Uploaded by Information Iaeme

PUBLIC POLICY FORMULATION MODEL BASED ON LOCAL INTEREST IN BORDER AREAS

advertisement
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 10, Issue 04, April 2019, pp. 11-22, Article ID: IJCIET_10_04_002
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=04
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication
Scopus Indexed
PUBLIC POLICY FORMULATION MODEL
BASED ON LOCAL INTEREST IN BORDER
AREAS
Muhammad Yunus
Departement of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Hasanuddin
University, Makassar, Indonesia.
Fitriani, Vinsenco R. Serano, Albertus and Y. Maturan
Departement of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Musamus
University, Merauke, Indonesia.
Hasniati Hamzah
Departement of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Hasanuddin
University, Makassar, Indonesia.
ABSTRAK.
This study aims to analyze and condition the formulation or policy formulation in
border areas with very strong cultural influences, especially those directly adjacent to
other countries. The study focused on photographing policies that must be carried out
by the government against strong suspicions of inequality and the possibility of being
released from the sovereignty of the Indonesian state. This study uses a participatory
approach or also called the Participatory Rural Apraisal (PRA) method. The PRA
method is operated by involving people to participate in assessing, recognizing and
understanding what is needed quickly and together evaluating and searching for
solutions to the problems at hand. The results of the study show that the development
policies of the Border Areas in Merauke Regency have not been effective, due to the
absence of adequate regulations to regulate cross-border problems.
Keywords: policy formulation, development, border areas
Cite this Article: Muhammad Yunus, Fitriani, Vinsenco R. Serano, Albertus, Y.
Maturan and Hasniati Hamzah, Public Policy Formulation Model Based on Local
Interest in Border Areas. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
10(04), 2019, pp. 11-22.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=04
\http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
11
[email protected]
Discretion of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Public Services: A Case Study On Public Health In
Makassar
1. INTRODUCTION
Almost all of Indonesia's border areas are underdeveloped areas whose conditions are very
alarming as faces outside the country. So far the border area has been managed by prioritizing
a safety belt approach so that socio-economic development becomes neglected. The Central
Government is aware of the seriousness of this problem, and since 28 January 2010 has formed
a National Border Management Agency (BNPP) as an institution of coordination and
implementation of government programs to develop border areas.
The development of the border region has a very close relationship with the national
development mission, especially to guarantee territorial integrity and sovereignty, national
defense and security, and improve the welfare of the people in the border region. A new
paradigm, the development of border areas is to change the direction of development policies
that have tended to be oriented "inward looking", to be "outward looking" so that the area can
be used as a gateway to economic and trade activities with neighboring countries. The current
approach to developing the border region is to use the prosperity approach by not abandoning
the security approach.
Administratively, the land border area in Papua is in Papua Province, consisting of five
districts / cities, namely: (1) Keroom Regency, (2) Jayapura City, (3) Pegunungan Bintang
Regency, (4) Boven Digoel Regency, and (5 ) Merauke Regency.
The land border line in Papua which borders PNG as a whole is 760 kilometers long,
extending from Skouw, Jayapura to the north to the mouth of the Bensbach river, Merauke to
the south. This boundary was determined by an agreement between the Government of the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom on May 16, 1895. The number of pillar boundaries in the
Papua border region that stretches from north in Jayapura to the southern part of the Merauke
region is very limited and with very poor conditions. The number of main monuments (MM)
available is only 52, while the monument is found in the amount of 1792.
This area is also characterized by family and tribal attachments between the people of
Indonesia and PNG which lead to the flow of people and traditional trade in goods through
unofficial border doors. However, until 2007, remi / border posts were only found in Skouw,
Temi District (Jayapura City) and in Sota District (Merauke Regency).
The border area in Papua consists of forest areas, both conversion forests and protected
forests and national parks. Physically, most of the border area of Papua consists of mountains
and hills which are difficult to reach with the advice of four-wheeled and two-wheeled
transportation, the only means of transportation that can be reached is by airplane or helicopter.
However, when compared to PNG, the social and economic conditions of the Indonesian
people in the Border region are still relatively good.
