skip to main content

Technical Reasoning on a Local Government Land Property as Heuristic Tool to Accommodate City Leaders Strategic Planning

*Yasser Wahyuddin orcid  -  Department of Geodesy, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Bambang Sudarsono  -  Department of Geodesy, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2021 TEKNIK

Citation Format:
Abstract

One of the Land Asset Management facets in Indonesia has been so far the possession of the land as an asset for local government. The regulation allows local government to organize local land assets to support land use planning in various patterns. While at the same time, Indonesia has a rigorous rule on land use planning with Euclidean Zoning System called RTRW Plan, which lasts for 20 years. Land use patterns could not be ruled by projecting a specific order, ideology, technical stances, etc. This article would like to contextualize a dynamic in which city leader infrastructure strategic planning was being technically anticipated by filtering out the feasibility of local land asset which meet the minimum requirement of the RTRW as the principal reference for spatial land use planning.  This article does not necessarily address its aim at problematizing RTRW; rather, in the first place, it discusses the vigorous of the local government technical department to bridge a so-called City Leader strategic planning with the current systems of the RTRW. Here, the article would argue that a tiny time frame of the City Leader's order leaves a narrow space for technical staff to map out a holistic technical plan. Instead, opting for a specific local land asset appeared to be the instant solution to such a plan. Furthermore, the second concern of this article specified its attention on providing the technical means so that the choice of the predetermined location was constructively and objectively justified beforehand.  A specific case study of Pekalongan Regency, Central Java Indonesia, allowed delving into the empirical case. The city leader was at the last year of his terms, and it was claimed, the choice to develop hospital infrastructure was part of a political maneuver. A qualitative approach in the form of in-depth interviews and compilation of secondary documents was employed. The city technical managers needed to operate rational technocratic mechanisms to the politico-technique juxtaposition to justify the planning problem's technical rationality and the other side to provide a technical solution, pointing out land assets under the framework of the RTRW. Thus, the arguments developed in this work contested the land choice technical assessments were not necessarily neutral rather a supporting element to adjust the overwhelming leader's strategic choice fully. Further discussion materials are proposed. In this case, the political strategy created a circumstance of instantaneity and a limited time frame that could lead to the enthusiasm of strategic thinking under the realm of the urban planning system.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: strategic planning; strategic thinking; technicalization; land asset; RTRW

Article Metrics:

