FY 2025 Indonesia Country Opinion Survey Report ECR Business Intelligence Team | October 2025 Acknowledgements The Indonesia Country Opinion Survey is part of the Country Opinion Survey Program series of the World Bank Group. This report was prepared by the Business Intelligence (BI) team, led by José De Buerba (Senior External Affairs Officer) and Svetlana Markova (Senior External Affairs Officer). Yulia Danilina, Jessica Cameron, Sofya Gubaydullina, and Qi Xue oversaw the design, reporting, and analysis of the survey results. Noreen Wambui and Irina Popova provided data support. BI acknowledges the significant contribution from the Indonesian country team and the independent field agency, Viktorindo. In particular, BI is grateful for the support from Lestari Boediono Qureshi (Senior External Affairs Officer), Maulyati Nuraini Slamet (External Affairs Officer), and Gb Surya Ningnagara (Program Assistant), who coordinated the survey-related activities from Jakarta, Indonesia. Contents Objectives Methodology Overview Executive Summary Overall Views of the World Bank Group (WBG) The WBG’s Work on Development Priorities The WBG’s Instruments The WBG’s Engagement and Collaboration Communication and Outreach Sample Demographics and Detailed Methodology 3 Objectives This survey was designed to assist the World Bank Group (WBG) in gaining a better understanding of how stakeholders in Indonesia perceive the WBG. The survey explored the following questions: 1. Overall Views of the WBG: How familiar are stakeholders with the WBG? How much do they trust the WBG? What opinions do key stakeholders have of the WBG regarding its effectiveness, relevance, alignment with Indonesia’s development priorities, and other key indicators? Are opinions improving or declining? 2. The WBG’s Work on Development Priorities: What areas of development are perceived to be the most important? Have the priorities changed over the past four years? How effective is the WBG perceived to be in these areas? What are stakeholders’ suggestions for increasing the WBG’s effectiveness in Indonesia? 3. WBG Instruments: What do key stakeholders value the most regarding the WBG’s work in Indonesia? What opinion do key stakeholders have of WBG financial instruments and knowledge products? Are opinions improving or declining? 4. The WBG’s Engagement and Collaboration: How is the WBG perceived as a development partner in Indonesia? Are opinions improving or declining? How effective is the WBG at facilitating civil society participation in policy dialogue and implementation? 5. Communications: What are the preferred communication channels, and do they differ between stakeholder groups? Do stakeholders recall any WBG messaging? What key topics does the WBG communicate that stakeholders recall? 4 Methodology Overview Fielded in April – August 2025 Stakeholders in FY25 COS Sample ▪ 534 potential participants were asked to complete the survey Government Institution 32% ▪ Respondents completed the questionnaire online, over the phone, or with a representative of the field agency ▪ List of names provided by the WBG country team and Private Sector 16% supplemented by the field agency ▪ Data collection managed on the ground by the field agency Academia / Research Center 16% 340 participants (64% response rate) Civil Society Organization 14% ▪ 83% from Java Island and the surrounding islands Local Government 9% ▪ 52% collaborate/work with the WBG in Indonesia Media 6% Compared to the FY21 Country Survey Results ▪ 294 participants (39% response rate) Bilateral or Multilateral Agency 5% ▪ 37% collaborated with the WBG ▪ Differences in stakeholder compositions for both survey years Office of a Parliamentarian 2% should be considered when interpreting these comparisons Office of the President, 2% Click here for details of the Respondent Sample and Methodology. Minister What is your primary professional affiliation? (Select only 1 response) Q (Percentage of Respondents, N=339) 5 Executive Summary 1. Overall Views of the WBG: 2. The WBG’s Work on Development Priorities: Overall views of the WBG’s operations and engagement in Indonesia Jobs were considered the top priority for the WBG’s support, followed were positive and have improved since the FY21 Country Survey, by climate change and social protection. This year, respondents including perceptions of the Bank’s relevance, alignment with the considered climate adaptation, water/sanitation, environmental and country’s priorities, positive influence on development policy, and natural resource management, much more of a priority than in FY21. In effectiveness in helping the country achieve results. terms of the effectiveness of the WBG’s work in sectoral areas, the This year, stakeholders reported higher levels of familiarity with the WBG’s support in health, social inclusion, and macroeconomic WBG than in FY21 and considered the Bank one of the most trusted stability received the highest ratings. Stakeholder ratings for the Bank’s institutions in Indonesia (with levels of trust in the WBG higher than in support in private sector development, climate, and the UN, IMF, and regional development banks). Compared to other environment/natural resource management have improved significantly countries, stakeholder ratings on key performance indicators in since FY21. Indonesia were slightly lower than those in other East Asian In their qualitative comments regarding how to make the WBG more countries, but on par with those in other IBRD countries surveyed in effective in Indonesia, respondents suggested that the WBG could work FY24-FY25. more closely with the Government to better align with Indonesia’s national priorities and collaborate