Building Bureaucratic Capacity for Improved Public Service Quality in Makassar City, Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62503/gr.v4i1.48Keywords:
Bureaucratic Capacity, Public Service Performance, Local Government, Political Will, Community EngagementAbstract
The shift toward regional autonomy in Indonesia aims to bring public services closer to the community, with the expectation of improving service quality and ensuring that the benefits are felt by all stakeholders. However, local governments continue to face significant challenges in meeting the growing demand for high-quality public services, especially in crucial sectors such as clean water, health, population management, and licensing. This research evaluates the bureaucratic capacity of Makassar City, South Sulawesi, from 2020 to 2024, using a qualitative approach and descriptive analysis. Data was gathered through interviews with 12 key informants and secondary sources, including official documentation. The analysis reveals that the public service performance in Makassar does not meet community expectations, mainly due to limitations in the local government's bureaucratic capacity. These limitations include insufficient personal, organizational, and system capacities, weak political will, and low community engagement. The study concludes that improving bureaucratic capacity is essential for enhancing public service delivery. To address these challenges, the study proposes four key policy recommendations: 1) Developing a strategic plan for bureaucratic capacity building, 2) Innovating government policies to better meet community needs, 3) Implementing participatory reforms, and 4) Investing in information technology to enhance governance. The main contribution of this research is providing a deeper understanding of the role of bureaucratic capacity in improving quality of public service and developing policies that are more responsive to the needs of the community.
References
Andrews, R. (2012). Social Capital and Public Service Performance: A Review of the Evidence. Public Policy and Administration, 27(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076710394399
Apostolopoulos, N., Liargovas, P., Stavroyiannis, S., Makris, I., Apostolopoulos, S., Petropoulos, D., & Anastasopoulou, E. (2020). Sustaining rural areas, rural tourism enterprises and EU development policies: A multi-layer conceptualization of the obstacles in Greece. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187687
Batley, R., & Mcloughlin, C. (2015). The Politics of Public Services: A Service Characteristics Approach. World Development, 74, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.018
Bauer, M. W., & Ege, J. (2016). Bureaucratic autonomy of international organizations’ secretariats. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 1019–1037. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1162833
Bayulgen, O. (2020). Localizing the energy transition: Town-level political and socio-economic drivers of clean energy in the United States. Energy Research and Social Science, 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101376
Bel, G., Esteve, M., Garrido-Rodríguez, J. C., & Zafra-Gómez, J. L. (2023). Corporatization in Spanish Local Government: Governing the Diversity. In Corporatisation in Local Government: Context, Evidence, and Perspectives from 19 Countries (pp. 335–355). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09982-3_15
Blanton, R. G., Blanton, S. L., & Peksen, D. (2023). Resource Wealth: A “Curse” for Labor Rights? Comparative Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231178732
Burns, D., Hambleton, R., & Hoggett, P. (1994). The Politics of Decentralisation: Revitalising Local Democracy. Red Globe Press London. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23397-7
Calhoun, C., Drummond, W., & Whittington, D. (2013). The Machine in the Desert: Lessons from the design and implementation of a computer system for the Sudanese Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. In Sudan after Nimeiri (pp. 184–206). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203388266
Christensen, R. K., Paarlberg, L., & Perry, J. L. (2017). Public Service Motivation Research: Lessons for Practice. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12796
Colley, L., McCourt, W., & Waterhouse, J. (2012). Public employment as a dynamic field of study: Lessons from reform in public administration. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(6), 467-482. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551211282675
David, N., McNutt, J. G., & Justice, J. B. (2018). Smart cities, transparency, civic technology, and reinventing government. In Public Administration and Information Technology (Vol. 24, pp. 19–34). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58577-2_2
Doberstein, C. (2022). Assessing the Promise and Performance of Agencies in the Government of Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 600–618. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423922000324
Ejersbo, N., & Svara, J. H. (2012). Bureaucracy and Democracy in Local Government. In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195367867.013.0009
Ficapal-Cusí, P., Enache-Zegheru, M., & Torrent-Sellens, J. (2020). Linking perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and knowledge sharing with prosocial organizational behavior of altruism and civic virtue. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(24), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410289
Filippetti, A., & Cerulli, G. (2018). Are local public services better delivered in more autonomous regions? Evidence from European regions using a dose-response approach. Papers in Regional Science, 97(3), 801–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12283
Foa, R. S. (2022). Decentralization, historical state capacity, and public goods provision in Post-Soviet Russia. World Development, 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105807
Gorsky, M., & Manton, J. (2023). The political economy of ‘strengthening health services’: The view from WHO AFRO, 1951-c.1985. Social Science and Medicine, 319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115412
Simangunsong, F. (2016). Metodologi Ilmu Pemerintahan. Pusat Kajian Inovasi Pemerintahan dan Kerjasama Antar Daerah. http://eprints.ipdn.ac.id/2629/
Hansen, F. G. (2022). How impressions of public employees’ warmth and competence influence trust in government. International Public Management Journal, 25(6), 939–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2021.1963361
Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the “hollow state”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2000.tb01152.x
Huang, B., Wu, J., & Ye, L. (2023). Fiscal decentralization, intergovernmental mobility, and the innovativeness of local governments’ policy response in COVID-19: Evidence from China. Public Administration and Development, 43(2), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2007
Huque, A. S. (2011). Some neglected aspects of performance in field administration in Bangladesh. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(5), 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.561475
Janssen, M., & Klievink, B. (2010). Gaming and simulation for transforming and reengineering government: Towards a research agenda. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 4(2), 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161011047361
Katz, R. H. (1994). Reengineering government through information technology: The national performance review. In IFIP Transactions A: Computer Science and Technology (No. A-52, pp. 372–379).
