Open Government impact in Indonesian local governments

U5293752 Research essay

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEETStudent ID U 5 2 9 3 7 5 2Name Seti Gautama Adi NugrohoCourse code POGO8032Submitted to Dr. Amanda Smullen Assignment title

Research essayWord count 2 997

CHECKLISTI have:followed the referencing rules set out in the Crawford Style Guide..............................................................Y followed the formatting rules set out in the Crawford Style Guide Y submitted the final version of this assignment to Turnitin....Y

DeclarationI acknowledge that I have read, and understand, the summary of the ANU Codeof Practice for Student Academic Honesty which is available at:

http://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/anu_policy_for_academic_honesty.html#codesummary

I acknowledge that: this assignment is my own work this assignment is expressed predominantly in my own words the words and ideas of others, where used, are properly used and

acknowledged no part of this assignment has been previously submitted for

assessment.I understand that by submitting my work to Turnitin, my work will be retained in an electronic database by Turnitin, for the purpose of future checks. This database cannot be accessed by non-Crawford School Turnitin users without permission.

Seti Gautama Adi Nugroho_ 10 June 2014________________Signature Date

1


2


Open Government impact in Indonesian local governments

Introduction

Indonesia has been members of Open Government Partnership

(OGP) since 2011. According to the OGP agreement, the Open

Government (OG) implementation is a voluntary action plan

in governance reform that elaborates member’s government

and its civil society in the making. Accordingly, there is

no a single governance model in OG. The agreement allows

its members to design its own governance, which match with

necessity of the local context (OGP n.a.).

This paper defines OG as one application of Information and

Communication Technologies (ICTs) in government that allows

effective public oversight. OGP’s principles, which are

transparency, participation, and collaboration (Obama,

cited in Veljković et al. 2014, p. 279) are relevant with

reformation euphoria in Indonesia. The Corruption issue by

previous regime eroded public trust to government and

caused the movement. Thereafter, the National Government

had established series of regulation since 2004 that

support the implementation of OG in the future (OGI 2012,

p. 2). For example, Public Information Disclosure Law (UU3


Keterbukaan Informasi Publik/UU KIP) in 2008 declares that State

acknowledges citizen right to know the government’s public

policy planning, making, and reasoning. Additionally, state

encourages public participation in the public policy making

process, and thereafter will realize good governance in

public bodies, which is characterized by transparent,

effective and efficient, and accountable. Therefore, state

recognizes that public information should open and

accessible by stakeholders, but it will exclude secret

information (articles 2 and 3). As a unitary state, the law

also binds local governments (article 14). This regulation

makes the local government structure, which is authorised

to provide public information, similar across the country.

This paper argues that the level of OG implementation will

foster transparency in local governments and also improve

participation and collaboration in governance. This paper

will analyse through comparing OG implementation in two

local governments in Indonesia and analyse its impacts to

governance. The sample provinces are the Province of

Jakarta (Jakarta) and the Province of Banten (Banten). The

paper will discuss the methodology and then followed by the

history OG in Indonesia. Afterwards this paper will analyse

4


the level of OG implementation in the sample provinces, and

its impact to transparency, participation, collaboration,

and a conclusion will close this essay.

Methodology

The first section will discuss the paper’s methodology.

This paper will use a comparative method to analyse OG in

Indonesia. The OG implementation will be the causal

variable that influences government transparency, public

participation, and intergovernmental collaboration. The

openness data in OG application will indicate the OG

implementation level. According to Veljković et al. (2014),

open data is about how government provides data of public

interest (for example “information about transportation,

spatial data, weather information, reports, pictures, and

other information of public importance”) available without

any restriction as possible, easy to find and access (p.

282). This article will also take the organizational

structure of the information provider and ICTs

infrastructure into openness consideration as they are

addressed in the UU KIP.

5


This paper defines transparency as government

accountability of its action and takes responsibility for

the result to public (Mulgan 2003, p. 9; Veljković et al.

2014). This paper also takes comprehensibly, accessibility,

availability, understandability, usability, and accuracy

into account (p. 280). This paper will review qualitatively

some favourite information from the official website (e.g.

regulations, financial reports, and recent government

activities) to determine the level of transparency.

This essay defines participation as public participation in

OG through any available channels as arranged in the UU

KIP. This paper will compare public participation

contribution in each region (which include local mass media

and voluntary websites) and how each government handles the

critics.