more with local authorities/ Trust the WBG to do what is right for 7.5 communities to better understand their context, needs, and capacity. Indonesia 6.7 WBG effectiveness in helping achieve 7.5 Jobs 39% development results* 6.8 Climate change 30% The WBG currently plays a relevant role 7.4 in development* 6.9 Social protection 29% The WBG has a positive influence on 7.4 Public sector governance 26% shaping policy* 7.0 Water / sanitation 26% The WBG’s work is aligned with 7.3 FY25 my development priorities* 6.8 FY21 Health / pandemic preparedness 25% The WBG’s work helps end poverty in 7.1 Indonesia Environment / natural resource mgmt. 25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Macroeconomic stability 23% 6 Mean Rating Executive Summary (continued) Respondents discussed the increased WBG’s financial support to In their qualitative comments regarding how to make the WBG more better meet Indonesia’s needs, along with capacity-building, effective in Indonesia, stakeholders discussed the need for increased implementation support, and knowledge sharing to improve local financial resources to better meet Indonesia’s needs, and many expertise and long-term sustainability of projects. Some discussed the highlighted the importance of combining financial support with the need for more emphasis on monitoring, evaluation, and results, as well WBG’s knowledge work. Several comments emphasized the as less bureaucracy at the WBG. Respondents also discussed the importance of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms tied to WBG expanding its program reach across the country and to more funding to ensure transparency, accountability, and measurable marginalized groups. impact. Some respondents felt the WBG could simplify its procedures, ensure more timely disbursement, and provide greater 3. WBG Instruments: adaptability in financial instruments. Financial resources and knowledge/analytical products were considered the WBG’s greatest values to Indonesia. When asked Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64%) indicated that they had used the WBG’s knowledge work. These respondents reported the highest about the WBG’s financial instruments, respondents had the highest levels of agreement, indicating that they are satisfied with the quality levels of agreement that the WBG effectively monitors and of the WBG’s knowledge work (mean = 8.2) and that the WBG brings evaluates its projects (mean=8.0) and that the WBG insists on global expertise to Indonesia (mean = 8.1). Importantly, all aspects of accountability through its lending (mean=7.9). Importantly, all aspects of the WBG’s financial instruments that could be compared have the WBG’s knowledge work that could be compared showed significant significantly improved compared to FY21: The WBG’s financial support improvement compared to FY21. In addition, stakeholders appreciated was perceived as more timely and increasingly meeting the the quality of WBG’s Reimbursable Advisory Services. country’s needs. In their qualitative comments, respondents emphasized that WBG Financial resources 46% data, analysis, and studies should be utilized to enhance decision- Knowledge and analytical products 39% making at both national and local levels. Lessons learned and Technical assistance and implementation examples of successful approaches (from within Indonesia and out) 35% support should inform policy and implementation. Many highlighted the Capacity development and training related importance of training programs and knowledge-sharing initiatives to 30% to WBG projects Convening / bringing together different build institutional capacity and improve skills. It was also 15% groups of stakeholders discussed that the WBG should work more closely with local Mobilizing third party financial resources 14% institutions to ensure solutions and knowledge are contextually relevant. Some felt the WBG’s dissemination of its knowledge, Development partner coordination 13% including its accessibility and translation, could be improved. 7 Executive Summary (continued) 4. The WBG’s Engagement and Collaboration: Respondents gave moderate ratings for the WBG’s effectiveness in In FY25, respondents had significantly more positive perceptions of all facilitating civil society participation (mean = 6.8) and suggested aspects of the WBG as a development partner compared to FY21, that it could be improved by creating more engagement opportunities, with perceptions of the WBG’s flexibility being especially improved. increasing transparency, allowing civil society to be more actively involved in decision-making, enhancing support for civil society, and The WBG received the highest ratings for the effectiveness of its expanding outreach to broaden participation. collaboration with the national government (mean = 7.8), which is significantly improved compared to FY21. Additionally, perceptions of In respondents’ comments on how the WBG can be more effective in the WBG’s collaboration with other donors and development partners Indonesia, many respondents discussed the need for the WBG to (mean = 7.7), the private sector (mean = 7.3), and civil society (mean = strengthen its collaboration with the government and to increase 7.0) all showed significant improvement compared to FY21. its engagement with a broader range of stakeholders, including local government, academia, the private sector, and civil society. In addition to its partnership with the national government, respondents Respondents also wanted to see the WBG broaden its engagement wanted the WBG to collaborate more with academia (42%), local at the local level. Respondents felt that the WBG could be more governments (38%), civil society (33%), and the private sector responsive and adaptive to Indonesia’s changing needs. (33%), all of which were additionally recommended based on other Additionally, respondents suggested that the WBG should enhance findings in this year’s survey. its communication and transparency with stakeholders in Indonesia. Being a long-term partner to Indonesia* 7.9 7.4 5. Communications: Openness (sharing data and other 7.5 WBG events/workshops, in person or online (59%), and direct information)* 7.0 contact with WBG staff (48%) were considered the most preferred 7.4 communication channels to receive information from the WBG. Responsiveness to needs in Indonesia* 6.7 Nearly two-thirds of respondents recalled seeing or hearing 7.3 something about the WBG recently (64%), most often through Access to WBG staff and experts* 6.9 events (57%), direct contact with WBG staff (44%), social media (43%), or WBG websites (36%). They most often recalled the WBG’s Flexibility when circumstances change in 7.3 FY25 Indonesia* 6.2 economic forecasts (51%) and the WBG’s work in ending poverty FY21 (46%) and climate change (43%). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating 8 9 Overall Views of the World Bank Group Familiarity With the WBG Has Improved Compared to the FY21 Survey 7.6 Bilateral or Multilateral Agency 8.4 World Bank Group* 6.7 Significant increase compared to FY21 Academia / Research Center 8.1 7.3 United Nations Government Institution 8.0 Media 7.9 Asian Development 6.6 Bank (ADB) Private Sector 7.2 6.4 Civil Society Organization 6.9 European Union FY25 FY21 Local Government 5.7 6.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 International Monetary Fund Mean Rating of Familiarity Significantly different ratings of familiarity between stakeholder groups Asian Infrastructure 5.5 ▪ Respondents who indicated that they collaborate with the Investment Bank (AIIB) WBG reported significantly higher levels of familiarity with the institution’s work (mean=8.1) compared to those who reported 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating of Familiarity that they do not collaborate with the WBG (mean=6.9). Q How familiar are you with the work of these organizations in Indonesia? Scale: 1 Not familiar at all – 10 Very familiar Familiarity with the WBG was significantly higher than for any other institution. 10 The WBG is One of the Most Academia / research centers 7.9 Trusted Institutions, With Indonesia’s Central Bank* 7.6 7.1 Trust in the WBG Increased World Bank Group* 7.5 Compared to FY21 6.7 7.1 Media* 6.3 Many institutions received significantly higher ratings of trust in FY25 compared to FY21, especially the private sector and Regional development banks 7.1 (e.g., ADB, AIIB, etc.)* 6.4 media, whose mean ratings increased by nearly a point. 7.1 ▪ There were significant stakeholder group differences in their United Nations* 6.4 ratings of trust for nearly every institution. For the most part, respondents from the media and local government tended to 7.0 Private sector* FY25 have the lowest ratings of trust, while respondents from 6.1 government institutions tended to have the highest ratings. More FY21 7.0 details can be found in the accompanying file, “Indonesia COS Civil society* 6.6 FY25 Appendices.xlsx”. 7.0 National government 6.9 6.8 International Monetary Fund* 6.2 Local government – 6.6 Provincial Level Local government – 6.6 Regional Level *Significant difference Parliament 5.7 between years (MPR, DPD, DPR, DPRD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How much do you trust each of the following institutions to do what is right for Indonesia? Scale: 1 Not at all – 10 Very much Mean Rating of Trust Q The WBG was rated significantly lower than academia but higher than the media and all institutions below. 11 Overall Perceptions of the WBG in Indonesia Have Improved Since FY21 COS Effectiveness of the WBG in helping Indonesia achieve 7.5 development results* 6.8 The WBG currently plays a relevant role in development in 7.4 Indonesia* 6.9 7.4 FY25 The WBG has a positive influence on shaping development policy in Indonesia* 7.0 FY21 The WBG’s work is aligned with what I consider the 7.3 development priorities for Indonesia* 6.8 7.1 The WBG’s work helps end poverty in Indonesia *Significant difference between years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating How effective is the World Bank Group (WBG) in helping Indonesia achieve development results? Q Scale: 1 Not at all – 10 Very much To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Scale: 1 Strongly disagree – 10 Strongly agree 12 Government 6.8 7.9 Stakeholders More Trust the WBG to do what is right for Indonesia* 7.0 7.8 7.5 Positive About the 6.7 7.6 Government Institution WBG and Its Work; Effectiveness in helping 7.4 7.8 8.5 Media Most Critical Indonesia achieve 7.2 Local development results* 7.1 Government 7.3 6.4 Notably, respondents from the local 7.8 The WBG has a positive 7.4 Bilateral or government give fairly high ratings for the influence on shaping 7.2 Multilateral 7.3 WBG’s work but have one of the lowest ratings development policy in 7.0 Agency for trust, which could be attributed to these Indonesia* 7.3 6.4 stakeholders’ low ratings of familiarity with the Civil Society 7.6 Organization WBG. The WBG currently plays a 7.6 7.2 relevant role in development 7.3 in Indonesia* 6.8 7.4 Private Sector 6.7 7.6 The WBG’s work is aligned 7.0 with what I consider the 7.2 7.1 Academia / development priorities for 6.9 Research Indonesia* 7.4 6.5 Center 7.5 7.2 Media The WBG’s work helps end 7.1 6.9 poverty in Indonesia 6.8 7.2 6.