第 55 卷 第 3 期
2020
年 6 月
JOURNAL OF SOUTHWEST JIAOTONG UNIVERSITY
Vol. 55 No. 3
June 2020
ISSN: 0258-2724 DOI：10.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.3.42
Research articleSocial Science
E
FFECTIVENESS OF
S
TREET
V
ENDOR
R
EGULATION
P
OLICIES TO
I
MPROVE
P
UBLIC
O
RDER IN
Y
OGYAKARTA
,
I
NDONESIA
印度尼西亚日惹街头供应商监管政策对改善公共秩序的有效性
Argo PambudiPublic Administration Department, Social Sciences Faculty, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Yogyakarta, Indonesia, [email protected], [email protected]
Received: March 3, 2020 ▪ Review: May 20, 2020 ▪ Accepted: May 30, 2020
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative CommonsAttribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
Abstract
Street vendors represent a phenomenon that occurs in urban areas, both in developing and developed countries. Their existence is supported by the entrepreneurial spirit of the vendors. However, the practice could be improved if street vendors were made aware of the rights of the community whose public space they utilize and must respect. A well-organized street vendor will benefit various parties such as tourists and will support the community’s economy as well. This study aims to analyze the level of success of the implementation of government policy regarding the regulation of street vendors in Yogyakarta and surrounding areas. The method used in this study is qualitative descriptive analysis, which builds a conceptual model that reflects the actual hidden phenomenon. The data for the study were collected through observations, interviews, and an exploration of the relevant literature. The results found that the licensing regulations as stipulated by the decision of the mayor of Yogyakarta are not implemented in accordance with the provisions. An evaluation of the implementation of licensing rules shows that they have not yet reached the most beneficial results. Some street vendors cannot implement them due to a combination of several factors, namely the importance of their economic survival, the non-financial “costs” that street vendors would incur, and the lack of knowledge about the substance of the policies governing street vendors.
Keywords:Public Policy, Regulatory Policy, Street Vendor
摘要 街头小贩代表着在发展中国家和发达国家的城市地区都发生的一种现象。他们的存在受到供 应商的企业家精神的支持。但是，如果让街头小贩了解他们使用并必须尊重其公共空间的社区的 权利，则可以改善这种做法。井井有条的摊贩将使游客等各方受益，并将支持社区的经济。本研 究旨在分析日惹及周边地区有关街头小贩监管的政府政策实施的成功程度。本研究中使用的方法 是定性描述性分析，它建立了一个反映实际隐藏现象的概念模型。该研究的数据是通过观察，访
Pambudi / Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University / Vol.55 No.3 June 2020 2 谈和对相关文献的探索而收集的。结果发现，日惹市长的决定所规定的许可规定没有按照规定执 行。对许可规则执行情况的评估表明，它们尚未达到最有益的结果。由于一些因素的综合考虑， 一些街头小贩无法实施这些措施，这些因素包括其经济生存的重要性，街头小贩将招致的非金融 “成本”，以及缺乏有关街头小贩管理政策实质的知识。 关键词: 公共政策，监管政策，摊贩
I. INTRODUCTION
Public policies are governmental instruments developed and implemented to regulate and protect citizens’ activities; an example is street vendors’ activities that are spread throughout cities worldwide, both in developing and developed countries. Public policy is also defined as “activities of what the government wants to do and what the government does not want to do to achieve certain public goals”. This paper explains and discusses the street vendor regulations that are being implemented in Yogyakarta City, Indonesia, based on public policy theory. The results of this paper are expected to improve the formulation quality of public policy by empowering effort, public order, and facilitating the entrepreneurial spirit. The discussion focuses on the effectiveness of regulative and protective functions of that policy. The discussion material is based on the descriptive-qualitative analysis of the implementation study in Yogyakarta in 2017.
