Date post: | 11-Jul-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | wahyu-nur-isnaini |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 1 times |
PROGRAM MAGISTER PEMBANGUNAN WILAYAH DAN KOTA
PROGRAM PASCASARJANA – UNIVERSITAS DIPONEGORO
PERTEMUAN - 8
SEMESTER II – 2014
MPK - 606
RURALTO
URBAN
NORTHTO
SOUTH
FORMALTO
INFORMAL
CITIESTO
MEGACITIES
GLOBALURBANIZATION
ANDURBAN/REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENTISSUES
1. 2.
3.
4.
4
DUALISME PEMBANGUNAN KOTA
World Population lived in Urban Area : a. Year of 1800 : 3,00%
b. Year of 1950 : 29,00%c. Shortly after 2000 : 50,00%
Figure 1PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION LIVING IN URBAN AREA
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
RURALTO
URBAN
a. 1950 – 2050 The Urban population in third world countries will have increase 16 times : - 200 million to 3,15 billion. - Grows 140.000/day. b. 2000 - 2010 The urban in Developing Countries will be almost Twice that of Developed Nations
Figure 2PROJECTED URBAN POPULATION INCREASE
IN DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 1950 - 2025
NORTHTO
SOUTH
DevelopingCountries
Developed Countries
a. Migrants : They live in Squatter settlement, Shantytowns, Sub divisions illegal or Tenements in deteriorated and Peripheral neighborhoods. b. Formal city is growing: 3 – 4%/year and Informal city is growing twice that rate. c. 1/3 – 2/3 urban population lived in Illegal Settlements
Figure 3URBANIZATION AND PER CAPITA GNP IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
20% s/d 40% URBANISTGNP PERCAPITA < $ 1,000/YEARS
FORMAL TO INFORMAL
Figure 4CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OFOVER 10 MILLION IN THE YEAR
1970 - 2000
a. 1970 : 4 Megacities only. b. 2000 : 23 Megacities
4 kota Megapolitan tahun 1970 :• London.• Shanghai.• New York City.• Tokyo
Penduduk kota Jakarta tahun 2000mendekati angka 15 juta jiwa,sekarang > 18 juta jiwa.
CITIES TOMEGACITIES
BERTAMBAH MENJADI 23 MEGAPOLITAN PADA TAHUN 2000 DAN PADA TAHUN 2025 > 40 MEGAPOLITAN
TAHUN 2000 (us.$ <Billion)
• Negara-negara Industri Baru sebesar 65,17
• Asia Timur : 7,08• Asia Tenggara : 19,04• China, Mongolia dan
negara-negara Asia Tengah : 28,82
• Negara-negara di Kep. Pasific : 0,01
Total : 120,12 (2000) 147,22 (2001) 269,62 (2010)
TAHUN 2020 (us.$ Billion)• Negara-negara
Industri Baru sebesar 212,39
• Asia Timur : 34,76• Asia Tenggara : 99,45• China, Mongolia dan
negara-negara Asia Tengah : 237,13
• Negara-negara di Kep. Pasific : 0,02
• Total : 6.400,70 (2020)
METHODOLOGY1. Forcasting-smoting Approacha. A simple method has been
used by The World Bank. b. A strong relation beetwen
Infrastructure and Percapita Gross Domestic Product.
1. Income Approacha. In general for every one
percent growth in percapita income, countries need to increase infrastructure stock by one percent of GDP.
b. At the same time, the compo sition of infrastructure stock changes significantly as income rises
TOTAL ESTIMATE FOR URBAN & REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PERIOD ON 2020
US $ 6,400.70(Billion)
