THE POLICY ON
COMPETITIVE GOVERNMENT
(Encouraging
Government Agencies in Indonesia to Compete in Delivering Quality Public
Service)*
Dr. Andy Al
Fatih, MPA**
ABSTRACT
In Indonesia, almost every government agency delivers less quality
public service. If the less quality
service happens, the customers, at the most,
protest and demand for a better
one, but never be listened. It is common. Clients of one Service are also the customers
of another agency. Businessmen are customers of Integrated License Service for
licenses. Simultaneously, they are also the clients of local Taxation Office
for they are potential tax payers. These two agencies must compete to deliver
quality service. If Integrated License
Service disappoints the subscribers making their business stagnant, this
occurrence makes local Taxation Office
tend to lose its potential clients – the tax payers – and leads to decrease
local government revenues. The local taxation office must remind the Integrated
License Service for ignoring the clients. The objectives of this paper are to
raise the empirical findings about the quality of public service in Indonesia,
to discuss the problems, to propose an
“uncommon” approach in order to satisfy the customers, and to recommend
the new concept to make quality public service.
Key words: government agencies, competition, reminding,
encouragement, quality, public service,
prosperity, revenue.
Introduction
Essentially, the
existence of governments is to serve the
people well. For this reason, governments create many kinds of ministries,
executive branches, and organizations. They make numerous types of services
available. They import many things ready to process or use. They install various
sorts of mechines and working tools.
They set systems and reform them. They staff bureacracies and train the
personnels. They formulate public policies and renew them. They reinvent new
approaches, apply the lattest managerial system, and keep on doing innovation.
They always try to please the people.The people expect many kinds of quality
services from government in order to ease their lives. Ironically, the people
get what they don’t hope rather than what they want.
Even
though, governments – through their agencies – have tried to please the people
by making many kinds of public services available and easy to access, yet they
cannot satisfy the people and reap critism. It is the inherent characteristics
of bureaucracies. It happens, even, in developed countries. Richard Pratt
(2013) states that bureaucracies, both private and
*Paper presented
in the 5th International Conference on Local Government (ICLG),
Palembang, 17-19th September, 2014.
**A
lecturer at Social and Political
Sciences Faculty and Master
Program of Public Administration , Post Graduate Program, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, Indonesia.
public, have been the targets of
criticism in Western industrial societies for almost as long as they themselves
were adopted as an improvement over earlier tradition and personality driven
organizations. Recurring complaints include, among others, over defined roles
and excessive specilization; internal segmentation, and organizational
rigidity; inability to adapt to changing environments; excessive rules, often
disconnected from organizational goals; the separation of knowledge from the
authority to act on it; and information hoarding as a source of power. Public
bureaucracies, which today are referred to as “traditional” organizations, also
have faced charges of being unaccountable (“there is no one responsible.”)
despite their claims of giving accountability the highest priority.
This
kind of criticism has become worse when it comes to a developing country, like
Indonesia.
Public
Service In Indonesia At Glance
Most public service
quality, especially in Indonesia, is still very low. Commitment
for quality public service has
still been a susceptible work for most government agencies.In fact, according
to Sunaryo and Suyono (2013) that the absence of commitment can reduce
organizational effectiveness. There are
some reasons for low public service quality. Namely – among others – are
bureaucratic organizations with long and rigid red tape, not result-oreinted
approach, power abuse, undisciplined human resource, unprofessional staffs,
personified work-place, unwell workable system, and lack of budget. These all
are due to fail recruitment system, bad controlling system, weak leadership, and
low remuneration. Those unprofessional civil servants claim that they who have
the power. They put themselves on high position. So, they think they can do
many things as they like. On the other side, clients are treated as help
seekers, powerless customers, and potential victims for money through bribery.
When the people deal with the civil servants, they must listen. Unless, they will
be ignored, get some difficultes to get good service or even successful deal.
To cope with thsese, especially the one relating to power abuse, there needs a reform. According
to Ahmed Shafiqul Huque (2012), many developing countries have done reforms.
They have created new agencies for undertaking anti-corruption measures. However, some are
not effective because governments are unwilling to allow the anti-corruption
agencies complete autonomy to perform their duties.