Given the importance of the nagi border area of the integrity of the NKRI, a comprehensive
management policy is needed, and it is expected that border area development can be carried
out more planned, programmed, directed and measurable. The policy in question will certainly
be credible if it goes through the right and conditional stages according to the state of the region.
According to William Dunn (1998) that the policy stage consists of (1) agenda setting
(agenda setting), (2) policy formulation (policy formulating), (3) policy adoption / legitimacy
(policy adoption), (4) policy implementation ( policy implementation), (5) policy evaluation
(policy evaluation).
As we all know that before the formulation stage there was a stage of introducing an agenda
which was a very strategic phase and process in the reality of public policy. Before a policy is
established and implemented, policy makers need to set an agenda by including and selecting
which issues will be prioritized to be discussed.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
12
[email protected]
Muhammad Yunus, Fitriani, Vinsenco R. Serano, Albertus, Y. Maturan and Hasniati Hamzah
Problems related to policies will be collected as much as possible to be selected. If an issue
is successful in gaining status as a public problem, and gets priority on the public agenda, then
the issue has the right to get the allocation of public resources more than any other issue. In the
agenda setting is also very important to determine a public issue that will be raised in a
government agenda. Policy issues (policy issues) are often referred to as policy problems
(policy problems).
According to William Dunn (1998), policy issues are products or functions of debates both
about formulation, details, explanations and judgments on a particular problem. But not all
issues can enter into a policy agenda. The preparation of the policy agenda should be based on
the level of urgency and essence of the policy, as well as stakeholder involvement. A policy
must not obscure the level of urgency, essence and involvement of stakeholders. Problems that
have been included in the policy agenda are then discussed by policy makers.
These problems are then defined to find the best problem solving. Solving these problems
comes from various alternatives or existing policy options. It is the same as the struggle for a
problem to be included in the policy agenda, in the stage of formulating the policies of each
competing alternative to be chosen as a policy taken to solve the problem.
Policy formulation as part of the public policy process is the most crucial stage because
implementation and evaluation of policies can only be implemented if the policy formulation
stage has been completed, besides the failure of a policy or program to achieve its objectives,
mostly due to imperfections in the formulation stage (Wibawa ; 1994, 2).
Policy formulation as a process according to Winarno (1989, 53), can be seen in 2 (two)
types of activities, namely:
1. The first activity is to decide in general what is to be done or in other words the
formulation is directed to obtain an agreement on an alternative policy chosen, a decision that
approves is the result of the whole process.
2. Second Activity, directed at how policy decisions are made, in this case a policy decision
includes an action by an official or institution to approve, change or reject an alternative policy
chosen.
The most dominant actors in the stage of policy formulation are actors whose powers and
authority and interest groups are, which of course is influenced by external pressures and old
habits, as well as the influence of external and personal characteristics, as well as past
conditions. It becomes clear that policymakers ideally pay attention to all the effects, both
positive and negative of their actions, not only for the citizens of their geopolitical units, but
also for other citizens, and even future generations. Therefore, a responsible policy-making
process is a process that involves interaction between groups of scientists, leaders of
professional organizations, administrators and politicians.
The situation in the field gives us a clear picture that border problems still have not received
enough attention from the government. This is reflected in development policies that pay little
attention to border areas and are more directed towards densely populated areas, easy access,
and potential, while development policies for remote, isolated and disadvantaged areas such as
border areas are still not prioritized.
The RI-PNG border area of Sota district has considerable potential and has not been utilized
optimally. Apart from the fact that there are physical and socio-economic limitations in this
area, it is also due to the lack of attention of the center and local government The consequences
include economic inequality, and the lagging behind development that is close to or which
borders directly with foreign countries, namely Papua New Guinea. When compared with the
border area of neighboring PNG, there is an economic imbalance in which the development of
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
13
[email protected]
Discretion of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Public Services: A Case Study On Public Health In
Makassar
border areas in PNG is not as good as in Papua. In addition, the border area in PNG seems
closed compared to Papua, so access to PNG is relatively limited. The characteristics of the
Papua border region with PNG are different from other border areas in Indonesia such as West
Kalimantan with Sarawak or Batam with Singapore.
