The improvement of apparatus (National Civil Apparatus/ASN) competency is an important part of realizing the standards of the nation through effective government institutions. The apparatus must be staffed by knowledgeable and professional individuals, commonly known as merit system. In this context, the deployment of several merit systems in ASN management has reported unsatisfactory results. Therefore, this research aims to examine merit system policy in Indonesian government and the influencing elements, with an emphasis on central ministries and institutions. A qualitative descriptive method was used with a constructivist paradigm, and data analysis adopted triangulation. Data collection was conducted through in-depth interviews with eight purposively selected key informants, focus group discussions (FGD), observations, literature reviews, and official government reports. The results showed that the implementation of merit system policy at Ministry/Institution level was categorized as good based on eight aspects of the assessment prepared by KemenPAN-RB (Ministry of State Apparatus Utilization and Bureaucratic Reform). However, there were several ministries and institutions with low scores, and the challenges were difficult since National Civil Apparatus Committee (KASN) was disbanded. The research concludes that while Indonesia’s government has generally implemented the merit system well, career development and promotion are hindered by inadequate talent management and ambiguous policies, with environmental factors, proficient human resources, infrastructure, and digital systems acting as critical determinants.
AfisaA.SuswantaS.ZaenuriM. (2024). Merit system innovation through the SIPINTER application (information system for self-assessment of merit system implementation) in Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, 22(2), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.14710/jis.22.2.2023.50-66
2.
AlothmanyR.JiangZ.ManoharanA. (2023). Linking high-performance work systems to affective commitment, job satisfaction, and career satisfaction: Thriving as a mediator and wasta as a moderator. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(19), 3787–3824. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2157681
3.
BarskyC. S. (2024). Volunteers, civil servants, and street-level bureaucrats: What motivates poll workers to serve on the front-lines of elections?Public Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/07349149241231109
4.
BartramD.BartramD. (2023). Does belief in meritocracy increase with inequality? A reconsideration for European countries. British Journal of Sociology, 74(5), 763–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13042
5.
BatistaM. (2023). Bureaucracy and policymaking: Evidence from a choice-based conjoint analysis. Research & Politics, 10, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680231180980
6.
BelardinelliP.BelleN.CantarelliP.BattaglioP. (2023). Performance-related pay, fairness perceptions, and effort in public management tasks: a parallel encouragement design. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(4), 1062–1078. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221105374
7.
BermanE. M.PrasojoE.FathurrahmanR.SamartiniA.PlimmerG.SabharwalM.NeivaV.SyarienM. I. A.HariyatiD.PuspasariD.WijayantiF. W.FerdiansyahJ. (2025). Strategic program management: Performance accountability driving use in national governments. Public Administration Review, 85(3), 862–884. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13892
8.
BoselieP.Van HartenJ.VeldM. (2021). A human resource management review on public management and public administration research: stop right there. . .before we go any further. . . .Public Management Review, 23(4), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1695880
9.
BrewerG. A.KelloughJ. E.RaineyH. G. (2022). The importance of merit principles for civil service systems: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(4), 686–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x211026008
10.
ChairiahA.AriskiS.NugrohoA.SuhariyantoA. (2020). Implementasi sistem merit pada aparatur sipil negara di Indonesia: The implementation of merit-based system on state civil apparatus in Indonesia. Jurnal Borneo Administrator, 16(3), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.24258/jba.v16i3.704
11.
ChudnovskyM.Castañeda FarillC. E. (2024). Gender discrimination and merit-based selection: A case study of Mexico. Public Administration and Development, 44(2), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2041
12.
CooperC. A. (2018). Encouraging civil servants to be frank and fearless: Merit recruitment and employee voice. Public Administration, 96(4), 721–735. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12548
13.
CooperC. A.ReggieJ. (2025). Public Sector employees’ political activity across administrative traditions: Tensions between democratic participation and bureaucratic impartiality in an era of populism and democratic backsliding. Public Administration Quarterly, 49, 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/07349149241310404
14.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (The sixth). Sage.
HodderR. (2014). Merit versus kinship: A category mistake? The case of the philippine civil service. Public Administration and Development, 34(5), 370–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1700
18.
JohnsonT.LewisG. B. (2020). Inspecting the merit system’s “pivotal idea”: Does competitive examination increase the qualifications and quality of the U.S. Federal Service?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(2), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x18794808
19.
