| dc.description.abstract | Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are the backbone of Indonesia's
economy, contributing significantly to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), tax
revenue, and employment. However, MSMEs face various challenges such as
limited access to markets, capital, technology, and management. To address these
issues, the government enacted Law No. 20 of 2008 on MSMEs, which includes
provisions for partnership schemes between MSMEs and large businesses as part
of empowerment efforts. Ironically, the implementation of partnership oversight
has sparked controversy and legal uncertainty, particularly regarding the
overlapping authority of the Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) with
the role of the Ministry of MSMEs, as well as the KPPU's limited resources to
cover the entire Indonesian territory. This situation is exacerbated by the
disharmony of norms in regulations, which has the potential to harm business
actors and hinder the achievement of fair and sustainable partnership goals.
This study uses prescriptive normative and empirical legal methods. The
approaches used include legislative, conceptual, case, and comparative legal
approaches. Primary legal materials were obtained from relevant legislation in
Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam, as well as in-depth interviews with various
stakeholders such as the KPPU, the Ministry of SMEs, SME actors (plasma
farmers), and large business actors. Secondary and tertiary legal materials were
also used to support the analysis. The collected data was analysed qualitatively
using deductive logic to test the suitability of the SME supervision system,
compare the supervision models in Indonesia with those in Malaysia and
Vietnam, and formulate the ideal concept of SME partnership supervision in
Indonesia.
The results of the study indicate that the SME partnership monitoring system in
Indonesia is not yet fully in line with the partnership ratio legis and the duties of
the KPPU, as evidenced by the disharmony of norms, unclear authority, limited
capacity of the KPPU, and a passive approach to monitoring. A comparison with
Malaysia and Vietnam shows that both countries focus more on facilitating and
supporting SME growth through inter-agency collaboration, while Indonesia
places the KPPU as the primary supervisor with all its limitations. Therefore, this
study concludes that a restructuring of the SME partnership supervision system is
necessary to make it more effective and fair. The recommendations include the
establishment of a National and Regional Business Partnership Coordination
Agency separate from the KPPU, a significant increase in the KPPU's capacity if
it remains tasked with overseeing partnerships, harmonisation of laws and
regulations to ensure a balance of rights and obligations, and the restoration of
legal recourse for businesses against KPPU decisions. Additionally, it is
recommended that the KPPU enhance public awareness, develop transparent
operational guidelines, provide consultation mechanisms, strengthen institutional
capacity, implement an integrated information system, and utilise mediation as an
alternative dispute resolution method. | en_US |
