Perbandingan
Sistem Pemerintahan Daerah
Irfan
(Departemen Ilmu
Administrasi)
Bagaimana membandingkan
sistem Pemerintahan daerah
yang notabene multidimensi?
Berbagai aspek dalam kelembagaan
(organisasi dan administrasi)
pemerintahan daerah






Pembagian wewenang
Struktur pemerintahan: lembaga politik dan
birokrasi
Sumberdaya: keuangan dan SDM
Aspek susunan wilayah administrasi/ daerah
otonom
Pertalian kelembagaan antar asas pemerintahan
Mekanisme manajerial: perencanaan,
pengorganisasian, pemantauan dan
pengawasan.
Conyers (2000)

Membandingkan kebijakan desentralisasi termasuk
praktek pemerintahan daerah di manapun dapat
dilakukan dengan membandingkan kinerjanya antar
daerah dalam satu kurun waktu di suatu negara
bangsa, dapat antar waktu. Dapat pula dilakukan
dengan membandingkan antar negara dalam satu
kurun waktu atau antar waktu.

Yang terpenting adalah apa dasar pijak
(teoritisnya)? Sehingga dapat dikenali ‘anomali’ dari
gejala empirik yang diamati.
Norton (1994)

Alan Norton membandingkan praktek
pemerintahan daerah di berbagai negara
maju dengan indikator-indikator yang
mudah dibaca: (1) jumlah susunan dan
banyaknya daerah otonom (struktur secara
nasional); (2) pembiayaan daerah; (3) dasar
pembentukan; (4) karakter wewenang; (5)
pengawasan aspek hukum; (6) wewenang
Kepala Daerah; (7) sistem perwakilan dan
kepartaian; dan (8) partisipasi masyarakat.
Leemans (1970)
Various basic patterns of relationship
exist between central government field
administration and representative local
government institutions
1. Fused model
2. Dual model
3. Split model
Fused model
“The central government field organization is fused
with local representative institutions. This pattern
may be called fused or single hierarchy model. In
such a case, only one integrated organization for
government and administration exist at each level,
composed of central government officials and local
representatives.”
Perancis dan beberapa negara di Asia dan Afrika
menggunakannya. Jerman juga mengacu sistem
ini pada level ‘Kreis’, sehingga banyak pakar
menyamakannya dengan sistem Perancis.
Dual Model
“There are two hierarchies of decentralization: the
central government field administration (…) and
the representative local government institutions.
Each hierarchy is composed of several levels of
local government or administration, each
responsible for areas of decreasing size. This
pattern may be called the dual hierarchy model.”
Sistem ini diwujudkan dengan menempatkan
aparatus Pemerintah yang ada di Daerah
mengawasi unit pemerintah daerah. Belanda dulu
menerapkannya untuk Hindia Belanda dengan
mengembagkan controlleur dan Assistant
controleur yang bertugas mengawasi pejabat
Pribumi.
Lanjutan
Saat ini sangat sulit ditemui sistem
pemerintahan daerah yang murni
mengembangkan ‘dual hierarchy’, kecuali
instansi vertikal dari departemen sektoral
yang masih dikembangkan di berbagai
negara seprti di Inggris dan Perancis. Dan
apabila terjadi pada wakil pemerintah,
umumnya dikembangkan pada level yang
berbeda sehingga dikenal sebagai ‘split
model’.
Split model
“In what might be termed the splithierarchy model, only central
government field organizations are
found on some levels of the local
government and administration
hierarchy, and only local
representative institutions on
others.”
Lanjutan
Sebenarnya hampir semua negara di
dunia ini mengacu sistem ‘split’ ini
dimana level teratas pemerintahan
dijadikan tempat munculnya aparatus
pemerintah, yang bisa dimungkinkan
tidak adanya mekenisme
desentralisasi.
“The absence of a local representative
element at the higher level”.
SISTEM PREFEKTORAL DAN FUNGSIONAL
Leemans (1970) dan Fried (1963), Cheema dan
Rondinelli (1985), Smith (1985), Hoessein (1993,
1995, 2002)
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
PREFECTORAL SYSTEM AND FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM
PRFECTORAL SYSTEM
FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM
1. THE NATIONAL TERRITORY IS DIVIDED
INTO AREAS OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT
AND EACH OF THESE IS PLACED A
GENERAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (PREFECT)
2. EACH OF THE CENTRAL MINISTRIES
ISSUES COMMANDS TO ITS FUNCTIONAL
