Public Service Reform and Citizens’ Dependence on Intermediaries in Land Administration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64670/jpgs.v2i2.96Keywords:
Citizen Dependence, Digital Transformation, Intermediaries, Land Administration, Public Service ReformAbstract
Background Digital transformation has become a central agenda in public administration reform, including land administration, with the expectation of improving efficiency, transparency, and direct citizen access to services. In Indonesia, digital land administration has been promoted to simplify procedures and reduce informal practices. However, citizens continue to rely on intermediaries even after digital systems have been implemented. This study examines why intermediary dependence persists and how institutional arrangements shape access to digital land services.
Methods This study employed a qualitative single-case study with a mechanism-based explanatory approach in Bone Bolango Regency, Indonesia. Data were collected through repeated field visits, in-depth interviews, direct observation, and document analysis, then analyzed using thematic coding and mechanism-based interpretation.
Results The findings show that digitalization creates formal access but does not automatically produce practical accessibility. Limited digital literacy, administrative anxiety, fragmented institutional coordination, and hybrid administrative procedures continue to shape citizens’ experiences in accessing land services. Intermediaries remain important because they help citizens understand requirements, prepare documents, reduce procedural risks, and coordinate across institutions.
Conclusion Digital reform does not automatically eliminate intermediary dependence in public service delivery. The effectiveness of digital governance should be assessed not only through technological availability and procedural efficiency, but also through citizens’ ability to access services directly and confidently. This study advances a relational institutional perspective on digital governance and suggests further comparative research across regions and public service sectors.
References
AbdulKareem, A. K., & Oladimeji, K. A. (2024). Cultivating the digital citizen: trust, digital literacy and e-government adoption. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 18(2), 270–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-11-2023-0196
Ahmad, M. O., Ahmed, I., Al-Baik, O., Hussein, A. H., Abu Alhaija, M. A., & Albizri, A. (2025). Unlocking citizen confidence: examining trust and continuance intentions in digital services. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 19(4), 1104–1128. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-08-2024-0424
Campbell-Verduyn, M., Rodima-Taylor, D., & Hütten, M. (2021). Technology, small states and the legitimacy of digital development: combatting de-risking through blockchain-based re-risking? Journal of International Relations and Development, 24(2), 455–482.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-020-00198-5
Clarke, A. (2020). Digital government units: what are they, and what do they mean for digital era public management renewal? International Public Management Journal, 23(3), 358–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1686447
Djatmiko, G. H., Sinaga, O., & Pawirosumarto, S. (2025). Digital Transformation and Social Inclusion in Public Services: A Qualitative Analysis of E-Government Adoption for Marginalized Communities in Sustainable Governance. Sustainability, 17(7), 2908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072908
Flacke, J., Hoefsloot, F. I., & Pfeffer, K. (2025). Inclusive Digital Planning – Co-designing a collaborative mapping tool to support the planning of accessible public space for all. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 121, 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2025.102310
Isnaeni, D., & Hamadi, A. (2024). Land Banking Policy (Critical Evaluation of the Economic and Social Rights of Traditional Legal Communities). Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies, 9(2), 673–706. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v9i2.2196
Miles, Huberman, dan S. (2016). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods (Vol. 30, Issue 25).
Osborne, S. P., Powell, M., Cui, T., & Strokosch, K. (2022). Value Creation in the Public Service Ecosystem: An Integrative Framework. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 634–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13474
Pérez-Morote, R., Pontones-Rosa, C., & Núñez-Chicharro, M. (2020). The effects of e-government evaluation, trust and the digital divide in the levels of e-government use in European countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154, 119973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119973
Rodima-Taylor, D. (2021). Digitalizing land administration: The geographies and temporalities of infrastructural promise. Geoforum, 122, 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.04.003
Scheerder, A. J., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2019). Internet use in the home: Digital inequality from a domestication perspective. New Media and Society, 21(10), 2099–2118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819844299
Schneider, S., Theiss, M., Gędek, W., & Zschache, U. (2025). Citizen among Institutions. Fragmentation and Trust in Social Assistance. Social Policy and Society, 24(4), 684–700. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474642510078X
Sutiyo, Tjenreng, M. Z., & Nurhascaryani, P. (2026). Institutional conflict in regional development: path dependence in the free trade zone and decentralization of Batam, Indonesia. Regional and Federal Studies, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2026.2656891
Yin, R. K. (2019). Studi Kasus, Desain & Metode. Raja Grafindo Persada.