The slow pace of economic turnover and development in the border region of Indonesia PNG, as well as considering its border region, makes the Merauke Regency Government,
especially the Sota District Head, need a model to formulate policies in order to improve the
welfare of local people living in the Pebatasan area in the National Wasur Park, with does not
exclude security.
2. METHODOLOGY
This assessment activity was carried out through a field survey approach. The analytical
approach is a qualitative descriptive approach. The qualitative analysis approach is based on
information obtained from the results of field surveys in the form of interviews with
respondents and key informants or the results of Focus Group Discussion (FGD). The
analytical method is descriptive-qualitative analysis, which is describing and analyzing
secondary data, while qualitative analysis is intended for analysis of problems, potential, and
challenges as well as analysis of policy formulation (Alexander et al., 2018; Elisabeth et al.,
2018; Mangkoedihardjo, 2014; Philipus Betaubun and Nasra Pratama Putra, 2019; Supriyadi
et al., 2019).
3. RESULTS
Papua is the largest island owned by Indonesia, and has very rich natural resource potential.
Papua is also known as the largest producer of gold mines in the world, as well as other natural
wealth, such as oil mines, coal, forests, marine wealth, and natural scenery. But ironically, this
province is still one of the poorest in Indonesia. Poverty is common in remote areas and border
areas. These problems are increasingly complex considering the expanse of border areas in this
province is very broad and the typology varies.
Border management in Papua Province has not yet fully implemented management based
on the management of "communities." This is due to the still dominant dominance of policy
making in border management based on government interests. The general obstacle faced by
Papua Province is the development gap with characteristics: low accessibility, limited facilities
and infrastructure, relatively low population density, low quality of human resources, and not
yet optimal development.
Residents in border areas have low skills and lack of community income, thus impacting
their aspects of life such as health, education and housing. Related to the social reality that
people living in the border areas of Papua Province still have traditional and cultural unity, the
values and norms of adat are usually stronger than national norms and ties. This certainly can
be a problem in managing border areas. In addition, the role of civil society, academics and
others has not shown maximum contribution. The problem lies in the government's inability to
carry out development programs based on the interests of the community. Meanwhile programs
related to increasing regional capacity and competitiveness in Papua from the central, regional
and BUMN governments have not been optimal. This is due to the high sectoral ego and the
weak coordination between agencies, where they run on their own so that the program's impact
is barely heard. The involvement of the private sector in developing border areas is still
minimal, making the development of the border area not fast and orderly.
Another problem that often occurs in Papua is the transfer of boundaries, which usually
occurs in the border area of Boven Digoel Regency and Merauke Regency with the state of
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
14
[email protected]
Muhammad Yunus, Fitriani, Vinsenco R. Serano, Albertus, Y. Maturan and Hasniati Hamzah
Papua New Guinea. This shows the weak management of security issues in border areas. Shifts
in regional boundaries usually occur due to the absence of strict data regarding the exact
position of the location of the border region, so that it is easily moved. In addition, because of
the similarity of tribes and identities between the two tribes of different nationalities, the
borders of the state no longer matter.
Papua's geographical environment is surrounded by mountains. This is very difficult for
the construction of road infrastructure as access to residential settlements, especially in border
areas. Meanwhile, security in the vast border region of Papua requires cooperation in defense
and security among various parties. The region has been a crossing point for criminals in both
the Papua Province and the state of Papua New Guinea, separatist escapades and hideouts and
the entrance to the sale of marijuana.
Management of state borders and the construction of border areas in the Papua Province
must be carried out in a focused and systemic manner and have very high urgency. For this
reason, there is a need for a grand design, master plan and action plan that will guide all sectors
and regional heads involved in managing border areas in Papua. Because of geographical
factors which make the level of difficulty in reaching the border areas in Papua high, a separate
strategy is needed. Each relevant ministry / institution has programs and projects in overlapping
border areas. Therefore, the mechanism and coordination of integration and synchronization of
management of the Papua border area requires joint rules and commitments both at the central
government level and at the regional government level.
