Membangun Kota dalam Pengembangan Wilayah Tommy Firman  ;  Guru Besar ITB

KOMPAS, 23 Februari 2015

                                                                                                                                     

                                                

Telah sangat dipahami bahwa pembangunan kota tidak dapat dilepaskan dari pengembangan wilayah—kota berada dalam skala yang lebih luas, apakah lokal, nasional, atau global—karena keduanya saling berinteraksi dan memengaruhi. Harian Kompas, 28 Januari 2015, menurunkan artikel menarik berjudul ”Membangun Kota yang Menguntungkan Si Miskin”, ditulis Alex van Trotsenburg, Wakil Presiden Bank Dunia untuk Asia Timur dan Pasifik. Artikel tersebut ditulis berdasarkan Laporan Bank Dunia (2015) dengan tajuk ”East Asia’s Changing Urban Landscape: Measuring a Decade of Spatial Growth”, sebuah studi yang sangat komprehensif mengenai perkembangan fisik dan penduduk kota-kota di Asia belahan timur, termasuk Indonesia. Perkembangan fisik kota-kota besar di Asia Timur banyak yang telah melampaui batas wilayah kewenangannya, memasuki wilayah administratif otoritas pemerintah lokal tetangganya, yang kemudian menciptakan fragmentasi dalam pengelolaan perkotaan, seperti yang dicontohkan Kota Jakarta dan sekitarnya (Jabodetabek). Artikel itu menganggap bahwa perkembangan kota-kota besar di Asia, di antaranya Tokyo, Shanghai, Jakarta, Seoul, dan Manila, diakibatkan oleh urbanisasi penduduk ke kota, yang berimplikasi pada berbagai masalah, seperti perumahan, sarana-prasarana, kesempatan kerja, dan kesehatan pendidikan. Pandangan ini tidak keliru, tetapi juga tidak lengkap menggambarkan tren kontemporer perkembangan kota di Asia, termasuk Indonesia, dengan terbitnya perkembangan ”kota-kota” tanpa terkait dengan mobilitas penduduk yang signifikan. Fenomena ini dikategorikan sebagai in-situ urbanization, di mana pusat-pusat pedesaan atau permukiman tumbuh menjadi perkotaan karena perkembangan kegiatan sosial ekonomi di dalamnya. Data juga menunjukkan bahwa laju pertambahan penduduk pada banyak kabupaten di Indonesia jauh lebih tinggi dari laju pertambahan penduduk di kota-kota besar. Yang juga menarik untuk disimak dalam artikel yang ditulis oleh Van Trotsenburg adalah implikasi kebijakan yang diusulkan, yang pada dasarnya ditujukan untuk mencapai urbanisasi (perkembangan kota) yang efisien dan mendorong peluang ekonomi inklusif: antara lain kebijakan akses kepada lahan, perencanaan pengembangan kawasan padat penduduk menjadi kawasan layak huni, dan peningkatan layanan perkotaan. Pengembangan wilayah Perlu digarisbawahi bahwa pendekatan pembangunan kota sangat bias pada kota-kota besar, sementara telah diketahui bahwa kota-kota besar di Asia, termasuk di Indonesia, seperti Jakarta dan Surabaya, sebenarnya telah terintegrasi kepada sistem kota-kota dunia (global cities) yang cenderung melayani kepentingan investasi pada berbagai kegiatan ekonomi skala global, baik dalam ranah produksi (manufaktur), konsumsi termasuk, misalnya, Coca-Cola dan KFC, maupun pada kegiatan jasa-jasa, khususnya jasa