Quo Vadis Bureaucracy Reform Of Indonesia: Overview Of Bureaucratic Reform Phase l Vs Phase II

Abstract

Bureaucratic reform (BR) has passed phase I (2010-2014), but raises some problem to be solved that are; bureaucracy that has not been completely clean and accountable, bureaucracy that has not been effective and efficient, and public services that have not had the expected quality. Almost seven years of BR has been running and entering period II (2015-2019), but not showing a passable change. Based on the findings of ICW in 2016, corruption figures of Civil Servants reached 47% or 515 people became suspects. During the reform period, ASN was most caught up in corruption, involving 3,417 people. In terms of service quality, the Ombudsman Indonesia received complaints during 2016, of which complained 1,200 agencies about their services. This paper intends to criticize the journey of bureaucratic reform during the phase I and the current period, rated from the dimensions of target achievement indicators and achievements. This article was written based on literature review and secondary data analysis on the phase I of BR report, and data on the achievement of the current year reform report. The data were compared and then analyzed. The BR in the phase I refer to national and global indicators, namely indexes of corruption perception, government effectiveness and competitiveness, and in phase II only refers to national indicators. The results found that the phase I bureaucracy reform has not been able to demonstrate good reform performance since it has not met the target of all indicators. Phase II used indicator is more internally, but not yet measured its success. BR in the phase I and phase II are more reporting and do not touch on the essence of the bureaucracy itself, bureaucratic reform is more of a "reform bureaucratization" and still relies on the approach of reporting in evaluating its success.

The Reform of Public Service Bureaucracy in the Investment Sector Within the Pentahelix Perspective: A New Hope in the Era of Autonomy?

“…The performance of public services is the most tangible measure of the success of bureaucratic reform. Therefore, it can be assumed that bureaucratic reform is successful when the level of effectiveness is high (Lee, 1990;Paskarina, 2017:1;Hapsari, et al, 2018). Licensing bureaucracy reform addresses the problems related to licensing services which have made for a weak outcome of community empowerment and economic development in regions.…”

The Political Intervention on Government Officials’ Promotion in Indonesia

“…Bureaucratic reform policies are only weak in regulations and implementation (Yusriadi, 2018). The bureaucratic road map stages I, II, and III have not been significantly affected (Hapsari et al, 2018). Bureaucratic reform is constrained by weak accountability factors, political regime hegemony, high and legitimate power distance, and bureaucratic dysfunction (Amarullah & Maulana, 2017).…”

Rethinking Public Sector Innovation in Indonesia

“…The nature and scale of Indonesia's Bureaucracy has faced so many challenges, particularly after Indonesia's Political Reform in 1998, such as regarding the implementation of decentralized system started in 1999 and bureaucratic reform began in 2010 [1,2]. To date, Indonesia's bureaucracy is still seen as an object of criticism, not only from its own citizen but also international world [3][4][5].…”