From the results of interviews, it was concluded that:
a. The community that lives around the official entrance of the Indonesian border (Sota)
wants a two-way engagement between the community and the government not only in making
the agenda setting but also in the policy formulation stage, so that it can guarantee the
representation of the needs of the people who implement the policy later.
b. Leaders The community that houses clans around the Sota District states that so far there
has been no government effort to involve Indigenous People or Community in the stage of
policy formulation, and hopes that in the future they can involve them in the process, so that
the government also knows and knows the value customary or cultural values in making policy
choices, so that the policies chosen can at least remain in the correct paths of local cultural
values.
c. Religious leaders stated that they fully supported the selection of policies chosen by the
government because in fact the voice of the government was the voice of the people / society
that God had left. However, if it is allowed, religious leaders are also invited to attend, listen
and provide input on the selection of policies to be chosen.
d. Academics argue that according to the theory of public policy, in the stage of policy
formulation it is only focused on how a strategic leader decides from several alternative policies
that exist, so that it will open opportunities for influences and intervention from outside and
inside parties. Then it takes a neutral leader attitude so that it can produce the right policy
selection. Of course this must involve many parties to provide input to the leader, especially
from the community who feel the direct policy that will be implemented later.
e. Political actors claim that the policy decisions chosen are indeed the rights of strategic
leaders in the government, by listening to input from expert staff or colleagues and / or leaders
above.
f. Strategic leaders argue that as leaders have tried to consider all policy choices at the stage
of policy formulation, it's just that wise thinking is needed and has a capable decision-making
ability while still receiving input from all parties.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
15
[email protected]
Discretion of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Public Services: A Case Study On Public Health In
Makassar
g. The government has always been involved in the policy formulation stage by being
invited to provide input on policies that will be the choice of the leader.
Group Disscusion Forum (FGD) which brings together 7 elements to see whether the results
of interviews conducted previously will be aligned or different after direct discussion. And it
turned out that the FGD results stated that the majority wanted a change in the process of policy
formulation stages, which involved many elements not only political stakeholders.
This proves that there is a common perception between the results of previous interviews
with the results of the FGD, a pattern of change is formed, especially for the actors who will
be involved in the stages of policy formulation which have been very close to the possibility
of influences from actors who will feel the implementation of the policy.
4. DISCUSSION
Tjokroamidjojo (1991) says that policy formulation is the same as policy formation is a series
of actions to choose various alternatives that are carried out continuously and never completed,
in this case including decision making. Further on the state (public) policy-making process,
Udoji (Wahab; 2001, 17) formulated that state policy making as "The whole process of
articulating and defining problems, formulating possible solutions into political demands,
channeling those demands into the political systems , seeking legitimacy of the preferred course
of action, legitimacy and implementation, monitoring and review (feedback).
These stages reflect ongoing activities that occur over time. Each stage is related to the next
stage, and the last stage (policy assessment) is associated with the first stage (agenda setting)
or the middle stage in activities that are not linear.
Policy formulation as a process according to Winarno (1989, 53), can be seen in 2 (two)
types of activities, namely:
1. The first activity is to decide in general what is to be done or in other words the
formulation is directed to obtain an agreement on an alternative policy chosen, a decision that
approves is the result of the whole process.
2. The second activity is directed at how policy decisions are made, in this case a policy
decision includes an action by an official or institution to approve, change or reject an
alternative policy chosen.
In line with Winarno's opinion, Islamy (1991, 77) divides the policy formulation process
into the formulation of policy issues, arranging government agendas, formulating policy
proposals, ratifying policies, implementing policies and evaluating policies, as below:
a. Formulation of policy issues.
In principle, even if a particular event, situation and situation can cause one or several
problems, so that it becomes a public problem depends not only on its objective dimension, but
also subjectively, both by the community and decision makers, is seen as a problem which
should be solved or found a way out. Therefore, a problem, to be able to turn into a common
problem is not only enough to be experienced by many people as a problem that needs to be
addressed immediately, but the community needs to have political will to fight for it and more
importantly, the problem is responded positively by policy makers and they are willing to fight
for a common problem that becomes a policy problem, put it into the government agenda and
try it into public policy, then the first step that must be done by each policy maker is to identify
the problem to be solved and then make the clearest formulation of the problem. This activity
is an attempt to determine the identity of the policy problem by first understanding and
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
16
[email protected]
Muhammad Yunus, Fitriani, Vinsenco R. Serano, Albertus, Y. Maturan and Hasniati Hamzah
understanding the nature of the problem so that it will be easier to determine the nature of the
policy formulation process.
b. Compilation of government agendas.
