Indonesia’s government has responded to mounting pressures by consistently creating new policy instruments – regulations, taskforces and digital applications – but this approach may be undermining its own effectiveness. The proliferation of rules and bureaucratic systems raises a critical question: does adding more instruments improve performance, or does it erode the state’s ability to address core problems?
This pattern extends beyond simply accumulating regulations. It’s also visible in the expansion of bureaucratic layers and increasingly fragmented data ecosystems within ministries, agencies, and local governments. Often, creating something new is seen as easier than repairing, simplifying, or integrating existing systems, leading to a multiplication of administrative layers.
The consequences are already being felt. Civil servants are burdened with a growing volume of instructions, applications, reports, and regulations. Overlapping rules hinder implementation and, instead of streamlining public service delivery, add to the administrative workload.
Digitalisation, intended to accelerate public service, has instead added to the complexity. The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (Kemenpan RB) reports over 27,000 digital platforms built by various government entities. These systems often operate in silos, lacking integration within a broader data ecosystem, and reflect a tendency to treat new systems as the default solution rather than addressing the absence of a national data architecture.
World Bank data indicates that despite modest improvements in Indonesia’s regulatory quality over the past 14 years, it remains below that of Malaysia and Singapore. This suggests that simply increasing the quantity of regulations does not necessarily improve their quality.
This tendency is driven by a combination of political incentives and bureaucratic culture. Launching new initiatives is often seen as a quicker response to crises than improving existing ones, and novelty is often valued over thorough evaluation. Bureaucratic fragmentation, with ministries and agencies operating independently, further exacerbates the problem. For example, local governments were previously caught between two separate financial management applications – SIPD and SIMDA – leading to inconsistent implementation and delayed budget disbursement.
This results in policies that contradict each other, creating confusion during implementation. A recent proposal by a member of Commission IV of Indonesia’s House of Representatives (DPR) to establish a new Ministry of Food exemplifies this pattern. Although intended to centralize food policy, the new ministry could add another layer of bureaucracy if it doesn’t consolidate existing agencies like BULOG, Indonesia’s state-owned food logistic agency.
Creating new institutions doesn’t necessarily address underlying structural problems and risks reinforcing a cycle of institutional expansion that prioritizes power-sharing over competence. This overregulation also erodes public trust, as citizens witness policy activity without corresponding improvements in outcomes.
The core challenge for Indonesia is not simply the number of rules, bureaucracies, or systems, but how to integrate and sustain them to improve policy outcomes. A focus on simplification and consolidation – rather than accumulation – is needed to create a more resilient and effective governance system.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is driving the proliferation of policy instruments in Indonesia?
A mix of political incentives and bureaucratic culture is driving this tendency. Launching new regulations, taskforces, or applications is considered a quicker response to crises than improving existing ones, and novelty is often appreciated more than structural evaluation.
How is digitalization impacting public service delivery in Indonesia?
Digitalisation, which was expected to accelerate public service delivery, has instead become a new source of complexity, with the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (Kemenpan RB) reporting more than 27,000 digital platforms.
What is the consequence of having so many overlapping regulations?
Overlapping rules hinder implementation in the field and create an additional administrative burden, reducing the time available for substantive work. Policies that should be mutually reinforcing instead pile up on or cancel each other, creating confusion.
Will Indonesia be able to shift its focus from creating new systems to integrating and strengthening existing ones?
