Bureaucratic Reform Strategy Employee Performance in the Secretariat of DPRD Kepulauan Riau Province

Authors

  • Fitri Kurnianingsih Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji
  • Nazaki Nazaki Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji
  • Oksep Adhayanto Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37329/ganaya.v4i2.1397

Keywords:

Bureaucratic Reform, Performance, Public Service, DPRD

Abstract

Bureaucratic reform is part of the organization's strategy to improve the quality of the organization's performance. The purpose of this research is to analyze the bureaucratic reform strategy in the Secretariat of the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) of Kepulauan Riau Province on performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The method used is descriptive qualitative, where the researcher makes observations according to the phenomena that exist within Kepulauan Riau Provincial DPRD Secretariat. Then the data analysis technique uses a logical model in accordance with the concept of performance which is part of bureaucratic reform. The results show that there is a weakening of the supporting factors in public services so that there is a weakening of organizational performance in facilities that are part of the supporting factors for Kepulauan Riau Provincial DPRD Secretariat due to the COVID-19 pandemic, besides that in the bureaucratic reform strategy, preparation and anticipation are needed in involving stakeholders if the involvement of other parties is considered necessary to encourage the improvement of the performance quality of the DPRD Secretariat of Kepulauan Riau Province.

Author Biographies

Fitri Kurnianingsih, Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji

Department Master Public Administration

Nazaki Nazaki, Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji

Department Government Science

Oksep Adhayanto, Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji

Department of Law

References

Asgarkhani, M. (2005). The effectiveness of e-service in local government: a case study. The electronic journal of e-government, 3(4), 157-166.

Benbrahim, C. F., Sefiani, N., Meddaoui, A., & Reklaoui, K. (2017). Assessment of human resource competence and performance indicator. International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, 7(1), 20-37.

Chibber, V. (2002). Bureaucratic rationality and the developmental state. American journal of sociology, 107(4), 951-989.

Cope, G. H. (1997). Bureaucratic reform and issues of political responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 461-471.

Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge.

Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences.

Girling, J. (1997). Corruption, capitalism and democracy (Vol. 4). Psychology Press.

Guérin, N. (2018). One wave of reforms, many outputs: the diffusion of European asylum policies beyond Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(7), 1068-1087.

Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). What we have to show for 30 years of new public management: Higher costs, more complaints. Governance, 28(3), 265-267.

Iqbal, M. (2020). Bureaucratic Reform in Indonesia: Best and Bad Practice Perspective. Asian Review, 33(2), 34-54.

Junaidi, M., & Tatas, T. (2018). The Relevance of Legal State Idea in Ensuring the Realization of the People's Welfare. In 1st International Conference on Intellectuals' Global Responsibility (ICIGR 2017). Atlantis Press.

Komendantova, N., Riegler, M., & Neumueller, S. (2018). Of transitions and models: Community engagement, democracy, and empowerment in the Austrian energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 39, 141-151.

Kopits, G. (2013). Restoring public debt sustainability: the role of independent fiscal institutions. OUP Oxford.

Labolo, M., & Indrayani, E. (2017). Bureaucratic reform and the challenge of good governance implementation in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Review Public Affair and Policy, 2(4), 25-47.

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.

Mahadiansar, M., & Ramadhan, P. (2021). Strategi Partisipasif Pembangunan Sosial; Studi Di Pulau Penyengat Kota Tanjungpinang. Civitas Consecratio: Journal of Community Service and Empowerment, 1(1), 43-5.

Martin, P. Y. (2013). Rape work: Victims, gender, and emotions in organization and community context. Routledge.

McNurlin, B. C., & Sprague, R. H. (2005). Information systems management in practice. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Mendel, T. (2013). Public service broadcasting: A comparative legal survey. Unesco.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis, 1(1), 1-17.

Newman, I., Benz, C. R., & Ridenour, C. S. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. SIU Press.

Noviana, N. (2020). Sistem Informasi Koordinasi Kelengkapan Dewan pada Dewan Perwakilan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Provinsi Kepulauan Riau. Jurnal JTIK (Jurnal Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi), 4(1), 1-7.

Pedersen, R. H. (2012). Decoupled implementation of new-wave land reforms: decentralisation and local governance of land in Tanzania. Journal of Development Studies, 48(2), 268-281.

Primanto, A., Suwitri, S., & Warsono, H. (2014). Bureaucratic Reform: A Way to Eliminate Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism Practices in Indonesia. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 2(10).

Riggs, F. W. (2015). Bureaucrats and Political Development: A Paradoxical View (pp. 120-167). Princeton University Press.

Rotberg, R. I. (2014). Good governance means performance and results. Governance, 27(3), 511-518.

Swapan, M. S. H. (2016). Who participates and who doesn't? Adapting community participation model for developing countries. Cities, 53, 70-77.

Wang, A. L. (2013). The search for sustainable legitimacy: environmental law and bureaucracy in China. Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., 37, 365.

Wihantoro, Y., Lowe, A., Cooper, S., & Manochin, M. (2015). Bureaucratic reform in post-Asian crisis Indonesia: The directorate general of tax. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 31, 44-63.

Wolff, J. (2012). Democracy promotion, empowerment, and self-determination: conflicting objectives in US and German policies towards Bolivia. Democratization, 19(3), 415-437.

Zed, M. (2004). Metode penelitian kepustakaan. Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

Downloads

Published

11-09-2021

How to Cite

Kurnianingsih, F., Nazaki, N., & Adhayanto, O. (2021). Bureaucratic Reform Strategy Employee Performance in the Secretariat of DPRD Kepulauan Riau Province. Ganaya : Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Humaniora, 4(2), 567–577. https://doi.org/10.37329/ganaya.v4i2.1397

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021)

Section

Articles

License

An author who publishes in the Ganaya : Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora agrees to the following terms:

  • Author retains the copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication of the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
  • Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book) with the acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Author is  permitted and encouraged to post his/her  work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Read more about the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.