Thematic Development Trends in Government Bureaucracy Research: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on Global Databases

Authors

  • M. Rafi Department of Government Sciences, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Riau, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3775-2014
  • Muchid Albintani Department Government Sciences, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Riau, Indonesia
  • Ardiansyah Ardiansyah Department of Law Studies, Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Riau, Indonesia
  • Al Fauzi Rahmat Doctoral School of Economic and Regional Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), Hungary
  • Alam Mahadika Department Ethnopolitics, Kazan Federal University, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62503/gr.v4i1.49

Keywords:

Bibliometrics Analysis, Government Bureaucracy, Research Trends, Scopus

Abstract

The gap and limited global references in interpreting government bureaucracy (GB) studies have underpinned the urgency of this study. The purpose of this study is to identify thematic development trends in articles on government bureaucracy (GB). Through bibliometric analysis using the R Studio package Biblioshiny, this literature review examines articles on GB from 2016 to 2025. Using data from 109 journal articles retrieved from the Scopus database and focusing on subject trends, co-occurrence, thematic evolution, and international collaboration networks. The results of the study indicate that the development of government bureaucracy (GB) research themes reflects the changing circumstances that initially were mostly conducted at the national and international government levels, continuing to spread to local governments with the main subject keywords including bureaucracy, corruption, government bureaucracy, international development, and local government as rapidly growing topics in the study of GB. In addition, this study still has limitations because it only examines English-language publications from the last ten years on social science subjects and Scopus databases. The researcher recommends a more comprehensive data coverage, scope, and various other languages to emphasize the need for increased attention to the study of GB. 

References

Abner, G., Perry, J. L., & Fucilla, L. (2020). Experiments on the effects of positive and negative perceptions of a public sector profession. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(5), 1025–1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1729823

Acharya, K. K., & Scott, J. (2022). A study of the capabilities and limitations of local governments in providing community services in Nepal. Public Administration and Policy, 25(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-01-2022-0006

Alshater, M. M., Hassan, M. K., Rashid, M., & [Nama Penulis Selanjutnya]. (2022). A bibliometric review of the Waqf literature. Eurasian Economic Review, 12, 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-021-00183-4

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 conceptualisation of the obstacles in Greece. Sustainability, 12(18), 7687. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187687

Ardiansyah, W., Suparto, Rafi, M., & Amri, P. (2024). Bibliometric analysis and visualization of state administrative law in Scopus database from 2017–2021. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2310935

Asyikin, N. (2020). Legal politics of bureaucratic reform in really good governance according to prophetical law. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 28(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v28i1.10393

Bernstein, A., & Rodríguez, C. (2023). The accountable bureaucrat. Yale Law Journal, 132(6), 1600–1690. https://yalelawjournal.org/article/the-accountable-bureaucrat

Brieba, D., Herrera-Marín, M.-R., Riffo, M., & Garrido, D. (2024). Inside the black box: Uncovering dynamics and characteristics of the Chilean central government bureaucracy with a novel dataset. Latin American Politics and Society, 66(3), 107–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/lap.2023.41

Brierley, S., Lowande, K., Potter, R. A., & Toral, G. (2023). Bureaucratic politics: Blind spots and opportunities in political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 26, 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-061621-084933

Campbell, J. W. (2021). Representative bureaucracy, immigrants, and trust in government: A cross-national study. Public Administration Issues, 6(2), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2021-0-6-7-23

Cetina Presuel, R., & Meléndez-Schwartz, J. M. (2024). The adoption of artificial intelligence in bureaucratic decision-making: A Weberian perspective. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 5(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3609861

Charbonneau, É., & Doberstein, C. (2025). The scarce evidence behind hybrid and telework policies in government. International Public Management Journal, 28(4), 496–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2024.2430214

Choi, S. (2018). Bureaucratic characteristics and citizen trust in civil service in OECD member nations. International Area Studies Review, 21(2), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/2233865917753899

Chong, S. P. C., Tee, C. M., & Cheng, S. V. (2021). Political institutions and the control of corruption: A cross-country evidence. Journal of Financial Crime, 28(1), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-05-2020-0094

Christensen, J., & Mandelkern, R. (2022). The technocratic tendencies of economists in government bureaucracy. Governance, 35(1), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12578

Christensen, J. G., & Mortensen, P. B. (2024). Coping with the unforeseen: Bounded rationality and bureaucratic responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Public Policy, 44(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X23000284

Costa, M., Desmarais, B. A., & Hird, J. A. (2019). Public comments’ influence on science use in U.S. rulemaking: The case of EPA’s national emission standards. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018795287

Culbert, J. H., Hobert, A., Jahn, N., Haupka, N., Schmidt, M., Donner, P., & Mayr, P. (2025). Reference coverage analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 130(4), 2475–2492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05293-3

Diamond, P. (2020). Polycentric governance and policy advice: Lessons from Whitehall policy advisory systems. Policy & Politics, 48(4), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15870482509817

Fleischer, J., & Reiners, N. (2021). Connecting international relations and public administration: Toward a joint research agenda for the study of international bureaucracy. International Studies Review, 23(4), 1230–1247. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa097

Gromova, A., Šuriņa, S., Seņkāne, S., Ortega, J. L., Melngalve, D., & Mārtinsone, K. (2026). Academic and social impact of creative arts therapies research (2017–2022): A Scopus-based bibliometric and altmetric study. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 13, 102408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102408

Halling, A., & Baekgaard, M. (2024). Administrative burden in citizen–state interactions: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(2), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad023

Kardoyo, H., Salomo, R. V., Atmoko, A. W., & Hidayat, D. (2025). Integration of Indonesia's government research and development institutions into single agency: Neo-Weberian state or not? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 85, 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.70003

