Main Article Content
This study aims to discuss and compare population administration innovations in two different regencies to gain an understanding of how policies can intervene in public service innovations. Innovation is dependent on government policy as a guide for good public service development strategies. Policy intervention in public service innovation gives special attention to the coherent implementation of public service innovations. The policy will affect further innovation development alth o ugh i t c an be exc lud e d f ro m s o me i nnovati o n pro grams . Therefore, this research compares the innovation efforts of population administration in two different regencies to gain a better understanding of how policies intervene in public service innovation. This research was conducted in the Aceh Tenggara and Majalengka regencies in May-June 2019. Qualitative methods were used in this research with a comparative analysis (Qualitative Comparative Analysis). Data was obtained through a cross-sectional study and data analysis using a set and concept technique. With a theoretical guide developed by Hartley (2005), this research provides information that not all regency (government institutions) can innovate for a variety of reasons, and that decision-makers must be transformative leaders for their region in order to bring out the idea of innovation. In addition, managers should be able to translate policy intent and objectives with service programs. Further development of public service innovations and citizen participation is needed as respondents and external supervisors. That way policy interventions can provide opportunities for change in government institutions by reviewing policy goals and objectives, as well as the linkage factor between local and national policies being the main consideration.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Agolla, J. E., & Lill, J. B. (2013). Public Sector Innovation Drivers: A Process Model. Journal of Social Sciences , 34 (2), 165-176.
Arceneaux, K., & Butler, D. M. (2015). How Not to Increase Participation in Local Government: The Advantages of Experiments When Testing Policy Interventions. Public Administration Review, 76 (1), 131-139.
Arnold, G. (2014). Policy Learning and Science Policy Innovation Adoption by Street-Level Bureaucrats. Journal of Public Policy , 34 (3), 389-414.
Arundel, A., Bloch, C., & Ferguson, B. (2019). Advancing Innovation in the Public Sector: Aligning Innovation Measurement With Policy Goals. Research Policy , 48 (3), 789-798.
Asatryan, Z., Heinemann, F., & Pitlik, H. (2016). Reforming the Public Administration: The role of Crisis and The Power of Bureaucracy. European Journal of Political Economy , 1-16.
Banerjee, B., & Ceri, S. (2016). Creating Innovation Leaders A Global Perspective. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Berman, E., & Prasojo, E. (2018). Leadership and Public Sector Reform in Asia. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Bobbio, L. (2019). Designing Effective Public Participation. Policy and Society , 38 (1), 41-57.
Chaminade, C., & Esquist, C. (2010). Rationales for Public Policy Intervention in the Innovation Process: Systems of Innovation Approach. In R. E. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira, The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook (pp. 95-114). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Damuri, Y. R., Aswicahyono, H., & Christian, D. (2018). Innovation Policy in Indonesia. In M. Ambashi, Innovation Policy in ASEAN (pp. 96-127). Jakarta: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
Daniels, C. U., Ustyuzhantseva, O., & Yao, W. (2017). Innovation for Inclusive Development , Public Policy Support and Triple Helix: Perspectives From BRICS. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development , 9 (5), 513-527.
Dwiyanto, A. (2015). Reformasi Birokrasi Kontekstual. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation Policy: What , Why, and How. Oxford Review of Economic Policy , 33 (1), 2-23.
Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (2005). Institutions and Organizations in Systems of Innovation . In C. Edquist, System of Innovation Technologies, Institutional and Organizations (pp. 41-63). Oxon: Routledge.
Gaus, N., Sultan, S., & Basri, M. (2017). State Bureaucracy in Indonesia and its Reforms: An Overview. International Journal of Public Administration , 40 (8), 658-669.
Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation Ecosystems: A Conceptual Review and a New Definition. Technovation , 90 (91), 1-12.
Grube, D. (2010). The Rhetorical Framing of Policy Intervention. Australian Journal of Political Science , 45 (4), 559-578.
Hage, J., Jordan, G., & Mote, J. (2007). A Theory- Based Innovation Systems Framework for Evaluating Diverse Portfolios of Research, Part Two: Macro Indicators and Policy Interventions. Science and Public Policy , 34 (10), 731-741.
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present. Public Money & Management , 25 (1), 27-34.
Huang, W.-L., & Feeney, M. K. (2015). Citizen Participation in Local Government Decision Making: The Role of Manager Motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36 (2), 188-209.
Ikeanyibe, O. M. (2015). New Public Management and Administrative Reforms in Nigeria. International Journal of Public Administration, 1-14.
Jupri. (2019). Sidak ke Disdukcapil, Ketua DPRK Aceh Tenggara Temukan Ratusan Blangko e-KTP di Ruang Kadis. Retrieved Desember 19, 2019, from https://beritakini.co/news/ sidak-ke-disdukcapil-ketua-dprk-aceh- tenggara-temukan-ratusan-blangko-e-ktp- di-ruang-kadis/index.html
Kanger, L., Sovacool, B. K., & Noorkõiv, M. (2020). Six Policy Intervention Points for Sustainability Transitions: A Conceptual Framework and A Systematic Literature Review. Research Policy , 49 (7), 1-16.
Kim, S., & Yoon, G. (2015). An Innovation-Driven Culture in Local Government: Do Senior Manager’s Transformational Leadership and the Climate for Creativity Matter? Public Personnel Management , 44 (2), 147-168.
Klimentova, S. (2014). Innovation in the Public Sector: Is it Measurable. Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting, 28, 289-315.
Lampe, H. W. (2017). Municipalities’ Willingness to Adopt Process Innovations: Evidence for Higher Cost-Eﬃciency. Local Government Studies , 43 (5), 1-24.
Neshkova, M. I., & Kostadinova, T. (2012). The Eﬀectiveness of Administrative Reform in New Democracies. Public Administration Review, 72 (3), 324-333.
Paskarina, C. (2017). The Making of Competitive Bureaucracy: A Case of Bureaucratic Reform in West Java Province. Cogent Social Sciences, 3 (1), 1-13.
Patanakul, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2014). Examining the Roles of Government Policy on Innovation. Journal of High Technology Management Research , 25 (2), 97-107.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2015). Governance and Policy Problems: Instruments as Unitary and Mixed Modes of Policy Intervention. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 37 (4), 224-235.
Thapa, B. E., Niehaves, B., Seidel, C. E., & Plattfaut, R. (2015). Citizen involvement in Public Sector Innovation: Government and Citizen Perspectives. Information Polity , 20 (1), 3-17.
Uyarra, E., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Flanagan, K., & Magro, E. (2020). Public Procurement, Innovation and Industrial Policy: Rationales, Roles, Capabilities and Implementation. Research Policy , 49 (1), 1-11.
Vargas, M. H., & Restrepo, D. R. (2019). The Instruments of Public Policy: A Transdiscipl inary Look. Cuadernos de Administración, 35 (63), 101-113.
Vries, H. d., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2015). Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematics Review and Future Research Agenda. Public Administration , 94 (1), 146-166.
Wang, J. (2018). Innovation and Government Intervention: A Comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong. Research Policy, 47 (2), 399-412.