The Relationship of Government Paradigms With Public Service Workers: Indonesian Civil Servants' Perception on NPM (Secondary Research Study)

Introduction This essay addresses the topic of the relationship of government paradigms with public service workers. This essay uses research in an institution in Indonesia as the case study. The research is about civil servants’ perception on NPM and its effect on organisational performance. The aim of the essay is to analyse the implementation of NPM based on the perception of the civil servants. The essay is structured into five sections. The first section is introduction. It briefly explains the aim and the structure of the essay. The second section is concept. It describes the concept of New Public Management (NPM) and public-sector workers. The third section is the case study. It is based on research in regional tax offices in Indonesia. The fourth section is the analysis. It relates the characteristics of NPM with the public sectors workers. The last section is the conclusion. The essay concludes that the implementation of NPM in Indonesia does not give significant effects to the performance of public sector workers. Concept New Public Management The concept of New Public Management (NPM) arises to illustrate a conceptual idea in structuring the academic discussion of changes in the management and organisation of government (Barzelay, 2002, p15). In the beginning, many academics conceived that NPM is a perspective about organisational design. The later development of NPM made the definition of this concept wider. One of them is the assumption that NPM is the implementation of ‘new institutional economics to public management’ (Barzelay, 2002, p15). NPM is a concept that becomes the answer of the several characteristics that was stick with public sector organisation (PSO). First, PSO was not productive because they use many resources but only earn little. Secondly, the service provision was also inefficient as their inputs were not equal compared to the output get. Thirdly, PSO was considered as an organisation that hardly ever exercised innovation and lack of creativity. They, therefore, rarely experiencing changes (Mahmudi, 2007, in Wardhani, 2015, p3). It is in accordance to the statement of Denhardt and Denhardt (2000, p550) that said that recent public organisation face challenges to think the new approaches in providing service that previously delivered by government. Mahmudi (2007, in Wardhani, 2015, p4) argued that NPM is the adoption of private sector management practices into public management. He proposed several practices in a private sector that should be implemented in public sectors such as performance measurement, performance-based promotion, advanced budgeting and financial reporting system, flexible organisation structure, integrated procurement system and competitive tender. On the other hand, Adcroft and Willis (2005, p398) said that the adoption of the private sector practices must be adjusted to the actual condition. They argued that the implementation of some private sector practices in the public sector are less optimum. Related to the paradigm of the state, NPM is a reform programme in public management that aims to decrease the involvement of the state in providing services to the public (Skelcher, 2010, p7). NPM is intended to make a smaller government that reduce direct service provision. On the one hand, it gives the private sector more opportunities to deliver public services. In here, the government functions as the regulator that concerns with the guidance of the service provision. On the other hand, there are services that cannot be delegated to the private organisation. For example, the state set an institution that provides tax services because it deals with data confidentiality. The state must improve the performance of the institution that has responsibility for delivering the service (Wardhani, 2015, p3). The needs of service improvement might require more employees and new branches. The state, therefore, is expected to balance the demand to decrease its size and the need to provide better services. The introduction of NPM was based on the intention to attain efficiency. Conventionally, efficiency is the ratio of inputs to outputs. Recently, it can be defined as the effort to apply cost-reduction in managing public sector organisation (Hood and Dixon, 2013, p114). The idea of efficiency also comes from the statement of Christensen and Laegreid (2001, in Hood and Dixon, 2013, p114). They stated that NPM is a movement that intends to promote economy and efficiency. NPM also proposes changes the organisational into more ‘efficiency-focused’. In the most extreme form, NPM adopts ‘private sector managerial techniques’ in delivering public services. The adoption is based on the assumption that NPM promotes effectiveness and efficiency and therefore improve the service provision (Thatcer, 1995 in Osborne, 2006, p379). NPM has seven characteristics (Hood, 1991, in McLaughlin and Osborne, 2002, p9). The first character is “a focus on hands-on and entrepreneurial management”. It is an opposite view of the traditional perspective that gives more focuses on the public administrator. The adoption of entrepreneurial management in the public sector opens a wide opportunity to seek innovations. It also stimulates employees to create innovations in serving ‘the customers’ (Bartlett and Dibben, 2002, p109). PSO is