Good governance and accountability issues have become a serious concern in Indonesia after the economic crisis and subsequent political transition in 1998. Consequently, the Indonesian government has increasingly given attention to the application of performance measurement for the governmental agencies, including local authorities, as part of bureaucratic reform and good governance practices. The purpose of this article is to review the regulations and guidelines while examining issues and consequences of implementing performance measurement system in Indonesian local governments using descriptive and analytical methods based on secondary data. Although a performance measurement system has been implemented in Indonesia for 14 years, the results have been far from satisfactory. The Performance Management System (PMS) regulation is quite comprehensive, except it lacks a punishment and reward system. Some evidence demonstrates implementation issues such as lack of compliance, lack of integration between planning and budgeting, and inaccurate indicators and data reporting.
Abdul-KhalidS.N. (2010). Improving the service delivery: A case study of local authority in Malaysia,Global Business Review, 11(10), 85–77.
2.
Abu-BakarN.B.SalehZ.MohamadM.H.S. (2011). Enhancing Malaysian public sector transparency and accountability: Lessons and issues. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 31, 133–142.
3.
AdamsG. (2000). Uncovering the political philosophy of the new public management. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 22(3), 498–499.
4.
AGA (2009). Governments’ use of performance measures to improve service delivery. AGA CPAG Research Series: Report No. 23.
5.
AkbarR.PilcherR.PerrinB. (2012). Performance measurement in Indonesia: The case of local government. Pacific Accounting Review, 24(3), 262–291.
6.
AmmonsD.N. (1995). Overcoming the inadequacies of performance measurement in local government: The case of libraries and leisure services. Public Administration Review, 55(1), 37.
7.
BarzelayM. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy. Sacramento, California: University of California Press.
8.
BrignallS.ModellS. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’. Management Accounting Research, 11(3), 281–306.
9.
BrinkerhoffD.W.WetterbergA. (2013). Performance-based public management reforms: Experience and emerging lessons from service delivery improvement in Indonesia. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(3), 433–457.
10.
CaidenG.E.CaidenN.J. (2004). Measuring performance in public sector programs. Public Administration and Public Policy, Vol. II.
11.
ChanY. (2004). Performance measurement and adoption of balanced scorecards: A survey of municipal governments in the USA and Canada. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(3), 204–221.
12.
DendiA. (2010). Assessment of local governance performance and development in Indonesia: Current models, challenges and future perspectives. A paper presented at the IASIA International Congress, Bali-Indonesia, July 12–17.
13.
DurstS.NewellC. (1999). Better, faster, stronger, government reinvention in the 1990s. American Review of Public Administration, 29(1), 61–75.
14.
HendersonK.M. (2001). Urban service delivery in developing countries–escape Western bureaucratic solutions. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(4), 327–340.
15.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons?Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
16.
HughesO. (2003). Public management and administration: An introduction. New York: Palgrave.
17.
IMF (2002).The role of capacity building in poverty reduction. An IMF Issues Brief.
18.
International City/County Management Association (ICCMA). (2005). Core management and budget skills for Indonesian local governments. Final report prepared for US Agency for International Development, Building Institutions for Good Governance, ICCMA, Washington, DC.
19.
IrawantoD.W.RamseyP.L.RyanJ.C. (2011). Tailoring leadership theory to Indonesian culture. Global Business Review, 12(3), 355–366.
20.
JalaludinD.Siti-NabihaA.K (2013). Outcome based indicators in the Malaysian Public, Sector 2nd Asian-America- Africa-Australia Public Finance Management Conference, Jakarta.
21.
KlootL.MartinJ. (2000). Strategic performance management: A balanced approach to performance management issues in local government. Management Accounting Research, 11(2), 231–251.
22.
KugonzaS.NamaraR.B.LwangaM. (2012). Dynamics of public sector performance measurement in Uganda. Paper presented at 2012 IASIA Annual Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, July 16–21.
23.
KurniawanT. (2011). Democratic Decentralization and corruption in Indonesia: Why decentralization has caused head of regions affected by corruption cases. Paper presented Conference on Decentralization and Democratization in Southeast Asia, Freiburg Southeast Asia Study Group, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, June 15–17.
24.
LawtonA.McKevittD.MillarM. (2000). Coping with ambiguity: Reconciling external legitimacy and organizational implementation in performance measurement. Public Money & Management, 20(3), 13–19.
25.
Mardiasmo (2002). Otonomi and manajemen keuangan daerah. Yogyakarta: Andi Publisher.
26.
MelkersJ.WilloughbyK. (2002). Evolving performance measurement in local governments. Paper presented at the 2002 Meeting of the Association for Budgeting and Financial Management (ABFM), Kansas City, MO.
27.
Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy Reform (2013). Laporan Hasil Evaluasi Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah Tahun 2012 (LAKIP Evaluation Report). Jakarta: Ministry of Indonesia.
28.
MimbaN.S.H.Van HeldenG.J.TillemaS. (2007). Public sector performance measurement in developing countries. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 3(3), 192–208.
29.
National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA). (2005). Cross cutting assessment report. State Ministry of Environment/United Nations Development Programme, NCSA, Jakarta.
30.
NicholsK. (1997). The crucial edge of reinvention: A primer on scoping and measuring for organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 21(4), 405–418.
31.
NsouliS.M. (2000). Capacity building in Africa: The role of international financial institutions. Finance & Development, 37(4), 34–37.
32.
OsborneD.GaeblerT. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
33.
OtleyD. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management control system research. The Management Accounting Review, 10(4), 363–382.
34.
PoisterT.H.StreibG. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 325–335.
35.
PollanenR. (2005). Performance measurement in municipalities: Empirical evidence in Canadian context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(1), 4–24.
36.
PollittC. (1993). Managerialism and the public services: The Anglo-American Experience (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
37.
Pusat Kajian Manajemen Kebijakan Lembaga Administrasi Negara (PKMK-LAN). (2005). Kajianevalua sikebijakanpengembangandanpelaksanaan SAKIP-LAKIP Tahun 2005. Pusat Kajian Manajemen Lembaga Administrasi Negara.
38.
RidleyF. (1996). New public management in Europe: Comparative perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 11(1), 16–29.
39.
SiddiqueeN.A. (2006). Public management reform in Malaysia: Recent initiatives and experiences. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 339–358.
40.
Siti NabihaA.K. (2008). New public management in Malaysia: In search of an efficient and effective service delivery. International Journal of Management Studies, 15, 69–90.
41.
StokerG. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(1), 17–28.
42.
UNDP (1997). Governance for sustainable human development. United Nations Development Programme.
43.
Van CrowderL. (1996). Human resource and institutional capacity building through agricultural education, sustainable development. New York, NY: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
44.
WisniewskiM.OlafssonS. (2004). Developing balanced scorecards in local authorities: A comparison of experience. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(7), 602–610.
45.
WisniewskiM.StewartD. (2004). Performance measurement for stakeholders: The case of Scottish local authorities. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(3), 222–233.
46.
YangK.HolzerM. (2006). The performance-trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126.
