Development of Public Administration Service

DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SERVICE Public service is the embodiment and explanation of the duties and functions of government employees in the context of carrying out general government and development tasks. Government employees are placed to carry out functions alongside state servants, as well as public servants. Therefore, to realize these duties and functions, they are described in the provision of services to the community by service units. The implementation referred to both includes activities to regulate, develop and encourage as well as fulfill the needs or interests of all aspects of community activities, especially community participation in the implementation of development. Based on its definition, public service is a service activity carried out by public service providers as an effort to fulfill public needs and implement the provisions of laws and regulations (Mahmudi, 2010: 223). Public services are activities carried out by a person or group of people with material factors through certain systems, procedures and methods in order to fulfill the interests of other people in accordance with their rights (Moenir, 2002: 26-27). According to Harbani Pasolong (2007: 128) Public service is every activity carried out by the government for a number of people who have every activity that is profitable in a group or unit, and offers satisfaction even though the results are not tied to a physical product. Meanwhile, Sinambela in the book "Public Service Reform" (2014: 5) states that "Public service is the fulfillment of the desires and needs of the community by state administrators. The state was founded by the public (society) of course with the aim of improving the welfare of the community. In essence, the state in In this case, the government (bureaucrats) must be able to meet the needs of the community. "Needs in this case are not individual needs but various needs that are actually expected by society, for example the need for health, education and so on." In addition to the definition above, IAN in Widodo (2001:271) states that public service is defined as all forms of public service activities carried out by Government Agencies at the Center and in the Regions within BUMN, BUMD in the form of goods and services, both in the context of efforts to fulfill community needs, as well as in the context of implementing the provisions of Legislative Regulations. Based on the definition above, it can be seen that the essence of public service is providing excellent service to the community which is a manifestation of the obligations of government employees as public servants. Another important thing related to public services is the existence of regional autonomy as one of the dimensions of services which is increasingly decentralized at the regional level. This is in line with the main function of local government as stated by John Stewart and Michael Clarke (in Skelcher, 1992:3), namely: a) The public service function consists of: • Environmental services (environmental services), • Personal service (personal service). b) Development implementation function (development function), and c) Protection function (protective function). To carry out these functions, regional government employees must be able to follow up or explain the implementation of services to the community in accordance with the functions of each service unit. Apart from function, Skelcher (1992:4) also put forward principles in serving the community, namely: a) Standard, namely the existence of explicit clarity regarding the level of service including employees in serving the community; b) Openness, namely explaining how community services are implemented, how much they cost, and whether a service is in accordance with specified standards; c) Information, namely comprehensive and easy to understand information about a service; d) Choice, namely providing consultation and choices to the community as long as necessary; e) Non discrimination, namely services are provided without distinction of race and gender; f) Accessibility, service delivery must be able to please customers or provide satisfaction to customers; g) Redress, there is a good publication system and easy procedures for submitting complaints. Success in implementing the principles of quality public services is very dependent on the public service processes carried out. The public service process involves two parties, namely the bureaucracy (servants) and the community (those served). Therefore, to see the quality of public services in question, two main aspects need to be considered and studied, namely: aspects of the organization's internal processes (services); as well as external aspects of the organization, namely the benefits felt by the customer community. This is in line with what Skelcher (1992:10) stated, dividing customers in public services into two parts, namely internal and external customers. And service attention is often focused on external customers, namely the community as stakeholders. 7) Meanwhile, Keban (2008:4), emphasizes the varied meanings of the term public administration. According to him, public administration as the administration of the public shows the government's role as the sole agent in power or as a regulator, while administration for the public shows a more advanced context than before where the government plays a more important role in carrying out the mission of providing public services (service providers) and administration by the public. is a concept that is very oriented towards community empowerment. B. Development of the Public Administration Paradigm Science can change and develop when and where it is located. Changes and developments that occur in science are called paradigms. According to Thomas Kuhn (in Keban, 2008:31) says that a paradigm is a perspective, values, methods, basic principles, or ways of solving a scientific society at a certain time. As a science, public administration cannot be separated from the changes and developments that occur not only in Indonesia but also throughout the world. The development of the public administration paradigm generally occurs in five stages as stated by Keban (2008:31) as follows: a. Paradigm I occurred between 1990 and 1926, known as the Political and Administrative Dichotomy paradigm. This paradigm tries to separate politics and administration which are considered to have different tasks. This can be seen from the duties and functions carried out by legislative institutions, executive institutions and judicial institutions. Apart from that, Ibrahim (2009:5) also explains that the focus of public administration is only limited to problems that occur in government organizations, while government, politics and policy issues are included in the study of political science. Paradigm I is the result of the writings of Frank J. Goodnow and Leonard D. White (Thoha: 2010:18) in their book Politicus and Administration. According to Frank, there are two main functions of government that are different from each other, namely politics and administration. According to Frank, politics must produce policies made by the state. Meanwhile, administration is defined as implementing policies that have been made by the state. So there is a fundamental difference between political and administrative studies. From the description above, it is known that the locus of paradigm I is that the existence of public administration must be centered