an organisation that needs standards in delivering services (Bouckaert and Van Dooren, 2003, p131-132). PSO that exercises too many changes might disadvantage for employees. the PSO, therefore, need to limit innovation in their organisation. Secondly, NPM has ‘explicit standards and measures of performance’ (Osborne, et al. 1995, in McLaughlin and Osborne, 2002 p8). It focuses on the attempt to measure the performance. It, therefore, sets variables as the standard and process to measure the performance. Thirdly, its emphasis on ‘output control’. It is performance review that is intended to ensure that the service is provided well. It also stimulates a continuous improvement of all services to the public (Boyne, 1999, p6). In addition, it emphasises on managing of inputs, organisation, outputs, and monitoring (Osborne, 2006, p379). Controlling the outputs means that the organisation mobilises its resources to achieve the targets (Mahmudi, 2007, in Wardhani, 2015, p3). On the other hand, public service organisation also need to focus on the outcomes. It is the consequences of the programme or organisation (Bouckaert and Van Dooren, 2003, p130). Although the causality between outputs and outcomes is difficult to measure, PSO need to control the output before expect the outcome. Fourthly, NPM proposes the ‘disaggregation’ and ‘decentralisation’ of public services. According to   and Johnson (2007, p53), disaggregation is a key factor in NPM. It divides the organisation into smaller units. In addition, decentralisation deals with authority delegation. In here, decentralisation is related with administrative decentralisation where several functions of central government are delegated based on geographical consideration (Robinson, 2007, p8). On the other hand, it requires monitoring to inspect the implementation of decentralisation. Decentralisation gives the authority to the lower units and therefore increases the chances fraud happens (Puspawati, 2016, p60). The fifth character is the encouragement of ‘competition’ in providing public services. The implementation of competition is intended to make units of government compete to decrease inefficiency in the public service provision (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000, p551). One way to encourage ‘competition’ in the public sector is by developing the markets. The development is intended to improve the public service provision. In here, market mechanisms, competitions, and the service provision are aligned with the changing of the public management and governance paradigm (Hartley, 2005, p29). The competition, however, needs ‘contestable markets’. It is situation where the service providers are many that can give service users many option to choose (Erridge, 2003, p94). The sixth character is the emphasis on ‘private sector styles of management’. In here, public sector organisations use company management model as a reference (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000, p550). The private sector management suggests that the leadership in public sector organisation is directed to be an entrepreneur model (Osborne and McLaughlin, 2006, p379). Puspawati (2016, p55) emphasised that this character must be implemented wisely. Instead of focusing on ‘profit taking’ mindset, public sector organisation must improve their performance in delivering services. Lastly, NPM promotes ‘discipline and parsimony in resource allocation’. It aims to reduce the use of resources that are inefficient. NPM suggests the public service organisations raise discipline and spend resource effectively using marketisation model. It can promote both efficiency and effectiveness, and responsiveness to regard customer need in service provision (Osborne and McLaughlin, 2002, p9). On the other hand, public service organisation also must regard ‘economy’ matter. In some practices, price matter can be more appropriate in providing services (Erridge, 2003, p96). Public Sector Workers Public sector workers are employees that work to provide and deliver service from the government to the public (Lipsky, 2010, p3). Lipsky distinguished the workers into two categories. The first is public sector workers that perform direct interaction in delivering services. They are called street level bureaucrats. The second is managers. They have a position that can order their employees to do jobs (Lipsky, 2010, p18). On the other hand, there are public sector workers that are not civil servants. They deliver services to the public under contracting out or privatisation mechanism. This essay, however, gives more focus on civil servants. The motivation of the workers is various. From ‘public-service motivation’ perspective, a person is interested working in the public sector based on altruistic motives (Lyons, et al., 2006, p605). There are several examples of the motives, such as, the intention to work for fulfilling public interest; seeing the social condition; and the goal to influence policies that affect the public. On the other hand, some academics view that an individual is ‘self-interested’ and ‘rational decision maker’. It argues that the motive of a person in joining an organisation is to maximise their potentials and get maximum compensation for their work (Lyons, et al., 2006, p605). The development of public sector workers is growing drastically especially in countries that are capitalist democracies (Draper, 2000, p22). It has raised the