Public Policy Formulation Model Based on Local Interest in Border Areas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 10, Issue 04, April 2019, pp. 11-22, Article ID: IJCIET_10_04_002 Available online at http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJCIET?Volume=10&Issue=4 ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316 © IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed PUBLIC POLICY FORMULATION MODEL BASED ON LOCAL INTEREST IN BORDER AREAS Muhammad Yunus Departement of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia. Fitriani, Vinsenco R. Serano, Albertus and Y. Maturan Departement of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Musamus University, Merauke, Indonesia. Hasniati Hamzah Departement of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia. ABSTRAK. This study aims to analyze and condition the formulation or policy formulation in border areas with very strong cultural influences, especially those directly adjacent to other countries. The study focused on photographing policies that must be carried out by the government against strong suspicions of inequality and the possibility of being released from the sovereignty of the Indonesian state. This study uses a participatory approach or also called the Participatory Rural Apraisal (PRA) method. The PRA method is operated by involving people to participate in assessing, recognizing and understanding what is needed quickly and together evaluating and searching for solutions to the problems at hand. The results of the study show that the development policies of the Border Areas in Merauke Regency have not been effective, due to the absence of adequate regulations to regulate cross-border problems. Keywords: policy formulation, development, border areas Cite this Article: Muhammad Yunus, Fitriani, Vinsenco R. Serano, Albertus, Y. Maturan and Hasniati Hamzah, Public Policy Formulation Model Based on Local Interest in Border Areas. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 10(04), 2019, pp. 11-22. http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJCIET?Volume=10&Issue=4 \http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 11 [email protected] Discretion of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Public Services: A Case Study On Public Health In Makassar 1. INTRODUCTION Almost all of Indonesia's border areas are underdeveloped areas whose conditions are very alarming as faces outside the country. So far the border area has been managed by prioritizing a safety belt approach so that socio-economic development becomes neglected. The Central Government is aware of the seriousness of this problem, and since 28 January 2010 has formed a National Border Management Agency (BNPP) as an institution of coordination and implementation of government programs to develop border areas. The development of the border region has a very close relationship with the national development mission, especially to guarantee territorial integrity and sovereignty, national defense and security, and improve the welfare of the people in the border region. A new paradigm, the development of border areas is to change the direction of development policies that have tended to be oriented "inward looking", to be "outward looking" so that the area can be used as a gateway to economic and trade activities with neighboring countries. The current approach to developing the border region is to use the prosperity approach by not abandoning the security approach. Administratively, the land border area in Papua is in Papua Province, consisting of five districts / cities, namely: (1) Keroom Regency, (2) Jayapura City, (3) Pegunungan Bintang Regency, (4) Boven Digoel Regency, and (5 ) Merauke Regency. The land border line in Papua which borders PNG as a whole is 760 kilometers long, extending from Skouw, Jayapura to the north to the mouth of the Bensbach river, Merauke to the south. This boundary was determined by an agreement between the Government of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom on May 16, 1895. The number of pillar boundaries in the Papua border region that stretches from north in Jayapura to the southern part of the Merauke region is very limited and with very poor conditions. The number of main monuments (MM) available is only 52, while the monument is found in the amount of 1792. This area is also characterized by family and tribal attachments between the people of Indonesia and PNG which lead to the flow of people and traditional trade in goods through unofficial border doors. However, until 2007, remi / border posts were only found in Skouw, Temi District (Jayapura City) and in Sota District (Merauke Regency). The border area in Papua consists of forest areas, both conversion forests and protected forests and national parks. Physically, most of the border area of Papua consists of mountains and hills which are difficult to reach with the advice of four-wheeled and two-wheeled transportation, the only means of transportation that can be reached is by airplane or helicopter. However, when compared to PNG, the social and economic conditions of the Indonesian people in the Border region are still relatively good. Given the importance of the nagi border area of the integrity of the NKRI, a comprehensive management policy is needed, and it is expected that border area development can be carried out more planned, programmed, directed and measurable. The policy in question will certainly be credible if it goes through the right and conditional stages according to the state of the region. According to William Dunn (1998) that the policy stage consists of (1) agenda setting (agenda setting), (2) policy formulation (policy formulating), (3) policy adoption / legitimacy (policy adoption), (4) policy implementation ( policy implementation), (5) policy evaluation (policy evaluation). As we all know that before the formulation stage there was a stage of introducing an agenda which was a very strategic phase and process in the reality of public policy. Before a policy is established and implemented, policy makers need to set an agenda by including and selecting which issues will be prioritized to be discussed. http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 12 [email protected] Muhammad Yunus, Fitriani, Vinsenco R. Serano, Albertus, Y. Maturan and Hasniati Hamzah Problems related to policies will be collected as much as possible to be selected. If an issue is successful in gaining status as a public problem, and gets priority on the public agenda, then the issue has the right to get the allocation of public resources more than any other issue. In the agenda setting is also very important to determine a public issue that will be raised in a government agenda. Policy issues (policy issues) are often referred to as policy problems (policy problems). According to William Dunn (1998), policy issues are products or functions of debates both about formulation, details, explanations and judgments on a particular problem. But not all issues can enter into a policy agenda. The preparation of the policy agenda should be based on the level of urgency and essence of the policy, as well as stakeholder involvement. A policy must not obscure the level of urgency, essence and involvement of stakeholders. Problems that have been included in the policy agenda are then discussed by policy makers. These problems are then defined to find the best problem solving. Solving these problems comes from various alternatives or existing policy options. It is the same as the struggle for a problem to be included in the policy agenda, in the stage of formulating the policies of each competing alternative to be chosen as a policy taken to solve the problem. Policy formulation as part of the public policy process is the most crucial stage because implementation and evaluation of policies can only be implemented if the policy formulation stage has been completed, besides the failure of a policy or program to achieve its objectives, mostly due to imperfections in the formulation stage (Wibawa ; 1994, 2). Policy formulation as a process according to Winarno (1989, 53), can be seen in 2 (two) types of activities, namely: 1. The first activity is to decide in general what is to be done or in other words the formulation is directed to obtain an agreement on an alternative policy chosen, a decision that approves is the result of the whole process. 2. Second Activity, directed at how policy decisions are made, in this case a policy decision includes an action by an official or institution to approve, change or reject an alternative policy chosen. The most dominant actors in the stage of policy formulation are actors whose powers and authority and interest groups are, which of course is influenced by external pressures and old habits, as well as the influence of external and personal characteristics, as well as past conditions. It becomes clear that policymakers ideally pay attention to all the effects, both positive and negative of their actions, not only for the citizens of their geopolitical units, but also for other citizens, and even future generations. Therefore, a responsible policy-making process is a process that involves interaction between groups of scientists, leaders of professional organizations, administrators and politicians. The situation in the field gives us a clear picture that border problems still have not received enough attention from the government. This is reflected in development policies that pay little attention to border areas and are more directed towards densely populated areas, easy access, and potential,