Implementation of Bureaucratic Reform in Improving the Administrative Performance of Local Government: A Case Study of the Regional Secretariat of Sorong City
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70062/dynamicssocial.v2i2.290Keywords:
Administrative Performance, Bureaucratic Reform, Local Government, Organizational Effectiveness, Policy ImplementationAbstract
This study aims to analyze the implementation of bureaucratic reform in improve the administrative performance of the Sorong City Regional Secretariat. The research uses a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative data were obtained by distributing questionnaires to 30 government apparatus respondents using the Likert scale and were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. Meanwhile, qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interviews with key informants and analyzed using thematic analysis and data triangulation. The results of the study show that the implementation of bureaucratic reform is positively related to the organization's administrative performance. The variables of policy communication, apparatus resources, and bureaucratic structure show a fairly strong correlation with administrative performance, with bureaucratic structure exhibiting the strongest relationship. Qualitative findings also show that bureaucratic reform has been carried out through simplifying procedures, updating SOPs, digitizing administration, and strengthening the performance reporting system. Theoretically, this research strengthens policy implementation theory and public organizational performance theory, which emphasize the importance of policy communication, human resource capacity, and the effectiveness of organizational structures in improving bureaucratic performance. However, this study has limitations in scope, as it is confined to a single organizational unit and a relatively small number of respondents. Therefore, further research is suggested to expand the research object in several regional apparatus organizations in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the implementation of bureaucratic reform at the local government level.
References
Agustino, L. (2016). The basics of public policy. Bandung, Indonesia: Alfabeta.
Berman, E. M., & Wang, X. (2012). Essential statistics for public managers and policy analysts. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organisation theory and the public sector. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203929216
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Dwiyanto, A. (2011). Public service management: caring, inclusive, and collaborative. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Edward III, G. C. (1980). Implementing public policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2012). The public administration theory primer (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. (2006). Organisations: Behaviour, structure, processes (12th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Grindle, M. S. (1980). Politics and policy implementation in the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400886081
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Lane, J. E. (2000). New public management. London, UK: Routledge.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ministry of PANRB. (2020). Bureaucratic reform road map 2020-2024. Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of PANRB.
Moleong, L. J. (2017). Qualitative research methodology. Bandung, Indonesia: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Prasojo, E., & Kurniawan, T. (2008). Bureaucratic reform and good governance: The case of Indonesia. Journal of State Administrative Sciences, 8(1), 1-15.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organisational behaviour (15th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Serendipity. (2013). Public administration reform, bureaucratic reform, and future leadership. Bandung, Indonesia: Refika Aditama.
Sugiyono. (2017). Mixed research methods. Bandung, Indonesia: Alfabeta.
Turner, M., Prasojo, E., & Sumarwono, R. (2019). The challenge of reforming the big bureaucracy in Indonesia. Public Administration and Development, 39(4-5), 189-201.
Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process. Administration & Society, 6(4), 445-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977500600404
Wholey, J. S. (1999). Performance-based management: Responding to the challenges. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 288-297. https://doi.org/10.2307/3380705
Widodo, J. (2010). Public policy analysis. Malang, Indonesia: Bayumedia.
Winarno, B. (2012). Public policy: theories, processes, and case studies. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: CAPS.
World Bank. (2008). Public sector reform: What works and why? Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
