1. Introduction
The territory of the Republic of Indonesia is geographically a very strategic country because it is located between two continents – the Asian continent and the Australian continent – and two oceans – the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean. The strategic location of this area makes Indonesia a very busy country because it becomes a crossing area for other countries that want to go from one place to another by land, sea, or air, so that they are also vulnerable to various threats. For this reason, the Indonesian government and all Indonesian citizens are obliged to maintain the sovereignty of the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, defend and protect it.
National defense and security is a strategic area in the national development plan. Apart from being carried out with a universal defense system, national defense efforts are also carried out by structuring the defense areas throughout the Republic of Indonesia starting from the provincial level up to the district/city level. Institutions in the regions have their respective duties, functions, and roles.
Java is the main island in Indonesia because it is not only the center of the Indonesian economy, but the most developed island as well (Widarjono, Anto, & Fakhrunnas, 2020). One of the urban areas where the defense structure policy is implemented is the city of Bandung, the capital of West Java province, with an area of 16, 729.65 hectares. Furthermore, based on the Republic of Indonesia Government Regulation Number 68 of 2014, the arrangement of the defense in the Bandung City area is carried out in an integrated manner with the arrangement of the Bandung City area, which is contained in the Bandung City Regional Regulation (Perda) Number 18 of 2011 concerning City Spatial Planning Bandung in 2011–2031.
According to Grindle (1980), the success of any policy implementation is influenced by two key variables, namely, the content of the policy and the implementation environment (context of implementation). First, the content of the policy includes (1) the extent to which the interests of the target group are contained in the content of the policy; (2) the types of benefits received by the target group; (3) the extent to which changes are desired from a policy; (4) whether the location of a program is correct; (5) whether a policy has mentioned its implementer in detail; and (6) whether a program is supported by adequate resources. Second, the policy environment includes (1) how much power, interests, and strategies are controlled by the actors involved in policy implementation; (2) the characteristics of the institutions and regimes in power; and (3) the level of compliance and responsiveness of the target group.
According to Edward III (1980), there are four main issues for effective policy implementation, namely, (1) communication, how the policy is communicated to the organization and/or public, and the attitudes and responses of the parties involved; (2) resources with regard to the availability of supporting resources, especially human resources. This is related to the ability of public policy implementers to carry out policies effectively; (3) disposition regarding the availability of implementors to carry out the public policy. Skills alone are not sufficient without the willingness and commitment to implement policies; and (4) bureaucratic structure, with regard to the suitability of bureaucratic organizations that carry out public policy implementation.
In the opinion of Sabatier and Mazmanian (1979), the conceptual framework of the public implementation process begins with the identification of the variables that influence the achievement of policy objectives in the entire implementation process. This research will examine and analyze the influence of institutional strengthening factors and capacity building (based on communication, resources, and training) on the performance of defense policy implementation.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Institutional Strengthening
According to Martindale (1966), an institution is a relationship pattern that is reflected by the group, which sees the relationship between organized human behavior in a group. According to Ruttan and Hayami (1984), an institution is a rule within a community, group, or organization that facilitates coordination between its members to help them with the hope that everyone can work together or relate to one another to achieve the desired common goal. Nguyen and Duong (2020) found that when a country controls to reducing corruption, strengthen legal enforcement, or improve the effectiveness of corporate governance, this leads to a reduction of the firm’s earning management and will increase value and transparency of financial information.
Based on this understanding, it can be concluded that an institution is a series of rules, systems, and incentive structures as a guide for behavior/patterns of relationships between community members that are mutually binding, to shape social behavior in society and are widely accepted to serve common goals. Institutions are more related to roles and functions, while organizations are more the container of the association of people that is differentiated from other containers. Institutional strengthening is carried out by formulating strategies for institutional strengthening from the aspects of the organization, resources, services, and cooperation or partnership networks. The objective of institutional strengthening is the development of an appropriate and well-sized institution.
2.2. Capacity Building
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), as per Milen (2004), define capacity building as a process by which individuals, groups, organizations, institutions, and communities improve their ability to (a) produce a performance in the implementation of main tasks and functions (core functions), solve problems, formulate and realize the achievement of predetermined goals, and (b) understand and meet development needs in a broader context in a sustainable manner. This is in line with the concept of capacity development by Grindle (1997), which states that capacity development is the ability to perform appropriate tasks effectively, efficiently, and sustainably.