COUNTERPARTS IN THE FIELD VIA
PREFECT
3. MOST STATE SERVICES USE THE AREAS
OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT PRESIDED
OVER BY THE PREFECT
1. THERE IS NO GENERAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT IN THE VARIOUS REGIONS
OF THE NATIONAL TERRITORY
4. THE PREFECTS AREA OF GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION ALSO CONSTITUTES AN
AREA OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
4. THERE IS NO NECESSARY IDENTITY
BETWEEN FIELD ADMINISTRATION AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS
5. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER
MINOR UNITS OF GOVERNMENT TENDS TO
BE (A) MORE PENETRATIVE THAN IN
FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM, (B) ADMINISTRATIVE
RATHER THAN LEGISLATIVE; (C) UNIFIED
UNDER THE PERFECT
5. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL
TENDS TO BE (A) LESS PENETRATIVE, (B)
LEGISLATIVE RATHER THAN
ADMINISTRATION, (C) DISPERSED AMONG
SEVERAL CENTRAL AND FIELD
INSTITUTIONS.
2. LINE OF COMMANDS IN DIRECTLY FROM
CENTRAL MINISTRIES TO THEIR FIELD
SERVICES
3. STATE SERVICES, USE VARYING SETS
OF ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR PARTICULAR
REQUIREMENTS
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
INTEGRATED PREFECTORAL SYSTEM AND
UN-INTEGRATED PREFECTORAL SYSTEM
CHARACTER
IPS
1. LOCUS OF
AUTHORITY
1. PREFECT
UPS
1. SPECIALIST
2.COMMUNICATING
2. SOLELY PREFECT
2.
NOT SOLELY NOT
EXCLUSIVE IN
PREFECT
3. AUXILIARIES
SERVICES IN
FIELD
3. WHOLLY BY PREFECT ITSELF
3.
CENTRAL MINISTRIES
4. LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
4. PREFECT AS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
4.
SEPARATELY
5. AREAS
5.
5.
INDEPENDENTLY OF
PREFECT
USE PREFECT AREA
Humes IV (1991)
“The power to govern locally is
distributed two ways: areally and
functionally. On an areal (also called
territorial) basis, the power to manage
local public affairs is distributed among
a number of general purpose regional
and local governments.”
Lanjutan
“On the functional basis, the power to
manage local public services is
distributed among a number of
specialized ministries and other
agencies concerned with the operation
of one or more related activities. Thus
the way power is distributed affects
which central agencies exert control
over which local institutions”
Distribution of Power:
Functional and Areal Channels
level
National
General Governments
Functional Agencies
National
Governments
National Ministries/ Agencies
Areal/ Territorial
Regional
Regional
Governments
Regional
Governments
departments/
agencies
Municipal
Municipal
Governments
Regional
Governments
departments/
agencies
Ministries
Field Agencies
lanjutan
“In comparing system of local governance it is
useful to consider at least two criteria for
distinguishing approach. One is the extent to which
hierarchical control is essentially either interorganizational or intra-organizational. Second is
the extent to which such control is focused in a
single agency or spread among many functional or
specialized hierarchies. These two criteria provide
the vertical and horizontal dimensions for a
framework for comparing the major approach to
local governance.”
Ada dua dimensi, yakni: (1) dimensi I -–
sebutan Humes IV adalah ‘control
hierarchy’—- yakni pengawasan yang pola
spektrumnya dari antar-organisasi sampai
intra-organisasi; dan, (2) dimensi II –sebutan
Humes IV ‘functional control’--, yakni
pengawasan yang spektrumnya antara
sektoral (functional basis) ataukah holistik
(areal basis), yang dilakukan oleh
Pemerintah.
Di satu sisi, dimensi I (Pengawasan
Hirarkis) dirinci menjadi empat macam
karakter, yakni: (1) inter-organisasi
(regulations); (2) Subsidiarization-hybrid;
(3) Supervision (hybrid); dan, (4) intraorganisasi (subordination)
Di sisi lain, dimensi II (Pengawasan
fungsional), terdiri atas 3 karakter: (1) areal,
jika hanya mengandalkan Wakil Pemerintah
Pusat (WPP) di daerah atau WPP memiliki
peran yang sangat kuat di daerah; (2) dual,
jika terjadi percampuran antara WPP dan
administrasi lapangan departemen sektoral/
LPND; dan (3) functional, jika hanya
mengandalkan administrasi lapangan
departemen sektoral/ LPND
Lanjutan