public-sector worker welfare, changing workforce composition and refining the labour movement. The recent development of public-sector brought several transformations to the workers. They are an appropriate progress compared to the previous situation. First, the number of female workers is rising dramatically. Secondly, the employees have higher education level. Thirdly, the type of the jobs is various but tend to be more soft-skill jobs. Fourthly, the modern government implements a more bureaucratic mechanism. The next transformation is that the employees are enjoying more autonomy in doing their jobs. Finally, the workers have a more stable position in facing market forces than those in the private-sector workers. Compared to the employees in private sector, public sector workers have several characters (Draper, 2000, p15). First, their wages are not determined by the market. It is based on the ability and the will of the government to set the wages. As the introduction of marketisation through privatisation and contracting out, there is a chance for the employee to demand a wage increase. The government can use a mediation way to find the deal, or, as the government have a strong power, it can be used to force a policy. Secondly, related to the labour processes, employees in the public sectors have more control than private sector workers (Draper, 2000, p16). They often exercise discretion in their work, as they are often given general instructions rather than strict orders. In addition, many public-sector employees are ‘street-level bureaucrats’ as many of them deliver service to the public directly (Lipsky, 2010, p3). They often facing unanticipated and diverse situations so they need to execute discretion and more flexible actions in the situations. Thirdly, compared to the job in private sector that can be handled by using technologies, the jobs in public sector demand more personnel. The jobs in the public sector tend to deal with people. It is the contrary of the private sector that more concern to process things. Public services are delivered to fulfil public needs that are diverse. It is difficult to standardise the needs and, therefore, do not really need technological improvement (Draper, 2000, p16). Fourthly, some aspects in public-sector work advantage the union organisation. It raises the solidarity in the organisation and builds the unity among the workers. For instance, civil servants have fixed wages and more stable workforce composition that affected the harmony of the organisation. It also has a firmer promotion mechanism that can prevent the organisation from disruption (Draper, 2000, p16). Finally, the public workers have a right to voice their wants. It can pressure other parties such politician, senior bureaucrats, or even their managers. The movement of organised civil servants can gain political support from other civil servants. It is a strategy that can be used to push another party to accommodate their wants (Draper, 2000, p16). On the other hand, private sector workers do not enjoy the same situation as they are bound by professional contract. This contract, however, can be used to claim their right if the employers disobey the agreement (Heathfield, 2017, n.p.). Case Study The concept of NPM was introduced in Indonesia in the 1990s (Puspawati, 2016, p54). Since then, many institutions especially central institution adopted the concept of NPM. One of them is Directorate General of Taxation (DGT). The task of DGT is “to formulate and implementing policies in terms of taxes according to legislation” (DGT, 2012, n.p.). Related to the task, DGT has several functions such as: implementing policies in term of taxation; performing monitoring, evaluation and reporting regarding taxation; and providing technical guidance and supervision regarding taxation. DGT is divided into central office and regional tax service office or regional tax offices. DGT has 33 regional tax offices located in every capital of the provinces. The task of regional tax offices is providing technical guidance, services and monitoring in terms of taxation to the taxpayers. In here, regional tax offices give services in terms of taxation to the public. As a public service institution, DGT is expected to give excellent services. It can benefit both the country and the taxpayers. On the one hand, the country can collect money to fund the development. On the other hand, taxpayers may feel relieved and contented if the service is excellent. As the institution that deals with the public, DGT is always expected to improve the service. One concept that is adopted to improve the service of DGT is NPM. NPM is believed to be able to enhance the performance of the public service organisation. To examine the relationship between NPM and the improvement of organisational performance, in 2015, Wardhani did research in eight regional tax service offices in the town of Surabaya. It is intended to collect and analyse perception from the respondents about the relationship between NPM and the performance. The research involved 80 head sections from those regional tax offices as the respondents. She used purposive sampling to grouping the answers. In here, the respondents were given a questioner with few answer options. Respondents were expected to choose one answer. The researcher then processes the response using regression analysis and then draw the conclusion. To narrow the responses from the respondents, the