expenditures per financial sector unit, transfers
from central to local levels of government, etc. However, detailed
information on each of these areas (concerning the recipients, where and
how exactly budget allocations are spent, etc.) is not available. Publishing
relevant, detailed and timely budget data on a single website of the Ministry
of Finance would improve the quality and quantity of data and information

accessible to the public throughout the budget cycle. Continuing joint efforts
of the MoF and CSOs regarding open budget data would involve developing
an improved web-based solution to publish budget data in machine-readable
and user-friendly format on both central and local government levels.
While the Ministry of Finance has decided to make aggregated budget
data accessible at its official website2, other public agencies, such as line
ministries, committees or local governments, decide independently whether
to follow this practice. These public bodies are themselves users of budget
and other financial management data through the SPAN system, and in some
cases, detailed data are accessible through their websites. During the
parliamentary budget approval process, access to information could be
improved by introducing mandatory publication of minutes of meetings in
committees and making the decisions taken at the meetings available to the
public.
On the other hand, several good solutions are taking shape across
Indonesia, and among these local initiatives, we find good practices that are
potentially scalable. In Jakarta Province and Bojonegoro District, for
example, the local governments have initiated the establishment of open
budget data portals that link and use budget data as well as financial data of
the Ministry of Finance (see Box. 6.1).
Executive-led participation
The MoF holds public consultations and hearings on the budget prior to
approval by the Legislature, while line ministries do not hold public
consultations. The call for public hearings is published on the government’s
website, in social media and by direct invitation. Making public
consultations and public hearings a regular and recurring part of the budget
formulation and approval processes would support a realistic debate on the
trade-offs of the budget, and it has the potential to increase the credibility
and trust in government.
Budget execution and re-allocations

Limited re-allocation of funds is possible within the same
programme/activity without compromising the output target of a line
ministry, although line ministers need ex-ante approval of both the MoF and
Parliament to re-allocate funds within or between activities/programmes.
Borrowing against future appropriations is not possible (i.e. line ministries
and agencies cannot overspend in one year to cover operating and
investment expenditures and compensate for it in the next year).

In Indonesia, budget appropriations are often not exhausted by the end

of the financial year. Together with the application of a programme and
performance-based approach, this suggests the need for increasing the
flexibility of re-allocating funds within or between activities and
programmes.
Public participation in budgeting in Indonesia
Indonesia’s public finances include elements of public participation,

although participation in national development planning is at a more
advanced stage than participation in the budget cycle. Parliamentary
engagement in budget deliberations is in line with the OECD
recommendations, although public involvement is limited. The situation is
similar concerning public participation in budget implementation and
auditing.
This section first discusses the Musrenbang regional public consultation
forum for development planning, an existing form of public participation in
Indonesia that is related to the annual development planning process. In
connection with the newly enacted Village Law, this section then presents
the nascent system of participatory village planning, implementation and
oversight. This is followed by a case study of a district government
successfully implementing open and participative budgeting, as well as the
participative elements of Indonesia’s Gender Budgeting framework.
Thereafter, the section touches on budget phases lacking a significant level
of public involvement and presents good practices distilled mostly from
other countries’ experiences. The section concludes with a few suggestions
on how to increase citizen involvement throughout the budgeting process.
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the National Long-Term Development
Plan (RPJPN, the current one running 2005-25) and the National Medium-
Term Development Plan (RPJMN, currently running 2015-19) both lay out
the basis for the annual developmental planning and provide essential
background to the budget process.
The annual developmental planning process starts with a first draft
derived from the RPJMN. Bappenas, which is responsible for the strategic
planning, prepares a draft annual plan at the beginning of the annual process
and makes it available for the Musrenbang (the multi-stakeholder
consultation for development planning). The Musrenbang process has a long
track record, although it still has the potential to further increase civic
involvement and social inclusiveness. Every year, from January until March
(parallel to the start of the budgeting process), Musrenbang meetings take
place, starting on the village level, continuing on the sub-district then on the
local level (see Figure 6.7). The top row of the figure identifies the

participants of the corresponding level of Musrenbang/forum, whereas the

bottom row outlines the results and outputs of the actions taken.
Figure 6.7. Institutionalisation of participatory planning
After a reform on village funds implemented nationwide in 2015, the

decision to prioritise and spend village-level budget appropriations is
directly in the hands of the village assemblies (Musyarawarah Desa). The
Village Law is mainstreaming the National Program on Citizen’s
Empowerment (PNPM), a successful national programme for community
empowerment run for 15 years that combined poverty reduction efforts with
social accountability mechanisms. The Village Law re-allocated
expenditures so that direct transfers received by the villages will be
composed of 10% of districts’ fiscal balance funds, complemented by an
additional 10% from the central government. The 10% transferred from the
districts will be reached gradually over three years by 2017, increasing by
three percentage points each year (see 2015 and 2016 in Figure 6.8.).

Figure 6.8. Transfers to regional development and village funds, 2005-16

Balance fund Special Autonomy Fund Other Transfer Funds Dana Privileges DIY Village fund Regional Incentive Fund
Trillion IDR
800
700.4
700
600 516.4
477.1
500 411.3 430.4
400 316.7
347.2
278.7 287.3
300 222.1 244
200 143.2
80.1 104.4
57.4 69.3
100 1.8 5.5
53.7
13.40.1 16.10.4
47
17.1 20.8 17.20.5 5
3.5 0.6 4 5.3 7.5 6.2 9.5 11.8 9.1 18.9 10.4 12
0.5
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 APBNP APBN
2015 2016
Note: 2015 and 2016 values are estimates taken from the corresponding budget documents.
Sources: OECD work based on Budget Brief 2016, www.kemenkeu.go.id/Publikasi/informasi-apbn-
2016.
The village planning and budgeting process has to reflect the diversity
of the local community and include representatives of marginalised people,
women’s groups, religious leaders, farmers and fishermen. In order to
strengthen inclusive governance for marginalised groups (such as people
with disabilities, religious minorities and vulnerable youth), a group of
facilitators runs a social inclusion initiative. In this programme, local CSO
representatives receive training on how to bring the needs of marginalised
groups from the village to the district level as well as how to identify their
needs.
There is great potential in the village funds initiative with respect to
inclusive and participative budgeting. However, since the Village Law does
not regulate village financial management as a whole, it must be
complemented by arrangements to ensure accountability, including the
increase of local government oversight and co-ordination capacities. In the
first years of implementation, it is crucial to monitor and analyse outcomes
and include corrective mechanisms wherever necessary. Assistance provided
by village facilitators, socialisation and training are critical to building up
the necessary skills and good practices at the village level.
There is scope to increase further the inclusiveness of both the
Musrenbang and the village funding mechanisms by eliminating obstacles
facing certain sub-groups that may impede their participation in the public
consultation. Work is already under way within the GOI and the Parliament

to address perceived issues in the national consultative framework. These

initiatives include greater openness to the views of local representatives on
how resources are applied in their areas. A deeper impact could be achieved
through targeted training for local officials and citizens, leading to proposals
that fit local needs better and complement national development
programmes. Assisting certain sub-groups of the society (such as parents at
home and citizens with disabilities) that face difficulties in attending
meetings would promote the representative quality. Improving Internet
access in rural areas as well as applying web-based solutions would also
contribute to more active participation and inclusiveness.
Participation throughout the stages of the budgeting cycle is more
limited than during the development planning process. Good practices for
participative budgeting exist on the local level in Indonesia (see Box 6.1),
which may be applied more broadly after adapting them to local needs and
circumstances. In Indonesia, the Ministry of Finance sometimes holds public
hearings on the budget prior to approval by the Legislature. Building on the
leading role of the Indonesian MoF regarding budget transparency efforts,
Executive-led participation processes could be an option to consider for
budget implementation.
Box 6.1. Interaction of open and active participative budgeting

in Bojonegoro District
The Bojonegoro District government is among the pioneers in developing both

open budget data as well as ongoing, active public participation practices in
policy making, budgeting and public finance management. In order to implement
the agenda of public dialogue and to provide access to information in budgeting,
Bojonegoro District has applied a multi-faceted approach.
Specifically, the approach is to provide open budget information on multiple
websites in areas such as budget management and disbursement orders, and to
combine budget data from the national, province and local level to facilitate
analysis and to encourage involvement of the stakeholders throughout the district.
Public engagement on budgetary issues is fostered by the use of a direct and
in-person consultation opportunity every week at the Malowopati pavilion, as
well as via the submission of ideas or complaints using one of the numerous
facilities integrated with the LAPOR online service (including text messages to
the Malowopati radio programme, complaint boxes, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc.). To
ensure availability for people living in particularly remote or difficult-to-access
areas, off-road motorbikes are used to visit these villages and listen to public
opinion.

Box 6.1. Interaction of open and active participative budgeting

in Bojonegoro District (continued)
Apart from providing information, open budgeting and open information on

policy making have various positive impacts. Reliable and up-to-date information
on budgets can help encourage active participation in decision making and
increase trust in governance. It may also lead to fewer mass demonstrations, more
efficient and effective local governance, and increased user satisfaction.
During the implementation of public participation in budgeting, Bojonegoro
District overcame a number of challenges, which may provide lessons for similar
programmes across the country, including: 1) geographic conditions, i.e.
mountainous regions that make it difficult to provide Internet access; 2) limited
human resources with IT skills; and 3) coping with changes for public servants.
Source: OECD Questionnaire on Good practices in Public financial management with a
focus on budget transparency submitted by Regency of Bojonegoro.
International examples demonstrate participative budgeting practices at

different entry points of the budget cycle. Notably, in a number of countries,
parliaments use their functions of passing legislation and providing
oversight to engage citizens in the corresponding phases of the budgeting
cycle. Key mechanisms include public committee hearings and asking for
public input. Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom issue press
releases to invite citizens to contribute. CSOs use additional tools such as
focus groups, consultations and web-based outreach to expand public input.
The Korean Special Committee on Budgets (SCB) invites a pre-selected
group of specialists (to ensure diversity of expertise) to a publicly
broadcasted hearing, evaluating economic and tax forecasts, fiscal position
and expenditure programmes. If necessary, the SCB then requests a query
session with the government to make adjustments. One of the benefits of
this system is its ability to disaggregate the budget and to focus on its key
elements separately. Similarly, Indonesia could strengthen public
participation by involving both the PBO and civil society in the legislative
phase.
Civil society could also have an enhanced role in the legislative phase
by having the right to submit alternatives to the proposed budget. In the
Philippines, for example, accredited CSOs are involved as an intermediary
in the legislative phase. Apart from being notified regarding hearings,
consultations and calls for written submissions, accredited CSOs can submit
budget proposals and alternatives to the proposed budget. They also have

access to data from the parliament, national government offices and local
government units.
In the implementation phase, CSOs can provide citizen monitoring of
ministries. One way of doing that is by having CSOs submit their reports to
parliamentary committees that can question policy decisions on a real-time
basis. If necessary, implementation can be adjusted mid-course in order to
meet the objectives of the budget.
Executive-led participatory processes can also play an important role.
To ensure value for money in budgeting in Indonesia, the government could
use LAPOR to collect suggestions and complaints related to the budget
process. For its part, the Korean government created a Budget Waste
Reporting Centre to allow citizens to report on inefficiencies experienced
during budget implementation. This centre has high a capacity since its staff
consists of retired budget officials who can send waste cases to relevant
units and otherwise respond to calls efficiently. Also, the Korean Budget
Office held a pilot competition on project ideas in 2012 that was publicised
nationwide. Suggestions were transferred to the related agencies and
checked for feasibility and the best ones were selected to be included in the
budget.
Gender budgeting
The gender perspective has become increasingly integrated into policy
planning and implementation starting from the 2000s in Indonesia (see
Table 6.2 for the primary legal documents related to budgeting). During this
period, the Gender Responsive Budget (GRB) and the National Programme
on Citizens’ Empowerment (PNPM) were introduced. GRB focuses on the
output of its activities that are incorporated into the budgeting system.
Budgets are allocated to meet gender-responsive objectives, not as
earmarked allocations for women and men separately.
The Indonesian Gender Mainstreaming Programme refers to:
1) consulting and training for the improvement of women’s position in
health, education, politics, leadership and poverty, as well as for the
reduction of violence against women; and 2) capacity building and skills
enhancement on in women empowerment. The idea is to involve key
stakeholders such as civil society, labour unions, academics and government
representatives from all levels to build co-operation, management and
accounting skills. This programme has been implemented in seven line
ministries as pilot projects since 2009, including the Ministry of Finance.

Table 6.2. Legal framework for gender budgeting and participation

in Indonesia
Law/Regulation Relevance for gender budgeting

Presidential Instruction 9/2000 Gender mainstreaming in planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation for national and subnational
governments
Law 17/2003 on National Public Performance-based budgeting
Finance
Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Empowerment of women is one of the obligatory functions
Governance for subnational governments
Government Regulation 38/2007 on Empowerment of women is one of the obligatory functions
Division of Functions between for subnational governments
national and subnational
governments
Presidential Regulation 5/2010 on Gender mainstreaming is one of the instruments in
Mid-term National Development development policy
Planning (RPJMN 2010-14)
Ministry of Finance Decree on Implementation of gender mainstreaming via gender-based
Guidance for Annual Working Plan budgeting
and Budget since 2009
(the latest: #93/2011)
The MoF has started implementation with a pilot programme within the
ministry. Key priorities and achievements include introducing gender
mainstreaming among the topics of leadership training; the improvement of
facilities, including nursery rooms and childcare facilities; ensuring equal
treatment on training and scholarships; and offering maternity leave.
Indonesia has also integrated the gender perspective into both
developmental planning and budgeting. Gender Responsive Planning (GRP)
feeds into GRB, in which allocations for programme activities are
determined. Gender policies feature in long-term, mid-term and annual
developmental planning, followed by the annual working plan and the
budget.
Gender participation in budgeting is critical to cope with the challenges
posed by the diverse cultural and traditional backgrounds in different
regions. In Indonesia, CSOs are therefore actively promoting gender
equality on both the national and local level. Nevertheless, gender
participation depends on a regulatory framework and the implementation of
mainstreaming to build on the active involvement of stakeholders. The
primary issues raised are the provision of job opportunities, as well as equal
access to education and health services. Female labour force participation is
still low, albeit increasing, and the female share of formal employment is
still lower than that of males.

