Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Indonesian Family Planning Program: Government Influence and Client Choice

1986; Wiley; Volume: 12; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2307/1973219

1728-4457

Donald P. Warwick,

Gender and Women's Rights

The Indonesian family planning (FP) program has attained field success through implementation strategies centering on communities and clients. The proportion of eligible couples practising FP rose from 2.8% in 1971/72 to 62.6% in 1984/85 and from the late 1960s to the late 1970s fertility declined 16%. This study uses quantitative data from 48 villages selected for varying degrees of program success anthropological field research on 1 village and its subdistrict capital in each of 4 regencies interviews with officials from government agencies and data and publications from the National FP Coordinating Board (NFPCB) the National Development Planning Agency and other Indonesian organizations. In the 1970s: 2200 clinics were built and 6800 field workers were trained. Recently there has been a policy change towards more private sector provision. One of the problems has been a lack of information services to accompany contraceptives. The NFPCB is regionally organized. From the beginning the program has been strongly supported to the point of causing conflict with the Department of Health. FP has been part of a broader strong government initiative for development coupled with a heavy consolidation of government power. Promotion of FP takes place at the village administrator level. According to a correlation study program factors important steps in promoting community acceptance have been convincing religious leaders forming acceptor groups and recruiting traditional birth attendants. The need for medical support has been recognized; its presence seems to increase FP practice. Also attempts have been made to link family planning with other development projects. The program now has problems in developing quantitative success measures in balancing external influences on clients with free choice in deciding how much pressure to exert on other government agencies and in maintaining the commitment of local implementers.