researcher translated seven characteristics of NPM into four independent variables. It is intended to ease the respondent in giving their responses. The first variable is ‘clear and measurable objectives’. It is designed to make the employees work better. The indicator in this variable is the publication of visions, mission, tasks and targets. The result of the research shows that clear and measurable objectives do not give significant effect to the performance of the organisation. She argued that the performance of the organisation is more affected by the awareness of the taxpayer in fulfilling their obligation. The researcher uses ‘decentralisation’ as the second variable. She explains that decentralisation aims to make lower units improve the service to the public because the units know the situation of the customers and therefore can implement sufficient policies. Indicators in this variable are the authority of the units related to financial, operational, the improvement of employee quality. She claimed that decentralisation does not affect the performance of the organisation. She found that regional offices do not have authority and responsibility to make a decision related to the service to the public. The authority and responsibility belong to The Ministry of Finance (Tarigan, 2011, in Wardhani, 2015, p8). The third variable is incentives. The indicator used in the variable are work performance, work achievement, and work programme achievement. Using regression analysis, she claimed that incentives do not bring significant effect to the improvement of organisation performance. She found that, compared to the incentives, the dedication of the employees is a crucial factor in improving organisation performance. The last variable used is ‘performance measurement system’. It is a formal and structured system designed to value, measure and influence the habits of the employees related to their behaviour, achievement, and work (Tarigan, 2011, taken from Wardhani, 2015, p8). The indicator for the last variable is Key Performance Indicator (KPI). In here, KPI is internal performance measurement system of regional tax offices in Surabaya area. For the last variable, she argued that the adoption of KPI improves the performance of the organisation. Finally, she claimed that Regional tax offices in Surabaya area had used KPI well and it affected the performance of the organisation. Analysis According to Puspawati (2016, p49), NPM is an enhancement of the previous paradigm. It focuses on reforming governance management (Kurniawan, 2007, p6) and promote accountability Puspawati (2016, p49). It also intends to improve public service delivery to gain effectiveness, economic and efficiency (Kurniawan, 2007, p6). From this statement, it can be inferred that one party that has a crucial role in the implementation of NPM is civil servants. They deliver services and deal with problems related to the provision of the services. This section analyses the civil servant's perception about NPM. From seven characteristics of NPM, the case study summarises it into four characteristics. Out of four variables, the respondents only consider one variable that influences their performance in delivering public service. Clear and Measurable Target As the implementation of NPM DGT has promoted ‘clear and measurable targets’. DGT has published its visions, missions, tasks and targets so every worker can access and understand them. The workers as the civil servants also have an obligation to set employee performance targets (Hidayat, 2013, p12). It is employee’s work plan that covers job description, responsibilities, and authorities related to their position in the organisation. In addition, in setting a target, a manager must consider the quality, quantity, timeline and costs. By having clear targets, employees can focus on achieving the targets. They do not have to handle other tasks that it is not their obligation because they already have their targets. Public sector organisation sometimes set higher targets than the previous achievement. To get ‘good leaders’ title, some managers set high targets that even though are not impossible, will press the employees hard to achieve. The targets also can be measured. It can ease the employees to take steps and strategies to achieve the targets. Measurable targets are also an assurance for the employee to do jobs that are theoretically achievable. Also, a target implementation needs a timeline. It is to give a certainty for the employees in executing an agenda related to the targets. It is also useful to track the progress of target achievement.  The research of the case study shows that the respondents assume that in this variable, NPM did not bring significant influences in the performance of the organisation. In here, the respondents argue that clear and measurable targets can be implemented in improving their performance. DGT is an institution that deals with the taxpayers. Therefore, they cannot improve the performance of the organisation as they are a passive organisation that only wait for the awareness of the taxpayer to pay their taxes. On the one hand, this statement might be accepted if they only focus on receiving taxes without any efforts to maximise the tax payment. On the other hand, DGT realises that the awareness of taxpayer is important. In here, DGT enhances the awareness of the taxpayer by doing promotions or socialisations. This promotion and socialisations can raise the public knowledge of tax obligation and tax sanction (Susanto, 2012, in Rahmawati, 2015, p9). As a result, the public awareness is rising, and DGT can expect to receive higher tax payment. Also, tax knowledge and ‘fair tax perception’ has a strong correlation with the tax compliance (Witono, 2008, in Rahmawati, 2015, p9).  