Published date: May 20 2022

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: The 3rd International Conference on Governance, Public Administration, and Social Science (ICoGPASS)

Pages: 881–890

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v7i9.10986

Paulus Israwan SetyokoDepartement of Public Administration, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, Purwokerto, Indonesia.

Shadu Satwika Wijayashaduwijaya48@gmail.comDepartement of Public Administration, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, Purwokerto, Indonesia.

The pandemic has led to changes in governance and public policy at the central government and local government levels. There are challenges associated with changing public policy in the fiscal policy sector. Local governments are required to carry out budget refocusing of local revenue and expenditure budgets to support activities to deal with the pandemic. This article aimed to describe policy changes of refocusing budgets and identify their determinants from the perspective of public policy studies. In the study of public policy, the opening of a policy window can determine the direction of policy changes in the policy agenda. To be able to open a policy window, mutual agreement and common interest are needed between problem streams, political streams and policy streams. The results of this study demonstrated that policy changes have occurred by refocusing the budget, due to the opening of the policy window, where interests among various streams were equalized.

Keywords: budget refocusing, fiscal policy, local autonomy, policy change, public finance

[1] Smith KB, Larimer CW. The Public Policy Theory Primer. 3rd Editio. New York: Routledge; 2018. 288 p.

[2] Cropf RA. The Political Ecology of Public Administration. In: American Public Administration. New York: Routledge; 2018. p. 97–128.

[3] Gogu MC. Adaptive Management: From Ecology To Public Administration. Glob J Sociol Curr Issues. 2017;6(2):24–8.

[4] Landau M, Riggs FW. The Ecology of Public Administration. Adm Sci Q. 1963;7(4):520–45.

[5] Arara E, Fritzen S, Howlett M, Ramesh M, Wu X. Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. 1st Editio. London: Routledge; 2012. 546 p.

[6] Botterill LC, Fenna A. Interrogating Public Policy Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2019. 208 p.

[7] Peters BG, Pierre J. Handbook of Public Policy. Handbook of Public Policy. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2006. 1–512 p.

[8] Hill M, Varone F. The Public Policy Process. New York: Routledge; 2016. 414 p.

[9] Knoepfel P, Larrue C, Varone F, Hill M. Policy Actors. In: Public Policy Analysis. 2018. p. 39–62.

[10] Birkland T. Models of the Policy Process. In: Rabin J, editor. Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy. Second Edi. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2007. p. 1260–3.

[11] John P. Analyzing Public Policy. In: Analyzing Public Policy. New York: Routledge;2020.

[12] Howlett M, Walker RM. Public Managers in the Policy Process: More Evidence on the Missing Variable? Policy Stud J. 2012;40(2):211–33.

[13] Velupillai KV. Models of Simon. Models of Simon. New York: Routledge; 2017. 199 p.

[14] Rubinstein A. Modeling Bounded Rationality in Games. Modeling Bounded Rationality. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2020.

[15] Simon HA. Models of Bounded Rationality. Models of Bounded Rationality. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 1997.

[16] Goddard A, Mkasiwa TA. New Public Management And Budgeting Practices in Tanzanian Central Government. J Account Emerg Econ. 2016;6(4):340–71.

[17] Kim PS. Advocacy Coalitions and Policy Change: The Case of South Korea’s Saemangeum Project. Adm Soc. 2012;44(SUPPL.6):85–103.

[18] Fyall R, McGuire M. Advocating for Policy Change in Nonprofit Coalitions. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2015;44(6):1274–91.

[19] Roberts A, Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press; 1993. 304 p.

[20] Stich B, Miller CR. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework to Understand Freight Transportation Policy Change. Public Work Manag Policy. 2008;13(1):62–74.

[21] Han H, Swedlow B, Unger D. Policy Advocacy Coalitions as Causes of Policy Change in China? Analyzing Evidence from Contemporary Environmental Politics. J Comp Policy Anal Res Pract. 2014;16(4):313–34.

[22] Cairney P. Understanding Public Policy. Understanding Public Policy. London: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2019. 296 p.

[23] Dryzek JS. Deliberative engagement: the forum in the system. J Environ Stud Sci. 2015;5(4):750–4.

[24] Baber WF, Bartlett R V., Baber WF, Bartlett R V. The Citizen Jury as a Deliberative Forum. In: Consensus and Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2015. p. 105–20.

[25] Himmelroos S, Christensen HS. Deliberation and opinion change: Evidence from a deliberative mini-public in finland. Scan Polit Stud. 2014;37(1):41–60.

[26] Weible CM, Sabatier PA, Baumgartner FR, Jones BD, Mortensen PB. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking. In: Theories of the Policy Process. 2018. p. 55–101.

[27] De Wals P, Espinoza-Moya ME, Béland D. Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework and the Analysis of Decision-Making Processes Regarding Publicly-Funded Immunization Programs. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2019;18(6):575–85.

[28] Zahariadis N. Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting. Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2016. 512 p.

[29] Kingdon JW. The Policy Window, and Joining the Streams. New York: Longman; 1995. 254 p.

[30] Greer S. John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. In: Lodge M,Page EC, Balla SJ, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

[31] Rawat P, Morris JC, Knutsen WL, Weiner T, David CP, Kingdon JW, et al. Kingdon’s “Streams” Model at Thirty: Still Relevant in the 21st Century? Polit Policy. 2016;44(4):608–38.

[32] Kingdon JW. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Pearson; 2013. 240 p.

[33] Knaggård Å. The Multiple Streams Framework and the problem broker. Eur J Polit Res. 2015;54(3):450–65.

[34] Béland D, Howlett M. The Role and Impact of the Multiple-Streams Approach in Comparative Policy Analysis. J Comp Policy Anal Res Pract. 2016;18(3):221–7.

[35] Perry J, Kingdon JW. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. J Policy Anal Manag. 1985;4(4):621.

[36] Li Y. Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis. Policy Sci. 2015;48(1):25–50.

[37] Maddison S, Denniss R, Maddison S, Denniss R. Policy actors and policy instruments. In: An Introduction to Australian Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. p. 292.

[38] Petridou E, Becker P, Sparf J. Policy Entrepreneurs in Public Administration: A Social Network Analysis. Polit Policy. 2021;49(2):414–45.

[39] Petridou E, Mintrom M. A Research Agenda for the Study of Policy Entrepreneurs. Policy Stud J. 2021;49(4):943–67.

[40] Mintrom M. So you want to be a policy entrepreneur? Policy Des Pract. 2019;2(4):307–23.

[41] Whiting SH. Power and Wealth in Rural China. Power and Wealth in Rural China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

[42] PH. and Chang YC. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Research Design Qualitative Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Vol. 4, Research Design. 2009. 260 p.

[43] Odimegwu CO. Methodological Issues in the Use of Focus Group Discussion as a Data Collection Tool. J Soc Sci. 2000;4(2–3):207–12.

[44] Attewell P, Monaghan D. Data Mining for the Social Sciences. Oakland: University of California Press; 2015.

[45] Miles MB, Michael Huberman A, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: A methods Sourcebook (3rd Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. 2014. 408 p.

[46] Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2018.