The Yogyakarta district, and its surrounding local government area, have a great number of street vendors. They have some potential advantages to support the government’s program, by decreasing unemployment and increasing social welfare; for example, lifting Yogyakarta’s image as a development program center for small enterprises and informal businesses, to a main tourism destination program, and facilitating the entrepreneurial spirit of street vendor. On the other hand, the large number of street vendors has developed some problems. One of them is that many street vendors interfere with the public interest and occupy public facilities, especially pedestrian and disabled spaces. They have to be solved urgently by government – as well as in Yogyakarta. The vast number of street vendors and their derivative problems are raised in this research.
High population growth that is not balanced with existing employment, has caused street vendors to spread to many areas. Each region has its own way to regulate street vendors, but not all street vendors in Yogyakarta are arranged neatly. They are only arranged in an organized manner in tourist areas. The government should govern
the street vendors, not only in certain tourist areas, but in all Yogyakarta areas. It would be better if street vendors were aware of other people’s rights to public space, because well-organized street vendors benefit various sectors, such as tourism and the community's economy.
The research questions of this paper are: (1) Which government policies are currently used for street vendor arrangements in Yogyakarta and its surrounding areas? (2) Are these government policies designed to increase empowerment, improve public order, and facilitate the entrepreneurial spirit of street vendors? (3) How are the government's policies being implemented? (4) Have the government's policies given maximum benefit to the public through improvement and increasing facilities among the street vendors? (5) What causes government policies not to provide maximum benefits?
II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND
HYPOTHESIS
In this section, we reviewed some literature as references to explain main aspects related to this topic in a deductive manner. The increasing migration of low-skill workers from rural areas to cities is an important factor that could increase the number of street vendors; [1] states that after the monetary crisis in 1998, there was a rapid increase in the number of street vendors. A study in Botswana [2] showed there were some reasons that triggered workers to change professions and become street vendors, such as a lack of job security in the private sector, underpayment, savings, and the effort it requires to become an entrepreneur.
Commonly, public in developing countries recognize street vendors in these countries as self-employed traders. They create jobs and sell goods at reasonable prices [1], [3]. While street vendors contribute significantly to the urban economy, urban planners sometimes view their presence as a sign of chaos or underdevelopment. These vendors are the first to be driven out by urban policies created to modernize cities [4], [5]. Recent literature categorizes street vendors as legal, semilegal, and illegal [6]. Some of the
street vendors cause direct harm to citizens or damage the state as an institution [6]. Because street vendors operate in public spaces, legality and illegality issues arise. When considering the socio-spatial conflict of public space, literature analyzes the collective action of street vendors as a strategy of avoidance or resistance [7] or as a struggle for the street vendors’ right [8].
According to [9], a new generation of street vendors is emerging, characterized by sophisticated business techniques, such as branding, international supply chain management, and sophisticated information technology. The authors argue that this newer generation of vendors has either a university or secondary level of education. In contrast, the older generation of street vendors sell low-cost products and services with limited technical skills. The older generation also serves local and foreign customers.
Every day, the conflict between street vendors and municipal authorities can be found in most major cities around the world [10]. Street vendors as a public issue is related to the conflict over public spaces between the government and street vendors (i.e., each has a different interpretation and definition of what constitutes a public space). The government has a vision to maintain city order and control the street vendors in public spaces; however, street vendors interpret public spaces as strategic locations to conduct their business. The differences in interpretation have encouraged the birth of the street vendor movement [11]. It drives the governments of each city to intervene in regulating street vendor activity in public spaces. In order to regulate street vendors, municipal governments employ various strategies and ordinances to control street vendors in the urban environment, such as through licensing requirements, zoning, and relocation [10].
A. Public Policy and Its Implementation
Public policy is the principle guide for the administrative executive branches of the state with regard to a class of issues, in a manner consistent with law and institutional customs. In other words, public policy is what the government chooses to do and not to do inmanaging and regulating public affairs. Public policy also defined as a “standing decision” characterized by behavioural consistency and repetitiveness on those who make it and abide by it [12]. In Public Policy, Howlett and Ramesh argue that this approach does not suitable with the wealth of empirical studies pointing different set of factors responsible for general patterns of policy making. Public policy making often
applies general assumptions about political life to specific case studies. [13] define public policy as “a projected program of values and practices”. [14] defines public policy as a government action to achievethe goals or objectives. Based on these definitions, the keyword is "a decision to achieve goals".
