Paradigm of Planning and Budgeting
Planning Theory
What is planning? Although as theory the
perception of planning is quite general and broad, it can be categorized into
either positive or normative. The normative
theories are further divided between ethical and functional types;
alternatively, they can be considered based on their intent, whether they are "about planning...of planning...for planning"
(Brooks, 2002) . Planning theory is
moving away from functional normative understanding since in current situation,
challenges facing by the planners are becoming more complex and cross cutting
with other sector. Contemporary planning
theory focuses more on helping planners help themselves with observations on
what kinds of techniques seem to work. Moreover, the current phenomenon in
economic and political turbulence presents a challenge to devise political
systems and a process capable of overcoming the inherent contradictions in
public policy work (Friedman, 2011) .
As economic development distinguished from
economic growth, it resulted from an assessment of the economic development
objectives with the available resources, core competencies, and the infusion of
greater productivity, technology and innovation, as well as improvement in
human capital, resources, and access to large markets (Palermo, 2010) . Most traditional
economic theory assumes a spaceless framework in which households, firms and
governments choose one and only one location (McGuire, 1987) . However, space is not only an input in
production it is also an important element in cities for locational planning
for economic agents and an appropriate source for local authorities to finance
city development.
The theory in urban economics concentrates on
the economic relationships and processes that contribute to the important
spatial characteristics of urban and regional economies, especially to their
size, density of settlement, and structure and pattern of land use. It provides useful tools to investigate the
urban problems and find their solutions. Unfortunately, governments and local
authorities in most developing countries, including Indonesia, have not yet taken
the advantage of using the tools of regional and urban economics to study the
problems of urban planning, infrastructure, finance, service delivery, poverty,
slums, housing, land use, transportation, and environment. These problems are inherently involving the
dimension of space and attached to highly complex urban-metropolitan
environment in which they occur. Hence,
both spatial and economic organisations of the city are to be understood
clearly before urban issues are analysed and policies are determined. Therefore, urban land use theory and capital
theory need to be combined to analyse many urban issues (Fujita, 1989) .
Planning are sought to be a problem
definition tool with close relation of efficiency. When attached to the idea of
planning, it became dominating there too. Planning was then seen as a process
of designing problem - solutions that might be installed and operated cheaply. However, as time move on and situations concerning
the plan are changing and uncontrollable, by now we are all beginning to
realize that one of the most intractable problems is that of defining problems
(of knowing what distinguishes an observed condition from a desired condition)
and of locating problems (finding where in the complex causal networks the
trouble really lies). In turn, and equally intractable, is the problem of
identifying the actions that might effectively narrow the gap between what-is and
what-ought-to-be. As we seek to improve the effectiveness of actions in pursuit
of valued outcomes, as system boundaries get stretched, and as we become more sophisticated
about the complex workings of open societal systems, it becomes ever more
difficult to make the planning idea operational.
Table 1 Interconnection between Mode & Locus of Planning
Locus of Planning
|
|||
Centralized
|
Decentralized
|
||
Mode of Planning
|
Rational
|
The Planner as applied scientist: Comprehensive
rationality
|
The Planner as political activist: Advocacy
|
Non-rational
|
The Planner confronts politics: Incrementalism
|
The planner as communicator: Communicative action
|
|
The rational planning
model is mostly used for designing neighbourhoods, cities,
and regions is defined to be the process
of realizing a problem, establishing and evaluating planning criteria, creating
alternatives, implementing alternatives, and monitoring progress of the
alternatives. The rational planning model is central in
the development of modern urban
planning and transportation planning. In contrast to rational planning theory,
non-rational theories emphasize the actual practice of planning as frequent
processes within which participants have the freedom to adjust both methods and
goals and adjust the scope of their negotiations at will
Related to decentralization policy, The
recent ‘communicative turn’ in planning theory has recognised the importance of
communication in planning decision-making and the role of collaboration between
as many actors as possible in working towards ‘a political democratisation of
daily communication’ (Forester, 1989) . This means planning
process must comprise formal participatory planning processes, including
committee and other meetings, public participation strategies, such as search
conferences, and the texts produced for and by these processes.