1. KEBUTUHAN PSP/W. AKAN TERUS MENINGKAT SELARAS DENGAN PERTAMBAHAN PENDUDUK PERKOTAAN DAN WILAYAH.
2. KEMAMPUAN PEMKOT/KAB/PROV. DALAM PENYEDIAAN DANA INVESTASI PEMBANGUNAN PSP/W. TERBATAS.
DIPERLUKAN TEROBOSAN BARU UNTUK MEMECAHKANNYAURBAN AND REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
YANG SANGAT KOMPLEKDUALISME
PEMBANGUNAN KOTA
USER CHARGE
BETTERMENT LEVIES • Adalah tagihan modal utk
menutupi/membiayai investasi prasarana
Tujuan pungutan • Mendorong masyarakat yg mendapatkan
manfaat prasarana utk menanggung biaya • Didasarkan atas jumlah area atau besaran
nilai taksiran manfaat yg diperolehnya • Contoh : bea air irigasi
CONNECTION FEES
• Adalah pungutan yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan jasa pelayanan kepada individu, misal air bersih, telepon, sistem saluran pembuangan kotoran
• Tujuan untuk menutupi biaya yg timbul akibat adanya tambahan konsumen atas jaringan yg sudah ada
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES• Dibayar oleh developer kepada pemda
atau perusda sebagai kompensasi atas dampak yg ditimbulkan oleh pembangunan baru tersebut
• Contoh : Pembangunan Perumahan Skala Besar
• Pungutan ini biasa dikenakan saat minta IMB dan harus dibayar dimuka
PINJAMAN • Secara umum lebih pendek waktunya dan
relatif lebih mahal dibanding obligasi
• Bisa bersifat komersial atau non komersial
• Sumber : Pinjaman DN atau LN
OBLIGASI• Sumber dana : mobilisasi dana di
pasar modal
• Bentuk dasar seperti pinjaman yg dilakukan pemerintah
• Jenis obligasi :•General obligation bonds•Revenue bonds
DEVELOPMENT EXACTION • Pungutan pada developer karena
pembangunan prasarana di lingkungan (on site) area pembangunan, sbg salah satu syarat sebelum pembangunan itu dimulai.
• Prasarana yg termasuk biasanya adalah jalan, saluran air bersih dan kotor, penerangan jalan, taman dsb nya.
• Besarnya pungutan : nego antar developer dgn institusi yg mewakili aktivitas masyarakat lokal.
Sehingga; • Kelebihannya : tidak ada biaya konstruksi
prasarana yg ditanggung pemerintah• Kekurangan : kadang prasarana yg
dibangun dibawah standar
EXCESS CONDEMNATION • Sejumlah tanah disisihkan utk
pembangunan prasarana, sisa tanah dibangun developer utk dibangun kawasan komersial, dan developer berkewajiban utk membangun prasarana tersebut.
• Instrumen ini biasa dipakai utk revitalisasi prasarana kawasan kumuh
LINKAGE • Developer diminta membangun prasarana
di daerah tertentu utk mendapatkan ijin pengembangan di daerah yg diinginkan
• Khusus utk pembangunan perumahan, dimana developer diminta membangun rumah sederhana utk pembangunan rumah mewah
JOINT VENTURES• Kerjasama pemerintah swasta, dan
keduanya memiiki posisi seimbang.
Tujuan utk memadukan keunggulan masing-masing pihak• Swasta modal, teknologi, kemampuan
manajemen.• Pemerintah sumber-sumber, kewenangan
dan kepercayaan masyarakat.
CONCESSIONS• Dikenal dalam banyak hal manajamen
prasarana, yaitu :• BOO• BOT• Divestiture • dll
Beberapa Pilihan ModelBeberapa Pilihan Model
Jangka waktu
Inve
stas
i pub
lik 1
00%
Inve
stas
i priv
at 1
00%
Kontrak pelayanan
Kontrak manajemen
Leases
Konsesi
BOT
BOO
Divestasi
Karakteristik PilihanKarakteristik PilihanModel Kepemi
likanO dan
PInvesta
si Risiko JangkaKontrak pelayanan
Publik Publik dan privat Publik Publik 1 – 2
tahun
Kontrak manajemen
Publik Privat Publik Publik 3 – 5 tahun
Lease (Sewa) Publik Privat Publik Dibagi
rata8 – 15 tahun
Konsesi Publik Privat Privat Privat 25 – 30 tahun
BOT/BOO Privat dan publik Privat Privat Privat 20 – 30
tahun
DivestasiPrivat atau
privat-publik
Privat Privat Privat Tak
terbatas (tergantu
ng)
KASUS: PENGELUARAN PEMBANGUNAN DI KOTA
SEMARANG
Sebagian besar cenderung dipergunakan untuk pengeluaran rutin
• Perlunya manajemen pengeluaran yang rasional : • dapat mendeteksi, akunting, dan menghentikan
kebocoran dalam pelayanan publik; • adanya mekanisme insentif dan disinsentif seperti
penalti bagi daerah yang kurang efektif; • mengurangi biaya dalam penyediaan pelayanan seperti
melalui staffing, pengaturan pelayanan bersama dengan wilayah sekitarnya, perencanaan dan penganggaran dan monitoring.