Because there are so many public problems identified, decision makers will choose and
determine which problems should be given top priority to be taken seriously and actively, so
that this government agenda usually has a characteristic that is more concrete and limited in
number.
Anderson (1966, 57-59) mentions several factors that can cause general problems to be
included in the government agenda, namely:
If there is a threat to balance between groups (equlibirium group), where the groups hold a
reaction and demand government action to take the initiative to overcome this imbalance.
Political leadership can also be an important factor in the preparation of the government's
agenda, when political leaders are encouraged by consideration of political gain or involvement
in paying attention to the public interest, so that they always pay attention to public problems,
disseminate and propose solutions.
Furthermore, after the public problem is put on the government agenda, the decision makers
process it into phases, which Jones (ibid) divides into 4 (four) stages, namely:
(1) problem definition agenda, namely things (problems) that get active and serious
research and formulation from decision makers;
(2) agenda proposals, namely things (problems) that have reached the proposed level,
where there has been a change in the phase of formulating the problem into the problem solving
phase;
(3) bargaining agenda, namely the policy proposals were offered to get active and serious
support; and
(4) continuing the agenda, namely things (problems) that are discussed and assessed
continuously.
c. Formulation of policy proposals
This stage is an activity of compiling and developing a series of actions that need to solve a
problem, including:
(1) Identification of alternatives is done for the sake of problem solving. Regarding
problems that are almost the same or similar, policy alternatives that have been chosen can be
used, but for new problems, policy makers are required to creatively discover and identify new
policy alternatives so that each alternative is clearly characteristic, because of identification
true and clear in each alternative policy will simplify the alternative formulation process.
(2) Defining and formulating alternatives, aiming for each of the alternatives that have been
collected by the policy maker to be clear in their understanding, because the more clearly the
alternative is given understanding, the easier the policy maker will assess and consider the
positive and negative aspects of each alternative that is.
(3) Assessing alternatives, namely the activity of giving weights to each alternative, so that
it is clear that each alternative has its own weight and weaknesses, so that by knowing the
weight of each alternative, decision makers can decide which alternative is more allow to be
implemented / used. To be able to properly assess various alternatives, certain criteria and
relevant information are needed.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
17
[email protected]
Discretion of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Public Services: A Case Study On Public Health In
Makassar
(4) Choosing satisfying alternatives. The process of choosing a satisfying alternative or the
one that is most likely to be implemented can only be done after the policy maker has succeeded
in evaluating alternative policies. An alternative that has been satisfactorily chosen will be a
policy proposal that has been anticipated to be implemented and has a positive impact. The
stage of satisfying alternative alternatives is always objective and subjective, in the sense that
policy makers will assess alternative policies in accordance with the ability of the ratio they
have, based on consideration of the interests of the parties who will obtain influence as a
consequence of their choice.
d. Ratification of policy
As a collective process, endorsement of policy is a process of joint adjustment and acceptance
of principles that are recognized and accepted (comforming to recognized principles or
accepted standards). The main foundation for adopting is social variables such as the system
of values of society, state ideology, political system and so on.
The process of ratifying a policy usually begins with persuasion and bargaining activities
(Andersson; 1966, 80). Persuasion is defined as "Efforts to convince others about something
truth or value of one's position, so they want to accept it as their own". While Bergaining is
translated as "A process in which two or more people who have the power or authority regulate
/ adjust at least some of the goals that they do not agree on in order to form a series of actions
that can be accepted together even though that is not ideal for them".
Those included in the bargaining category are agreements (negotiations), give and take and
compromise. Both persuasion and bargaining, both complement each other so that the
application of both activities or processes will facilitate the process of ratification of the policy.