All these things above happen for decades. The
situation is extremely complicated and confusing where to start to loosen. Most
of public servants and public officials
worry too much about their power, position, and gains.
The
description of low quality public service can be seen in he following table 1
and table 2.
Table 1
Low Quality
Public Service By The Kind
|
No
|
Kinds of Service
|
Remark
|
|
1
|
Administrative Service
|
Bureaucratic, expensive, and unaccountable
|
|
2
|
Public Transport
|
unreliable – reckless and uncomfortable
|
|
3
|
Public Utility
|
very bad
|
|
4
|
Health Service
|
low quality
|
|
5
|
Garbage system
|
not well managed
|
|
6
|
Security
|
no quick response
|
|
7
|
Public space
|
dirty and unsafe
|
Source: Al Fatih, 2014
Competition
does happen among public servants in
most agencies in Indonesia. Nevertheless, they compete not in satisfying
their service users, but in something
else, like: licking their superiors, creating
condition for bribery, and making clients stress. Most of the reasons of their
pleasing their service seekers are for their own personal gains only.
Competitive
Government: injecting Competition into Service Delivery
Osborne and
Gaebler (1992:76) in their book – Reinventing Government – claim agencies –
both public and private - had better apply the principle of competition
in doing their jobs than monopoly. In competitive government, according to Jhon Moffitt, in Osborne and Gaebler
(1992:76), the issue is not public versus privite. It is competition versus
monopoly. Competition can work as a powerful motivation to enchance efficiency
and innovation. Therefore, the state of a positive spirit should be encouraged
in almost every organizational walks of life. In running business, customers
are a very important stake- holders. They are a determinant factor to success. Thus,
pay much attention to them.
Injecting competition
into service delivery – according to Osborne and Gaebler (1992) – gives some advantages.
Namely:
1. Competition creates greater efficiency
In order to win the bids and to maximize profit, agencies
try to make use of the best management system and to find the most appropriate
tools for efficiency. This way, the budget of projects can be lowered, working
procedure is able to be simplified, time spent is possibly shorter, and working
performance tends to be more satisfied.
2. Competition forces agencies to respond to the needs of
costumers.
Custumers give benefits - in any forms - to agencies.
Therefore, agencies manage to fight for them. Relatimg to this, pleasing the
costumers by giving quick response to their needs is very determining.
Customers bring money, propose suggestions, and inspire innovation.
3. Competition reward innovation , monopoly stifles it
Innovation leads agencies to create new things for the best. It is related to
efficiency and simplicity to finish the work. It can occure in competitive
situation. On the way around, monopoly causes to avoid innovation because
agencies have control over market. Nothing makes them motivated to be creative
and innovative.
4. Competition boosts the pride and morale of public employees.
Competition means one has to win the contest. To be a winner, there are so
many things that should be properly prepared: managerial system, facilities,
strategy, technology, experts, budget, and so on. This preparation ought to be
evaluated, improved, and well applied. If
contestants can make these all happen. It is a pride. This pride can
strengthen the morale to be number one. It is the impact of competition.
Competition is various.
The varities of of it are as follows:
1. Public
versus private competition
2. Private versus private competition
3. Public versus public compeition
It can be seen that,
both in theory and practice, it is common that public agencies compete with
other public agencies in achieving high working performance: delivering quality
public service, constructing workable public utilities, building ever lasting inftra structure and supra
structure, supplying reliable security, and others.
The
“New” Aprroach of Competitive Government
The concept of
competitive government – proposed by Osborne and Gaebler (1992) – essentially says each governmental agency rivals
to one another to provide quality public service in order to satisfy its
customers. In this context, there are only two parties involved in this
competition. They are a service provider
(governmental agency – can be in terms of a Service or just a common Office)
and a service seeker (customer/client).
Here, the customer, as if, belonged only
to that certain agency (Service/Office). Whether the satisfaction of customer
is fulfilled or not, it depends only on how well the agency serves the
customer. If the customer is not happy with service, only the customer who complains.
No other side directly gets involved or cares. The agency monopolies the
service. The graph is as follows.
Graph
1
The
Description of Monopoly Service
The
graph above shows that one governmental agency monopolies a segment of
customer. Customer relies the service only on the one responsible agency.
