Global Journal of Economic and Finance Research

Indonesia has long held the world’s largest Hajj quota, an achievement often celebrated as a marker of administrative capability and national devotion. Yet behind this numerical triumph lies a persistent paradox: despite continual reforms, digital integration, and expanded logistical capacity, the regulatory landscape of the Hajj continues to generate new layers of complexity. This study asks whether the 2025 Hajj season will finally deliver genuine accessibility, or whether Indonesian pilgrims remain caught between spiritual aspiration and bureaucratic constraint. Using a two-stage qualitative design, Study 1 examines independent narratives drawn from news media coverage, while Study 2 gathers insights from government officials responsible for Hajj administration to understand the institutional logic that sustains ongoing regulatory obstacles. The comparative analysis reveals a widening gap between regulatory ideals and pilgrims’ lived spiritual experiences, showing that efficiency-driven governance often overlooks the emotional and contemplative dimensions of the Hajj journey. Findings indicate that, although Indonesia’s Hajj management system has become increasingly sophisticated, it remains emotionally fragmented and procedurally burdened. This raises a critical question: when will the Hajj system value not only the physical journey, but also create a sustained cycle of ease for the pilgrims it seeks to serve?

Hajj Regulation, Qualitative Study, Indonesia, Religious Governance, Pilgrim Experience, Media

1. Cedergren, A., Hassel, H., & Tehler, H. (2022). Tracking the implementation of a risk management process in a public sector organisation – A longitudinal study. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 81, 103257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103257
2. Eickelman, D. F., & Piscatori, J. (1996). Muslim politics. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029978/muslim-politics
3. Fernández‐i‐Marín, X., Hinterleitner, M., Knill, C., & Steinebach, Y. (2023). Policy growth, implementation capacities, and the effect on policy performance. Governance, 37(3), 927-945. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12816
4. Gershgoren, S., & Cohen, N. (2023). Does the teaming of career street-level bureaucrats and lay officials promote street-level resolutions that favour the citizens’ claims? Public Management Review, 26(8), 2306-2330.https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2268088
5. Gofen, A., Rønning, R., & Sønderskov, M. (2024). Street-level bureaucracy and Co-creation: Towards theory synthesis and cross-fertilization. Public Management Review, 27(8), 1912-1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2429013
6. Harro-Loit, H., & Eberwein, T. (2024). News media monitoring capabilities in 14 European countries: Problems and best practices. Media and Communication, 12. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7199
7. Howlett, M., & Migone, A. (2025). Beyond evidentiary uncertainty: Mitigating political risks in policy designs. Policy Design and Practice, 8(3), 379-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2025.2529624
8. Kettunen, P. (2017). Governance and accessibility: Policy design in complex institutions. Public Management Review, 19(7), 963–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210902
9. Knill, C., Steinebach, Y., & Zink, D. (2023). How policy growth affects policy implementation: Bureaucratic overload and policy triage. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(2), 324-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2158208
10. Napoli, P. M. (2023). What is media policy? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 707(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162231211387
11. Northcott, E. W. (2025). Automating street‐level discretion: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70024
12. Power, N., Philpot, R., Levine, M., & Alcock, J. (2025). Bridging the principle‐implementation gap: Evaluating organizational change to achieve interoperability between the UK emergency services. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 98(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70010
13. Schwinges, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2024). Reframes the watchdog role in corporate/regulatory contexts under Big Tech. Digital Journalism, 12(6), 1103–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2234972 
14. Schwinges, A., Van der Meer, T. G., & Vliegenthart, R. (2025). Are news media biting hard enough? Public watchdog role expectations and performance evaluations in the era of big tech. Digital Journalism, 13(5), 949-969. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2485257
15. Segaro, E. L., & Haag, K. (2022). Good intentions gone awry: Government intervention and Multistakeholder engagement in a frontier market. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(4), 1019-1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05197-9
16. Tay, H. L., Banomyong, R., Varadejsatitwong, P., & Julagasigorn, P. (2022). Mitigating risks in the disaster management cycle. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7454760
17. Villodre, J. (2024). A three-model approach to understand social media-mediated transparency in public administrations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 91(1), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523241261896
18. World Population Review. (2025). Hajj quota by country 2025. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/hajj-quota-by-country