The
above theory discussed on the interrelation of other aspects within planning
but what is the background for planning itself to cover those aspects? Friedman
argued that planning theory has three basic tasks that are central to its
endeavours (Friedman, 2011).
First is the philosophical task of evolving a humanist
philosophy to guide planners in their work; the task of adapting planning
practices to the continually changing course of human affairs; and the task of
translating knowledge and concepts from fields other than planning into our own
language. These tasks show that planning as theory has evolved to adapt to
current states, hence planning has the holistic approach to address every
aspects.
Then
there is the question of what is the ideal planning theory, particularly in
dynamics complex modern world? The idea behind embracing communicative planning
is to bridge the Euclidean paradigm with complex public policy planning. Planning is often perceived as tool for designing space and its
hardware or widely known as Euclidean approach. High speed development in
political and technological issue plays high role in rejuvenating how to define
a new plan, it means traditional definitions and approach of planning is no
longer make sense. In that respects planning should be normative, it has to relate to the interest of all
humanity. If related to decentralization, such values of inclusive democracy;
giving voice to the disempowered; integrating disempowered groups into the
mainstream of economic and social life while preserving cultural diversity;
privileging qualitative over quantitative growth, including the notion of
sustainability; gender equality; and respect for the natural world. The aim of
communicative theory is to achieve ‘emancipatory’ knowledge through dialogue
between actors. Common principles allow dialogue and exchange of ideas to take
place. Such principles include access to information, listening to and
respecting other participants, having equal power to speak and challenge
others, speaking sincerely, accurately and so on (Habermas, 1996) .
Budgeting Theory
Budget plays a key role to successful planning since it will
be the device to transform a vision into reality. In public financing, budget planning meant at
the least choosing particular target levels of service by activity and figuring
out in advance what it would cost in personnel and supplies to accomplish those
specific goals (Rubin, 1990) . The deposition elaborate
the idea of rejecting a model of budgeting that allowed the departments to ask for what they wanted
instead of requesting what
they needed to accomplish particular tasks (money follow function). It is believed that there was much waste in
government and those expenditures could be cut back without losing much in the
way of services.
The aforementioned helps budget as a tool of
administration sets a framework for policy formulation (Gildenhuys,
1997) .
This requires decisions about actions to be taken to reach objectives. Choices
must be made about which of many competing proposals should be adopted to
further particular national objectives and about the extent to which various
objectives can be advanced simultaneously. As a means of policy implementation,
budget sets the standards of economy and efficiency apply. The budget is a
guide for management, and at the same time budgetary procedures are instruments
of administrative as well as legal control, because typically budget decisions
are embodied in laws or decrees. Lastly, its document may be a source of public
information on past activities, current decisions, and future prospects.
The above theory in planning and budgeting are
applicable to the ‘real world’ whenever it relates to public policy planning.
The consensus in public planning and its compromising aspects makes it
unavoidable to detach it with political situation surrounds it. Law as one of
goal of politics, in this case plays a role as supporting framework to
establish a connection between planning and reality both in central and
regional government.
Evaluation and Legal Aspect in Indonesian Development Planning & Budgeting Context
There is a debate about public planning versus private sector
planning, where private is more dynamic than public. The question is how does
the mid-term planning (RPJM) can combine the national and subnational vision
and mission and how the supporting policy can influence the private sector in
minimizing the gap in its implementation? Current phenomenon resulted adaptive
advantage where innovation driven organization yields because the recognition
of private sector planning system as comparison.
Current decentralization process in Indonesia has driven the subnational
to produce promises that are forced to be included into their own planning. The
need of integration is high, how to formulate harmonization into planning
system? The definition of word harmonize in today’s condition is still weak,
RPJMN/D as tool of control is not sufficient although through UU 26/2007 reward
and punishment is already set. However, it is not applicable since planning is
about future estimation which heavily depends on future condition of
uncontrolled socio economics situation. The keyword is “certainty” where
planning has to be able to ensure the process of output and outcome. Priority
needs to be rethink as budgeting indicators. This is become useless when ceiling
become ceiling of all ministries. We need to have comprehensive planning and
budgeting without adopting budget ceiling.