keuangan dan asuransi. Hal ini akan semakin terbuka dengan globalisasi ekonomi, termasuk pasar bebas ASEAN. Kecenderungan juga memperlihatkan semakin melemahnya keterkaitan (linkages) ekonomi antara kota-kota besar dan wilayah sekitarnya, termasuk dengan kota-kota menengah dan kecil. Dengan kata lain, perkembangan kota-kota besar dengan orientasi ekonomi global tersebut berdampak kurang kondusif bagi perkembangan kota-kota menengah dan kecil karena meningkatkan disparitas antarkota. Berbagai studi memperlihatkan ini tidak terjadi di Indonesia saja, tetapi juga di berbagai negara lain, seperti Thailand, Filipina, dan Vietnam. Kebijakan pengembangan kota-kota secara individual seperti yang dikemukakan dalam artikel Van Trotsenburg tidak keliru apabila sasarannya adalah hanya untuk meningkatkan efisiensi kota besar semata. Kenyataannya, salah satu tantangan pengembangan kota di Asia adalah mengurangi disparitas antara kota besar dengan kota kecil dan menengah. Kebijakan perkotaan seharusnya juga berorientasi pada pengembangan wilayah yang lebih luas, dengan memperhatikan fungsi dan peran serta interaksi masing-masing kota sehingga dapat dialokasikan peran dan fungsi masing-masing. Hal ini pun sebenarnya prinsip dasar pengembangan wilayah dan kota yang telah dikenal luas. Meski demikian, itu tidak pernah diterapkan secara konsisten. Pembangunan kota-kota di negara Asia, termasuk di Indonesia, memang sangat bias pada pembangunan kota besar, yang tentu saja sangat mengukuhkan fungsi dan peran kota-kota besar tersebut sebagai pusat-pusat kegiatan ekonomi nasional dan regional jauh meninggalkan fungsi dan peran kota-kota kecil dan menengah. Ini akan menarik para pendatang yang akhirnya memperparah kondisi sosial, ekonomi, serta fisik dan lingkungan kota-kota besar. Kesimpulan Kebijakan pengembangan kota besar untuk tujuan efisiensi seperti yang disarankan Van Trotsenburg adalah suatu hal yang sangat penting untuk meningkat daya saing kota-kota itu. Akan tetapi, tanpa ada landasan pengembangan wilayah, hal itu bisa menciptakan kota-kota yang seolah-olah hidup sendiri tanpa berdampak pada pengembangan wilayah, khususnya kota-kota kecil dan menengah serta pedesaan di sekitarnya. Hal ini memicu disparitas wilayah yang justru mendorong semakin derasnya mobilitas penduduk ke kota. Munculnya pusat-pusat perkotaan baru yang tumbuh melalui proses in-situ urbanization perlu mendapat perhatian, sejauh mana pusat-pusat baru itu dapat dikembangkan untuk berbagai kegiatan ekonomi, yang jangan terlalu banyak dilokasikan pada kota-kota besar dan berada pada sirkuit perekonomian global yang tidak terkait dengan perekonomian lokal. Pengembangan wilayah juga harus dapat mengalokasikan fungsi dan peran, baik kota besar, menengah, maupun kecil, secara komplementer serta menciptakan keterkaitan agar pertumbuhan sosial-ekonomi lebih merata, tidak hanya terpusat hanya pada kota besar saja. Di sinilah letak perlunya pendekatan pengembangan wilayah dalam pembangunan kota-kota, tidak semata-mata memacu tingkat efisiensi kota-kota besar yang justru sudah sangat dominan sekarang. ●

