More Aid Wouldn't Necessarily Make Less Poverty

Jeffrey Sachs and His advocacy on More Development Aid

The world has agreed to bring prosperity to all people on earth as can be seen on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Sachs (2005a) examines the amount of ODA provided by the United States (U.S.) from 2002 to 2004 by analysing data from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to understand the relevance of U.S. contribution providing global fund for MDGs achievement, particularly in comparison to other Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries. He argues that U.S. ODA in proportion to Gross National Income (GNI) was insufficient and far from its commitment. He suggests U.S. to increase their ODA more than three times by 2006 and more than four times by 2015 compared to the level in 2003. He also suggests a rough structure of how the U.S. ODA must be allocated which mainly aims to increase its effectiveness. This paper will argue that, while more aid and better allocation is truly important for development in impoverished countries, but there are some more issues that have to be considered to make the aid effective in achieving the goals. Sachs maintains his line of thinking that more aid will create growth, and growth will result in less poverty. By maintaining that linier thinking, he will not convince his audiences, particularly the U.S. Government, to devote more development aid.

This paper will start by reviewing Sachs’s linier thinking which can be divided into two parts i.e. more aid creates growth, and growth makes less poverty. Followed by examination of those two parts of linier thinking by confronting with arguments from other experts. Before come to conclusion, this paper will discuss the broader perspective on understanding poverty, to contrast it to Sachs’s linier thinking.

Sachs’s Linier Thinking

The U.S. is one among other 191 MDGs signatory countries and one among 24 DAC countries who assist partners to alleviate poverty and achieve MDGs. The U.S. provided between 21 to 26 percent of total DAC ODA from 2002 to 2008 which made them the highest contributor (OECD 2008). However, the United Nations (U.N.) does not measure the donor countries contribution from its proportion to total ODA, it is measured by the proportion of ODA to the GNI of the respective donor country. The U.N. targets for developed countries to devote 0.7 percent of their GNI to ODA (OECD 2009). In this point Sachs argue that U.S. and DAC countries provide inadequate ODA from its commitment as well as from the actual need to achieve MDGs. According to his calculation, the world needs double amount of ODA by 2006 and almost triple by 2015 compared to the level in 2003.

Sachs believes more aid is needed to close the “financing gap” in impoverished countries, the aid would create growth which in the end will alleviate poverty (Sachs 2005a, pp.85-89). This typical way of thinking can be observed from other Sachs publications (e.g. 2009, 2007, 2005b). Sachs argues that poverty trap happened because impoverished countries are poor on human capital and infrastructure. However, their household and the government do not have sufficient funds to close the gap. They can barely ensure their survival and do not have addional funds to invest for the future. They face the problem of a “financing gap”, the development aid can fill that gap. The development aid can be used to close the financing gap for investment on infrastructure and human capital, that investment will empower people and create more economic opportunities which then will take poor households out of the poverty trap.

More Aid Doesn’t Necessarily Create Economic Growth

Sachs may make his point that investment in physical infrastructure will create growth. Studies conducted by Ghosh and De (1998) and their other publication (Ghosh and De 2004) tell us that physical infrastructure attract more factors of production to work to create higher level of outputs, income, and/or employment and it become highly significant factors in contributing to development. In economic theory, the higher level of output is identical to economic growth. Similar finding also come from Alicia H. Munnell who examined the impact of infrastructure on economic growth. She concludes that ‘public infrastructure investment has a significant, positive effect on output and growth’ (Munnell 1992, p.197).

However, an earlier study by Cassen (1986) which assessed the impact of development aid for World Bank and International Monetary Fund, concludes that different studies come to quite different conclusions. ‘They range from positive to strongly negative affects’ (Cassen 1986, p.25).

The sharpest critic to Sachs linier thinking on “aid creates growth” is probably William Easterly. Easterly (2001, pp.34-44) argued that the approach of “closing the financing gap” simply create perverse incentives for recipient country. They will not devote the aid inflow for investment, the recipient countries will just use aid to buy more consumption goods, and they will maintain the gap as it later on will be closed by donors any way. If the recipient countries would not make investment from their own resources then they will treat the aid inflow in the same way. Therefore the aid would not create growth because it would not be used for investment. The real challenge here is how to create right incentives to ensure that the aid inflow is used for investment.

