Urgency of Policy Changes in Domestic Official Travel Costs in Order to Improve the Quality of Public Services in Mahakam Ulu Regency


  • Gregorius Lasah Higang Faculty of Administrative Science, University of Indonesia, Indonesia




Public Policy, Bureaucratic Reform, Public Service, Financing Official Travel


The mechanism for financing official travel was changed to at cost for regional officials and a lump sum for regional legislative members through the issuance of Presidential Regulation No. 53 of 2023 as an amendment to Presidential Regulation No. 33 of 2020 concerning National Unit Price Standards. Pros and cons may arise with this policy. Putting that aside, the urgency of the issuance of Presidential Regulation No. 53 of 2023 for improving the quality of public services is an interesting thing to study as a form of sustainability of the bureaucratic reform agenda launched by the government. Moreover, this urgency becomes more interesting if contextualized with Mahakam Ulu Regency, which incidentally is a border area that is synonymous with the complexity of providing public services. This article aims to analyze the urgency of changing domestic official travel costs policies in order to improve the quality of public services in Mahakam Ulu Regency. A qualitative approach was applied by reviewing many relevant documents. The results of the analysis show that the quality of public services shows the urgency to be improved in Mahakam Ulu Regency due to the low HDI, high development inequality, and the implementation of bureaucratic reform which is still not optimal, thus affecting the quality of public services provided. In the new mechanism for official travel costs, the quality of public services in Mahakam Ulu Regency will be affected because it is related to the increased motivation of official travel agents to go directly into the community so that they know the real and comprehensive needs of the community, increased feedback (feed back) community towards the implementation of various Mahakam Ulu Regency Government programs thereby improving the quality of public services because of the precise improvements made, policy proposal initiatives originating from regional legislative members are much more oriented towards the interests of the community, minimizing corrupt practices, increasing budget efficiency in the delivery of public services, and increasing accountability and transparency in the implementation of public services.


Anderson, J. E. (1998). The struggle to reform regulatory procedures, 1978–1998. Policy Studies Journal, 26(3), 482-498.

Berenschot, W., & Mulder, P. (2019). Explaining regional variation in local governance: Clientelism and state-dependency in Indonesia. World Development, 122, 233-244.

Berman, E. M., Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., & Van Wart, M. R. (2021). Human resource management in public service: Paradoxes, processes, and problems. Cq Press.

Bolkvadze, K. (2020). To reform or to retain? Politicians’ incentives to clean up corrupt courts in hybrid regimes. Comparative Political Studies, 53(3-4), 500-530.

Caiden, G. E. (2019). Administrative reform. Handbook of comparative and development public administration, 655-668.

Chen, J., Walker, R. M., & Sawhney, M. (2020). Public service innovation: a typology. Public Management Review, 22(11), 1674-1695.

Chung, K. H. (2021). Towards rule-based institutions and economic growth in Asia? Evidence from the Asian Financial Crisis 1997–1998. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 6(3), 274-292.

Dhaliwal, I., & Hanna, R. (2017). The devil is in the details: The successes and limitations of bureaucratic reform in India. Journal of Development Economics, 124, 1-21.

Dick-Sagoe, C. (2020). Decentralization for improving the provision of public services in developing countries: A critical review. Cogent Economics & Finance, 8(1), 1804036.

Diprose, R., McRae, D., & Hadiz, V. R. (2019). Two decades of reformasi in Indonesia: its illiberal turn. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 49(5), 691-712.

Doherty, T. L., Horne, T., & Wootton, S. (2014). Managing public services-implementing changes: a thoughtful approach to the practice of management. Routledge.

Gilman, S. C. (2005). Ethics codes and codes of conduct as tools for promoting an ethical and professional public service: Comparative successes and lessons. Prepared for the PREM, the World Bank.

Haryono, B. S., Nugroho, A. A., Putera, F., & Noor, I. (2023). Narrative policy of bureaucratic reform in Indonesia: Rules of narrative in mass media. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(1), 1-17.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & society, 47(6), 711-739.

Ishak, D. (2022). Public Services to Achieve Good Governance in Indonesia. Jurnal Abdimas Peradaban, 3(1), 18-25.

John, P. (2013). Analyzing public policy. Routledge.

Kettl, D. F., Ingraham, P. W., Sanders, R. P., & Horner, C. (2010). Civil service reform: Building a government that works. Brookings Institution Press.

Moonti, R. M. (2019). Regional Autonomy in Realizing Good Governance. Substantive Justice International Journal of Law, 2(1), 43-53.

Motloung, O. M., & Hofisi, C. (2023). New Public Service Reform, Good Governance, and Governance of Digital Innovation in Africa. In The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa: Exploring the Development Implications of Smart Technologies in Africa (pp. 223-238). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Nugroho, A. A., & Azmi, I. F. (2021). Alleviating Society’s Economic Crisis: Narrative Policy on Social Safety Nets Policy Process During Covid-19 Pandemic. Policy & Governance Review, 5(2), 113-127.

Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (2019). Public goods and public choices. In Alternatives for delivering public services (pp. 7-49). Routledge.

Park, S., Lee, D. S., & Son, J. (2021). Regulatory reform in the era of new technological development: The role of organizational factors in the public sector. Regulation & Governance, 15(3), 894-908.

Petridou, E., & Sparf, J. (2017). For safety’s sake: the strategies of institutional entrepreneurs and bureaucratic reforms in Swedish crisis management, 2001–2009. Policy and Society, 36(4), 556-574.

Prabowo, H. (2019). Influence of implementation of development and supervision policy to the effectiveness of regional autonomy in Indonesia. Jurnal Bina Praja: Journal of Home Affairs Governance, 11(1), 63-73.

Ramadhan, N. H., Isbandono, P., Prastyawan, A., & Rahayu, E. P. (2022). Bureaucratic Reform in an Era of Uncertainty and Change: Relinquish the Bureaucratic Polity Model by Evolving Governance. KnE Social Sciences, 980-1002.

Rockman, B. A. (2020). Bureaucracy, power, policy, and the state. In The state of public bureaucracy (pp. 141-170). Routledge.

Rustamana, H. A., Adillah, P. M., & Zatua, Z. (2023). 1998 Reform Movement. Indonesian Journal of Applied and Industrial Sciences (ESA), 2(6), 543-562.

Simandjorang, B. M. T. V., & Kurniawan, A. (2022). Contextual Bureaucratic Reform in the Recruitment System of the State Civil Apparatus of Indonesia. KnE Social Sciences, 599-617.

Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2002). The relationship between management's perception of total quality service and customer perceptions of service quality. Total quality management, 13(1), 69-88.

Talitha, T., Firman, T., & Hudalah, D. (2020). Welcoming two decades of decentralization in Indonesia: a regional development perspective. Territory, Politics, Governance, 8(5), 690-708.

Tantivess, S., & Walt, G. (2008). The role of state and non-state actors in the policy process: the contribution of policy networks to the scale-up of antiretroviral therapy in Thailand. Health policy and planning, 23(5), 328-338.

Turner, M., Prasojo, E., & Sumarwono, R. (2022). The challenge of reforming big bureaucracy in Indonesia. Policy Studies, 43(2), 333-351.

Vedung, E. (2017). Public policy and program evaluation. Routledge.




How to Cite

Gregorius Lasah Higang. (2024). Urgency of Policy Changes in Domestic Official Travel Costs in Order to Improve the Quality of Public Services in Mahakam Ulu Regency. Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities, 4(5), 1340–1347. https://doi.org/10.38035/jlph.v4i5.455