Meanwhile, the implementation of public policy is what the government do to achieve its goal contained in its statutes. Therefore, the“implementation research” focuses to answer “What happens in the design, implementation, administration, operation, service and outcomes of the government policies and programs [15]? While, Wethan contrasted with the ideal values of improving public order, facilitating entrepreneurial spirit, and other ideal public policynorm. All of those have to be contained in the government decision’s design, rule implementation, and other successful public policy as seen in Table 1. The government concept in this paperhas broader meaning.It includes all of the public organization, not only executive institution branch, namely legislative, executive, and judicial institutions, etc. In general, public policy is embodied in the legalistic rule of the implementation of the state, such as: Law, Act (Undang-Undang), Government Regulations (Peraturan Pemerintah), Ministerial Decrees (Keputusan Menteri), Regional Regulations (Peraturan Daerah), Governors Decisions (Keputusan Gubernur), Mayor Decisions (Keputusan Walikota), and so on. The public policy successful indicator can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1.
Successful public policy indicators [14]
No. Indicators Questions
1 Effectiveness Has the desired result been achieved?
2 Adequacy How far has the results achieved to solved the problem?
3 Equality
Are costs and benefits equitably distributed to different groups of people?
4 Responsiveness
Do the policy outcomes be the preference of the target group and can satisfy them? 5 Accuracy Are the results of the policy
beneficial to the target group?
From Table 1, it can be inferred that the street vendor policy in Yogyakarta is a study to understand the successful of public policy, explain the reality of the policy, the implementation results, and the relationship patterns among variables that influence it. Furthermore, this study also looked at the compliance of the actors involved, namely
Pambudi / Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University / Vol.55 No.3 June 2020 4
government (bureaucracy) and the community as the target group of the street vendor regulation policy in accordance with the standards set by the policy. In addition, our study also looked whether the policy’simplementation is felt by the target group directly or indirectly as intended by policy makers. Indirect target groups can be socio-economic consequences of policies perceived to be beneficial to society.
It is known that the successful of public policy indicators are defined as: (1) the success implementation of the norms contained [16], [17], [18], [19]. The success implementation of policy is determined by two variables, namely, content of policy and context of policy.
Table 2.
Policy variables content [16]
Larson (1980) Van Horn
(1975) Mazmanian & Sabatier (1983) 1. Vague 2. Unrealistic goal 1. Clarity 2. The contradiction between policy studs (initial policy) and target (goals) 3. SOP (standard operating procedure) 1. Precision and clarity of the target 2. Theory of causal or causal relationships used Table 3.
Policy variables context [16] Larson
(1980)
Edward (1980) Mazmanian &
Sabatier (1983) Changes in the economic environment Communication, transition and clarity consistency 1. Variation law 2. The attention of the mass media 3. Public support 4. The amount of support and resources 5. Support of the "ruler"
The creation process of public policy that emerged the policy content is determined by many factors. According to [20], there are 4 factors that most strongly and most often influence it: (1) public opinion, (2) interest groups, (3) the intervention of political parties, and (4) other factors. The public interest has the greatest impact than the other variables, but it is difficult to measure. When variables do influence
policy, researchers seldom to explain about how much impact they have. Deductive logic in the literature review matches and correct when applied in empirical contexts policy regulation of street vendors on field research.