The concept of
competition that I am trying to suggest in this paper is quite different from
the one discussed above. In this context, there two levels of competition of
providing quality public service to the people. The two levels are the first
level and the second level. The explanation is as follows.
The first level is just like giving
service as it is practiced at present time. An agency is responsible for and
monopolies a certain affair. It delivers service regarding that affair. If service seekers need that service, they go only
to that office for the service. Had the customers not satisfy with the service,
at the most, they complain and the complaint is directed to the agency. No
other party cares. If it does not work, the second level begins.
In
the second level approach, a segment
of customer does not only belong to one agency (Service/Office), but also is
owned by another. In this situation, there are three parties involved in the
affair in its relation to quality service delivery. They are the customer,
agency 1 and agency 2. The description is as follows:
A
segment of customer is client of agency 1. It needs a
service from that office. If that Service
serves them well and make them get what they need. Next, these customers
will be potential clients for agency 2. On the other way around, if agency 1
does not deliver a good service to the customers. As the result, the service
seekers do not get what they need. It makes the customers disappointed.
Simultaneously, it causes agency 2 lose its potential clients. In this case, agency 2 must remind agency 1 to
please the customers for it is related to the interest of agency 2. Agency 2
can advocate the customers to take the case to the court because what is
happening is a serious problem, not only for the customers and agency 2, but
also for local government. It influences the perfomance of local government. In scenario, there 2
agencies serve a segment of customers.
To make it clear, I am
going to present an example. The first
level, people who are going to start business need licenses. For these, they (customers) go to Integrated License
Service (agency 1). This Service
must deliver quality service to the people, their customers. So that, they can
get the licenses they need and begin their business. As businessmen, those
people have to pay tax. They are potential tax payers and become customers of
Local Taxation Office (agency 2). If
things happen this way, every party is happy. Unless, there are, at least, two sides who are not satisfied: customer and
agency 2. Just in case, the first level approach does not work. The second
level way should take place.
In the second level, those
business people are not only the customers of Integrated License Service (agency 1), but also the clients of
Local Taxation Office (agency 2). If
Integrated License Service (agency 1)
does not serve those business people well, so that those people cannot get
licenses for businesses. They cannot begin their businessess. It means they
cannot become the clients of Local Taxation Office (agency 2). It results in
losing potential clients for Local Taxation Office (agency 2). When it occurs, both the customers and Local Taxation
Office (agency 2) are not pleased.
Customers do not get lisenses. Local Taxation Office (agency 2) lose its potential
clients. Local Government suffers from losing revenue from the tax. It, of
course, affects the performance of local government. In this case, Local
Taxation Office (agency 2) must protest the Integrated License Service (agency 1) and remind it to serve those
business people well. So that, Local Taxation Office (agency 2) won’t lose its
potential customers – the tax payers. In this context, a segment of customer
(business people) is the target of 2 agencies. Namely, Integrated License
Service (agency 1) and Local
Taxation Office (agency 2).
Because Local Taxation
Office (agency 2) has an interest
toward that segment of customer (business people), so it has an obligation to
remind Integrated License Service (agency
1) to take care of that segment of
customer (business people) well. Integrated License Service (agency 1) and Local Taxation Office (agency 2) compete to satisfy that
segment of customer. That segment of
customer is not monopolied by one agency only. See below graph.
Graph
2
The Description
of Competitive Service
(Public versus
Public Compeition)
|
|
Graph
2 indicates that a segment of customer is the target of 2 governmental
agencies. Both agencies are responsible and compete to satisfy the customer. If
one agency ignores the customer, it makes another agency losing its own
interest. The losing agency must remind another agency to serve the customer
well. Relating
to competitiveness, Sombat Thamrong Thanyawong (2011) has stated that to win
globalization public administration should aim to develop the country from
within, that is, from the micro, grassroots level up to the macro level.
It is true that there are Indonesia
Consumer Foundation and Indonesia Ombudsman Foundation that care about consumer
and complain on the services given, but their actions, most the time, do not
work effectively since they might not have direct interest to the service
quality.
