Satu Desa, Satu Milyar’: Village Law No. 6/2014 as a Rural Financial Development Programme

  • Benito LopulalanEmail author
Part of the Cooperative Management book series (COMA)


This chapter describes the introduction process of the Indonesian Law No. 6/2014 (Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 6 tahun 2014 tentang Desa. SEKNEG, Jakarta, 2014), popularly known as Undang-undang Desa (‘Village Law’) which was officially ratified by Parliament in 2014. It highlights the new era of the sharing of power, governance and decentralisation at the village level in Indonesia. The law is based on the notion of the village as a self-governing community with local-level government, which recognises and respects the origin of the village and its indigenous rights. The presentation of the historical context of the new ‘Village Law’ describes the context in which the law has emerged, where the processes of decentralisation and democratisation have played a significant role after the previous first five decades of the country’s political and economic process of centralisation. The phenomena of ‘brain drain’ and ‘capital drain’ from the rural towards the urban areas which have contributed to the decrease of the rural population have further determined the present conditions of village development in Indonesia. In addition to regional development, the disparity between rural and urban infrastructure, especially in health, education and employment, are shown to continue encouraging the migration of people from rural to urban areas. Although, the implementation of the ‘Village Law’ has given new hope to free the villages from the chain of poverty, feudalism, backwardness and exploitation of their natural resources, the chapter points to a chronic problem of the paradigm in rural development in Indonesia, which has also contributed to inequality at the village level, i.e. ‘betting on the strong’. The chapter concludes that the development of social capital is the key to building an integrated infrastructure, in which community-based organisations and institutions are crucial to develop and manage special socio-economic activities promoting the welfare of all members of the community.


