About

Our Aims

Using the official budget records for some 500 subnational governments in Indonesia the maps and other data access tools provide a range of government revenue and government expenditure related indicators that help to reveal the workings of subnational governments across the country. The information aims to support informed community discussion and debate about how and why subnational budgets differ from each other and how particular subnational budgets in Indonesia could be improved into the future.

It is expected that many people and organisations will benefit from being able to access this information. This includes, governments responsible for administering the budget themselves, researchers and policy advisors, budget-related advocacy groups, the media, and anyone else interested in getting a better understanding of what governments of Indonesia are doing to provide public services and to pursue development priorities.

What the maps show

The maps currently present budget data, for the 2010 fiscal year, for District Level Governments in Indonesia. In 2010 these governments included 398 Regencies (or Kabupaten) and 93 Municipalities (or Kota). Similar Provincial level maps will be added in the future.

Each map, seen by clicking on the links in the above menu bar, presents a budget related measure (or budget-status indicator) for each sub-national government. Several of the budget-status indicators are concerned with revenues (the sizes and main sources of revenue), others are concerned with budget expenditures and one has to do with the final budget outcome (that is, expenditures relative to revenues).

Rather than comparing absolute money amounts two types of size-standardised measures are used. These are: per capita amounts (i.e. per capita revenue or expenditure amounts) which standardize for population size, and percentage share values (i.e. the share of the total budget associated with a revenue or expenditure item of interest) which standardise for differences in overall budget size. An explanation of how each indicator is constructed and how it can be interpreted is provided with the each of the budget maps. However, the following provides a little further information about the two types of indicators, their use and their limitations.

Two types of Budget-Status Indicators

Per capita amounts
Subnational governments differ in terms of the number of people for whom they must provide services: some have millions more people than others. Measuring budgets (either revenues or expenditures) on a per capita basis overcomes the issue of population size differences. Per capita revenue amounts reveal the amount of money available for each person in each area while per capita expenditure amounts reflect the amounts allocated per person in each area. Large differences in per capita revenues, or per capita expenditures, between one government and another, raise issues of equity and fairness and questions as to why the differences might exist. For example, different levels of expenditure on human capital development programs (be it on health and education) by governments may be related to the different levels of health or education among their populations. They also lend to discussions as to how any excessively large inequalities might be reduced in favor of greater equity.

Percentage shares
The percentage share measure refers to the share a subcomponent of revenues has of total revenues or the share a subcomponent of expenditure has of total expenditures. While some governments have much larger budgets than others, the percentage shares measures assume that the total revenues or total expenditures of all areas are the same size. They are a useful comparative measure because they reveal the relative importance of a revenue subcomponent or expenditure subcomponent within budgets. For example, it can be concluded that a government that spends 10% of its total expenditures on health gives health a higher priority among its concerns than other governments that spend 5% or less of their total expenditures on health. Percentage share measures are also commonly used to examine how the structures of budgets are changing over time.

Relative merits of the two measures
A warning: readers should be aware of the danger of reaching misleading conclusions by simply comparing the percentage share figures of different subnational governments as presented in the maps. Having a higher percentage share value for any component of interest does not necessarily mean that one subnational government is more responsive in addressing a concern than another government that spends a lower share of its budget on that concern, or vice versa. Therefore, again using the example described above, it can not be concluded that a government spending a greater share of its total expenditure on health is doing more for health than the government that is spending a smaller share of its total budget on health. This is because the percentage share measure says nothing about how much is actually being spent by those governments. It only reveals the relative importance of the item within each governments’ budget.

There is another issue about which some caution is needed. This relates to inter-government comparisons concerned with a particular budget-line item (ie a subcomponent of revenue or a subcomponent of expenditure) when both per capita and percentage share based indicators are presented. If, as might be expected, budgets of different subnational governments are roughly proportional in size to the size of their populations then it follows that the rank order of subnational governments, sorted from low to high, using one type of budget measure will remain very similar when using the other type of measure too. That is, areas with lower than average per capita expenditures will also tend to be the ones with lower than average percentage shares.

However, as will be seen when ranking subnational governments from low to high for some of the budget indicators that follow (for example, personnel expenditures) those with low percentage shares are not necessarily the same ones as those with low per capita amounts and vice versa. There are in fact cases of governments that have a low ranking among all subnational governments when ranking them on the basis of percentage shares but a high ranking when ranking them on a per capita basis (and vice versa). This unexpected finding informs that there are factors more important than population size in determining the overall size of subnational government budgets. When asking which measures are best for ranking subnational governments in terms of their efforts it is important to remember the dictum that ‘money counts most’. Higher per capita money amounts reflect higher inputs into issues of concern and should always be used as the primary measure of activity when making inter-area comparisons.

