In this study, we use a survey and focus group data to investigate policy analysis activity and analytical capacity in the government of West Java Province, Indonesia. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world and has over four million public servants serving approximately 270 million people (Statistics Indonesia,
2021). Indonesian law stipulates the role of public servants as planners, supervisors, and implementers of general government tasks and national development through the delivery of policies and professional public services, free from political intervention, corruption, collusion, and nepotism. To carry out these main tasks, public servants must have adequate qualifications, competencies, and capacities to engage in public policy processes. Many of these qualifications, and the activities for which they are intended, are in theory similar to those pursued in Western bureaucracies. As will be elaborated below, our survey and focus group data suggest that in our case study of West Java, government policy workers interpret their roles, competencies, and activities in a way that aligns closely with Western conceptions of policy analysis, with little indication of any particular "Eastern" or "Asian" style.
Policy analysis and policy analytical capacity
The notion that policy should be informed by the best available evidence has become increasingly popular among many observers since at least the early 2000s. According to this point of view, public policy decisions that are based on “intuition, ideology, or conventional wisdom”, rather than research evidence, can “go seriously astray” (Banks,
2009, p. 4). A wide variety of actors, including academics (Cartwright & Hardie,
2012), practitioners (Chalmers,
2003), politicians (O’Malley,
2014), administrative organizations (European Commission,
2010) and international organizations (OECD,
2013) have all issued calls for policy decisions to be better informed by rigorous evidence. Supporters of evidence-based policy often argue that policies that are not informed by available lessons on inputs, outcomes, and stakeholder values are vulnerable to policy failure (e.g. Dunlop,
2017).
Evidence-based policy has, however, also been the subject of considerable debate. A critical perspective, one that questions the entire evidence-based policy paradigm, has emerged in parallel to the more instrumentalist school of thought outlined above. Some critics, who have called into question the fundamental ability of the public sector to base policy decisions on evidence, argue that proponents of evidence-based policy simply do not understand the complex political nature of the policy process (Cairney,
2016, p. 4). Others argue further that evidence-based policy would be socially undesirable, as it would undermine democracy and deliberation (Holmes et al.,
2006), or could be used by powerful elites to suppress particular viewpoints (Packwood,
2002), suppress particular research methodologies (Neylan,
2008), or oppress minorities (Maddison,
2012). Many authors note the basic contestability of evidence, with some extreme viewpoints denying that objective evidence can ever be obtained for subjects that are relevant to policy making (Luton,
2007).
Although debates in this area have become somewhat ill-tempered at times (see Newman,
2017 for an overview), there is a more moderate perspective that has also made a contribution to the discourse. In this middle-ground approach, policy decisions are understood to be informed by evidence but are also influenced by partisan considerations, values, human judgement, emotions, political strategy, and a host of other factors that are all apparent and legitimate in the context of a developed democracy. Authors who adopt this point of view argue that there are multiple sources of information that must be processed by decision makers, and the focus for scholars and practitioners should be to support decision makers to make the most purposeful and intelligent use of information possible (Parkhurst,
2016). The emphasis of this perspective is therefore on improving the use of information for policy decision making, not on eliminating political or other influences from the policy process.
Our approach here is informed by this middle-ground perspective on evidence-based policy, or as some have called it, evidence-informed policy (Nutley & Webb,
2000, p. 20). Public policy decisions are the result of a complex and dynamic process that incorporates numerous voices, conflicting and competing interests, power imbalances, game-playing, and risk-taking, in addition to strategic decision making and planning. While the debates surrounding evidence-based policy are certainly relevant, it is still possible to accept as fact that there is a part of the democratic policy making process that consumes information and transforms it into useful advice for decision makers. Following others (e.g. Adachi,
2017), we refer to this link in the policy decision making chain as policy analysis. We also assume from the outset that at least some policy analysis takes place in dedicated administrative units within public sector organizations (Weimer & Vining,
2017, p. 30).