KASN. (2022). Update Capaian Kinerja Penilaian Sistem Merit Tahun 2022. https://doi.org/https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-00h6WbLVaCpm6GJvG8vj-HgMut2-sR7/edit#gid=300833872
20.
KelloughJ. E. (2025). The fragility of merit: Erosion of the foundation of public service under Trump. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 45(1), 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x231214973
21.
KimM. Y.YuH. J.ParkS. M. (2017). Examining and testing the roles of human resource development (HRD) in the public sector: Evidence from US federal agencies. International Review of Public Administration, 22(1), 60–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2017.1304631
22.
LapuenteV.SuzukiK. (2020). Politicization, bureaucratic legalism, and innovative attitudes in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 454–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13175
23.
MasturA. S. R.RinojatiM.FathyaV. N. (2025). Examination of ethics in public service: An Indonesian perspective. Public Administration Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07349149251345410
24.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
25.
Mohamed Al-SabaR. A.-Q. (2023). Evaluation of the implementation of merit criteria in the selection of senior bureaucratic officials in Egypt. Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, 5(5), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhass-07-2021-0123
26.
MulaphongD. (2023). Does meritocracy produce desirable outcomes for public organizations? Results of a worldwide expert survey from 149 nations. Public Integrity, 25(6), 578–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2022.2074763
27.
NurpratamaM.YudiantoA. (2021). Strategi Inovasi dan Rencana Implementasi untuk Mendorong SDM Unggul di Masa Pandemi [Innovation strategy and implementation plan to promote excellent human resources during the pandemic]. Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains, 2(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.36418/jiss.v2i1.148
28.
OliveiraE.AbnerG.LeeS.SuzukiK.HurH.PerryJ. L. (2024). What does the evidence tell us about merit principles and government performance?Public Administration, 102, 668–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12945
29.
ParkS.JeonS. H. (2022). Merit principles merit further investigation: The influence on employee perception of whistleblowing. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(12), 894–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1928185
PutraY. P.PurnomoE. P.SuswantaS.KasiwiA. N. (2020). Policy of A merit system to make a good and clean government in the middle of bureaucratic politicization. Journal of Government and Civil Society, 4(2), 159. https://doi.org/10.31000/jgcs.v4i2.2393
33.
RahmahM.HamdiM. (2022). An overview of research trend on merit system in Indonesia and international practices: A bibliometric analysis and visualization. Jurnal Bina Praja, 14(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.14.2022.55-69
34.
RidwanI.SukmanaO.WahyudiW. (2024). Evaluation of merit system policy implementation in the selection for high leadership positions within the Riau Provincial Government. Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health, 3(5), 1063–1074.
35.
RintakaM.RatmintoR.SumiaH. R. (2024). Merit system: A case study of the top management team fulfillment process. Corporate Board Role Duties and Composition, 20(3), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.22495/cbv20i3art6
36.
RuhilA. V. S.CamõesP. J. (2003). What lies beneath: The political roots of state merit systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpart/mug006
37.
SoB. W. Y. (2019). Exam-centred meritocracy in Taiwan : Hiring by merit or examination ?Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(3), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12139
38.
SuhJ.BattaglioP. (2022). Assessing the mediating effect of internal communication on strategic human resource management and perceived performance: An intersectoral comparison. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(3), 464–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x21994185
39.
SunamR.PariyarB.ShresthaK. K. (2022). Does affirmative action undermine meritocracy? “Meritocratic inclusion” of the marginalized in Nepal’s bureaucracy. Development Policy Review, 40(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12554
40.
SuzukiK.HurH. (2020). Bureaucratic structures and organizational commitment: findings from a comparative study of 20 European countries. Public Management Review, 22(6), 877–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619813
41.
SuzukiK.HurH. (2022). Revisiting the old debate: Citizens’ perceptions of meritocracy in public and private organizations. Public Management Review, 24(8), 1226–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1895545
World Competitiveness Center. (2023). IMD World Competitiveness Booklet 2023. World Competitiveness Center.
44.
YesilkagitK.BezesP.FleischerJ. (2022). What’s in a name? The politics of name changes inside bureaucracy. Public Administration, 100(4), 1091–1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12827