Ke, L., & Liu, S. (2023). Local Governments’ Adoption of Innovative Infrastructure Finance Tool: Evidence From Pennsylvania Municipalities. Public Finance Review, 51(4), 513–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/10911421231153787
Klüser, K. J. (2022). From bureaucratic capacity to legislation: how ministerial resources shape governments’ policy-making capabilities. West European Politics, 46(2), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2022.2030602
Kusnandar, I. (2019). Analysis of the basic public administration service quality. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 11(5 Special Issue), 918–926. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85071833805
Laksana, R. D., Mayasari, V., & Setyanto, R. P. (2020). Model of disorientation and disqualification of peripheral services in public services on local government device work units in Central Java, Indonesia. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 17, 842–848. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2020.17.82
Lanin, D., Saputra, B., Syamsir, & Magriasti, L. (2023). Assessing the Mediating Effect of the Role of Public Managers Between Service Quality and Public Satisfaction of Multiple Ethnicities in Local Governments in Sumatra, Indonesia . Public Policy and Administration, 22(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ppaa.22.1.33725
Lim, S. (2014). Compliance with International Norms: Implementing OECD DAC Principles in South Korea. Globalizations, 11(6), 859–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2014.904158
Ma’ruf, M. I. H. M. (2022). Peran Reformasi Birokrasi dalam Pelayanan Publik: Studi Kasus Bagian Perencanaan dan Keuangan Setda Kota Medan. JIKEM: Jurnal Ilmu Komputer, Ekonomi Dan Manajemen, Vol 2 No 1 (2022): JIKEM: Jurnal Ilmu Komputer, Ekonomi, dan Manajemen, 884–891. https://jurnal.unimen.cloud/index.php?journal=JKM&page=issue&op=view&path%5B%5D=72
Martitah, Sumarto, S., & Widiyanto. (2021). E-Government’s Effect On Corruption Reduction In Indonesian Local Government Bureaucracy: A Case Study In Central Java. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 24(Special Issue 1), 1–12. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85116024860&partnerID=40&md5=40a8b37797e673d3184824298825118e
Medrano, A. (2023). Subnational policy innovation: The birth of social pensions in Mexico. Social Policy and Administration, 57(3), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12863
Meričková, B. M., Štrangfeldová, J., Muthová, N. J., & Štefanišinová, N. (2020). Performance measurement in public education services based on the value for money concept. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice, Series D: Faculty of Economics and Administration, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.46585/sp28031099
Mulyaningsih. (2021). Peran media komunikasi pemerintahan dan perilaku birokrasi dalam pelayanan publik pada masa pandemi di Jawa Barat. Jurnal Dialektika: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Vol. 19 No. 2 (2021): Jurnal Dialektika: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, 68–84. https://jurnaldialektika.com/index.php/piani/article/view/8/9
Nevers, J.-Y. (2016). The ‘iron triangle’ of municipal government: trade unions, bureaucracy and political parties in a French town (Toulouse, 1910-1970). In Municipal Services and Employees in the Modern City: New Historic Approaches (pp. 159–176). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315596402-9
Núnez-Barriopedro, E., Penelas-Leguía, A., López-Sanz, J. M., & Loranca-Valle, M. C. (2023). A public service management model as an antecedent for citizen satisfaction and fiscal policy. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2022-1547
Ohemeng, F. L. K., & Foli, R. K. (2022). The “illusion” of administrative sovereignty in developing countries: A historical institutionalism perspective on administrative sovereignty in Ghana. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 44(4), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2022.2138193
Ordóñez, M. (2023). Loyal to the Executive: The Effect of State Capacity on Local Horizontal Accountability . Revista de Ciencia Politica, 43(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-090X2023005000101
Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (2000). The Reinventor’s Fieldbook: Tools for Transforming Your Government. Jossey-Bass.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health, 42(2), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Peraturan Presiden (PERPRES) Republik Indonesia Nomor 81 Tahun 2010 tentang Grand Design Reformasi Birokrasi 2010-2025, (2010).
