DAYA TANGGAP BAPPEDA DALAM PENYUSUNAN RENCANA PEMBANGUNAN JANGKA MENENGAH KABUPATEN DI KANTOR BAPPEDA KABUPATEN PIDIE JAYA

M Zaki Wafa, Februati Trimurni

Sari


Pendekatan New Public Management membentuk pemerintah daerah mengindetifikasi kebutuhan pembangunan daerah dalam perencanaan pembangunan. Melalui daya tanggap Bappeda Kabupaten Pidie Jaya menjalankan proses pemerintahan daerah dan ajang demokrasi 5 tahunan penyusunan Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Kabupaten (RPJMK) Pidie Jaya, kemampuan SDM Bappeda Kabupaten Pidie Jaya merespon usulan pembangunan masyakarat dan partisipasi dari pemangku kepentingan dalam proses penyusunan RPJMK Pidie Jaya menjadi tujuan utama pada penelitian ini. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian studi kasus dengan pendekatan kualitatif. Pengumpulan data melalui wawancara, analisis dokumen, dan dokumentasi. Data diperoleh dan dianalisis secara deskriptif dengan menggunakan responsivitas lembaga publik menurut Agus Dwiyanto.  Hasil penelitian menujukkan bahwa daya tanggap Bappeda Kabupaten Pidie Jaya terjawab melalui pelaksanaan proses Musrenbang yang memberikan perwakilan masyarakat atau kepala desa mewakilkan usualan masyarakat desa. Keterbatasan waktu menjadi kendala utama karena tidak semua usulan pembangunan dapat tersampaikan oleh perwakilan masyarakat. Demi mendukung argumentasi usulan yang telah disampaikan, Bappeda Kabupaten Pidie Jaya merespon secara inklusif melalui pemutakhiran data atau informasi antar SKPK, mempertimbangkan pendanaan daerah, dan mempertimbangkan visi dan misi Bupati Pidie Jaya atas kepentingan pembangunan Kabupaten Pidie Jaya.

Teks Lengkap:

PDF

Referensi


Abreu, M., Comim, F., & Jones, C. (2023). A capability-approach perspective on regional development. In Regional Studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2023.2276332

Agnew, J. A. (2013). Arguing with Regions. Regional Studies, 47(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.676738

Astlethner, F., & Hamendiger, A. (2003). Urban Sustainability as a New Form of Governance: Obstacles and Potentials in the Case of Vienna 1. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 16(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610304510

Atalay, Y. (2018). Understanding Input and Output Legitimacy of Environmental Policymaking in The Gulf Cooperation Council States. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1794

Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.425

Bryer, T. A. (2021). Handbook of Theories of Public Administration and Management. In Handbook of Theories of Public Administration and Management. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789908251

Chua Chow, C., & Sarin, R. K. (2002). Known, Unknown, and Unknowable Uncertainties. Theory and Decision, 52(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015544715608

Cole, A., & Loughlin, J. (2003). Beyond the unitary state? Public opinion, political institutions and public policy in Brittany. Regional Studies, 37(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000065424

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Davies, J., & Imbroscio, D. (2009). Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446279298

Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2004). The Quality of Democracy: An Overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0060

Dwiyanto, A. (2018). Manajemen Pelayanan Publik: Peduli Inklusif dan Kolaborasi. UGM press.

Gans-Morse, J., Mazzuca, S., & Nichter, S. (2014). Varieties of Clientelism: Machine Politics during Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12058

Goetz, A. M. (2007). Manoeuvring past clientelism: Institutions and incentives to generate constituencies in support of governance reforms. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 45(4), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662040701659845

Hajad, V., Ikhsan, I., Herizal, H., Latif, I. R., & Marefanda, N. (2023). Poverty and the Curse of Natural Resources in Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy, 4(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.46507/jcgpp.v4i1.92

Hartley, J., Ongaro, E., Quick, K., & Schröter, E. (2023a). Public management and policing: a dialectical inquiry. In Public Management Review (Vol. 25, Issue 9, pp. 1711–1729). Taylor and Francis Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2224809

Hartley, J., Ongaro, E., Quick, K., & Schröter, E. (2023b). Public management and policing: a dialectical inquiry. In Public Management Review (Vol. 25, Issue 9, pp. 1711–1729). Taylor and Francis Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2224809

Howlett, M. (2022). Avoiding a Panglossian Policy Science: The Need to Deal with the Darkside of Policy-Maker and Policy-Taker Behaviour. Public Integrity, 24(3), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2021.1935560