• Diversifikasi penyediaan layanan misal melalui kemitraan dengan pemerintah lokal yl, ataupun kerjasama dengan swasta
• Dukungan peraturan(Kim, 1997)
Pengeluaran rutin sebagian besar untuk membayar gaji
Tahun 2001 pengeluaran untuk gaji melonjak sejak desentralisasi diterapkan, sehingga penggajian di tingkat lokal (eksekutif dan legislatif) membengkak dan membebani kota.
Adanya penurunan pengeluaran pembangunan saat krisis (1998), namun kemudian cenderung meningkat lagi pasca krisis
Pengeluaran rutin > pembangunan/modal• Implikasi :• Pelayanan publik dan pembangunan
menjadi terkesan tidak lebih penting daripada pengeluaran rutin• OP Infrastruktur menjadi kurang
pendanaan( mis.jalan)
• Design-build-operate (DBO) *)
• Build Operate Transfer (BOT)• Design-build-operate-maintenance
(DBOM) *)
• Finance-design-build-operate-maintenance (FDBOM) *)
*) : diambil alih Pemerintah melalui transaksi jual beli.
PEMERINTAH
SWASTA
MASYARAKAT
Memberikan Jasa Layanan Pembayaran
Kontrak
Memberikan Pelayanan
Membayar Rekening
SWASTA
MASYARAKAT
Memberikan Jasa
Pembayaran Kontrak
Memberikan Pelayanan
Membayar Rekening
PEMERINTAH
PEMERINTAH
SWASTA
MASYARAKAT
Menyewakan Bagi Hasil
Memberikan Pelayanan Fee Pengelolaan
ESCROW
Pembayaran Rekening
Membayaran Rekening
MASYARAKAT
Melakukan BOT
Memberikan hak BOT
Memberikan
Pelayanan
Fee Investasi
Bagi Hasil
PEMERINTAH
SWASTA ESCROW
SWASTA
MASYARAKAT
Kontrak Konsesi
Memberikan Pelayanan Fee Investasi
ESCROW
Pembayaran Rekening
PEMERINTAH
Build, Own, Operate (BOO). The developer is responsible for design, funding, construction, operation and maintenance of the facility during the concession period, with no provision for transfer of ownership to the gov’t.
At the end of the concession period, the original agreement may be renegotiated,
a new agreement may be negotiated, or the facility may be purchased by the gov’t.
… kerjasama dengan masing-masing memberikan andil dan pertanggung-jawaban
untuk suatu harapan di masa mendatang
Partnership and sustainability
• Koordinasi dan maksimasi usaha• Masing-masing memberi dukungan atas
komitmen yang telah disepakati• Mengembangkan jenis dan jangkauan usaha yang
dikerjasasamakan• Meningkatkan sumber-sumber untuk ditingkatkan
hingga potensi pasarnya secara berkelanjutan
“ “ Working together : partners are not just donors“Working together : partners are not just donors“
•Roles•Responsibilities
•Resources⇑
⇑Preparatory workPreparatory work
Plan(Coordination)
Productive sector growth trough innovation infrastructure and knowledge development
Enhance research
capabilities
Develop and attract high-
qualified people
More access to research centers for
industry
Increase the number of
collaboration networks
Public policy to foster industry
development
Better access to knowledge
and technology
Partnership Competitiveness Agenda
Strength state-wide human capital system
Develop international networks and collaborative
projects
Increased regional capability on innovation and competitiveness
S e c t o r s
Partnerships and collaboration frameworks on e-government From theory to practice
Definitions
• Partners have a common interest
• Collaborators have a project in common
• Partnership : etymologically, a partner is a share-holder (pars tenens)
• Collaboration : etymologically, collaborate refers to working together (co-laborare)
KERJASAMA
PERKONGSIAN
PartnershipWho as a common interest?