Tata Ruang Jangan Sektoral Tommy Firman   ;   Guru Besar ITB; Senior Research Fellow, Ash Center for emocratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School, di Cambridge, Massachusetts

KOMPAS, 29 Desember 2014

                                                                                                                       

SUATU sindiran yang beredar di masyarakat mengenai rencana tata ruang kota dan wilayah selama ini adalah ”yang direncanakan tak dibangun, yang dibangun tak direncanakan”. Kendati ada rencana tata ruang yang dapat dilaksanakan dengan baik, di samping yang memang tidak efektif implementasinya, sindiran itu merupakan masalah nyata yang terjadi dalam pembangunan kota dan wilayah di Indonesia. Ujung-ujungnya tata ruang sering pula diibaratkan sebagai ”macan kertas” yang tak bertaji dalam menghadapi dinamika pembangunan. Padahal, sesungguhnya tata ruang merupakan alat kendali pembangunan. Sesungguhnya penataan ruang memiliki tujuan sangat baik. Secara normatif dan sederhana, ia dapat dirumuskan sebagai upaya mengalokasikan ruang, khususnya lahan—untuk beragam kegiatan sosial-ekonomi—dengan kebutuhan infrastukturnya. Dengan begitu, terbentuk sinergitas di antaranya dan mendukung keberlanjutan kota dan wilayah pada masa depan. Secara formal, sebenarnya perhatian pemerintah ataupun lembaga legislasi sangat besar dan sudah cukup lama mengenai hal ini, bahkan sejak Repelita II (1974). Namun, hingga saat ini penataan ruang dirasakan belum cukup efektif, terutama dalam implementasinya. Lintas sektoral Penataan ruang bukanlah suatu tujuan akhir, melainkan alat untuk mencapai tujuan-tujuan yang lebih luas, khususnya pembangunan sosial dan ekonomi masyarakat secara berkelanjutan. Karena fungsi dan perannya yang demikian, penataan ruang harus dipandang sebagai kegiatan yang bersifat lintas sektoral. Masalahnya, kerap terjadi yang sering disebut ”ego sektoral”, bahkan tak jarang yang terjadi menjadi kegiatan sektoral. Ada banyak faktor yang memengaruhi kualitas dan implementasi rencana tata ruang. Pada masa lalu, masalah utama yang dirasakan adalah kurangnya sumber daya keahlian penyusunan suatu rencana tata ruang, di samping juga minimnya data dan informasi yang dibutuhkan untuk tata ruang yang baik pada beragam skala: nasional, provinsi, kabupaten/kota, sampai pada bagian kota. Hingga kini, masalah tersebut masih dirasakan. Namun, persoalan paling aktual dewasa ini adalah tidak konsistennya antara rencana dan implementasi. Banyak hal yang menjadi penyebab. Penyebab-penyebab itu di antaranya terkait dengan kepentingan bisnis, bahkan politis, serta belum memadainya kapasitas kelembagaan pembangunan kota dan wilayah, khususnya di tingkat lokal. Sering terjadi pembangunan kota dan wilayah berujung pada ”pelanggaran” tata ruang. Misalnya, kawasan hijau kota atau kawasan lindung yang ditetapkan dalam rencana tata ruang ternyata diubah peruntukannya menjadi kawasan bangunan, bisa berupa pusat perbelanjaan ataupun perkantoran. Sesungguhnya kehadiran sektor bisnis (swasta) mutlak diperlukan dalam pembangunan kota ataupun wilayah. Tanpa kehadiran mereka, pembangunan kota dan wilayah tidak mungkin dapat diwujudkan secara penuh. Kendati demikian, sektor swasta jangan sampai menjadi sangat dominan sehingga dapat melobi atau mengatur perkembangan kota sesuai kepentingannya. Dalam hal ini, sesungguhnya diperlukan kemampuan dan kapasitas kelembagaan pemerintah pusat ataupun provinsi, kabupaten/kota yang andal dalam menggunakan rencana tata ruang sebagai suatu pedoman dan alat pembangunan dan manajemen kota dan wilayah. Rencana tata ruang bukan sekadar harus ada lantaran kewajiban untuk memenuhi ketentuan-ketentuan formal. Kemampuan teknis dan aparat dalam menerjemahkan tata ruang untuk mengimplementasikannya adalah suatu keniscayaan. Dan, kemampuan itu harus selalu ditingkatkan sesuai dengan kemajuan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi, semisal penggunaan instrumen teknologi informasi. Selain itu, yang juga sangat dibutuhkan adalah suatu kepemimpinan daerah secara kolektif dalam mengelola pembangunan kota, termasuk jajarannya. Sebenarnya model kepemimpinan semacam ini sudah ditunjukkan pada beberapa pemerintah provinsi, kota, dan kabupaten di Indonesia. Hanya saja, jumlahnya masih sedikit, juga masih bersifat sporadis. Banyak contoh yang sesungguhnya dapat ditularkan dan disampaikan dari sejumlah provinsi, kota, dan kabupaten dalam menangani masalah kota dan wilayah masing-masing. Masih bergantung figur Namun, harus dicatat bahwa hingga saat ini kepemimpinan dan kepeloporan tersebut masih sangat bergantung kepada sosok (figur) pimpinan daerah, yang muncul pada setelah reformasi, khususnya melalui pilkada langsung, dan sekaligus mengambil peran dalam pembangunan nasional. Kini sudah saatnya dibangun suatu sistem yang memungkinkan pembangunan kota dan wilayah—antara lain dalam penataan ruang—dapat berlangsung dengan efektif tanpa harus bergantung banyak kepada figur gubernur, wali kota, dan bupati. Kini pemerintahan Joko Widodo-Jusuf Kalla memberikan perhatian lebih khusus pada penataan ruang, yakni dengan membentuk Kementerian Agraria dan Tata Ruang dalam Kabinet Kerja. Banyak harapan digantungkan pada kementerian baru ini agar implementasi penataan ruang lebih efektif. Namun, suatu tantangan yang perlu diperhatikan dan sekaligus diwaspadai adalah jangan sampai mengulang ”kekeliruan” lama, yaitu menjadikan tata ruang menjadi masalah dan urusan (isu) sektoral. Apalagi sekarang ia menjadi semacam portofolionya suatu kementerian secara eksplisit atau kementerian lain yang terkait. Dengan demikian, tantangan yang cukup berat dari kementerian baru ini adalah membangun kelembagaan dan sinergitas penataan ruang dengan berbagai sektor terkait (baca: para pemangku kepentingan). Juga tidak memandang dan menjadikan penataan ruang sebagai urusan dan masalah sektoral, bahkan menjadi bersaing (kompetitor) dengan sektor-sektor, di samping tentu saja membenahi dan meningkatkan kualitas penataan ruang beserta kebutuhan data dan informasi yang diperlukan. ●

