Review Report
Public sector reform and its paradox outcomes: the case of Indonesia
Harun Harun, Monir Mir, Mahobbot Ali, and Yi An
Summary of the paper
The paper has striven to bring about in discussion a very interest topic in public sector
accounting in less developed countries (LDCs). The paper argues that many LDCs have in
recent years streamlined their public sector accounting through the adoption of measures that
are widespread in western countries, for instance, accrual accounting, performance budgeting,
and performance-based monitoring and evaluation systems, amongst others. A number of
reasons have been presented so as to justify the attempts of LDCs to embrace such measures
in their public administration, including the pressure by resources providers and the political
change coupled with the emergence of new a regime/leader. The authors argue that the very
notion of reforms such as reinforcing accountability, transparency, autonomy, and
decentralisation, has been questioned in the context of LDCs. Instead, demonstrating the
public sector reforms embarked on in the aftermath of Suharto, the authors argue that the
implementation of such reforms has led to cronyism at the Indonesian local levels. The paper
emphasises the importance of understanding a social, political, and cultural context of LDCs
so as to gain insights into the on-going public sector reforms.
Comments
The paper is well structured, easier to follow, and provides a good overview of the pros and
cons of NPM reforms at Indonesian local levels. Some comments below can however be
useful in the revision of the manuscript.
1. The paper is rather descriptive and there is an absence of theoretical contribution. The authors
may think of connecting it with some theoretical perspectives so as to elaborate our
understanding of the use of theories in public sector accounting. One of the main criticisms of
public sector accounting research in LDCs is their lack of theoretical and critical
underpinnings. The paper should attempt to fill out this gap in the public sector accounting
literature.
2. Although the paper argues for the imperative of considering the social-political and cultural
aspects of LDCs, less attention has throughout the empirical section been devoted to relating
the data with the specific context of Indonesian local governments. Much attention has been
paid to the functionalist conception of NPM and its dissemination within the Indonesian local
context rather than locating those refroms in their specific context.
3. The objective of the paper should be more specific. It touches many issues such as internal
auditing, corruption, decentralisation, and devolution of decision-making authority, amongst
others. However, empirical evidence supporting these issues is rather weak. The authors can
perhaps emphasise one particular reform and facilitate rigorous discussion on that particular
issue rather than discussing all reforms. The paper is also weak in terms of delineating the
agential perspectives, the ways the local actors are structured, and their involvement in the
institutionalisation/de-institutionalisation of reforms. How has the unique Indonesian culture
contributed to (re)shaping the agential behaviour both in the Suharto and post-Suharto era?
4. The contribution of the paper is weak. Perhaps the authors could discuss the reforms at the
Indonesian local governments in parallel with similar NPM reforms undertaken in other
Asian countries. In that way, it would be easier to trace the specific context of Indonesia. The
weakening state capacity and cultural ecology of Javanese-style, which are claimed to be the
main factors leading to the unintended consequences of reforms in Indonesia, should be
stated at the outset in order to provide the readers more clarity of the Indonesian local
context.
5. The implications of Indonesian local government accounting reforms to other LDCs should
be discussed.
Pawan Adhikari
Essex Business School