Karakter yang disebut ‘Dual’ oleh
Humes IV dalam dimensi II ini terbagi
menjadi dua: (1) Dual-areal, jika
dominasi WPP lebih besar katimbang
Departemen sektoral/ LPND; dan (2)
Dual-functional, jika dominasi WPP
lebih kecil (terbatas) katimbang
Departemen sektoral/ LPND di tingkat
lokal.
Matrix: Four Traditional approach to Local Governance:
A Conceptual Framework
Type of Control:
General to
Functional
Extent of
control intra- to
interorganizational
Subordinations
(Intraorganization)
Supervision
(Hybrid)
Subsidiarization
(Hybrid)
Regulation
(Interorganization)
Areal: a general
ministry/ agencies for
coordinating local
affairs has a strong
role vis a vis
functional ministries/
agencies
Dual
Areal: a general ministry/
agencies for coordinating
local affairs has a limited
role vis a vis functional
ministries/ agencies,
some of which directly
provide local services
French System
The French system of local governance
is a pattern of ‘dual supervision’. The
French system –as it was developed to
the revolution, transformed during the
revolution, systemized under Napoleon
and modified by successive
transitions– conveys a sense of order,
rationality and coherence derived in
part from Roman concept of
government…
Lanjutan
This evolution has produced a system
which combines strong central direction
with local representative administration.
The system provide an unbroken chain
of command from the national
government and its ministry of the
interior through the region and its
prefect, to the department and its prefect,
to the commune and its major.
Lanjutan
The specialized ministries with their
field agencies are directly involved
in the delivery of local services. The
locally elected council and majors
(whose role includes the function of
central government agent) are
politically potent but have little
discretion regarding technical
matters
NATION
Executive
Parliament
REGION
Executive
Assembly
DEPARTMENTS
Executive
Interior
Ministry
Regional
Prefecturate
COMMUNE
REGION LEVEL BRANCHES
OF MINISTRIES
PREFECTURATE
COUNCIL
Arrondissement
OTHER MINISTRIES
DEPARTMENTS LEVEL BRANCHES
OF MINISTRIES/ FIELD AGENCIES
Sub-Prefect
Executive
COUNCIL
LOCAL STAFF
Germanic System
The Germanic system is a pattern of
general or comprehensive
‘subsidiarization’…The result of such
development has been a system of
governance emphasizing
administrative efficiency in which the
sub-national governments exercise
extensive autonomy and the local
chief executives exert considerable
authority.
Lanjutan
As it has developed from the time of
Bismarck, the system of the Federal
Republic of Germany (hereafter referred to
simply as the German system) may be
distinguished by three characteristics: (a)
each level of government relies upon the
lower one of the management of public
affairs; (b) central control is exercise
through the ministry of the interior and its
representatives; and, © local government
have a great deal of autonomy.”
NATION
EXECUTIVE
Parliament
L and
MINISTERIES
Executive
Parliament
Regierungsbezirke
Interior
Land Ministries
Executive
Departments
Kreis
EXECUTIVE
Council
Gemeinde
Departments
EXECUTIVE
Council
Departments
Field
Division
Field
Division
Soviet System
The Soviet system is a pattern of
‘dual subordination’…It is this
context which has led to the
establishment of an integrative
system in which a local agency is
a part of both a national ministry
and the local government.
Lanjutan
The distinctive features of the
Soviet system are ‘democratic
centralism’ and ‘dual
subordination’ and their
corollary –the close integration
of local government into the
national system.
Lanjutan
Not only is each regional and
local jurisdiction generally
responsible to a higher one, but
each local department is also
responsible to the
corresponding department at a
higher level
Lanjutan

Jenjang yang ada antara lain: (1) nasional;
(2) Republik (negara bagian); (3) Oblast
(Province) dan (4) Raion (district). Pada
jenjang Negara bagian ke bawah terdapat
biro-biro dari perpanjangan Partai Komunis
yang bersama-sama menentukan struktur
pemerintahan. Di dalam pemerintahan
daerahnya, secara keseluruhan merupakan
perpanjangan dari hirarki atasannya. Oleh
karena itu sangat ter-subordinasi.
Lanjutan