Collaboration in this essay is defined as local government

capacity to coordinate with other government bodies in

order to provide comprehensive information, especially with

the existing OG system in national level. In national

level, the president has established independent taskforce

that develops OG aside from central government organisation

(opengovindonesia.go.id). The most well-known products of6


the team are whistle blower application (LAPOR) and

government’s tendering system (LKPP). The collaboration

level will be evaluated from how the local governments

cooperate with other government institutions.

Fundamental similarities of local governments in Indonesia

The second section will discuss the history of OG and its

fundamental similarity in Indonesia. OG is constructed by

various regulations. UU KIP (2008) is the core of OG

because it provides the umbrella laws for public access to

government information. By Government Regulation number 61

(2010), the national government regulates the

administration of public information, which include

administrator body and its structure (Pejabat Pegelola Informasi

dan Dokumentasi/PPID) to determine the secrecy level of

information. In the local government level, Ministry of

Internal Affair (MIA) administrates the PPID structure.

PPID is embedded with a department that has public relation

and public information functions, which is Department of

Information (KOMINFO) in each local government (MIA

Regulation Number 35 2010). PPID is accountable to local

political leader, e.g. governor or major.

7


In the national level, the President enacted President

regulation Number 54 (2009) to establish presidency’s

taskforce (UKP4) in monitoring bureaucracy reform and

public service improvement. UKP4 is directly accountable to

the president and having a privilege to hire professionals

directly, which it may be difficult to do in other

government units because of public employee recruitment

regulation. UKP4 has produced the LAPOR system

(lapor.ukp.go.id) that allows ordinary people across the

nation to submit complaints about the quality of public

services. LAPOR system enables public complaints and

aspiration about unsatisfactory public services where the

whistle-blower can monitor the complaint’s treatments and

receive feedback from authorised government units (OGI

2012, p. 15).

In addition of OG application, the national government also

has established a tender agency (lkpp.go.id/LKPP) that pool

all government projects in one electronic system (President

Regulation Number 54, 2010). LKPP is an evolution of

government procurement process that employs ICTs benefit to

allow private sectors competition as transparent as

possible. Private sectors can bid any available government

8


projects online or put their product as e-catalogue for

future government’s procurement consideration.

LAPOR and LKPP are two most famous OG systems that applied

in local government level. LKPP has more broad adoption

than LAPOR because government procurement tender will be

ineligible if it is not through LKPP system. On the other

hand, LAPOR is more voluntary action because it will run

after Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) signing between

UKP4 and local government, although any government bodies

have the obligation to accountable for their services

through provision of complaint channels (Act Number 25,

2009).

The OG development as mentioned above demonstrates that

Indonesia has a strong tradition in governing by law, which

is confirm rechtsstaat governance model (Painter & Peters

2010, p. 22). This is because Indonesia was colonized by

the Netherlands that integrate the system into governance

system. Additionally, Indonesian constitution states that

Indonesia is also a unitary state, which has character in

centralisation policies (Pollit & Bouckaert 2011, p. 51).

This two systems help political leaders to synchronise the

9


government structure and make local government’s services

similar across the country.

However, OG implementation in Indonesia also has varies

across government bodies in local level. One of reasons is

decentralisation. According to the Local Government Act

(Undang Undang tentang pemerintahan daerah) (2004), the local

government has autonomy to regulate its government

structure, which includes its government leadership and its

relation with local government bureaucracy. According to

the act (article 21), local government has autonomy to

govern, establish local election for local leaders, manage

its bureaucracy and wealth, collect local tax, and receive

natural resource royalty. Therefore, decentralisation

grants autonomy to the local leaders to manage local

government. Consequently, leadership capacity can be an

influencing factor to the success of OG implementation.

Similarities in the samples

The third section will discuss the level of OG

implementation in Jakarta and Banten. The Rechtsstaat and

unitary state model have made Jakarta and Banten’s

governments similar. This reform process follows its path-

10


dependency because it will be easier than have to start

over since the system of norms and administrative practices

have been integrated internally in a long period of time

(Peters & Pierre 1998, p. 224). Table 1 shows the

similarities of both governments in all key features of

Politico-administrative regime model (see Pollit &

Bouckaert 2011). Base on the Local Government Act, Jakarta

and Banten have similar structure of government

automatically. Each government has governor and vice

governor as local leaders; and provincial house of

representative as local parliament and governor

counterpart. Although governor is not accountable to local

parliament, but local parliament can intervene government

through budgeting process. Additionally, governor and

parliament members are directly elected, which grants all

political leaders equal power. Therefore, public policies

are the result of consensus between governor and

parliament’s members.

