Bureaucratic Reform Within The Indonesian National Army; An Institutional Perspective
Abstract
Bureaucracy reform within the Indonesian National Army (TNI) is a strategic step to improve good and clean governance in the face of the dynamics and demands of global environmental changes. Despite various efforts that have been made, the implementation of bureaucracy reform in the TNI still faces challenges related to inefficiency, internal resistance, and a bureaucratic culture that holds a strong hierarchy. The main problem raised in this study is how bureaucracy reform can encourage transparency, accountability, and increased efficiency in TNI institutions. This study aims to analyse the effectiveness of bureaucracy reform in realizing good and clean governance within TNI by using the institutional theory. The method used is a literature review by reviewing various policy documents, previous research reports, and relevant publications to understand the implementation of bureaucracy reform within the TNI. Institutional theory emphasizes three essential pillars, namely the regulatory pillar, normative pillar, and cultural cognitive pillar, where these three factors are the framework of analysis in this study. The results of the study show that these three factors significantly affect the efforts to change the institution carried out through bureaucracy reform. Increased transparency and accountability have been achieved in some parts of the Organization, but to realize good and clean governance as a whole, commitment and consistency are still needed in the implementation of sustainable bureaucracy reform.
Keywords
References
S. Annaka and M. Higashijima, “Political liberalization and human development: Dynamic Effects of Political Regime Change on Infant Mortality across Three Centuries (1800-2015),” World Dev., vol. 147, p. 105614, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105614.
T. Müller, “Institutional Reforms and the Politics of Inequality Reproduction: The Case of the League of Nations’ Council Crisis in 1926,” Glob. Soc., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 304–317, 2020, doi: 10.1080/13600826.2020.1739629.
J. E. Klausen, J. Askim, and T. Christensen, “Local Government Reform: Compromise Through Cross-Cutting Cleavages,” Polit. Stud. Rev., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 111–126, 2021, doi: 10.1177/1478929919887649.
E. Vollmann, M. Bohn, R. Sturm, and T. Demmelhuber, “Decentralisation as authoritarian upgrading? Evidence from Jordan and Morocco,” J. North African Stud., pp. 1–32, 2020, doi: 10.1080/13629387.2020.1787837.
T. Besley, R. Burgess, A. Khan, and G. Xu, “Bureaucracy and Development,” Annu. Rev. Econom., vol. 14, pp. 397–424, 2022, doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-080521-011950.
C. Dahlström and V. Lapuente, “Comparative Bureaucratic Politics,” Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., vol. 25, pp. 43–63, 2022, doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543.
N. Ishak, R. R. Hasibuan, and T. S. Arbani, “Bureaucratic and Political Collaboration Towards a Good Governance System,” Bestuur, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19–26, 2020, doi: 10.20961/bestuur.v8i1.42922.
M. Iqbal, “Bureaucratic Reform in Indonesia: Best and Bad Practice Perspective,” Asian Rev., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 34–54, 2020, doi: 10.58837/chula.arv.33.2.2.
S. M. Anggara, A. Hariyanto, Suhardi, A. A. Arman, and N. B. Kurniawan, “The Development of Digital Service Transformation Framework for The Public Sector,” IEEE Access, vol. PP, p. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3406571.
A. M. Abdou, “Good governance and COVID-19: The digital bureaucracy to response the pandemic (Singapore as a model),” J. Public Aff., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1–10, 2021, doi: 10.1002/pa.2656.
S. Aminah and H. Saksono, “Digital transformation of the government: A case study in Indonesia,” J. Komun. Malaysian J. Commun., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 272–288, 2021, doi: 10.17576/JKMJC-2021-3702-17.
B. S. Haryono, A. A. Nugroho, F. Putera, and I. Noor, “Narrative policy of bureaucratic reform in Indonesia: Rules of narrative in mass media,” J. Infrastructure, Policy Dev., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2024, doi: 10.24294/jipd.v8i1.2842.
D. F. Meyer, “An assessment of the interrelations between country risk, economic growth and good governance: The case of the visegrad four,” J. East. Eur. Cent. Asian Res., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 610–627, 2021, doi: 10.15549/jeecar.v8i4.810.
A. L. Moreno-Albarracín, A. Licerán-Gutierrez, C. Ortega-Rodríguez, Á. Labella, and R. M. Rodríguez, “Measuring what is not seen—transparency and good governance nonprofit indicators to overcome the limitations of accounting models,” Sustain., vol. 12, no. 18, pp. 1–20, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12187275.
G. G. Noja, M. Cristea, E. Thalassinos, and M. Kadłubek, “Interlinkages between government resources management, environmental support, and good public governance. Advanced insights from the European union,” Resources, vol. 10, no. 5, 2021, doi: 10.3390/resources10050041.
S. Sunaryo and A. I. Nur, “Legal Policy of Anti-Corruption Supervisor Design: A New Anti-Corruption Model in Indonesia,” Bestuur, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–158, 2022, doi: 10.20961/bestuur.v10i2.65105.
