WFH for Civil Servants and the Old Question of Energy Efficiency
Fridays now hold new significance. For some civil servants (ASN), Friday is no longer just the end of the workweek, but a day to work from home. The government describes this policy as part of the national work culture transformation, more efficient, more digital, and, most intriguingly, more energy-saving.
In everyday conversations, Friday even feels like a new version of “TGIF”—Thank God It’s Friday. No longer just because the weekend is near, but because there is a break from the usually hectic office routine. The question is: is this policy truly about efficiency, or also a reflection of the need for a more flexible work pattern?
The government claims potential savings of Rp 6.2 trillion from the state budget and Rp 59 trillion from public fuel expenditure. Figures that, honestly, sound enticing. But, like all big numbers in public policy, a simple question always follows: where does the saving come from, and who really changes their behaviour?
It is reasonable that this claim draws attention. However, to understand if this approach is effective, it is interesting to see how other countries respond to similar challenges.
Looking at practices in other countries, especially after the global energy price surge, WFH is indeed used as one tool to control energy consumption. However, almost no country relies on it as the main instrument.
Conversely, in ASEAN, the approaches also differ. Malaysia opts to tighten fuel subsidies through quota restrictions, Thailand adjusts subsidy schemes, while the Philippines prepares aid packages to cushion the impact of rising energy prices. This means that in many countries, energy savings are pursued through pricing policies, subsidies, or market regulations, not solely through work behaviour changes like WFH.
In the global context, this policy arises in a very specific situation. The escalation of conflict in the Middle East has driven up world oil prices and prompted many countries to seek quick ways to curb energy consumption. In such situations, WFH is more appropriately seen as a quick response, easy to implement, requiring no major structural changes, and able to immediately reduce daily mobility.
However, in many countries, such approaches are clearly positioned as short-term solutions. Once the pressure eases, the policy is evaluated or even discontinued. The issue in Indonesia is that the narrative does not stop there. WFH is not only framed as a crisis response, but also as part of the “national work culture transformation”.
This means there is a possibility that this policy is not just an emergency brake, but an entry point towards more permanent change.
This is where the issue becomes more concrete. WFH does not automatically mean staying at home. People might still go out, to malls, cafes, or even travel. If that happens, the expected fuel savings could be much smaller than imagined.
From a behavioural perspective, this phenomenon is not too surprising. It can be explained through the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen), which views that behaviour is not only determined by rules, but also by intentions, habits, and individual perceptions of what is considered normal. The WFH policy may change work rules, but it does not necessarily immediately alter daily mobility preferences.
In other words, without changes in incentives and daily habits, the reduction in commutes to the office could simply be replaced by other activities. In this context, energy savings do not happen automatically; they depend on whether behaviour truly changes, or merely shifts in a subtler form.
Furthermore, there is one question that is rarely touched upon: what about the private sector?