In setting the targets, DGT supports it with strategic procedures. It is a guidance for the employees in achieving targets. For example, one strategy to raise the tax collection is by improving the quality and the quantity of tax data (MoF, 2017, p62). For DGT, this strategy is an important factor in maximising tax potential. For the employees, they can accelerate their jobs and work more effective and efficient using accurate data. Accurate data is a crucial source in setting targets. It can also be used as guidance in measuring strategies in achieving the targets. It, therefore, questions the perception of the respondents on the influence of NPM to their performance. Rather than playing an active role, they expect the awareness of the taxpayer. Incentives The next variable used in the case study is ‘incentive’. The researcher stated her hypothesis that incentive has a crucial role in improving individual performance. This hypothesis is based on ‘agency theory’ that assume that individuals are rational and tend to maximise their needs than organisational needs. The hypothesis was not proven. She concluded that the respondent thinks that incentives did not bring significant influences on improving their performance. In Indonesia, employees in DGT enjoy the highest salary compare to other institutions. They also get various allowances (Alamsyah, 2016, n.p.). This situation might affect the perception of the employees in DGT about incentives. In addition, the research does not explain the proportion of the incentives to their salary. It might clarify the reason why they do not regard incentive’s influence on the improvement of their performance. Compared to incentives, the respondents believe that dedication is more important in improving their performance. It might be related to their salary and allowances. As they get higher incomes, they have a moral obligation to give a better service.   This research result might contradict with the aim of incentives. Panggabean (2002, in Wardhani, 2015, p8) defines incentives as a compensation that relates the salary and productivity. Incentives are given to employees that surpass work targets. According to Israel (1991, in Newberry, 2003, p29), the incentive is ‘distortions’ that are intended to stimulate others to do desired jobs or activities. In here, incentives are given to accelerate the employees’ productivity. It, therefore, will affect the productivity if the employees do not get extra incomes from their extra work. on the one hand, it can benefit the organisation in achieving the targets. on the other hand, the organisation must pay extra resources as the ‘rewards’ for target achievement. They must calculate the estimation of incentives given. Also, it might contrary with the effort of the organisation to promote ‘expenditure reduction’ (Newberry, 2003, p31), that find efficiency. However, the incentives might be much smaller compared to the target achieved, and it is an effective way to accelerate the achievement of the targets. In addition, incentives can be used as a tool to promote ‘competitiveness’ (Newberry, 2003, p32) among employees, units, or regional offices. In here, the organisation can attract their employees to maximise their effort in achieving or surpassing the target. The organisation can expect a better result as their employees or units compete for each other to be the best employees or units and get the incentives. On the other hand, it might lead to unfair competition as the employees or units conceal their strategy in achieving their targets. Decentralisation The second variable used in the research questions whether decentralisation affects the performance of the organisation. The result shows that decentralisation does not affect their performance. The respondents argued that DGT is centralise institution and all regulations are regulated by the central office. The indicators used in the research were financing management, operational of the organisation, employee quality improvement and employee placement. From those indicators, it can be expected the responses from the respondents. Those indicators are the responsibilities of top managers in the central office. In here, employees in regional offices and units do not have significant influences on the policy-making process. One of the aims of Decentralisation is to promote efficiency. In here, DGT can delegate authorities to regional offices. Related to employee placement, DGT still implements centralised policy. It tends to distribute employees based on quantity calculation not based on competition. It leads imbalances in the staffing (Pratiwi, 2012, n.p.). Delegating employee placement authority can make the regional offices recruit qualified employees. The number of employees recruited, however, must be limited and in accordance with budgets set. Although the research took place in a regional area, the researcher did not use indicators that are related to service provision in the area. To improve the quality of the services, a manager or employee in regional offices might need to execute some innovations. Civil