<![CDATA[Records management supports administrative continuity, accountability, and access to public information. This article compares archival practices reported in previous studies of three Indonesian public institutions: the Secretariat of the Surakarta City Regional House of Representatives, the Makassar Administrative Court, and the Central Java Provincial Manpower, Transmigration, and Population Office. A descriptive-comparative literature review was conducted using three principal case sources and archival regulations. The synthesis examines correspondence handling, filing, preservation, disposition, facilities, staffing, and information access. The reported cases differ in their emphasis: numerical classification and facility constraints in Surakarta, public information access in the court, and mixed filing arrangements and inactive-records management in the provincial office. These findings suggest the need for integrated classification, competent personnel, adequate facilities, retention controls, and information services. Because the underlying publications cover different periods, the findings should not be interpreted as an assessment of current institutional conditions. The study offers a preliminary comparative framework for evaluating public-sector records management.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