Pemerintahan daerah yang dikembangkan dengan
sendirinya juga didominasi pula oleh Partai
Komunis Soviet. Oleh karena itu, pengawasan yang
ada tidak lain adalah pengawasan antara ‘atasan’
dan ‘bawahan’ semata karena pada hakekatnya
tidak ada demokrasi di luar partai tersebut dan
sistem yang dikembangkan tidak mengakomodasi
adanya keterwakilan masyarakat dalam
pemerintahan. “Local Government departments are
field agencies of central government ministries.”
(Humes IV: 1991).
Lanjutan
Pemerintahan Uni-Soviet mengenal
adanya wakil pemerintah di daerah
yang menjabat pula sebagai kepala
daerah dengan syarat adalah tunduk
kepada partai Komunis. Disamping
itu, dikembangkan pula instansi
vertikal, dengan dominasi wakil
pemerintah. Artinya, instansi vertikal
dikoordinir dan dapat dikendalikan
oleh wakil pemerintahnya.
Lanjutan
DPRD relative dapat dikatakan
sebagai lembaga penasehat
Pemerintah sebab hanya Partai
Komunis yanga da di sana dan KDH
sudah ditentukan oleh partai tersebut.
Disamping itu, KDH yang juga adalah
wakil Pemerintah menjadi Ketua DPRD
pula. Untuk itu, justru DPRD Uni
Soviet bertanggungjawab kepada
Wakil Pemerintah tersebut.
British System
The system of local government
in the united Kingdom has been
noted for the relative autonomy
of its local government, for the
lack of a strong central
coordinating ministry and for
the absence of regional
executives with strong local
coordinating roles.
Lanjutan
In this system the field units of
some central ministries provide
many local services directly.
There are no regional bodies for
coordinating the effort of the
central field agencies and local
government.
Lanjutan
British local governments do not have
a chief executive role comparable
with those of France, Germany or
the USSR. It is the council, and
especially its committees, many of
which work closely with their
respective ministries, in which
power is vested.
NATION
Executive
Parliament
MINISTRIES
Ministeries Field Agencies
County
Council
Committee
Departments
District
Council
Committee
DEPARTMENTS
Matrix: Four Traditional approach to Local Governance:
A Conceptual Framework
Type of Control:
General to
Functional
Extent of
control intra- to
interorganizational
Subordinations
(Intraorganization)
Areal: a general
ministry/ agencies for
coordinating local
affairs has a strong
role vis a vis
functional ministries/
agencies
Regulation
(Interorganization)
Areal: a general ministry/
agencies for coordinating
local affairs has a limited
role vis a vis functional
ministries/ agencies,
some of which directly
provide local services
Dual Subordination
(Soviet)
Dual Supervision
(Perancis)
Supervision
(Hybrid)
Subsidiarization
(Hybrid)
Dual
Areal Subsidiarization
(West Germany)
Functional regulations
(United Kingdom)
Board/ Administering Committees Possibilities
Single-executive
possibilities
Single Executive
only (No
Committees/ No
Boards
Board (no
Committees)
Committees and
Boards
Committees (no
Boards)
Council Elected
French
municipalities
Australian
Municipalities
Soviet
municipalities
Swedish
municipalities
Indian municipalities
Centrallyappointed
Spanish
Municipalities
Netherlands
municipalities
Norwegian
province
Many Sudanese
municipalities
Independently
elected
Japanese
municipalities
Some German
and some
Canadian
municipalities
Some Canadian
municipalities
Some US
municipalities
Council-appointed
Irish counties, and
some US
municipalities
Some German
municipalities
Finnish
municipalities
-
No Chief
Executive
-
-
UK municipalities
Negara dan Tipologinya
(PENGELOLAAN PERSONNEL)
Tipe Pertama
A.
B.
C.
Pemerintah Daerah
berperan utama dalam
pengelolaan Pegawai
daerah: Perancis,
Jepang, Belanda, USA
Newyork State, Senegal,
Yugoslavia,
UK, Finlandia, Norwegia,
dan New Zealand
dimana QuanGOS
sebagai lembaga yang
menangani
Kepegawaian daerah
Tidak ada kepastian
lembaga yang utama
menangani Pegawai
daerah: Brazil, Amerika
Tengah, Cili, Indiana
State USA, Kenya
Tipe Kedua
Tipe Ketiga
Srilangka, India,
Irlandia, Thailand
Cina, Taiwan, Marocco,
India, Nepal, Pakistan,
United Arab, Ekuador
(Terdapat Lembaga
tingkat Nasional,
(terdapat lembaga
bisa oleh
Pemerintah Pusat)
pemerintah Pusat,
tetapi tidak
menutup
kemungkinan
dibentuk oleh
Asosiasi Pemda)