Abstract
This study The purpose of this study is to find out the process of formulating discretionary policies carried out by the village head. The method used in this study is a qualitative study method. The type of study used in this study is the type of descriptive study. Based on the results of the study it was concluded that the process of discretion policy formulation carried out by the village head was still not optimal, this is due to the low capacity of the village head as the main actor in the discretion policy formulation process. This can be seen from the lack of ability in discretionary policies, thus affecting the monopoly in the process of formulating discretionary and undemocratic policies, as happened in Kebon Agung Village. Whereas in Sumber Lele Village the conditions are better, because it has involved the parties (stakeholders). Although the parties (stakeholders) which is involved does not yet reflect aspects of democracy and representation, because of the parties (stakeholders) only community and religious leaders were involved.
Highlights
Conceptual governance can be carried out with two types of power approaches, namely the power based approach “general rule of law” and “personal discretion to do justice”
ABSTRAK: This study The purpose of this study is to find out the process of formulating discretionary policies carried out by the village head
Based on the results of the study it was concluded that the process of discretion policy formulation carried out by the village head was still not optimal, this is due to the low capacity of the village head as the main actor in the discretion policy formulation process
Summary
Conceptual governance can be carried out with two types of power approaches, namely the power based approach “general rule of law” and “personal discretion to do justice”. Both types of approaches to power were stated by Scalia (2012) in a book entitled The Supreme Court of the United States. At the abstractive level above, the concept of governance, especially in context personal discretion to do justice or discretionary policy is interpreted as free power, power based on subjective or personal considerations of the holder of power to do or not do something. When the capacity of incumbent power holdersthen the discretion policy that is carried out most likely will not be able to according to the will of the public. Because currently public services are demanded and directed at services oriented to public satisfaction, so the competence and creativity of the holder of power becomes an important prerequisite in the administration of government (Davis, 1971)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