on government bureaucracy (in Thoha: 2010: 19). Meanwhile, the focus of public administration studies does not pay attention to this first paradigm so that public administration studies are not discussed clearly and in detail. b. Paradigm 2 (1972-1937) was put forward by Willoughby in his book entitled "Principles of Public Administration" so it is known as the administrative principles paradigm. The book explains in detail the developments that have occurred in the study of public administration so that they can be studied generally by the public. In this second paradigm, public administration also places more emphasis on the principles of public administration that apply generally and universally to every organization, agency and institution. So, administrators can become experts and competent in their work if they are willing to learn how to apply these principles. (Thoha:2010:21). Apart from that, in this second paradigm phase, public administration developed rapidly, especially with contributions from other fields such as industry and government. With this contribution, public administration developed not only in relation to politics and government, but management science was also involved in developing the principles of public administration at that time. The principles in question are a fact that explains that public administration can be anywhere without looking at aspects of culture, environment, ongoing functions, organizational mission and even the structure of an organization. This means that public administration can be applied and followed anywhere without exception, including in countries that have different systems of government. Apart from that, in the second phase of public administration there are several books that have a role in enriching the study of public administration as stated by Thoha (2010:22), namely: Mary Parker Foller, wrote Creative Experience (1930), Henry Fayol, Industrial and General Management (1930), James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley, Principles of Organization (1939), and various other writings that put forward the principles of public administration. Then Luther H. Gulick and Lyndall Urwick also wrote about public administration in their book entitled "Paper on the Science of Administration". According to Gulick and Urwick, (in Thoha, 2010) principles are very important for administration as a science. The location where the principle will be used is not that important. Focus plays an important role compared to locus. The famous administrative principle from Gulick and Urwick is the abbreviation POSDCORB (Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, Budgeting). However, in the following years, public administration experienced many challenges due to the many new concepts that emerged and attempts to criticize the concepts used by public administration because they were considered still orthodox. In 1938, a book appeared entitled "The Functions of Executive" written by Chester I. Barnard. The book written by Chester I. Barnard had an influence on the thinking of Herbert A. Simon, who also criticized the science of public administration in his book entitled "Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Process in Administrative Organizations". According to Simon (in Thoha, 2010), every administrative principle must contain a counter principle. Still according to Simon, within one principle there will be other opposing principles. And this is what causes problems in the study of traditional public administration, so Simon offers an alternative to this second paradigm, namely that there must be two types of public administration, namely pure public administration and public administration that explains public policy. These two types of administration are two reinforcing components of the new paradigm. As Simon said: (Thoha:2010:27) "There does not appear to be any reason why these two developments in the field of public administration should not go on side by side, for they are in no way conflict or conflict." Furthermore, criticism of the concept of public administration continues to occur with two opinions appearing simultaneously, namely first, the opinion which states that politics and administration cannot be separated and second, the opinion which states that the principles implemented by public administration are illogical and consistent. Thoha (2010) explains that in 1946, a book edited by Fritz Morstein Marx Elements of Public Administration answered the first objection, that administration and politics could be dichotomized. The fourteen articles written in the book were all written by administrative practitioners and show that the new awareness of "value-free" administration is actually a value that is heavily biased towards politics. Some questions that arise include: • Is a technical decision regarding budget and personnel development truly an impersonal and nonpolitical decision? Or is it really very personal, very political, and very professional? • Was it never possible to distinguish the differences? • Is there no meaningful effort to differentiate between politics and administration, if in fact they cannot be differentiated? • Is the emergence of a political-administrative dichotomy in this field very beneficial, very good or, on the contrary, naive? A frontal answer to these questions was given by John M. Gaus in 1950 writing in Public Administration Review magazine under the title "A theory of public administration means in our time a theory of politics too". An interesting study of the dichotomy of politics and administration was presented by Allen Schick in his writing which was later edited by Frederick C. Mosher (in Thoha, 2010). According to Allen, those who question the separation of politics from administration have never presented an established argument that something called administration and something called politics really cannot be separated absolutely. Schick further said that public administration is to serve power and has full power to serve that power pro bono publico, to help power holders in government more efficiently. c. Paradigm 3 (1950-1970) is the paradigm of public administration as Political Science. According to this third paradigm, it is not appropriate to have a dichotomy between politics and public administration in the study of public administration science. In this context, public administration is not value free or can apply anywhere but is instead influenced by certain values. This paradigm considers the study of public administration to be part of political science, only with a different emphasis. Political science focuses on the process of formulating policies for socio-political forces outside the bureaucracy, public administration focuses on formulating policies within the bureaucracy, but cannot be separated from the prevailing political system. (Ibrahim, 2009: 6). Related to this, Thoha (2010) briefly explains that this third paradigm phase is an attempt to re-establish the conceptual relationship between public administration and political science. He said that despite efforts to return to political science as an identification of public administration, on the contrary, political science has begun to forget it. This happened because in 1962 public administration was no longer considered a part of political science. This can be seen from the report of the political science commission as a discipline from APSA (American Political Science Association). In 1964, a survey