Women’s participation in land and forest governance

Women in Indonesia are often more adversely affected by de-forestation
and extractive industry expansion, yet women’s participation is very low in
forest and land governance. Their traditional role within the community
cannot be sustained with the deterioration of farming conditions due to
displacement, loss of land and environmental impacts that result in increased
dependence on men and the undermining of women’s productive and
leadership roles. Women’s advocacy and participation in decision making
and budgeting can mitigate these effects; however, complex solutions are
needed that take into account ethnic diversity, offer training and formal
employment, and allow for the sustainable production of non-timber forest
products.
Enhancing women’s participation in decision-making committees in
community forest institutions improves forest and land resource governance
and resource allocation, with a positive impact also on the sustainability of
forest and land resources (Agarwal, 2009). Additionally, Manfre and Rubin
(2012) demonstrate that, during the de-centralisation process, women’s
participation in forest governance mitigated the elites’ capability of
capturing benefits and lead to improved access to budgeting processes on
the district level. These findings point out that both budget transparency and
public participation in budgeting can be promoted by increasing women’s
participation in decision-making processes and natural resource
management, in particular on the local level.
Compared with other sectors such as health, education or infrastructure,
land and forest governance scores poorly regarding performance. A case
study of nine districts (Land and Forest Governance Index, 2013) has found
that the transparency of and participation in land and forest governance
(including budget planning) are poor, with considerable dispersion (see
Figure 6.9). It is clear from such results that participation in general is very
poor, let alone women’s participation.

Figure 6.9. Land and forest governance index in selected districts 2012
Transparency Index Participation Index

North Kayong 2.1 Berau 5
Berau 7.07 Bulungan 6.7
Paser 7.68 North Kayong 9.2
Sintang 11.4 Sintang 12.6
Banyuasin 11.7 Muba 13.9
Kubu Raya 14.34 Kubu Raya 20.1
Mura 14.67 Mura 21.8
Bulungan 16.01 Banyuasin 23.9
Muba 17.17 Paser 26.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Index Index
Source: OECD work based on Land and Forest Governance Index - The Performance of District
Governments in Land and Forest Governance in Indonesia, 2013.
In Indonesia, environmental CSOs play an important role in addressing

gendered impacts and injustice, and these organisations are necessary to
ensure that the most vulnerable actors will benefit from forest and land
governance. Various tools are used for understanding gendered impacts of
land-based industry developments such as gender impact assessment and
collection of sex disaggregated data, which in turn are combined with
ethnographic research approaches and social analysis.
Strengthening the capacity of campaigners is crucial for the
improvement of women’s access and participation in local decision-making
processes, which can ensure the resolution of conflicts falling under the
themes of gender budgeting and environmental sustainability in forest
governance. Building on inter-sectoral interests, cross-sectoral co-ordination
mechanisms could be strengthened, along with the capacity building and the
improvement of access to information and the provision of opportunities for
community participation.
Budgeting at subnational levels of government

Currently, the central government, provinces, district/city governments
and villages all have budget authority, and Minister of Home Affairs
Regulation No. 13/2006 concerning “Guidelines for Management of Local
Finances” establishes the procedures for formulating and adopting local
government budgets (see Table 6.3 for the key local government budget
documents).

Table 6.3. Key local government budgetary documentation
Planning phase Discussion phase Implementation phase Accountability phase
o Local government o General o Local regulation o Report on first

work plans (RKPD) Budget adopting local semester
o Sectoral work plans of Policies (KUA) budget (APBD) budget
local government and o Local head of outcomes
working provisional government o Local regulation
units/departments budget (HoG) regulation on
(SKPDs) – three priorities and outlining details accountability
sectors: health, ceilings of APBD of APBD
education, public (PPAS) o Budget implementation
works o Budget and implementation o Information on
work plans of checklist (DPA) report on
each local for each local implementation
SKPD SKPD of local
o Sectoral Budget governance
Implementation (ILPPD)
Document (three o Reports on
sectors: health, implementation
education and of local
public works) governance
o Local (LPPD)
government o Local
regulation government
adopting revised accountability
local budget report (LKPJ)
(APBD-P)
o Local HoG
regulation
providing details
of APBD-P
Source: Fitra.
Processes at the local level mirror budget processes on the state level.
Most of the budget documents are not available for the public automatically,
although data requests can be submitted. Ensuring that the implementation
of the budget is followed by the various stakeholders and that their oversight
is granted by using open budget data at the local and national level could
strengthen social accountability and complement the oversight provided by
the corresponding levels of government.
Indonesia faces distinct and far-reaching challenges in public
governance arising from the geographical and cultural diversity of the
country. In meeting these challenges, the GOI has pursued a policy of de-
centralisation and de-concentration. The budgetary aspects of this approach
are still in development.

On average, 80% of the budget of districts comes as transfer

(Figure 6.10). Provinces have bigger taxing power than districts/cities. At
the same time, most of human resources are employed at the state and
district level, so this leads to using more than 70% of fiscal transfers for
personnel expenditures (Figure 6.11). Fiscal transfers take into account
regional imbalances, although per capita imbalances are significant.
Figure 6.10. Composition of revenue on subnational levels of government, 2008-12
Own source revenue Fiscal transfer Other revenue

%
100
9 11 13 11 12 10 11 10 10
90 14 14 18 16 16 20
80
70 44 43 42 40
60 34
50 85 77 74 67 66
83 80 80 82 69
40
30
46 46 49 50 46
20
10 17 18
12 12 13
6 6 6 7 7
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
District Average City Average Provincial Average
Figure 6.11. Composition of expenditure on subnational levels of government, 2008-12
Personnel Good and Services Capital Other

%
100
9 9 10 8 8 7 4 7 7 5
90
26 29 28
24 24 19 20 21 32
80 26 21 23 25 37
29
70
19 20 21 24
60 16 18 18 22 23 21
18 19 21
17 18
50
40 26
21 26 24
30 24
53 51 51 55 53 52
45 47 49 49
20
10 25 24 24 25 20
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
District Average City Average Provincial Average

The Musrenbang process could also be improved by providing access to

information about indicative ceilings and programme priorities in a timely
manner to inform stakeholders. The central government could also
contribute to capacity development of district governments to support their
oversight capacity to monitor the implementation of village funds.
Recommendations
• Improve the quality and quantity of data and information accessible to

the public throughout the budget cycle.
− Continue joint efforts of the MoF and CSOs in building on earlier
initiatives regarding the accessibility of budget data, in line with the
plan of the GOI to apply open data principles to budgeting. The
improved web-based solution aims to provide open budget data on
both central and local government levels using one platform,
meeting the needs of the various stakeholders.
− Improve access to information about indicative ceilings and
programme priorities in a timely manner to inform stakeholders of
the Musrenbang process.
− During the parliamentary budget approval process, make the
working sessions of the committees transparent, including the
mandatory publication of minutes of meetings, data and decisions
taken.
• Strengthen public participation in the budget cycle.
− Increase the co-operation between the PBO and civil society
organisations, for example by providing opportunities to comment
on the economic forecasts.
− Improve the representativeness and inclusiveness of Musrenbang.
− Make public consultations and public hearings a regular and
recurring part of the budget formulation and approval processes.
Specifically, this could include granting public access to the
submission of budget and other budget-related meetings of the
Parliament.
− Invite external stakeholders to participate in the discussions of the
Budget Committee by allowing them to contribute to the draft of the
budget proposal at each stage and otherwise comment on the records
of the proceedings.

− Allow, through a regulated mechanism, for accredited/pre-selected

CSOs to submit alternative suggestions to the budget.
− During the parliamentary budget approval process, make the
sessions of the committees open to the public.
• Improve the content and the timing of the budget documents.
− Make available the main figures of the Pre-Budget Statement in
advance of the submission of the actual Budget Proposal. This
would facilitate stakeholders in engaging in a realistic and
constructive debate.
− Publish the Citizens’ Budget as early as possible so that it can
engage more citizens throughout the budgeting process, potentially
leading to greater inclusiveness in determining budget priorities.
• Improve the monitoring and oversight of village funds, involving social
monitoring as well as district-level oversight mechanisms.
• Open the audit process to public engagement through regular reporting
of audit results and soliciting the views of stakeholders on the quality
and impacts of public spending. This would enhance confidence in the
integrity and efficacy of public financial management.
• Use the momentum of trust in local governments and their adaptability
for speeding up the transition toward open budgeting and governance.
− Promote the development of a standardised framework of solutions
facilitating and enabling the dissemination of innovations and best
practices.
− Strengthen the monitoring of local government by encouraging the
participation of local stakeholders.
• Promote the internalisation of certain principles for public servants.
Instead of minimising risk-taking by, for example, not spending budget
appropriations, governments should adopt a practice of gradual
experimentation with a view to arriving at optimal solutions.
• Continue efforts to implement participative gender budgeting and other
thematic approaches to the budget.

Notes
1. See Law number 25 of 2004.

2. www.kemenkeu.go.id.
References
Agarwal, B (2009), ‘Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s

participation in community forest governance’, Ecological Economics
vol. 68, pp. 2785–2799.
Anggriani, N. (2016), Indonesia’s Village Law: A Step Toward Inclusive
Governance, 17 February, Asia Foundation, http://asiafoundation.org/in-
asia/2016/02/17/indonesias-village-law-a-step-toward-inclusive-
governance/.
The Asia Foundation (2012), Gender in Indonesia,
https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/IDgender.pdf.
Australian Aid (2012), Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Pro-poor
Policy: The Knowledge Sector Initiative, Design Document,
https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/indo-ks-design.pdf.
Blöndal, J. et al. (2009), “Budgeting in Indonesia”, OECD Journal on
Budgeting, Vol. 2009/2, www.oecd.org/indonesia/45362389.pdf.
Farhan, Y. (2013), Participatory Planning and Budgeting in Indonesia,
Bonn Symposium, 28-29 November, www.sef-
bonn.org/fileadmin/Die_SEF/Veranstaltungen/BoSy/2013_bosy_farhan_
presentation_en.pdf.

Hadi, S. (2015), The Role of CDD and Village Law in Promoting Village
Development and Community Empowerment in Indonesia: Best-Practice,
Mainstreaming, Implications, Implementation, and Challenges, Asia
Regional Conference on Community Driven Development Cebu,
Philippines, 25 March.
House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (n.d.),
www.dpr.go.id/en/akd/komisi.
IMF (2010), Indonesia: Report on the Observance of Standards and Codes –
Fiscal Transparency Module – Update, IMF Country Report No. 10/342,
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10342.pdf.
Indonesian Forum for Budget Transparency (2014-2015), Website
Development: (info-budget.com), http://info-anggaran.com/,
www.seatti.org/index.php/partner/68-sekretariat-nasional-forum-
indonesia-untuk-transparansi-anggaran-indonesian-forum-for-budget-
transparency.html.
H.E. Muhammad Jusuf Kalla (2015), Vice President of the Republic of
Indonesia, Global Leaders’ Meeting on Gender Equality and Women’s
Empowerment: A Commitment to Action, New York, 27 September,
www2.unwomen.org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/initiatives/
stepitup/commitments-speeches/indonesia-stepitup-commitmentspeech-
201509-en.pdf?v=1&d=20150928T213346.
Manfre, C. and Rubin, D. (2012), Integrating gender into forestry research:
a guide for CIFOR scientists and programme administrators, CIFOR,
Bogor, Indonesia.
Marchessault, L. (2015), Public participation and the budget cycle: lessons
from country examples, Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency,
www.fiscaltransparency.net/resourcesfiles/files/20151116137.pdf.
Ministry of Finance – Republic of Indonesia (n.d.), Launch of Treasury
System and the State Budget (SPAN) and Guidance to the declaration of
taxpayer (2015), www.kemenkeu.go.id/en/node/45607.
Ministry of Finance – Republic of Indonesia (2016), Budget Brief 2016,
www.kemenkeu.go.id/Publikasi/informasi-apbn-2016.
Ministry of Finance – Republic of Indonesia (n.d.), Budget data,
www.kemenkeu.go.id/en/katalogdata.

OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance,

OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/
Recommendation-of-the-Council-on-Budgetary-Governance.pdf.
OECD (2012), Budget Practices and Procedures Survey for Asian Countries.
OECD (2005), Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/
4205101e.pdf.
OECD (2002), OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency, OECD
Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/Best%20Practices%20Budget%20Transpa
rency%20-%20complete%20with%20cover%20page.pdf.
OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners : OECD Handbook on Information,
Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, OECD
Petrie, M. and Shields, J. (2010), “Producing a Citizens’ Guide to the
Budget: Why, What and How?” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol.
2010/2.
Rahman, Y. et al, The Asia Foundation (2014), Land and Forest
Governance Index: The Performance of Local Governments in Land and
Forest Governance in Indonesia,
https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/LandandForestGovernanceInde
x.pdf.
Regency of Bojonegoro, Province of East Java (2015), Implementation of
Public Dialogue and Open Public Information; Integrated Public
Aspiration System with Online Public Aspiration Service, (mimeo).
Sinergantara (2014), Open Data Initiative of Ministry of Finance – on
National Budget Transparency in Indonesia,
www.opendataresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/Open%20Data
%20Initiative%20of%20Ministry%20of%20Finance%20on%20National
%20Budget%20Transparency%20in%20Indonesia.pdf.
World Bank (2015), Indonesia: Centralized Database of Government
Financial Transactions Improves Budget Spending and Accountability,
Press Release, www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2015/11/11/indonesia-centralized-database-of-government-
financial-transactions-improves-budget-spending-and-accountability.
World Bank (2015), Indonesia: New financial management information

system at Finance Ministry to improve transparency, efficiency and

accountability, Press Release, www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-

release/2015/04/29/new-financial-management-information-system-at-
finance-ministry-to-improve-transparency-efficiency-and-accountability.
World Bank (n.d.), A1.35. Working with the Legislature to Promote Budget
Transparency, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1193949504055/4348035-
1380737852287/EAP.pdf.
World Bank (n.d.), A1.36. Using Budgets to Advocate for Expanding Health
Security for the Disabled, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-
1193949504055/4348035-1380737852287/EAP.pdf.
World Bank (n.d.), A1.37. Improving Websites of Targeted Ministries to
Increase Public Knowledge of Government Spending,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Reso
urces/244362-1193949504055/4348035-1380737852287/EAP.pdf.
World Bank Group (2015), Indonesia Country Summary Brief – Village
Law, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTCDD/Resources/430160-
1435154813801/Indonesia_Country_Brief.pdf.

7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA– 271
Chapter 7
Public-sector innovation in Indonesia
This chapter provides an overview of how the Government of Indonesia has

used innovative approaches and tools to help drive open government
reforms. It broadly defines public-sector innovation and lays out some of the
challenges and barriers facing governments in their efforts to pursue
innovation. The chapter also discusses the institutional framework that
supports innovation in Indonesia, provides an overview of successful public-
sector innovation practices in Indonesia and suggests how the country might
build on them as it expands its open government reforms.

272 – 7. PUBLIC-SECTOR INNOVATION IN INDONESIA
Introduction
Innovation in the public sector is about getting the most out of the
resources and capacities invested in the public sector in order to deliver on
the promise of better outcomes for all. It goes beyond just improving the
direct performance or output of the organisation itself, and includes actions
to strengthen the capacity of citizens, businesses and other public-sector
institutions to become agents of change. Innovating means finding ways to
enhance trust in government and confidence in public services in an effort to
attain wider legitimacy of policy results by involving citizens and the third
sector in the innovation process, and these core principles of innovation are
supported by the Open Government Partnership.
The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) has been
engaged in systematic collection of data and analysis of government
innovation in order to better understand the role of innovation in promoting
transparency and reforms, making governments more inclusive and open
and restoring citizen trust in governments and market institutions (Box 7.1).
Beyond collecting instances of innovations, the Observatory has fostered the
creation of a community of practice of innovators who gather together,
exchange ideas and discuss how to work differently.
Box 7.1. The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI)
Launched in 2014, the OPSI platform (www.oecd.org/governance/

observatory-public-sector-innovation/home/) includes a database of 282
innovations from 37 countries, including Indonesia.
The database of innovations includes a description of the innovation, the
results, the development process, and lessons learned. By providing a consistent
and clear structure for presenting innovations, the database provides a useful
platform for comparisons and knowledge sharing. Cases can also be sorted by,
among other variables, level of government; sector; year of launch; type of
innovation (including digital, organisational design, etc.); and implementation
and development partners.
In addition to the case list, the OPSI also provides a library with relevant
research on public-sector innovation from a range of sources, including the
OECD, national governments, academia and research institutions, as well as
information on upcoming events and articles posted by internationally recognised
experts.
Source: OPSI.

While there is not an established definition of public-sector innovation,

the work of the Observatory has identified common elements that help
clarify some of its key characteristics:
1. Novelty – an innovation must be either new to the organisation or a
significant improvement on an existing practice.
2. Implementation – an innovation must be implemented and not just an
idea.
3. Impact – an innovation must specifically aim to improve public
results, such as efficiency, effectiveness, or user or employee
satisfaction.
Innovation is widespread within and across levels of government;
however, the policy framework supporting public-sector innovation is still
fragmented. The OECD has recognised the instrumental role that effective
co-ordination of public-sector innovation efforts play in overcoming
fragmentation and “silos”; ensuring replicability and transferability of
experience across departments and agencies; and enabling top-down and
bottom-up dissemination of innovative ideas – not least from frontline staff.
In OECD countries, there is no single model for co-ordinating and
supporting public-sector innovation efforts. Countries have adopted different
solutions depending on their institutional circumstances, degree of
decentralisation of governing functions and formal allocation of public-
sector reform portfolios.
Regarding the link between innovation and open government, it is
important to note that the OGP Open Government Declaration commits
countries to “engaging civil society and the business community to identify
effective practices and innovative approaches,” as well as to “fostering
innovation and spurring progress.” 1 Furthermore, as noted in the OECD’s
theory of change, used to frame its analysis of open government reforms
(see Figure 1.13 in Chapter 1), innovation is one of the policy catalysts that
help drive successful change. If appropriately applied, innovation can
increase the openness of government, the impact of policy reforms and the
reach of government initiatives. By enhancing the involvement on the part
of citizens, businesses, public officials and civil society, innovation can
directly support open government principles.
This chapter explores how the Government of Indonesia has developed
innovative approaches and tools with a focus on enhancing transparency and
quality of public service delivery. It will provide examples of innovative
solutions in the Indonesian public sector and discuss the policy and legal
environment supporting innovation efforts in the country. The chapter will
place these efforts in the context of past and current administrative reforms

in the country and of current public-sector innovation trends in OECD

countries.
Institutional framework to support innovation in Indonesia
In many countries, innovations in service delivery have targeted efforts

to increase the access, quality and transparency of services, and to
strengthen new forms of collaboration with actors from across society in the
co-design and co-creation of innovative solutions. Similar to other countries,
these efforts in Indonesia have been the fruit of a combined process of
gradual adaptation and of accelerated development of new solutions tailored
to the country’s administrative context and needs. While progressing in its
reform agenda, Indonesia is facing the challenge of strengthening the
institutional capacity of public-sector organisations to learn from and
replicate international good practice while developing their own innovative
solutions based on their own needs.
Interviews held during the peer review mission indicated that there is
not a common understanding as to what constitutes public-sector innovation
across the various parts of the national government. The notion of an
innovation policy is often associated with other public-sector reform
agendas (e.g. see Chapter 5 on digital government). Similar to many OECD
countries, Indonesia does not have a stand-alone whole-of-government
policy on fostering innovation in the public sector. This is consistent with
OECD country practices, where few countries have developed overarching
strategies for innovation in the public sector or provided details on
co-ordinated action to generate and sustain innovation (see Box 7.2 for
examples from OECD countries of governments that have thought
strategically about their support for public-sector innovation). Public-sector
innovation tends to exist as part of the body of practice of governments,
often with a low degree of institutionalisation within budget plans and
procedures.

Box 7.2. Examples of dedicated strategies to support innovation
The following cases highlight examples from OECD countries of efforts made
to develop policies and frameworks for supporting public-sector innovation.
Finland has long taken a strategic approach to innovation, focusing on the
private sector and on new technology, to build economic capacity and growth. In
2008, it developed a national innovation strategy that moves beyond existing
technological models of innovation and gives greater importance to the role of the
public sector itself as an innovator. The strategy identified the need to enhance
the innovation capacity of the public sector and to incentivise significant change
and promote risk taking.
In Australia, the public-sector innovation policy landscape builds on
longstanding efforts undertaken by the Australian government to build a
framework for embedding innovation in its work and achieving better outcomes.
In 2009, the report Empowering Change: Fostering Innovation in the Australian
Public Service looked at the ‘state of play’ for innovation in Australia and
identified barriers that public servants face when innovating. The report looked at
the sources of innovation and at the actors who can help design, implement and
deliver change. It outlines what agencies, team, and individuals can do to foster
innovation. The report made twelve recommendations grouped into the following
five themes: strategy and culture; leadership; systemic/structural issues;
resourcing and managing innovation in the Australian Public Service (APS); and
recognition, sharing and learning. More broadly, the annual Australian Innovation
System Reports explore the impact of innovation and related activities on
business, industry and national performance and build on the commitment by the
Australian Government in Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st
Century. The APS Innovation Action Plan 2011 was endorsed at the highest
levels of the APS, and in it can be found the principles and actions to be taken to
achieve a more innovative public sector built around citizen engagement and new
methods for service delivery. In July 2015, Departmental Secretaries endorsed a
public-sector innovation agenda which strongly emphasises connecting public
servants to one another to share ideas and experiences, and at the same time it
fosters initiatives to share, develop, test and grow good ideas.
Source: OECD.
The framework enabling innovation in Indonesia encompasses both the

legal provisions and strategic plans that reinforce the development of
innovative solutions in government:
• Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Services and Law No. 5 of 2014 on the
Civil Service provide a context for government action to increase the

quality of public services and enhance the flexibility and transparency of

the civil service. Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government
promotes decentralisation and provides a framework to guide
innovation-oriented actions by regional governments. The country’s
movement away from centralised management has allowed motivated
and capable local governments, especially those with a strong
commitment from regional leaders, to develop and pursue successful
public-sector innovations (Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Otonomi, 2014).
More recently, Law No. 23 of 2014 on local government offered further
support for innovative behaviour through its creation of a de facto “right
to innovate”, which ensures legal protection to local innovators in case
of failure.
• The country’s strategy documents reference innovation as central to the
government’s efforts to reform the public sector and instrumental to
achieve its broader transparency goals. Notably, the National Medium-
Term Development Plan 2015-19 highlights public innovation as
instrumental to improving the quality of public services and moving
towards greater transparency and enhanced accountability. The plan’s
provisions regarding public administration and open government
reforms place emphasis on efforts to identify new ways to provide
information to the public, on the development of e-government systems,
and on the strengthening of public participation in formulating public
policy. The current administration’s government programme (Nawa
Cita), also commits the government to encouraging innovation and the
development of information and communication technology.
• In addition, the OGP 2014-15 Action Plan recognises the contribution of
innovation to help “unlock Indonesia’s potential in the economy, public
services and innovation”. The OGP Action Plan also specifically notes
that one of the plan’s goals, to increase the availability of open data, will
encourage innovation, in addition to enhancing public services and
fostering economic growth.
While there are several initiatives that identify and acknowledge public-
sector innovation at the central government level in Indonesia, these efforts
appear to be isolated, and formal structures for ensuring the co-ordination of
innovation from a central government perspective are not yet in place. A
number of actors play a role in this space:
• The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (KemPAN)
has a central role in providing incentive programmes for innovations and
facilitates knowledge sharing. The Ministry has launched Public Service
Innovation competitions for public-sector organisations with the goal of
collecting, disseminating and enhancing the replicability of innovative

solutions (see Box 7.3 for a description of additional examples of

innovation competitions). The One Agency One Innovation Initiative –
developed in collaboration with Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GiZ) – supports national and local
institutions in documenting and sharing their best practices.
Box 7.3. Public-sector innovation awards – selected examples

A common means of promoting the spread of best practices is the use of
innovation awards to promote innovation in the public administration and other
sectors. The use of awards can also influence staff motivation and shape
organisational culture. There are a number of such awards that bring together and
share examples of innovation, including:
• The Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Public Sector Management,
which aim to encourage and recognise better practices and innovation at all
levels of the government in Australia, and are designed to honour the
achievements of public-sector work groups, units or teams rather than
individuals. The awards – administered by the Institute of Public
Administration Australia (IPAA) and facilitated by the ACT Division,
focus on specific initiatives that are the result of methodical and
sustainable approaches to improving an organisation's practices in client
satisfaction, leadership, people management, change management,
planning, governance and innovation. In 2016, the IPAA will also
separately present its annual Australia Public Service Awards to recognise
innovations being implemented.
• The Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) Award for
Innovative Management recognises innovators in the public service in
Canada. Sponsored by IBM, the IPAC Award for Innovative Management
recognises government organisations whose innovations address the wide
variety of issues in society. The award also encourages innovation across
all levels of government, and provides employees the opportunity to share
ideas with each other. The award focuses on innovations that advance
knowledge management systems and structures, enhance the use and
management of public funds, improve transparency, accountability and
responsiveness, and increase public participation.
Discussions among innovation award leaders at the OPSI conference in
November 2014 indicated that to realise the potential benefits of innovation
awards, it is important to consider what sort of incentives all entrants (both
winners and losers) to innovation award schemes should receive. This includes
training to improve and expand projects, feedback, coaching and visibility.
Rewarding the replication of existing innovations in new sectors and contexts
could also help inspire others and promote better learning across the public
sector.
Source: OECD.

