–

The Government of Indonesia (GoI) defined COVID-19 outbreak as a non-natural disaster as stated in the Decision Letter of Indonesian National Board for Disaster Management (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana/BNPB) 9A/2020 concerning the Status of Determining the Specific Situation of Coronavirus Disease in Indonesia, prompting the President to declare a state of public health emergency which subsequently led the President to ask relevant ministers to take maximum steps to stop the virus transmission. As the virus began spreading to different parts of the country, including to the most populous province in Indonesia: West Java, local governments, particularly regional and city governments, saw the need to enact stringent measures in their region to the extent which is allowed by their right of autonomy. In doing so, the West Java regional government, which receives its mandate from the national government, is tasked with coordinating and delegating countermeasures to the city/district governments under its jurisdiction, which include mass testing, social restrictions, and securing health services. However, we learned that issues arise during the course of this delegation, including coordination issues between national and local governments, vertical and horizontal mechanisms, and decision making. This paper aims to answer: “How does West Java govern the response to the COVID-19 pandemic?”. It does so by assessing the efforts done by the West Java regional government and its corresponding city/district governments to contain the COVID-19 virus from March to August 2020. The assessment also identifies the gaps which exist between the regional and local governments and use them to formulate recommendations aimed at improving West Java’s institutional response to COVID-19.

Since the first cases in Early March 2020 until August, Jakarta is still the epicenter of the spread of the COVID-19 in Indonesia. Entering the seventh month of the outbreak the situation in Jakarta has been spiraling beyond control, indicated by a sudden rise of COVID-19 confirmed cases. The cases’ spikes may have been due to relaxed social restrictions policy and the more thorough test prior to August, as well as the lack of citizens’ adherence to social distancing measures. Nonetheless government response and governance during the ‘new normal’ period are also pertaining to the resurgence of COVID-19 cases. Thus, this paper aims to give elaborated exposition on the COVID-19 governance of Jakarta Provincial government during the new normal era. And how is the difference in response to the first phase and second phase of COVID-19 social restriction (PSBB)? We observed government negligence in enforcing necessary policies and measures to slow down the spread during the new normal period is one of the major influences for the resurgence of COVID-19 cases, consequently the situation stimulates the Jakarta Government to take a more serious approach to the crisis. The findings of this paper will contribute to the development and advancement of policy response and crisis management of subnational government.

The emergence and spread of the novel Coronavirus have placed a spotlight on the critical role of effective governance in managing a health crisis. In Indonesia, policymakers are continuously creating new ways to respond to the pandemic in order to manage its wide-ranging impacts. Similar to the rest of the world the highly heterogeneous impact of COVID-19 put the Indonesia Government in a difficult position. The government confined in a double crisis dilemma of health and the economy. As the crisis wreak havoc on Indonesia economy, the government has concentrated the countermeasures in dealing with the economic impact. And thus, this paper takes an in-depth look at Indonesia’s COVID-19 governance, as well as the rationale on why Indonesia seemingly prioritizes the economy with economy-oriented such as the social mobility policy in June. As a result, entering the sixth month of the pandemic, Indonesia continues to struggle to control rapid virus transmission. Realizing the severe health consequences, as well as a backlash, of downplaying the outbreak, the central government has stated that public health is instrumental and thus measures that to be taken will be based on the current health concerns. Nonetheless, in practice, the policies are still oriented towards economic recovery. Hence, this paper aims to answer the following research question: “What are the reasons for Indonesia’s ambivalent strategy in handling COVID-19?” this paper used qualitative analysis and the assessment utilized a desk review. The result shows that severe economic consequences and Indonesia’s limited capacity in providing assistance have forced Indonesia to reopen the economy to prevent large-scale financial crises. Practical implications of the findings and discussion can be treated as reflection and lessons learned to improve response strategy to the existing and future large-scale outbreak.