Sustainability of Java’s mega-urbanization Tommy Firman  ;   A professor of urban and regional planning at the Bandung Institute of Technology; Currently, he is a senior research fellow at Harvard Kennedy School, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, in Cambridge, Massachusetts

JAKARTA POST,  13 Desember 2014

                                                                                                                       

Southeast Asia’s big cities have experienced tremendous population and physical growth in the last five decades, including in the fringe urban areas, owing to economic development in the urban centers. This “mega-urbanization” refers to urban development characterized by a mix of different economic activities, including industrial estates’ new-town projects and agricultural activities, and through the expansion of built-up areas from the urban centers to almost all directions. The 2000 and 2010 National Population Censuses revealed that Indonesia’s urban population grew from 85.2 million in 2000 to 118.3 million in 2010 with an annual growth rate of 3.33 percent. However, the distribution of the urban population is extremely uneven, in which about 68 percent of the urban population lived in Java in 2010. Java’s urban population grew at an annual rate of 3.17 percent in 2000-2010, whereas the national to total population growth rate was only 1.34 percent per year over the same period. The above figures indicate fast and dense urban population growth across all provinces in Java. Many scholars predicted in the 1950s-1960s that Java would become the Island of Cities, and even now it is growing with its massive urban belts connecting large cities. In the population censuses of 2000 and 2010, the smallest administrative unit of a village is considered “urban” or “rural” on the basis of population density; percentage of households engaged in agricultural and urban facilities and physical distance to reach them. The number of urban localities in Java increased from 2,533 to 3,641 during 1980-1986 and the number continued to increase from 7,510 to 9,239 during 2000-2010. In 2000, urban localities reached about 30 percent of the total localities in Java. In 2010, the figure increased to nearly 37 percent. For Indonesia, the figure was only about 18 percent and 20.5 percent in 2000 and 2010, respectively. By 2010, there were 12 cities with populations of 1 million or more in Indonesia, but nine of those cities were in Java, namely Jakarta, Surabaya, Semarang, Bandung ,Tangerang, South Tangerang, Bekasi, Bogor and Depok. Interestingly, five of the big cities in Java are located in Greater Jakarta. This resulted in about 20 percent of Indonesia’s population living in Greater Jakarta in 2010. The Greater Jakarta urban population constituted about 31 percent of Java’s urban population, which makes this metropolitan region the largest in the nation, or a primate city. The low population-growth rate of Java’s large cities, including Surabaya, Bandung, Semarang and even Jakarta, is largely due to suburbanization, which has caused faster population growth on the city outskirts. The most obvious one is suburbanization in Greater Jakarta. The annual population growth rate in Jakarta reached only 1.40 percent during 2000-2010, whereas the annual population growth rate in the peripheral cities was much higher, including Bekasi (4.70 percent) and Depok (4.33 percent). In comparison, Jakarta’s annual population growth rate once reached 5.5 percent during 1930-1961. The ratio of Jakarta’s population to the Greater Jakarta population declined from 55 percent in 1990 to 43 percent in 2000, and decreased further to 36 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, the lifetime in-migration in Jakarta itself, indicated by place of residence being different from place of birth at the time of census enumeration, was 4.1 million in 2010, in contrast to the lifetime out-migration which reached only approximately 3 million. Jakarta thus experienced negative lifetime migration during 2000-2010. This most likely also reflected the change of destination place of in-migration from Jakarta to its outskirts. Another case is the Greater Bandung area, in which the annual population growth rate of Bandung city was only 1.11 percent during 2000-2010. In contrast, its outskirt cities grew much faster, including Cimahi (2 percent) and Bandung (2.5 percent). In comparison, the annual population rate of growth of Bandung itself reached 5.9 percent during 1930-1961. Like Greater Jakarta, the proportion of Bandung to the total population of its metropolitan area declined from 34 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2000 and decreased further to only 28 percent in 2010. The recent physical development of the Bandung and Jakarta metropolitan areas is marked by the urban corridor of about 200 kilometers from Bandung to Jakarta, characterized by a mixture of activities, including industries, residential, and agricultural activities, which blurred the rural-urban distinction in the areas. Millions also commute daily between Jakarta and the adjacent areas. Similarly, annual population growth in Surabaya reached only 0.53 percent during 2000-2010, whereas the city had an average population growth rate of as much as 3.5 percent during 1931-1961. The fringes of this metropolitan area experienced higher annual population growth, such as Gresik (1.59 percent) and Sidoarjo (2.21 percent). Also, the fast development of the Surabaya-Malang urban corridor also shows the recent urban transformation in East Java. The growth of the urban population in the peripheral big cities in Java not only resulted from in-migration from the city center to the outskirts but also from reclassification of localities previously defined as “rural” to “urban”. This clearly indicates the continuity of mega-urbanization in Java as indicated since almost 25 years ago. This process is unstoppable along with social and economic development, but the problem in Java is that this development is largely uncontrolled and unsustainable, which could very soon result in serious environmental ramifications including flooding, air and water pollution, loss of prime and irrigated agricultural land and traffic congestion, if no action is taken to cope with the problems . There are spatial plans from the national, provincial to the sub-city level, but unfortunately most of the plans do not work effectively and many are even violated because of mounting pressures, especially from the businesses and political interests. Now the new government has an Agrarian and Spatial Planning Ministry, and therefore one of its priorities should be to ensure the consistency of plans and their implementation, as well as to strengthen local government capacities in implementation planning — which is badly needed at the moment. ●

