Why did anticorruption policy implementation fail? : a study of the implementation failure of anticorruption policies of the authoritarian new order regime and the democratic reform order regime of Indonesia, 1971 - 2007
Creators: name: Brata, Roby Arya
Publisher: name: The Australian National University
Year: 2011
Subjects: subject: JQ769.5.C6 B73 2011
subject: Political corruption Prevention Indonesia
subject: Indonesia Politics and government 1971-2007

description: This study comparatively examines the cases of implementation failure of the Anticorruption Law 1971 of the authoritarian New Order regime, and of the Anticorruption Law 1999 of the democratic Reform Order regime, in Indonesia. It investigates to what extent and for what reasons the implementation of these Laws failed to attain the policy objectives of eradicating corruption in the public sector. The research employed a case study approach, interviewing 67 key informants, including law enforcers in nine provinces, and surveying 253 university students in law and government at 13 universities. Employing the refined top-down implementation model, this study found that to some extent the implementation of the 1971 and 1999 Laws failed, and many factors contributed to this failure. These factors can be classified into five types: policy design, political, institutional, managerial, and societal factors. Among these factors, defects in the implementation structures and processes are the primary explanation for the implementation failure. This study has also confirmed that the political systems of the two regimes did have a role in contributing to the implementation failure of these Laws. However, it has further found that, since the implementation structures and processes of the authoritarian political system of the New Order regime were inherently more defective than those of the democratic political system of the Reform Order regime, the degree of implementation failure of the 1971 Law was evidently higher than that of the 1999 Law. The study found that the most influential similar factors which caused the failure in implementation of these Anticorruption Laws are: 1 The political will and commitment of the political leaders arid the enforcers were too weak to effectively and seriously enforce the Anticorruption Laws and curb corruption. 2 The serious and chronic problem of the court mafia had systematically disabled the institutional capacity and integrity of the enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system to combat corruption. 3 The people were tolerant of corrupt conduct. 4 The corruption problem itself had become serious, endemic and, without radical anticorruption measures, very difficult to control. 5 The use of discretion by the law enforcers was unclearly defined and unchecked. 6 The government and the enforcement institutions had become an integral part of the serious corruption problem, not an effective solution to this problem. 7 The implementation structures and processes of Anticorruption Laws 1971 and 1999 were defective. This study will contribute to the anticorruption and policy implementation literature, in particular, of how the refined top-down implementation model is tested for comparatively examining the implementation problem of anticorruption law in a developing country, in this case, Indonesia, undergoing political transitions from an authoritarian to a democratic political system. This study will 'complete' the picture of the implementation phenomenon which was partially portrayed by the refined top-down implementation model and other implementation models. The study concludes that combating corruption in a country transforming from an authoritarian to a democratic political system, where corruption has become chronic and systemic, is problematic and difficult. When corruption has systematically infected and distorted the institutional structures and processes of the government, in particular the law enforcement mechanisms, implementing anticorruption laws is expected to be suboptimal and subsequently fail. To overcome this problem, the factors attributing to the policy implementation failure must be eliminated.