Accordingly, Howlett and his co-authors (e.g. Oliphant and Howlett,
2010; Wellstead et al.,
2011) have developed the concept of policy analytical capacity to represent the ability of public servants to collect and process information for the purpose of informing policy decision making. Policy capacity is itself a confusing and amorphous term that has been used to refer to a variety of concepts, from the quality of policy development (Anderson,
1996) straight through to the level of control the state has in governing society (Painter & Pierre,
2005). Policy analytical capacity, on the other hand, is specifically meant to capture the capacity of public sector employees to turn information into policy advice. Howlett (
2015, p.174) defines policy analytical capacity as the “ability of individuals in a policy-relevant organization to produce valuable policy-relevant research and analysis on topics asked of them or of their own choosing” and identifies numerous factors that contribute to policy analytical capacity, which can be condensed into four categories: 1. individual policy workers' knowledge of the policy process and the needs of policy decision makers; 2. individual policy workers' skills, including research skills and statistical analysis skills; 3. an organization's support for advice creation, which can include effective leadership, professional rewards for quality policy analysis, team building and information sharing, and strategic long-term planning; and 4. physical resources, such as information technology or library subscriptions. The implied argument of much of this literature is that greater policy analytical capacity results in better quality policy advice, which in turn can produce more strategic, more effective, and more sustainable policy outcomes (Mendez & Dussauge-Laguna,
2017).
But is policy analysis performed the same way in different national contexts? Starting in the 1980s and early 1990s, scholarship on "policy styles" developed around the notion that bureaucracies in different national jurisdictions might operate under varying sets of customs and traditions, which are linked to the unique political histories and policy legacies within those countries (Howlett,
1991; Richardson,
1982). The focus of much of this research is on the selection of policy instruments, especially the mix of public sector intervention with private markets and other network actors (Mukherjee & Howlett,
2016). However, more recently, some of the academic debate in this area has shifted to national styles in administration and policy analysis (Bayerlein et al.,
2021; Berman,
2010; Tao,
2018). As in other areas of public policy and administration scholarship, studies on national styles have tended to focus on Western countries, particularly the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (e.g. Cairney,
2018; Halligan,
2021; Howlett & Lindquist,
2004).
Again, more recently, prominent voices have been calling for scholars to pay more attention to other jurisdictions, especially in Asia (Bice et al.,
2018), and some authors already have done so (e.g. Berman,
2010,
2011). However, while some have pointed to "non-Western" (Bice et al.,
2018), "Asian" (Mukherjee & Howlett,
2016), and "Eastern" (Ugyel,
2016) styles, definitions are still somewhat ambiguous, and agreement on what core elements might be characteristic of a non-Western paradigm of public administration has not yet been reached.
Conversely, the most frequently discussed aspect of "Western" public administration is Max Weber's (
2009a [1921]) depiction of the administration of government as a neutral, professional machine, mechanically and proficiently implementing policy decisions that were made elsewhere in a separate political branch of government. According to Weber, "the genuine official…will not engage in politics. Rather, he should engage in impartial 'administration.' " (
2009b [1919], p.95). Drechsler (
2018, p.22) notes that this Weberian conception of an ideal public service is one of the core paradigms of Western public administration. By contrast, Berman (
2010, p.2) argues that in Asia, "Different conceptions exist about the ‘political neutrality’ of civil servants. Countries do not prioritize or define ‘democracy’ in exactly the same way" as they do in Western countries (Berman's comparator is the United States). Tao (
2018), in writing more specifically about countries with a Confucian tradition, argues that while Weber idealized professionalism, some Asian countries emphasize morality instead, and might bend Weber's rules on political neutrality to suit. Weber himself noted that in his conception of public administration, the bureaucrat's personal morals were of no consequence, asserting instead that "The honour of the civil servant is vested in his ability to execute conscientiously the order of the superior authorities, exactly as if the order agreed with his own conviction. This holds even if the order appears wrong to him and if, despite the civil servant's remonstrances, the authority insists on the order" (
2009b [1919], p.95).
Others have argued that policy analysis in non-Western countries might just not be as well resourced as it is in the West. Several observers have described weaknesses in policy analytical capacity in Asian jurisdictions, for instance in the Philippines (Saguin et al.,
2018), Hong Kong (Cheung,
2007), India (Bali & Ramesh,
2021), and Vietnam (Phuong et al.,
2018). Colebatch (
2004) has gone as far as to argue that in Southeast Asia, policy-relevant employees in public sector administrative organizations do not conduct policy analysis at all. Elsewhere, Colebatch (
2006) has argued that the concept of policy analysis itself is a mainly American construct and may not be applicable to jurisdictions outside the United States.
