“GOOD PUBLIC PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT”
(Indonesia’s Case)

DADAN SIDQUL ANWAR

Researcher
Center For International Administration Studies
National Institute of Public Administration-Indonesia
Pathways to Performance
As Ethic

As tool of C & B As Focus

PERFORMANCE
As
As right
Measurement

As Contract As Management
 Our Performance Position
Current Position
Measurement
Contract

Espected Development
Ethic
Management
Focus
Right
Tool for Checks and Balances
 Accountability:
Stakeholders Approach
Upward
Accountability
Traditional
Approach

Peer Internal
Accountability
Accountability Accountability

Downward
Accountability
 Current Approach
Formally output oriented but still traditional
approach
In practice still rule based approach
Procedural performance
Inward looking rather than outward looking
Lack of public scrutiny
Contradict Good Governance Way
Protective bureaucracy
 Current Result
Lack of public services
No Clarity of Government performance
Lack of public responsiveness
Too administrative minded
 Espected Development-1
Informative Performance as a public good is a
must. It will contribute to:
Decrease asymetric information between public
as principal and government as agen
Facilitate a public tool for demanding
government accountability and the arena of public
debate as well as Checks and Balances
Strengthen transparency and openness as tool
for preventing corruption and unethical practices
in managing government
 Espected Development-2
Performance-Based Audit needs to be
implemented in order to:
Guarantee performance-based public
services
Guarantee government responsiveness
Prevent contradiction between
checks/oversights measures and
performance
 Espected Development-3
Cultural Development needs to :
Decrease high degree of power distant
Decrease high degree of inequality
Increase degree of feminism
 Espected Development-4
Reward and punishment to give feedback
- See one peso punishment in The
Philippines
Clarity of Performance Indicators
Using easily
available material
Output indicators User perceptions of
services
(e.g. beds per 1,000
population in a (e.g. feedback boxes)
residential home)
Quantitative Qualitative
Indicators Indicators

Target take-up Longer-term outcomes

(effects) for clients
(proportion of the target
group for a service that (using structured
uses it) interviews to assess
Using effects)
information that
is more difficult
to collect