In bureaucracy management, both governors have authority to

appoint top executives (head of department) in their

respective region as stated in the Local Government Act

(article 124). However, the head of departments are career

11


civil servants positions, which restricts the governors to

appoint non-civil servant professional to lead the

departments.

In addition of similarities, Jakarta and Banten have

established public relation function as addressed by UU

KIP. Each government shows similar in public relation

structure, which is summarised in table 2. Each government

has established OG websites and PPID as the websites

administrator, which is integrated in KOMINFO department.

Although Banten OG portal is not working properly due to a

very slow connection and replaced with Banten KOMINFO

website, both respective OG websites provides comparable

services that having a level of similarities.

Moreover, Jakarta and Banten are neighbouring province that

shares infrastructure similarities. Both provinces are

located in western Java that relatively has similar

telecommunication infrastructure, which is provided by a

national state owned company (Telkom Indonesia). In

software infrastructure, Jakarta and Banten have adopted

LKPP system to organise government online tenders.

Therefore, Jakarta and Banten comparison is relatively free

from formal government structure bias and can be useful to12


explain the impact of OG implementation to governance in

Indonesia.

Open Government Implementation differences

It can be seen in Table 2 that Jakarta is more superior in

OG implementation than Banten. Jakarta has more features,

faster access, and more channels option than Banten. In OG

features, Jakarta’s portal provides various government

data, which include permit procedures, statistic data,

public surveillances, and financial and budgeting reports.

On the contrary, although Banten’s KOMINFO website provides

transportation information and regulation list, but it only

focuses on its own departmental report. This partial

presentation is also observable from Banten’s Tourism

Department (Disbudpar). Accordingly, to have more

government of Banten’s activities, I use different online

resources, e.g. nonofficial websites and online mass media,

which focus on Banten region. This difficulties shows that

Banten government has lack attention to public information

law (UU KIP) as well as its KOMINFO has failed to

administrate the portal. Alternatively, disaggregation

within the government structure occurs in Banten while

Jakarta does not experience this problem. 13


In term of accessibility, Jakarta’s website is much faster

while Banten’s main portal is unreachable. I cannot find

any reasons why Banten’s KOMINFO website is working while

the portal itself is not since KOMINFO as PPID has

obligation to maintain the portal website. KOMINFO staffs

have demonstrated that they have adequate capability to

maintain a website, but they let the Banten portal down

during my observation. This evidence may indicate a level

of resistance in the Banten’s bureaucracy to maintenance

the OG websites.

Jakarta also has better channel options than Banten.

Jakarta uses social network to reach broader access to

public. Jakarta’s Facebook account broadcasts tourism

information and its YouTube account shows governor meetings

and activities. On the other hand, even Banten also has

Facebook account but the page is empty.

Leadership issues may be the cause of the differences of OG

implementation. Leadership support is critical in OG

implementation. According to Government Regulation Number

61 (2010), KOMINFO has authority to request information to

other department, but this regulation did not mention any

sanction if other departments do not cooperate. Lack of14


sanction may the source of Banten problems. On the

contrary, Jakarta’s leader is keen to provide a highest

level of transparency as possible, which is a powerful help

for KOMINFO to force other department’s cooperation.

Open Government impacts to government’s transparency

The fourth section will discuss OG impact to government

transparency. Transparency is important in the democracy

system because public as account-holder requires government

as the agent to be accountable for all of its actions.

Consequently, public expects government provision of high

level of transparency to foster public trust (Mulgan 2003,

pp. 8-10). In term of government transparency, Jakarta OG

website’s performance is much better than Banten in all

aspect as describe in table 2. Jakarta has more

comprehensive presentation than Banten. It is easy to find

Jakarta’s financial report (budgeting) although the reader

is expected to have basic financial knowledge. In

regulation presentation, Banten puts the original

regulation without any further explanation that will make

ordinary people difficult to understand. On the other hand,

15


Jakarta has simplified permit information that is useful

for direct use. Public of Jakarta also has easier access to

know what is governor activities from published videos in

Jakarta’s social media account than Banten. A clip of

Jakarta Governor’s inspection demonstrates that the

transparency also improves public communication (Pemprov

DKI 2013). These evidences indicate that the higher level

of OG implementation will result in the higher public

knowledge to government activities. Additionally, higher

transparency helps political leader to advocate government

policies more often because it reduces gap between account-

holder and agency (Mulgan 2003, p. 12), although it does

not mean that a political leader should be threatened as

celebrity.