In his book, Easterly calls this phenomenon “the financing gap forever”. Easterly’s argument on financing gap forever makes the case in Indonesia. Indonesia maintains its position in top five on DAC ODA recipient countries since 1986 to 2007 as can be seen from OECD statistical data (OECD 2009). Anis Chowdhury and Iman Sugema examined the impact of aid effectiveness in Indonesia. They found positive correlation between the aid inflows with the economic growth though it was low. However, Indonesia becomes an aid-dependence country that always wants to follow the balanced budget principle by seeking foreign aid to close the financing gap. The “closing financing gap” approach has made government lazy to be creative on domestic resources mobilization (Chowdury and Sugema 2005, p.186)

More evidence come from Kraay and Raddatz (2007) who examined the cause of poverty trap by testing the two canonical mechanisms: low saving and low levels of productivity at low levels of development in Africa. They found little evidence of the existence of poverty traps based on the two mechanisms. It tells us that the argument that more aid will create sustained increases in growth is doubtable.

It can be concluded here that it is true that growth need more investment on infrastructure and human capital. However, the development aid is not necessarily used for those productive investments if there is no right incentive for recipient countries to use it in a proper way.

Economic Growth Doesn’t Necessarily Make Less Poverty

In this second part of Sachs’s linier thinking of “economic growth makes less poverty”, Sachs has more supporters from development economist even including William Easterly. Although Easterly criticises “aid create economic growth” but he agrees very much with Sachs on “economic growth make less poverty”. Easterly influenced by data collection by his World Bank’s colleagues Martin Ravallion and Shaohua Chen on spells of economic growth and changes in poverty covering the years 1981 to 1999. After summarizing the data, Easterly concluded that ‘fast growth went with fast poverty reduction, and overall economic contraction went with increased poverty’ (2001, p.13).

Before having further discussion on “economic growth makes less poverty”, this paper will clarify the definition of “economic growth”. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (2010) defines economic growth as the growth of total output of goods and services. Thus, if there are more goods and services produced and exchanged in the market, does that necessarily result in the less poor? Economic growth is something happening in the market while poverty is in the household. It is true that households are player in the market, but which households are in the market and which are still remining outside the market which means remaining poor?. It is very clear here that economic growth can not detect poverty.

Thus, how about the data examined by Easterly that convinces him that economic growth has correlation to less poverty, Paolo Verme has better explanation for this. Verme (2010) examined macro and micro regional data related to high rate economic growth and household income in Kazakhstan of 2001 and 2002. Verme distinguish between output growth which identical with economic growth and household income growth. He concluded that household income growth is the one that contribute to poverty alleviation, not the output growth. He found no positive and significant correlation between output growth and poverty reduction. Verme can come to this plausible conclusion because he didn’t rely to macro data of GDP only. He prepared GDP data disaggregation by sector and by regions as addition to micro data of household income. He argues that household income growth is the pro poor growth with contributing sectors that are different from contributing sectors to output growth. Pro poor growth means that the growth happened in household and it has been higher for poorer households, which explains why poverty has declined and why it has declined more for the poorest among the poor.

The concern of growth should no longer to “if” but rather to how the growth trickles down the poor, while output growth does not always trickle down the poor (Verme 2010, p. 19). The growth can happen without the poor involved in production and market, while the output can grow with or without the poor. Therefore, the future economic policy should not focus only to output growth. It should commit to the pro-poor growth policy.

Poverty Covers Multidimensional Spheres

Sachs (2005, p.88) emphasizes two major investments to achieve the MDGs, they are: infrastructure and human capital. It is nice that he mentions human capital and not too narrow to infrastructure. Sachs defines human capital as ‘healthy population with adequate levels of literacy, education, and job skills’ (2005, p.85). The explanation is very clear that infrastructure without human capital will not optimally work as production factors in economy, and after all, human capital is a basic human right.