servants might not be able to execute innovations if they are limited by strict rules or guidance (Pratiwi, 2012, n.p.). It, therefore, implies that the response of the respondents might contradict if the indicators given are different. The respondents must consider that different offices or units might face different problems. They, therefore, might need different treatments in solving the problems. In here, innovation and responsive actions are needed to accelerate their performance and give better services to the public (Lipsky, 2010, p23). On the one hand, this perception supports ‘uniformity’ in the implementation of institution regulations. It is the standard for the employees in delivering service. DGT has several services related to tax obligation such as Fiscal Assessment Letter service to taxpayers; Taxpayer Identification Number service, tax restitution, and taxable entrepreneur confirmation service (MoF, 2017, p26-27). The standard is the guidance for the employees in delivering tax services. On the other hand, DGT is an institution that has thousands employee across the country. It is also a tiered structure organisation that deals with long bureaucracy. The decentralisation, therefore, is important to make the service more efficient and effective. Rather than only wait for the referrals from the central office, regional offices and units can take several alternatives into consideration and execute the best option in solving their problems. Performance Measurement Performance measurement is a tool to value the performance of an organisation. In a narrower scope, it is a mechanism to determine whether the employees have achieved their targets or not. It can also be used to measure the level of target achievement. For example, in the scale of maximum 100%, how much is the success of an employee in achieving their targets. By comparing the targets set, the targets achieved and time consumed, the performance of the employees can be assessed. The case study shows that the respondents think that ‘performance measurement systems’ affects the performance of the organisation. It improves the performance of the employee and therefore significantly influence the performance of the organisation. The researcher argued that the performance improvement is a result of routine assessment of individual performance indicators. However, there are still many employees that do not become aware on the importance of performance measurement. It causes the indicators does not show the real condition. For example, many employees work well but neglect the obligation to complete individual performance measurement (Pratiwi, 2012, n.p.). It implies that performance measurement might be repeated activities that cause the employees feel bored. The research only focuses on the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) as the measurement. On the one hand, KPI can be a simple mechanism to measure the performance because it has clear indicators. For example, employee presence rate can be measured easier especially when the office uses modern technologies that can record precise data. KPI also can be used as a tool to make competition among regional offices or units. As the performance report is published (Wardhani, 2015, p16), DGT can expect them to give the best performance in delivering tax services. On the other hand, KPI might not show the quality performances. The quality of the performance and services is rather difficult to measure. It cannot be accurately calculated without involves other parties. One way to measure it is by doing public satisfaction surveys to find out public perception on their performance. By using KPI, the indicator can be monitored easier, and therefore the performance can be improved by focusing on the indicators that do not perform well (Indudewi, 2012, in Wardhani 2015, p 16). To maximise the effort to improve the performance and service quality, DGT can combine it with the public satisfaction survey result. Conclusion The implementation of NPM does not give significant effects to the performance of public sector workers in Indonesia. It is ineffective in improving personal and organisational performance. It, therefore, raises questions about the commitment of the government in implementing NPM. The government gives more focus on data and progress monitoring rather than focus on improving service quality. It increases the responsibility of the civil servants in fulfilling administration documents. The implementation of NPM, therefore, is still in administration level. It has not achieved effectiveness and efficiency. The conclusion is based on research that was done to lower managers in a regional area. From four variables tested, the respondents think that performance measurement is the only variable that has significant influences on individual and organisational performance. The case study implies that by using routine inspection, individual and organisational performance can be measured easier. It has a clear measurement mechanism so the manager can monitor the achievement progress of the employees or units. However, those indicators tend to accentuate outputs than outcome measurements. The outcome indicator such as the number of complaints solved might be more convincing to be used in the research. In addition, the indicators used in the research might be less able to cover the benefits of the implementation of NPM. For example, in the decentralisation variable, the researcher used indicators that are the authorities of the top managers. The result might be different if the indicators given was related to the authority of the regional offices to find innovations and improve their services. List of References Adcroft, A., & Willis, R. (2005). The (Un)Intended Outcome of Public Sector Performance Measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(5), 386-400. Alamsyah, F. (2016). PNS Dengan Gaji dan Tunjangan Kinera Tertinggi di Indonesia (Civil Servants with the Highest Salary in Indonesia). Retrieved May 28, 2017, from https://kuliahgratisindonesia.