A. Gatto and E. R. Sadik-Zada, “Governance matters. Fieldwork on participatory budgeting, voting, and development from Campania, Italy,” J. Public Aff., vol. 22, no. S1, pp. 1–11, 2022, doi: 10.1002/pa.2769.
D. Guzal-Dec, Ł. Zbucki, and A. Kuś, “Good governance in strategic planning of local development in rural and urban-rural gminas of the eastern peripheral voivodeships of Poland,” Bull. Geogr. Socio-economic Ser., vol. 50, no. 50, pp. 101–112, 2020, doi: 10.2478/bog-2020-0035.
A. Burton-jones, S. Akhlaghpour, S. Ayre, P. Barde, A. Staib, and C. Sullivan, “Information and Organization Changing the conversation on evaluating digital transformation in healthcare : Insights from an institutional analysis,” Inf. Organ., vol. 30, no. 1, p. 100255, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100255.
F. Anisul and H. Mark, “Implementing Socially Sustainable Practices in Challenging Institutional Contexts : Building Theory from Seven Developing Country Supplier Cases,” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. 161, no. 2, pp. 415–442, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3951-x.
S. M. Ebrahimi and L. Koh, “Manufacturing sustainability : Institutional theory and life cycle thinking,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 298, p. 126787, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126787.
L. Busca and L. Bertrandias, “ScienceDirect A Framework for Digital Marketing Research : Investigating the Four Cultural Eras of Digital Marketing,” J. Interact. Mark., vol. 49, pp. 1–19, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2019.08.002.
B. K. Alnuaimi, S. Kumar, S. Ren, and P. Budhwar, “Mastering digital transformation : The nexus between leadership , agility , and digital strategy,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 145, no. September 2021, pp. 636–648, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.038.
R. V. Salomo and K. P. Rahmayanti, “Progress and Institutional Challenges on Local Governments Performance Accountability System Reform in Indonesia,” SAGE Open, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1177/21582440231196659.
M. Davidovitz and N. Cohen, “Politicians’ involvement in street-level policy implementation: Implications for social equity,” Public Policy Adm., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 309–328, 2023, doi: 10.1177/09520767211024033.
M. Kamuzinzi, “When traditional principles bring coherence in complex networks management: the case of ‘Imihigo’ in public policy implementation,” Policy Stud., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 98–116, 2021, doi: 10.1080/01442872.2019.1577374.
T. D. Beshi and R. Kaur, “Public Trust in Local Government: Explaining the Role of Good Governance Practices,” Public Organ. Rev., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 337–350, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11115-019-00444-6.
D. B. Audretsch, M. Belitski, and N. Cherkas, “Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: The role of institutions,” PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 3 March 2021, pp. 1–22, 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247609.
S. Carino, J. Collins, S. Malekpour, and J. Porter, “Harnessing the pillars of institutions to drive environmentally sustainable hospital foodservices,” Front. Nutr., vol. 9, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.905932.
M. Negash and T. T. Lemma, “Institutional pressures and the accounting and reporting of environmental liabilities,” Bus. Strateg. Environ., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1941–1960, 2020, doi: 10.1002/bse.2480.
A. J. Mateo-Márquez, J. M. González-González, and C. Zamora-Ramírez, “The influence of countries’ climate change-related institutional profile on voluntary environmental disclosures,” Bus. Strateg. Environ., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1357–1373, 2021, doi: 10.1002/bse.2690.
D. Chiponde, B. Gledson, and D. Greenwood, “The Institutional Field of Learning from Project-Related Failures – Opportunities and Challenges,” Constr. Econ. Build., vol. 24, no. 1–2, pp. 163–181, 2024, doi: 10.5130/AJCEB.V24I1/2.8394.
J. A. D. Tautiva, E. S. Carrera, F. Vásquez-Lavín, and R. D. P. Oliva, “Understanding the role of institutions and economic context on entrepreneurial value creation choice,” Oeconomia Copernicana, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 405–447, 2023, doi: 10.24136/oc.2023.011.
T. Jaber and E. M. Oftedal, “Legitimacy for sustainability: A case of a strategy change for an oil and gas company,” Sustain., vol. 12, no. 2, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12020525.
S. R. Jansma, J. F. Gosselt, K. Kuipers, and M. D. T. de Jong, “Technology legitimation in the public discourse: applying the pillars of legitimacy on GM food,” Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 195–207, 2020, doi: 10.1080/09537325.2019.1648788.
C. Cordasco, C. Gherhes, C. Brooks, and T. Vorley, “An institutional taxonomy of adoption of innovation in the classic professions,” Technovation, vol. 107, no. March, p. 102272, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102272.
J. J. Willems and M. Giezen, “Understanding the institutional work of boundary objects in climate-proofing cities: The case of Amsterdam Rainproof,” Urban Clim., vol. 44, p. 101222, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101222.
DOI: 10.33751/jhss.v9i2.12557
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
