Institutional Constraints in Local Bureaucratic Reform: Evidence from Konawe Selatan Regency
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52423/neores.v7i2.1263Keywords:
bureaucratic reform, institutional constraints, local governance decentralizationAbstract
Bureaucratic reform has become a central agenda in public administration, yet implementation outcomes remain uneven, especially in decentralized systems where local governments translate national reform mandates into practice. This article examines how institutional constraints shape bureaucratic reform implementation in Konawe Selatan Regency, Indonesia. Using a qualitative evaluative case study, the analysis draws on documentary evidence from the assessment of the 2015–2019 reform cycle and the formulation of the 2020–2024 bureaucratic reform roadmap, complemented by five semistructured interviews with anonymized key informants (I1–I5) involved in reform coordination, human resource management, performance monitoring, and policy advisory functions. Findings indicate that reform underperformance is driven less by the absence of policy than by interconnected institutional misalignment across four dimensions. Regulative constraints emerged through policy incoherence and limited operational guidance, producing interpretive variation and compliance-driven implementation. Structural constraints reflected fragmented reform machinery and discontinuous coordination, weakening sustainability across staffing changes. Capacity constraints involved limited competence in performance-based management and uneven technological readiness, contributing to the persistence of procedural routines. Political constraints were evident in weak reform ownership and limited leadership innovation, allowing reform to remain a routine administrative agenda rather than a strategic governance priority. The study contributes by reframing local bureaucratic reform failure as an institutional alignment problem rather than a managerial deficiency. Practically, it suggests that local governments should govern reform as a sequenced institutional alignment strategy—strengthening roadmap intelligibility, institutionalizing coordination, prioritizing capability-building, and sustaining political ownership to shift reform from symbolic compliance toward durable governance improvement.
References
Andrews, M. (2013a). Explaining positive deviance in public sector reforms in development (No . 2013 / 117; WIDER Working Paper).
Andrews, M. (2013b). The Limits of Institutional Reform in Development: Changing Rules for Realistic Solutions. Cambridge University Press.
Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building State Capability Evidence, Analysis, Action. Oxford University Press.
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2017). Improving policy implementation through collaborative policymaking. Policy & Politics, 45(3), 467–486. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557317X14972799760260
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2022). Translating Global Goals to Local Contexts. In C. Ansell, E. Sørensen, & J. Torfin (Eds.), Co-Creation for Sustainability (Issue September, pp. 41–56). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-798-220220004
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., & Trondal, J. (2024). Robust Governance in Turbulent Times. Cambridge University Press.
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108765381
Belsare, H. V. (2024). PESTLE Analysis. International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR), 13(02), 608–612. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/20411
Bolívar, H. A., Klemperer, E. M., Coleman, S. R. M., Desarno, M., Skelly, J. M., & Higgins, S. T. (2022). Contingency Management for Patients Receiving Medication for Opioid Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 78(10), 1092–1102. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1969
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2015). Creating public value in practice advancing the common good in a multi-sector, shared-power, no-one-wholly-in-charge world. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18116
Capano, G., & Oliveira, V. E. de. (2025). Do Policy Capacities Matter for Federal Policy Design? Evidence From the Implementation of Three Social Policies in Brazil. Public Administration and Development, 00(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2104
Capano, G., & Toth, F. (2023). Thinking outside the box , improvisation , and fast learning : Designing policy robustness to deal with what cannot be foreseen. Public Administration, 101, 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12861
Cepiku, D. (2015). Performance management in public administrations. In Thomas R. Klassen, D. Cepiku, & T. J. Lah (Eds.), Handbook of Global Public Policy and Administration (Issue July, p. 1=24). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4898.1601
Cepiku, D., & Mastrodascio, M. (2021). Leadership behaviours in local government networks : an empirical replication study. Public Management Review, 23(3), 354–375. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1679233
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2021). The Routledge Handbook to Accountability and Welfare State Reforms in Europe. Routledge.
Cordella, A., & Paletti, A. (2019). Government as a platform , orchestration , and public value creation : The Italian case. Government Information Quarterly, September, 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101409
Criado, J. I., & Gil-garcia, J. R. (2026). Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies and beyond. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0178
de Vries, G. (2020). Public Communication as a Tool to Implement Environmental Policies. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 244–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12061
de Vries, M., & Nemec, J. (2013). Public sector reform: an overview of recent literature and research on NPM and alternative paths. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551311293408
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Giardina, M. D., & Canella, G. S. (2024). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Sixth Edition (Sixth). SAGE Publications, Inc.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095101
Faguet, J. P. (2014). Decentralization and Governance. World Development, 53, 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.002
Gong, Y., & Janssen, M. (2023). Why Organizations Fail in Implementing Enterprise Architecture Initiatives? Information Systems Frontiers, 25, 1401–1419. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10298-x
Grindle, M. S. (2017). Politics and Policy Implementation in the Third World (Princeton). Princeton University Press. https://welib.org/slow_download/97b3de549b874932b8472621d4e870be/0/0
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2021). Implementing Public Policy: An Introduction to the Study of Operational Governance (Fourth). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(Spring), 3–19.
Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2018). Routledge Handbook of Policy Design. Routledge.
Indra, V., Nasution, A., Yuliani, I., Akadira, T., & Saleha, E. (2024). Transforming Governance : Indonesia ’ s Digital Leap from Bureaucracy to Big Data in the Era of Society 5 . 0. Proceedings of the 6th Open Society Conference (OSC 2024), Osc. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-340-5
Kettl, D. F. (2015). The Transformation of Governance: public administration for the twenty-first century. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kim, B.-J. (2019). Unstable Jobs Cannot Cultivate Good Organizational Citizens: The Sequential Mediating Role of Organizational Trust and Identification. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(7), 1102. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071102
Ladner, A., Keuffer, N., Bastianen, A., Ladner, A., Keuffer, N., & Bastianen, A. (2025). Local autonomy around the world : the updated and extended Local Autonomy Index ( LAI 2 . 0 ). Regional and Federal Studies, 35(2), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2023.2267990
Lapuente, V., & Van de Walle, S. (2020). The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance, 33(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12502
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge University Press.
McLeod, R. H., & Harun, H. (2014). Public Sector Accounting Reform at Local Government Level in Indonesia. Financial Accountability & ManagementManagement, 30(2), 238–258. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12035
Meijer, A. (2024). Perspectives on the twin transition : Instrumental and institutional linkages between the digital and sustainability transitions. Information Polity, 29, 35–51. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-230015
Mergel, I. (2015). Open collaboration in the public sector: The case of social coding on GitHub. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.004
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation : Results from expert interviews ☆. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations : Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293
Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management : constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press.
Osborne, S. P. (2018). The New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance (second). Routledge.
Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutional Theory in Political Science : The New Institutionalism. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis—Into the Age of Austerity. (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Prasojo, L. D., Habibi, A., Faiz, M., & Yaakob, M. F. M. (2019). An Explanatory Sequential Study on Indonesian Principals’ Perceptions on ICT Integration Barriers. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 17(1), 1–10.
Prihatin, P. S., & Wicaksono, A. (2022). Grindle Policy Implementation Theory in Analysis of Forestry Conflict In Pelalawan District, Riau Province. Jurnal Kajian Pemerintah: Journal of Government, Social and Politics, 7(2), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.25299/jkp.2021.vol7(2).9493
Pritchett, L., Sen, K., & Werker, E. (2018). Deals and Development : The Political Dynamics of Growth Episodes. Oxford University Press.
Rufini, L. O. M., Alam, S., Kadir, A., Sudirman, F. A., & Badari, A. T. (2025). Network Governance and Institutional Linkages for Strengthening Regional Innovation in Southeast Sulawesi. Public Administration and Development, 00, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.70047
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: ideas, interests, and identities. In Sage Publications. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Smoke, P. (2015). Managing public sector decentralization in developing countries: moving beyond conventional recipes. Public Administration and Development, 35, 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1736
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021). Accountable Government through Collaborative Governance? Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11040127
Sutiyono, W., Pramusinto, A., & Prasojo, E. (2018). Introduction to the mini special issue: understanding governance in Indonesia. Policy Studies, 39(6), 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1530416
The World Bank. (2020). Indonesia Village Governance under the new Village Law (2015-2018): Sentinel Villages Report (Issue May). https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/220661590726265687/pdf/Indonesian-Village-Governance-Under-the-New-Village-Law-2015-2018-Sentinel-Villages-Report.pdf
The World Bank. (2023). Village governance, politics, and participation in Indonesia. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099041023205010865/pdf/P17456201ebbc407f09b96056c2374ee87f.pdf
Torfing, J., Ferlie, E., Jukić, T., & Ongaro, E. (2021). A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value. Policy and Politics, 49(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16108172803520
Torfing, & Sørensen. (2019). Interactive Political Leadership in Theory and Practice: How Elected Politicians May Benefit from Co-Creating Public Value Outcomes. Administrative Sciences, 9(3), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030051
Turner, M., Prasojo, E., & Sumarwono, R. (2022). The challenge of reforming big bureaucracy in Indonesia. Policy Studies, 43(2), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1708301
Vries, M. S. de, & Nemec, J. (2025). 35 Years of Public Sector Reform in Central Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.
Weible, C. M. (2018). Theories Of The Policy Process (C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.); 4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003308201
Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2018). Theories of the Policy Process. Routledge.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 NeoRespublica : Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
NeoRespublica : Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan is licensed under a 