Post on 28-Nov-2014
description
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
GOVERNANCE
IN 2025
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)
A government free of corruption, collusion and nepotism
Improved Public Service
Professional performance
BUREAU
CRACY
REFORMS
A WORLD CLASS
GOVERNANCE IN 2025
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
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
IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Organization restructuring 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.
• Designing BR Road Map for Ministries/Institutions and Local Government 1
• Submitting BR Proposal Documents 2
• Evaluating BR Proposal Documents and Road Map 3
• Approval Mechanism for Implementing BR and Allowances in Institutions 4
• BR Criteria and Measurement 5
• Business Processes 6
• Implementing Change Management Program 7
• Implementing Quick Wins 8
• Implementing Knowledge Management Programs 9
corruption prevention
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
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?