Kelman, S., Sanders, R., & Pandit, G. (2017). "Tell it like it is": Decision making, groupthink, and decisiveness among U.S. federal subcabinet executives. Governance, 30, 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12200

Kenderdine, T. (2017). China’s industrial policy, strategic emerging industries and space law. Asia & The Pacific Policy Studies, 4(2), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.177

Kunnuji, M. O. N., Robinson, R. S., Shawar, Y. R., & Shiffman, J. (2017). Variable implementation of sexuality education in three Nigerian states. Studies in Family Planning, 48, 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12043

Lameck, W. U. (2023). Political decentralisation and political-administrative relation in the local councils in Tanzania. Public Administration and Policy, 26(3), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-07-2022-0077

Lee, D. S., Ryu, S., & Park, S. (2023). Determinants of local civil servants’ perceptions of intergovernmental tensions: Experimental evidence from Korea. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(5), 1113–1144. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2193176

Leutert, W., & Eaton, S. (2021). Deepening not departure: Xi Jinping’s governance of China’s state-owned economy. The China Quarterly, 248(S1), 200–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741021000795

Mashur, D., Mayarni, M., Handoko, T., & Rafi, M. (2023). Global literature trend on collaborative governance (Scientometric analysis in the social sciences discipline). Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 11(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.26811/peuradeun.v11i1.829

Meijer, A., Lorenz, L., & Wessels, M. (2021). Algorithmization of bureaucratic organizations: Using a practice lens to study how context shapes predictive policing systems. Public Administration Review, 81, 837–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13391

Meltsner, A. J. (2024). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy. University of California Press.

Monteiro, P., & Adler, P. S. (2022). Bureaucracy for the 21st century: Clarifying and expanding our view of bureaucratic organization. Academy of Management Annals, 16(2), 427–475. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2019.0059

Öztürk, O., Kocaman, R., & Kanbach, D. K. (2024). How to design bibliometric research: An overview and a framework proposal. Review of Managerial Science, 18(11), 3333–3361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0

Pattanapokinsakul, K., Kattiyapornpong, U., Niyomdecha, L., & Sangthong, S. (2025). The evolution and future of wellness tourism: A two-phase review and a six-dimensional thematic framework. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies, 25(3), 819–832. https://doi.org/10.69598/hasss.25.3.277224

Peeters, R., & Campos, S. A. (2022). Street-level bureaucracy in weak state institutions: A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(4), 977–995. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221103196

Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2022). Bringing political science back into public administration research. Governance, 35(4), 962–982. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12705

Phan, A., Inouye, T., & Hayashi, K. (2025). Corruption among small and medium firms in Vietnam: The glass half empty. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-025-00243-x

Pierre, J., Letamendi, C., Sleiter, L., Bailey, Z., Dannefer, R., Shiman, L., Gutierrez, J., Martins, E., & S., R. (2020). Building a culture of health at the neighborhood level through governance councils. Journal of Community Health, 45(4), 871–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00804-0

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

Resnick, D., & Siame, G. (2022). Organizational commitment in local government bureaucracies: The case of Zambia. Governance, 36(3), 933–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12713

Sager, F., & Rosser, C. (2021). Weberian bureaucracy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.166

Santoso, A. D., & Lionardo, A. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of thematic developments in street-level bureaucracy research. Public Administration and Policy, 27(2), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-06-2023-0082

Schuster, C., Mikkelsen, K. S., Correa, I., & Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2022). Exit, voice, and sabotage: Public service motivation and guerrilla bureaucracy in times of unprincipled political principals. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(2), 416–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab028

Shi, P. (2017). The ‘bureaucratized’ project system: An organizational study of Chinese central governmental earmarked projects. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 3(3), 409–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X17719852

Shubham, S., Shi, L., & Wu, X. (2021). The policy capacity of bureaucracy. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1399

Suhardiman, D., & Mollinga, P. P. (2017). Institutionalized corruption in Indonesian irrigation: An analysis of the upeti system. Development Policy Review, 35, O140–O159. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12276

Sun, D., Zeng, S., Chen, H., Meng, X., & Jin, Z. (2019). Monitoring effect of transparency: How does government environmental disclosure facilitate corporate environmentalism? Business Strategy and the Environment, 28, 1594–1607. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2335

Sutiyoso, B. U., & Faedlulloh, D. (2024). Navigating social capital development through organisational citizenship behaviour in local government bureaucracy. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2386708

Tee, C., & Teoh, T. M. (2024). The cost of debt and political institutions: The influence of corruption. Journal of Financial Crime, 31(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-08-2022-0192

Trondal, J., & Haslerud, G. (2024). Bureaucratic bias in integrated administrative systems: A large-scale study of government officials. Governance, 37(2), 475–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12780

Turtz, M. (2025). The necessity of bureaucracy and the fixation of legitimacy. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-07-2024-0189

Vel, J., Zakaria, Y., & Bedner, A. (2017). Law-making as a strategy for change: Indonesia’s new Village Law. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 4(2), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2017.21

Zacka, B. (2022). Political theory rediscovers public administration. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-125131

Downloads

Published

2026-04-21

How to Cite

Rafi, M., Albintani, M., Ardiansyah, A., Rahmat, A. F., & Mahadika, A. (2026). Thematic Development Trends in Government Bureaucracy Research: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on Global Databases. Government & Resilience, 4(1), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.62503/gr.v4i1.49

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 1 (2026): Government & Resilience (April 2026)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 M. Rafi, Muchid Albintani, Ardiansyah Ardiansyah, Al Fauzi Rahmat, Alam Mahadika

Creative Commons License

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.