Hari Habitat 2014  Tommy Firman   ;   Guru Besar ITB; Senior Research Fellow pada Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, Massachusetts

KOMPAS,  11 Oktober 2014

PADA 1985 Sidang Umum PBB menetapkan Hari Habitat sedunia tiap Senin pertama Oktober. Tujuan peringatan Hari Habitat adalah mengingatkan dunia akan kondisi serta masalah perkotaan terakhir dan hak untuk memperoleh permukiman yang layak bagi semua orang. Hari Habitat 2014 bertema  ”Voices from Slums” untuk memahami dan menyadari sekaligus meningkatkan kondisi kehidupan pada permukiman kumuh di perkotaan. Sejak Hari Habitat diperingati pada 1986, sudah banyak tema mengenai perkotaan, khususnya untuk negara sedang berkembang, seperti perumahan, transportasi, dan energi yang terjangkau, anak-anak, wanita, manula, penyandang cacat, hingga lingkungan permukiman yang sehat dan aman. Secara spesifik peringatan Hari Habitat 2014 dengan tema ”Voice from Slums” adalah untuk mengembangkan mekanisme ketahanan masyarakat yang tinggal di permukiman kumuh, perbaikan lingkungan, pertukaran pengalaman antarnegara untuk perbaikan kualitas kehidupan di permukiman kumuh, dialog antar-pemangku kepentingan, serta merumuskan kebijakan untuk peningkatan kualitas kehidupan di permukiman kumuh. Tema ”Voice from Slums” memang sangat relevan dengan upaya meningkatkan kualitas permukiman di perkotaan. Dari perspektif lokal, sesungguhnya pertanyaan yang mendasar adalah sejauh mana tema-tema tersebut telah berdampak luas dan signifikan pada perbaikan dan peningkatan kualitas kehidupan di perkotaan serta pengaruhnya pada pola pikir dan pola tindak pihak-pihak terkait dengan pembangunan dan pengelolaan kota. Kepemimpinan Belajar dari pengalaman Indonesia, khususnya pada era otonomi daerah dan desentralisasi, faktor sangat penting dalam pembangunan dan pengelolaan kota dan perkotaan adalah kepemimpinan wali kota, bupati, dan jajarannya secara kolektif. Banyak kota dan kabupaten di Indonesia dipandang berhasil karena wali kota, bupati, atau gubernurnya memiliki kepemimpinan yang baik, visi dan misi yang jelas tentang pembangunan kota, serta keterbukaan dan tanggung jawab kepada masyarakat. Semula dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 33 Tahun 2000 tentang Perimbangan Keuangan Pusat dan Daerah, diperkirakan pemerintah daerah yang memiliki sumber daya finansial tinggi, seperti minyak, tambang, hutan, dan sumber daya lain termasuk pajak properti, dapat membangun kotanya dengan lebih baik. Ternyata hal itu tidak otomatis. Memang sumber daya finansial yang lebih besar yang disalurkan melalui dana bagi hasil (DBH) maupun dana alokasi khusus (DAK) adalah potensi yang sangat signifikan dalam pembangunan kota di samping potensi pendapatan lain, khususnya pendapatan asli daerah (PAD). Namun, tanpa kepemimpinan yang baik secara kolektif dari pengelola kota dan kabupaten, potensi ini belum tentu dapat diaktualkan. Kenyataannya banyak pemerintah kota atau kabupaten tidak memiliki sumber daya finansial besar, tetapi berhasil memberikan pelayanan dasar kepada masyarakatnya karena ada unsur kepemimpinan yang baik. Bagaimana memilih pemimpin daerah yang baik? Ini memang tantangannya. Sebenarnya pemilihan umum kepala daerah (pilkada) langsung adalah mekanisme yang relevan, sayang sistem yang baik ini dibatalkan oleh para elite politik di DPR. Perlu implementasi Kesimpulannya, tema Hari Habitat 2014, yaitu ”Voices from Slums” seperti juga tema-tema Hari Habitat tahun-tahun sebelumnya sangat relevan dengan kondisi kota dan perkotaan saat ini, khususnya untuk negara sedang berkembang, termasuk Indonesia. Meski demikian, tanpa implementasi konkret, tema tersebut hanya menjadi slogan-slogan yang utopis. Agar tema-tema seperti yang diperingati pada Hari Habitat terwujud, perlu ada kepemimpinan kolektif yang baik dari pemimpin pemerintah kota dan kabupaten, bukan hanya kebutuhan sumber finansial semata. Jika pada masa lalu pembangunan dan pengelolaan perkotaan terkendala kelangkaan kemampuan teknis, dewasa ini kendala itu mulai bergeser pada perlu kehadiran kepemimpinan dan kapasitas kelembagaan pengelolaan kota. ●

