Fiscal Decentralization, Accountability and Corruption Indication

Evidence from Indonesia


  • Newin Ananta Aji Saputra Badan Pengawas Keuangan dan Pembangunan
  • Doddy Setiawan Universitas Sebelas Maret



Indications of Corruption, Fiscal Decentralization, Accountability, regional losses, revenue deficiency


In the Corruption Perception Index 2019, Indonesia ranks 90th among 180 countries (Transparency International, 2020). Indonesia still among the lowest rank in the corruption index. This index shows that corruption is an important issue for Indonesia. Therefore, the study aims at examining the determinants of corruption in Indonesia. This study focuses on two important aspects: fiscal decentralization and accountability. Since the enactment of Law Number 22 of 1999, which was then revised by Law Number 32 of 2004, the local government can manage fiscal. It is expected that local governments can use resources for the improvement of the wealth of the citizens. Further, the local government has a responsibility for using the resources.  However, there are cases regarding corruption in local government in Indonesia. This study uses secondary data from local government financial statements to search the corruption indication, level of fiscal decentralization, and accountability. The study’s sample consists of 94 districts/cities on Java during the 2013-2015 period. The dependent variable in this study is an indication of corruption. Furthermore, the study divided corruption into three aspects: regional losses, potential regional losses, and revenue deficiency. The independent variables in this study were fiscal decentralization and accountability. This study uses multiple linear regression models to test the effect of fiscal decentralization and accountability on Indonesia’s corruption indicator. The result of the study shows that fiscal decentralization has a negative impact on corruption indication. The higher degree of fiscal decentralization minimizes the corruption indication in Java island. Meanwhile, fiscal decentralization has a negative effect on regional losses and revenue deficiency. Accountability has no significant on corruption indication. However, accountability has a negative impact on regional losses. In conclusion, both fiscal decentralization and accountability have curb corruption indication in the regional losses aspect.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


Alfada, A. (2019). Does Fiscal Decentralization Encourage Corruption in Local Governments? Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(3), 118. DOI:

Arikan, G. G. (2004). Fiscal Decentralization: A Remedy for Corruption? International Tax and Public Finance, 11(2), 175-195. DOI:

Chetwynd, E., Chetwynd, F., & Spector, B. (2003). Corruption and poverty: A review of recent literature. Management Systems International, 600, 5-16.

Choudhury, S. (2015). Governmental decentralization and corruption revisited: Accounting for potential endogeneity. Economics Letters, 136, 218-222. doi:

Elbahnasawy, N. G., & Revier, C. F. (2012). The Determinants of Corruption: Cross-Country-Panel-Data Analysis. The Developing Economies, 50(4), 311-333. doi:

Ferraz, C., & Finan, F. (2011). Electoral accountability and corruption: Evidence from the audits of local governments. American Economic Review, 101(4), 1274-1311. doi:

Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2002). Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries. Journal of Public Economics, 83(3), 325-345. doi:

González, J. L. J., & Albalate, D. (2018). Transparency and local government corruption: what does lack of transparency hide? European Journal of Government and Economics, 7(2), 106-122. doi:

Heriningsih, S. (2014). Kajian Empiris Tingkat Akuntabilitas Pemerintah Daerah dan Kinerja Penyelengara Pemerintah Daerah Terhadap Tingkat Korupsi Pada Kabupaten dan Kota di Indonesia. Paradigma: Jurnal Masalah Sosial, Politik dan Kebijakan, 18(2), 29-40.

Ivanyna, M., & Shah, A. (2011). Decentralization and Corruption: New Cross-Country Evidence. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(2), 344-362. doi:

Javaid, U. (2010). Corruption and its deep impact on good governance in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 123-134.

Judge, W. Q., McNatt, D. B., & Xu, W. (2011). The antecedents and effects of national corruption: A metaanalysis. Journal of World Business, 46(1), 93-103. doi:

KPK. (2017). Annual Report 2016.

Kuncoro, A. (2002). The new laws of decentralization and corruption in Indonesia: examination of provincial and district data. Paper presented at the 42nd Congress of the European Regional Science Association: “From industry to advanced sciences-Perspective of European Metropolitan Regions” Dortmund, Germany, August 27th. - 31st 2002.

Kurniawan, T. (2009). Peranan Akuntabilitas Publik dan Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Pemberantasan Korupsi di Pemerintahan. Bisnis & Birokrasi Journal, 16(2), 116-121.

Kurniawan, T. (2011). Democratic decentralization and corruption in Indonesia: Why decentralization has caused head of regions affected by corruption cases. Paper presented at the Conference on Decentralization and Democratization in Southeast Asia.