III. RESEARCH METHOD
This paper uses Descriptive-Qualitative Analysis Methods and Content Analysis related to the public policy implemented by the government in Yogyakarta during 2017. Descriptive qualitative analysis is carried out in order to describe the facts, conditions, or symptoms that appear so that it can describe all the symptoms and circumstances that exist in accordance with the actual situation at the time the research was conducted. Descriptive-Qualitative Analysis is inductively and deductively done alternately for building conceptual model which reflected hidden phenomenon that fragmented previously. Meanwhile the deductive Content Analysis is used to discuss formal regulation that has developed on the basis of a theory reviewed. Content analysis is used to obtain information from communications delivered in the form of symbol that can be documented. This analysis can be used to analyse all forms of communications, such as newspaper, book, movie, and et cetera. By using this analysis method, an understanding of the various contents of the communication message delivered by mass media or from other sources can be obtained objectively, systematically, and relevantly.
The data were collected by extensive observations, interviews, and research of relevant documents. The data collection process involved students that were enrolled in Implementation of Public Policy classes in the Public Administration department of Social Science faculty at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (Yogyakarta State University). The research method employed qualitative data collection. Analysis strategies are open-ended and exploratory, as suggested by [21]. The exploratory questions are typically used for qualitative inquiry when: (a) there is little knowledge in a particular research area; (b) existing research is confusing, contradictory, or stagnant; or (c) the topic is highly complex. The questions meet the aims of exploratory questions as mentioned [22]:
1. Definitional: What is the nature of this phenomenon? What are its defining features?
2. Descriptive: What kinds or varieties does the phenomenon appear in? What aspects does it have?
3. Interpretive: Why does this phenomenon occur? How does it happen over the time?
4. Critical/action: What is wrong (or right) about the phenomenon? How can it be made better?
5. Deconstruction: What assumptions are made in this research? Whose social or political interests are served?
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that: (1) The central government had formally regulated street vendor policies, such as acts (Undang-Undang), government regulations (Peraturan Pemerintah), presidential decrees (Peraturan Presiden), and regulations from the Minister of Home Affairs. All of these regulations are ineffective due to lack of policy statutes. Some policies are too brief, and few mention street vendors as economic agents with a high level of entrepreneurial spirit. Some policies are too detailed to implement nationally. Therefore, these policies shackle local knowledge and thus create subordinate damage. This centralized street vendor arrangement format reduces the local government's autonomy to solve specific problems in their respective areas – including the Yogyakarta district area and its surroundings – of which street vendors are its trademark. Empirically, the government's concern is insufficient for street vendors that sell many goods.
From the government’s point of view, street vendors and their merchandise are considered the same while in reality, street vendors and their merchandise have distinct characteristics. The
government reluctantly supports the development of street vendor businesses. Many kinds of street vendors have developed organically without regulation, such as culinary; souvenir; book and magazine; automotive maintenance, and other vendors.
There is no regulatory policy that specifically regulates street vendor activities. (3) Placement of specific or similar goods of street vendor locations have been sufficient to date, but others are less coordinated and not included in government programs, such as tourism programs and facility building programs (for disabilities). People are empowered by becoming street vendors, improving urban aesthetics, and making Yogyakarta a student-friendly city.
Policy makers are not facilitating the entrepreneurial spirit of street vendors. (4) Regulating competition among street vendors has not been a government priority in supporting economic empowerment. (5) The licensing rules as stipulated in the Mayor's Decree of Yogyakarta are not executed in accordance with the provisions. Evaluation of the implementation of these licensing rules has not achieved the best results. Some street vendors cannot implement these because of the combination of several factors, namely the demand for life of street vendors, non-financial "costs" that must be spent, and the lack of knowledge of the substance of the policy that manage the street vendors. The result of this research is feasible to be used as the basic academic script to review and rearrange these policies, or create an integrated strategy on the implementation of these street vendor policies.
Table 4.
