Hubungan Diskresi dengan Kualitas Pelayanan Publik dalam  Perspektif Street-Level Bureaucracy

Bambang Aditio; Aldri Finaldi; Roberia Roberia

doi:10.62383/presidensial.v2i4.1302

Authors

Bambang Aditio Universitas Negeri Padang
Aldri Finaldi Universitas Negeri Padang
Roberia Roberia Universitas Negeri Padang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62383/presidensial.v2i4.1302

Keywords:

Accountability, Bureaucracy, Discretion, Public Service, Street-Level Bureaucracy

Abstract

This study discusses the relationship between administrative discretion and public service quality within the framework of street-level bureaucracy theory. In public administration practice, implementing officials are often faced with tensions between compliance with formal rules and the dynamic needs of the community. These conditions make discretion an important instrument for adjusting policies to the realities on the ground. This study uses a literature review of various studies from 2010 to 2025 to identify patterns, dynamics, and implications of the use of discretion by implementing bureaucrats. The results of the study show that discretion allows the bureaucracy to be more adaptive, empathetic, and responsive to citizens' needs. However, without strong oversight and administrative ethics, discretion can lead to bias, injustice, and opportunities for abuse of authority. Factors such as public service motivation, professional competence, organizational culture, and political pressure have a significant influence on how discretion is applied. Thus, improving the quality of public services requires a balance between administrative control and professional trust through accountability systems, ethical oversight, and adaptive but law-based policies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adlini, M. N., Dinda, A. H., Yulinda, S., Chotimah, O., & Merliyana, S. J. (2022). Metode penelitian kualitatif studi pustaka. Edumaspul: Jurnal Pendidikan, 6(1), 974–980. https://doi.org/10.33487/edumaspul.v6i1.3394

Assanti, W. K. (2024). Discretion leads to corruption in Indonesian Public Service Agency Hospitals: Governance challenges and control mechanisms. Jurnal Tata Kelola dan Akuntabilitas Keuangan Negara, 10(2), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.28986/jtaken.v10i2.1632

Busch, P. A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion. Information Polity, 23(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170411

Engdaw, B. (2022a). The effect of administrative decentralization on quality public service delivery in Bahir Dar city administration: The case of Belay Zeleke sub-city. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 2004675. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2021.2004675

Engdaw, B. (2022b). The effect of administrative decentralization on quality public service delivery in Bahir Dar city administration: The case of Belay Zeleke sub-city. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 2004675. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2021.2004675

Evans, T. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368–386. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq074

Fadhil, W. R., Syekh, S., & Akbar, A. (2025). The influence of leadership style and organizational culture on employee performance with motivation as an intervening variable at the Secretariat of the Regional People's Representative Council of Jambi Province. Journal of Accounting and Finance Management, 6(4), 2191–2199. https://doi.org/10.38035/jafm.v6i4.2426

Fatemi, M., & Behmanesh, M. R. (2012). New public management approach and accountability. International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, 1(2), 42–49.

Fatima, M., & Risnawaty, W. (2023). Gambaran strategi coping stress karyawan sistem kerja remote. Phronesis: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi Terapan, 12(2), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.24912/phronesis.v12i2.24663

Gofen, A. (2014). Mind the gap: Dimensions of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut051

Hardianto, W. T., Maryunani, M., & Sukanto, S. (2020). The dilemma of innovation in public sector: A case study of local government in Indonesia. Jurnal Wacana Kinerja: Kajian Praktis-Akademis Kinerja dan Administrasi Pelayanan Publik, 23(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.31845/jwk.v23i2.198

Harrits, G. S. (2019). Stereotypes in context: How and when do street-level bureaucrats use class stereotypes? Public Administration Review, 79(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12987

Hupe, P. (2011). The thesis of incongruent implementation: Revisiting Pressman and Wildavsky. Public Policy and Administration, 26(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076710367717

Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x

Indriati, F., & Cendekia, S. J. (2021). Diskresi birokrasi dalam implementasi kebijakan bantuan sosial Covid-19 di tingkat kelurahan. Jurnal Ilmiah Administrasi Publik, 7(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jiap.2021.007.01.11

Keiser, L. R., & Miller, S. M. (2020). Does administrative discretion increase or decrease inequality in public services? Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12428

Misuraca, G., Pasi, G., & Urzi Brancati, C. (2020). ICT-enabled social innovation for social services: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(24), 10525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410525

Mukhlis, M. (2022). The logic of discretion in the perspective of government administration law in Indonesia. Jurnal Bina Praja: Journal of Home Affairs Governance, 14(1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.14.2022.135-146

Nurprojo, I. S. (2014). Strategi coping birokrasi tingkat bawah (street level bureaucrats) dalam pelayanan publik. Jurnal Kebijakan & Administrasi Publik, 18(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.22146/jkap.6862

Rijali, A. (2019). Analisis data kualitatif. Alhadharah: Jurnal Ilmu Dakwah, 17(33), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.18592/alhadharah.v17i33.2374

Schott, C., van Kleef, D., & Noordegraaf, M. (2016). Confused professionals?: Capacities to cope with pressures on professional work. Public Management Review, 18(4), 583–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1016094

Thomann, E., Hupe, P., & Sager, F. (2018). Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation. Governance, 31(2), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12297

Tummers, L. L. G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu056

Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841978

Yusriadi, Sahid, A., & Amirullah, I. (2019). Bureaucratic reform to the human resources: A case study on the one-stop integrated service. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 51, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.32861/jssr.51.61.66