Article Sidebar

Download
EN-PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 50 Download : 63

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research was initiated by indicating that the policy evaluation of the Regional Development Plan of Cianjur (RPJMD) 2011-2016 has not been optimal yet, primarily related to South Cianjur-based road infrastructure development. The strengthening of the phenomenon has implications on the low purchasing power of society and the low level of public welfare, especially in South Cianjur. Therefore, the researcher focuses on evaluating the Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMD) of Cianjur regency for 2011-2016 and the Strategy of RPJMD Cianjur policy evaluation is expected to increase people's purchasing power in Cianjur regency. The purpose of the study, among others; first, describe and analyze the evaluation of the Cianjur District Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMD) policy for 2011-2016, and secondly, to analyze and find the concept of RPJMD policy evaluation strategy that can be done to develop the development of tourism-based road infrastructure, especially in South Cianjur. While the research method using descriptive and research approach using mixed methods, through concurrent embedded design model (mixture is not balanced). The results reveal that the success of RPJMD policy evaluation is empirically determined by dimensions or aspects of effectiveness, efficiency, adequacy, equity, responsiveness, and appropriateness. On the other hand, researchers found another concept or dimension, in addition to the six parameters put forward by Willian N. Dunn (1981). The concept or dimension that researchers find is the dimension of the perception equation. These findings are academically novelty generated in this dissertation. In addition, the study also found that optimizing the RPJMD policy evaluation required a strategy for the Cianjur District Government. The strategy that the Government of Cianjur Regency can do refers to the pattern of priority scale based on the calculation result of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which essentially follow the pattern; (1) dimension of perception equation, (2) dimension of accuracy, (3) dimension of equalization, (4) dimension of responsiveness. (5) sufficiency dimension, (6) efficiency dimension, (7) effectiveness dimension. This research concludes that policy evaluation of RPJMD Cianjur Regency Year 2011-2016, primarily related to the development of road-based tourism infrastructure empirically has not run optimally, so that implication on society prosperity, especially people residing in South Cianjur Area

Keywords

Policy Evaluation

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Dwiwarman, D. A., Turmudzi, M. D. ., & Bustomi, T. . (2020). Policy Evaluation of Cianjur Regional Middle Term Development Plan, 2011-2016: (Study: Road Development Based on South Cianjur Tourism). Pasundan Social Science Development, 1(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.56457/pascidev.v1i1.7

References

  1. Abdul Wahab, Solihin, (2008). Analisis Kebijakan dari Formulasi ke Implementasi Kebijakan Negara. Edisi kedua, Jakarta: PT. Bumi Aksara
  2. Agustino, Leo, (2008). Dasar-Dasar Kebijakan Publik, Alfabet, Bandung.
  3. Alamsyah, Kamal, (2005). Administrasi Publik dalam Perspektif Teori dan Praktek.Bandung: Universitas Pasundan.
  4. Anderson, James E. (1978). Public Policy Making. New York; Holt, Rinehart and Winson.
  5. Baker, J. 2000. Evaluating the Impact to Development Project on Proverty : A Handbook for Practitioner. Washington DC : Bank Dunia.
  6. Bambang Yudoyono, (2000). Otonomi Daerah: Desentralisasi dan Pengembangan SDM Aparatur dan Anggota DPRD. Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan.
  7. Budi Winarno, (2009). Kebijakan Publik. Teori, Proses, dan Studi Kasus. Gajah Mada University Press. Yogyakarta.
  8. Canning, David and Pedroni Peter, 2008, Infrastructure, Long-Run Economic Growth And Causality Test For Cointegrated Panels, Journal Compilation, Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The University of Manchester
  9. Creswell,John. W. (2012).Research Design:Qualitative and Quantitative Approach.California: Sage Publication.
  10. Dunn, William. (1981).Public Policy Analysis, London: Prentice-Hall, Inc;Englewood Cliffs.
  11. Dye, Thomas R. (1981). Understanding Public Policy. Englewood, Cliff: Prentice Hall.
  12. Dwiyanto, A. (2009). Reformasi Birokrasi Kepemimpinan dan Pelayanan Publik. Kajian tentang Pelaksanaan Otonomi Daerah di Indonesia. Yogyakarta. Penerbit Gava Media.
  13. Edward III, George C. (1980). Implementing Public Policy. Washington : Congresional Quarterly. Inc.
  14. Grigg, Neil, 1988. Infrastructure Engineering And Management. John Wiley and Sons.
  15. Hill, Michael dan Peter Hupe. (2012). Implementing Public Policy : Governance in Theory and in Practice. London-Thousand Oak- New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  16. Kaso, N., Aswar, N., Firman, F., & Ilham, D. (2019). The Relationship between Principal Leadership and Teacher Performance with Student Characteristics Based on Local Culture in Senior High Schools. Kontigensi: Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen, 7(2), 87-98.
  17. Kodoatie, Robert J. 2005. Pengantar Manajemen Infrastruktur, Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
  18. Meter, Donald Van, dan Carl Van Horn,(1975). "The PolicyImplementation Process: A Conceptual Framework dalam Administration and Society 6,1975, London:Sage.
  19. Nugroho, Riant. (2004).Kebijakan Publik:Formulasi, Implementasi, dan Evaluasi.Jakarta :Kelompok Gramedia.
  20. Rusli, Budimana. (2013). Kebijakan Publik Membangun Pelayanan Publik yang Responsif. Hakim Publishing, Bandung.
  21. ------------------------- (2014). Isu-isu Krusial
  22. Administrasi Publik Kontemporer, LePSnDO, Bandung.
  23. Ripley, Randal B, and Fraklin Grace A. (1986). Policy Imlementation and Bureacracy. The Dorsey Press. Chicago. U.S.A.
  24. Van Meter, Donalds & Carl E. Van Horn. (1974). The PolicyImplementation Process : A Conceptual Framework Administration Society. Vol. 6 No.4 February.