Indonesia’s Plan on ANSSR Bureaucratic Reform Measurement and Implementation

3dadang-solihin.blogspot.com
Name : Dr. Dadang Solihin, SE, MA
Place of Birth : Bandung 6 November 1961
Ocupation : Director for Regional
Development Performance
Evaluation-Bappenas
Office : Jl. Taman Suropati No. 2
Jakarta 10310
Office Ph/Fax : 6221 392 6248
CP : 6281 2 932 2202
PIN BB : 277878F0
Email : dadangsol@yahoo.com
Website :
http://dadang-solihin.blogspot.com

Content
• The Legal Basis
• The Fundamental Elements
• General Framework of BR
• Bureaucratic Reform Qualitative/Quantitative Indicators
• Governance Indicator
• Indicator of Public Service
• Indicator of Accountability and Capacity of Bureaucracy
• Level of Implementation
• Organizational Structure on the National Level
• More Open, Well-Functioning, Transparent, and Competitive Market

5
The Legal Basis
• It is the first priority under the 2nd phase (2010-
2014) of the Mid-Term Development Plan
(RPJMN II) under the President Regulation No.
5/2010 on National Medium Term Development
Plan.
• The Grand Design of Bureaucratic Reform 2010-
2025 is stipulated under Presidential Regulation
No. 81/2010.
5
dadang-solihin.blogspot.com

6
The Fundamental Elements
• Governance : A clean government, free
from corruption, collusion and nepotism
• Accountability and Capacity:
Accountable and capable bureaucracy; in
terms of the performance and resposibility.
• Public Service : How good the
government institution serves the public.
• The three elements then transformed into
three the target using both international and
national indicators.
• Indicators and the Target of Bureaucratic
Reform is adopted in the Grand Design of
Bureaucratic Reform.
6

77
ChangingMindsetandCultureSet
Clean and Free
from Corruption,
Collusion and
Nepotism
Bureaucracy
Improvement of
Capacity and
Accountabilty
Performance
Improvement of
Public Service
Quality
Human Resources
Institutional
Governance
PolicyImprovementoftheNationalBureucratic
ReformFramework
Monitoring & Evaluation
Change Management
BureaucraticProfilein2025
Supervisory
&
Accountability
Quick wins
(directly or indirectly tangible to
the public)
General Framework of BR
Knowledge Management

8
Bureaucratic Reform Qualitative/Quantitative Indicators
(as stated in Presidential Regulation No. 81/2010)
8
*) Scale of 0 – 10
**) Scale of -2.5 to 2.5
Target Indicators
Baseline
(2009)
Target (2014)
The realization of
A clean and free
from corruption,
collusion and
nepotism
government
Corruption Perception Index*) 2.8 5.0
BPK’s WTP/
Unqualified
Opinion
Central 42.17% 100%
Local 2.73% 60%
Improved quality of
public services
Integrity of
Public Service
Central 6,64 8,0
Local 6,46 8,0
"Ease of Doing Business" rank 122 75
Increased capacity
and accountability
of the bureaucracy
performance
Government Effectiveness Index
**)
-0,29 0,5
Accountable Government
Agencies
24% 80%

9
9
Governance Indicator-
Corruption Perception Index (CPI)
• Published annually by Transparency International.
• Perception-based, by experts and opinion surveys.
• Corruption: “The misuse of public power for private benefit.”
• Scale: 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (very clean).
• Sub-indicators: 99
– bribery to government officials
– kickbacks from government procurements
– embezzlement of public funds
– the implementation and effectivity on anti-corruption
measurements
• Good CPI will influence investors’ confidence and improve
investment climate.
1/2

10
10
The consideration to use CPI as an indicator:
1. It may reflect the condition/ situation of governance, especially
corruption in a country.
2. It has international recognition and commonly/globally used as the
reference to measure the corruption.
3. The number’s fluctuation illustrates how respondents and non-
agency appreciate the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures
conducted by their government.
4. It may reflect how anti-corruption campaigns and good governance
match public expectation.
5. The index published each year.
Governance Indicator-
Corruption Perception Index (CPI)
2/2

