Beralih ke bagian utama
Artikel Riset Asli Akses Terbuka Terakreditasi SINTA 2

Problematizations of Discretion Policy in Indonesia’s Administration Law Number 30 of 2014

Penulis

  • Andi Wahyudi
  • Center for Public Administration Studies and Government Official Training III, National Institute of Public Administration
DOI
10.21787/jbp.09.2017.73-81
Tanggal Terbit & Halaman
7 Juni 2017 · Hlm. 73-81
Riwayat Naskah
Diterima7 Jun 2017 Terbit7 Jun 2017
Baca PDF 486 KB Kutip

799 Dilihat 586 Diunduh

Abstrak

Problematizations of Discretion Policy in Indonesia’s Administration Law Number 30 of 2014

This paper aims to discuss problematizations of discretion issue in the Administration Law 2014. Discretion is one of some discussed issues in the Administration Law which provides a legal guidance for bureaucrats to conduct their jobs. Drawing on Bacchi’s WPR (What is problem represented to be?) approach to policy analysis, this paper interrogates what ‘problem(s)’ is (are) produced in the policy document, what presuppositions are used as arguments to support the ‘problems’, what left as unproblematic issue that is absence in the policy problematizations, and what effects are produced by the ‘problem’ representation. The paper finds out that rules and procedures are the key concepts which assumed as policy ‘problems’ related to discretion issue. Neglecting the certain rules and procedures will be considered as doing illegal action. Only public managers have the discretionary power or managerial discretion, but in a limited room, because of upper manager’s intervention. However, this discretion policy remains an inefficient and rigid process in facing certain situation because, in exercising discretion, they have to obey certain rules and procedures. In addition, staffs do not have discretionary authority within their jobs although they might also face some certain situation which needs to make decisions.

Kata Kunci:

Baca Naskah Lengkap

Isi lengkap artikel ini tersedia dalam format PDF. Versi resmi yang diterbitkan pada Vol 9 No 1 (2017).

Buka PDF

Daftar Pustaka

18 rujukan
  1. Alexander, S. A., & Coveney, J. (2013). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Canadian and Australian Public Health Recommendations Promoting Physical Activity to Children. Health Sociology Review, 22(4), 353–364. http://doi.org/10.5172/hesr.2013.22.4.353
  2. Bacchi, C. (2012). Why Study Problematizations? Making Politics Visible. Open Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 1–8. http://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2012.21001
  3. Bacchi, C. (2015). Problematizations in Alcohol Policy. Contemporary Drug Problems, 42(2), 130–147. http://doi.org/10.1177/0091450915576116
  4. Bacchi, C. (2016). Problematizations in Health Policy. SAGE Open, 6(2), 2158244016653986. http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016653986
  5. Bacchi, C. L. (2009). Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be? Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.
  6. Barsoum, G. (2015). “Job Opportunities for the Youth”: Competing and Overlapping Discourses on Youth Unemployment and Work Informality in Egypt. Current Sociology, 64(3), 430–446. http://doi.org/10.1177/0011392115593614
  7. Bastian, A., & Coveney, J. (2013). The Responsibilisation of Food Security: What Is the Problem Represented to Be? Health Sociology Review, 22(2). Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-3166335921/the-responsibilisation-of-food-security-what-is-the
  8. Can, E. (2005). Nazaruddin Menolak Putusan Hakim. Retrieved September 19, 2016, from https://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2005/12/14/05570609/nazaruddin-menolak-putusan-hakim
  9. Dwiyanto, A. (2015). Reformasi Birokrasi Kontekstual. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
  10. Hill, M. J. (2013). The Public Policy Process (6th ed.). Essex: Pearson.
  11. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureacracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service (30th ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  12. Natalia, D. L. (2015). Siti Fadilah Mengaku Tak Tahu Pengadaan Alkes Terkait Flu Burung. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://www.antaranews.com/berita/517074/siti-fadilah-mengaku-tak-tahu-pengadaan-alkes-terkait-flu-burung
  13. Payne, S. (2014). Constructing the Gendered Body? A Critical Discourse Analysis of Gender Equality Schemes in the Health Sector in England. Current Sociology, 62(7), 956–974. http://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114531968
  14. Primandari, T. (2015). Dahlan Iskan Menang Praperadilan, Jaksa Agung Tetap Semangat. Retrieved September 19, 2016, from https://nasional.tempo.co/read/news/2015/08/04/063689139/dahlan-iskan-menang-praperadilan-jaksa-agung-tetap-semangat
  15. Taylor, I., & Kelly, J. (2006). Professionals, Discretion and Public Sector Reform in the UK: Re‐visiting Lipsky. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(7), 629–642. http://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610704662
  16. Thiel, S. van. (2014). Research Methods in Public Administration and Public Management: An Introduction. Oxon-UK: Routledge.
  17. Wahyudi, A. (2016). Problematizations of Organizational Reform Policy at National Institute of Public Administration, Republic of Indonesia. Public Policy and Administration Research, 6(9), 37–46. http://doi.org/10.7176/PPAR-6-9-37-46
  18. Wülferth, H. (2013). Managerial Discretion and Performance in China: Towards Resolving the Discretion Puzzle for Chinese Companies and Multinationals. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Artikel paling banyak dibaca berdasarkan penulis yang sama