Special autonomy policy evaluation to improve community welfare in Papua province Indonesia

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Special Autonomy policy to improve the community welfare of Papua Province. Design/methodology/approach This study was carried out using a qualitative approach assessing program activities and client satisfaction. It focused on program activity, target and implementation effectively and efficiently, involving the client’s evaluation process. Research data was obtained from the Papua Regional Development Planning Agency and separated into primary and secondary sources. Primary data was obtained through observation, interview and documentation from several informants. The informants were determined based on the role and involvement in the Papua Province Special Autonomy. Secondary data sources were obtained through field studies, scientific journals, previous research, written documents from relevant agencies, internet and electronic and print media. Findings This study exhibits characteristics of Papua Province Special Autonomy, which are identical to an asymmetric decentralization model, although it took 20 years of implementation because of the lack of evaluation and improvement. It disproves Katorobo’s (2004) theory that the said asymmetric decentralization model is more effective than symmetrical decentralization. Material requirement planning (MRP) empowerment or abolition should be considered important because of the lack of positive results. Otsus needs to improve the system and financial management, considering financial distribution for developed regions in the coastal areas and plains rather than mountainous regions. Originality/value This research was conducted because of the phenomenon of Papua Province Special Autonomy, also driven by the problems in the implementation of Special Autonomy Policy for Papua Province that had not borne optimum results. This study aimed to make recommendations for the Special Autonomy policy of the Papua Province to improve community welfare.