11
11
Governance Indicator:
Unqualified Opinion
• The best category of audit opinion conducted by Indonesia’ Supreme
Audit Board (BPK).
• The audit is conducted through the examination of annual financial
reports of the ministries / agencies and local governments mainly on
4(four) criteria:
– Conformity with government-accounting standards
– Adequate disclosures or transparency
– Regulatory compliance
– The effectiveness of internal control systems
1/2

12
12
Governance Indicator:
Unqualified Opinion
• There are 4 (four) types of audit opinion:
1. unqualified opinion (best)
2. qualified opinion
3. adverse opinion
4. disclaimer (worst)
• It shows that the utilization of state-budget by the respective ministries,
government agencies and local government is in accordance with the
law and regulations.
• It may also reflect that the bureaucracy is clean and free from
corruption.
2/2

13
Indicator of Public Service:
Integrity of Public Service Agencies
• Index score reflects whether the public service law and regulations are
implemented properly.
• The score is based on the annual survey conducted by the Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK) on several public service agencies
responsible for providing service on immigration, taxation, customs,
business licensing, vehicle registration, both in central and local
governments.
• The score is calculated based on the average value of 2 (two)
variables (experienced integrity and potential integrity); elaborated into
6 (six) indicators, namely:
1. the experience of corruption;
2. the perception of corruption;
3. work environment;
4. administrative system;
5. behavior of individuals; and
6. prevention corruption
13

14
Indicator of Public Service:
Ease of Doing Business
• Ease of Doing Business is measured through the survey on
regulatory reform in doing business on a number of countries.
• It is measured in the form of Doing Business Ranking based on the
Doing Business Survey Report, published annually by The IFC-
World Bank.
• It is used as one indicator in improving the quality of public service,
with some consideration:
1. It gives a fairly complete picture of the investment climate
2. It becomes a reference for international investors whether
regulations in a country are conducive to businesses.
14

15
Indicator of Accountability and Capacity of Bureaucracy
• It is one of the component in the World Governance Indicators
• It measures:
1. the quality of public service,
2. the quality of the bureaucracy,
3. the capacity of human resources in public service, and
4. degree of independency of human resources in public service from
political pressure .
• This index describes the ability of the government to adopt policies
and conduct effective public services.
15
1/2

16
Indicator of Accountability and Capacity of Bureaucracy
• It consists of six main index of governance, namely:
1. Voice and accountability (VA);
2. Political stability and absence of violence (PV);
3. Government effectiveness (GE);
4. Regulatory Quality (RQ);
5. Rule of law (RL);
6. Control of corruption (CC).
• The consideration to use it as an indicator :
1. it provides an overview on a country's bureaucratic capacity;
2. It is one of international reference to assess the posturity and
quality of the bureaucracy;
3. It is published regularly .
16
2/2

17
Indicator of Accountability and Capacity of Bureaucracy-
Government Accountability
• It is obtained based on an evaluation of the government
agencies’ performance accountability on both central and local
government (SAKIP) by the Ministry of State Apparatus and
Bureaucratic Reform.
• The indicator used is in the form of rating.
• The minimum rating “CC” or equivalent to 50 points.
17
1/2

18
Indicator of Accountability and Capacity of Bureaucracy-
Government Accountability
• The consideration of the utilization of Government
Accountability Agencies as an indicator is as follows:
– It measures to what extent the progress of implementing
performance management is achieved.
– It records the success of developing measurement systems,
data collection and performance reporting.
– It records the monitoring performance and evaluation activity
in particular strategic program.
– It records the development and progress of the level of
accountability performance.
• Five major components of performance management are
assessed, i.e., planning, measurement, reporting, evaluation,
achievements.
18
2/2

Level of Implementation
Macro
Meso
Micro
Improvement of laws and
regulations on bureaucratic
reform
Coordinating the implementation of
bureaucratic reform in the government
agencies and local government
Implementation of bureaucratic
reform in government agencies
and local governments.
Bureaucratic Reform Implementation
Level
Scope of reform
Organization
Governance
HRD Management
Internal Supervison
Accountability
Public Services

