Bureaucratic Cooptation in Program Evaluation: A Comparation Case in Indonesia and South Korea
Abstract
Abstract
The research about government program evaluation mostly uses an impact assessment, but this research would be using a meta-evaluation approach. The proposed research question is how the local government of Indonesia or the local bureaucracy evaluated their programs compared to South Korea. The method in this research is a comparative study between Indonesia dan South Korea, with data analysis from relevant documents. The result of the research proved that the evaluation patterns between programs seem similar. Both evaluation activities in South Korea and Indonesia tend to be dominated by their own bureaucracy; the difference is South Korea used to conceptualize activities while Indonesia does not. The evaluation activities only did the formalism part such as focusing on formal aspects than the aims of the program itself.
Keywords: bureaucratic cooptation; evaluation; formalism; routine works
Abstrak
Berbeda dengan kebanyakan riset terkait evaluasi program pemerintah yang menggunakan penilaian dampak, penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan meta-evaluation. Rumusan masalah yang diajukan adalah bagaimana pemerintah lokal di Indonesia atau birokrasi lokal melakukan evaluasi terhadap programnya. Metode yang akan digunakan untuk menjelaskan adalah pendekatan studi komparasi, dengan pengambilan data dari analisis dokumen-dokumen yang relevan dengan topik yang diambil. Hasil dari penelitian ini membuktikan bahwa pola evaluasi antar program cenderung mirip. Baik di Korea Selatan maupun Indonesia, aktivitas evaluasi cenderung didominasi oleh birokrasi; perbedaannya adalah di Korea Selatan lebih cenderung terkonseptualisasi namun di Indonesia cenderung tidak akurat. Aktivitas evaluasi hanya dilakukan sebagai formalitas dengan aspek-aspek formal dari program tersebut dibandingkan benar-benar melakukan evaluasi terhadap tujuan dari program terkait.
References
Datta, S.K., & Singh, K. (2017). Aspects of Inclusion and Peoples’ Empowerment Related to National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India. International Journal of Public Administration, 41 (2), 83-94.
Dietz, T. & Pfund, A. (2012). An Impact Identification Method For Development Program Evaluation. Impact Assessment, 6 (3-4), 137-145.
Essama-Nssah, B. (2010). Empowerment and poverty-focused evaluation. Development Southern Africa, 21, 509-530.
Esteves, A.M., Franks, D., & Vanclay, F. (2012). Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30, 34-42.
Fetterman, D.M., & Wandersman, A. (eds.) (2005). Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice, New York: The Guilford Press.
Glasson, J., & Wood, G. (2009). Urban regeneration and impact assessment for social sustainability. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(4), 283–290,.
Kaiser, A.A., & Rusch, L. (2015). Trade-offs in empowerment through social action: voices from Detroit. Community Development, 46 (4), 361-379.
Khanna, M., Nishtha, K., & Palaniswamy, N. (2015). A Retrospective Impact Evaluation of the Tamil Nadu Empowerment and Poverty Alleviation (Pudhu Vaazhvu) Project. The Journal of Development Studies, 51 (9), 1210-1223.
Khanani, I., Elam, J., Hearn, R., Jones, C., & Noble Maseru (2010). The Impact of Prenatal WIC Participation on Infant Mortality and Racial Disparities. American Journal of Public Health | Supplement 1, 2010, Vol. 100, No. S1
Kreber, C., & Brook, P. (2010). Impact evaluation of educational development programmes. International Journal for Academic Development, 6 (2), 96-108.
Larsen, R.K. (2017). Impact assessment and indigenous self-determination: a scalar framework of participation options. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, latest article.
Magura, S. (2012). Failure of Intervention or Failure of Evaluation: A Meta-Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Evaluation. Substance Use & Misuse, 47 (13-14), 1414-1420.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis (3rd edt.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2009). Effectiveness in social impact assessment: Aboriginal peoples and resource development in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2), 95–110.
Pereznieto , P. & Taylor, G. (2014). A review of approaches and methods to measure economic empowerment of women and girls. Gender & Development, 22 (2), 233-251.
Peeters R, Trujillo Jiménez H, O'Connor E, Ogarrio Rojas P, González Galindo M, Morales Tenorio D. Low‐trust bureaucracy: Understanding the Mexican bureaucratic experience. Public Admin Dev. 2018;1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1824
Pressman, J.L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Riggs, F.W. (1964). Administration in Development Countries: the Theory of Prismatic Society, Hougton, Mifflin Company.
Rosyadi, Slamet (2021). Government Capacity in` Recovering Tourism Sector in the Pandemic Period: Comparison between Indonesia and Thailand. Insignia: Journal of International Relations, Special Edition: “Navigating Global Society in the Disruptive Era" 2021, 48-56. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.ins.2021.0.0.3827
Roth, J.L. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2015). Evaluating youth development programs: Progress and promise. Applied Developmental Science, 20 (3), 188-202.
Rutkowski, D. (2017). Assessment of Reading in International Studies Improving international assessment through evaluation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, latest article.
Rutman, L. (1980). Planning Useful Evaluations: Evaluability Assessment, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication, Inc.
Russ-Eft, D. & Presskill, H. (2008). Improving the quality of evaluation participation: a meta-evaluation. Human Resource Development International, 11(1), 35-50.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots, The University of California Press, California.
Shi, Y., Zhang, L., & Rozelle, S. (2015). When will we ever learn … to change policy: current state of impact evaluation. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 7 (4), 402-422, retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080 /19439342.2015.1123757
Sinha, A., Parida, P.C. & Baurah, P. (2012). The impact of NABARD's Self Help Group-Bank Linkage Programme on poverty and empowerment in India. Contemporary South Asia, 20 (4), 487-510.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2011). Meta-Evaluation. Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation, 7 (15), 99-158, retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ916544.
Triwibowo, Albert & Jessica Martha (2021). The Use of Populism as a Pragmatist Approach in Indonesia. Insignia: Journal of International Relations, 8 (2), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.ins.2021.8.2.4046
Vanclay, F. (2012). SIA principles - International Principles For Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (1), 5-12.
Yildirim, Y., Ozdemir, S., & Sezgin, F. (2013). A Qualitative Evaluation of a Conditional Cash Transfer Program in Turkey: The Beneficiaries’ and Key Informants’ Perspectives. Journal of Social Service Research, 40(1), 62-79.
Yu, W., & Ma, L. (2015). External Government Performance Evaluation in China: Evaluating the Evaluations. Public Performance & Management Review, 39, 144-171.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
1. The author retains copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons attribution license that allows others to share the work within an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication of this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their websites) before and during submission, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and more extraordinary citations of published works.
.png)
