RED TAPE: KAJIAN KONSEPTUAL DAN IMPLEMENTASI

Wuku Astuti, Iva Mindhayani

Abstract


Birokrasi internal maupun eksternal mengacu pada prosedur birokrasi, peraturan, dan rutinitas. Jumlah obyektif birokrasi dalam suatu organisasi merupakan salah satu hal yang digunakan untuk mempelajarinya. Hal ini diukur dengan indikator seperti waktu pemrosesan dan jumlah persetujuan yang diperlukan untuk melakukan tugas-tugas manajerial utama. Hal ini diukur dengan indikator seperti waktu pemrosesan dan jumlah persetujuan yang diperlukan untuk melakukan tugas-tugas manajerial utama. persepsi tentang birokrasi, dan bukannya birokrasi itu sendiri, yang menjadi penghalang bagi inovasi sektor publik. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui keterkaitan red tape atau birokrasi dan dengan innovative collaboration, corporate social performance, dan idiosyncratic risk. Artikel ini menggunakan metode theoretical review dengan menggunakan 41 artikel sebagai bahan kajian. Birokrasi menyebabkan masalah dalam hal usaha, anggaran, perencanaan, interaksi pemangku kepentingan, konektivitas, dan integrasi. Corporate Social Performance (CSP) perusahaan berhubungan negatif dengan risiko pasar, baik risiko total, risiko sistematis, atau risiko idiosinkrasi. CSP juga dapat berdampak pada risiko sistematis perusahaan. CSP yang lebih baik akan menghasilkan kekuatan penetapan harga yang lebih tinggi dan margin laba yang lebih tinggi. Dari perspektif investor yang menghindari risiko, margin laba yang lebih tinggi menyebabkan elastisitas laba yang lebih rendah terhadap guncangan agregat, dan karenanya menurunkan risiko sistematis. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa menunjukkan bahwa red tape mempengaruhi  innovative collaboration dan corporate social performance, serta idiosyncratic risk dipengaruhi oleh corporate social performance.

Kata Kunci: birokrasi, risiko, perusahaan, sektor publik, tanggung jawab sosial


Full Text:

PDF

References


Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., & Zhang, C. 2018. Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science, 65(10), 4451–4469.

Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. 2010. Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71–86.

Blom, R., Borst, R. T., & Voorn, B. 2020. Pathology or inconvenience? A meta-analysis of the impact of red tape on people and organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(4), 623–650.

Bouslah, K., Kryzanowski, L., & M’Zali, B. 2013. The impact of the dimensions of social performance on firm risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 1258–1273.

Bouslah, K., Kryzanowski, L., & M’Zali, B. 2018. Social performance and firm risk: Impact of the financial crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 643–669.

Boutin-Dufresne, F., & Savaria, P. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and financial risk. The Journal of Investing, 13, 57–66.

Bozeman, B., & Scott, P. 1996. Bureaucratic red tape and formalization: Untangling conceptual Knots. The American Review of Public Administration, 26(1), 1–17.

Brewer, G. A., & Walker, R. M. 2010. The impact of red tape on governmental performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1): 233–257.

Bsoul, Labeeb, Amani Omer, Lejla Kucukalic, and Ricardo H. Archbold. 2022. Islam’s Perspective on Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Analysis. Social Sciences 11: 228.

Campbell, Jesse W. 2019. Obtrusive, Obstinate and Conspicuous: Red Tape from a Heideggerian Perspective. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 27(5):1657–72.

Chang, K., Kim, I., & Li, Y. 2014. The heterogeneous impact of corporate social responsibility activities that target different stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 211–234.

Chen, G., & Williams, D. W. 2007. How political support influences red tape through developmental culture. Policy Studies Journal, 35(3), 419–436.

Cinar, E., Trott, P., & Simms, C. 2019. A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process. Public Management Review, 21(2), 264–290.

DeHart-Davis, L., & Pandey, S. K. 2005. Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133–148.

Feeney, M. K., & DeHart-Davis, L. 2009. Bureaucracy and public employee behavior: A case of local government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(4), 311–326.