• The Ministry of Interior is responsible for the local government

development and, through the National Institute of Public
Administration (LAN), for training civil servants. The ministry prepares
legislation concerning local government affairs. A draft regulation on
local innovation is currently being prepared, touching on issues related
to public services and community empowerment. Discussions with
officials in the ministry highlighted that central government
representatives understand the challenges involved in promoting
innovation at the local level, though they noted that the clarity of the
structure for co-ordinating interventions among different institutions and
supporting capacities of local entities are two major areas where
improvements are needed.
• As the training centre for civil servants, LAN is responsible for
conducting capacity development programmes for newly recruited
public servants (up to the Director General level) and for trainers.
Presidential Regulation 57 also gives LAN an additional role in the
promotion of an innovation culture in the public administration.
Recently, LAN has developed new programmes (“Innovation
Laboratories”) aimed at supporting local government in its efforts to
become more innovative. The Lab uses a five-step methodology to
“drum up, diagnose, design, deliver, display” innovations to train local
government civil servants to innovate. The programme started in 2014
and so far has been rolled out to five provinces. LAN has also developed
and maintains a database of innovations in local governments (currently
with 160 entries) and organises a gathering for “innovation champions”
each year.
• The Executive Office of the President has a broad role in co-ordinating
and ensuring the harmony of policies in a range of policy areas included
in the government agenda. It was suggested that a stronger co-ordination
role in this area could help provide policy guidance to other
organisations to foster innovation and its diffusion as well as develop
innovation in the policy-making process (Ministry of National
Development Planning, 2014).
Barriers to public-sector innovation
As discussed above, Indonesia has a general framework of laws and

institutions that support innovation, though without the systematic or
strategic approach that is most clearly associated with government-wide
innovation initiatives. In large part, the same barriers to innovation that
confront public administrations globally also encumber the GOI;

specifically, these barriers to innovation can be broken down according to

the environment in which they operate:
• Barriers that arise from within the bureaucracy/organisation: These
take the form of a lack of sufficient human or financial resources, lack
of management support, a risk-averse culture within the organisation,
staff resistance, and a lack of incentives to innovate in the organisation
as a whole or for individual staff members. Obstacles may also be of an
inter-organisational nature, stemming from difficulties in co-ordinating
organisations, potentially due to turf wars and “silos”.
• Barriers that arise primarily in the political environment: These
include inadequate funding/resources, budgetary rules, legislative or
regulatory constraints, a lack of incentives for organisations to innovate
and political opposition as well as a lack of political commitment.
• Barriers that exist in the external environment: This refers to
uncertainty in terms of which innovations will be accepted and the
prospect of general public scepticism or even opposition. Being subject
to media scrutiny might also curb the willingness to take chances, as
might conflicting external interests and difficulties in reaching the
programme’s target group.
To overcome these barriers, OECD research points to four main
dimensions that constitute an operating framework to support innovation in
the public sector. It is toward these dimensions that efforts should be
directed to strengthen organisations’ capacities to innovate (OECD, 2015):
• People: How civil servants are motivated within an organisational
setting to explore new ideas and experiment with new approaches, and
how this affects their propensity to innovate. Leadership and the way
staff are selected, rewarded, socialised and managed also shapes an
organisation’s innovative capacity.
• Data, information and knowledge: These elements are essential to
innovation, and the way they are managed can support or hinder
innovation. The challenge is to build the capacity to pool available
knowledge to improve public decisions about innovative solutions and
to share knowledge to encourage social innovation.
• Organisational design: The way work is structured within and across
organisations may have an impact on innovation in the public sector.
This includes the development of spaces and innovative methods to
structure teams, break down silos and work in partnerships across
organisations and even sectors.

• Rules and processes: Formal and informal rules, processes and

procedures that guide the daily operations of public agencies may
provide an architecture that either creates a flexible environment for
innovation, or one that results in a web of complexity, hindering the
capacity to innovate.
In each of these areas, governments can use a mix of different polices
and tools to lower barriers that exist at all government levels, from the top of
the policy-making hierarchy down to service delivery. An aspect of this is
incentive structures, both for individuals and the organisation itself. It has
been argued that there is a prevalent tradition of higher penalties for failed
innovations than rewards for successful ones in the public sector. As
discussed in Box 7.4, motivating professional public servants to be
innovative requires careful consideration of the range of incentives and
disincentives that operate simultaneously within an organisation.
Box 7.4. Factors related to employee motivation
Many central governments face significant challenges in motivating innovative

behaviour from their employees. Some of these challenges are rooted in the
bureaucratic nature of public-sector organisations. For example, multiple levels of
hierarchy often separate staff from the decision-making level, and the
administrative nature of many of the jobs can result in a feeling of removal from
the impact of their work. Some of these challenges result from the public and
political nature of the work. Other examples of factors that can influence
employee incentives include:
• Extrinsic factors: These factors can include the way that pay is structured;
the way promotions are granted; the quality of relationships among staff
and management; the way teamwork is used; and the way effort is
recognised.
• Intrinsic factors: Motivation can be affected by, for example, the way that
staff are made aware of the impact of their work; how close they are to the
beneficiaries of the policies that they develop; and how they see value
created as a result of their ideas and their labour.
Source: OECD (2015), The Innovation Imperative in the Public Sector: Setting an Agenda
for Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264236561-en.
Interviews with government officials in Indonesia’s central government

indicated that the lack of an incentive system to motivate public officials to
innovate, the lack of co-ordination among different parts of the government,

and limited integration with other policies are the main barriers to
innovation. A lack of technical guidance and of accepted standard operating
procedures has also been flagged as a barrier facing government innovators
at the local government level. Mechanisms that allow governments to pool
resources to fund innovations (e.g. central innovation funds) were said to be
missing, as well. The Ministry of Interior is looking into developing
partnership models to encourage government, community groups and the
private sector to come together to provide technical assistance and funding
mechanisms. For example, the law on companies’ social responsibility
already provides such a legal framework, but its application to innovation
financing has not yet been fully examined.
The role of networks of innovators
Spreading information across organisations and units is an important

part of increasing their innovative potential and helping identify ideas and
promising practices for common learning. Systems to spread innovative
ideas are often linked to the practice of innovation awards (see above) but
can also be formalised in knowledge management systems.
In Indonesia, networks of innovators bringing together different entities
have emerged over the last few years in an effort to increase knowledge
sharing and exchange of experiences to overcome a siloed mentality,
recognise and reward positive behaviours and foster a culture of
participation and innovation in public service delivery. The Ministry of
Interior has fostered the creation of informal networks to support the
interaction of local public officials, with the participation of private sector
and CSOs. Given that public servants often do not have experience talking
to the private sector or community representatives because of established
norms and rules, informal mechanisms outside the Ministry have been
established to work around these bottlenecks. The network encompasses 220
periphery locations which provide support (training, capacity building, and
use of IT) to local innovators and support documentation of their innovation
experience. Networks across public entities have also emerged. For
example, KEMPAN, LAN, the Ministry of Home Affairs, BBPT
(Technology application and research and development agency), LP3AI
(Independent body to promote innovation in economy) and GiZ are working
together to develop an innovation hub that is expected to help foster the
harmonisation of regulations and policies in the area of innovations.
Furthermore, many efforts to develop networks for the sharing of good
practices and learning have emerged from the co-operation between
Indonesia and the donor community. Through its Transformasi programme,
GiZ has been working to build public service innovation networks in

selected regions to improve frontline services by fostering joint learning

from innovations and providing stakeholders with new tools to innovate.
The network in East Java, for instance, includes ministries, the provincial
government and development partners in the promotion of learning from the
local to the national level and works to strengthen evidence-based policy
making. The network seeks to foster teamwork, experimentation, evidence-
based decisions and user-centred design.
Further analysis will need to be conducted to better assess the barriers to
innovation in the public sector.
Successful practices in public-sector innovation in Indonesia
Innovation can help countries achieve many of the key objectives related
to building an open and inclusive government, including increasing the
availability of information about governmental activities; fostering civic
participation; and harnessing the potential of new technology for greater
accountability.
OECD member countries have taken a variety of approaches to the use
of innovation to increase the transparency and the performance of their
public services, ranging from service integration and user tailoring to
participatory design and electronic delivery. Many innovations use a mix of
tools for maximum impact. For example, digital technology tools are often
used as part of a partnership in delivery with citizens or service users.
Innovation at the national level

In Indonesia, the OECD identified numerous efforts across the public
sector to use innovation to enhance the transparency and availability of
public information. An example of this is the “hajj” application system,
which manages citizen requests for pilgrimages to Mecca. The app –
developed by the Ministry of Religion - helps citizens to manage the online
application process and provides information related to prayers, religious
performances and locations, buildings, hotels, transportation and medical
services (see the chapter 5 on digital government).
Another example of increased transparency through innovation is the
Ministry of Trade’s monitoring of commodity prices. The system allows the
government to produce constant and real-time information on the prices of
basic commodities. The data input on prices is not fully automated, as it still
requires human input, but this already represents a step forward by linking
policy making to real-time data collection.

The use of ICTs to modernise traditionally front-line bureaucratic

processes in government service delivery is one key feature of the
innovation landscape in Indonesia. With about 70% of the country’s
Ministry of Public Works funds for central and regional projects awarded
via tenders, and with the geographical difficulties the country faces due to
its archipelagic nature, the e-procurement system – Data Management
Centre – has helped to address issues of accessibility, transparency, and
effectiveness, particularly in remote regions. A more simplified and
transparent online procurement process has reduced transportation and
processing costs, opening up the system to allow a wider range of potential
bidders to take part in official tenders.
Innovation at the local level

While the examples below do not provide general lessons regarding the
systematic role of innovation across the Indonesian government, they do
highlight the types of programmes the government and citizens prioritise.
Additionally, a number of innovations at the subnational level focus on
providing more effective responses to public needs and to rising
expectations. The practices in these examples aim to draw in both the
citizens and the market dynamics that can sometimes fall outside the reach
of government service systems through better accessibility and improved
and more transparent service delivery. Transparency and a reduction in
bureaucracy have also been improved using ICTs in five examples affecting
citizens and business directly: an Internet-connected mobile land permit
unit; an online passport simplification and modernisation application
process; a licensing services programme for businesses; a programme to
encourage birth certificate ownership for children; and a local government
public information and complaint service.
• The land permitting process in Karanganyar Regency in Central Java
Province was inconvenient and difficult to access given the regency’s
large geographical distances, poor transportation infrastructure and
lengthy bureaucratic processes. This made it difficult for citizens to
access any centralised service, resulting in a low rate of certification of
land ownership. The regency created a mobile land office housed in
sports utility vehicles or vans offering services that were previously only
offered on-site in the Karanganyar Land Office, in order to bring
frontline services directly to citizens. Called LARASITA, these mobile
units reduced the difficulty and number of visits required by citizens to
obtain land permits by visiting villages on pre-announced dates, and by
accessing and processing information in real time through the physical
land registry’s ICT system. This resulted in an increase in productivity

in issuing documents and an increase in the number of end users, as well

as an increase in accessibility through direct contact with applicants.
• The South Jakarta immigration office initiated and promoted an online
passport simplification and modernisation process, improving a
citizen service that was often slow, unpredictable, cumbersome and
prone to corruption by middlemen. By implementing a first-come first-
serve policy through an electronic queueing system, the online passport
applications and payment process became more reliable and predictable,
resulting in an increase of 10 000 citizens using the service from 2012 to
2013, and a 5% increase in public satisfaction.
• Licensing services for businesses in Barru, a rural district in South
Sulawesi, involved a long and complex process, until the local
government transferred and consolidated licensing authority for
129 types of permits from 14 different government departments in a One
Stop Shop. By streamlining and deregulating business licensing services
while bringing standards up to the national level, the number of valid
business permits increased from 26% to 45% in 2011 to 2013. With a
reduction of 70% in the types of required business licenses and the
implementation of the One Stop Shop, the licensing process time was
reduced by 50%. Surveys also indicated an increase in customer
satisfaction from 77.3% in 2012 to 82% in 2013.
• The Children Incentive Card in Surakarta City encourages birth
certificate ownership among children under the age of 17 from
vulnerable economic backgrounds by providing access to targeted public
and private services including health insurance and scholarships. The
improved online and in-person application has led to a 40% increase in
the number of users from 2009 to 2013, and to a decrease in the length
of time needed to receive a card from 30 to five days.
• A public information and complaint service unit in the City of
Yogyakarta was created through an ICT-driven feedback mechanism
and management instrument to allow citizens to ask for information or
submit a complaint online, by SMS, phone, or letter. With the dramatic
growth of mobile phone penetration, online and text message services
have become increasingly important for service delivery and citizen
engagement. The city government receives 10-15 complaints or requests
daily and responds within 2-6 working days. A Community Satisfaction
Index survey has shown that this improved process has resulted in
nearly 97% citizens viewing the tool as easy or very easy to access.

