English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Bureaucratic reform (BR) has passed phase I (2010 2014), but raises some problem to be solved that are; bureaucracy that has not been completely clean and accountable, bureaucracy that has not been effective and efficient, and public services that have not had the expected quality. Almost seven years of BR has been running and entering period II (2015 2019), but not showing a passable change. Based on the findings of ICW in 2016, corruption figures of Civil Servants reached 47% or 515 people became suspects. During the reform period, ASN was most caught up in corruption, involving 3,417 people. In terms of service quality, the Ombudsman Indonesia received complaints during 2016, of which complained 1,200 agencies about their services. This paper intends to criticize the journey of bureaucratic reform during the phase I and the current period, rated from the dimensions of target achievement indicators and achievements. This article was written based on literature review and secondary data analysis on the phase I of BR report, and data on the achievement of the current year reform report. The data were compared and then analyzed. The BR in the phase I refer to national and global indicators, namely indexes of corruption perception, government effectiveness and competitiveness, and in phase II only refers to national indicators. The results found that the phase I bureaucracy reform has not been able to demonstrate good reform performance since it has not met the target of all indicators. Phase II used indicator is more internally, but not yet measured its success. BR in the phase I and phase II are more reporting and do not touch on the essence of the bureaucracy itself, bureaucratic reform is more of a "reform bureaucratization" and still relies on the approach of reporting in evaluating its success.

Quo Vadis Bureaucracy Reform Of Indonesia: Overview Of Bureaucratic Reform Phase l Vs Phase II