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating Q See previous slides for question details *Significant difference between stakeholder groups 13 Stakeholders in Indonesia Perceived the WBG On Par With Stakeholders in FY24-FY25 IBRD Countries, Somewhat Lower Than FY24-FY25 East Asian Countries 7.5 Trust the WBG to do what 7.8 is right for Indonesia 7.3 Indonesia 7.5 FY25 Effectiveness in helping Indonesia 7.9 achieve development results 7.3 7.4 East Asian The WBG plays a relevant role Countries 7.6 in development FY24-FY25 7.2 7.4 WBG work had a positive influence 7.5 IBRD Countries on shaping development policy 7.1 FY24-FY25 7.3 WBG work aligned with Indonesia's 7.6 development priorties 7.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating East Asian FY24-FY25 countries included: Cambodia, China, Kiribati, Lao PDR, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Thailand, Timor- Leste, Tonga, and Vietnam. Q IBRD FY24-FY25 countries included: Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Georgia, Guatemala, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, 14 Namibia, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Vietnam. 15 The WBG’s Work on Development Priorities Jobs Considered the Jobs 39% Top Development Area Climate change 30% for WBG Focus Social protection 29% This year, respondents considered climate change, Public sector governance 26% More of a priority among water/sanitation, environment/natural resources local government and Water / sanitation 26% management, and urban development much more bilateral/ multilateral agencies (both 41%) of a priority than in FY21. Health / pandemic preparedness 25% Respondents’ comments answering the question of Environment / natural resource mgmt. 25% how the WBG can be more effective in Indonesia^, More of a priority among Macroeconomic stability 23% private sector (41%) and discussed key development areas and the need for academia (38%) the WBG’s focus is to be aligned with these areas: Agriculture / food security 23% ▪ Work more closely with the Government to better align Urban development 22% with national priorities, including jobs, health, climate More of a priority among civil change, infrastructure, education and skills development. Social inclusion 21% society (41%) ▪ Increase collaboration with local governments and Digital infrastructure development 20% communities to better understand their context, needs, and capacity. Formal education 20% More of a priority among bilateral/ ▪ Enhance financial support to better meet Indonesia’s Energy 16% multilateral agencies (59%) needs, as well as catalyzing investments to generate Transport infrastructure 15% broad-based growth. ▪ Capacity-building, implementation support, and Private sector development 14% knowledge sharing are essential to improve local Disaster risk management 13% expertise and long-term sustainability of projects. More of a priority among civil society ▪ Work to expand program/project reach across the Vocational education 13% (21%) and the media (37%) country and to more marginalized groups. Trade 13% Which areas should the WBG prioritize to have the most impact on development results in Indonesia? (Select up to 5) (Percentage of Respondents, N=329) 16 Q ^In your opinion, what is the most important thing the WBG could do to increase its effectiveness in Indonesia? (N=194) Effectiveness of WBG’s Support in Sectoral Areas Human Development Finance / Institutions / Economic Growth 7.4 7.4 Macroeconomic stability Health 7.1 7.2 7.4 Public sector governance 7.3 Gender equity* 7.0 7.1 Regional integration 7.0 7.3 FY25 Social inclusion* 6.8 7.1 FY21 Private sector development* 6.7 FY25 7.2 Social protection 7.0 FY21 7.0 Debt sustainability 7.2 7.0 Education 7.2 Trade 6.7 6.9 Job creation / employment 6.7 Environmental Sustainability 6.6 Crime and violence 7.3 Climate change* 6.9 Infrastructure 7.2 Environment / natural resource mgmt.* 6.6 7.3 Water supply and sanitation infrastructure 7.3 7.1 Agriculture and food security 7.2 6.8 FY25 Transport 7.0 FY21 7.0 Waste management Urban development 7.2 6.9 6.8 *Significant difference 7.2 Land tenure and management between years Digital development 7.1 FY25 FY21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.9 Mean Rating of Effectiveness Energy / extractives 6.9 How effective has the WBG been at achieving development results in each of these areas in Indonesia? Scale: 1 Not effective at all – 10 Very effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q (If you have NO exposure to/experience in working in any of the sectors listed below, please respond “Don’t know”) Mean Rating of Effectiveness 17 Stakeholders Felt That WBG Effectiveness Could Be Improved With More Local Input, Monitoring & Evaluation, and Flexibility and Responsiveness (Less Bureaucracy) ▪ Strengthen community focus and inclusion ▪ Embed more participatory approaches for local stakeholder involvement in project design and monitoring. ▪ Ensure equity across regions, addressing disparities between urban and rural areas. ▪ More emphasis on monitoring, evaluation, and results ▪ Establish clear performance indicators linked to outcomes, not just outputs. ▪ Conduct more transparent evaluations. ▪ Use evidence to course-correct projects in real-time. ▪ Increase flexibility and responsiveness ▪ Greater outreach/engagement with local stakeholders to better adapt projects to context. ▪ Provide flexible funding and operational modalities to adjust to shifting priorities. ▪ Tailor approaches to local cultural and institutional contexts, rather than “one-size-fits-all.” ▪ Enhance efficiency and delivery ▪ Simplify administrative and procurement processes to reduce delays. ▪ Improve timeliness of disbursements and