Innovation for social outcomes

The review has also identified innovations in service delivery for
improved social outcomes. These innovations have been effective in
addressing the needs of economically deprived youth through leveraging
local inputs, as well as through the use of co-production schemes and the
involvement of service users in delivering outcomes. For example:
• The district administration of Luwu Utara uses a participatory approach
to address uneven teacher distribution between urban and rural areas,
which resulted in inequitable education services. A lack of data
regarding the impact of teacher shortages and a corresponding lack of
political will or public support for the redistribution of teachers
prevented the government from addressing the issue. By conducting an
in-depth analysis of teacher distribution and forming a multi-stakeholder
forum between government, communities, and NGOs, a pilot
programme to reassign 165 primary and secondary school teachers was
made possible through engagement, promotion, and public oversight of
the issue.
• Maternal and infant mortality rates were improved in Aceh Singkil
through a pilot partnership programme involving local Traditional Birth
Attendants (TBAs) and medically-trained midwives. The initiative
aimed to connect the well-respected and trusted TBAs to the midwives
who were often considered too young and inexperienced or were unable
to speak the local language, particularly in cases where complications
put the mother or infant’s health at risk. The number of births attended
by both a midwife and a TBA increased from 5% to 27% in three Aceh
Singkil villages from 2012 to 2014, making professional healthcare
services accessible to women and babies in the region.
The innovations listed above provide a good start and help identify a
path forward for building on innovation in Indonesia. The diversity of
sectors represented by the programmes and the numerous examples from
subnational governments, furthermore, may help enable the government to
benefit from continuous learning and may allow ideas to be developed and
re-developed to ensure a good fit more broadly.
Recommendations
This review has identified the following as key recommendations

regarding development of innovation in the public sector in Indonesia:
• Innovation happens across the country and innovation efforts are being
recognised and rewarded. However, the government has not

implemented systems and procedures to ensure that this innovation takes

a more permanent hold, nor are there mechanisms to systematically
exchange good experiences across the public sector. The GOI should
consider taking a structured approach to identifying and tackling the
barriers to innovation and its diffusion in the public sector. Detailing a
vision and plan of action with interventions could create momentum to
support a change agenda and ensure buy-in and support of responsible
entities during implementation.
• The predominant rule-based administrative culture in Indonesia works
against experimentation and risk-taking, both of which are core elements
of innovation. Innovation needs to be insulated from changes in the
policy cycle by, for example, identifying formal structures for ensuring
co-ordination at the central government level. Indonesia might want to
consider approaches to innovation co-ordination and promotion
emerging from the experience of other countries (e.g. innovation units,
inter-agency committees, and innovation strategies) while considering
appropriate adjustments to fit the administrative complexity and
challenges of the country.
• The potential to expand the successful experiences with networks of
service delivery units (e.g. Ministry of Health’s network of primary
carers) from the local to national level could be further examined.
Indonesia might want to reflect on possible approaches to replicating
experiences from the local level on the national level, looking at the
drivers for scaling and potential benefits for diffusion of successful
initiatives at the national level.
• The role of institutions such as LAN in building capacity at the local
level for public-sector innovation should be clarified.
• Within the overall context of its commitment to open government
reforms and its membership in the OGP, Indonesia could consider
prioritising the inclusion of innovative open government practices in its
OGP Action Plans. By doing so, the government could build on the
considerable momentum for open government initiatives to better
streamline innovation across the public sector.

Notes
1. See www.opengovpartnership.org/about/open-government-declaration.
References
The Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Otonomi (2014), Study on Sustainable

Innovations and Good Practices of District/City Governments Winning
Autonomy Awards in East Java (2004-2013).
Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019, (Indonesian), National Medium-
Term Development Plan 2015-2019, www.bappenas.go.id/
index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968 (accessed 25 February 2016).
OECD (2015), The Innovation Imperative in the Public Sector: Setting an
Agenda for Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
9789264236561-en.
Open Government Indonesia (2014), “Indonesia 2014-2015, OGP Action
Plan”, Open Government Indonesia.

8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS – 289
Chapter 8
Open government in Indonesia and the link with the

UN Sustainable Development Goals
This chapter provides a general overview of how open government links

with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It discusses how open
government can support the substance (by directly contributing to the
achievement of policy outcomes) of SDG implementation as well as the
process by which Indonesia can pursue its SDGs and targets throughout the
policy cycle (namely, during the design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of the SDGs). It also reviews practices and programmes already
in place in Indonesia that will support the link between the country’s open
government agenda and its SDG implementation; finally, it provides
recommendations for how to expand and build on the link.

290 – 8. OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE LINK WITH THE UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Introduction
The approval of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in

September 2015 provides a useful occasion to look into how open
government reform priorities can inform and help define the steps countries
will take to respond to the global ambitions put forward in the Agenda.
Linking open government reforms and the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) outlined in the 2030 Agenda priorities is particularly relevant for
Indonesia, as the country played a leading role both in designing the Agenda
and in establishing the Open Government Partnership (OGP).
The 17 SDGs will help shape the priorities for public governance reform
in the coming years. Furthermore, the broad themes of improved governance
and inclusion found in both the OGP principles and the SDGs provides an
opportunity to connect open government practices and approaches to the
ambitions represented by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The SDGs deepen and expand upon the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), which were less interrelated and complex. For their part, the SDGs
set out an ambitious agenda that aspires to be:
• Universal: Goals will be applicable to all countries regardless of their
level of development. The framework will cover most policy areas and
address global public goods, development challenges and framework
conditions. The universal nature of the SDGs will have implications for
all governments, which should set their own national targets according
to differing national circumstances, capacities and priorities.
• Integrated: The SDGs will integrate the three core dimensions of
sustainable development (economic, social and environmental), which
implies a more holistic view of development, focusing on the overall
outcomes for people, societies and the planet.
• Transformational: Delivering on the vision of the SDGs will require
fundamental change in the way economies and societies interact. It also
means mobilising a wide range of key stakeholders at different levels,
including civil society organisations and the private sector (SG Note,
2015).
The 17 SDGs (see Box 8.1) are further supported by 169 targets that
help delineate specific objectives; based on these targets, countries will
measure their performance in achieving the goals set out in the 2030
Agenda.

Box 8.1. 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals
Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote
sustainable agriculture.
Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong
learning opportunities for all.
Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation
for all.
Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and clean energy for all
Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and
productive employment and decent work for all.
Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable
industrialisation and foster innovation.
Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries.
Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable.
Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for
sustainable development.
Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land
degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development,
provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive
institutions at all levels.
Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global
partnership for sustainable development.
Source: UNDP (n.d.), www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-
goals.html (accessed 15 April 2016).

As this chapter will illustrate, open government principles, policies and

practices contribute directly to both the substantive targets of the SDGs
(specifically through Goal 16) as well as to the process that leads to the
identification, implementation and monitoring of all the SDGs. Specifically,
open government principles can inform countries’ efforts to implement the
SDG priorities by helping them respond to a wide range of public and
private actors, reinforce transparency and accountability, and facilitate
co-ordination horizontally across line ministries and vertically between
national and subnational governments. Ultimately, utilising tools and
strategies informed by open government principles will help the actors in
charge of implementing the 2030 Agenda in their respective countries meet
the broad range of targets presented by the SDGs.
Indonesia’s involvement in the development of the SDGs began with its
appointment as the Co-Chair of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons by
the UN Secretary General. Indonesia also served as the Co-Chair for the
Global Partnership Draft Concept framework document for the Post-2015
Agenda, and it was one of the 30 nations that served on the Open Working
Group on the SDGs. As a founder of the OGP as well, Indonesia is well
suited to take the lead in exploring how the two agendas can complement
and reinforce each other.
Through its endorsement of the OGP Joint Declaration on Open
Government (see Box 8.2) for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development in September 2015, Indonesia has already
recognised the potential value of linking these two initiatives. Specifically,
the declaration notes the “importance of harnessing [countries’] efforts and
championing the principles of transparency and open government as crucial
tools for ensuring the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.”
Box 8.2. Joint Declaration on Open Government for the Implementation of the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
As participants in the Open Government Partnership, committed to the principles enshrined in the
Open Government Declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations
Convention Against Corruption and other relevant international instruments related to effective and
inclusive institutions and human rights, we:
• Recognise the importance of harnessing our efforts and championing the principles of
transparency and open government as crucial tools for ensuring the effective implementation
of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Box 8.2. Joint Declaration on Open Government for the Implementation of the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (continued)
• Acknowledge this is an ambitious global plan of action for achieving inclusive sustainable
development in its economic, political, social and environmental dimensions, in a balanced
and integrated manner to end poverty and combat inequality within and among countries.
• Welcome the inclusion in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of goals and targets
related to transparency, accountability, integrity and citizen participation. They are essential
for promoting the rule of law, reducing corruption, and promoting public access to
information and the development of effective and accountable institutions.
• Applaud the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for recognising that peaceful and
inclusive societies are vital components of sustainable development.
• Value and welcome the participation of civil society organisations in the implementation of
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
• Promote the Open Government Partnership as a platform for voluntary co-operation and peer
exchange and learning. The experience of its participating governments and civil society
organisations can be drawn on to encourage transparent, accountable, participatory and
technology-enabled implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Together, we declare our commitment to:
1. Promote the rule of law consistent with international standards at the national, regional and
international level through transparency, openness, accountability, access to justice and
effective and inclusive institutions. This is consistent with Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.
2. Promote public access to timely and disaggregated information and open data on
government activities related to the implementation and financing of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, in line with national legislation and international commitments.
We support development of the International Open Data Charter and intend to explore its
implementation in our countries.
3. Support citizen participation in the implementation of all the goals and targets in the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, including decision-making, policy formulation,
follow-up and evaluation processes.
4. Uphold the principles of open government, as described in the Open Government
Declaration, when defining international, regional and national indicators for measuring the
implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, taking into account
national circumstances and development priorities. We will identify and share lessons
learned and good practices to strengthen country capacity for implementation.
5. Use our Open Government Partnership National Action Plans to adopt commitments that
serve as effective tools to promote transparent and accountable implementation of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Source: www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_declaration.pdf.

This chapter will provide an overview of some of the current analysis on

the link between the SDGs and open government, an overview of the ways
in which open government principles can support both the substance of the
SDGs as well as the process of their implementation, examples from
Indonesia that illustrate how open government principles support efforts to
achieve the SDG targets, and will conclude with recommendations on how
to strengthen the bond between open government principles and the SDGs.
Current thinking on the connection between the SDGs and broader

governance reform efforts
Despite the relatively recent adoption of the SDGs, international

organisations have already begun to think critically about how public-sector
reform initiatives and priorities can link with the SDGs. For its part, the
OECD has discussed broadly how the SDGs may affect policy making, as
well as specific recommendations on the next steps in two Notes of the
Secretary General, Towards an OECD Strategic Response to the Sustainable
Development Goals (2016) and Supporting the Post-2015 Agenda for
Sustainable Development: The Role of the OECD and its Members (2015).
The OECD has noted that non-state actors, including civil society
organisations (CSOs), the private sector and the academic world, will all
play key roles in the realisation of the SDGs (OECD, 2015).
The OECD has also highlighted that principal issues for governments
with respect to the SDGs will be how to align their policies to respond to the
breadth and complexity of the Goals; improve upon the mixed track record
of most governments in working horizontally; and respond to the need to
include a wide range of public and private actors in both policy formulation
and implementation (OECD, 2016b). As will be discussed in more detail
below, open government principles provide important guidance on how to
include and incorporate a broad range of participants in order to align
policies across broad and complex areas. The OECD has also discussed the
role of the centre of government in supporting the SDG agenda, for example
through its convening power and ability to pressure departments and
ministries to enact its policies. The centre of government will need to help
co-ordinate initiatives across line ministries, as technical offices may have
little experience in driving cross-disciplinary policies (OECD, 2016b).
Furthermore, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
considered how transparency and accountability could lead to smarter policy
decisions. Specifically, given that increasing citizen engagement can
promote government efficiency and effectiveness, the UNDP pointed to the
importance of using open government data and citizen involvement in

monitoring and reporting to ensure more accurate and inclusive

implementation of the SDGs (UNDP, 2015).
The Bertelsmann Stiftung Foundation also highlighted the link between
the SDGs and open government and citizen engagement principles. Their
report noted that the United Nations responded to the perception of lack of
opportunities for participation during the conception of the MDGs by
conducting the largest consultation exercise in its history to ensure wide
ownership of the goals (Kroll, 2015). For its part, the OGP has also explored
how governments can use open government principles – and the OGP tools
in particular – to implement the SDGs. It has been noted that the 2030
Agenda and the OGP reinforce similar messages about the importance of
giving greater visibility to the role of transparency, civic participation,
public-sector accountability and technological innovation as enablers of
sustainable development for just and peaceful societies (Lagunes and Bapna,
2015). Notably, the OGP has focused on how an open government approach
can spur progress across the 17 SDGs, including in improving public
services. Many OGP countries are already tackling these challenges by
promoting transparency and accountability, empowering citizens and civil
society, fighting corruption, and harnessing new technologies in their
national action plans (Transparency and Accountability Initiative, 2015).
The mutually reinforcing focus areas of both the SDGs and open
government reform efforts therefore suggest an opportunity for linkages
between the two initiatives.
Finally, the OGP Joint Declaration on Open Government calls for the
endorsing countries to promote the OGP Partnership as a platform for
voluntary co-operation and peer exchange and learning, as well as to draw
on the experience of its participating governments and civil society
organisations to encourage transparent, accountable, participatory and
technology-enabled implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. It also commits signatories to use OGP National Action Plans
to adopt commitments that serve as effective tools to promote transparent
and accountable implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development (Joint Declaration on Open Government).
The substantive link between open government principles and the