20
National Steering Committee on Bureaucratic Reform
Chaired by the Vice President
Member: Coordinating Minister of Economic Affairs, Coordinating Minister of Politic, Law
and Security, Coordinating Minister of People’s Welfare, Minister of State Aparatus and
Bureaucratif Reform, Minister of Finance, Minister of Home Affairs, Head of Presidential
Working Unit for Development Monitoring and Control
National Bureaucratic Reform Team
Chaired by Minister of State Aparatus and BR
Member : Minister of Finance, Minister of Home
Affairs, Head of Development Planning Agency,
Minister of State Secretary,
BR Team in Central
Government
BR Team in Local
Government
Independent
Team
Quality
Assurance Team
National Bureaucratic Reform
Managerial Unit
Organizational Structure on the National Level

Discussion Questions
1. To what extent does the indicator bear a
strong and direct link to the goal?
2. What concrete policy actions are needed to
deliver an improvement in the indicator? Do
these suggest any additional indicators?
3. How might the indicators be strengthened/
streamlined?

Logic Model Theory
23
The developmental results of
achieving specific outcomes
What we aim to
changeIMPACTS
The medium term results for
specific beneficiaries that are
the consequence of achieving
specific outputs
What we wish
to achieve
OUTCOMES
The final product of goods and
services produce for delivery
What we produce or
deliver
OUTPUTS
The processes of actions that
use a range of inputs to
produce the desire outputs
What we doACTIVITIES
The resources that contribute
to the production and delivery
of outputs
What we use to do
the work
INPUT
Source : Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information, National Treasury, Republic of South Africa, May 2007

Means of Verification
• How should the information be collected, eg. sample survey
• What source is most appropriate?
• Who should do it?
• When and How often should the information be collected, analyzed &
reported
• What formats are required to record the data being collected?

Indicators Kriteria: SMART
• Specific-crystal clear, not
invite multiple interpretations.
• Measureable-can be measured, what
gets measured gets managed.
• Attainable-can be attained, reasonable
cost using and appropriate collection
method.
• Relevant. Iinformation needs of the
people who will use the data.
• Timely. Ccollected and reported at the
right time to influence many manage
decision.

Indicators Formulation Criteria
1. Relevant: indicators logically and directly
related to the duties of institutions, as well as
the realization of institutional goals and
strategic objectives;
2. Well-defined: indicator definitions clear and
unambiguous so easy to understand and use;
26
1/3

3. Measurable: indicators used were measured with a specific grading
scale that was agreed, could be a measurement of quantity, quality
or price.
– Quantity indicators measured in numbers and units
• Example of Quantity Indicators: the number of international
passengers entering through airports and sea ports.
– The quality indicators illustrate certain conditions or
circumstances to be achieved(through the addition
of information about the scale / level of service produced)
• Examples of Quality Indicators: Proportion of the arrival
of international passengers processed through immigration in
30 minutes.
– Prices reflect the cost feasibility of indicators necessary
to achieve performance targets.
• Example of Price Indicators: immigration processing
fee per passenger.
27
2/3

4. Appropriate: The selected indicators should be in
accordance with efforts to increase the service /
performance
5. Reliable: the indicator used is accurate and can
follow the changes in performance levels;
6. Verifiable: it allows the validation process in the
system used to produce the indicator;
7. Cost-effective: the usefulness of indicators
comparable to the cost of data collection.
28
3/3

Indonesia’s Plan on ANSSR Bureaucratic Reform Measurement and Implementation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Indonesia’s Plan on ANSSR Bureaucratic Reform Measurement and Implementation

Similar to Indonesia’s Plan on ANSSR Bureaucratic Reform Measurement and Implementation (20)

More from Dadang Solihin

More from Dadang Solihin (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Indonesia’s Plan on ANSSR Bureaucratic Reform Measurement and Implementation