Kwon, O. (2013). Fiscal decentralization: An effective tool for government reform? Public Administration, 91(3), 544-560. doi:

Lederman, D., Loayza, N. V., & Soares, R. R. (2005). Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter. Economics & Politics, 17(1), 1-35. doi:

Lessmann, C., & Markwardt, G. (2010). One size fits all? Decentralization, corruption, and the monitoring of bureaucrats. World Development, 38(4), 631-646. doi:

Lewis, B. (2014). Twelve years of fiscal decentralization: a balance sheet. In H. Hill (Ed.), Regional dynamics in a decentralized Indonesia (pp. 135-155). Australia: College of Asia and the Pacific, Australia National University.

Mardiasmo. (2009). Akuntansi Sektor Publik (4 ed.). Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi.

Nye, J. S. (1967). Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. American Political Science Review, 61(2), 417-427. doi:

Olken, B. A. (2006). Corruption and the costs of redistribution: Micro evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Public Economics, 90(4), 853-870. doi:

Olken, B. A. (2007). Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia. Journal of political economy, 115(2), 200-249. doi:

Oto-Peralías, D., Romero-Ávila, D., & Usabiaga, C. (2013). Does fiscal decentralization mitigate the adverse effects of corruption on public deficits? European Journal of Political Economy, 32, 205-231.

Peixoto, S. G. D., Rocha, F. F., Nishijima, M., & Postali, F. A. S. (2012). Decentralization and corruption: evidence from primary health-care programmes. Applied Economics Letters, 19(18), 1885-1888. doi:

Pepinsky, T. B., & Wihardja, M. M. (2011). Decentralization and Economic Performance in Indonesia. Journal of East Asian Studies, 11(3), 337-371. doi:

Prabowo, H. Y. (2014). To be corrupt or not to be corrupt: Understanding the behavioral side of corruption in Indonesia. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 17(3), 306-326. doi:

Qian, X., & Sandoval-Hernandez, J. (2016). Corruption Distance and Foreign Direct Investment. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 52(2), 400-419. doi:

Rahayuningtyas, D. P. A., & Setyaningrum, D. (2018). Pengaruh tata kelola dan e-government terhadap korupsi. EKUITAS: Jurnal Ekonomi dan Keuangan, 1(4), 431-450. doi:

Rinaldi, T., Purnomo, M., & Damayanti, D. (2007). Fighting corruption in decentralized Indonesia: case study on handling local government corruption

Setiawan, D., & Rizkiah, F. (2017). Political budget cycles in muncipalities: evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Society, 18(3), 533-546.

Setiawan, D., & Setyorini, E. (2018). Dampak pemilihan kepala daerah terhadap alokasi belanja daerah. Kajian Ekonomi dan Keuangan, 2(2), 106 - 119. doi:

Shon, J., & Cho, Y. K. (2020). Fiscal Decentralization and Government Corruption: Evidence from U.S. States. Public Integrity, 22(2), 187-204. doi:

Silitonga, M. S., Anthonio, G., Heyse, L., & Wittek, R. (2016). Institutional Change and Corruption of Public Leaders: A Social Capital Perspective on Indonesia. In R. L. Holzhacker, R. Wittek, & J. Woltjer (Eds.), Decentralization and Governance in Indonesia (pp. 233-258). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Suhardjanto, D., Syafruddin, M., Andini, R. P., & Rahmatika, M. W. (2018). Accountability and Corruption Level of Provincial Government in Indonesia. Review of Integrative Business & Economics, 7(Suplementary Issue 3), 281 - 296.

Suryadarma, D. (2012). How corruption diminishes the effectiveness of public spending on education in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 48(1), 85-100. doi:

TI. (2017). Corruption Perception Index 2017.

Tippett, J., & Kluvers, R. (2010). Accountability and information in local government. World Journal of Management, 2(3), 22-33.

Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 399-457. doi:

Tumennasan, B. (2005). Fiscal decentralization and corruption in the public sector. (PhD), Georgia State University.

Umam, A. K., Whitehouse, G., Head, B., & Adil Khan, M. (2020). Addressing Corruption in Post-Soeharto Indonesia: The Role of the Corruption Eradication Commission. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 50(1), 125-143. doi:




How to Cite

Saputra, N. A. A. ., & Setiawan, D. (2021). Fiscal Decentralization, Accountability and Corruption Indication: Evidence from Indonesia. Jurnal Bina Praja: Journal of Home Affairs Governance, 13(1), 29-40.