Contextual Public Service Planning: Bridging Administrative Planning and Local Realities in Papua’s Special Autonomy

Siti Fatimah, Andry Andry, Amril Hans

Abstrak


Public service planning plays a central role in determining the quality of government services. Yet standardised planning approaches often fail to accommodate the institutional, social, cultural, and geographical diversity found in regions with special autonomy, such as Papua. This study examines public service planning within Papua's Special Autonomy and explores the factors influencing service effectiveness in an asymmetrically decentralised setting. A qualitative case study was conducted using in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, field observations, and document analysis. The findings reveal that many public service challenges originate during the planning stage, where administrative procedures and standardised performance indicators often fail to reflect local realities. Field evidence further shows that social structures, customary land tenure, cultural values, ecological conditions, and local institutional relationships shape planning priorities and service outcomes. Building on these findings, this study proposes the Contextual Public Service Planning (CPSP) framework, which conceptualises local context as an integral component of the planning process rather than merely a factor affecting implementation. The study demonstrates that planning effectiveness depends not only on administrative compliance but also on the capacity of planning systems to respond to local social, cultural, and institutional realities.


Kata Kunci


Public Service Planning; Contextual Planning; Contextual Public Service Planning (SPSP): Asymmetric Decentralisation; Special Autonomy; Papua.

Teks Lengkap:

PDF (English)

Referensi


Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2008. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4):543–571. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032.

Arnstein, S. R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4):216–224. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225.

Bovaird, T., and E. Löffler. 2016. Public Management and Governance. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Bungin, B. 2011. Penelitian Kualitatif: Komunikasi, Ekonomi, Kebijakan Publik, Dan Ilmu Sosial Lainnya. Kencana.

Cleaver, F. 2012. Development through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management. London: Routledge.

Cooper, H. 1998. Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. 3rd ed. Sage.

Creswell, J. W. 2007. “Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches.”

Denhardt, R. B., and J. V Denhardt. 2015. The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. 4th ed. New York: Routledge.

Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2009. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage.

Eaton, K., K. Kaiser, and P. Smoke. 2011. The Political Economy of Decentralization Reforms: Implications for Aid Effectiveness. Washington, D.C: World Bank.

Faguet, J. P. 2014. “Decentralization and Governance.” World Development 53:2–13. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.002.

Fontana, A., and J. H. Frey. 2009. “The Interview: From Structured Questions to Negotiated Text.” in The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Sage.

Fung, A. 2015. “Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future.” Public Administration Review 75(4):513–522. doi: 10.1111/puar.12361.

Helmke, G., and S. Levitsky. 2004. “Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 2(4):725–740. doi: URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3688540.

Howlett, M., and M. Ramesh. 2020. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kitzinger, J. 1996. “Qualitative Research: Introducing Focus Groups.” BMJ 311(7000):299–302. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299.

Lehoux, P., B. Poland, and G. Daudelin. 2006. “Focus Group Research and ‘the Patient’s View.’” Social Science & Medicine 63(8):2091–2104. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.05.016.

Marlian, S., W. S. Sumadinata, and D. S. Sari. 2021. “The Evaluation of Policy Implementation on the ASN Performance Appraisal System.” Jurnal Manajemen Pelayanan Publik 4(2):177–195. doi: 10.24198/jmpp.v4i2.31048.

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. “Qualitative Data Analysis.”

Moustakas, C. 1994. Phenomenological Research Methods. Sage.

Osborne, S. P. 2010. The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge.

Patton, M. Q. 1987. How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Sage.

Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2017. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis—Into the Age of Austerity. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.

Scott, J. C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sekaran, U., and R. Bougie. 2016. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 7th ed. Wiley.

Smoke, P. 2015. “Rethinking Decentralization: Assessing Challenges to a Popular Public Sector Reform.” Public Administration and Development 35(2):97–112. doi: 10.1002/pad.1703.

Yin, R. K. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Yogyandaru, S. W., and I. Mayasari. 2020. “Analysis of the Fee Exemption Policy of Land and Building Rights Acquisition in Jakarta.” Jurnal Manajemen Pelayanan Publik 4(1):35–49. doi: 10.24198/jmpp.v4i1.27600.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/jmpp.v10i3.70101

Refbacks

  • Saat ini tidak ada refbacks.




 Jurnal Manajemen Pelayanan Publik Indexed By:

Google Scholar  Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) WorldCat Indonesia One Search          
 

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.