SDGs
The aims of Goal 16 to build effective, accountable and inclusive

institutions align clearly with the open government goals of enhancing
transparency, accessibility and accountability (see OECD’s definition of
open government). Notably, Commitment 1 of the OGP Joint Declaration on
Open Government specifically refers to Goal 16 and commits the signatories

to “Promote the rule of law consistent with international standards at the

national, regional and international level through transparency, openness,
accountability, access to justice and effective and inclusive institutions. This
is consistent with Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.” Additionally, Goal 16 contains three targets that correspond
directly to the broad goals of open government. The section below discusses
each of those targets and provides an overview of the practical open
government implications.
Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent

institutions at all levels
Open government principles support the three objectives of Target 16.6.
For instance, encouraging citizens to spend time and effort on public issues,
both in the design and monitoring of public policies and services, can lead to
more effective policy outcomes, as the information and insights that the
public provides the government translate into a stronger basis for policy
making and ultimately lead to more effective governance (OECD, 2001).
Similarly, the public’s provision of feedback, consultation or active
participation helps ensure that governments are held accountable. To
increase this accountability, administrations need to facilitate an open and
transparent policy-making process amenable to external scrutiny and review
(OECD, 2001). Furthermore, the active involvement of citizens in
government activities increases transparency by highlighting the link
between citizen inputs and government actions. By exposing information,
activities, and monitoring and provision of services to public scrutiny, open
government policies clearly support Target 16.6.
For their part, OECD member countries have recognised the importance
of the components of Target 16.6. For example, over half of the OECD
countries have indicated that open and inclusive policy making is
“important” or “very important” in helping to improve government
transparency and accountability (61%), with a smaller share recognising the
impact of open government on effectiveness (43%). Additionally, over half
of the OECD countries noted that they sought to implement open and
inclusive policy making in an effort to improve transparency and
accountability (52%), as well as effectiveness and efficiency (39% each)
(OECD, 2009).
Broadly, the objective is to inform, communicate with and involve
citizens at all stages of the decision-making process to secure real interest
and commitment, and to avoid engaging citizens too late and creating a
sense of meaningless participation (OECD, 2009). Examples of specific

policies that may support this target, including some already in place in
Indonesia, include:
• Applying open government policies to promote public-sector integrity;
for example, administrations can open data on procurements and involve
the public in audits of procurement procedures and infrastructure
projects, promote asset declarations, and facilitate public consultation in
the development of the anti-corruption policies (see Chapter 4).
• Establishing a legal framework that supports the public’s ability to hold
the government accountable by, for example, providing accessible
procedures for reporting misconduct and sufficient protection for
whistleblowers. Such a framework enables citizens to report corruption
and to have confidence in the reporting mechanisms and in public
institutions more generally. Therefore, effective whistleblower
protection is vital not only for investigation and prosecution but also for
the prevention of corruption. As discussed in Chapter 4, while Indonesia
has passed various laws to address aspects of whistleblower protection,
the government could improve the current framework by providing
clearer definitions of whistleblowers, what constitutes a threat and forms
of protection.
• Using citizen feedback indicators to measure progress and policy
implementation, including through complaint management systems such
as LAPOR (see Chapter 3).
• Investing in digital government tools to increase transparency and
accountability, improve access to, and quality of, public services and
facilitate more inclusive decision-making processes, for example
through more comprehensive open government data policies and
ensuring the free use, reuse and distribution of government data.
Indonesia has made important steps in this direction; however, as noted
in Chapter 5, the country may consider efforts to address legal and
regulatory challenges and limitations, raise awareness and ownership,
and develop data skills and relationships across levels of government
and with data producers. A strategic approach to digital technologies can
be a powerful tool to support a substantial change in government-society
relations by amplifying the reach and effects of democratic and good
governance principles such as transparency, accountability and public
participation.

Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and

representative decision making at all levels
Open government policies also directly support Target 16.7. While open
government policies can help contribute to the goals outlined in this target at
all levels of government, it is also helpful to consider the range of
approaches and activities administrations can pursue to ensure
responsiveness, inclusiveness, participation and representation. This ranges
from government provision of information (e.g. websites) to consultation
(e.g. seeking citizens’ views or feedback) to participation (e.g. citizens
contributing to resource and policy decisions through online networks or
community meetings) (OECD, 2009). Furthermore, the OECD Guiding
Principles for Open and Inclusive Policy Making (Box 1.1 in Chapter 1) are
built on the premise that governments, in order to benefit fully from active
interaction with their population, should inform, consult and engage with
them as partners in the design, delivery and evaluation of policies and
services. This speaks directly to Target 16.7.
The OECD Open Government Survey has shown that OECD countries
principally engage with citizens via consultation (Figure 8.1), which
provides governments with feedback and new ideas and allows stakeholders
to offer inputs, thereby enhancing both the quality and capacity of policies
to achieve the intended outcome. As countries move beyond consultation
toward more advanced forms of participation, citizens and businesses have
the opportunity to be involved in the co-design and co-delivery of public
services, as exhibited by the Musrenbang development planning process in
Indonesia. These practices all improve the responsiveness, inclusiveness and
participatory nature of public-sector activities.

Figure 8.1. Percentage of countries involved in various types of public engagement

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Citizens’ Citizen Citizen Citizen
consultation Participation in Participation in participation in
Policymaking Service Design Service Delivery
Note: 1. n=OECD 35
Examples of open government policies, both from Indonesia and more

broadly, that can support efforts to meet Target 16.7 include:
• Creating a supportive legal and policy framework for inclusive and
participatory decision making. For example, through public information
or priority-setting fora, such as the Musrenbang, governments can
develop partnerships with civil society and provide regular opportunities
for dialogue, for instance under a jointly defined framework for
government-civil society interactions. As noted by Bappenas, the
finalisation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development occurred
concurrently with development of Indonesia’s National Medium-Term
Development Plan (RPJMN) 2015-19, which allowed the government to
align the SDGs and the priorities reflected in the RPJMN.
• Implementing participatory budgeting activities, which grant citizens the
right to participate in the decision-making and budgeting processes. This
form of involvement can help promote the representation of citizen
needs and desires in the institutional budgeting and implementation
process. This is a promising avenue for Indonesia to explore.

• Pursuing co-production of policies and services. By involving citizens in

their production, policies and services become by their nature more
inclusive and participatory, which can help guarantee their
responsiveness to public needs and desires.
Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect

fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and
international agreements
Public access to information is a fundamental pillar of open government,
and ensuring access to information is a condition for strengthening
government-citizen relations. Much of the supporting legal and policy
framework for open government concerns freedom of information, although
countries vary greatly in terms of laws on citizens’ access to information
(often called freedom of information laws – or FOI laws). Importantly,
OECD countries have broadly recognized the important role that open
government plays in supporting transparency, and by extension Target
16.10, as 86% of OECD countries claimed that one of the key objectives
they hope to achieve by implementing open government initiatives is to
improve the transparency of the public sector (OECD, forthcoming).
As countries move to implement Target 16.10, they will have to take
into account the specific considerations implicit in providing increased
access to information. For instance, effective access to information laws
outline the exemptions to accessing information, determining which levels
of government or offices are in charge of managing requests, in what form
the information will be presented, and the process for requesting
information. It is also important to consider digital government tools when
designing access to information activities, as these can allow for cheaper,
easier and faster public access. Ultimately, meeting this target will require
that countries focus on a number of parallel approaches: ensuring that the
legal framework supports access to information, providing the structure and
resources to ensure wide access to information, and ensuring that the public
understands their rights and that civil society organisations can utilise the
information. The primary tools and good practices for countries to focus on
in providing access to information include:
• Interfaces to allow citizens to access official documents. This is
achieved by establishing both physical and electronic access points
within relevant offices, such as the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi &
Dokumentasi (PPID), to provide the information directly and designing
systems to ensure that the broadest segment of the population can
benefit from the provision of information.

• Internal information management to facilitate governments’ ability to

identify and locate the documents citizens are looking for, such as the
Information Committee in Indonesia that supports the PPID by deciding
on implementing procedures, settling disputes brought by requesters of
information and reporting on the application of the law. It is important
to use a single set of rules for this and to apply them throughout the
administration. Governments must also catalogue and index the relevant
documents and data sets in order to ensure accessibility (OECD, 2001).
• A focus on ensuring that governments have the necessary human and
financial resources to implement access to information initiatives and
monitor the use of the opportunities provided.
• Partnerships with CSOs to promote the dissemination of information
about the access to information opportunities and to ensure their support
of the opportunities to build broader public buy-in.
Beyond Goal 16: How open government principles can support a

wide range of SDG targets
Ultimately, good governance is an intrinsic component to ensuring that
countries can meet the SDGs; to the extent that open government policies
support this, they will play a role across the full range of targets (see a list of
the most relevant targets for open government in Annex 8A.1). This section
will review how the open government principles of public engagement,
transparency and accountability can support the entire range of SDGs, given
that implementing many of the SDGs will require applying these open
government principles.
Engagement
Many OECD countries have developed approaches to engage with
citizens and users of public services, ranging from interaction (e.g. provision
of information and feedback on service quality) to active consultation in
decision making, to co-production. The principle of engagement appears
across a number of SDG targets, and Commitment 3 of the OGP’s Joint
Declaration on Open Government recognises the relevance of engagement
for the implementation of the SDGs by noting the signatories’ commitment
to “support citizen participation in the implementation of all the goals and
targets in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The importance
of this principle can also be seen in a number of specific targets, including:
• Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal
opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision making in political,
economic and public life.

• Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local

communities in improving water and sanitation management.
• Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic, and political
inclusion of all.
• Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanisation
and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human
settlement planning and management in all countries.
• Target 15.c: Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and
trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of
local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities.
• Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-
private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and
resourcing strategies of partnerships.
Transparency
Ensuring transparency and access to public-sector information, and that
the public is able to use it effectively, is a cornerstone of open government,
as noted earlier in this chapter. This principle has implications for both the
public and the private sector, as well as for citizens, as transparency relates
to the availability of information (what governments make accessible, how
easy it is to access, etc.), to its usability (whether the information helps
citizens make the government accountable, whether the formats allow for
data reuse, etc.), and to the public’s knowledge of their rights.
Commitment 2 of the OGP’s Joint Declaration on Open Government
also recognises the role of transparency in the SDG process, by confirming
signatories’ commitment to “promote public access to timely and
disaggregated information and open data on government activities related to
the implementation and financing of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.” Beyond the explicit support of transparency and access to
information in Target 16.6 and 16.10, the following targets also overtly
reference this principle:
• Target 9.c: Significantly increase access to information and
communications technology.
• Target 12.8: Ensure that people everywhere have the relevant
information and awareness for sustainable development.
• Target 17.18: By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to
developing countries, including for least developed countries and small
island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of

high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income,

gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic
location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.
The inclusion of access to information as a priority across these diverse
goals highlights the important role that information and data play in current
public administration reforms. Additionally, Target 17.18 shows the
important role that access to data and information plays for governments and
policy makers more generally to improve the quality of policies, the
relevance of policies for citizens and the chances of policies to achieve their
intended goals. In order for citizens and civil society organisations to benefit
fully from transparency, however, data availability needs to be paired with
data quality, processing capacity, effective whistleblower protection and
freedom of the press. By stressing the importance of the ability of the public
to understand their rights and to use the data provided, the open government
principles related to transparency are even more comprehensive than the
targets laid out by the SDGs.
Accountability
Open and inclusive policy making supports accountability by
broadening citizens’ influence on decisions and helping to prevent countries
from concealing their activities and decision-making processes. This helps
ensure that policies reflect public needs and helps guarantee that
governments use resources appropriately. For example, involving citizens in
aligning financial incentives and monitoring financial flows can improve
efficiency and accountability, especially in the case of services designed and
delivered by users themselves (OECD, 2011).
This role is particularly relevant, for example, in infrastructure and
procurement activities, such as those reflected in Goal 9, which seek to
“build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable
industrialisation and foster innovation.” Applying open government
principles to prioritise infrastructure projects and help to oversee
procurement is an effective approach to delivering well-planned
infrastructure that responds to public needs, as well as helping to prevent
corruption by increasing transparency and accountability.
In addition to procurement, open and inclusive government policies help
ensure that the public sector responds to the needs of potentially
marginalised or ignored communities. By bringing these populations into the
policy-making cycle and ensuring that their needs are responded to, the
following targets highlight how open government policies can lead to more
inclusive public governance for all segments of society:

• Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the
poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as
well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and
other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new
technology and financial services, including microfinance.
• Target 1.b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional
and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive
development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty
eradication actions.
• Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and
ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for
the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples
and children in vulnerable situations.
Together, these examples illustrate the extent to which the open
government principles of engagement, transparency and accountability are
embedded in the 2030 Agenda. These examples likewise highlight how
implementing successful open government reforms can support successful
Open government support for the process of implementing the SDGs
In addition to supporting the communication, design and
implementation of the policy response to the specific SDGs and targets,
open government principles and initiatives support the broader process of
SDG implementation. This section identifies how open government policies
can support the implementation, reporting and evaluation of the SDGs, as
well as discusses efforts by the Government of Indonesia (GOI) to support
SDG implementation and the potential links with the country’s open
government reform efforts.
The role of national government co-ordination in supporting the
SDGs
The breadth of Agenda 2030 and the interconnected nature of the issues
it addresses demand a high degree of policy co-ordination and coherence
horizontally (across ministries and agencies), as well as vertically (across
levels of government). The complexity and integrated nature of the SDGs
also complicates the decision of where to assign responsibility for action,
both across ministries at the national government level and between national
and subnational levels. Horizontal coherence in target-setting, policy and
action between sectors and ministries will be needed to ensure that trade-
offs are dealt with and synergies are exploited (Nilsson et al., 2012).

It is important to note that countries will be expected to set their own

paths for realising the SDGs in response to national conditions and
capabilities. Therefore, no meaningful national implementation plan can be
developed without an inclusive, government-led process to interpret the
SDGs. Interpreting the SDGs at the national level will therefore require the
full engagement of politicians, ministers and the public (Weitz et al, 2015).
In these conditions, the centre of government is best placed to play this role,
as it is often responsible for setting standards, providing guidance to
departments and agencies, and monitoring and evaluating outcomes and
levels of compliance (OECD, 2016b). The centre of government is therefore
also well placed to apply the capabilities built by its implementation of other
multi-dimensional initiatives in the service of SDG implementation.
Notably, many of the policies and activities that national governments
pursue to promote open government will also support the implementation of
the SDGs both directly and indirectly. For example, 77% of OECD
countries have established an office responsible for horizontal coordination
of open government initiatives (OECD, forthcoming), suggesting that the
methods countries pursue to implement their open government programs are
also relevant for the SDGs. Furthermore, ensuring broad public buy-in for
the design, monitoring and implementation of the SDGs; supporting national
co-ordinating bodies; helping to design clear strategies; and appropriately
aligning incentives across ministries and subnational governments are all
important components of a country’s efforts to promote open government,
and all have a role to play in implementing the SDGs. In particular, the
UNDP highlighted the role that countries played in monitoring the MDGs as
a key component to integrating the goals into their own national priorities
and development strategies. By improving co-ordination within the national
statistical system and linking with community-based monitoring systems,
countries were able to build on national efforts to support vertical
integration of best practices across the range of MDG priorities (UNDP,
2015). A similar process could play out with the SDGs. Box 8.3 uses the
example of digital government and open government data to show how
ongoing activities can also support the SDGs.