Pratama, A. B., & Imawan, S. A. (2019). A scale for measuring perceived bureaucratic readiness for smart cities in Indonesia. Public Administration and Policy, 22(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-01-2019-0001
Putera, P. B. (2012). Korupsi di daerah: Salah jalan penyelenggaraan administrasi daerah. Jurnal Borneo Administrator, 8(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.24258/jba.v8i2.87
Putera, P. B., Suryanto, S., Ningrum, S., Widianingsih, I., & Rianto, Y. (2022). Using Convergent Parallel Mixed Methods and Datasets for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Dynamics Research in Indonesia. ASEAN Journal on Science and Technology for Development, 39(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.29037/ajstd.845
Putera, P. B., Widianingsih, I., Ningrum, S., Suryanto, S., & Rianto, Y. (2022). Overcoming the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia: A Science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy perspective. Health Policy and Technology, 11(3), 100650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100650
Putera, P. B., Widianingsih, I., Ningrum, S., Suryanto, S., & Rianto, Y. (2023). Policy Dynamics in Contemporary Public Administration Studies: A Conceptual Analysis. Public Policy and Administration (Viešoji Politika Ir Administravimas), 22(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ppaa.22.1.31435
Resnick, D., & Siame, G. (2023). Organizational commitment in local government bureaucracies: The case of Zambia. Governance, 36(3), 933–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12713
Risqiana, E. (2017). Peran birokrasi dalam komunikasi dengan warga melalui BBM-an (Bapak Bupati Mendengar) di Kabupaten Batang. Unnes Civic Education Journal, Vol 3 No 1 (2017), 25–34. https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/ucej/article/view/3926/3557
Savoia, A., & Sen, K. (2015). Measurement, evolution, determinants, and consequences of state capacity: A review of recent research. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(3), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12065
Shortell, S. M., O’Brien, J. L., Carman, J. M., Foster, R. W., Hughes, E. F., Boerstler, H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1995). Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement/total quality management: concept versus implementation. Health Services Research, 30(2), 377–401.
Stumpf, I. (2016). Reinventing government and the separation of powers. Acta Juridica Hungarica, 57(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2016.57.1.4
Sukowati, P., & Nelwan, V. (2019). Role of the regional bureaucracy of East Java Province in natural disaster management policy integrative based on community. Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 7(4), 730–736. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85076229386&partnerID=40&md5=d8e8d2f25afdf2abcbc2ba5e997b8746
Suryanarayan, P., & White, S. (2021). Slavery, Reconstruction, and Bureaucratic Capacity in the American South. American Political Science Review, 115(2), 568–584. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000933
Taylor, I., & Kelly, J. (2006). Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK: Re-visiting Lipsky. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(7), 629–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610704662
Tay, J., Rapoport, A., Ta, J., Crawley, J., & Kichler, D. (2025). Administrative challenges in local government: A case study of urban public service systems. Journal of Urban Governance, 10(2), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2025.1150607
Tensay, A. T., & Singh, M. (2020). The nexus between HRM, employee engagement and organizational performance of federal public service organizations in Ethiopia. Heliyon, 6(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04094
Vakkuri, J. (2010). Struggling With Ambiguity: Public Managers As Users Of NPM-Oriented Management Instruments. Public Administration, 88(4), 999–1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01856.x
Van Den Bekerom, P., Van Der Voet, J., & Christensen, J. (2021). Are Citizens More Negative About Failing Service Delivery by Public Than Private Organizations? Evidence From a Large-Scale Survey Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa027
Varotsis, N. (2022). Exploring the influence of telework on work performance in public services: experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance , 24(5), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-11-2021-0152
Wahyono, H., & Narmaditya, B. S. (2022). Structural model of the application of anti-corruption values to local government bureaucrats. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100346
Woodhouse, E. F., Belardinelli, P., & Bertelli, A. M. (2022). Hybrid Governance and the Attribution of Political Responsibility: Experimental Evidence from the United States. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(1), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab014
Zhu, J., Xiao, H., & Wu, B. (2022). From big data to higher bureaucratic capacity: Poverty alleviation in China. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12907
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jamal Qadar, Besse Herlina, Zulfachri Zulfachri, Sofyan Marzuki
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
1. Licence
Use of articles will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license as currently displayed on the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
2. Author(s)' Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by the stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third-party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).
3. User Rights
The spirit of Government & Resilience is to disseminate articles published as freely as possible. Under the Creative Commons license, Government & Resilience permits users to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. Users will also need to attribute authors and Government & Resilience for distributing works in journals and other media of publication.
4. Rights of Authors
Authors retain all their rights to the published works, such as (but not limited to) the following rights:
1. Copyright and other proprietary rights relating to the article, such as patent rights,
2. The right to use the substance of the article in future works, including lectures and books,
3. The right to reproduce the article for own purposes,
4. The right to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the article's published version (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal (Government & Resilience).
5. Co-Authorship
If the article was jointly prepared by more than one author, any author submitting the manuscript warrants that he or she has been authorized by all co-authors to agree on this copyright and license notice (agreement) on their behalf and agrees to inform his or her co-authors of the terms of this policy. Government & Resilience will not be held liable for anything that may arise due to the author's internal dispute. Government & Resilience will only communicate with the corresponding author.
6. Royalties
Being an open-access journal and disseminating articles for free under the Creative Commons license term mentioned, the author(s) are aware that Government & Resilience entitles the author(s) to no royalties or other fees.