The purpose of capacity building can be divided into two parts:
a. In general, it is identified in the realization of the sustainability of a system.
b. It is specifically aimed at realizing a better performance regarding 1) efficiency in terms of time (time) and resources (resources) needed to achieve an outcome; 2) effectiveness in the form of business appropriateness for the desired results; 3) responsiveness, namely, how to synchronize needs and abilities for the given purpose; and 4) learning from the performance of individuals, groups, organizations, and systems.
2.3. Communication
The organization’s classic approach defines the organization as the relationship structure, power, purpose, and role, as well as the communication involved in cooperation (Paais & Pattiruhu, 2020). Robbins (2002) states that the function of communication in an organization is as an instrument for control/supervision, motivation, emotional disclosure, and information on things that are considered important. Within the organization, communication has a very important role, namely, to unite individuals who are members of the organization. Specifically, for organizations that cannot be separated from their environment, communication with outsiders is needed, especially with parties that are related to these roles and organizations. Information and communication technologies (ICT) play the most important part in improving public needs (Afroz et al., 2020).
2.4. Resource
According to the Big Indonesian Dictionary, resources are defined as factors of production. The factors of production can be land, labor, and capital used to produce goods and services. Resources can also be interpreted as materials or circumstances to achieve results, such as equipment and equipment, availability of time and energy, facilities, etc. Thus, various factors such as time, human, material, capital, and other production factors that can actually be used to improve human welfare can be referred to as resources. For Smith and Stewart (1963), resources are defined as all the factors of production needed to produce output. Thus, a resource is a means to an end. The challenge is to prepare them to face globalization in order to remain maximally profitable while reducing losses from the global competition through effective and efficient management of resources (Pancasila, Haryono, & Sulistyo, 2020).
2.5. Training
Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, and Wright (2017) states that training is a planned effort to provide learning about work related to the knowledge, skills/skills and behavior provided to employees. According to DeCenzo and Robin (1999), training is a provision of experience/learning to improve the ability of each individual to carry out the work for which they are responsible. Training is every attempt to improve the ability of workers to a certain job for which they are responsible (Gomes, 2003). Thus, training can be defined as a process (effort, work and activity) to develop and improve the ability of individuals/workers to face a job for which they are responsible.
2.6. Defense Policy Implementation Performance
Performance is defined as the result of an employee’s work in carrying out tasks in accordance with their responsibilities both in quality and quantity (Mangkunegara & Prabu, 2005). Muktiadji et al. (2020) found that performance measurement is very crucial as a part of the efforts to meet the general accountability requirement for organizations. Policy implementation is a process that implies that policy implementation is an effort in the form of elaboration and activities to achieve policy objectives. Therefore, the performance of defense policy implementation is the result of efforts in the form of elaboration and activities so as to achieve the objectives of defense policy.
The defense policy, in particular the arrangement of the defense area, is regulated in legislation starting from the 1945 Constitution, Laws, Government Regulations, and Regional Regulations, which are faced with the development of the community’s environmental needs. So, that there must be a synergy between the central government and the regional government as well as between the regional government and the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) in formulating policies for defense area arrangement.
3. Research Methods and Materials
This study conducted a quantitative analysis related to the implementation of the institutional strengthening policy for the territory of the Bandung Municipality Kodim 0618/BS based on capacity building. The data used are primary data with a research instrument in the form of a questionnaire. Data analysis used the Structural Equation Model (SEM) measurement model. The population in this study were all people in the city of Bandung, Indonesia. The sample of this study was 200 respondents consisting of civilians and soldiers who served in the city of Bandung.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
Research Hypotheses:
H1: Institutional strengthening has a significant effect on capacity building (communication).
H2: Institutional strengthening has a significant effect on capacity building (resources).
H3: Institutional strengthening significantly influences capacity building (training).
H4: Capacity building (communication) has a significant effect on the performance of defense policy implementation.
H5: Capacity building (resources) has a significant effect on the performance of defense policy implementation.
H6: Capacity building (training) has a significant effect on the performance of defense policy implementation.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Factor Analysis Results
In this section, the results of the factor analysis for each research variable are presented. The results of this analysis determine the significance of the indicators in reflecting the research variables.
Table 1 shows that the five indicators that reflect institutional strengthening (X1) each have a factor load with a p-value of less than 0.05. This shows that all indicators significantly reflect the institutional strengthening variable (X1). Furthermore, a positive factor load value indicates that these indicators reflect the institutional strengthening variable (X1) positively. The indicator that is known to have the largest factor load is supervision action (X14), with a factor load of 0.724. With the largest factor load value, it can be concluded that the supervision measures (X14) are the most important indicators in reflecting the institutional strengthening variable (X1).