implementation. ▪ Deepen collaboration and partnerships ▪ Engage civil society in implementation and monitoring, not just in consultations. ▪ Strengthen coordination across stakeholders (government, private sector, donors). ▪ Promote joint ownership of outcomes, ensuring sustainability after WBG support ends. Q ^In your opinion, what is the most important thing the WBG could do to increase its effectiveness in Indonesia (N=194) 18 19 The WBG’s Instruments Financial Resources Considered the WBG’s Greatest Value to Indonesia, Closely Followed by Knowledge Work Far more respondents in this Financial resources (e.g., budget year’s survey considered the support, investment lending, grants, trust 46% WBG’s financial resources to be funds) the WBG’s greatest value to Indonesia compared to those in Knowledge and analytical products (e.g., More valued among media 39% the FY21 COS (18%). data, reports, policy notes) (79%) and academia (57%) Technical assistance and More valued among local implementation support (incl. project 35% government (54%) and design and implementation) government institutions (45%) Capacity development and training related to World Bank projects and 30% programs Convening / bringing together different More valued among civil society (27%), 15% private sector (21%), and academia (21%) groups of stakeholders Mobilizing third party financial resources 14% (incl. both public and private) Development partner coordination 13% 20 Q Which WBG instruments do you VALUE the most in Indonesia? (Select up to 2) (Percentage of Respondents, N=325) Perceptions of the WBG’s Financial Instruments Have Improved ▪ There were significant stakeholder group differences in their ratings of The WBG effectively monitors and 8.0 timeliness, accountability, and monitoring. For the most part, respondents from evaluates the projects it supports in bilateral/multilateral agencies and academia tended to have lower ratings, while Indonesia* 7.2 respondents from the government and private sector tended to have higher ratings. For more details, refer to the accompanying file, “Indonesia COS FY25 The WBG insists on accountability through 7.9 Appendices.xlsx”. its lending (e.g., performance-based financing, resources tied to results)* 7.2 In respondents’ comments answering the question of how the WBG can be more effective in Indonesia^, they discussed that the WBG The WBG’s Environmental and Social 7.7 should increase its financial support and ensure it is impactful. Framework requirements are reasonable* 6.9 ▪ Respondents emphasized the need for more direct funding, grants, and financial resources to better meet Indonesia’s needs in priority areas. FY25 The WBG provides financial support in a 7.5 FY21 ▪ Many highlighted the importance of combining financial support with timely manner* 6.8 technical expertise and advisory services, ensuring that resources are used effectively and that outcomes are sustainable. The WBG’s financial instruments (i.e., 7.4 ▪ Several comments stressed the need for monitoring and evaluation budget support, loans, grants, trust funds) mechanisms tied to funding to ensure transparency, accountability, and meet the needs of Indonesia* 6.8 measurable impact. ▪ Some respondents discussed that the WBG could simplify its The conditions of the WBG’s financing are 7.4 procedures, ensure timely disbursement, and provide greater adaptability competitive compared to markets in financial instruments to match Indonesia’s evolving context. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating *Significant difference between years To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Scale: 1 Strongly disagree – 10 Strongly agree Q ^In your opinion, what is the most important thing the WBG could do to increase its effectiveness in Indonesia (N=194) 21 64% of Respondents Used the WBG’s Knowledge Work and Were Increasingly Positive About It Since FY21 ▪ There were significant stakeholder group differences I am satisfied with the quality of the 8.2 in several of their ratings for WBG knowledge work. WBG’s knowledge work in Indonesia For more details, refer to the accompanying file, “Indonesia COS FY25 Appendices.xlsx”. The WBG brings global expertise to 8.1 Indonesia as part of its knowledge work* 7.6 Respondents’ comments answering the question Working with the WBG increases 8.0 of how the WBG can be more effective in Indonesia’s institutional capacity* 7.3 Indonesia^ discussed: The WBG’s knowledge work is tailored 7.8 ▪ WBG data, analysis, and studies should be used to to Indonesia’s context* 7.3 improve decision-making at both national and local levels. Lessons learned and examples of The WBG’s publications are translated 7.8 enough into Bahasa Indonesia* 7.3 successful approaches (from within Indonesia and out) should inform policy and implementation. WBG’s knowledge work is accessible 7.8 and adequately disseminated* 7.4 ▪ Many highlighted the importance of training programs and knowledge-sharing initiatives to build Significance of WBG knowledge work 7.7 FY25 institutional capacity and improve skills. contribution to development results* 7.2 FY21 ▪ It was also discussed that the WBG should work I am satisfied with the quality of the 7.7 more closely with local governments, think tanks, WBG’s RAS work in Indonesia academics, and civil society to co-create solutions The WBG can quickly provide its 7.7 and ensure knowledge is contextually relevant. knowledge services when needed* 7.1 ▪ Some felt the WBG’s dissemination of its When I need to consult the WBG’s 7.6 knowledge work, including its accessibility and knowledge work, I know how to find it translation, could be improved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating Among Knowledge Users Have you ever used the WBG’s knowledge work, including participating in workshops or training programs? (Percentage of Respon dents, N=312) To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Scale: 1 Strongly disagree – 10 Strongly agree Q How significant a contribution do you believe the WBG’s knowledge work makes to development results in Indonesia? Scale: 1 No t significant at all – 10 Very significant 22 ^In your opinion, what is the most important thing the WBG could do to increase its effectiveness in Indonesia (N=194) 23 The WBG’s Engagement and Collaboration Perceptions of the WBG as a Development Partner Have Significantly Improved in Indonesia 7.9 Being a long-term partner to Indonesia* 7.4 7.5 Openness (sharing data and other information)* FY25 7.0 FY21 Lower among media (6.1) and 7.4 bilateral/multilateral agencies (6.9) Responsiveness to needs in Indonesia* 6.7 Lower among media (6.3), private sector 7.3 (6.8), and bilateral/multilateral agencies (6.9) Access to WBG staff and experts* 6.9 7.3 Flexibility when circumstances change in Indonesia* *Significant difference 6.2 between years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating To what extent is the WBG an effective development partner in terms of the following? Q Scale: 1 To no degree at all – 10 To a very significant degree 24 Perceptions of WBG Partnerships in Indonesia Were Increasingly Positive Highest among government 7.8 institutions (8.3) National government* 7.4 Other donors and development partners 7.7 (e.g., USAID, DFAT, JICA, GIZ, DfID)* 6.9 7.7 Academia / research centers / think tanks FY25 7.3 Private sector* FY21 6.7 7.2 Lower among media (6.8) Media 7.1 Highest among local government (8.1) Local government 7.0 Civil society (e.g., NGOs, CBOs)* 6.4 Lower among media (5.5) and 6.7 Parliament (MPR, DPD, DPR, DPRD) bilateral/multilateral agencies (5.8) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating *Significant difference To what extent is the WBG an effective development partner in Indonesia, in terms of collaborating between years Q with the following groups? Scale: 1 To no degree at all – 10 To a very significant degree 25 Stakeholders Want the Bank to Collaborate More With Academia, Local Government, Civil Society, and the Private Sector in Indonesia Outreach to academia is additionally recommended, Academia / research centers / 42% because it was rated the most trusted institution in think tanks Indonesia. Additionally, trust in civil society and the private sector has significantly improved since FY 2021. This suggests that all three stakeholder groups could be trusted, Local government 38% reliable partners for the WBG in Indonesia. In addition, outreach to local government is also recommended, because they had some of the lowest ratings of familiarity Civil society 33% (e.g., NGOs, CSOs) with the WBG and some of the most critical perceptions of its work. However, because of their low trust ratings, a more of an outreach/awareness campaign would be Private sector 33% recommended. Other donors and development partners (including counterpart 18% governments and UN agencies) Parliament 16% (MPR, DPD, DPR, DPRD) Media 9% In addition to its partnership with the national government, which of the following should the WBG collaborate with more to have greater impact in Indonesia? 26 Q (Select up to 2) (Percentage of Respondents, N=323) WBG Effectiveness in Facilitating Civil Society Participation All Respondents 6.8 Some Examples of the WBG’s Effective Facilitation of Civil Society Participation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating of Effectiveness “Consultation for the LAUTRA (Prosperous Ocean) program in preparing for program implementation by inviting parties, including Just 11% of respondents rated the WBG’s effectiveness at validation of needs.” (Bilateral/Multilateral Agency Respondent) facilitating civil society participation in development policy “On issues related to Climate Change and the PRK, the World Bank dialogue and implementation in Indonesia below average has been quite effective in facilitating dialogue between civil society (1-4). These respondents suggested the following to help the and the government. This is necessary because it is sometimes WBG be more effective: more difficult for civil society to engage directly with the government ▪ Create more forums, focus group discussions, and structured on strategic issues.” (Civil Society Respondent) engagement platforms to ensure civil society has a meaningful voice in policy dialogue and implementation. “The DPRD, as a local partner, is actively involved to accommodate public aspirations, facilitated through training and technical guidance ▪ Improve transparency, share regular updates with the public with local CSOs.” (Parliamentarian Respondent) and media, and ensure information is easily accessible. ▪ Provide space for civil society to be active in decision- “In the Climate Change Trust Fund program, there is involvement of making, across different regions and constituencies. environmental NGOs and civil society organizations as implementers of climate change mitigation and adaptation programs ▪ Support capacity building and resources to support civil in the regions. The Sustainable City Infrastructure Program also society participation. involves civil society in the process.” ▪ Expand local presence and outreach to connect directly with (Government Institution Respondent) grassroots stakeholders and broaden participation. How effective is the WBG in facilitating civil society participation in development policy dialogue and implementation in Indonesia? Scale: 1 Not effective at all – 10 Very effective [If effectiveness rating < 5] How could the WBG be more effective in facilitating civil society participation in development policy Q dialogue and implementation? (Please be specific) (N=19) [If effectiveness rating > 4] Please share examples of the WBG’s eff ective 27 facilitation of civil society participation in development policy dialogue and implementation. (Please be specific) (N=116) Stakeholders Felt That WBG Collaborations Could Be Strengthened, Broadened, More Local and Responsive, and Include More Communication/Transparency ▪ Strengthen collaboration with the government ▪ Align with national priorities and development plans. ▪ Improve coordination between central and local governments. ▪ Support policy coherence across ministries to avoid duplication. ▪ Broaden inclusive stakeholder engagement ▪ Foster multi-stakeholder platforms that include the private sector, civil society, and academia/think tanks. ▪ Encourage joint research and policy analysis with Indonesian institutions. ▪ Ensure engagement goes beyond the capital city to include regional stakeholders. ▪ Enhance community and grassroots participation ▪ Facilitate bottom-up consultations so that programs reflect local needs. ▪ Strengthen local ownership of projects through participatory approaches. ▪ Recognize and incorporate indigenous and vulnerable group perspectives. ▪ Be more responsive and adaptive ▪ Create structured feedback loops to capture lessons learned and adjust in real-time. ▪ Provide flexible engagement models tailored to different stakeholder groups. ▪ Demonstrate responsiveness through visible action on input received. ▪ Improve communication and transparency ▪ Share regular progress updates and results with stakeholders. ▪ Use clear, accessible language for public communication, not just technical reports. ▪ Leverage media and digital platforms for wider outreach and dialogue. Q ^In your opinion, what is the most important thing the WBG could do to increase its effectiveness in Indonesia (N=194) 28 29 Communication and Outreach Outreach and Engagement Is Important Because Trust the WBG to do what 7.0 8.0 Familiarity Leads to More is right for Indonesia* 6.0 Positive Perceptions 7.9 Effectiveness in helping Indonesia 7.0 In addition to respondents indicating a desire for achieve development results* 6.3 more engagement with the WBG, such engagement can engender more positive perceptions of the WBG. Comparing ratings of key performance indicators 7.8 The WBG plays a relevant role among respondents highly familiar with the WBG 6.9 in development* (ratings of 8-10 on a 10-point scale) and those with little 6.2 familiarity with the WBG (ratings of 1-4 on a 10-point scale), one can see that the more familiar stakeholders 7.7 are with the WBG, the more positive perceptions they WBG work had a positive influence 6.9 have of the WBG and its work. on shaping development policy* 7.1 Approximately 10% of respondents’ comments 7.7 answering the question of how the WBG can be more WBG work aligned with Indonesia's 6.9 effective in Indonesia^ discussed the need for greater development priorties* 6.1 communication, suggesting that the WBG should share information more openly with the public, ensure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Rating broad dissemination of updates (using accessible language), and strengthen communication channels How familiar are you with the work of the WBG in Indonesia? beyond government stakeholders. High Familiarity (8-10) Some Familiarity (5-7) Low Familiarity (1-4) *Significant difference between levels of familiarity How much do you trust the WBG to do what is right for Indonesia? Scale: 1 Not at all – 10 Very much How effective is the WBG in helping Indonesia achieve development results? Scale: 1 Not at all – 10 Very much Q To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Scale: 1 Strongly disagree – 10 Strongly agree 30 ^In your opinion, what is the most important thing the WBG could do to increase its effectiveness in Indonesia (N=194) Events/Workshops and Direct Contact Were the Most Preferred Channels for Stakeholders to Receive Information From the WBG Key differences between stakeholder groups should be taken into consideration for targeted outreach (e.g., government and bilateral or multilateral agencies were the most likely to prefer direct contact, while media respondents were the most likely to prefer direct messaging). Top Two Preferred WBG Channels Bilateral or Academia / All Government Local Civil Society Private Multilateral Research Media Respondents Institution Government Organization Sector Agency Center Event / conference / seminar / 59% 58% 62% 40% 64% 55% 69% 35% workshop (in person or online) Direct contact with staff* 48% 59% 54% 60% 52% 36% 27% 53% (e.g., in person, virtually, by phone, email) Direct messaging* 27% 33% 19% 27% 11% 33% 21% 59% (e.g., WhatsApp, Telegram, Viber) Social media 25% 21% 39% 27% 30% 19% 33% 6% (e.g., Facebook, Twitter/X) e-Newsletters* 21% 11% 4% 33% 30% 31% 33% 24% How would you prefer to receive communication from the WBG? (Select up to 2) (Percentage of Respondents, N=308) Q *Significant difference between stakeholder groups 31 64% of Respondents Recalled Seeing/Hearing About the WBG Recently, Most Often at Events, About WBG Economic Forecasts Where did they see/hear about the WBG? What did they see/hear about the WBG? Event / conference / seminar WBG economic forecasts 51% 57% (in person or online) Direct contact with WBG staff (e.g., in Ending poverty in 46% 44% developing countries person, virtually, phone, email) More often among local government Climate change 43% Social media 43% (90%) and less More often