Box 8.3. The cross-cutting nature of open government:

The case of digital government
Looking at the example of digital government and open government data, it becomes clear
how open government programmes and principles can provide support across the SDGs.
Digital technologies provide useful tools to link the two agendas, maximising synergies and
impact. Furthermore, open government data can improve transparency and accountability and
support citizen participation, which may lead to improved public-sector performance. Applying
the use of technologies in the public sector can support efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda
by:
• Enhancing productivity and economic growth: By helping to increase public-sector

productivity and effectiveness, digital government can improve the productivity and
economic growth of a country more widely. For example, portals that provide
information and services, such as filling out and submitting administrative forms
electronically (e.g. tax declarations), have considerably altered the way individuals and
businesses interact with their government (OECD, 2015). Such benefits help empower
and promote social, economic and political inclusion (Target 10.2). Government support
for ICTs also directly supports the growth of resilient infrastructure to promote inclusive
growth and foster innovation (Goal 9). ICTs can also help enhance public-sector
intelligence, thus allowing for improved decision making and better policies and
services, thereby leading to reduced poverty (Goal 1), inclusive and sustainable
economic growth (Goal 8), and reduced inequalities (Goal 10).
• Taking advantage of opportunities provided by open government data: The public

sector produces and collects a wealth of data in its day-to-day activities. By making
these data available, easily accessible and reusable by citizens and businesses,
governments can improve accountability and transparency, create new business
opportunities and better inform both citizen engagement and their own decision making
(OECD, 2015). As discussed in Box 8.5, citizens can further increase the value of open
data through their collaboration in providing and co-creating data sets. The use of open
data and analytics in the public sector can help identify trends and future challenges and
encourage strategic, inclusive and evidence-based decision making. As such, open
government d7ata is a powerful tool enabling societies to find innovative solutions to
persistent social problems, as is recognised by Target 17.18, which seeks to “increase
significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data.” Another pertinent
example of the value of open government data relates to cities, whose governments will
have to rely increasingly on data analytics and digital technologies to improve their
understanding of human behaviour for urban planning and organisation, as well as for
the creation of competitive and innovative economies with more accountable and
participatory local governments (Goal 11). Taking advantage of the opportunities
presented by open government data also corresponds to Principle 3 of the OECD
Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies (as discussed in Chapter 5).

Box 8.3. The cross-cutting nature of open government: The case of digital
government (continued)
• Building digital welfare services: Digital technologies provide the opportunity to

redesign public services in the welfare area to improve their efficiency and delivery
channels and make them better targeted and tailored to user needs. This is particularly
relevant for public-facing services, such as healthcare (Goal 3) and education (Goal 4),
which ultimately play a large role in ending poverty (Goal 1).
• Strengthening international co-operation: New technologies offer global leaders the

opportunity to collect, use and share data to better understand global problems and
challenges such as global warming, clandestine financial flows, tax base erosion,
migration, international value chains, income distribution across countries, armed
conflicts and transnational crime, among others, which respond to the SDGs’ objectives
to strengthen the means of implementation and promote international co-operation
(Goal 17). This also supports Principle 8 of the OECD Recommendation on Digital
Government Strategies.
As countries implement the SDGs, it will be important for them to think

strategically about how other public-sector reform priorities in which open
government can play an important role, such as service provision, human
resources management, integrity and anti-corruption, budgeting, etc., can
simultaneously support the SDGs.
Open government support of the SDGs throughout the policy cycle

More broadly, open government principles and practices can inform the
entire policy cycle of design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation,
and reporting and feedback of each of the 169 targets (Figure 8.2).

Figure 8.2. Stages of the policy cycle
Design
Reporting and
Implementation
feedback
Monitoring and
evalutation
As has been noted elsewhere in this review, engaging citizens, civil

society organisations and the private sector as partners in the policy cycle
leads to higher user satisfaction and, potentially, cost reductions, and
collaborating with citizens at every stage of service planning and delivery is
key to ensuring sustainable service quality improvements. Given the
problems arising from poorly designed and implemented policies and the
relatively short timeframe to achieve the broad and ambitious goals laid out
by the SDGs, governments should keep in mind that not engaging with
citizens can create higher costs through policy failure in the short term, as
well as loss of trust, legitimacy and policy effectiveness in the long term
(OECD, 2001).
The OGP’s Joint Declaration on Open Government also notes the value
of linking open government principles to the policy cycle of SDG
implementation in Commitment 3, which supports citizen participation in
the “decision-making, policy formulation, follow up and evaluation
processes.” To be successful, these elements must be applied at all stages of
the policy cycle. This section will look at how governments can make the
process of implementing the SDGs inclusive and better tailored to the needs
of the citizens by analysing each stage of the cycle.

Engaging citizens and civil society organisations as partners in the

design, implementation and monitoring of services allows for a shift in
power between service providers and users. This can challenge existing
organisational values and practices in the public sector. Preparing public-
sector staff for new professional roles – as advisers rather than producers –
requires the full involvement of the human resources offices to develop new
knowledge and skills and deliver ad hoc capacity-building and
dissemination initiatives (OECD, 2011). This will be the case in any
situation in which the government is bringing new communities into the
policy-making cycle, for example via gender-sensitive budgeting and policy
making. As with open government initiatives, therefore, governments will
need to think through the implications of expanding the involvement and
inclusion of broader segments of society as envisioned in the SDGs.
By designing policy measures on the basis of better knowledge of
citizens’ evolving needs, making policy in a more open and inclusive way
can contribute to raising the quality of policy outcomes and can ensure the
better use of public funds (OECD, 2009). As noted in previous OECD
publications, public services work better when designed in partnership with
citizens to harness their interest, energies, expertise and ambitions (OECD,
2011). Involving people who will be affected by policies in the design phase
can also help identify cross-sectoral issues, as well as build
complementarities across levels of government to ensure that policies are
widely relevant across a range of income levels, educational levels, cultural
backgrounds, etc., as conditions can vary considerably even within the same
country. Following open government good practices will be particularly
important for countries as they implement the SDGs, as governments will
not be able to design effective and inclusive policies without the input, ideas
and insights of a wide variety of citizens’ voices. From a practical
perspective, involving citizens and CSOs in the design of the SDGs will
include participation not just in the design of the policies to be implemented
but also in the decision of which targets to prioritise and how to ensure that
a wide range of participants are involved in a consistent and sustainable
manner.
Beyond the design and adoption of policies, citizens are also an essential
component in the implementation of public policies, which cannot be done
effectively without public understanding and support. The implementation
of the SDGs will require the involvement of all relevant stakeholders. In
large part, this is because the universality of the SDGs will necessitate
approaches and tools tailored to the different needs of countries at different
levels of development (SG Note, 2015), which citizens are uniquely
prepared to provide. This is where processes such as co-production, in
which citizens engage in partnerships with service professionals in the

design and delivery of a public service, can be particularly useful. One

example of this is through infrastructure projects, in which increased
transparency and openness allow citizens to track data and budgets at each
stage of an infrastructure project and mobilised citizens can use their
engagement to ensure programme relevance and to drive the process from
the bottom up (Hawkins and Samuels, 2015).
Finally, the monitoring, evaluation and reporting phases allow
governments to understand the extent to which their policies were
successful, thereby helping to create new policies or redesign existing
activities. A key element is deciding on how best to involve citizens, such as
directly (for example through participation in review boards) or indirectly
(through surveys) (OECD, 2001). The SDGs will require significant
investment in statistical capacity, new types of data measurement and
reporting instruments and closer co-ordination between governments and
citizens to ensure data relevance. Collected data and monitoring instruments
should also be available for public access and to all stakeholders (SG Note,
2015). Along those lines, Mexico provides useful examples of how
countries’ monitoring and evaluation activities, application of open
government data and the SDG initiatives can be linked in a useful and
inventive way (See Box 8.4).
Box 8.4. How Mexico is using monitoring and evaluation and open
data tools to track the SDGs
In September 2015, Mexico announced the launch of its Sustainable

Development Data Tool (http://agenda2030.datos.gob.mx/), which serves as a
resource for the public to monitor and measure the country’s progress on
implementing the SDGs. This tool, developed jointly with the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and the Mexican Agency for International
Development Cooperation (AMEXCID), encourages open data as a resource for
supporting the transparent implementation of the SDGs and allows the public to
view, explore and compare relevant indicators. The data is separated by goal and
indicator and is disaggregated by states. The portal also includes visual
representations of over 100 of the indicators (via maps, graphs, etc.).
This portal is linked to the national OGD portal managed by the Office of the
President (http://datos.gob.mx), which was created to ensure that open data can be
used as a collaborative mechanism to achieve priority development goals. While
this national OGD portal is not disaggregated by SDG goal or indicator, it
contains information from a wide range of national and local government sources.
This allows the public and civil society organisations to access, visualise,
download and reuse data on many of the topics covered under the UN Agenda
2030.

Box 8.4. How Mexico is using monitoring and evaluation and open
data tools to track the SDGs (continued)
Additionally, as part of its effort to monitor its OGP commitments, Mexico

created an Open Government Dashboard to visualise the advances and
remaining challenges of each of the OGP National Action Plan commitments,
allow citizens to track the progress made on the open government commitments
and link to the government bodies in charge of the implementation. Mexico is
further refining the dashboard to align it with the SDGs, following the efforts of
the upcoming 2016-18 OGP National Action Plan to connect the country’s open
data initiatives with the SDGs. Together, these efforts are consistent with and
reinforce Mexico’s role as a founding member of the Global Partnership for
Sustainable Development Data, which aims to spur the use of open data as a
mechanism contributing to the achievement of the SDGs.
Sources: OECD (2016), Open Government Data Review of Mexico: Data Reuse for Public
Sector Impact and Innovation, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264259270-en ; Presidencia de la Republica (2015),
Data tool launched for sustainable development objectives, 2 December, www.gob.mx/
presidencia/articulos/data-tool-launched-for-sustainable-development-objectives?idiom=es.
In addition to monitoring and assessing specific policies or programmes,

evaluation can also support a country’s citizen engagement and social
accountability activities more widely. These activities seek to build
accountability through civic engagement, in which citizens and civil society
organisations participate directly or indirectly in promoting accountability.
The aim of such civic engagement activities is to stimulate demand from
citizens and put pressure on the state to meet their obligations to provide
quality services (Malena et al, 2004).
Examples from Indonesia
As evidenced by the public-sector reforms described throughout this

review, Indonesia has already made important progress in pursuing the kind
of initiatives necessary to realise the governance targets laid out in Goal 16
as well as support the process for inclusive design, implementation and
monitoring of all SDGs. Given that meeting these targets will also support
the country’s efforts to implement the universe of goals laid out in the 2030
Agenda by promoting transparent, accountable and inclusive government, it
is important to take stock of the ongoing initiatives that can help Indonesia
reach its targets. The following projects, initiatives and offices are already in
place in Indonesia and are well placed to exploit the synergies between open
government policies and SDGs:

• The National SDG Secretariat: In 2016, and with support from UNDP,
the GOI established a national secretariat to co-ordinate the country’s
SDG implementation. The Secretariat is tasked with laying the
groundwork for the implementation and mainstreaming of the SDGs
into development planning at the national and subnational level. Similar
to the National Open Government Secretariat, Bappenas provides
general oversight of the SDG Secretariat, thereby facilitating the
linkages between the two secretariats. The SDG Secretariat is
professionally staffed and will collect best practices, facilitate
communications and provide government-wide support to help oversee,
facilitate, and monitor the implementation of the SDGs.
• The National Open Government Secretariat: The secretariat’s role in
formalising the government’s relationship with CSOs and in
co-ordinating open government horizontally across agencies and
vertically across levels of government provides a good example and
useful template for how the centre of government can reinforce
inclusivity and accountability. This office was established at the end of
2015, so it is too early to determine its effectiveness. Nevertheless, by
co-ordinating public policy, supporting open data and ICT platforms,
co-ordinating monitoring, evaluation and knowledge management, and
conducting public outreach and communication, the National Open
Government Secretariat is well placed to help Indonesia respond to the
SDG goals of developing effective institutions (Target 16.6) and
ensuring responsive, inclusive and participatory decision making (Target
16.7). Furthermore, taking advantage of the shared leadership structure
of the two secretariats under Bappenas will have additional positive
impacts across the 2030 Agenda goals.
• Integrity and anti-corruption framework: The legal framework on
anti-corruption and whistleblower protection, in combination with the
work of Indonesia’s oversight bodies (the Ombudsman, the Corruption
Eradication Commission, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia,
and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency, discussed in
Chapter 4) supports Targets 16.6, 16.7 and 16.10. While this review has
made recommendations for improving the country’s anti-corruption and
integrity framework, particularly regarding protecting whistleblowers
from retribution, the current framework will nevertheless help the
country meet the targets that seek to promote the rule of law
(Target 16.3) and to reduce corruption and bribery (Target 16.5). Open
government reforms and the SDGs will jointly help inform the country’s
efforts to build and support these offices.