Resume of street vendor policies
No. Policy Content of policy Implication
Central Government Policy 1. Act No. 20 of 2008
concerning Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (UU No. 20 Tahun 2008 tentang Usaha Mikro, Kecil, dan Menengah)
- Just mention the existence of street vendors at a glance
- Street vendors are not entering as part of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME)
The street vendors do not receive same treatment of government as received by MSME
2. Law No. 11 of 2009 concerning Social Welfare (UU Nomor 11 Tahun 2009 tentang Kesejahteraan Sosial)
The term of street vendor is unknown in this Act
The term of street vendor is unrecognized in the body of the Central Government act, but it is recognized in the implementation rules (PP). It means an inconsistency item. In the implementation rules (PP), street vendor as a target group of social empowerment program, not an economic empowerment program.
3. Government Regulation No. 39 of 2012 concerning Implementation of Social Welfare
(Peraturan Pemerintah No.
- As Implementation rule - Just mention the street vendors at a glance
- Street vendor as a target group of empowering social program.
- It can be interpreted that the street vendors are included as persons with social problems.
- Equal to other people with social problems, such as poverty, neglect,
Pambudi / Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University / Vol.55 No.3 June 2020 6
39 tahun 2012 tentang Penyelenggaraan Kesejahteraan Sosial)
There was no pressure in economic empowerment.
disability, and so on. So the type of coaching is not economic coaching but social coaching.
- The applied policy types tend to be policies with distributive formats – not regulative and empowerment and facilitating of entrepreneurial spirit of the street vendor.
- The government is pessimistic and does not take advantage of the potential revenue of the state (taxes) and exploits it for other purposes, such as the distributor of government school instructional texts, authorized distributors of Official
Document, as filters of pirated manuscripts, plagiarism, etc.
4. Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2012 concerning Coordinating the Arrangement and Empowerment of Street Vendors
(Peraturan Presiden Nomor 125 tahun 2012 tentang Koordinasi Penataan dan Pemberdayaan Pedagang Kaki Lima)
- Issued later or 6 months after Ministerial Regulation No. 41/ 2012. - The content of this regulation is not only the direction of
coordination, but also in the form of detailed (specific) provisions that are binding nationally.
Implications:
1. This regulation material reduces the right of regional autonomy. 2. Since the empirical problems in the field are distinctive or specific and different between regions, this Presidential Regulation becomes ineffective.
- Violate legal order so that its legitimacy is questioned.
- What is the urgency of this provision in the Presidential Regulation made?
3. Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs No. 41 of 2012 concerning
Arrangement and Empowerment of Street Vendors
(Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 41 Tahun 2012 tentang Penataan dan Pemberdayaan Pedagang Kaki Lima)
- The regulation is too specific and detail
- This regulation material reduces the right of regional autonomy. - Since the empirical problems in the field are distinctive or specific and different between regions, this Ministerial Regulation becomes ineffective.
All of the research findings above indicate unfavourable conditions for the empowerment and development of the entrepreneurial spirit among street vendors in Yogyakarta and the surrounding areas. Therefore, public order cannot be achieved through the application of the regulation policy. There are many pieces of public policy literature reviewed above. The research findings are feasible as a basis for consideration for rearranging and reorganizing the street vendors policy for the future.
V. CONCLUSION
The conclusions of the paper are as follows: (1) The street vendor term is almost unknown in the act that must regulate it. It was just mentioned at a glance in the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Act, and it was not included as part of MSME (micro, small and medium enterprises) because it does not grant privilege rights, special rights, advantage, or immunity granted by the
governments; (2) Central government policies that regulate street vendors are limited, but covered a very large domain up to the national level. This centralized arrangement format reduces the autonomy rights of Local Government to solve specific problem in their respective areas; (3) There is wrong and inconsistent thought. The street vendor problem is a local issue, not a national issue. Then, why are local public issues resolved nationally by central government regulations? The problem of street vendors has no domino effect that can spread to the national level. The greatest effect occurs between adjacent cities or districts, not within the scope of inter-provincial or the national level. Based on this logic, rules on street vendors by the lowest local government are needed; (4) The central government policy to govern the street vendors in Indonesia (Presidential Regulation No. 125/2012) is too specific. It results in less effective regulations, less fit, or less appropriate associated with the
format of real problems of street vendors in Yogyakarta and the surrounding areas. The research results show that the government does not facilitate the street vendors and does not empower the entrepreneurial spirit among street vendors in Yogyakarta. Therefore, the public order-related street vendor won't be able to be achieved through the implementation of those regulation policies.