However, poverty is not only about lack of human capital and lack of infrastructure. It is broader than that. The Nobel Prize-winning Amartya Sen has strong argument on this with his “capability” theory. Sen defines capability as ‘a person has, that is, the substantive freedoms he or she enjoys to lead the kind of life he or she has reason to value’ (Sen 1999, p.87). Therefore he defines poverty as capability deprivation rather than merely as lowness of incomes, let alone economic growth.

Goenner et al. (2007, pp.2-5) elaborate Sen’s capability theory combined with other model such as the sustainable livelihood approach (SLA) on multidimensional poverty assessment model called nested spheres of poverty (NESP). They argue that poverty is a lack of many things, starting from insufficient income, vulnerability in basic needs, up to the lack of freedom and options for a better future. In other sense, poverty can be very subjective such as the feeling of deprivation. The NESP’s spheres reflects causal link from the most out layer into the very core within its disc model. The bottom line is again that poverty cannot be handled only by economic growth and/or income improvement.

Conclusion

More aid funding is important, but aid funds alone will not help to alleviate world poverty. Aid inflow can be simply used by recipient countries for consumption expenditures rather than investment without any clear incentive policy, which means that aid inflow would no create growth. However, even if it is used for investment and it creates growth, it does not necessarily means less poverty if we do not pay attention to the multidimensional spheres affecting poverty. Poverty alleviation and MDGs achievement in general need comprehensive intervention. An effective pro poor policy must be applied. Donors and recipient countries must understand the characteristic of the poor so they can design an effective policy which will provide turmendous opportunities for the poor to get out from the trap by them self. A searcher attitude is more useful than the planner.

Sachs will have more opportunity to convince his audiences, not only the U.S. government as his main target, but also his critics and peoples who work as grass roots development activists to support him to advocate for more development aid if he broadens his arguments on aid effectiveness and strategy to achieve MDGs and alleviate world poverty.

References

Cassen, R 1986, Does aid work?, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Chowdhury, A & Sugema, I 2005, ‘How significat and effective has foreign aid to Indonesia been?’, ASEAN Economic Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 186-216.

Easterly, W 2001, The elusive quest for growth: economists' adventures and misadventures in the tropics, MIT Press, Massachusetts .

Encyclopaedia Britannica Online 2010, ‘Economic growth’, Encyclopaedia Britannica eb.com, viewed 14 February 2010,

<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/178400/economic-growth>.

Ghosh, B & De, P 1998, ‘Role of infrastructure in regional development: a study over the plan period’, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 3039-3043.

Ghosh, B & De, P 2004, ’ How do different categories of infrastructure affect development? evidence from Indian States’, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 39, no.3, pp. 4645-4657.

Gönner, C, Haug, M, Cahyat, A, Wollenberg, L, De Jong, W, Limberg, G, Cronkleton, P, Moeliono, M & Becker, M 2007, ‘Capturing nested spheres of poverty: a model for multidimensional poverty analysis and monitoring’, Occasional Paper No. 46, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor.

Kraay, A & Raddatz, C 2007, ‘ Poverty traps, aid, and growth’, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 315-347 .

Munnel, AH 1992, ‘Infrastructure investment and economic growth’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 189-198.

OECD 2008, Net official development assistance in 2008: preliminary data for 2008, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, viewed 13 February 2010,

<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/34/42459170.pdf>.

OECD 2009, OECD factbook 2009: economic, environmental and social statistics, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, viewed 13 February 2010,

<http://lysander.sourceoecd.org/vl=4785723/cl=18/nw=1/rpsv/factbook2009/10/03/03/index.htm >.

Sachs, JD 2005a, ‘The development challenge’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 84, no. 2, pp.78-90.

Sachs, J 2005b, The end of poverty, Penguin Press, New York.

Sachs, JD 2007, ‘Take the guesswork out of aid to African countries’, Financial Times, 2 March, p.17.

Sachs, JD 2009, ‘Homegrown aid’, International Herald Tribune, 10 April, p.6.

