MEGAPOLITAN DKI JAKARTA: QUO VADIS?
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The choice to institutional development for Jakarta as Indonesian capital City can be a barometer of equity and fairness as values to whole developing nations, especially for urban development in Indonesia. If megapolis concept proposed by Sutiyoso received without reverse, then we have disease to the equity and fairness values as a nation state. The problematic situation of urban development in Jakarta is emergencies, but it is not to be un-fairness and un-equity to develop the other cities in Indonesia.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- The journal allow the authors to hold the copyright without restrictions and allow the authors to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
References
Andrews CM. dan Amal I. 1988. Hubungan Pusat-Daerah dalam Pembangunan. Rajawali-
Press.
Almons D. 1999. Municipal Benchmark. London: Sage Publication.
Branch MC. 1985. Comprehensive City Planning: Introduction and Explanation. USA: American
Planning Association
Carino LV. 1992. Bureaucracy For Democracy. Philippines: ICEG.
Cheema GS. and Rondinelli DA. 1983. Decentralization and Development. London: Sage
Publication.
Clarke M. and Stewart J. 1991. The Choices for Local Government; for The 1990’s and Beyond.
UK: Longmann.
Conyers D. 1983. Regional Administration and Regional Planning: A Plea for Integration.
University of Nottingham: The Hague.
Couch C. 1990. Urban Renewal; Theory and Practice. London: Mac-Millan.
Devas N. et.al. 1989. Keuangan Pemerintah Daerah di Indonesia. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia
Press.
Fesler JW. 1949. Area and Administration. Univ. Alabama Press. Alabama.
________. The Political Role of Field Administration. Yale University Research Project. Papers.
New York.
Friedmann J. and Weaver C. 1979. Territory and Function. London: Edward Arnold Ltd.
Heaphey JA. (editor). 1971. Spatial Dimensions of Development Administration. Duke Univ.
Press. North Carolina.
Hoessein B. 1999. Makalah yang disampaikan dalam Seminar dan Lokakarya “Optimalisasi
Pengelolaan Perkotaan di Era Otonomi Daerah†yang diselenggarakan oleh Program
Pascasarjana Kajian Pengembangan Perkotaan Universitas Indonesia tanggal 8 Oktober
di Auditorium Pusat Studi Jepang Universitas Indonesia Kampus Depok
_________. 2002. ‘Otonomi di Jakarta: Tinjauan Kemungkinan Penyempurnaan UU No. 34
Tahun 1999’. Jurnal Swatantra. Jakarta: Universitas Muhamadiyah.
Humes S. 1991. Local Governance and National Power. New-York: Havester/Wheatsheaf.
Ilhami. 1990. Strategi Pembangunan Perkotaan di Indonesia. Surabaya: Usaha Nasional.