Finally, the government should review and revise all the components of the policy system governing the existence of these street vendors, ranging from strategic policies at the national level to implementation policies at the local government level. The street vendor term should be approved and inserted as a part of the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Act so it will be able to receive the same treatment of government as other Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises.
REFERENCES
[1]
BHOWMIK, S.K. (2005) Street
vendors in Asia: A review. Economic and
Political Weekly, 40 (20-23), pp. 2256-2264.
[2]
JOSEPH,
M.
(2011)
Beyond
modernist planning: Understanding urban
street vending in Botswana. In: Proceedings
of the RC21 Conference on ‘The Struggle to
Belong: Dealing with Diversity in 21st
Century Urban Settings, Amsterdam, July
2011.
Available
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257
943477_Beyond_modernist_planning_unders
tanding_urban_street_vending_in_Botswana
.
[3]
CROSSA, V. (2016) Reading for
difference on the street: De-homogenising
street vending in Mexico City. Urban
Studies, 53 (2), pp. 287-301.
[4]
BROMLEY, R. (2000) Street vending
and public policy: A global review.
International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy, 20 (1/2), pp. 1-28.
[5]
HUNT, S. (2009) Citizenship's place:
The state's creation of public space and street
vendors' culture of informality in Bogota,
Colombia. Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space, 27 (2), pp. 331-351.
[6]
MORRIS, J. and POLESE, A. (2015)
Quo Vadis informality? In: MORRIS, J. and
POLESE, A. (eds.) Informal Economies in
Post-Socialist Spaces: Practices, Institutions
and Networks. London: Palgrave, pp.
294-299.
[7]
HUMMEL, C. (2017) Disobedient
markets: Street vendors, enforcement, and
state intervention in collective action.
Comparative Political Studies, 50 (11), pp.
1524-1555.
[8]
SWIDER,
S.
(2015)
Reshaping
China's urban citizenship: Street vendors,
Chengguan and struggles over the right to the
city. Critical Sociology, 41 (4-5), pp.
701-716.
[9]
MANEEPONG, C. and WALSH, J.C.
(2013) A new generation of Bangkok Street
vendors: Economic crisis as opportunity and
threat. Cities, 34, pp. 37-43.
[10]
WENG, C.Y. (2013) Accommodate
street vendors during the urban development
process: with two empirical cases of Zhu
Lian (ZL), and Guan Dong (GD) public
markets in Hsinchu City, Taiwan. Doctoral
thesis,
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology.
[11]
HERMAWATI, R., ABDOELLAH,
O.S., GUNAWAN, B., and RIAWANTI, S.
(2019) The social movement of street
vendors to maintain their business places in
Bandung. Masyarakat,
Kebudayaan
dan
Politik, 32 (1), pp. 1-15.
[12]
JONES, C.O. (2001) Introduction to
the Study of Public Policy. 4th ed. Orlando,
Florida: Harcourt College Publishers.
[13]
HOWLETT, M., RAMESH, M., and
PERL, A. (2009) Studying Public Policy:
Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Vol. 3.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14]
DUNN, W.N. (2012) Public Policy
Analysis: An Introduction. 5th ed. London,
New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
[15]
WERNER, A. (2004) A Guide to
Implementation
Research.
Washington,
District of Columbia: The Urban Institute
Press.
[16]
MAZMANIAN,
D.A.
and
SABATIER, P.A. (1983) Implementation
and Public Policy. Glenview, Illinois: Scott,
Foresman.
[17]
GRINDLE, M.S. (ed.) (1980) Politics
and Policy Implementation in the Third
World. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Pambudi / Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University / Vol.55 No.3 June 2020 8