As a process, the policy formulation stage consists of several components (elements) that
relate to each other so that they form a systemic pattern in the form of input - process - output
- feedback. According to Wibawa (1994, 13), the components (elements) contained in the
policy formulation process are:
a. Action.
Policy actions are intentional actions which are always carried out in an organized and
repetitive manner to form certain patterns of action, so that eventually they will create norms
of action for the policy system. If in the early stages of the growth of the policy system and the
objectives of the system are determined in advance to determine what actions will be taken to
achieve these objectives, then in the next turn, when the system is in place, the norm formed
by the pattern of action will change or at least affect the objectives system.
b. Actor.
People or actors involved in the process of policy formulation will provide support and
demands and become targets of policies produced by the policy system. The most dominant
actor in the policy formulation stage with internal demands, in the sense of having the power
or authority to determine the content and give legitimacy to the policy formulation, is called a
policy maker. Meanwhile, actors who have other qualifications or characteristics with external
demands are known as interest groups, political parties, professional elite leaders and others.
To be able to continue playing in the system, they must have a commitment to the rules of the
game, which was initially formulated jointly by all actors.
At this level the commitment of the actors will make them obey the common rules or norms.
In addition, compliance with these norms is even a necessity, because it is assumed that
achieving system goals will be realized if all actors comply with common norms.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
18
[email protected]
Muhammad Yunus, Fitriani, Vinsenco R. Serano, Albertus, Y. Maturan and Hasniati Hamzah
e. Value orientation.
The process of policy formulation in principle relates to the process of identifying and
analyzing diverse values and then determining values that are relevant to the interests of the
community, so that each policy produced will have value implications, both implicitly and
explicitly. Therefore, actors who play a role in policy formulation do not only function to create
a balance between different interests (muddling through or balancing interests), but also must
function as valuers (valuers), namely being able to create an agreed value together based on
rational judgments in order to achieve maximum results.
The stage of policy formulation as a process carried out by involving stakeholders (actors)
to produce a series of actions in solving public problems through identification and analysis of
alternatives, is inseparable from the values that influence the actions of the actors in the process.
Anderson (1966), Winarno (1989, 16) and Wibawa (1994, 21) suggest that the values
(measures) that influence the actions of decision makers in the process of policy formulation
can be divided into several categories, namely:
a. Political values, where decisions are made on the basis of political interests of political
parties or certain interest groups.
As generally in the critical paradigm in public policy, then in the phase of public policy
formulation, the political reality surrounding the public policy making process should not be
released in the focus of the study, because if we let go of the political reality from the public
policy making process, the policy produced will poor aspects of the field while public policy
itself has never been sterile from the political aspect. In this context, the policy formulation
process is understood as a decision-making process that is largely determined by power factors,
where the sources of power come from social strata, bureaucracy, academics, professionalism,
and capital strength and so on.
b. Organizational values, in this case decisions are made on the basis of the values adopted
by the organization, such as rewards and sanctions (sanction) that can affect members of the
organization to accept and implement them. At this level, the actions taken by stakeholders are
more influenced and motivated by group interests and behavior, so that in turn, the resulting
policy products better accommodate their organizational interests than the overall public
interest. Therefore, there is a need for a systemic device that is able to eliminate this tendency.
c. Personal values, where decisions are often made on the basis of personal values adopted
by the decision maker to maintain the status quo, reputation, wealth and so on. The process of
policy formulation in this context is better understood as a process that focuses on aspects of
human emotions, personality, motivation and interpersonal relationships. The focus of this
view is who gets what value, kappa he gets the value and how he actualizes the values he has
embraced.
d. Policy values, in this case the decision is made on the basis of the perception of policy
makers about the public interest or moral policy making and can be accounted for. Included in
this category are moral values, justice, independence, freedom, togetherness and others. This
view sees how policy makers as personal are able to respond to stimulation from their
environment. That is, here, there will be a lot to see about how a policymaker recognizes
problems, how they use the information they have, how they determine choices from various
alternatives, how they perceive the reality encountered, how information is processed and how
information is communicated in the organization.
e. Ideological values, where ideological values such as nationalism can be the basis of
policy making, both domestic and foreign policies. In addition, ideology is also still a means
to rationalize and legitimize policy actions carried out by the government.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
19
[email protected]
Discretion of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Public Services: A Case Study On Public Health In
Makassar
Whereas according to Nigro and Nigro (Islamy; 1991, 25), the factors that influence the
policy formulation process are:
a. The influence of external pressures.
