Kebijakan Desentralisasi: Mensejahterakan Atau Memiskinkan? Study Literatur Review
Main Article Content
Abstract
Desentralisasi sebagai instrumen kebijakan global terus memunculkan dampaknya terhadap kesejahteraan masyarakat akibat hasil implementasi yang cenderung terpolarisasi. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis pengaruh kualitas institusi terhadap keberhasilan desentralisasi melalui sintesis literatur. Penelitian menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan desain Systematic Literature Review berbasis protokol PRISMA dan perspektif Institutional Theory. Data penelitian berasal dari 27 artikel terindeks Scopus Q1–Q4 periode 2015–2025 yang dipilih secara purposive dari konteks Indonesia, India, dan Filipina, kemudian dianalisis menggunakan analisis konten tematik. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa desentralisasi mampu meningkatkan efisiensi pelayanan publik dan menurunkan kemiskinan pada wilayah dengan institusi yang matang, namun berpotensi memperluas korupsi, patronase, dan ketimpangan pada institusi yang lemah. Temuan ini menegaskan bahwa kualitas tata kelola lokal merupakan prasyarat utama agar desentralisasi menghasilkan pembangunan yang inklusif dan berkelanjutan.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Alma'arif, A., Maksum, I. R., & Lutfi, A. (2025). In decentralization we trust: 24 years of research on decentralization governance and the future of the research agenda. Corporate Law and Governance Review, 7(2), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.22495/clgrv7i2p1
Birner, R., & von Braun, J. (2015). Decentralization and poverty reduction. In Anwar Shah (Ed.), Handbook of Multilevel Finance (pp. 233–262). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857932299.00019
Canare, T. (2020). Decentralization, local government fiscal independence, and poverty: Evidence from Philippine provinces. Southeast Asian Journal of Economics, 8(1), 27–49.
Canare, T. (2021). Decentralization and welfare: Theory and an empirical analysis using Philippine data. Public Sector Economics, 45(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.3326/pse.45.2.4
Canare, T. (2022). Decentralization and welfare: Evidence from a panel of countries. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 93(2), 435–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12339
Chatterjee, S., & Pal, D. (2021). Is there political elite capture in access to energy sources? Evidence from Indian households. World Development, 146, Article 105577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105577
Chen, X. (2024). Local autonomy and service delivery: How does home rule shape the provision of local public services? Public Management Review, 26(11), 2847–2868. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2316847
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Emzir. (2012). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif: Analisis data (3rd ed.). Rajawali Pers.
Ferrara, A. R., & Nisticò, R. (2019). Does institutional quality matter for multidimensional well-being inequalities? Insights from Italy. Social Indicators Research, 145(3), 1063–1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02130-9
Huynh, C. M., & Tran, H. N. (2021). Moderating effects of corruption and informality on the fiscal decentralization–economic growth nexus: Insights from OECD countries. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 92(4), 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12304
Jiménez-Rubio, D., & García-Gómez, P. (2017). Decentralization of health care systems and health outcomes: Evidence from a natural experiment. Social Science & Medicine, 188, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.07.003
Khan, S. A. (2021). Decentralization and the limits to service delivery: Evidence from Northern Pakistan. SAGE Open, 11(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211021857
Letelier-S, L. E., & Sáez-Lozano, J. L. (2020). Expenditure decentralization: Does it make us happier? An empirical analysis using a panel of countries. Sustainability, 12(18), Article 7432. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187432
Liu, L., Ding, D., & He, J. (2019). The welfare effects of fiscal decentralization: A simple model and evidence from China. Quality & Quantity, 53(2), 855–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0773-4
Mitra, A., & Pal, S. (2022). Ethnic diversity, social norms and elite capture: Theory and evidence from Indonesia. Economica, 89(354), 433–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12422
Oumbe, H. T., Ngounou, B. A., Domguia, E. N., & Pondie, T. M. (2025). Does fiscal decentralization kill inclusive growth? Evidence from African countries. Politics & Policy, 53(1), 112–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12601
Ponce-Rodríguez, R. A., Hankla, C. R., Martinez-Vazquez, J., & Heredia-Ortiz, E. (2020). The politics of fiscal federalism: Building a stronger decentralization theorem. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 32(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692819884060
Ratmono, D., Cholbyah, A., Cahyonowati, N., & Darsono, D. (2021). The problem of corruption in government organizations: Empirical evidence from Indonesia. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.15
Siburian, M. E. (2022). The link between fiscal decentralization and poverty: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Asian Economics, 81, Article 101494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2022.101494
Singh, R., Bhattacharjee, S., & Nandy, A. (2024). Fiscal decentralization for the delivery of health and education in Indian states: An ongoing process is more desirable than a policy shift. Journal of Policy Modeling, 46(4), 1003–1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2024.04.006
Sudaryono. (2021). Metodologi penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif dan mix method (2nd ed.). Rajawali Pers.
Sugiyono. (2022). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. CV Alfabeta.