Why stagnant? behind the scenes in Indonesia’s reformed state asset management policies

摘要: This study seeks to answer the question of “why is policy innovation in Indonesia, particular reformed state asset management laws and regulations, stagnant?” through an empirical qualitative approach, identifying exploring potential impeding influences full equal implementation said regulations. The policies regulations governing practice has emerged as urgent among many countries worldwide (Conway, 2006; Dow, Gillies, Nichols, & Polen, Kaganova, McKellar, Peterson, 2006b) for there heightened awareness complex crucial role that assets play public service provision. Indonesia example such country, introducing a ‘big-bang’ reform laws, policies, technical guidelines. Two main reasons propelled innovation: a) world-wide common challenges practices - incomplete information system, accountability, governance adherence/conceptualisation (Kaganova, McKellar Peterson 2006); b) unfavourable audit results all regional governments across Indonesia. latter reasoning emphasised, Indonesian government admits past neglect ensuring efficiency best its practices. Prior was euphoria building developing infrastructure support programs day. Although this resulted high growth within seems be little attention paid how bought/built managed. Up until 2003-2004 considered minimal; inventory done manually, sector accounting standards, financial reporting standards (Hadiyanto 2009). During time transparency, maintenance not focus, it by or society itself exemplified enthusiasm reforming establishment Directorate General State Assets 2006. have stressed new direction taking introduction Republic Law Number 38 Year 2008, which amended regulation overruling 6 2006 on Central/Regional Government Asset Management (Hadiyanto, 2009c). number 38/2008 aims further exemplify good principles puts forward ‘the highest use assets’ principle 2009a). methodology case with triangulated data collection method document analysis (all relevant guidelines, external reports), semi-structured interviews, on-site observation. Empirical involved sample four 70 performed during January-July 2010. analytical approach thematic analysis, effort identify and/or Based specific explored, answering why innovative stagnant. An in-depth each influencing factors reform, attached interviewee’s opinions factor, suggests ‘excuse rhetoric’; whereby identified are smoke-screen, myths makers implementers believe in; means explain stagnancy. offers insights interested conceptualisation particularly, although limited to, context