Open Government impacts to public participation

The fifth section will discuss public participation in OG

implementation. Public participation is closely related

with transparency because account-holders are keen to know

what the agency had done. In public participation

observation, Jakarta has better performance than Banten as

describe in table 2. Public in Jakarta can submit complain

through various access, one of it is LAPOR, which has16


higher level of legality. Up to 7 June 2014, LAPOR program

records that Jakarta has received 14,419 cases were 59% of

them have been solved. Alternatively, Jakarta also has

social media channels that Jakarta’s governor has

effectively use it to communicate with his constituent. It

is important to take national mass media into public

participation in Jakarta since these media have allocated

one segment for Jakarta. This evidence confirms that

openness in government will foster public empowerment

(Pollitt 2003, p. 78).

On the other hand, Banten public has limited option. They

have to rely on local mass media to retrieve information of

government activities. The Banten OG website only provides

one way communication. Consequently, public may see that

Banten government has a lack of activities. Interestingly,

some individuals in Banten have published a website (e.g.

kotaserang.com) to provide public information voluntarily,

which includes Banten officers’ contact numbers. This

evidence shows that people will presume to scrutinise

government because of the protection from UU KIP.

Therefore, OG implementation in public participation in

Jakarta and Banten has shown development of public

17


contribution in different ways. Channels provision will

guide public aspiration while close channels will induce

public to develop their own public information as they

want.

Open Government impacts to intergovernmental collaboration

The sixth section will discuss the intergovernmental

collaboration. The regulations provide strong legitimacy to

establish OG’s administrator bodies. However, since the OG

implementation has lack of sanction, national and local

government have equal position in the OG implementation.

For example, Jakarta integrates LAPOR based on MOUs with

the national government (OGI 2013) while Banten does not

have. This evidence is the result of administrative

decentralisation in Indonesia. The national government has

lack power to control local government. Alternatively,

Banten’s government does not concern public relation

matters although they have to comply with UU KIP.

On the contrary, Jakarta and Banten have integrated LKPP to

their system because of strong sanction. President

Regulation Number 54 (2010) stated that government tender

18


process out from LKPP system will be ineligible, and the

public officers who accountable to that actions will be

charged (article 118). Therefore, a sanction can induce OG

implementation regardless decentralisation increases

disaggregation within administration structure.

Conclusion

OG in Indonesia is following rechtsstaat pattern, where it

focuses on vertical integration (Osborne 2006, p. 382).

The regulation chronology shows that OG must experience a

very long process and procedures, where this process cannot

guarantee the adoption of OG in every government’s agency

at once. However, it is hard to claim that the

hierarchical structure will weaken OG in Indonesia since

the structure itself grants firm legitimation to OG

development within national and local governments.

Samples’ comparisons have reveal plausible OG

implementation problems, such as lack of sanction,

bureaucrat’s resistance, and disaggregation among

departments. These problems explain that the political

leadership is an important factors to link fractures in the

internal government bodies. This evidence confirms the

19


principles for the management of government IT project

(Pollitt 2003, p. 81) where leaders’ commitment is above

all technical difficulties.

Additionally, when government is lack of transparency, but

state acknowledges the public participation rights, public

will find a way to participate in governance through

publish public information voluntarily. However, this

situation can lead to mass confusion and erode public trust

because each individuals can produce their own version of

public information. Therefore, although OG is voluntary,

government as the authority bodies should provide official

information reduce the risks.

Empirical information from the samples has concluded that

Jakarta OG implementation is higher than Banten. Banten’s

performance shows that they have internal disintegration

that severe the implementation. On the contrary, Jakarta’s

achievement leads to improvement in government

transparency, public participation, and intergovernmental

collaboration. However, the pressure to more transparent

government is tend to higher than the less one because the

more channels available will increase more inquiries.