often among academia (18%) Job creation / employment 40% among local WBG websites 36% government and media (0%) (90%) Human capital (education, 40% Direct messaging health, stunting reduction) 25% (e.g., WhatsApp, Telegram) Digital economy 34% e-Newsletters 18% More often among local Women empowerment 25% government (50%) and Less often among government civil society (48%) Newspapers (print or online) 17% institutions (6%) and bilateral and multilateral agencies (8%) Food security 25% Television (TV) 16% Youth development 22% Blogs 9% Debt relief for developing countries 18% Changes to the WBG financial and Podcasts 8% 16% operational model Radio 2% Pandemic preparedness 10% Do you recall seeing or hearing anything about the WBG recently? (N=319) If you answered “Yes”, where do you recall seeing or hearing this information? (Select all that apply) (Percentage of Respondents, N=203) Q If you answered “Yes”, which of the following areas of the WBG’s work in India have you seen or heard about? (Select all that apply) 32 (Percentage of Respondents, N=202) 33 Sample Demographics and Detailed Methodology Sample Demographics Which of the following WBG agencies do you Do you collaborate/work with in Indonesia? (N=170) collaborate/work with World Bank the World Bank Group 95% (IBRD/IDA) (WBG) in Indonesia? (N=332) No 48% Yes IFC 12% Respondents from government 52% institutions and bilateral or multilateral ICSID 2% agencies were significantly more likely to collaborate with the WBG (88% and 94%, respectively) compared to respondents MIGA 1% from other stakeholder groups. What is your age? (N=323) Prefer not to Other, 1% What is your specify, 3% 25 years or younger 11% gender? (N=323) 26-35 25% 36-45 24% Female 43% Male 46-55 22% 54% 56 and above 16% Prefer not to specify 2% 34 Sample Demographics (continued) What is the primary specialization Which best represents your geographic location? of your work? (N=305) (N=320) Other 13% Java Island and surrounding 83% islands (including Madura Island) Health / pandemic preparedness 12% Macroeconomics, fiscal/debt mgmt. 12% Papua Island and surrounding Public sector governance 10% islands (including Maluku and 6% North Maluku Islands) Education 10% Generalist (specialize in multiple) 6% Bali, East Nusa Tenggara, West Private sector development / trade 6% Nusa Tenggara Islands and 4% surrounding islands Water / sanitation 5% Urban development 5% Sumatra Island and surrounding islands (including Riau, Bangka, 3% Environment/natural resource mgmt 5% and Belitung Islands) Climate change 3% Social protection 3% Sulawesi Island and surrounding 3% islands Gender equity 3% Energy 3% Kalimantan Island and Legal / human rights 2% 1% surrounding islands Digital development 1% Agriculture and food security 1% Transport 1% 35 Detailed Methodology Percentage of Respondents FY 2021 FY 2025 From April to August 2025, a total of 534 stakeholders in Indonesia were invited to provide Government Principals: Office of the their opinions on the WBG’s work by participating in a Country Opinion Survey (COS). A list of President, Minister, Parliamentarian 14% 3% potential participants was compiled by the WBG country team and the field agency. Participants were drawn from the offices of the President, Ministers, and Parliamentarians, Government Institutions: Employee of a government institutions, local government, bilateral or multilateral agencies, civil society Ministry, Department, Project Implementation 31% 32% organizations, the private sector, academia and research centers, and the media. Unit, Independent Government Institution, Judiciary, State-Owned Enterprise Of these stakeholders, 340 participated in the survey (64% response rate). Respondents Local Government 4% 9% completed the questionnaire online, via phone, or with a representative of the field agency. Bilateral/Multilateral Agency: Embassy, This year’s survey results were compared to the FY21 Country Opinion Survey, which Development Organization, Development 9% 5% had a response rate of 39% (N = 294). Bank, UN Agency Comparing responses across Country Opinion Surveys reflects changes in attitudes over Civil Society Organization: Local and regional NGO, Community-Based time, as well as changes in respondent samples, methodology, and the survey instrument Organization, Private Foundation, 15% 14% itself. To reduce the influence of the latter factor, only those questions with similar response Philanthropy, Professional/Trade Association, scales/options were analyzed. However, the stakeholder compositions for both survey years Faith-Based Group, Youth Group should be taken into consideration when interpreting these comparisons, as there was a much Private Sector: Private Company, Financial larger sample from the private sector but a much smaller sample from government principals Sector Organization, Private Bank 4% 16% in FY25. Academia / Research Center 16% 16% Key statistically significant findings (tested at the research standard of p < .05) are noted throughout the report. Media 7% 6% Breakdowns for individual questions by stakeholder group can be found in the “Indonesia Other 1% 1% COS FY25 Appendices.xlsx” file published in the WBG Microdata Library, along with the survey microdata and this report. Total Number of Respondents 292 339 What is your primary professional affiliation? (Select only 1 response) Q *Not all respondents provided information about their professional affiliation. Therefore, the total number of respondents listed in the table is lower than the N reported in the methodology. 36 Thank you For more information about this report or the Country Opinion Survey program, please contact: countrysurveys@worldbankgroup.org