STREET-LEVEL GOVERNANCE DYNAMICS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FREE NUTRITIOUS MEAL (MBG) IN INDONESIA: DISCRETION, COPING, AND SERVICE QUALITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32938/jan.v8i2.11163Keywords:
Populist policy implementation, Street-level bureaucracy, Bureaucratic discretion, Coping mechanisms, Public service performanceAbstract
This study examined how a populist-designed national school feeding program is translated into practice through complex bureaucratic structures and street-level governance processes. Using a qualitative case study approach, data were collected through in-depth interviews, observations, and document analysis within a specific school setting. This study applied street-level bureaucracy theory to explain how frontline actors mediate between formal policy mandates and situational realities. The findings indicated that performance-driven administrative pressures and fragmented inter-organizational coordination shift operational burdened onto schools, expanding the scope of discretion for teachers and school administrators. Frontline actors employed coping practices such as procedural simplification and task prioritization to maintain service delivery under constraints. While these adaptive mechanisms stabilized implementation in the short term, they also reshaped the substance of policies and contribute to variations in service quality, food safety risks, and disruptions to educational processes. This study demonstrated that implementation outcomes are co-produced through the interaction of structural conditions, professional norms, and local judgments. Theoretically, this study incorporates street-level discretion, governance fragmentation, and populist policy formulation into a mediated governance framework. While in practically sense, this study emphasizes the necessity of coordinating policy goals with institutional support for frontline actors, qualitative safeguards, and coordination ability.
References
Anasti, T. (2020). Street-Level Bureaucrats and Ethical Conflicts in Service Provision to Sex Workers. Ethics and Social Welfare, 14(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2019.1664608
Austin, E. K., Raile, E. D., Wallner, M. P., Peterson, J., Lewandowski, B., Sellegren, B., Kapps, D., Zook, M. V., & Jorgensen, C. (2024). Broadening the Concept of Value in Science and Technology Innovation Policy: Reconsidering Cooperative Research and Development Agreements as an Expression of Public Value Governance. Public Administration Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/07349149241256037
Bashir, M., & Shakil, K. (2021). Street-level bureaucrats and the (in)effectiveness of malaria control in Punjab. International Review of Public Administration, 26(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2020.1846879
Béland, D., & Howlett, M. (2016). The Role and Impact of the Multiple-Streams Approach in Comparative Policy Analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(3), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2016.1174410
Blok, S., van Buuren, M. W., & Fenger, H. J. M. (2023). The Public Value of Citizens’ Initiatives: Evidence from a Dutch Municipality. American Review of Public Administration, 53(7–8), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231175162
Borrelli, L. M. (2021). The Border Inside–Organizational Socialization of Street-level Bureaucrats in the European Migration Regime. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 36(4), 579–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2019.1676815
Brandenberger, L., Ingold, K., Fischer, M., Schläpfer, I., & Leifeld, P. (2022). Boundary Spanning Through Engagement of Policy Actors in Multiple Issues. Policy Studies Journal, 50(1), 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12404
Cain, B. E., Gerber, E. R., & Hui, I. (2021). Public Perceptions of Collaborative Governance in Transportation Policy. Political Research Quarterly, 74(4), 899–912. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920943954
Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (2025). Debate: Beyond the New Public Management? Public Money & Management, 45(1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2024.2387912
David Osborne, & Peter Plastrik. (1996). Banishing Bureaucracy : The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government. Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Davidovitz, M., & Cohen, N. (2022). Playing defence: the impact of trust on the coping mechanisms of street-level bureaucrats. Public Management Review, 24(2), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1817532
Di Giulio, M., & Vecchi, G. (2023). Implementing digitalization in the public sector. Technologies, agency, and governance. Public Policy and Administration, 38(2), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767211023283
Dogga, S. M., Tak, P., & Cheruku, J. K. (2023). Fiscal Discipline and Its Relationship with Economic Growth in India: Evidence-based Policy Analysis. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 69(4), 753–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/00195561231166851
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
Fuertes, V. (2021). The rationale for embedding ethics and public value in public administration programmes. Teaching Public Administration, 39(3), 252–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/01447394211028275
Goodman, C. B. (2019). Local Government Fragmentation: What Do We Know? In State and Local Government Review (Vol. 51, Issue 2, pp. 134–144). SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X19856933
Grossi, G., & Welinder, O. (2024). Smart cities at the intersection of public governance paradigms for sustainability. In Urban Studies (Vol. 61, Issue 10, pp. 2011–2023). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241227807
Hand, L. C. (2018). Producing a Vision of the Self-Governing Mother: A Study of Street-Level Bureaucrat Behavior in Coproductive Interactions. Administration and Society, 50(8), 1148–1174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399717719110
Hastings, A., & Gannon, M. (2022). Absorbing the shock of austerity: the experience of local government workers at the front line. Local Government Studies, 48(5), 887–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2021.1889516
Jan-Erik Lane. (2000). New Public Management: An Introduction . Routledge.