Iammarino, S., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2019). Regional inequality in Europe: Evidence, theory and policy implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(2), 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lby021

Logan, D. C. (2009). Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns and the propagation of scientific enquiry. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60(3), 712–714. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp043

Mappasiara, M. (2018). Manajemen Strategik Dan Manajemen Operasional Serta Implementasinya Pada Lembaga Pendidikan. Idaarah: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan, 2(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.24252/idaarah.v2i1.5116

Olejarski, A. M. (2011). Public Good as Public Interest?: The Principle of Tangibility in Eminent Domain Legislation. Public Integrity, 13(4), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922130403

Ordóñez, C., Threlfall, C. G., Livesley, S. J., Kendal, D., Fuller, R. A., Davern, M., van der Ree, R., & Hochuli, D. F. (2020). Decision-making of municipal urban forest managers through the lens of governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 104, 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.008

Paddison, B., & Walmsley, A. (2018). New Public Management in tourism: a case study of York. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(6), 910–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1425696

Putri, S. R., Wijayanto, A. W., & Sakti, A. D. (2022). Developing Relative Spatial Poverty Index Using Integrated Remote Sensing and Geospatial Big Data Approach: A Case Study of East Java, Indonesia. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11050275

Reussner, E. M. (2003). Strategic management for visitor-oriented museums : A change of focus. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/1028663032000089868

Ribeiro-Navarrete, B., López-Cabarcos, M. Á., Piñeiro-Chousa, J., & Simón-Moya, V. (2023). The moment is now! From digital transformation to environmental performance. Venture Capital, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2023.2249231

Rölle, D. (2017). What Makes Citizens Satisfied? The Influence of Perceived Responsiveness of Local Administration on Satisfaction with Public Administration. In Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences www.kspjournals.org (Vol. 4). www.kspjournals.org

Ryan, S., Connell, J., & Burgess, J. (2017). Casual academics: a new public management paradox. Labour & Industry, 27(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2017.1317707

Sembiring, M. (2011). Pengaruh Budaya Organisasi Dan Implementasi Kebijakan Publik Terhadap Kinerja Organisasi Pelaksana Ketertiban, Kebersihan Dan Keindahan Di Kota Bandung. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi, VIII.

Smith, P. (1995). Performance indicators and outcome in the public sector. Public Money and Management, 15(4), 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969509387889

Sugiyono. (2018). Penelitian Kombinasi (Mixed Methods) dengan 9 Desain. Cv.Alfabeta.

Thompson, D. F. (1992). Paradoxes of government ethics. Public Administration Review, 3(52), 254–259.

Tohopi, R., Nani, Y. N., & Aneta, Y. (2021). Model Perumusan Kebijakan “Public Mechanism Approach” Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah di Kabupaten Gorontalo. Sawala : Jurnal Administrasi Negara, 9(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.30656/sawala.v9i2.3916

Tom Liou, K. (2000). Applying strategic management to economic development: benefits and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 23(9), 1621–1649. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690008525517

Van Gramberg, B., & Teicher, J. (2000). Managerialism in local government – Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(5), 476–492. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550010350869

Vigoda, E. (2000). Are You Being Served? The Responsiveness of Public Administration to Citizens’ Demands: An Empirical Examination in Israel. Public Administration, 78(1), 165–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00198

Vigoda, E. (2002). From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00235

Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Vashdi, D. R. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration, Management and Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789903485

Wangchuk, D., & Turner, M. (2019). Aligning top-down and bottom-up in development planning: The case of Bhutan. Public Administration and Development, 39(2), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1848

Willi, Y., Pütz, M., & Jongerden, J. (2023). Unpacking legitimacy in regional development: asymmetric justification and the functioning of regional development agencies. Territory, Politics, Governance, 11(1), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2020.1805352

Williams, W., & Lewis, D. (2008). Strategic management tools and public sector management: The challenge of context specificity. Public Management Review, 10(5), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802264382

Worrall, L., Collinge, C., & Bill, T. (1998). Managing strategy in local government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(6), 472–493. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513559810246354




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25157/dak.v12i1.18425

Refbacks

  • Saat ini tidak ada refbacks.


##submission.copyrightStatement##

DINAMIKA

Program Studi Administrasi Publik, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik

Universitas Galuh

email: dinamika@unigal.ac.id

ISSN: 2356-2269
eISSN: 2614-2945

Dinamika : Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Administrasi Negara © 2023 by Program Studi Administrasi Publik, FISIP - Universitas Galuh is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Created by Admin