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/pns-dengan-gaji-dan-tunjangan-kerja.html Bartlett, D., & Dibben, P. (2002). Public Sector Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Case Studies from Local Government. Local Government Studies, 28(4), 107-121. Barzelay, M. (2002). Origins of the NPM. In McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. P., & Ferlie, E. (Eds.). New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects. (15-33). Psychology Press. Bouckaert, G., & Van Dooren, W. (2003). Performance Measurement and Management in Public Sector Organizations. In Bovaird, T. and Loffler, E. (Eds.), Public Management and Governance. (127-136). Oxon: Routledge. Boyne, G. A. (1999). Introduction: Processes, Performance and Best Value in Local Government. Local Government Studies, 25(2), 1-15. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-559. Directorate General Taxation. (2012). Selayang Pandang (an Overview). Retrieved May 15, 2017, from http://www.pajak.go.id/content/selayang-pandang Draper, A. (2000). Public‐Sector Workers. Working USA, 4(2), 8-26. Erridge, A. (2003). Contracting for Public Services. In Bovaird, T. and Loffler E. (Eds.). Public Management and Governance. (90-99). Oxon: Routledge. Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 27-34. Heathfield, S. M. (2017). Human Resource: Employee Contract. Retrieved June 4, 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/employment-contract-1918115 Hidayat, S. (2013) Penilaian Prestasi Kerja Pegawai Negeri Sipil (Civil Servants performance appraisal). Retrieved May 25, 2017, from https://www.its.ac.id/files/file/pp46.pptx Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2013). A Model of Cost‐Cutting in Government? The Great Management Revolution In UK Central Government Reconsidered. Public Administration, 91(1), 114-134. Kurniawan, T. (2007). Pergeseran Paradigma Administrasi Publik: Dari Perilaku Model Klasik dan NPM ke Good Governance. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Negara, 7(-), 52-70. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Russell Sage Foundation. Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L. E., and Higgins, C. A. (2006). A Comparison of the Values and Commitment of Private Sector, public Sector, and Para-public Sector Employees. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 605-618. McLaughlin, K. and Osborne, S. P. (2002). New Public Management in Context. In McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. P., and Ferlie, E. (Eds.). New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects. (1-14). Psychology Press. Ministry of Finance. (2017). Laporan Kinerja Direktorat Jenderal Pajak 2016 (The Performance Reports of Directorate General Taxation 2016). Retrieved May 21, 2017, from http://www.pajak.go.id/sites/default/files/LAKIN%20DJP%202016.pdf Newberry, S. (2003). Sector Neutrality ‘and NPM ‘Incentives’: Their Use in Eroding the Public Sector. Australian Accounting Review, 13(30), 28-34. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance?. Public Management Review, 8(3), 377-387. Pratiwi, N. (2012). Reformasi Birokrasi DJP: "Komitmen dan Eksistensi SDM" (Bureuaucracy Reform in DGT: "Commitments and the Existence of HRM"). Retrieved May 30, 2017 from  http://www.pajak.go.id/content/article/reformasi-birokrasi-djp-komitmen-dan-eksistensi-sdm Puspawati, A. A. (2016). Penerapan New Public Management (NPM) di Indonesia (Reformasi Birokrasi, Desentralisasi, Kerjasama Pemerintah dan Swasta Dalam Meningkatkan Pelayanan Publik) (The implementation of NPM in Indonesia (Bureaucracy reform, Decntralisation, Public Private Partnership in Improving Public Service Delivery)). Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Publik, 1(1), 47-64. Rahmawati, N. (2015). Pengaruh Pelaksanaan Sosialisasi Perpajakan Terhadap Tingkat Pengetahuan Wajib Pajak dan Implikasinya terhadap Kepatuhan Wajib Pajak (Studi Kasus pada Kantor Pelayanan Pajak Pratama Garut) (The Effect of Tax Socialisation to the Taxpayers and its Implication to the Taxpayer Compliance (Case Study on Tax Office in Garut). (An Undergraduate Dissertation). Widyatama University. Robinson, M. (2007). Does Decentralisation Improve Equity and Efficiency in Public Service Delivery Provision?. IDS Bulletin, 38(1), 7-17. Skelcher, C. (2000). Changing Images of the State: Overloaded, Hollowed-Out, Congested. Public Policy and Administration, 15(3), 3-19. Talbot, C. and Johnson, C. (2007). Seasonal Cycles in Public Management: Disaggregation and Re-aggregation. Public Money and Management, 27(1), 53-60. Wardhani, P. A. (2015). Pengaruh Penerapan Konsep New Public Management Terhadap Peningkatan Kinerja Organisasi (the Effect of the Implementation of NPM to the Improvement of Organisational Performance). Jurnal Ilmu dan Riset Akuntansi, 4(7), 1-17.