conducted by political science scholars indicated a decline in interest in public administration in political science faculties. So in 1967 public administration was completely removed from the APSA annual meeting program. Between 1960 and 1970, only four percent of all articles published in the five major political science journals discussed public administration. According to this third paradigm phase, there were two new developments that need to be noted at that time, namely first, the growth in the use of case studies as an epistemological tool. Second, the emergence of comparative studies and administrative development as a part of public administration. (Thoha:2010:28) d. Paradigm 4 (1956-1970) is the paradigm of state administration as an administrative science. This paradigm considers that public administration science as part of political science needs to be further developed in two harmonious aspects, namely the development of administrative science purely based on social psychology, and the intricacies of public policy. (Ibrahim, 2009: 6). In contrast to Thoha (2010), the term administrative science is used in this fourth paradigm to indicate the content and focus of the discussion. In this science there is also a discussion of organizational science theory and management science. Organization theory essentially gets its main contributions from the work of scholars of social psychology, corporate administration and sociology. In this way, public administration scholars get the right information to understand organizational behavior. Management science is very dependent on research carried out by statisticians, systems analysis, computers and economics. So that public administration scholars obtain information to measure work implementation appropriately and increase managerial efficiency. According to Thoha (2010), a number of development efforts, especially those derived from the influence of the corporate administration faculty (school of business administration), accelerated the search for alternative paradigms for this administrative science. In 1956 the administrative science journal Quartetly was published, as a very important means for voicing opinions and conceptions of this paradigm. Public administration scholar Keith M. Henderson argued in the mid-1960s that organization theory is or should be the primary focus of public administration. Likewise, we should not forget the efforts initiated by previous scholars, such as James G. March and Herbert A. Simon in a book written by the two of them, entitled Organizations (1958). Furthermore, it is said that in the early 60s, Organizational Development (OD) began to develop rapidly as a specialization of administrative science. OD as a field of study is based on social psychology and the democratic values of bureaucracy, both government and private, as well as the self-actualization of each member of the organization. Because of these things, OD is seen by young public administration scholars as an object that can offer a research field that can compete within the framework of administrative science. In Thoha's (2010) view, this fourth paradigm in the journey of materials through scarcity is not without problems. There are many questions that need to be answered, such as if a single focus has been chosen by public administration, namely administrative science, does it still have the right to speak Public (state) in that administration, administrative science no longer has general principles because these principles have been replaced by specific organizational and management principles. It is a phenomenon in everyday life that the difference between government and private (public end private) is difficult to formulate empirically. The existence of a complex military industry, the existence of regulations from government departments that regulate government relations with private industries, the advancement of expertise of each department in helping to advance the managerial techniques of private companies in every aspect of society's life. The chaotic use of the term public in the field of administration seems incomprehensible. One scholar believes that we should start talking about public administration, because managerial organizations have a close relationship with the public, state, government and matters of a political nature. This is due to the growing interdependence in a technological society. Thoha (2010) provides a conclusion regarding the fourth paradigm that the state in public administration should not be interpreted in relation to institutional terms, but rather should be interpreted philosophically, normatively and ethically. In this case, the state will be something that has influence on the interests of society. . Paradigm 5 (1970-present) is the last paradigm referred to as public administration as administration. Keban stated (2008:33) that this paradigm is an update to previous paradigms. This paradigm has a clear focus. The focus of public administration includes organizational theories, public policy analysis, modern administration and management techniques, various problems in government bureaucracy and issues of community needs and aspirations. Meanwhile, the locus is public problems and interests. Even more than that, according to Thoha (2010: 33), public administration is increasingly paying attention to the area of policy science, political economics, the process of making government policy and its analysis (public policy making process) and ways of measuring the results of the policy. already made. More than that, Thoha stated that these aspects of attention can be considered in many ways as a chain that connects the focus of public administration with its locus. As can be seen in the trends followed by this paradigm, the focus of public administration is practical organizational theory in public policy analysis and advanced administration and management techniques. The normative locus of public administration is described by this paradigm in government bureaucracy and in community problems. Although public affairs is still in the process of finding its form. However, seeing the development of this field, it occupies a major place in attracting the attention of public administration. That is why Thoha continued, that in a short time, public administration as a field of study has shown its own color. Several new faculty departments and academies of administration and public affairs emerged. This proves the existence of a clear attitude from this paradigm. Between 19731978, approximately 21 percent of professional faculties of public administration and public affairs and around 53 percent of public administration and public affairs departments were formed. One of the trends in the growth of public administration is the formation of a national association of these faculties (the national association of schools of public affairs and administration). This association was formed in 1980 and has more than 200 institutional members and more than 25,000 full-time and part-time students. enrolled in the MPA program in the late 1970s. This is how the development of public administration can be followed both through history and through paradigm developments. All of them have an empirical background from European countries and the United States. Because that's where this science began to be developed. We learn from their experiences that we consider good and can be applied in the growth of our public administration. (Thoha, 2010,32)