• Countries/governments who aim at ‘doing things right’ while not necessarily doing the some thing
• Within one particular country, government entities and private entities who see their own respective interest in the success of e-government, while not necessarily having the same purposes, objectives of rules (PPPs)
• Any entity interested in obtaining/providing competence, expertise or other inputs to help develop something
Examples/interests
• International/regional for a where best practices can be exchanged, common interests are mainly for sharing best practices, identifying common trends and ‘de facto’ standards
• Various kinds of PPPs (not to be confused with delegations or procurement); respective interests are for cost reduction, efficiency, new services, universal service, (public sector) and profit (private sector)
• Support to national entities provided by external player (e.g. neighbouring country, regional or international organization – such as World Bank, UN,..)
CollaborationWho as a common project?
•Countries/governments who aim at developing their respective e-government strategies and plans in coordination
•Within governments/public sectors, various departments/entities working at developing common (shared) infrastructures, databases, tools or standards (e.g. for security, interoperability, capacity building)
•Private-public partnerships in e-government service delivery, or ‘upstream activities’
Examples/projects
• efforts to enhance good practice sharing in the area of national portals, or peer reviews of national e’gov policies
• guidelines and principles of a documents and public services
• Adopting common middleware solutions (Public Service Broker)
• Adopting common platforms for e-procurement
• All types of PPPs (more below)• Developing ‘Public goods’ such
as research on e-skills
Public Private PartnershipsDefinition
A public private partnership can be defined as an agreement between government and private entities for the purpose of delivering a project or service by sharing of risks and rewards of the venture.
Public Private Partnerships
Value Propositions
Access to private finance
Reduced operational risk for the public sector
Faster delivery of capital projects
Project management skills
Improved service delivery to citizens
Optimum utilization of government resources
Entrepreneurship and innovation
PPP Models: Investment Responsibility of Private Sector Design and
BuildBuild, Operate & Transfer (BOT)
Special Purpose Vehicle (Joint
Venture)
Build, Own & Operate (BOO)
Contract License (Operate & Maintain)
Lease Agreements
Build, Own, Operate & Transfer
(BOOT)
Fully Government
Venture
Complete Private Sector
Initiative
Type of PPP Model Design and Build
Contract License BOT Lease
AgreementsJoint
Venture BOOT BOO
Degree of Risk X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Degree of Reward
Increasing Investment Responsibility of the Private Sector
Risk vs Rewards
Example :Benefits of e-Government : on start of stage
Cost savings
Increase in foreign
investment in the country
Better access to information
Better value derived from government
services
Better access to information
Better access to
government services
Better customer service
Benefits to Businesses
Benefits to Government
Benefits to Citizens
Example : Benefits of e-Government : on medio stage
Cost savings Efficiency and transparency
Enhanced political capital
High economic growth
Citizen satisfaction
Efficient and innovative
public sector
Increased attractiveness to investment
and talents
Better access to information
Better value derived from government
services
Gain in productivity
Better access to information
Better access to
government services
Better customer service
Benefits to Businesses
Benefits to Government
Benefits to Citizens
Benefits to Society/Economy
Example : Benefits of e-Government : end stage
Cost savings
Efficiency and
transparency
Enhanced political capital
High economic growth
Citizen satisfaction
Local and Central
Government Synergy
Client-centricity
Efficient and
innovative public sector
Increased attractivene
ss to investment and talents
Better access to
information
CompetitiveInclusive
Democracy
Better value derived
from government
services
Gain in productivity
Better access to
information
Better access to
government services
Better customer service
Benefits to Businesses
Benefits to Government
Benefits to Citizens
Benefits to Society/Economy
Daftar Pustaka• Bird,R.M.(1999) User Charges in Local Government.
Worldbank paper• Potter,B. (1997). Budgetary and Financial Management
in Ter Minassian(eds)’Fiscal Federalism: in Theory and Practice’. International Monetary Fund, Washington DC
• Kim,K.H (1997)Improving Local Government Finance in a Changing Environment. Habitat International,vol 21.no.1 pp17-28
• Litvack,J.Ahmad J, and Bird R.(1998). Rethinking decentralization in Developing Cpuntries/ Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Study Series. Washington,DC: The WB