Although there is a policy formulation approach with the name "rationale comprehensive"
which means that the administrator as the decision maker must consider alternatives that will
be chosen based on rational judgment, but the process and formulation of policy cannot be
separated from the real world, so that external pressure influences towards the policy
formulation process.
b. The influence of old habits.
Organizational old habits such as capital investment habits, sources and time for the activities
of a particular program tend to always be followed, even though these decisions have been
criticized as something wrong that needs to be changed, especially if an existing policy is
considered satisfactory.
c. The influence of personal traits.
Various kinds of decisions made by decision makers are much influenced by his personal
characteristics, such as in the process of receiving or appointing new employees, often the
factors of the personal characteristics of decision makers play a huge role.
d. There is influence from outside groups.
The social environment of decision makers is also very influential, even often making decisions
is done by considering the experience of other people who were previously outside the policy
formulation process.
e. The influence of past conditions.
Past training experience and work experience influences decision making or even people who
work in the head office often make decisions that are not in accordance with the conditions in
the field, this is due to concerns that delegation of authority and responsibility to others will be
misused.
Value issues in the discourse of public policy analysis are metapolicy aspects because they
involve substance, perspective, attitudes and behavior, both hidden and openly stated by the
actors responsible for public policy formulation. The value problem is relevant to be discussed
because there is one assumption that ideally the policy maker should have the wisdom as a king
philosopher, who is able to make and implement his policies fairly so as to maximize public
welfare without violating personal freedom. Then policy decisions inevitably must take into
account multiple values. Awareness of the importance of multiple values is based on the notion
of "ethical pluralism", which in the theory of decision making is often referred to as "multi
objective decision making".
So in this study offers a model of policy formulation especially for border areas that have
the same conditions and characteristics as the Sota District of Merauke Regency, which is an
innovation consideration of opinions according to Islam (1991, 77), Wibawa (1994, 13),
Anderson (1966), Winarno (1989, 16) and Wibawa (1994, 21), and Nigro and Nigro (Islamy;
1991, 25), by including all elements of actors in the community to consider policy formulations
that right to implement.
Actors in this formulation model involved are:
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
20
[email protected]
Muhammad Yunus, Fitriani, Vinsenco R. Serano, Albertus, Y. Maturan and Hasniati Hamzah
a. Strategic Leadership, is the main actor and determinant at the stage of policy formulation,
which will decide which policy formulation is the right one to implement.
b. Religious leaders, with the conditions of traditional culture and society that highly value
religious leaders in a cultured environment, consideration is needed from religious leaders who
live in border areas.
c. Customary leaders, similar to religious leaders, customary leaders are more respected
than the government, so much consideration is needed from local traditional leaders who
juxtapose border areas, so that they can be input and receive support from indigenous / local
communities in general.
d. Local Communities, people who are domiciled in border areas who will feel first hand
the implementation of policies that will be implemented.
e. Politicians, political actors are needed as a balance between group interests and the
general interests of society as a whole
f. Academics, it takes elements of education and technology that understand the needs of
the community, the needs of politicians, with the compatibility of theories or mechanisms or
good stages.
g. The government is absolutely involved because the government is the element of the
actor who prepares the funds and who implements the policy in the future.
h. Local Culture, all policy choices should consider the local culture and customs so that
there is no violation of local cultural values.
i. Non-Governmental Organizations, are neutral institutions that will be a balance when
considering and implementing policies.
The involvement of these actors can be done in stages by presenting all elements of the
actors, namely:
1. Direct and documented interviews
2. Focus Group Discossion
3. Informal discussions
The results of these activities are then documented and summarized in an official document
validated by the Government / Regional Government and signed which is known to all
elements of the actors involved. This official document is a matter of consideration for the
strategic leadership in the selection of policy formulations especially in accordance with the
conditions of the region, society and culture in the border area, in this case Sota District,
Merauke Regency, Papua.
