Representation Of Indigenous Papuans In The Bureaucracy Of Southwest Papua Province: A Representative Bureaucracy Analysis

Dewiyanti Rengen; Hasniati Hasniati; Muh. Akmal  Ibrahim; Didik  Iskandar

doi:10.61994/jcss.v4i2.2213

Authors

Dewiyanti Rengen Hasanuddin University
Hasniati Hasniati Hasanuddin University
Muh. Akmal Ibrahim Hasanuddin University
Didik Iskandar Makassar State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61994/jcss.v4i2.2213

Keywords:

active representation, linking conditions, Indigenous Papuans, passive representation, representative bureaucracy

Abstract

Affirmative action has increased the presence of Indigenous Papuans (OAP) in the bureaucracy of Southwest Papua Province, yet numerical representation does not automatically guarantee substantive representation in positions that determine policy direction. This study analyzes the quality of OAP representation through three components of representative bureaucracy: passive representation, linking conditions, and active representation. Using an interpretive qualitative approach with an embedded case study design in the Provincial Government of Southwest Papua, the study involved 25 informants, with data from in-depth interviews, documentation study, and limited observation, analyzed through theory-driven thematic analysis, pattern matching, and explanation building. The findings show that OAP representation is high in number and evenly distributed across ranks, but uneven by role weight—concentrated in supporting positions, while policy-determining positions remain limited. The five linking conditions (discretion, domain relevance, competence and legitimacy, leadership support, accountability) remain weak. Active representation is limited in the policy arena but stronger in service delivery, accompanied by the symptom of substantive roles being carried by other actors. The three components form a tiered chain that breaks at the middle, so that representation is strong in presence but shrinks in influence. The weak conversion stems from fragile evidence-based legitimacy and the absence of capacity development, so that strengthening representation requires building institutional conditions rather than merely adding numbers.

References

Althaus, C., & O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2022). Bureaucratic Representation, Accountability, and Democracy: A Qualitative Study of Indigenous Bureaucrats in Australia and Canada. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 646–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13492

Arnesen, S., & Peters, Y. (2018). The Legitimacy of Representation: How Descriptive, Formal, and Responsiveness Representation Affect the Acceptability of Political Decisions. Comparative Political Studies, 51(7), 868–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017720702

Bersch, K., & Fukuyama, F. (2023). Defining Bureaucratic Autonomy. Annual Review of Political Science, 26(1), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102914

Bishu, S. G., & Kennedy, A. R. (2020a). Trends and Gaps: A Meta-Review of Representative Bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), 559–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19830154

Bishu, S. G., & Kennedy, A. R. (2020b). Trends and Gaps: A Meta-Review of Representative Bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), 559–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19830154

Blume, G. H. (2023a). “As Expected”: Theoretical Implications for Racialized Administrative Power as the Status Quo. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac013

Blume, G. H. (2023b). “As Expected”: Theoretical Implications for Racialized Administrative Power as the Status Quo. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac013

Brierley, S., Lowande, K., Potter, R. A., & Toral, G. (2023). Bureaucratic Politics: Blind Spots and Opportunities in Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science, 26(1), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-061621-084933

Chang, A., & Brewer, Gene. A. (2023a). Street-Level bureaucracy in public administration: A systematic literature review. Public Management Review, 25(11), 2191–2211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2065517

Chang, A., & Brewer, Gene. A. (2023b). Street-Level bureaucracy in public administration: A systematic literature review. Public Management Review, 25(11), 2191–2211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2065517

Cingolani, L. (2023). Representative Bureaucracy and Perceptions of Social Exclusion in Europe: Evidence From 27 Countries. Administration & Society, 55(3), 515–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221137562

Dowding, K., & Giuliani, A. (2026). Political Representation: A Typology and Synthesis. Representation, 62(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2025.2526209

Figueroa Huencho, V., & Araya Orellana, J. P. (2021). Representative Bureaucracy: Exploring the Factors that Inhibit Active Representation in Indigenous Managers from a Latin American Case. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(16), 1404–1414. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1773496

Hong, S. (2021). Representative bureaucracy and hierarchy: interactions among leadership, middle-level, and street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 23(9), 1317–1338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1743346

Ikpebe, E., Akinrinmade, B., & Asempah, E. (2025). Social Equity and Representative Bureaucracy: The Case of Nigeria’s Federal Character Principle. Public Administration, 103(4), 992–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.13072

Johnston, K., & Yarrow, E. (2024). Active representation and identity taxation: unintended outcome of representative labour? Public Management Review, 26(4), 970–987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2126881

Keiff, S. (2024). The emergence of externally active representative bureaucracy, a narrative review. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 46(3), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2024.2331961

Meier, K. J. (2019). Theoretical Frontiers in Representative Bureaucracy: New Directions for Research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvy004

Park, S. (2024). A representative-represented matrix: exploring the symbolic effect of minority representation. Public Management Review, 26(4), 949–969. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2124536

Portillo, S., Bearfield, D., & Humphrey, N. (2020). The Myth of Bureaucratic Neutrality: Institutionalized Inequity in Local Government Hiring. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(3), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19828431

Riccucci, N. M., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Representative Bureaucracy: A Lever to Enhance Social Equity, Coproduction, and Democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12649

Rixom, J. M., Jackson, M., & Rixom, B. A. (2023). Mandating Diversity on the Board of Directors: Do Investors Feel That Gender Quotas Result in Tokenism or Added Value for Firms? Journal of Business Ethics, 182(3), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-05030-9