Pemetaan Rasionalitas Jaksa dalam Seleksi Perkara Korupsi Pendekatan Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51903/4rvhvq98Keywords:
fsQCA, prosecutorial discretion, corruption cases, configurational analysis, institutional theory, criminal justice decision-makingAbstract
Prosecutorial discretion in corruption case selection is often explained through linear causal models that emphasize single determinants such as evidentiary strength, institutional pressure, or case severity; however, such approaches are limited in capturing the configurational complexity of decision-making within prosecutorial institutions. This study aims to identify configurational pathways that lead to high prosecutorial priority in corruption case handling using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). The study applies a configurational research design based on fsQCA, analyzing six causal conditions consisting of financial loss, actor complexity, public attention, evidence strength, institutional pressure, and asset recovery potential. Data are calibrated into fuzzy-set membership scores (0–1) using a direct calibration approach, followed by truth table construction, necessity analysis, sufficiency analysis, and Boolean minimization using intermediate solutions. The findings reveal three distinct causal pathways leading to high prosecutorial priority: institutionally reinforced legal rationality characterized by high financial loss, strong evidence, and high institutional pressure; visibility-driven prioritization combining actor complexity and public attention with moderate evidentiary strength; and technocratic fiscal rationality driven by high financial loss, high asset recovery potential, and low institutional pressure. No single condition is found to be necessary, confirming equifinality and causal asymmetry. Prosecutorial prioritization in corruption cases is therefore best understood as a configurational phenomenon shaped by multiple interacting rationalities rather than single causal factors, introducing the concept of configurational prosecutorial rationality within criminal justice decision-making.
References
Addae, J. A., Ahmed, S., Ofori, K. S., Abubakari, A., & Sharma, A. (2025). Understanding users’ continuance adoption of FinTechs through the lens of the behavioural reasoning theory: insights from PLS-SEM and fs-QCA. Behaviour and Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2025.2558199
Ali, M., Muliyono, A., & Nurhidayat, S. (2023). The Application of a Human Rights Approach toward Crimes of Corruption: Analyzing Anti-Corruption Regulations and Judicial Decisions. Laws, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12040068
Basheer, M. F., Sabir, S. A., & Hassan, S. G. (2024). Financial development, globalization, energy consumption, and environmental quality: Does control of corruption matter in South Asian countries? Economic Change and Restructuring, 57(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-024-09699-6
Boufounou, P., Eriotis, N., Kounadeas, T., Argyropoulos, P., & Poulopoulos, J. (2024). Enhancing Internal Control Mechanisms in Local Government Organizations: A Crucial Step towards Mitigating Corruption and Ensuring Economic Development. Economies, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12040078
Campagnolo, D., Gianecchini, M., & Mosca, L. (2024). Configurations of business model themes and strategies in small firms: a qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Management and Governance, 28(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-023-09680-x
Crepaz, M., & Arikan, G. (2024). The effects of transparency regulation on political trust and perceived corruption: Evidence from a survey experiment. Regulation and Governance, 18(3), 896–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12555
Croci, G. (2025). Effectiveness and corruption in the criminal justice system of Latin America: An overview. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 49(1), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2023.2292032
Ege, J., Paustyan, E., & Thomann, E. (2022). Approaches to Qualitative Comparative Analysis and good practices: A systematic review. Swiss Political Science Review, 28(3), 557–580. /doi/pdf/10.1111/spsr.12503%0Ahttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/spsr.12503%0Ahttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spsr.12503
Eluwole, K. K., Lasisi, T. T., Parvez, M. O., & Cobanoglu, C. (2024). Application of fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in hospitality and tourism research: a bibliometric study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 7(5), 3032–3054. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-08-2023-0572
Fansher, A. K., & Welsh, B. (2023). A Decade of Decision Making: Prosecutorial Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases. Social Sciences, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12060348
Fazekas, M., Sberna, S., & Vannucci, A. (2022). The extra-legal governance of corruption: Tracing the organization of corruption in public procurement. Governance, 35(4), 1139–1161. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12648
Grunwald, G., Kara, A., & Spillan, J. E. (2025). Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to Examine Causal Complexity in Business Students’ Sustainability Behavioural Intentions. Higher Education Quarterly, 79(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70076
Koeswayo, P. S., Handoyo, S., & Abdul Hasyir, D. (2024). Investigating the Relationship between Public Governance and the Corruption Perception Index. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2342513
Kokkinen, L. (2022). Studying social determinants of health using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A worked example. Social Science and Medicine, 309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115241
Li, Z., & Yang, M. (2026). Configurational pathways to effective grassroots emergency governance in China’s urban agglomerations: a fsQCA study based on the TOE framework. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-34634-8
Ma, T., Cheng, Y., Guan, Z., Li, B., Hou, F., & Lim, E. T. K. (2024). Theorising moderation in the configurational approach: A guide for identifying and interpreting moderating influences in QCA. Information Systems Journal, 34(3), 762–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12439
Manosuthi, N., Meeprom, S., & Leruksa, C. (2024). Exploring multifaceted pathways: understanding behavioral formation in green tourism selection through fsQCA. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 41(4), 640–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2024.2325529
Nikou, S., Mezei, J., Liguori, E. W., & El Tarabishy, A. (2024). FsQCA in entrepreneurship research: Opportunities and best practices. Journal of Small Business Management, 62(3), 1531–1548. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2022.2147190
Nolasco Braaten, C., & Chi-Fang Tsai, L. (2024). Effects of bounded rationality on prosecutorial decision making: Analysis of penalties on corporate fraud violators. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2023.100634
Omelchuk, O. M., Haiur, I. Y., Kozytska, O. G., Prysiazhna, A. V., & Khmelevska, N. V. (2022). Analysis of the activities of law enforcement authorities in the field of combating crime and corruption offences. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 25(3), 700–716. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-07-2021-0073
Paranata, A. (2025). A Systematic Literature Review of Anti-corruption Policy: A Future Research Agenda in Indonesia. Public Organization Review, 25(3), 1181–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-025-00847-8
Passavanti, C., Primario, S., & Rippa, P. (2024). A configurative analysis investigating how new technology-based firms gain the first financing round. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 19(2), 305–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11403-023-00398-5
Pham, P., & Scholten, M. (2026). Complex global value chains and economic interdependence: a new look at the opportunity costs argument. Review of International Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2026.2629478
Syahuri, T., Saleh, G., & Abrilianti, M. (2022). The role of the corruption eradication commission supervisory board within the indonesian constitutional structure. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2035913
Tambunan, D. (2023). Indonesia under threat: The danger of corruption to political legitimacy. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 8(1), 112–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/20578911221124965
Teichman, D., Zamir, E., & Ritov, I. (2023). Biases in legal decision-making: Comparing prosecutors, defense attorneys, law students, and laypersons. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 20(4), 852–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12365
Troisi, R., & Alfano, G. (2023). Proximity and inter-firm corruption: A transaction cost approach. Small Business Economics, 60(3), 1105–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00649-y
Yustia, D. A., & Arifin, F. (2023). Bureaucratic reform as an effort to prevent corruption in Indonesia. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2166196
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Methodius Kossay, Rengga Kusuma Putra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
6.png)