Sen, A 1999, Development as freedom, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Verme, P 2010, ‘ A structural analysis of growth and poverty in the short-term’, The Journal of Developing Areas, vol. 43, no. 2, pp.19-39.

The Connectivity Policy and Its Relevance to East Kalimantan Context

When I was in GTZ national staff exchange to Himachal Pradesh (HP), India, I heard about “connectivity policy” applied by Indian government. It is the policy that aims to ensure all villages are connected to the capital of the state by road. I visited a small settlement located in the couple of hills behind the capital of HP, Shimla, which was connected by road. I should explain here that the level of difficulty of road construction is high as it is in the high side of hill, and interestingly, it is a small settlement where only few households are there, which we might think that it is not economically efficient for the road construction. However, the road is still constructed though it is just a gravel road.
At that time I thought that it is an interesting policy, particularly for East Kalimantan where some villages are even not connected to the capital of district. In terms of outcome based management, instead of keep talking about road construction only, let’s measured that effectiveness by counting the percentage of villages that connected by road to the capital of district.
Now I started to learn about economic in introductory program in ANU. The lesson is actually just the basic of economic way of thinking. But I just realized that I wasn’t aware about that before.
The main lessons is that when society create larger market which indicated by more quanityty demanded and supplied in ‘relatively’ free market, the benefit to society (or in economic jargon called as “total surplus”) will be increase although that the new equilibrium price may higher than the previous one. Why is it like that? The answer is simple: because more consumers who able purchase the products and services they need, and more producers who produce and able to sell their products and services. Both producers and consumers (society) are in better off.
Thus, how to make more demand and supply? The very basic theory of demand and supply said it is “price” that whill change the quantity demanded and supplied, and what they call as “non price determinant” that will change the demand and the supply. In demand, there are six non price determinant i.e. income, consumer taste, price of substitute, price expectation, price of complement, and number of customers. Meanwhile, there are five non price determinant factors in supply i.e. technology, price of factors, price of alternative goods, price expectation, and number of producers.
Now I come to the main point which is connectivity. I believe that connectivity is the most influencing factors to those non price determinants both for supply and demand. Connectivity as part of the public infrastructure outcome can create more investment, employment and private sector output (Munnell, 1990), and more public infrastructure can help to alleviate poverty (Buddhadeb & De, 1998). President Yudoyono also believe that if he make double spending in infrastructure, to $140 billion during his second presidency, it will help him boost economic growth to 7% by 2014 from an estimated 4.3% last year (Kate & Sukarsono, 2010). It means connectivity can create more income and more number of consumers, which at the end increase consumer demand. Connectivity can decrease the transport cost of producers (price of factors) and it can also increase the number of producers coming to the market, which at the end increase the supply.
If we look at the geographic of East Kalimantan connectivity can be achieved either by road, water or air. However, the most reliable and efficient way is road because it cost peoples less and relatively independent from the weather. Although road construction is more expensive in the investment but it will cost society less than air and water.
Public infrastructures such as roads and bridge demand a lot of money. However, East Kalimantan region has more than US$ 200 million per annum beside deconsentration and assistance fund from central government. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the fact that from time to time local governments in East Kalimantan, included the province government, spent the budget much less than the plan. In 2007, governement spending was just 78% from its planned, while in 2009 most likely not reach 70% because the report per mid of December 09 shows the spending was just 65%. Whereas there are many villages are still not well-connected to the centre and the poverty is still more than 15% (I even beleive the figure is more than 30% particularly in districts). I would suggest to the governor and all mayors in East Kalimantan to prove to public that they are capable to spend the public budget wisely which means spend the planned amount for the strategic activities and programs which will bring the welfare to the society. Only by that way, East Kalimantan can push central government to review the fiscal decentralization policy in order to have more public budget in the region.

Bibliography
Buddhadeb, G., & De, P. (1998). Role of Infrastructure in Regional Development: A Study over the Plan Period. Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 33, No. 47/48 , 3039-3043+3045-3048.
Kate, D. T., & Sukarsono, A. (2010). INDONESIA: UNFINISHED HIGHWAY TO GROWTH. New York: Business Week.
Munnell, A. H. (1990). How Does Public Infrastructure Affect Regional Economic Performance? New England Economic Review , 11-22.
Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Republik Indonesia/Indonesia's Supreme Audit Institution (2008). Audit Report to Financial Statement of The Province Government of East Kalimatan Fiscal Year 2007.

