Systematic in-country analyses provide an excellent opportunity to bridge qualitative-quantitative divides. Choosing subnational case studies based on explanatory factors, and juxtaposing them with cross-sectional datasets, makes it possible to gain in-depth insights into the workings of policy-making without sacrificing the ability to identify generalizable features and trends. Indonesia’s rapid move to democratization and decentralization offers a valuable testing ground for applying multi-method research designs of this kind. The large variation in subnational policies, the vast number of autonomous district polities, and the growing availability of subnational data, offer a quasi-experimental setting for testing contending governance explanations. Based on a set of controlled cases comparisons (across eight Indonesian districts) and statistical analyses (200-district dataset), I argue that observable policy and service differences relate less to demand-side pressures of societal groups and more to the supply of reformist leadership. Case observations and statistical assessments indicate that district mayors – in particular their skills to forge coalitions and their commitment to curb corruption – are a main driver for improved public outcomes. These results, which are confirmed in in-depth interviews and 2SLR regression analyses, suggest that Indonesia’s early democratization continues to be characterized by elite-centered politics and low levels of political institutionalization.
