Alienation in the Implementation of Public Services Mall Policy (MPP) in Banyumas Regency
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Policy alienation was developed to better understand the experience of frontline public professionals with new policies. The study of policy alienation examines the problems that arise from the implementation of certain policies. The implementation of the Public Service Mall policy is intended to unite services from the central government, local government and private sector in one place. This research focuses on alienation in policy implementation, especially on the implementation of the Public Service Mall (MPP) policy in the Banyumas Regency. The research method used in this study is qualitative. The data analysis method used is an interactive analysis model. The results of the study indicate that policy alienation in the implementation of the Public Service Mall policy in Banyumas Regency does not occur spontaneously, but because of the emergence of various reactions and events on the implementation of the Public Service Mall policy in Banyumas Regency through various actions, such as refusal to integrate licensing and non-licensing services from several agencies. Then, another reason is the limited authority possessed by public employees in MPP. Another factor behind the occurrence of policy alienation in the implementation of the Banyumas Regency Public Service Mall is the limited budget and human resources.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- The journal allow the authors to hold the copyright without restrictions and allow the authors to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
References
Borrelli, L. M. 2018. Whisper down, up and between the lanes: Exclusionary policies and their limits of control in times of irregularized migration. Public Administration, 96, 803-816.
Candel, J. J., & Biesbroek, R. 2016. Toward a processual understanding of policy integration. Policy Sciences, 49(3), 211-231.
Chrysanthaki. T., Hendy, J., & Barlow, J. 2013. Stimulating whole system redesign: lessons from an organizational analysis of the Whole System Demonstrator Programme, Journal of Health Services and Policy, 18, 47-55.
Creswell, J. W. 2014. Pendekatan Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Kuantitatif dan Campuran. (Edisi Keempat dalam Bahasa Indonesia). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Crow GM. 2007. The professional and organizational socialization of new English headteachers in school reform contexts. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 35(1): 51–71.
Davidescu, S., Hiteva, R., & Maltby, T. 2018. Two steps forward, one step back: Renewable energy transitions in Bulgaria and Romania. Public Administration. 96: 611– 625.
Fotaki, M. & Hyde, P. (2015) Organizational blind spots: Splitting, blame and idealization in the National Health Service. Human Relations. 68(3): 441-462.
Ganon-Shilon S & Schechter. 2016. Making sense of school leaders’ sense-making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 45(4): 682–698.
Gofen, A. 2014. Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street level divergence. Journal of Public Admiinistration Research and Theory. 24 (2), 473-493.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. 2002. Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474-487.
Hudson, B. Hunter, D. & Peckham, S. 2019. Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy Design and Practice, 2 (1):1-14.
Jordan, A., & Lenschow, A. 2010. Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environmental policy and governance, 20(3), 147-158.
Judson, A. S. 1991. Changing behavior in organization: Minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Keiser, L. R. 2020. Understanding street level bureaucrats decision making : determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration review. 70 (2), 247-257.
Lavee, E.; Cohen, N. & Nouman, H. (2018) Reinforcing public responsibility? Influences and practices in SLBs’ engagement in policy design. Public Administration. Vol 96:333- 348. doi: 10.1111/padm.12402.
Louis MR. 1980. Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 226–251.
Lynch, J. Modgil, C & Modgil S. 1997. Education and Development: Tradition and Innovation. London. England: Cassell.
McConnell, A. 2010. Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of Public Policy. 30(3):345-362 Page 37 of 48
Miles, Matthew B, Huberman dan Saldana. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Book 3 rd Editions. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publication.
Modood, Tariq and Thompson, Simon. 2021. Othering, Alienation and Establishment. SAGE Publication: Political Studies 1-17.
Moulton, S.,& Sandfort, J. R. 2017. The strategic action field framework for policy implementation research. Policy Studies Journal. 45 (1), 144-169.
Puliyel, J. 2011. Evidenced based medicine: Making it better. Economic and Political Weekly 14, 23-26.
Saks AM & Ashforth BE. 1997. Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior 51(2): 234–279.
Sarros, J. C., Tanewski, G. A., Winter, R. P., Santora, J. C., & Densten, I. L. 2002. Work alienation and organizationalleadership. British Journal of Management,13(4), 285-304.
Seeman, M. 1959. On the meaning of alienation. American sociological review, 783-791.
Seeman, M. 1971. “The urban alienations: some dubious theses from Marx to Marcuseâ€, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 135-143.
Shantz; Alfes;Bailey dan Soane, 2015. Drivers and Outcome of Work Alienation: Reviving a Concept. Journal of Management Inquiry 2015, Vol. 24(4) 382–393.
Siciliano, M. D., Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Liou, Y. H. (2017). A cognitive perspective on policy implementation: reform beliefs, sensemaking, and social networks. Public Administration Review, 77(6), 889-901.
Smith, T. B. (1973). The policy implementation process. Policy sciences, 4(2), 197-209.
Spyridonidis, D., Hendy J., & Barlow, J. (2015). Understanding hybrid roles: the role of identity processes amongst physicians. Public Administration. 93:395-411. doi: 10.1111/padm.12114
Thomann, E., van Engen, N., & Tummers, L. (2018). The necessity of discretion: A behavioral evaluation of bottom-up implementation theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28, 583-601.
Tucker, Danielle A; Hendy, Jane; Chrysanthaki, Theopisti, 2019. How does policy alienation develop? Exploring Strret-Level Bureaucrats’ agency in policy context shift in UK telehealthcare. Human Relations Journal. DOI: 10.1177/00187267211003633.
Tummers, L., Bekkers, V., & Steijn, B. 2009. Policy alienation of public professionals: Application in a new public management context. Public Management Review,11(5), 685-706.
Tummers, L. 2011. Explaining The Willingness of Public Professionals to Implement New Policies: A Policy Alienation Frameword. International Review of Administrative Science, 77 (3), 555-581.
Tummers, L. 2012. Policy Alienation of Public Professionals: The Construct and Its Measurement. Public Administration Review, 72 (40, 516-525.
Tummers, L. Bekkers, V. Van Thiel, S. and Steijn, B. 2015. The effects of work alienation and policy alienation on behavior of public employees. Administration and Society. 47, 596-617. DOI: 10.1177/0095399714555748.
Tummers, L. G. 2013. Policy Alienation and the power of professionals. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Umam, U. dan A. 2020. Efektivitas Mal Pelayanan Publik (MPP) Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi dalam Pelaksanaan Pelayanan Publik. Jurnal Humaniora, Vol.4 (No.1 April 2020), 160–165.
Van der Voet, J., Steijn, B., & Kuipers, B. S. 2017. What’s in it for others? The relationship between prosocial motivation and commitment to change among youth care professionals. Public Management Review, 19, 443-462.
Van Thiel, S & Leeuw, F. L. 2002. The Perfomance Paradox in The Public Sector. Public Performance & Management Review. 25. 267-281.
Another Source :
Micom, 2019. MPP Wujud Nyata Sistem Pemerintahan Kian Efektif dan Efisien. https://mediaindonesia.com/nusantara/211609/mpp-wujud-nyata-sistem-pemerintahan-kian-efektif-dan-efisien (diakses pada 10 Maret 2021).
Ridlo, M. 2019. Wow, di Mal Pelayanan Publik Banyumas Masyarakat Bisa Bikin Apa Saja [online]. (diupdate 15 Januari 2019). https://www.liputan6.com /regional/read/3862668/wow-di-mal-pelayanan-publik-banyumas-masyarakat-bisa-bikin-apa-saja. (diakses pada 3 Januari 2021).