Indonesia’s Governance Challenge: Why More Rules Aren’t Always Better

Indonesia’s approach to governance often involves a rapid proliferation of new regulations, task forces, and digital applications in response to political pressure and public expectations. However, this constant creation of new instruments raises a critical question: does an increasing number of rules actually improve government performance, or does it ultimately erode the state’s ability to effectively address core problems? A growing body of evidence suggests the latter may be true, highlighting a systemic issue that extends beyond mere regulatory quantity.

The Proliferation of Policy Instruments

The tendency to add new layers of regulation is not simply an accumulation of rules, but also manifests in expanding bureaucratic structures and increasingly fragmented data ecosystems. Often, creating something new is seen as more feasible than repairing, simplifying, or integrating existing systems. This leads to solutions that, while intended to improve governance, instead proliferate administrative layers. Indonesia’s Legal Documentation and Information Network reports over 251,000 applicable laws and regulations currently in effect , yet overlapping rules continue to hinder implementation.

Digitalization and Siloed Systems

Even digitalization, intended to streamline public service delivery, contributes to the complexity. The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (Kemenpan RB) has identified more than 27,000 digital platforms built by various government entities . These systems often operate in silos, lacking integration within a broader national data architecture, and represent a default solution to problems rather than addressing the underlying issue of data integration.

Regulatory Quality Lags Behind

Despite an increase in regulatory quantity, Indonesia’s regulatory quality remains below that of regional peers like Malaysia and Singapore , as indicated by World Bank data. This suggests that simply increasing the number of regulations does not automatically translate to improved regulatory quality or effective policy implementation.

Political and Bureaucratic Drivers

This pattern is driven by a combination of political incentives and bureaucratic culture. Governments often feel compelled to respond quickly to crises by launching new regulations or initiatives, as novelty is often valued more than structural evaluation in a competitive political environment. Bureaucratic fragmentation exacerbates the issue, as ministries and agencies operate with their own data systems and priorities, making consolidation difficult. For example, local governments previously navigated between two separate financial management applications – the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SIPD and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency’s SIMDA – leading to inconsistencies and delays .

The Risk of Policy Incoherence

The consequence of this proliferation is policy incoherence, where policies contradict or overlap, creating confusion during implementation. A recent example involves a proposal to establish a new Ministry of Food Security, alongside the existing state-owned food logistic agency (BULOG). While potentially effective through consolidation, the new ministry risks adding another bureaucratic layer and hindering progress towards food security .

Erosion of Public Trust

Overregulation also erodes public trust. Citizens observe frequent policy activity but often witness limited improvement in outcomes. This can lead to a perception of government as reactive rather than purposeful. The lack of clarity in overall policy direction further diminishes confidence.

The Path Forward: Integration and Simplification

The core challenge for Indonesia is not simply the quantity of rules, bureaucracies, or systems, but how to integrate and sustain them to improve policy outcomes. The focus needs to shift from proliferation to integration, simplification, and the phasing out of unnecessary instruments. Strengthening a smaller number of coherent and effective systems is crucial for building a more resilient governance system that better serves the public interest. Indonesia’s future governance hinges on its capacity to prioritize consolidation over accumulation.