Table 1: Result of Institutional Strengthening Factor Analysis
Table 2 shows that five indicators that reflect capacity building: communication (Y1) has a factor load with a p-value of less than 0.05. Thus, it can be said that these five significantly reflect the capacity-building variable: communication (Y1). All these indicators are known to have a positive sign on the factor load, where the inter-institutional interaction indicator (Y14) has the greatest factor load. This shows that all indicators reflect the capacity building variable: communication (Y1) positively and the inter-institutional interaction (Y14) indicator is the most important indicator.
Table 2: Results of Capacity Building Factor Analysis: Communication
Table 3 shows that capacity building: resources (Y2) is reflected by four indicators significantly and positively. This can be seen from the p-value less than 0.05 and the factor load with a positive sign. With a factor load of 0.722, the consumption support indicator (Y23) becomes the indicator having the largest factor load so that it can be said to be the most important indicator to reflect the capacity building variable: resources (Y2).
Table 3: Result of Capacity Building Factor Analysis: Resources
The variable capacity building: training (Y3) is reflected by four indicators, where these indicators have a positive factor load and a p-value of less than 0.5. This shows that these indicators significantly reflect the capacity building: training (Y3) variable positively. Furthermore, Table 4 shows that the indicator with the largest factor content is the role of healthcare sector (Y33) indicator. With a motor factor value of 0.608; it can be said that the role of healthcare (Y33) indicator is the most important indicator in reflecting the variable capacity building: training (Y3).
Table 4: Results of Capacity Building Factor Analysis: Training
The defense policy implementation variable (Y4) is reflected by six indicators. Table 5 shows that all of these indicators have a factor load with a positive sign and a p-value of less than 0.5. Thus, it can be said that all of these indicators reflect the variable defense policy implementation (Y4) in a positive and significant way. The most important indicator reflecting the variable of defense policy implementation (Y4) is the effectiveness indicator (Y41). This can be seen from the load value of the effectiveness indicator factor (Y41), which is the largest among other indicators.
Table 5: Result of Analysis of Defense Policy Implementation Factors
4.2. Path Analysis Results
The results of testing the six research hypotheses are presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Path Analysis Results
The results of hypothesis testing in Table 6 show that institutional strengthening (X1) has a significant and positive effect on capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3). The significance of the effect of institutional strengthening (X1) on capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3) is indicated by a p-value that is less than 0.05. In addition, the path coefficient on the three relationships is positive, so it can be said that the increase in institutional strengthening (X1) can significantly affect the increase in capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3). Based on this description, it can be concluded that hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are accepted.
The magnitude of the influence of institutional strengthening (X1) on capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3) is shown by the coefficients of 0.311, 0.277, and 0.385, respectively. From these coefficients, it can be seen that institutional strengthening (X1) provides the greatest influence on capacity building: training (Y3).
Furthermore, Table 6 also shows that capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3) have a significant and positive effect on defense policy implementation (Y4). The significance of this effect is indicated by a p-value less than 0.05. The magnitude of the path coefficient for the effect of capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3) on defense policy implementation (Y4) are 0.406, 0.435, and 0.439, respectively. With a positive path coefficient sign, it can be concluded that the increasing value of capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3) will also have an effect on increasing defense policy implementation (Y4) as well. The implementation of defense policy (Y4) is particularly influenced by capacity building: training (Y3), which is shown by the path coefficient value that is greater than the other influences. This explanation shows that hypotheses 4, 5, and 6 are accepted.
Based on the results of the analysis, institutional strengthening (X1) has a very important role in improving defense policy implementation (Y4). This is achieved indirectly by means of institutional strengthening (X1), which affects capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3) positively. Then capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3) positively influence defense policy implementation (Y4) as well. Thus, it is very important to maintain the condition of institutional strengthening (X1) in order to remain good.
Efforts to maintain the condition of institutional strengthening (X1) in order to remain good can be done by paying attention to indicators that reflect institutional strengthening (X1). The result of factor analysis shows that institutional strengthening (X1) is significantly reflected by five indicators. The order of indicators from most important to least important is supervision action (X14), institutional responsibility (X13), institutional criteria (X11), evaluation action (X15), and institutional selection (X12). The condition of the supervisory action indicator (X14) as the most important indicator needs to be maintained or even improved in order to achieve better institutional strengthening (X1).
Good institutional strengthening conditions (X1) will lead to good capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3). Good conditions for capacity building: communication (Y1) are mainly shown by good indicators of inter-institutional interaction (Y14). This is related to the results of the factor analysis, which show that inter-agency interaction (Y14) is the most important indicator in reflecting capacity building: communication (Y1). Meanwhile, the good condition of capacity building: resources (Y2) is largely determined by the conditions of consumption support. (Y23). The consumption support indicator (Y23) is the most important indicator reflecting capacity building: resources (Y2) indicated by the value of the factor load, which is the largest compared to the factor load of other indicators. With a positive factor load sign, a good condition of consumption support (Y23) indicates a good condition of capacity building: resources (Y2).
Furthermore, the good condition of capacity building: training (Y3) is reflected in the condition of the healthcare sector role indicator (Y33). This indicator is the strongest indicator that reflects capacity building: training (Y3). If the condition of the role of the healthcare sector (Y33) is relatively good, then the condition of capacity building: training (Y3) will also improve. The good condition of X1, which is accompanied by the good conditions of capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3) will encourage conditions for the implementation of defense policy (Y4) to get better. The results of the factor analysis show that the condition of defense policy implementation (Y4) should be characterized mainly by the effectiveness condition (Y41).
5. Conclusions
Based on the results of the analysis and discussion, the following conclusions can be drawn.
1) Institutional strengthening (X1) influences positively and significantly capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3).
2) Capacity building: communication (Y1), capacity building: resources (Y2), and capacity building: training (Y3) have a positive and significant effect on defense policy implementation (Y4).
References
- Afroz, R., Muhibbullah, M., & Morshed, M. N. (2020). Impact of information and communication technology on economic growth and population health in Malaysia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(4), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no4.155
- DeCenzo, D. A., & Robbins, S. P. (1999). Human Resource Management. New York, NY: John Willey and Sons, Inc.
- Edward III, G. C. (1980). Implementing Public Policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
- Gomes, F. C. (2003). Human Resource Management. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: ANDI
- Grindle, M. S. (1980). Politics and Policy Implementation in the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Grindle, M. S. (1997). Getting good government: capacity building in the public sectors of developing countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Jeon, J. H. (2018). The impact of Asian economic policy uncertainty: Evidence from Korean housing market. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 5(2), 43-51. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2018.vol5.no2.43
- Mangkunegara, A. P., & Prabu, A. (2005). Evaluation of human resource performance. Bandung, Indonesia: Refika Aditama.
- Martindale, D. (1966). Institutions, organizations, and mass society. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
- Milen, A. (2004). Basic Handbook of Capacity Building. Translated. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Pondok Pustaka Jogja.
- Muktiadji, N., Mulyani, S., Djanegara, M. S., & Pamungkas, B. (2020). The Role of Financial Management Accountability in Enhancing Organizational Performance in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economic, and Business, 7(12), 845-852. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no12.845
- Nguyen, A. H., & Duong, C. T. (2020). Provincial governance quality and earnings management: empirical evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business,7(2), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no2.43
- Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
- Paais, M., & Pattiruhu, J. R. (2020). Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(8), 577-588. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.577
- Pancasila, I., Haryono, S., & Sulistyo, B. A. (2020). Effects of work motivation and leadership toward work satisfaction and employee performance: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(6), 387-397. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no6.387
- Robbins, S. P. (2002). The principles of organizational behavior. Jakarta, Indonesia: Erlangga.
- Ruttan, V. W., & Hayami, Y. (1984). Toward a theory of induced institutional innovation. The Journal of Development Studies, 20(4), 203-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388408421914
- Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538-560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1980.tb01266.x
- Saifullah, M. K., Kari, F. B., & Ali, M. A. (2017). Linkage between public policy, green technology and green products on environmental awareness in the urban Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 4(2), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2017.vol4.no2.45
- Satybaldin, A. A., Nurlanova, N. K., & Kireyeva, A. A. (2016). A New Policy of Spatial Development of Kazakhstan on the Principles of Inclusiveness and Smart Specialization. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 3(3), 93-102. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2016.vol3.no3.93
- Smith, A., & Stewart, D. (1963). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
- Widarjono, A., Anto, M., & Fakhrunnas, F. (2020). Financing Risk in Indonesian Islamic Rural Banks: Do Financing Products Matter? Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(9), 305-314. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no9.305
- Yun, J. K. (2013). A Study on policy proposal for Senior Start-up and Marketing Strategies for entrepreneurs. The Journal of Distribution Science, 11(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.11.1.201301.55