Bureaucratic Ethics in the Era of Technological Disruption: Challenges and Strategies for Bureaucratic Reform 4.0
Rosinta Paulina Hutauruk, Ade Fahmi, Dimas Gilang Maulana
Abstract
This study explores the evolving landscape of bureaucratic ethics in the context of technological disruption, particularly within the framework of Bureaucratic Reform 4.0. As governments adopt digital technologies to improve efficiency and responsiveness, they face complex ethical challenges related to data governance, algorithmic accountability, and public trust. Using a qualitative descriptive method, this research combines document analysis and in-depth interviews with public officials and digital governance experts to examine ethical risks and institutional responses. The findings reveal a significant gap between technological innovation and ethical preparedness in many public institutions. Issues such as ethical fatigue, lack of regulatory clarity, and uneven digital capabilities among administrative levels pose serious threats to the integrity of public service. However, the study also highlights the critical role of ethical leadership and institutional commitment in mitigating these challenges. It concludes that bureaucratic reform must not only be technologically driven but also ethically grounded, ensuring that innovation enhances, rather than undermines, democratic governance and public accountability.
Keywords
bureaucratic ethics; technological disruption; digital governance; ethical leadership; public administration reform
References
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From streetâ€level to systemâ€level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press.
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and managing eGovernment: An international text. SAGE Publications.
Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Lips, A. M. B. (2019). Digital government: Managing public sector reform in the digital era. Routledge.
Margetts, H., & Dorobantu, C. (2019). Rethink government with AI. Nature, 568(7751), 163–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01099-5
Meijer, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2021). Responsible AI for digital government: Challenges and research opportunities. Information Polity, 26(3), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-210256
OECD. (2020). Public integrity for an inclusive recovery. https://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Sarker, A. E. (2006). New public management in developing countries: An analysis of success and failure with particular reference to Singapore and Bangladesh. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(2), 180–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610650437
Scholl, H. J., Klischewski, R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2012). E-government integration and interoperability: Framing the research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.001
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24967/jshs.v6i2.4302
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 160 times
PDF : 64 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Rosinta Paulina Hutauruk, Ade Fahmi, Dimas Gilang MaulanaAbstract
Keywords
References
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From streetâ€level to systemâ€level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press.
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and managing eGovernment: An international text. SAGE Publications.
Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Lips, A. M. B. (2019). Digital government: Managing public sector reform in the digital era. Routledge.
Margetts, H., & Dorobantu, C. (2019). Rethink government with AI. Nature, 568(7751), 163–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01099-5
Meijer, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2021). Responsible AI for digital government: Challenges and research opportunities. Information Polity, 26(3), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-210256
OECD. (2020). Public integrity for an inclusive recovery. https://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Sarker, A. E. (2006). New public management in developing countries: An analysis of success and failure with particular reference to Singapore and Bangladesh. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(2), 180–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610650437
Scholl, H. J., Klischewski, R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2012). E-government integration and interoperability: Framing the research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.001
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
Jurnal Sosial dan Humanis Sains is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License