The need for a national urban development policy in Indonesia

The need for a national urban development policy in Indonesia Tommy Firman  ;   A professor of urban and regional planning at the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB). He is also a senior research fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School Indonesia–Rajawali Foundation Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts

JAKARTA POST, 20 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

                                                      

Urbanization is one of today’s most phenomenal socioeconomic changes and it is believed that the level of urbanization in a country is strongly correlated to its economic development. As the process is unstoppable, what is needed is the ability to manage urbanization for the benefit of national social and economic development. According to the 2010 census, Indonesia’s urban population had reached nearly 120 million, almost half of the total population in the country at the time. Moreover, the National Development Planning Board (Bappenas) has predicted that urbanites will reach 152 million by 2025, about 67.5 percent of the total projected population. Nevertheless, the spatial distribution of our urban population is extremely uneven, with nearly 70 percent of the urban population living on Java, making this island the country’s most highly urbanized region. One-fifth of the nation’s entire urban population is estimated to live in Greater Jakarta. This is indeed a great challenge for the new government of 2104-2019: how to make urban development become a driver for national socioeconomic development. A World Bank study issued in 2011 showed that every 1 percent of growth in Indonesia’s urban population between 1970 and 2005 resulted in an average 2 percent increase in per capita gross domestic product (GPD). However, in Thailand and Vietnam, the figures were much higher, at 8 and 10 percent, respectively. For China and India, the figure was 6 percent. The study concluded that, “Indonesia is not leveraging urbanization to boost economic output per capita.” Nonetheless, Greater Jakarta plays a very important role in the national economy, in which about 25 percent of the nation’s total GDP (see table), excluding oil and gas, is produced. Other large metropolitan areas, including Surabaya, Bandung, Semarang, Medan and Makassar, altogether contributed about 15 percent to GDP. All provinces in Java have a relatively high proportion of urbanites, including Jakarta, West Java, Banten and Yogyakarta with more than 65 percent. However, some provinces outside Java also experienced great increases in the urban population from 2000 to 2010 under regional autonomy, including Riau Islands, East Kalimantan, Bali, Bangka Belitung, North Sulawesi and North Sumatra. Nevertheless, most of the provinces, especially in the eastern half of the country, still have relatively small urban populations. There is a relatively modest correlation (0.53) between the level of urbanization, measured by the percentage of urban populations, with the level of economic development, that is gross regional domestic products (GRDP) per capita in the provinces in 2010. The number of large cities with populations of more than 1 million has increased significantly. In 1950, Jakarta was the only city with a population of more than 1 million, but by 2014 there were 12 cities in this group. Seven, including Jakarta, Tangerang, South Tangerang, Bekasi, Depok and Bogor, are located in Greater Jakarta, which reflects the dominance of Greater Jakarta as the largest urban agglomeration in Indonesia, often referred to as a “primate city”. Urban development in Java has been marked by the formation of massive urban belts connecting large cities, including the Jakarta-Bandung, Yogyakarta-Semarang and Surabaya-Malang corridors, in which the distinction between “rural” and “urban” is increasingly blurred. Meanwhile, the rate of urban population growth in the central cities, including Jakarta, is undergoing a slowdown in growth, whereas the peripheries of big cities, such as Bogor-Tangerang-Bekasi-Depok are experiencing high urban population growth. The small and intermediate urban centers, namely those with populations of between 100,000 and 1 million, could have an important role in creating balanced urban development if managed and planned properly, as they could become a necessary link between rural and urban development. According to the 2011 World Bank study, the intermediate cities, or those with populations ranging from half to 1 million, have better-performing agglomeration economies than cities in any other class. Meanwhile, most of the smaller cities of 100,000 to 500,000 people have experienced declining productivity and negative rates of growth, indicated particularly by a decline in per capita GDP and decrease in population. Most likely this is due to a lack of infrastructure and skilled labor, as well as poor market access to ports and larger cities. A closer look, however, indicates that small towns and intermediary cities outside Java are growing more rapidly than those in Java, indicating that those outside Java play a more important role as centers of social and economic activity, including oil palm plantations, timber, coal, oil and gas. In short, despite growing rapidly, urban development in Indonesia remains greatly concentrated in Java’s large cities, namely Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung and Semarang, as well as Medan in North Sumatra. Nevertheless, the 2010 national census showed that some natural resource-rich regions outside Java, such as North Sumatra, Riau, Riau Islands and East Kalimantan, showed significant increases in the proportion of their urban populations. This might also indicate a positive impact of Indonesia’s regional autonomy policy on urban development and urbanization, as now local governments have more authority and discretion to plan and manage their urban development. Therefore, there is a need for a national urban development and urbanization policy, which should address the disparities in urban and regional development; most notably, how to develop urban growth centers in eastern Indonesia. The government declared an official national spatial development plan (Rencana Tata Ruang Nasional) in the late 2000s to promote balanced urban development. However, it has not been effective enough to guide urban development because it has never been consistently integrated with investment and infrastructure plans. On the contrary, investment and infrastructure development has been increasingly concentrated in Java, most notably in Greater Jakarta, which in turn has widened the regional disparity between Jakarta and other cities in Indonesia. Moreover, the government has established a coordinating board for spatial development planning (Badan Koordinasi Penataan Ruang -BKPRN) at both the national and regional levels. However, this board seems undermined by policies such as those on investment and infrastructure, which have no concern or intention to address urban and regional disparity. Indeed, the national urban development policy should address not only balanced urban development per se but also some other pressing urban issues, including urban environmental sustainability, livability, poverty and urban governance and institutions; and also how to create balanced urban development and urbanization in the eastern part of the country. ●

Privatization of urban ringes and post-suburbanization Tommy Firman  ;   The writer is a professor of urban planning at the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB). Currently he is a visiting senior research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, in Cambridge, Massachusetts

JAKARTA POST, 01 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

                                                      