20


The online data in this paper is only adequate to identify

some progress of ICTs implementation in local governance,

especially in public relation matters. It is not adequate

to make general picture of the whole system and how OG in

Indonesia has transform the bureaucracy. One of reasons is

difficult to find information from the inside of

bureaucracy in both governments, which is useful to analyse

the bureaucracy resistant and to understand the political

leadership’s management and performance. Additionally, this

paper does not discuss about money value efficiency in the

implementation, which is important in cost and benefit

analysis, because of difficulties to find the related data.

21


AppendixTable 1

Politico-administrative Regime key featuresNo.

Items Banten Jakarta

1 Local governmentstructure

Unitary

decentralized

Unitary

decentralized

2 Executive Government

Consensus-oriented principles

Consensus-oriented principles

3 Minister/Mandarin Relation

Minister (top executives are accountable to the governor)

Minister (top executives are accountable to the governor)

4 Administrative culture

Rechtsstaat Rechtsstaat

5 Diversity of Policy Advice

Mainly civil service

Mainly civil service

Source: author’s observation

Table 2Observation data to Open Government implementation in Banten and Jakarta(Observation between 28 May to 7 June 2014)No.


I OG Implementation

1 OG websites Bantenprov.go.id (inaccessible due to a very slow

Jakarta.go.id (working)

22


No.


connection), www.dishubkominfo.bantenprov.go.id (working)

2 Official informant

Information Department (KOMINFO)

www.dishubkominfo. bantenprov.go.id

Information Department (KOMINFO)integrated with Jakarta.go.id

3 Available in searching engine

Yes Yes

4 List of services

(Observation from www.dishubkominfo. banten.go.id)

Profile of department

News Agenda Division in the

department (function and officers)

Laws Statistics

(transportation and roads)

Pictures gallery

Regional fees Statistic Regional budget Licensing service Application of

public information CCTV and water

level control (public surveillance)

Tourism

5 Accessibility The main portal is inaccessible but KOMINFO department can provide some information about Banten government activities especially internalactivities and

The portal has fast access and relatively up-to-date

23


No.


transportation topics.

6 Social networking availability

Facebook (pemda-banten) is empty and not updated

Facebook (infojakarta), YouTube (pemprovdki), both facilities provide update information about governor activities and public activities inJakarta

II Transparency

(comprehensibly, accessibility, availability, understandability, usability, and accuracy)

1 Review on written reports

Banten does not provide financial information but it provides regional regulations in KOMINFO website that are presented as original as possible. The readers are required to have basic Indonesian law knowledge to understand the reports.

Jakarta provides guidance in licensing services section, which is easy to understand although only one language (Bahasa). Additionally, Jakarta provides financial information (e.g. financial reports and budgeting) but without narration. The readers are expected having basic accounting knowledge to understand the reports.

24


No.


Additionally, Jakarta publishes officers’ contact numbers, which include majors, headof departments, headof districts, and head of hospitals.

2 Review on government activities

The latest published activities are on 9May 2014. The website is not updated regularly.

The website providesupdate and various information, which include water level of reservoirs in Jakarta that is useful to predict flood.

The YouTube account publishes various governor activities daily

III

Participation

1 Online media Bantenpost.com and Mediabanten.com provide most currents events in the region and havebroad topics although there are not many activitiesin a month. They also cover governor’s activities. However, they do not provide public

National media as Kompas.com reserves Metro rubric to poolevents in Jakarta. This media brings Jakarta issues become national issues.

25


No.


interaction or comments within thereports

2 Public participation

Kotaserang.com (voluntary, nonofficial website) provides the province government addresses and contact persons. This website also publishes public events in Banten

LAPOR’s statistic shows that Jakarta has 14,419 cases (upto 7 June 2014). Public also activelyinteract in Jakarta’s Facebook page and YouTube account.

3 How governmentrespond to them

Banten do not have any observable channels to put complaints.

Jakarta has covered 59% complains and marked them as done,14% and 28% are on process and on queuerespectively.

IV Collaboration

1 Integration with LAPOR (lapor.ukp.go.id)

No Yes, Jakarta is relatively very responsive to cope any complaints.

2 Integration with LKPP (lkpp.go.id)

Yes but tender information only accessible from LKPP website

Yes, the tender information is accessible from Jakarta and LKPP websites

3 Other intergovernmental collaboration

KOMINFO did not provide list of intergovernmentalorganization.

The municipal of Serang (capital

Jakarta informs various intergovernmental organisations, for example bus rute

26


No.


city of Banten) publishes join events with Banten.

