the paper. We have also avoided references to names of individuals and documents that could identify the districts and/or interviewees. A reliance on interview data poses some methodological problems particularly with regards to the accuracy of the data collected (informants may not remember events correctly, interviewers may misinterpret their comments) and the potential for bias (informants may present only one side of a story). Accordingly, where possible, we have sought to double check information collected through interviews with other interviewees or secondary sources and to secure the views of a range of stakeholders. Secondary material was collected through online newspaper and media outlets, government publications, donor reports, and previous academic studies. We also examined, where relevant, laws and regulations provided to us by informants or that we were able to source online.

# _2.2.2 National vs. Regional Focus_

The focus of the paper is on the regional level given that, under Indonesia’s current decentralized system of government, primary responsibility for managing teacher management issues lies at this level. However, in examining this topic, the paper gives significant attention to the role of the central government and national level politics in shaping outcomes at the regional level. As Section 5 illustrates, the central government has played a crucial role in setting the incentives that regional governments face _vis-à-vis_ teacher management and the scope that they have to effectively resist reform through its use of central policy instruments. In some cases, it has designed effective policy instruments for promoting teacher management reform and remained committed to them in the face of political resistance. In other cases, it has either failed to devise such policy instruments in the first place or watered them down in the face of resistance. Whether the central government has played a disciplining role or effectively left regional governments to their own devices has thus been a crucial determinant of outcomes at the regional level, making it an important matter for the study.

# _2.2.3 Comparative Orientation_

The paper is focused solely on Indonesia’s experience with teacher management policy and implementation. However, it incorporates a comparative element by seeking to explain differences in policy and implementation outcomes across different types of teacher management reform. Work in comparative political economy has been primarily concerned with cross-national comparisons. But in recent times, it has embraced ‘within-case comparison’, a study design that entails comparison of outcomes across time, region or issue within particular national contexts.

This study employs such a study design. The four districts chosen as the focus for fieldwork all have a clear need for reform in teacher management as indicated by their teacher-student ratios and indicators related to the distribution of teachers (see Annex One). It is reasonable to assume that they also all face problems related to teacher competencies. However, each district-level government has responded differently to the need for reform. All have introduced one or more types of teacher management reform but the nature of these reforms and the extent to which they have been implemented has varied significantly from case to case. District B has introduced measures such as teacher redistribution but done little in relation to most other areas of reform. District A has also carried out teacher redistribution but done little in other areas of reform. Municipality A has sought to regroup schools and carry out periodization of school 14