Budget years covered

The budget status indicators presented in this currently available set of maps all relate to the 2010 fiscal year, that is, January to December 2010. The revenues and expenditures are ‘realised’ amounts thus showing the actual income and outlays for the year.

More recent data not yet available
It is not, as yet, possible to present budget-status indicator maps for 2011 because the end-of-fiscal year data for 2011 have not yet been published by the Ministry of Finance. It should also be noted that the population counts for each sub-national government area that are needed to produce the per capita indicators are not yet available either. Population counts for any year after 2010 are not expected to be available from Indonesia’s National Statistics office (BPS) until at least the end of 2012.

While the 2010 data presented in these maps is now a little bit old it can be expected that the patterns observed in the maps using data from more recent budgets (for example, 2011 or even 2012) would not be greatly different to those seen in 2010. This is because the size and composition of most government budgets tend to remain fairly stable over relatively short-periods of time. Of course, there are always exceptions and some budgets may be very different in their structure due to a post-election change in government or perhaps due to an urgent need to attend to a natural disaster or some other unusual event. Of the indicators, the balanced budget indicator (to do with the size of budget surpluses and deficits) is likely be more volatile from one year to another. Readers should look to acquiring more time-series data to assess the budget management performance of any particular government area if that is their main interest

Data Sources

Budget data
Information about the actual revenues and expenditures for each subnational government (referred to as “realised” budgets) is progressively compiled on a quarterly basis by each government in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance of the Central Government of Indonesia. The quarterly and complete end-of year data is then published by the Ministry of Finance, on its website.as shown here: http://www.djpk.depkeu.go.id/datadjpk/131/. All the end-of-year revenue and expenditure information used in this report has been taken from this source.

Population data
The population data, used to calculate the per capita measures the 2010 fiscal year for each area, are 2010 census population counts compiled by Indonesia’s National Office ‘Statistics Indonesia’, otherwise known as Baden Pusat Statitisk (BPS). These census counts are published on the BPS website as seen here: http://sp2010.bps.go.id/.

References to the official sources of data used to construct each budget-status indicator are also presented on the respective map pages.

Longer term aims for this site

Illustrating what might be done by government
It is incumbent on all levels of government in Indonesia to increase the transparency of their budgets. Having greater transparency is vital to supporting citizen engagement in the year-to-year work of organising budgets for the public good. This site provides a demonstration of just one of the many useful ways by which transparency of budget-related data can be increased. Our hope is that, in time, that public sector agencies irrespective, of their area of responsibility, will be displaying such maps on their respective websites and that they will eventually all be accessible from a common portal such as the “open government portal” that the Indonesian Government is now developing.

In the interim
However, until the aforementioned government produced facilities become well established we hope to further develop this resource. Our plans include:
1. including maps for Provincial Governments in Indonesia
2. updating the maps with more contemporary data as it becomes available, and
3. extending the number of indicators from those currently shown.
In the short term future we hope to add several indicators to do with sector specific expenditures (e.g. per capita expenditures on education and health).

We welcome your comments

We welcome your suggestions on the choice of indicators that might be presented and how the site might otherwise be improved. Please feel free to use the spaces provided below to send us your comments.

Data for each subnational government area

The budget-maps provide a quick view of how governments are ranked (be they high or low) according to their indicator values by using broad classes of values. However, readers may also see the actual indicator values for each government area by either.

1. clicking on the government area of interest on the map itself. This will generate a pop-up box that shows the indicator value and some other comparative data which further helps to show the relative position of the government compared to other governments

2. going to the look-up table presented beneath each map. This table presents the data for each area and enables the areas to be ranked from high to low (or low to high) by clicking on the sort key at the top of each column of data. The “search” facility at the top of the table also enables the data for the government area of interest to be quickly located.

Budget analysis is important

Government budgets are used to provide public services and to pursue agreed development priorities. They may be seen as politically organised inputs dedicated to the task of human development. The extent to which government decisions bring benefits to people — especially those with limited means of their own — is a vital issue of community concern. The analysis of budget revenues and expenditures across governments provides a means for seeing how different governments actually govern for their people. Such analysis can highlight outliers (that is, governments with unusually high or low revenues or expenditures) which might be associated local circumstances of an unusual nature or poor administration .Because much of the revenue for subnational governments is supplied by the national government it also provides insight into issues to do with whether the fiscal transfer system is one that is well considered or not.