  1. Ahern, J., Cilliers, S., & Niemelä, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 254–259. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.020
  2. Armatte, M. (2016). Introduction to the work of Alain Desrosières: the history and sociology of quantification. In The Social Sciences of Quantification (pp. 17-31). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44000-2_2
  3. Bardet, F. (2014). La contre-révolution comptable : ces chiffres qui (nous) gouvernent. Paris: Les belles lettres
  4. Bidandi, F., & Williams, J. J. (2020). Understanding urban land, politics, and planning: A critical appraisal of Kampala’s urban sprawl. Cities, 106 (April 2020), 102858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102858
  5. Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2014). The ‘Urban Age’ in Question. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(3), 731–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12115
  6. Capano, G., & Howlett, M. (2020). The knowns and unknowns of policy instrument analysis: Policy tools and the current research agenda on policy mixes. Sage Open, 10(1), 2158244019900568.. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900568
  7. Chowdhury, S., Yamauchi, F., & Dewina, R. (2009). Governance decentralization and local infrastructure provision in Indonesia. IFPRI Discussion Paper, (October), 32. International Food Policy Research Institute
  8. Coutinho-Rodrigues, J., Simão, A., & Antunes, C. H. (2011). A GIS-based multicriteria spatial decision support system for planning urban infrastructures. Decision support systems, 51(3), 720-726. ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.02.010
  9. Darmawati, D., Saleh, C., & Hanafi, I. (2015). Implementasi Kebijakan Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (Rtrw) dalam Perspektif Pembangunan Berkelanjutan. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Tribhuwana Tunggadewi, 4(2), 42457
  10. Desrosières, A. (2014). Prouver et gouverner: une analyse politique des statistiques publiques. La découverte. https://doi.org/10.3917/pro.342.0090
  11. Djunaedi, A., Probosubanu, L., & Ismail, N. (2010). Zoning Regulation as Land Use Control Instrument: Lesson Learned from United States of America and Singapore. Forum Teknik, 3(3), 131–139
  12. Elliott, O. V., & Salamon, L. M. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  13. Fainstein, S. S., & Fainstein, N. I. (1971). City Planning and Political Values. Urban Affairs Review, 6(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/107808747100600305
  14. Febriyan, H. Y., Walangitan, D. R., & Sibi, M. (2017). Studi kelayakan proyek pembangunan perumahan bethsaida bitung oleh PT. cakrawala indah mandiri dengan kriteria investasi. Jurnal Sipil Statik, 5(7)
  15. Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning theory, 12(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212448750
  16. Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M., & Horner, M. (2009, September). The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism. Accounting Forum (Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 245-256). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.07.006
  17. Ghosh, A., & Meagher, K. (2011). Political Economy of Infrastructure Investment. SSRN Electronic Journal, (1989), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.694243
  18. Hood, C. (2009). The Tools of Government in the Information Age. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548453.003.0022
  19. Knox, P., & Ozolins, P. (Eds.). (2000). Design professionals and the built environment: an introduction. Academy Press
  20. Lascoumes, P. (1996). Rendre gouvernable: de la “traduction” au “transcodage”. L’analyse des processus de changement dans les réseaux d’action publique. La gouvernabilité, 325-338
  21. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Introduction: understanding public policy through its instruments—from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1-21
  22. Lascoumes, P., & Simard, L. (2011). L'action publique au prisme de ses instruments. Revue française de science politique, 61(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfsp.611.0005
  23. Longhofer, W., & Winchester, D. (2016). Social theory re-wired: New connections to classical and contemporary perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775357
  24. Manaf, A., Setiyono, B., Wahyudi, I., Fisher, M., & Yuzal, H. (2016). Implementing pro-poor planning and budgeting: A case study of government-community poverty alleviation partnership in Pekalongan City, Indonesia. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 8(4), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSOC.2016.082368
  25. Marques, E. (2013). Government, political actors and governance in urban policies in Brazil and São Paulo: concepts for a future research agenda. Brazilian Political Science Review, 7, 8-35
  26. Marshall, T., & Cowell, R. (2015). Infrastructure, planning, and the command of time. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(8), 1843–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16642768
  27. Nugroho, P., & Sugiri, A. (2009). Studi Kebijakan Pembangunan Terhadap Perubahan Tata Ruang Di Kota Semarang. Jurnal Riptek, 3(2), 41-51
  28. Özdemir, E. (2018). The role of the expert knowledge in politicizing urban planning processes: A case from Istanbul. Planning Theory, 18(2), 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218809747
  29. Pacchi, C. (2018). Epistemological critiques to the technocratic planning model: the role of Jane Jacobs, Paul Davidoff, Reyner Banham and Giancarlo De Carlo in the 1960s. City, Territory and Architecture, 5(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-018-0095-3
  30. Pinson, G. (2009). Gouverner la ville par projet. Urbanisme et gouvernance des villes européennes. Presses de Sciences Po
  31. Pissourios, I. A. (2014). Top-down and bottom-up urban and regional planning: Towards a framework for the use of planning standards. European Spatial Research and Policy, 21(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.2478/esrp-2014-0007
  32. Rakodi, C. (2001). Forget planning, put politics first? Priorities for urban management in developing countries. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 3(3), 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0303-2434(01)85029-7
  33. Rauws, W. (2017). Embracing uncertainty without abandoning planning: Exploring an adaptive planning approach for guiding urban transformations. DisP-The Planning Review, 53(1), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2017.1316539
  34. Sairinen, R. (2004). Social impact assessment in urban planning. Advances in Architecture Series, 18, 423–430
  35. Setiowati, R., Hasibuan, H. S., & Koestoer, R. H. (2018, November). Green open space masterplan at Jakarta Capital City, Indonesia for climate change mitigation. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 200, No. 1, p. 012042). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/200/1/012042
  36. Silviana, A., & Al-lathiif, F. A. (2018). Kebijakan Pemerintah Kota Semarang Dalam Pemanfaatan Aset Tanah Untuk Pembangunan. Diponegoro Private Law Review, 3(1), 272–284
  37. Sundari, M., & Ma'rif, S. (2013). Optimalisasi Pemanfaatan Tanah Aset Pemerintah Kota Semarang di Kecamatan Banyumanik. Jurnal pembangunan wilayah dan kota, 9(2), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.14710/pwk.v9i2.6532
  38. Supriyadi, S., & Subadi, S. (2011). Tanah Aset Daerah Dalam Perspektif Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 1(1), 11-27
  39. Surel, Y. (2015). La science politique et ses méthodes. Paris. : Armand Colin
  40. Wacquant, L. (2013). Symbolic power and group-making: On Pierre Bourdieu’s reframing of class. Journal of classical sociology, 13(2), 274-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X12468737
  41. Widodo, J. (2010). Analisis Kebijakan Publik: Konsep dan Aplikasi Analisis Proses Kebijakan Publik. Malang: Bayu Media
  42. Wijaatmaja, A. B. M. (2015). Pendekatan Perencanaan Tata Ruang Wilayah di Kota Denpasar. Space, 2(2), 201-220

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.