Statistic Agency of Banten (BPS Banten, banten.bps.go.id,a central government organization) provides statistical data about Banten, , which include demography, agriculture, and industry data.

from Transjakarta (aJakarta’s SOE), the West Fleet Navy (settled in Jakarta), and Statistic Agency of Jakarta (BPS Jakarta, Jakarta.bps.go.id, acentral government organization).

4 Additional OG website

disbudpar.bantenprov.go.id (tourism, working)

distanak.bantenprov.go.id (farming andhusbandry, inaccessible)

Not detected

Source: author’s observation

27


References

Act Number 14 Year 2008 Public Information Disclosure Law(Undang Undang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik) (Republic ofIndonesia)

Act Number 25 Year 2009 Public Service Act (Undang Undangtentang pelayanan publik) (Republic of Indonesia)

Act Number 32 Year 2004 Local Government Act (Undang Undangtentang pemerintahan daerah) (Republic of Indonesia)

Government Regulation Number 61 Year 2010 TechnicalGuidelines for Public Information Disclosure Law (PeraturanPemerintah Pelaksanaan UU Keterbukaan Informasi Publik) (Republic ofIndonesia)

MIA, see Ministry of Internal Affair.

Ministry of Internal Affair Regulation Number 35 Year 2010Administration Guidelines for Information and Documentationwithin Ministry of Internal Affairs and Local Goverment(Peraturan Mendagri tentang Pedoman PPID di Lingkungan Kemendagri danPemda) (Republic of Indonesia)

Mulgan, R 2003, Holding power to account: accountability in moderndemocracies, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.

OGI, see Open Government Indonesia.

OGP, see Open Government Partnership.

Open Government Indonesia 2012, ‘Open Government Indonesia:a new era of government openness’, Implementation Report of OpenGovernment Indonesia 2012, viewed 31 May, 2014, <http://opengovindonesia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Open-Government-Indonesia-GSAR-2012-En.pdf >.

---- 2013, ‘UKP4 and the Jakarta administration agreedchannel uniting community complaints’, opengovindonesia.org 18April 2013, viewed 8 June 2014, <http://opengovindonesia.org/ukp4-jakarta-administration-agreed-channel-uniting-community-complaints/ >.

Open Government Partnership n.a., From Commitment to Action,viewed 31 May, 2014,

28

http://opengovindonesia.org/ukp4-jakarta-administration-agreed-channel-uniting-community-complaints/

http://opengovindonesia.org/ukp4-jakarta-administration-agreed-channel-uniting-community-complaints/

http://opengovindonesia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Open-Government-Indonesia-GSAR-2012-En.pdf

http://opengovindonesia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Open-Government-Indonesia-GSAR-2012-En.pdf


<http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/leaflet_no.pdf >.

Osborne, SP 2006, ‘The New Public Governance?’, PublicManagement Review, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 377-87.

Painter, M & Peters, BG 2010, ‘Administrative traditions incomparative perspective’, in M Painter & BG Peters (eds),Tradition and public administration, Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke, pp. 19-30.

Pemprov DKI 2013, ‘Governor inspection to Krukut river,Southern Jakarta (Gub Bpk. Jokowi meninjau kali krukut, JakartaSelatan)’, YouTube 21 February 2013, viewed <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16S1-nUfn7U >.

Peters, BG & Pierre, J 1998, ‘Governance withoutgovernment? Rethinking public administration’, Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 223-43.

Pollit, C & Bouckaert, G 2011, Pubic Management Reform: Acomparative analysis - New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, 3 edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pollitt, C 2003, ‘The information age’, in The essential publicmanager, Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp. 74-82.

President Regulation Number 54 Year 2009 PresidentRegulation about Presidency Taskforce in developmentsupervision and control (Peraturan Presiden tantang Unit KerjaPresiden bidang pengawasan dan pengendalian pembangunan) (Republicof Indonesia)

President Regulation Number 54 Year 2010 PresidentRegulation about government procurement (Peraturan Presidententang pengadaan barang/jasa pemerintah) (Republic of Indonesia)

Veljković, N, Bogdanović-Dinić, S & Stoimenov, L 2014,‘Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective’,Government Information Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 278-90.

29

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16S1-nUfn7U

http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/leaflet_no.pdf

http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/leaflet_no.pdf

Documents

Open Government impact in Indonesian local governments