Why Some Districts Fail and Other Succeed?

I want to know why some districts fail and other succeed in decentralization era. The central government has cooperated with the local government to solve the problem. But, until now, we can see where some districts succeed to create good environment for enhancing economy, but other fail. This remains some questions not only from government, but also from academician. 

As an academician, I was promoted to seek what happen behind this problem. May there is something wrong when both the center and local government conduct policy, especially to enhance.economy. I think that academician has to know why the phenomenon was happened around us. So, my curiosity promotes us to look for this problem, and I will create some research to answer this question start now.

I will begin my analysis with describing Indonesia economy related to the amount of district. Indonesia has 477 districts (Kabupaten). They span from Aceh until Papua. The reason behind the huge amount of districts is there some people strive to make district. They want to make splitting district which walk alone. Surely, after they succeed to establish new district, they will be succumbed as a leader in that district. Before establishing district, they propose some argument which support splitting endeavor. One of argument beyond splitting effort is to create better public-service delivery to society. If gov’t closer to people, then the best available public service will be delivered. Also, that public service is suitable with people needs. 

But, I think that it is dubious argument. Why? The experience tells to us that there aren’t many the refinements of public service delivery after splitting conduct. Our glimpse in the gov’t budget will consent that argument. The budget for public official need is dominantly allocated in APBD. As we know, if the gov’t still new established, it needs more and more money to build office infrastructure, facility to public official leader, and to finance salary of public official. So, it is very strenuous for new gov’t to create good public-service delivery if it is still new established. Yet, also there is no assurance that it will conduct pro-public service budget due to its governance process next time. 

In other side, the center gov’t has devolved much fund to establish equality within district. It gives discretion to subnational gov’t to empower poor people, enhance economy, build local infrastructure, provide health and education services, etc. Those tasks or responsibilities are devolved together with fund. So, the local gov’t has fund to defray its task. The remarkable transfer fund from the center gov’t to local gov’t should be followed by good allocation. Now, the main problem isn’t related with the lack of fund, but is related to the minimum capacity to allocate fund. The variety of local gov’t capacity in allocating fund may be is the cause beyond districts disparity. But, it is still assumption. I think that this is interesting topic for academician to find the answer of the question. [] 

NB: I apologize if there are grammatical errors. I am studying english now.