In many Asian countries, urban development has been characterized by a mixture of different economic activities and land uses in the fringe areas of large cities, including agricultural activities, industrial estates and large new towns. Meanwhile, built-up areas are expanding from urban centers in all directions, forming extended metropolitan regions. This phenomenon has taken place most notably in metropolitan cities of Southeast Asian countries, including Jakarta, Bangkok in Thailand, Ho Chi Min City in Vietnam, Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia and Manila in the Philippines, which basically indicates the trend of shifting from mono-centric to multi-centric metropolitan areas. In many developed countries, the development of fringes of metropolitan areas is referred to as “post-suburbia”; that is, the process in which urban development phases away from a concentric radial pattern toward polycentric structure. This process is characterized by population redistribution from urban centers to the fringes, followed by decentralization of various economic activities, including manufacturing, commerce, retail and offices. Post-suburbia in the United States, for instance, is characterized by “what was once central […] becoming peripheral and what was periphery […] becoming central” (Soja, 2000). Nevertheless, the term “post-suburbia” may also characterize the new trend of urban development in Asia, such as in China’s large city-region and even in post-socialist cities like Moscow and Budapest, although it is not an identical process to that in Western countries. For example, suburbanization in China is physically characterized by a mixed pattern of both traditional and new suburban residential development, but it is unlikely to reach the extent of Western cities (Feng, Zhou and Wu, 2008). Likewise, recent Greater Jakarta (Jabodetabek) development shows some similar trends, although it might be still be considered to be in an early phase of “post-suburbia” in the developed world. Jabodetabek development is typified by a mix of some increasingly independent towns with various different economic activities, including manufacturing activities in Jababeka in Bekasi, West Java, and education and convention activities in Depok and Bogor, also in West Java, with traditional “dormitory towns” in the peripheral areas. The current development of the Jabodetabek region has been greatly facilitated by the government’s pro-growth economic policy, which encourages industrial-estate and real-estate development in the fringe areas, whereas the private sector plays an important role as a developer in this expansion. As Shatkin (2008) indicates, in large Southeast Asian cities, the relocation of industrial and residential activities from the city core to fringe areas might reflect a shift from publicly to privately controlled land. Moreover, the dynamics of fringe areas in Jabodetabek, as mirrored in the new towns and industrial estate development, is greatly affected by the globalization of the economy, in which capital can move freely across countries and sectors, including the property sector. More specifically, the trend of post-suburbanization in Jabodetabek is characterized as follows.  First, the region is experiencing an uncontrolled and extensive conversion of prime agricultural land into urban land use in fringe areas, most notably into industrial estates and new towns and large-scale residential areas and shopping centers. Meanwhile in the city of Jakarta, the core of Jabodetabek, many residential areas have been converted into super malls, condominiums, offices and business spaces. Second, Jabodetabek is experiencing a rapid urban transformation, which is reflected in rapid population growth and the great increase in the number and percentage of urban localities (desa urban) in peripheral areas, whereas Jakarta itself is experiencing low population growth, which indicates a rapid spillover of the city to its fringe areas. Third, industrial estates are growing rapidly on the outskirts of Jabodetabek, resulting from the development of domestic and foreign direct investment due to the proximity and easy access to Jakarta, and rising land prices in the city center. Fourth, some old and new towns in Jabodetabek fringe areas have been transformed from merely dormitory towns to become independent towns and small cities with strong economic bases, most notably Jababeka, which has now become one of the largest manufacturing centers in Indonesia; Bogor, where agricultural research center Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) is located; Depok, where the University of Indonesia (UI), one of the largest higher-education institutions in Indonesia is housed; and Serpong, a center of research and high-tech development (Puspitek) in Indonesia. The development of old and new towns in Jabodetabek has been greatly facilitated by toll-road development from the government and private sector. Fifth, as the result of new towns and economic activity development on the fringes of Jabodetabek, millions of people commute between Jakarta and the fringe areas using various means of transportation, including public buses, trains and private cars, which makes commuting distances increase. Meanwhile, a number of Jakarta’s residents also commute between Jakarta and small towns on the outskirts because they work there. There are two main actors in the process of post-suburbanization in Jabodetabek, i.e. the government and private developers. The government policy on sponsored low-cost housing development and facilitating the private sector to develop large-scale housing projects for medium and high-income groups, most notably by granting exclusive location permits to private developers, has driven the development of new towns and large-scale residential areas in the Jabodetabek peripheral areas since the 1980s. Moreover, government policy to encourage the private sector to invest in industrial-estate development on the fringes of Jabodetabek under the pro-growth economic policy has fueled the process of post-suburbanization, by which many towns are developing to become independent centers of socioeconomic activities, resulting in a transformation of Jabodetabek from a single to multi-core urban region. The development of Jabodetabek is now becoming more market-oriented, because of the growing role of market forces in the economy. The private sector plays an important role in urban and local development. However the development of private sector activities on the fringes of Jabodetabek seems to be largely uncontrolled and tends to violate spatial planning for regencies and cities in the region, which in turn could severely impact on the environment in the areas, while local governments lack the capacity to manage the rapid urban development. ●