The Development Challenge: A Summary

Sachs argued the role of United States wasn’t sufficient to help poor countries to meet their Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It was not only because inadequate amount of Official Development Aid (ODA) fund provided, but also because the allocation didn’t support the MDGs directly. Sachs found that $11.8 billion out of $14.6 billion of total U.S. bilateral aid in 2003 were allocated for things that are not directly build long term economic change in impoverished countries. Of the remaining $2.8 billion very little used for transformational development that he believes would support poor countries to escape dependence on outside aid. Ironically, the perception of U.S. peoples about their development aid was much more than what actually they give. Moreover, the U.S. government often couldn’t meet their own promise to provide adequate amount of ODA fund.

Sachs argued that the poor countries will meet the MDGs if they invest more in infrastructure and human capital. However, the ability of their households and government budget is far from sufficient.

Sachs suggested four steps to make U.S. become the world leader on international development to achieve MDGs: make U.S. peoples realize the actual amount of money they spent for ODA, increase the U.S. fund to contribute to achieve MDGs according to international agreement, restructure the ODA allocation so the proportion is directly support MDGs, transformational development, and the Millennium Challenge Account scheme, and finally to adjust the U.S. development assistance program so they can synergize their development aid and national security concern.

Detail of paper:
Title: The Development Challenge
Author: Jeffrey D. Sachs
Journal: Foreign Affairs (March/April 2005)

Australia: Ekologi dan Migrasi

Australia merupakan salah satu negara ekonomi maju yang menempati peringkat ke 11 untuk Produk Domestik Bruto (PDB) per kapita, terutama jika dibandingkan dengan Indonesia yang berada di peringkat 127. Seperti negara-negara ekonomi maju lainnya, sektor jasa mendominasi ekonomi Australia (sekitar 70% dari total GDP) selain pertanian, pertambangan dan industry.

Negara dengan jumlah penduduk kurang dari sepersepuluh penduduk Indonesia ini memiliki luas daratan lebih dari enam kali lipat luas daratan Indonesia. Walaupun demikian, tidak seperti Indonesia yang subur, hanya sedikit saja tanah di Australia yang subur dan mendukung pertanian untuk produksi pangan mereka. Australia merupakan benua dengan tanah paling tidak produktif dimana tingkat pertumbuhan tanaman alami paling lambat. Ini terjadi karena tanah di sini sudah sangat tua dan terus menerus dicuci oleh hujan selama milyaran tahun. Oleh karena itu masih lebih ekonomis menanam jeruk di Brazil dan membawanya ke Australi dalam bentuk jus dibandingkan menanam jeruk di Australi sendiri.

Australia merupakan benua kering. Curah hujan di bagian tengah kurang dari 600 mm per tahun. Curah hujan agak tinggi hanya ada di sebagian kecil daerah di wilayah pesisir yang bisa mencapai 2000 mm per tahun terutama pesisir timur dan pulau Tasmania. Dari sebagian kecil wilayah pesisir itu, hanya sebagian kecil lagi yang bisa mencapi lebih dari 3000 mm per tahun. Bandingkan dengan Indonesia yang rata-rata curah hujan tahunannya lebih dari 3100 mm per tahun. Oleh karena itu kota-kota di sini dilengkapi dengan danau-danau buatan yang menampung air hujan untuk jangka panjang. Dan kota-kota hanya mungkin dibangun di pesisir dg curah hujan cukup, oleh karena itu kota-kota besar Australia berada di pesisir timur ditambah Adelaide di selatan dan Perth di barat dan Darwin di utara.