Table 2 below
shows agencies that have the same interest on the one same customer. Therefore,
neither of the agencies is allowed to ignore the customer for it makes another
agency losing its interest.
Table
2
The
Description of Certain Services (Customers) Targetted by Certain Agencies
|
No
|
Service/Customer
|
Agencies
|
Remark
|
|
1
|
License
|
Integrated
License Service
and Local Taxation Office
|
Tax
Payers
|
|
2
|
Teaching
quality
|
Education
Service/Office and Alumni Users (Companies or Offices)
|
Alumni
Users (Companies/Offices) have an interest about teaching quality given by
Education Service
|
|
3
|
Tourism
service
|
Tourism
Service and Local Taxation Office
|
The
number of tourist determines tourism
industry development which finally influences tax revenue.
|
|
4
|
Security
|
Regional
Police Office and Tourism Service
|
Tourists
ignore tourism destinations unless they are safe. Example is in Acapulco
(Brazil).
|
|
5
|
High
way
|
Public
Work Service and Transportation Service
|
Regional
Govern ment can be taken to court if roads are bad and cause accidents.
|
|
6
|
Street
children care
|
Social
Service and Regional Police Office
|
Unless
the street children well taken care, they can be the source of unsecurity.
|
|
7
|
Health care
|
Health Service and Social Service
|
Sick
people need social security.
|
A
government agency cannot be so selfish and think that a segment of customers is
its own clients only. In fact, some agencies share the same the service
seekers. Therefore, It is clear that ignoring customers
gives bad impact not only to the
customers themselves but also to other
stake holders. In this situation, the losing agency is oblighed to protest the
discredited agency and ask it to behave. It is in order to protect the prospective
customers of another agency. This is the competitive government means in this
context. This kind of competition is the form of participation to realize the
interests of stakeholders. It is acceptable. Penderis (2012) states that
participation takes place in a variety of spaces created for different reasons,
by different stakeholders, with different terms of engagement and different
sets of dynamics. In addition, Al Fatih (2010) claims that participation
empowers stakeholders to be better off. It is proved in the participation of
small-scale industires in partnership program implementation in the city of
Palembang of Indonesia.
Parting Words
Customers –
tax payers - are worthy asset for government agencies. Ignoring them result in
suffering from loses both in forms of potential revenue, credibility or
professionalism. Competing to satisfy the sharing customers means not only the
customers get what they want, but also preventing other agencies from losing the sharing
customers. This is the new concept of competitive government proposed in this
paper.
Bibliography
BOOKS
Al Fatih, Andy, 2010, Program Implementatation and Community Empowerment
(translated), Unpad Press, Bandung.
Osborne,
David and Gaebler, Ted, 1992, Reinventing Government: How The Entrepre-
neurial Spirit is Transforming The
Public Sector, A Plume Book Publisher,
New York.
Pratt,
Richard (2013), Balancing Accountability with Responsiveness: Building
Responsible
Flexibility in Local Government in Kamnuansilpa,
Peerasit and Sampson, Charles
L. (Edit.), 2013, Public Management
and The Blue Economy, COLA, Khon Kaen
University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
JOURNALS
Huque,
Ahmed Shafiqul (2012), Diminishing Capacity: Public Management Reform in
Developing Countries, Public
Administration and Policy:An Asia-Pacific Journal,
Vol.15 No.1, Spring, 2012.
Sunaryo,
Sinto and Suyono, Joko (2013), Understanding Dicretionary Service Behavior in
the Public Sector: The Role of
Organizational Justice, Satisfaction with Supervisor
and Organizational Commitment: Journal
of African & Asian Local Government
Studies, Volume 2, Number 2, June 2013.
Penderis,
Sharon (2012), Theorizing Participation: From Tyranny To Emancipation:
Journal of African & Asian Local
Government Studies, Volume 1, Number 3,
September 2012.
Thanyawong,
Sombat Thamrong (2011), Challanges, opportunities, and Innovations in Public
Administration in The Next Decade,
Asian Review of Public Administration, vol.
22. No.2 (July-December 2011)
Research
Project
Al
Fatih, Andy,2014, Quality of Public Service ( A Study on The Service of
Passport Making
in Palembang Immigration Office.