5. CONCLUSION
Prospects and Progress Towards National Policy Border management is closely related to
national and state sovereignty issues, community welfare, public services to border
communities that are still lagging behind and neglected, and healthy environmental
sustainability.
Structuring the border area is closely related to the process of nation and state building
(nation and state development) which can minimize the emergence of potential internal
conflicts in a country and even with other countries. The handling of national borders is
essentially part of the effort to realize the space of the archipelago as a unit of geography,
politics, economy, socio-culture, and defense and security.
The success or failure of a community development policy depends on the accuracy and
accuracy of the policy. In this policy, there should be items of activities that will be
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
21
[email protected]
Discretion of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Public Services: A Case Study On Public Health In
Makassar
implemented in the governance and development of the community. Therefore, policy
formulation must depart from the root of the underlying problems in the place to be developed.
The most crucial policy stage is the stage of policy formulation, so many actors need to be
involved to give consideration to strategic leaders who are central actors who in the end are
choosing the right policy formulation. The policy formulation model concerning the actors and
elements involved in this stage in this study recommends 8 actors and 1 element, namely
Strategic Leadership, Religious Leaders, Customary Figures, Local Communities, Politicians,
Academics, Government, Local Culture, and Non-Governmental Organizations Society.
Recommendations from various actors with the model offered are expected to be able to
achieve the objectives of effective border area management, also need to have crossministerial, sector and government agency coordination the impact that is felt for people in the
region.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
Abdul Wahab, Solichin. 2001. Analisis Kebijakan dari Formulasi ke Implementasi
Kebijakan Negara. Edisi Kedua. Jakarta : Bumi Aksara.
Alexander Phuk Tjilen, Fitriani, Hesty Tambayong, Albertus Yosep Maturan, Samel
Watina Ririhena and Fenty Y. Manuhutu, 2018. Participation in Empowering Women
and the Potential of the Local Community Economy, a Case Study in Merauke
Regency, Papua Province, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and
Technology, 9(12), pp. 167–176.
Anderson J.E, 1966, Cases in Public Making, New York, Preger Publisher.
Bintoro Tjokroamidjojo. 1991. Pengantar Administrasi Pembangunan. LP3ES. Jakarta.
Dina Limbong Pamuttu, Herbin F Betaubun and Ashari Jalil, 2018. Testing of Peat Soil
Compressive Strength Using Mixed Materials of Calcium and Cement, International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(10), pp. 883–886.
Dunn, William N. 1998. Analisa Kebijakan Publik. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University
Press.
Elisabeth Lia Riani Kore, Funnisia Lamalewa, Ari Mulyaningsih. 2018. The Influence of
Promotion, Trust, and Convenience to Online Purchase Decisions, International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Technology 9(10), pp. 77–83.
Islamy, Irfan M., 1991, Prinsip-prinsip Perumusan Kebijaksanaan Negara, Bumi Aksara
Jakarta.
Mangkoedihardjo, S. 2014. Three Platforms for Sustainable Environmental Sanitation.
Current World Environment, 9(2): 260-263.
Philipus Betaubun and Nasra Pratama Putra, 2019. Budget Planning Information System
for Simple Housing in Merauke District,International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 10(2), pp. 783-792.
Supriyadi, Richard S. Waremra and Philipus Betaubun, 2019. Papua Contextual Science
Curriculum Contains with Indigenous Science (Ethnopedagogy Study at Malind Tribe
Merauke), International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 10(02), pp. 1994–
2000
Wibawa, Samodra. Purbokusumo, Yuyun. Pramusinto, Agus. 1994. Evaluasi Kebijakan
Publik. PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Winarno B, 1989, Teori dan Proses Kebijakan Public, Yogyakarta, Medpress.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
22
[email protected]
Download
Random flashcards
State Flags

50 Cards Education

Countries of Europe

44 Cards Education

Art History

20 Cards StudyJedi

Sign language alphabet

26 Cards StudyJedi

Create flashcards