• Legal framework for citizen participation: The main law that

supports citizen participation is Law No. 25/2004 on National
Development Planning, which seeks to “optimise public participation
(Article 2),” and lays out the process by which the public can participate
in the creation of the country’s development plan. Law No. 25/2004 also
institutionalises the creation of multi-stakeholder consultation forums
called Musrenbang (see Chapter 3 for further discussion on the legal
foundation of citizen participation). As noted previously in the review,
the government and civil society organisations alike are focused on
expanding involvement in these fora and ensuring that issues advocated
for by the public are reflected in the country’s development plans more
consistently. The Musrenbang nonetheless provide an important formal
opportunity to involve the public in determining development priorities
and mainstreaming the SDGs into the development planning process,
which the government strove to accomplish during the creation of the
2015-19 National Medium-Term Development Plan. This is a critical
element to ensuring that the open government principles of engagement,
transparency and accountability – and the attendant role these principles
play in supporting the SDGs – are followed.
• Legal framework for transparency and access to information: As
noted in Chapter 3, the 1945 Constitution (Article 28F) broadly
acknowledges the right to information, as does Law No. 14/2008 on
Freedom of Information. This law also established the PPID, which is
responsible for storing, documenting and providing government
information to the public. Indonesia, via its legal framework and the
steady growth and expansion of the PPID offices, has already made
important progress in meeting Target 16.10, as well as the other targets
in which transparency is an overt consideration.
• Accountability mechanisms: One of the GOI’s primary means of
increasing citizen participation in overseeing public service provision is
the LAPOR tool, which serves as an online platform that provides a
complaint-handling service for the public (discussed in Chapter 3).
Furthermore, the country’s whistleblower protection legislation
(discussed in Chapter 4) broadly protects citizens who reveal
wrongdoing, although it is not without opportunities for improvement,
as noted above. As Indonesia continues to expand the reach and
effectiveness of these examples, the country will increasingly be able to
promote accountable, inclusive and transparent government, which
responds clearly to the implementation of the SDGs.
• Digital government and open data: As discussed in Chapter 5, in
addition to national online complaint-management systems, Indonesia

has launched a number of digital government tools that will support a

wide range of SDGs. For example, through a technically advanced and
user-friendly central data portal, the central government is striving to
provide easy access to key datasets that will improve the transparency of
key public-sector activities. This tool is expected to improve the
understanding of the data in a context of limited data skills (Target 5.b,
Target 16.10). The government of the City of Jakarta has launched a
Smart City Portal that allows citizens to make public complaints, as well
as access public services and open data (Goal 11). In addition, the Pulse
Lab Jakarta Initiative provided real-time data to local governments and
has already shown its potential for public health benefits (Goal 3) and
for tracking commodity and food price trends (Target 2.c). The value of
open data portals can be enhanced through expanded public
collaboration and co-creation of data; Finland and France are examples
of OECD countries that have designed their national open data portals as
platforms for collaboration and data co-creation (see Box 8.5). Similarly
developing these tools in Indonesia will facilitate their public utility and
thus their ability to support a wide range of SDG priorities.
Box 8.5. Enabling central open data portals as collaboration and data
co-creation platforms: The cases of France and Finland
France
The French national open data portal (www.data.gouv.fr/fr) enables data
prosumers to contribute new datasets to the portal, publish and showcase
examples of open data reuse and to monitor the use of datasets. The French
government used the portal to launch the Base Adresse Nationale project, which
is a collaboration initiative aiming to crowdsource a national address database fed
by the data contributions from private, public and non-profit organisations.
Finland
In Finland, the national open data portal (www.avoindata.fi) has been enabled
as a platform where citizens can publish open data and interoperability tools (i.e.
guidelines to ease the interaction between datasets or platforms). As in France,
uploading data on the Finnish portal requires filling in an online form where users
provide a description concerning information on the data’s licensing model, data
validity timeframe, etc. Users can also browse the profiles of other users and
provides users with the possibility of subscribing to specific organisations in
order to receive updates on new datasets, comments, etc.
Source: OECD (2016), Open Government Data Review of Mexico: Data Reuse for Public
Sector Impact and Innovation, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing,

Recommendations
Given the recent adoption of the SDGs, governments are still
determining how their current initiatives and priorities will fit with the
implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Nevertheless, the OECD sees a number
of steps the GOI can pursue to ensure that it takes full advantage of the link
between its open government agenda and the SDGs so that both priorities
are implemented as coherently, systematically and completely as possible.
• Continue to develop the links between open government reform
efforts and the design and implementation of the SDGs to help
ensure that the government’s open government agenda supports the
SDGs. This will include supporting institutional collaboration
between the National SDG Secretariat and National Open
Government Secretariat, as well as:
− Explicitly linking the OGP National Action Plan development
process with the design and implementation process for the
SDGs. This could include discussing the SDGs in the context of the
development of the OGP National Action Plans and linking each
objective with relevant SDG goals or targets. This will help ensure
coherence between the two initiatives and will facilitate joint
monitoring of the progress and results of the two processes.
− Promoting the use of open data for reporting on SDG
achievements (see, for example, Mexico’s open data portal
designed to track the SDGs). This would not only support the role of
CSOs as watchdogs, but it would foster the reuse of public-sector
information in a way that is specifically relevant for the
− Developing a formal mechanism for capacity building and
sharing lessons to increase the staff that is knowledgeable of both
the SDGs and the country’s open government priorities.
− Increasing the involvement of citizens in the policy cycle of the
SDGs to ensure that the initiatives are inclusive and that they fully
reflect public needs. This could be achieved by ensuring that CSO
actors and government representatives familiar with the country’s
open government activities and OGP reporting cycles play a role in
the design of the national SDG strategy, as well as in the
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the activities.
• Leverage existing regional and international platforms and
networks for policy dialogue, such as the OECD Network on Open and
Innovative Government in Southeast Asia, to identify good practices
identify lessons from OECD and non-OECD members alike regarding

how to link their open government agendas with their SDG

implementation activities.

References
Abad, F. (2016), Open Government Partnership Public Forum on the OGP-

Independent Reporting Mechanism (OGP-IRM), 5 February, Cubao,
Quezon City, www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/florencio-b-
abad/2016/02/22/speech-secretary-florencio-b-abad-open-government-
partnership#sthash.7GRW1WXD.dpuf.
Hawkins, J. and Samuels L. (2015), Open Government is essential to
delivering better value from resilient infrastructure, 9 November,
www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/blog-editor/2015/11/09/open-govern
ment-essential-delivering-better-value-resilient#sthash.euIr404h.dpuf.
Kroll, C. (2015), Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries
ready?, Bertelsmann Stiftung, September.
Lagunes, Alejandra; Bapna, Manish (2015), How Can Open Government
Promote the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, 27
September, www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/alejandra-lagunes-and-
manish-bapna/2015/09/27/how-can-open-government-promote-
implementation#sthash.GUVmDIsi.dpuf.
Malena, C. et al. (2004), Social Accountability: An Introduction to the
Concept and Emerging Practice; The World Bank Social Development
Papers: Participation and Civic Engagement, Paper No. 76, December.
Nilsson, M. et al. (2012), Understanding policy coherence: analytical
framework and examples of sector-environment policy interactions in the
EU, Environmental Policy and Governance, in press, 10.1002/eet.1589.
OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way
Forward, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2016a), Open Government Data Review of Mexico: Data Reuse for
Public Sector Impact and Innovation, OECD Digital Government
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264259270-en.

OECD (2016b), Towards an OECD Strategic Response to the Sustainable

Development Goals, Note by the Secretary-General, C(2006)4, 12
January.
OECD (2015), Supporting the Post-2015 Agenda for Sustainable
Development: The Role of the OECD and its Members, Note by the
Secretary-General, C(2015)49/REV1.
OECD (2011), Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens
and Civil Society, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD
OECD (2009), Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and
Services, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264048874-en.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.
OGP (2015a), Joint Declaration on Open Government for the
Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;
September 2015, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/
default/files/attachments/OGP_declaration.pdf (accessed 13 April 2016).
OGP (2015b), Third Open Government Action Plan for the United States of
America, 27 October 2015, www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/
files/microsites/ostp/final_us_open_government_national_action_plan_3
_0.pdf.
Transparency and Accountability Initiative (n.d.), The Open Government
Guide Special Edition: Implementing the 2030 Sustainable Development
Agenda, www.opengovguide.com/development-goals/ (accessed 11
March 2016).
UNDP (2015), The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, United
Nations.
Weitz, N. et al. (2015), Sustainable Development Goals for Sweden: Insights
on Setting a National Agenda, Stockholm Environment Institute
Working Paper NO. 2015-10, Sandra, 2015, Stockholm.

Annex 8A.1
SDG targets clearly informed and supported by open

government policies and principles
Goal Target
Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in
everywhere. particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to
economic resources, as well as access to basic services,
ownership and control over land and other forms of property,
inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and
financial services, including microfinance.
Target 1.b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national,
regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-
sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated
investment in poverty eradication actions.
Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and
and improved nutrition and promote incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women,
sustainable agriculture. indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers,
including through secure and equal access to land, other
productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services,
markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm
employment.
Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education
quality education and promote lifelong and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational
learning opportunities for all. training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities,
indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.
Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and
empower all women and girls. equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making
in political, economic and public life.
Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local
management of water and sanitation for all. communities in improving water and sanitation management.
Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, Target 9.2: Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation.
promote inclusive and sustainable Target 9.b: Support domestic technology development, research
industrialisation and foster innovation. and innovation in developing countries.
Target 9.c: Significantly increase access to information and
communications technology.
Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic, and
countries. political inclusion of all.
Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social
protection policies, to progressively achieve greater equality.

Goal Target
Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable
inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. urbanisation and capacity for participatory, integrated and
sustainable human settlement planning and management in all
countries.
Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption Target: 12.8: Ensure that people everywhere have the relevant
and production patterns. information and awareness for sustainable development.
Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to
climate change and its impacts. climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote Target 15.9: By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity
sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, values into national and local planning, development processes,
sustainably manage forests, combat poverty reduction strategies and accounts
desertification, and halt and reverse land Target 15.c: Enhance global support for efforts to combat
degradation and halt biodiversity loss. poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by
increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue
sustainable livelihood opportunities
Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent
societies for sustainable development, institutions at all levels.
provide access to justice for all and build Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and
effective, accountable and inclusive representative decision-making at all levels.
institutions at all levels. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect
fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation
and international agreements.
Goal 17: Strengthen the means of Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable
implementation and revitalise the global development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships
partnership for sustainable development. that mobilise and share knowledge, expertise, technology and
financial resources, to support the achievement of the
sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular
developing countries
Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-
private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience
and resourcing strategies of partnerships
Target 17.18: By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to
developing countries, including for least developed countries and
small island developing States, to increase significantly the
availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated
by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status,
disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant
in national contexts.

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic,
social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of
efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns,
such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing
population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy
experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-
ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,
the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union takes part in the work of the
OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics
gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the
conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.
OECD PUBLISHING, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16

(42 2016 40 1 P) ISBN 978-92-64-26589-9 – 2016
Open Government in Indonesia

Contents
Assessment and recommendations
Chapter 1. Context and drivers of open government in Indonesia
Chapter 2. Steering and co-ordination of open government policies and practices
in Indonesia
Chapter 3. Citizen engagement in Indonesia
Chapter 4. From transparency and participation to integrity in Indonesia
Chapter 5. Digital government as an enabler for open government in Indonesia
Chapter 6. Open, transparent and inclusive budgeting in Indonesia
Chapter 7. Public-sector innovation in Indonesia
Chapter 8. Open government in Indonesia and the link with the UN Sustainable
Development Goals
Consult this publication on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265905-en.

This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals
and statistical databases.
Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org for more information.
isbn 978-92-64-26589-9
42 2016 40 1 P
9HSTCQE*cgfijj+

Open Government in Indonesia: OECD Public Governance Reviews

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Open Government in Indonesia: OECD Public Governance Reviews

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OECD Public Governance Reviews

Please cite this publication as:

ISBN 978-92-64-26589-9 (print)

Series: OECD Public Governance Reviews

Photo credits: Cover © Maksim Kabakou-Fotolia.com.

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at:

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

institutions, legal framework and policies, and highlights achievements and

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

between open government and the UN Sustainable Development Goals) in

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Acronyms and abbreviations ..................................................................................... 12

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

The role of networks of innovators ......................................................................... 281

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Acronyms and abbreviations

ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Institute of Public Administration (Lembaga

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Indonesia has made continuous progress in promoting transparent and

Steering and co-ordinating open government policies and practices

The centre of government plays an important role in policy development

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Citizen engagement in Indonesia

Decentralisation reforms and various laws allowing for increased

Open government, integrity and anti-corruption in Indonesia

The government of Indonesia is committed to tackling corruption and

Open and digital government

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

public-sector activities. Indonesia will also need to address the digital

Public financial management: Budget transparency and citizen

Budget transparency promotes access to and openness about how

Innovation in the public sector

Indonesia is strengthening the institutional capacity of its public sector

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Open government and the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda

Linking the broad themes of improved governance, transparency and

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Assessment and recommendations

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

freedoms of expression, association and media suggest that Indonesia is well

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

many of UKP4’s previous functions were taken over by the Ministry of

Steering and co-ordination of open government policies and practices

Broadly, the institutions at the centre of government (CoG) – namely,

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

implementation of the country’s open government reforms: the bureaucratic

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

the Jokowi administration’s National Priority Agenda (Nawa Cita), which

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

• Improve co-ordination horizontally (between the CoG and line

Citizen engagement in Indonesia

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

the government implemented Law 14/2008 in 2010, as of March 2015, less

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

The government’s explicit intention of improving its relationship with

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016