Analisis Teori Birokrasi Max Weber dalam Konteks Administrasi Publik Modern
Kata Kunci:
Birokrasi Weberian, Administrasi Publik Modern, New Public Management, Governance, Digital GovernmentAbstrak
Birokrasi sering dipersepsikan sebagai organisasi yang kaku dan lamban, namun tetap menjadi fondasi utama bagi negara modern untuk menjamin legalitas, kepastian prosedural, dan akuntabilitas. Artikel ini bertujuan menganalisis relevansi teori birokrasi Max Weber dalam konteks administrasi publik modern melalui studi literatur. Metode yang digunakan adalah kajian literatur terstruktur dengan tahapan: (1) perumusan pertanyaan kajian, (2) penelusuran artikel pada basis data ilmiah (utama: Google Scholar) menggunakan kombinasi kata kunci “Weberian bureaucracy”, “public administration”, “new public management”, “governance”, dan “digital government”, (3) seleksi melalui kriteria inklusi eksklusi, serta (4) sintesis tematik. Kebaruan artikel ini terletak pada pemetaan integratif yang membedakan “inti Weberian” (rule of law, hierarki, aturan tertulis, impersonalitas, dan merit system) dari lapisan adaptif administrasi publik modern. Temuan kajian menunjukkan: (1) prinsip Weberian tetap penting untuk konsistensi keputusan dan jejak akuntabilitas; (2) disfungsi seperti red tape dan goal displacement muncul ketika kepatuhan prosedural melampaui tujuan pelayanan; (3) paradigma modern mendorong orientasi hasil (NPM), koordinasi jejaring (governance), serta transformasi digital yang menuntut agilitas; dan (4) model hibrida/neo-Weberian menjadi jalur kompromi yang paling menonjol. Secara implikatif, reformasi birokrasi perlu menyeimbangkan kepastian hukum dengan penyederhanaan proses, kolaborasi, dan digitalisasi yang berpusat pada warga.
Unduhan
Referensi
M. Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, vol. 2, G. Roth and C. Wittich, Eds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978, ISBN: 9780520028241.
R. K. Merton, “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality,” Social Forces, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 560–568, 1940, doi: 10.2307/2570634.
B. Bozeman, Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000, ISBN: 9780136137535.
M. Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980, ISBN: 9780871545268.
C. Hood, “A Public Management for All Seasons?,” Public Administration, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 3–19, 1991.
R. A. W. Rhodes, “The New Governance: Governing without Government,” Political Studies, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 652–667, 1996, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x.
R. B. Denhardt and J. V. Denhardt, “The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering,” Public Administration Review, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 549–559, 2000, doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00117.
P. Dunleavy, H. Margetts, S. Bastow, and J. Tinkler, “New Public Management Is Dead—Long Live Digital-Era Governance,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 467–494, 2006, doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui057.
C. Pollitt and G. Bouckaert, Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis—Into the Age of Austerity, 4th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2017, ISBN: 9780198795179.
S. P. Osborne, Ed., The New Public Governance?: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. London, UK: Routledge, 2010, ISBN: 9780415494632.
D. F. Kettl, “Weberian Bureaucracy and Contemporary Governance,” Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 111–120, 2022, doi: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvab026.
Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2023 tentang Aparatur Sipil Negara, 2023.
M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, n71, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
C. Okoli, “A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 37, art. 43, 2015, doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.03743.
H. Snyder, “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 104, pp. 333–339, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.
L. S. Nowell, J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules, “Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 16, no. 1, 2017, doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847.