Penduduk asli Australia adalah bangsa Aborigin. Orang kulit putih pertama kali mendiami benua ini pada tahun 1788 setelah James Cook tiba di sini pada tahun 1770. Orang kulit putih pertama di sini adalah orang Inggris yang teridiri dari para tahanan dan penjaganya. Pengiriman tahanan ini terjadi karena membludaknya jumlah tahanan pada abad 18 yang didominasi oleh para pencuri dari kalangan orang miskin di Inggris. Kerajaan Inggris khawatir akan terjadi pemberontakan kalau para tahanan ini tidak dipindahkan. Sampai dengan tahun 1783, masalah kelebihan tahanan ini dapat diselesaikan dengan mengirim mereka ke Amerika Utara. Tetapi revolusi Amerika membuat pengiriman tahanan terhenti. Pengiriman tahanan ke Australia terus berlangsung sampai dengan tahun 1868.

Migrasi dan kependudukan di Australia selalu menjadi isu penting. Krisis di Asia dan peluang ekonomi di Australia membuat banyak migran dari Asia yang ingin tinggal di Australia. Per tahun 2009 lalu, pertumbuhan penduduk Australia mencapai 2,1 persen, tetapi 64 persennya merupakan pertumbuhan akibat migrasi. Saat ini sekitar seperempat warga negara Australia lahir di luar Australia, artinya mereka adalah migran yang berhasil menjadi warga negara. Pernah ada pendapat kuat di para politis untuk meningkatkan jumlah penduduk sampai dengan 50 juta (dari 20 juta saat ini) agar Australia dapat menjadi negara super power mengimbangi Amerika. Tetapi mereka juga sadar bahwa daya dukung lingkungan di sini tidak memungkinkan, krisis air dan lahan produktif untuk pertanian merupakan masalah besar Australia. Oleh karena itu Indonesia merupakan negara penting karena kita merupakan ‘pagar’ dari para imigran Asia lainnya. Tentu akan sangat menjadi masalah bagi Australia kalau ‘pagar’ ini tidak stabil karena bukan hanya tidak dapat mencegah migran dari luar tetapi orang Indonesia sendiri malah akan menjadi migran di sini.

Catatan:

- Referensi penting tulisan ini adalah: Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Success. New York: Viking.

- Gambar peta didapat dari http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/rainfall/index.jsp

“7 Tahap Reformasi Birokrasi”: Bukan Hanya Soal Gaji!!!

Apa itu “birokrasi”? Dari beberapa definisi yang saya tahu, saya cenderung mengutip definisi dari “wikipedia” versi Bahasa Inggris” yang mengartikan birokrasi sebagai “Kumpulan struktur organisasi, prosedur, protokol, dan peraturan-peraturan untuk mengelola kegiatan, biasanya pada organisasi skala besar dan pemerintahan”. Saya setuju dengan definisi ini karena birokrasi tidak diartikan sempit sebagai “birokrat” atau “pegawai”, dimana definisi sempit ini akhir membawa “reformasi birkrasi” hanya terbatas pada “perbaikan gaji”.

Gaji memang penting untuk membangun motivasi, tapi perbaikan gaji tanpa didukung oleh usaha lain maka motivasi tidak akan terjadi, atau bahkan akan menjadikam motivasi yang mengarah pada tujuan yang salah.

Inti dari usulan saya adalah: “Reformasi Birokasi Harus Mengarah Pada Perbaikan Kinerja (Hasil)”. Berikut 7 tahap yang harus dibangun dalam reformasi birokasi terutama untuk pemerintahan daerah:

1. Bangun Sistem Usulan dan Pemantauan Hasil Pembangunan antara Masyarakat dan Struktur Pemerintahan

Karena tujuan reformasi birokrasi adalah perbikan kinerja, sedangkan kinerja dituntut oleh “pemilik” maka yang harus pertama kita perbaiki adalah hubungan antara masyarakat sebagai “pemilik” dan struktur pemerintahan sebagai “operator”. Fokus diskusi kita di sini adalah hubungan terkait dengan mekanisme aspirasi/usulan kinerja dan mekanisme monitoring kinerja.

