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?