  1. Aiglsperger, J. (2014). ‘Yiatrosofia yia ton Anthropo’: Indigenous knowledge and utilisation of MAC plants in Pirgos and Pretoria, Rural Crete: A community perspective on the plural medical system in Greece. Ph.D. Dissertation. Leiden Ethnosystems and Development Programme. LEAD studies No. 8. Leiden University. xxvi + 235 pp. ill.Google Scholar
  2. Anggriani, N. (2016). Indonesia’s village law: A step toward inclusive governance. The Asia Foundation.
  3. Antlov, H., & Eko, S. (2012). Village and sub-district functions in decentralized Indonesia. Paper for the DSF’s closing workshop (pp. 12–13).Google Scholar
  4. Bellah, R. N. (1959). Durkheim and history. American Sociological Review, 24(4), 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booth, A. (1988). Sejarah Ekonomi Indonesia. Lembaga Jakarta: Penelitian, Pendidikan dan Penerangan Ekonomi dan Sosial (LP3ES).Google Scholar
  6. de Tocqueville, A. (1856). L’Ancien régime et la révolution. Paris: Lévy.Google Scholar
  7. Dodani, S., & LaPorte, R. (2005). Brain drain from developing countries: How can brain drain be converted into wisdom gain? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98(11), 487–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grootaert, C. (1999). Social capital, household welfare and poverty in Indonesia. Local level institutions. Working paper no. 6. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  9. Indonesian Law No. 5/1979. (1979). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 5 tahun 1979 tentang Pemerintahan Daera. Indonesian Law No. 5/1979 on Village Goverment. Jakarta: SEKNEG.Google Scholar
  10. Indonesian Law No. 22/1999. (1999). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 5 tahun 1999 tentang Pemerintahan Desa. Indonesian Law No. 22/1999 on Regional Administration. Jakarta: SEKNEG.Google Scholar
  11. Indonesian Law No. 32/2004. (2004). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 32 tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daera. Indonesian Law No. 32/2004 on Regional Administration. Jakarta: SEKNEG.Google Scholar
  12. Indonesian Law No. 33/2004. (2004). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 33 tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daera. Indonesian Law No. 33/2004 on Regional Administration. Jakarta: SEKNEG.Google Scholar
  13. Indonesian Law No. 6/2014. (2014). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 6 tahun 2014 tentang Desa. Indonesian Law No. 6/2014 on the Village. Jakarta: SEKNEG.Google Scholar
  14. Indonesia-Investments. (2016). GINI ratio Indonesia declines: Economic inequality narrows. Jakarta: Statistics Indonesia (BPS).
  15. Ismawan, B. (2003). Keuangan Mikro dalam Penanggulangan Kemiskinan dan Pemberdayaan Ekonomi Rakyat. Kemiskinan dan Keuangan Mikro. Jakarta: Gema PKM.Google Scholar
  16. Ismawan, B. (2013). Doing well by doing good: Turning people’s enterprises around—A conversation with Bambang Ismawan of Indonesia’s Bina Swadaya. Asian Politics and Policy, 5(3), 461–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ismawan, B. (2016). Innovation in developing village-owned enterprise (Bumdes) as social enterprise. Jakarta: Indonesia-Japan Local Administration Seminar. August 25, 2016.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, K. J., & Pye, L. W. (1980). Political power and communications in Indonesia. Berkely LA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kompas. (2012). Hampir 54 persen Penduduk Indonesia Tinggal di Kota. Kompas Daily Online. August 23, 2012.
  20. Kompas. (2016). Tahun Depan Tiap Desa Dapat Anggaran di atas Rp.1 Miliar. Kompas Daily, May 20, 2016.Google Scholar
  21. Ludden, D. (2011). Development regimes in South Asia: History of the governance Conundrum. In K. Visweswaran (Ed.), Perspectives on modern South Asia: A reader in culture, history and representation (pp. 224–237). Wiley-Blackwell: Malden.Google Scholar
  22. Maurer, B., & Mainwaring, S. D. (2012). Business: Plural programs and future financial worlds. Journal of Business Anthropology, 1(2): Autumn.Google Scholar
  23. Rauniyar, G., & Kanbur, R. (2009). Inclusive growth and inclusive development: A review and synthesis of the Asian development bank literature. Occasional paper no. 8. Manila: Independent Evaluation Department, Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  24. Resosudarmo, B., & Yamazaki, S. (2011). Training and visit (T&V) extension vs. farmer field school: The Indonesian experience. Working paper no. 2011/01. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  25. Rofiq, A., Salim, A., Untung, B., Laksono, I., Bulan, W.R., Arifah, U., et al. (2016). Praktik Baik Desa dalam Implementasi Undang-Undang Desa. Jakarta: Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional (PATTIRO) (pp. 1–60).Google Scholar
  26. Sarosa, W. (2006). Indonesia—urbanization and sustainability in Asia: Case studies of good practice. Manila: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  27. Sartori, G. (1968). Democracy. In International encyclopaedia of the social sciences (Vol. 4). London: The Macmillan Publishers & The Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. Slikkerveer, L. J. (1990). Plural medical systems in the horn of Africa: The legacy of ‘Sheikh’ hypocrates. London: Kegan Paul International.Google Scholar
  29. Slikkerveer, L. J. (2006). The challenge of non-experimental validation of MAC plants: Towards a multivariate model of transcultural utilisation of medicinal, aromatic and cosmetic plants. In Bogers, R. J., Craker, L. E., & Lange, D. (Eds.), Medicinal and aromatic plants: Agricultural, commercial, ecological, legal, pharmacological and social aspects. Wageningen UR frontis series (Vol. 17).Google Scholar
  30. Slikkerveer, L. J. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook for lecturers and tutors of the new master course on integrated microfinance management (IMM) for poverty reduction and sustainable development in Indonesia. Bandung: LEAD-UL/UNPAD/ MAICH/GEMA PKM.Google Scholar
  31. Slikkerveer, L. J., & Slikkerveer, M. (1995). Tanaman obat keluarga (TOGA). In D. M. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, & D. Brokensha (Eds.), The cultural dimension of development: Indigenous knowledge systems. London: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Turner, M., Podger, O., Sumardjono, M., & Tirthayasa, W. (2003). Decentralisation in Indonesia: Redesigning the state. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press.Google Scholar
  33. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2016). Inclusive development. New York: Oxford University Press.
  34. Wertheim, F. (1968). Dual economy. In International encyclopaedia of the social sciences (Vol. 4). London: The Macmillan Publishers & The Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. Yaron, J. (1994). What makes rural finance institutions successful? World Bank Research Observer, 9(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sinergi IndonesiaDepokIndonesia

Personalised recommendations