Yang harus dihasilkan pada tahap pertama ini adalah satu mekanisme hubungan yang efektif antara masyarakat termasuk kelompok masyarakat sipil, DPRD dan pemerintah dalam mengelola aspirasi masyarakat ke dalam bentuk “mandat” dan memonitor pencapaian dari mandat tersebut. Mandat harus dirumuskan dalam bentuk hasil atau kinerja!.

Untuk itu ada beberapa hal yang harus dilakukan: (1) Memperbaiki tata tertib DPRD agar lebih transparan; (2) Memperbaiki hubungan DPRD dengan “konstituennya” sehingga lingkup konstituen menjadi kewilayahan bukan pada “kelompok yang memilih saya”. (3) Penguatan kompetensi DPRD dalam menjalankan peran perencanaan dan monitoring kinerja yang partisipatif; (4) Penguatan kelompok masyarakat sipil dan kelompok kepentingan lainnya agar dapat mandiri dan juga menjalankan peran fasiltiasi perencanaan dan monitoring kinerja secara partisipatif; (5) Membangun transparansi yang proaktif di pemerintahan; (6) Memperbaiki hubungan antara unit-unit pelayanan publik danpara pelanggannya terutama agar aspirasi dan keluhan pelanggan diperiksa setiap waktu dan dijadikan masukan untuk perbaikan pengelolaan uni t pelayanan publik secara terus menerus.

2. Definisikan Hasil dan Anggaran untuk Mencapai Hasil dalam RPJMD/Renstra

Sebelum PP 6/08 dan PP 8/08, perencanaan daerah bersifat perencanaan kegiatan/program. Hal ini membuat sistem birokrasi sibuk dengan kegiatan dan program tetapi tidak tau apa yang dicapai. Pendekatan ini bukan hanya berpotensi membelanjakan dana publik untuk hal yang tidak perlu, tetapi juga membuat struktu birokasi tidak tau persis apa yang harus dilakukan. Semua hal terlihat penting.

Pendekatan ini harus diubah!. Setelah PP 6/08 dan PP 8/08 pemerintahan daerah harus berpikir HASIL. Merencanakan HASIL, menganggarkan untuk HASIL, memonitor HASIL dan melaporkan HASIL. Pemilik (baca: rakyat) tidak terlalu pusing dengan apa yang dilakukan oleh birokrat, para pembayar pajak lebih mementingkan pencapaian hasil. Mereka ingin agar pasar tidak kumuh lagi, jalanan tidak macet lagi, semua anak bersekolah, semua orang yang sakit dapat perawatan, mudah dapat modal usaha dll.

Rumusan hasil harus datang dari warga masyarakat lewat satu mekansime tertentu yang menjamin keterwakilan dan transparansi.

Anggaran harus dirancang untuk mencapai hasil, bukan hanya untuk melaksanakan kegiatan. Pada akhirnya setiap hasil harus didelegasikan kepada jabatan-jabatan yang ada di Pemda dalam bentuk kontrak kinerja.

3. Bangun Tata Organisasi, Tata Laksana dan Deskripsi Jabatan yang Mendukung Pencapaian Hasil-Hasil

Atas dasar RPJMD/Renstra, Biro/Bagian Organisasi bersama dengan setiap SKPD menyusun: (a) struktur organisasi, (b) tata laksana atau standard operating procedure (SoP), (c) uraian jabatan yang mencakup standar kompetensi dan target kinerja (hasil).

SoP harus memberikan kepastian tercapainya hasil-hasil yang telah dimandatkan oleh masyarakat. SoP juga menjelaskan tugas dan capaian dari setiap jabatan yang ada di SKPD berdasarkan RPJMD/Renstra. Uraian jabatan, terutama standar kompetensi, mendefinisikan dengan jelas indikator-indikator kompetensi yang harus dimiliki oleh orang yang akan menempati jabatan. Selain itu, uraian jabatan juga secara tegas menetapkan hasil-hasil yang harus didapat oleh setiap pemegang jabatan.

Pada akhirnya, Biro/Bagian Organisasi siap menyampaikan paket deskripsi jabatan berikut kontrak kinerja untuk setiap jabatan kepada BKD. Untuk selanjutnya BKD mencari orang yang tepat untuk menduduki jabatan tersebut.