Kefi, A. E., Taus, W., & Anggraini, T. (2024). Implementasi Kebijakan Pemerintah Daerah Dalam Penataan Pasar Tradisional Di Kabupaten Timor Tengah Utara ( Studi Kasus Di Pasar Baru Kabupaten Timor Tengah Utara ). JianE (Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Negara), 6(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.32938/jan.v6i2.6115
Keping, Y. (2018). Governance and Good Governance: A New Framework for Political Analysis. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-017-0197-4
Keuffer, N., & Mabillard, V. (2020). Administrative openness and diversity in Swiss municipalities: how does local autonomy influence transparency practices? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(4), 782–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318823278
Krick, E. (2022). Citizen experts in participatory governance: Democratic and epistemic assets of service user involvement, local knowledge and citizen science. Current Sociology, 70(7), 994–1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921211059225
Larrison, J., & Edlins, M. (2020). Exploring the Responsibilities of Street-Level Bureaucrats through the Perspectives of Unaccompanied Migrant Youth and Their Sponsors. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1672730
Loew, N., & Faas, T. (2019). Between Thin- and Host-ideologies: How Populist Attitudes Interact with Policy Preferences in Shaping Voting Behaviour. Representation, 55(4), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2019.1643772
Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman, & Johnny Saldana. (2018). Qualitative Data Analysis A Methods Sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage Publication.
Michael Lipsky. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, 30th Anniversary Expanded Edition. Russell Sage Foundation; -30th Anniversary, Expanded ed. Edition.
Oliver Kasdan, D. (2020). Toward a theory of behavioral public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(4), 605–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318801506
Osborne. (2010). The New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. Routledge.
Peter Pirnejad. (2017). Elements of a Successfull Multi-Sectoral Collaborative From Local Government Practice A Framework for Collaborative Governance – Dimensions Shared by Award Winning Multi-Sectoral Partnerships. University of Southern California.
Quilabert, E., Verger, A., Moschetti, M. C., Ferrer-Esteban, G., & Pagès, M. (2024). The obstacle race to educational improvement: governance, policies, and practices in disadvantaged schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 45(6), 934–956. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2024.2376596
Robert K. Yin. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications Design and Methods (6 th). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sampson Thierry, J., & Martinsen, D. S. (2018). Lost in translation: how street-level bureaucrats condition Union solidarity. Journal of European Integration, 40(6), 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2018.1509510
Sementelli, A. J. (2020). Public Administration and Epistemology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003006053
Skerritt, C. (2023). Is critical scholarship being reflected in policy? A critical response to ‘Looking at Our School 2022: a quality framework.’ Journal of Educational Administration and History, 55(4), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2023.2179028
Tosun, J. (2022). What role for climate pact ambassadors? A policy process perspective. European View, 21(2), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/17816858221128719
Virtanen, P., Laitinen, I., & Stenvall, J. (2018). Street-level bureaucrats as strategy shapers in social and health service delivery: Empirical evidence from six countries. International Social Work, 61(5), 724–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872816660602
Warman, R. (2016). Decentralization and forestry in the Indonesian archipelago: Beyond the big Bang. In South East Asia Research (Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 23–40). University of London. https://doi.org/10.5367/sear.2016.0294
Xi Tang, & Kex Zena Fillip. (2025). Communication Pathways in Multilevel Governance: A Review of Digital Innovation and Public Value. Review of Communication Research, 13(Special), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.52152/RCR.V13.S9
Xie, L. (2016). Environmental governance and public participation in rural China. China Information, 30(2), 188–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X16653880
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 JianE (Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Negara)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Penulis yang mengirimkan naskahnya pada JianE telah memahami ketentuan yang berlaku pada jurnal ini. Jika naskah tersebut diterbitkan, hak cipta artikel itu akan diserahkan kepada JianE dan Program Studi Ilmu Administrasi Negara, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Universitas Timor sebagai penerbit jurnal tersebut.
Hak cipta ini meliputi hak eksklusif untuk mereproduksi dan menyiarkan artikel dalam berbagai bentuk media. Reproduksi sebagian atau keseluruhan isi jurnal ini dan segala yang melekat padanya haruslah dengan seizin JianE dan Program Studi Ilmu Administrasi Negara, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Universitas Timor.
JianE dan Program Studi Ilmu Administrasi Negara, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Universitas Timor, Dewan Editor, dan Reviewer berusaha menjamin agar tidak terjadi kesalahan atau penyimpangan dalam penyajian data dan pernyataan yang dikutip pada jurnal. Dalam hal naskah yang termuat berisi penghargaan pada pihak-pihak tertentu sebagai donatur atau sponsor, itu merupakan bagian yang terpisah dari JianE dan menjadi kepentingan penulis dengan pihak sponsor.
Semua artikel yang dimuat dalam jurnal ini bersifat Open Access dan bebas dibaca, diunduh, dan disebarluaskan oleh para pembaca selama tidak mengabaikan lisensi yang diacu oleh JianE: yaitu Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License