Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational analysis highlights the impact of corruption and maladministration in Indonesia, suggesting a vital role for the Ombudsman.
Corruption and maladministration are two major problems that are interrelated and encompass the principles of good governance. The focus of corruption eradication in Indonesia has thus far been on implementing measures through institutions such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi/KPK), with little attention given to the role of public service supervisory institutions such as the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia (Ombudsman Republik Indonesia/ORI). In fact, maladministration is often the gateway to corruption. This study aims to analyze the role of ORI in efforts to prevent corruption through a phenomenological approach, by exploring the subjective experiences of Ombudsman employees. The framework analysis used is the Strategic Triangle developed by Mark Moore, which emphasizes three main components in creating public value: public value, legitimacy and support, and operational capacity. The results of the study indicate that ORI has legal legitimacy and a strategic vision in eradicating corruption through preventing maladministration. However, in practice, the effectiveness of supervision is still hampered by limited human resources and budget, weak legal force over the recommendations, and low public awareness of the role of ORI. Although it does not have the authority to take direct action like the KPK, ORI still plays a role in preventing small-scale corruption by monitoring accountable and transparent public service standards.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iskandar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: