Explaining Public Service Quality at the Village Level: Administrative Capacity, Transparency, Digitalization, and Citizen Participation
Abstract
Public service quality at the village level is a key indicator of governance effectiveness, citizen satisfaction, and institutional legitimacy, particularly in decentralized administrative systems. In Indonesia, village governments act as the frontline of public administration, delivering essential services such as population administration, civil registration, and community development facilitation. Despite decentralization reforms and increased fiscal authority, variations in service quality across rural villages remain a persistent challenge. This study investigates the determinants of public service quality in Goarie Village, Soppeng Regency, South Sulawesi. It examines the influence of human resource capacity, transparency and accountability of village fund management, digital administration implementation, and community participation. A quantitative explanatory approach was applied using a cross-sectional survey design. Data were collected from 120 residents who had accessed village administrative services within the previous twelve months. Structured questionnaires were used to capture citizens’ perceptions, and the data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, validity and reliability tests, classical assumption tests, and multiple linear regression analysis. The results suggest that governance and administrative factors play a significant role in shaping perceived public service quality. Human resource capacity and community participation emerged as the most influential determinants, emphasizing the importance of administrative competence and citizen engagement. Transparency and accountability also contributed positively, while digital administration showed a supportive but comparatively moderate effect. These findings highlight the multidimensional nature of village-level service quality and the need for integrated governance strategies.
Downloads
References
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Public governance as co-creation: A strategy for revitalizing the public sector. Cambridge University Press.
Cepiku, D., Marsilio, M., & Sicilia, M. (2020). The co-production of public services: Management and governance implications. Public Management Review, 22(8), 1107–1128.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
De Vries, H., Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2018). The diffusion and adoption of public sector innovations: A meta-synthesis. Public Administration Review, 78(2), 146–158.
Field, A. (2020). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Fung, A. (2020). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 585–595.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., & Im, T. (2020). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 433–447.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Kim, S., & Park, H. (2022). Determinants of citizen satisfaction with local public services in decentralized governance systems. Local Government Studies, 48(6), 1045–1064.
Lapuente, V., & Van de Walle, S. (2020). The effects of new public management on public service quality. Public Administration, 98(3), 607–626.
Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408.
Meijer, A., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2017). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(1), 4–22.
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2020). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13101
OECD. (2021). Government at a glance 2021. OECD Publishing.
Osborne, S. P. (2021). Public service logic: Creating value for public service users, citizens, and society. Routledge.
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2016). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–661.
Porumbescu, G. (2017). Linking transparency to trust in government and voice. Public Administration Review, 77(6), 829–839.
Rajamemang, A. S., Prasojo, E., & Kurniawan, T. (2025). Human resource capacity and public service quality in decentralized local government. Public Organization Review, 25(2), 289–305.
Sicilia, M., Guarini, E., Sancino, A., Andreani, M., & Ruffini, R. (2019). Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. Public Management Review, 21(2), 247–267.
Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2018). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and service quality. Public Management Review, 20(4), 509–528.
Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2022). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(1), 1–13.
Wahyudi, A., & Purnomo, E. P. (2020). Village governance and public accountability in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 13(3), 320–337.
Warna, D., Hamzani, A. I., & Rusmita, S. A. (2024). Transparency and accountability of village fund management and public trust in local government. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 17(2), 210–225.
Wirtz, B. W., & Daiser, P. (2018). E-government strategy process instruments. Public Management Review, 20(3), 364–387.
Copyright (c) 2026 Zulfachry Zulfachry, Zul Rachmat
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.png)
