Concurrency as crisis decision-making governance: Lessons from Indonesia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic

This research extends the centralization-decentralization dichotomy in the crisis decision-making literature by offering an alternative lens of concurrency. It argues that centralization and decentralization can be concurrently employed to respond effectively to a crisis that overlaps administrative jurisdiction and requires strong coordination. However, the merits of concurrency must not be overstated as it can also lead to institutional complexity during a crisis if not carefully crafted. Examining qualitatively the case of Indonesia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this research finds that concurrency has raised national-subnational tension which compromised effective response in the initial period of the crisis. The tension was due to the long delay on the part of the national government in the initial period of the crisis, leading subnational governments to respond conflictingly. This research concludes that concurrency can be effective, but requires a clear division of and consistent implementation of competencies between actors.

Automated summary

This research extends the centralization-decentralization dichotomy in crisis decision-making by introducing the concept of concurrency. It highlights that concurrency can be effective in responding to crises that involve overlapping administrative jurisdictions and require strong coordination. However, the study also emphasizes the importance of careful implementation to prevent institutional complexity. Using the case of Indonesia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the research reveals that concurrency has led to tension between the national and subnational governments, compromising the initial response. The findings suggest that effective concurrency requires clear division and consistent implementation of competencies between actors.