Strengthening the Institutional Domain of the Evaluation of Sectoral Statistics Implementation from a Network Governance Perspective

Nahdliyah Nahdliyah; Hidayaturahmi Hidayaturahmi

doi:10.63922/ijevss.v5i04.6613

Nahdliyah Nahdliyah NIPA School of Administration Jakarta, Indonesia
Hidayaturahmi Hidayaturahmi NIPA School of Administration Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63922/ijevss.v5i04.6613

Keywords: Evaluation of Sectoral Statistics Implementation; Institutional Domain; Network Governance; Network Management; Sectoral Statistics Governance.

Abstract

Sectoral statistics are a crucial component of the National Statistical System, providing data to support the planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of government policies. The Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) conducts the Evaluation of Sectoral Statistics Implementation (EPSS) as an instrument to measure the maturity level of sectoral statistics implementation through the Statistical Development Index (IPS). This study aims to analyze the design of the Institutional Domain in BPS Regulation Number 3 of 2022 concerning the Evaluation of Sectoral Statistics Implementation using the Klijn and Koppenjan Network Governance perspective and formulate directions for its strengthening. The study employed a qualitative approach through document analysis of laws and regulations, EPSS policy documents and guidelines, and relevant scientific literature. The analysis was conducted by mapping aspects and indicators of the Institutional Domain into the concepts of substantive, strategic, and institutional complexity, as well as network management. The analysis shows that the Institutional Domain encompasses three aspects: professionalism, adequate and capable human resources, and statistical organization. These three aspects provide the basis for transparency, data quality, competence, collaboration, the Indonesian One Data Forum, relationships with Statistical Data Supervisors, and the implementation of Walidata duties. However, this design predominantly measures the existence and maturity of procedures, roles, forums, and activities rather than the quality of interactions between actors and the ability to manage resource dependencies, differing interests, and network complexity. The study recommends strengthening network management mechanisms, coordination capacity among Walidatas, effective forums, and follow-up on EPSS results. This strengthening is more appropriately directed at deepening implementation and coaching mechanisms rather than simply adding new indicators.

References

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2022). Peraturan Badan Pusat Statistik Nomor 3 Tahun 2022 tentang Evaluasi Penyelenggaraan Statistik Sektoral. BPS.    
Badan Pusat Statistik. (2022). Modul pembinaan statistik sektoral – Seri Evaluasi Penyelenggaraan Statistik Sektoral (EPSS) - Kelembagaan. BPS.    
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027     
Chen, Y. C., & Hsieh, T. C. (2014). Big Data for digital government: Opportunities, challenges, and strategies. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age, 1(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijpada.2014010101     
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches(4th ed.). SAGE Publications.    
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101     
Islami, M. J. (2021). Implementation of One Data Indonesia: Challenges and Critical Success Factors (CSFs). Jurnal Komunika, 10(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.31504/komunika.v9i1.3750     
Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2014). Complexity in governance network theory. Complexity, Governance & Networks, 1(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.7564/14-CGN8     
Klijn, E. H., Koppenjan, J., Spekkink, W., & Warsen, R. (2025). Governance networks in the public sector (2nd ed.). Routledge.    
Maulidya, M. R. R., & Rozikin, M. (2022). Retrospective analysis of Indonesia's One Data policy. Dinamika: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Administrasi Negara, 9(2), 273–287.    
Milicich, R., Dickinson, T., Van Halderen, G., Lalor, T., & Niven, H. (2021). Assessing compliance with the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics: A maturity model for continuous improvement. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 37(2), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-210805     
Nawawi, H. (2005). Human resource management: For competitive organizations. Gadjah Mada University Press.    
Parlementaria. (2026, March 30). Weak national data governance impacts sectoral egos between institutions. DPR RI E-Media. https://emedia.dpr.go.id/news/2026/03/31/lemahnya-tata-kelola-data-nasional-dampak-dari-ego-sektoral-antar-lembaga     
Republik Indonesia. (1997). Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 1997 tentang Statistik. Sekretariat Negara.
Republik Indonesia. (1999). Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 51 Tahun 1999 tentang Penyelenggaraan Statistik. Sekretariat Negara.    
Republik Indonesia. (2014). Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2014 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah. Sekretariat Negara.    
Republik Indonesia. (2019). Peraturan Presiden Nomor 39 Tahun 2019 tentang Satu Data Indonesia. Sekretariat Negara. 
Republik Indonesia. (2025). Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 12 Tahun 2025 tentang Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional Tahun 2025–2029:Lampiran III Peraturan Presiden Nomor 12 Tahun 2025 tentang Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang/Menengah Nasional (RPJMN) 2025–2029.     
Sarihastuti, D. (2024). Optimizing the implementation of sectoral statistics as an effort to fulfill quality statistical data in Indonesia. Jurnal Syntax Admiration, 5(10), 4343–4363. https://doi.org/10.46799/jsa.v5i10.1715     
United Nations. (2019). United Nations national quality assurance framework manual for official statistics (UN NQAF Manual). United Nations Statistics Division.