Taken together, the existing scholarship on this subject suggests that policy analysis and public administration activities as they are understood in the West, in which professional and politically neutral public servants collect and process information, craft evidence-based advice for political decision makers, and faithfully implement policy decisions for the delivery of public sector interventions, may not be an accurate depiction of what goes on in non-Western bureaucracies, especially in Asia. However, as mentioned earlier, there is little empirical data on how well this depiction of Asian public administration corresponds with reality, and these claims need to be investigated further.
Policy analytical capacity in Indonesia
Indonesia is a prime candidate for investigating policy analysis in the developing world. It is a regional powerhouse in Southeast Asia, with a gross domestic product roughly equivalent to 35% of the entire ASEAN bloc (ASEAN,
2020). Major domestic policy issues, including addressing religious extremism, managing responses to natural disasters like earthquakes and volcanoes, conserving the natural environment, poverty reduction, and dealing with urbanization, are areas where Indonesia has the potential to set positive examples for the rest of the developing world. Moreover, Indonesia has a strong administrative culture and an extensive administrative machine inherited from its authoritarian past. An active and official policy of decentralization since 2002 has effectively dispersed this administrative culture across the country and through virtually every policy area (Tjiptoherijanto,
2007, p. 35). In short, Indonesia is large, it has an expanding sphere of influence, it has a pervasive bureaucracy and a strong bureaucratic tradition, and it is a major player in a variety of international policy areas. A better understanding of policy analysis in Indonesia is essential, because Indonesia is responsible for many policy areas of regional and global significance, and because the public sector's capacity for policy analysis will greatly influence and contribute to how well they can approach these tasks.
Our data come from West Java, Indonesia's most populous province, with a population of about 50 million inhabitants (about 18% of the Indonesian population) throughout 18 regencies and 9 cities (BPS-Statistics Indonesia,
2018). Annual population growth rate, average household size, employment rate, average net income, happiness index, poverty rate in urban areas, human development index, and a variety of other indicators for West Java are all about the same as the national means, so West Java likely represents something of an Indonesian average.
As in other developing countries, academic scholarship on public administration in Indonesia is scant, and very little is known about policy analysis in the Indonesian public sector. A large proportion of international scholarly studies on public administration in Indonesia focus on administrative reform, and in particular, the elimination of corruption (e.g. Blunt et al.,
2012; van Eeden Jones & Lasthuizen,
2018). Another tranche of studies deals with the outcomes of specific policy decisions or decisions in particular policy areas, such as security (Fealy & White,
2016) or economic development (Kuswanto et al.,
2017). A smaller number of studies investigate citizen satisfaction with public policies or social services (e.g. Benny & Abdullah,
2011).
There are some more targeted studies on public administration in Indonesia, and many of these report deficiencies in the ability of the Indonesian public sector to conduct policy analysis. Tjiptoherijanto (
2007), for instance, presents some details on the technical resources of the Indonesian public sector as part of his investigation into possible avenues for public administration reform. Studies by Hillman (
2013) and Tumanut (
2016) look at more specific questions of structural problems within the Indonesian bureaucracy. A report by Zhang (
2015), conducted on behalf of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, examines evidence-based policy in Indonesia, and assumes from the outset is that analytical capacity is low. A more comprehensive assessment of policy analytical capacity in Indonesia, undertaken by the Knowledge Sector Initiative (also sponsored by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade), found that capabilities of individual policy workers in the Indonesian national government was high but that the level of resources available to them was low, resulting in major deficiencies in policy analytical capacity (Pellini et al.,
2018). Datta et al., (
2016, p.16), also from the Knowledge Sector Initiative, found that Indonesia's lower levels of policy analytical capacity are also evident at the sub-national and local levels. Apart from describing weaknesses in policy analytical capacity, the factor that these studies all have in common is that they take a very Western approach to public administration in Indonesia, including language and notions of evidence-based policy, policy analysis, and policy analytical capacity that are usually discussed in Western public administration contexts.