Problems in the Law 25/2004 are that some of the important
parameters were not reflected within the coherence of the field of the national
development planning. Law 25/2004 is eliminating the context of spatial planning;
it is not align with the spatial dimensions of development (Oetomo, 2012) . Law 26/2007
actually precedes the set of spatial planning linkages with development
planning, which should be included in Law 25/2004.
Options for Indonesia in the future planning of decentralization is
whether rational or non-rational. In the rational use within the planning,
planners must become political activists who advocate for planning, while in
the non-rational planning, planners should conduct active communication to
communicate the benefit of others.
On the legal side, all the regulations must be homogeneous; there
should be no conflict between regulations. According to the ‘45 Constitution there
are no specific articles that stated planning; however there are two articles
explaining budgeting. This means planning is something that still needs to be
developed or revisited. In addition, the planning and budgeting document is
legally unparalleled under the law; where RKP[1] is
by Presidential Decree (PerPres), and while the State Budget is by Government
Laws in State Budgeting (Mahendra, 2012) . State Budgeting is
relied heavily on political configurations; these configurations are unstable
and vulnerable making presidential influence is weak and competing with the
legislative. In practice, the fraction in legislative will reach consensus if
the “cake of power” dividend is agreed.
The democratization process in local context is undergoing, however
the fact that welfare of the community is not going parallel is another story.
Main problem of the situation are: 1) Unclear division of tasks; 2)
Institution; 3) Personnel capacity & capability; 4)
Unclear local budgeting (refer to point 1). There is a need for affirmative
policy where each ministry can map each province and regency/districts that has
direct connection with them (Suwandi, 2012) . The current
planning process is still sectoral, therefore to prevent any lobbying; the role
of the governor must be strengthened. Related
to personnel capability, with the recent law draft on civil servant, it has to
be ensured that local government can have access to competent workforce in the
right numbers. Finally, there has to be a balance between ‘freedom’ of
decentralization and intervention in local authority context. Technocratic
approach will eventually seep into politics arena. Therefore, affirmative
policy is essential in technocratic approach.
Challenges
A discourse on planning theory should take into account different
approach of planning such as economic, physical development and public policy
approach. Planning is a means to achieve set of objective by having alternative
course of actions. In this context, budget served as means of policy
implementation. In another words, it echoed the term “money follow functions”.
However, there is a gap between ideal paradigm and implementation of
both planning and budgeting in the current national development planning
system. These are findings from the first round table discussion on alignment
planning and budgeting. Revitalization of national development planning and
system is needed to address these challenges:
-
Alignment planning and budgeting
-
Decentralization context
-
The interconnection between Law No. 24/2004, Law
No. 32/2004, Law No. 33/2004 and Law No. 17/2004.
The second round table discussion will then focus on the system of
national development planning to see the interconnection between the supporting
laws in the effort of aligning nation regional planning and budgeting in
Indonesia’s decentralization context.
Acknowledgement
This paper is a brief summary of valuable inputs from highly
accredited persons from the Government and Academia:
1.
Dr. Budhi Santoso, Direktur OTDA BAPPENAS
2. Dr.
Dadang Solichin, Direktur Evaluasi Kinerja Kelembagaan
3.
Dr. Sidqy Lego Pangesthi Suyitno, Direktur
Keuangan Anggaran
4.
Drs.Wariki
Sutikno, MCP, Kasubdit
Pengembangan Kapasitas Keuangan Daerah
5.
Dr. Ir. Antonius Tarigan, MSi, Kasubdit Kelembagaan Pemerintah Daerah
6.
Prof. Robert Simandjuntak, FE UI
7.
Dr. Andi Oetomo, SAPPK ITB
8.
Dr. Made Suwandi, Ketua Tim Revisi UU 32/2004
9.
Dr. A.A. Oka Mahendra, Praktisi Hukum FH UGM
10. Prof. Sofian
Effendi, Decentralization Senior Advisor
Dr. Fauziah Zen, FE
Universitas Indonesia