Harjoto, M., & Laksmana, I. 2018. The impact of corporate social responsibility on risk taking and firm value. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 353–373.

Huber, G. P. 2019. Guest editorial. The Learning Organization, 26(1):2-6.

Keum, D. D. & See, K. E. 2017. The influence of hierarchy on idea generation and selection in the innovation process. Organization Science, 28(4): 653-669.

Ljungholm, D. P. 2014. The pervasiveness of red tape in public organizations. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 6(1), 117–122.

Lopes, A. V., & Farias, J. S. 2020. How can governance support collaborative innovation in the public sector? A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(1), 114–130.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. 2009. The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Marketing, 73, 198–213.

Moon, M., & Bretschneider, S. 2002. Does the perception of red tape constrain it innovativeness in organizations? Unexpected results from a simultaneous equation model and implications. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2), 273–291.

Oikonomou, I., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. 2012. The impact of corporate social performance on financial risk and utility: A longitudinal analysis. Financial Management, 41, 483–515.

Pandey, Sanjay K. 2021. The Psychological Process View of Bureaucratic Red Tape. pp. 260–75 in Research Handbook HRM in the Public Sector, edited by Eva Knies and Bram Steijn. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Pandey, S., Coursey, D., & Moynihan, D. 2007. Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: A multimethod study. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 398–425.

Pandey, S. K., & Garnett, J. L. 2006. Exploring public sector communication performance: Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 37–51.

Pandey, S. K., & Scott, P. G. 2002. Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 553–580.

Preston, L. E., & O’Bannon, D. P. 1997. The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36, 419–429.

Salama, A., Anderson, K., & Toms, J. S. 2011. Does community and environmental responsibility affect firm risk? Evidence from UK panel data 1994–2006. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20, 192–204.

Sassen, R., Hinze, A., & Hardeck, I. 2016. Impact of ESG factors on firm risk in Europe. Journal of Business Economics, 86, 867–904.

Schlager, E. 2013. Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research by Barry Bozeman and Mary K. Feeney: Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research. Barry Bozeman and Mary K. Feeney. Armonk, NY: ME

Sharpe, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-7656-2335-5.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. 2011. Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration and Society, 43(8), 842–868.

Stazyk, E. C., Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. 2011. Understanding affective organizational commitment: The importance of institutional context. American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 603–624.

Torkayesh, A. E., Tirkolaee, E. B., Bahrini, A., Pamuar, D., & Khakbaz, A. 2023. A Systematic Literature Review of MABAC Method and Applications: An Outlook for Sustainability and Circularity. Informatica, 34, 415–448.

Tõnurist, P., Kattel, R., & Lember, V. 2017. Innovation labs in the public sector: What they are and what they do? Public Management Review, 19(10), 1455–1479.

Torvinen, H., & Jansson, K. 2022. Public health care innovation lab tackling the barriers of public sector innovation. Public Management Review, 1–23.

Tuurnas, S. 2015. Learning to co-produce? The perspective of public service professionals. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(7), 583–598.

van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. 2009. Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6–7), 423–437.

Van Dijck, Charlotte & Steen, Trui. (2023). Collaborating for Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Red Tape Effects at Play, International Journal of Public Administration, 46:14, 994-1005.

Vasiljeva, T., Shaikhulina, S., & Kreslins, K. 2017. Cloud Computing: Business Perspectives, Benefits and Challenges for Small and Medium Enterprises (Case of Latvia). Procedia Engineering, 178, 443–451.

Vento, I., & Kuokkanen, K. 2020. Mapping the post-bureaucratic Landscape: Project managers’ perception of bureaucracy in European Union cohesion policy projects. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 1–18.

Welch, E. W., & Pandey, S. K. 2008. E-government and bureaucracy: Toward a better understanding of intranet implementation and its effect on red tape. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 379–404.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.26877/ep.v9i1.19796

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Equilibria Pendidikan : Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Ekonomi

 

 

INDEXED BY   :

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.