A review of administrative reforms in Indonesia.

2. Private
sector
Society
State
Private
sector
Society
State
Private
sector
Society
State
Private
sector
Society
State
Dictatorship or Kingdom
Countries
Indonesia During
The Old Era
Indonesia During
The New Era
Democratic and Transp
Countries
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

3. 1. PARTICIPATION of society to decision making
2. RULE OF LAW implemented fairly and certainly
3. TRANSPARENCY of government information
4. RESPONSIVENESS to the needs of society
5. CONSENSUS ORIENTATION in policy making
6. EQUITY of increasing and keeping prosperity
7. EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY on tasks
8. ACCOUNTABILITY of government programs
9. STRATEGIC VISION to realize good governance

4. • The aggregate machinery (policies, rules,
procedures, systems, organizational structures,
personnel, etc.) funded by the state budget and in
charge of the management and direction of the
affairs of the executive government, and its
interaction with other stakeholders in the state,
society and external environment.
1
• The management and implementation of the
whole set of government activities dealing with
the implementation of laws, regulations and
decisions of the government and the management
related to the provision of public services.
2

5. Public Administration Reform can be very
comprehensive and include process changes in
areas such as organizational structures,
decentralization, personnel management,
public finance, results-based management,
regulatory reforms , or it can also refer to
targeted reforms such as the revision of the civil
service statute (BUREAUCRACY REFORM).
GOOD
GOVER
NANCE

6. New public
management, starting
in the early 1980s,
began implementing
wide ranging reform
programmes that
provided both the
model and the
experience that could
be applied in
developing countries
Structural adjustment
reforms -- in the mid
1980s, efforts at
reforming the public
administration in
developing countries,
focused on reducing
overall costs of the
government
Transition from central
planning to market
economy and from
single party systems to
multi-party
democracies in the
1990s. This implied the
reorientation of the
system of public
administration

7. Recent surveys find
that citizens want
state institutions that
are democratic,
efficient in the use of
public resources,
effective in delivering
public goods, but also
strong and capable of
standing up to
powerful global
forces.
People want the state and
its public administration
to act as a social and
economic promoter,
capable of ensuring
equitable distribution of
opportunities, sustainable
management of resources
and equitable access to
opportunities (political,
economic, social and
cultural)
The objectives of
Indonesian
Administrative through
Bureaucracy Reform:
•A government free of
corruption, collusion
and nepotism;
•Improved public
service; and
•A focus on
performance.
A
WORLD
CLASS
GOVERN
ANCE
IN 2025

8. 2007
• Indonesia
commenced its
bureaucratic
reforms (BR) in
2007 with
three pilot
projects:
Ministry of
Finance,
Supreme Audit
Board and
Supreme Court
2010
•A number of
government institutions
participated in the
reform.
•More than 16 new
government institutions
submitted the BR
proposal to be reviewed
by the national BR
management unit
2010/11
•State Ministry for
Administrative and
Bureaucracy
Reform released
the final draft of
Grand Design for
Bureaucracy
Reform (2010 –
2025) and Road
Map for
Bureaucracy
Reform (2010 –
2014)

9. A government free of corruption,
collusion and nepotism
Improved Public
Service
Professional
performance
BUREAU
CRACY
REFORMS
A WORLD
CLASS
GOVERNANCE
IN 2025

10. Business process improvements and subsequently
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) development
and improvement for better service delivery;
Human resources improvement, including pay reform;
Regulation improvement and synchronization; and
Governance and anti-corruption improvement

11. Steering Committee for National
Bureaucracy Reform
Chair: Vice President
Members: Coordinating Ministers, Minister
of PAN, Minister of Finance, Minister of
Home Affairs, Head of UKP4
Independent
Team
National BR Management Unit
Chair: Minister of PAN
Members: Several Ministers
BR Team of
Ministry/Agency
BR Team of
Regional
Government
Quality
Assurance
Team

12. IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Organizationrestructuring Improve business processes
Improve HRM and discipline
enhancement
DEFINING THREE LEVELS IN THE BR PROGRAM
Macro –addresses the establishment of BR structures, the
BR legal/policy framework and BR tools and mechanisms
Meso – addresses BR
facilitation mechanisms
Micro – addresses BR
implementation in institutions
PLANNING THREE PHASES OF BR IMPLEMENTATION
PILOT PHASE - implement BR in three government
institutions, allowing them for refinement of the reform
framework and the implementation approach
SECOND PHASE - rollout to a number of
key institutions that have demonstrated
readiness for reform;
THIRD PHASE - roll out to all other
institutions upon demonstration of their
readiness for reform
DEVELOPING BR GRAND DESIGN AND ROAD MAP
The Steering Committee through the National BR Team developed the BR Grand Design 2010-2025 and the BR Road Map
2010-2014, along with a series of guidelines to guide reforms.

13. • Designing BR Road Map for Ministries/Institutions and Local Government1
• Submitting BR Proposal Documents2
• Evaluating BR Proposal Documents and Road Map3
• Approval Mechanism for Implementing BR and Allowances in Institutions4
• BR Criteria and Measurement5
• Business Processes6
• Implementing Change Management Program7
• Implementing Quick Wins8
• Implementing Knowledge Management Programs9

14. corruption prevention

15. READINESS FOR
IMPLEMENTING BR
Readiness for/ track record
in conducting BR
Readiness of internal BR
Team
Readiness of BR Design and
Strategy
STRATEGIC
IMPACT
Efficiency and/or optimization of
budget
Improvement in the quality of
service delivery
Improvement in the accountability
of bureaucracy performance and
corruption prevention

16. Institutional Structures - What institutional structures were established to design, manage and
monitor the reform? What mandate and authorities are held by these institutions? What
mechanisms were established to hold the agencies in charge of the reforms accountable for
results from those reform efforts?
Reform Framework - What frameworks were established to guide and support reforms, in terms of
laws and regulations, policies, programs, Road Maps, guidelines? What were key substantive
features (content) of those frameworks? What other support was available to those involved in
planning and managing reforms?
Implementation Strategy - How were reforms rolled out across ministries and local government?
Were there pilot phases? Was the strategy one of incremental reform or opportunism? Civil service-
wide or ministry-by-ministry approach? How was the implementation process held accountable for
both taking the agreed actions but also for achieving well specified results?
Compensation Reform - What were the core drivers behind compensation reform? How
compensation reform was made affordable? How was it linked to administrative reform? What were
the key features of compensation reform?