4. Pastikan Setiap Pegawai Menempati Posisi yang Tepat untuk Mencapai Hasil-Hasil

Selanjutnya BKD mencari orang yang tepat untuk menduduki jabatan sesuai uraian jabatan yang dibuat oleh Biro/Bagian Organisasi. Berdasarkan deskripsi jabatan juga, BKD dapat menyusun pola karir pegawai agar sistem promosi dan mutasi pegawai dikelola secara profesional sesuai dengan potensi yang dimiliki setiap pegawai.

Rekrutmen pegawai baru dilakukan lewat analisis kebutuhan pegawai yang profesional dengan mempertimbangkan hasil ananlisis jabatan tadi. Sebagai hasilnya, pegawai yang direkrut adalah orang-orang yang benar-benar atau paling paling mendekati standar kompetensi yang diharapkan.

Promosi jabatan juga dilakukan secara profesional. Pertimbangan politik sangat minim. Lewat informasi pola karir dan sistem informasi kepegawaian dan sistem promosi yang terbuka, pemda akan mendapatkan pegawai yang paling tepat menduduki jabatan struktural atau fungsional uang kosong.

5. Pastikan Setiap Pegawai Memiliki Kompetensi Memadai Untuk Mencapai Hasil-Hasil

BKD juga melakukan pengkajian kompetensi pegawai secara reguler. Hasilnya berupa kebutuhan pengembangan kompetensi dibahas bersama dengan Badan Diklat. Seluruh kebutuhan diklat dikerjakan oleh Badan Diklat sesuai dengan analisis kebutuhan diklat sebagai tindak lanjut dari analsisi kompetensi yang dilakukan BKD.

Badan Diklat tidak melakukan kegiatan diklat kecuali yang memang dibutuhkan oleh para pegawai untuk memenuhi target kinerjanya sesuai dengan kontrak kinerja yang sejalan dengan Renstra/RPJMD dan tuntutan warga masyarakat.

Upaya-upaya pengembangan kompetensi lainnya selain pelatihan (misalnya: magang, studi banding, bimtek, dll) dilakukan bersama dengan BKD dan SKPD-SKPD terkait.

6. Lengkapi Fasilitas dan Peralatan Kerja Pegawai Sesuai Kebutuhan untuk Mencapai Hasil-Hasil

Dinas Pendapatan dan Pengelolaan Keuangan dan Aset (DP2KA)membuat analisis kebutuhan peralatan dan fasilitas kerja, dan bersama dengan dinas komunikasi dan informasi juga mengkaji kebutuhan teknologi informasi. Seluruh belanja barang yang terkait dengan fasilitas dan peralatan kerja dilakukan oleh DP2KA atas konsultasi dengan SKPD terkati dengan didasarkan atas analisis kebutuhan yang profesional. Proses pengadaan dilakukan lewat prosedur standar seperti diatur dalam aturan pengadaan.

Dengan demikian, tidak ada satu pun pegawai yang tidak memiliki peralatan dan fasilitas kerja minimal. Tetapi juga tidak ada pegawai yang memiliki fasilitas yang berlebihan dan tidak diperlukan untuk menjalankan tugasnya.

7. Bangun Sistem Pemeliharaan Motivasi Pegawai: Prosperity Follow Performance

Salah satu hal yang sangat mempengaruhi motivasi adalah struktur dan besaran remunerasi. Di sini saya bilang struktur dan besaran, bukan hanya besaran. Ada banyak contoh kasus dimana remunerasi besar tidak bisa mendorong motivasi jika tidak diatur oleh struktur yang cocok. Lebih lengkap tentang ini dapat dilihat di http://cahyat.blogspot.com/2009/03/struktur-ideal-remunerasi-pegawai.html

Selain itu, Pemda dan seluruh SKPD juga harus mengatur ulang sistem nilai organisasi agar mendorong pencapaian kinerja daerah. Pimpinan harus benar-benar memberikan contoh hidup tentang sistem nilai yang disepakati bersama sehingga setiap orang merasa ada motivasi untuk juga menerapkannya.