It should be noted that budget analysis is only part of many aspects of interest in assessing the performance of governments. Another dimension is whether the moneys are being well spent and whether the outcomes of government financed programs are actually meeting desired goals or not.

Subnational government budgets especially important

Subnational government budgets, especially those at the District (Kabupaten and Kota) level, are very important in Indonesia because of the broad range of services they are expected to provide. Mandated by laws (give link or references) introduced as part of the post Suharto reform era, the new system of decentralized government saw many service delivery responsibilities devolved to the subnational government level. These included the provision of basic education and health services as well infrastructure and other programs to help support economic development??

This decentralization has given rise to many questions about the adequacy of resources provided to them by the Central Government to support them in their work and about the effectiveness of Sub-national Governments themselves in promoting social and economic development in their respective jurisdictions.

Of course in looking at the budgets of different areas one must recognize that the development needs can differ from one area to another and governments may have different priorities for addressing those needs. So the share of a budget that goes to infrastructure development, education or poverty alleviation programs, among other concerns, may well differ. Nonetheless it can be useful to see how your regions’ budget compares to others and to look at indicators which help to reveal areas which appear to be less well-resourced and less well managed than others.

———————————————————-

Other useful websites providing social indicator maps

The following provides links to other sites presenting mapped data for Indonesia.
BPS: Social Indicator Maps (201O census) by province and Local Government Areas. See here
BAPPENAS: Poverty rates (year not stated) by Province. See here.
SOLO Kota: Poverty rates (circa 2009/2010?) by Neighbourhood. See here

More information about Open Government in Indonesia

.
The following Government of Indonesia website details concerning aims to greater to transprancy is provided.

Aims of government to improve

——————————————————————–

Acknowledgements

These maps have been prepared by the staff of Seknas FITRA with considerable input from several volunteers. Special thanks to Horst Posselt (Australian Volunteer) for the content design and the map commentaries and both Justin Synder and Chris Ramey, for their technical advice and support on the use of the google-mapping facilities. Funding support for this project

Through a selection of budget-status indicators presented in maps, tables and explanatory notes these web-pages (suggest located on the Budget_Info website?) enable you to view, and gain insight into, the budget of your own local government and how it performs relative to others. The site provides an investigative tool for quickly identifying which local government areas have better budgets than others. We believe it is incumbent on us (and most especially on government) to provide such tools to facilitate informed community debate on matters of vital importance to community well being.

What do the maps show?

Each map, opened by clicking on the links in the following directory, presents data for a particular budget-status indicator. Three of the indicators are concerned with revenues (the sizes and main sources of revenue) while the remaining two look at an aspect of budget expenditures and at the final budget outcome. The aspect of expenditures examined is personnel expenditures which reflect a concern that the bureaucracies of many governments are themselves grossly over-sized. The outcome indicator, on the other hand, looks at areas with high budget surpluses and high deficits. Further indicators to do with sector specific expenditures (e.g. per capita expenditures on education and health may be added in the future).

Why are Subnational Budgets important?

Government budgets are important instruments used by government to execute development priorities. Their contents reflect the decisions taken jointly by the executive and legislative wings of government. Such decisions necessarily have a substantial impact on community living standards: depending on the extent to which resultant budgetary expenditure brings benefit to people—especially for the poor and women—in the form of better public services. In short, budgets are yardsticks for measuring the extent to which governments govern for the people.

The size and composition of Subnational Government budgets, and especially Local Government Budgets (Kabupaten and Kota), are very important in Indonesia because of the broad range of services they are expected to provide. Mandated by laws (give link or references) introduced as part of the post Suharto reform era, the new system of decentralized government saw many service delivery responsibilities devolved to the subnational government level. In 2010, these included 491 Local Governments (93 Kota and 491 Kabupaten) situated within 33 Provinces. These included the provision of basic education and health services as well infrastructure and other programs to help support economic development??

This decentralization has given rise to many questions about the adequacy of resources provided to them by the Central Government to support them in their work and about the effectiveness of Sub-national Governments themselves in promoting social and economic development in their respective jurisdictions.

Of course in looking at the budgets of different areas one must recognize that the development needs can differ from one area to another and governments may have different priorities for addressing those needs. So the share of a budget that goes to infrastructure development, education or poverty alleviation programs, among other concerns, may well differ. Nonetheless it can be useful to see how your regions’ budget compares to others and to look at indicators which help to reveal areas which appear to be less well-resourced and less well managed than others.