Beralih ke bagian utama
Artikel Riset Asli Akses Terbuka Terakreditasi SINTA 2

Fiscal Decentralization, Accountability and Corruption Indication

Evidence from Indonesia

Penulis

  • Newin Ananta Aji Saputra 1
  • Doddy Setiawan 2* Penulis korespondensi
DOI
10.21787/jbp.13.2021.29-40
Tanggal Terbit & Halaman
30 April 2021 · Hlm. 29-40
Riwayat Naskah
Diterima24 Feb 2021 Terbit30 Apr 2021
Lisensi
CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Baca PDF 234 KB Kutip

3.575 Dilihat 2.302 Diunduh

Abstrak

Fiscal Decentralization, Accountability and Corruption Indication: Evidence from Indonesia

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.

Kata Kunci:

Baca Naskah Lengkap

Isi lengkap artikel ini tersedia dalam format PDF. Versi resmi yang diterbitkan pada Vol 13 No 1 (2021).

Buka PDF

Daftar Pustaka

42 rujukan
  1. Alfada, A. (2019). Does Fiscal Decentralization Encourage Corruption in Local Governments? Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(3), 118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12030118
  2. Arikan, G. G. (2004). Fiscal Decentralization: A Remedy for Corruption? International Tax and Public Finance, 11(2), 175-195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITAX.0000011399.00053.a1
  3. Chetwynd, E., Chetwynd, F., & Spector, B. (2003). Corruption and poverty: A review of recent literature. Management Systems International, 600, 5-16.
  4. Choudhury, S. (2015). Governmental decentralization and corruption revisited: Accounting for potential endogeneity. Economics Letters, 136, 218-222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.09.040
  5. Elbahnasawy, N. G., & Revier, C. F. (2012). The Determinants of Corruption: Cross-Country-Panel-Data Analysis. The Developing Economies, 50(4), 311-333. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2012.00177.x
  6. Ferraz, C., & Finan, F. (2011). Electoral accountability and corruption: Evidence from the audits of local governments. American Economic Review, 101(4), 1274-1311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.4.1274
  7. Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2002). Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries. Journal of Public Economics, 83(3), 325-345. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00158-4
  8. 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:https://doi.org/10.17979/ejge.2018.7.2.4509
  9. 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.
  10. Ivanyna, M., & Shah, A. (2011). Decentralization and Corruption: New Cross-Country Evidence. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(2), 344-362. doi: https://doi.org/10.1068/c1081r
  11. Javaid, U. (2010). Corruption and its deep impact on good governance in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 123-134.
  12. 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.05.021
  13. KPK. (2017). Annual Report 2016.
  14. 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.
  15. Kurniawan, T. (2009). Peranan Akuntabilitas Publik dan Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Pemberantasan Korupsi di Pemerintahan. Bisnis & Birokrasi Journal, 16(2), 116-121. https://doi.org/10.20476/jbb.v16i2.612
  16. 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.
  17. Kwon, O. (2013). Fiscal decentralization: An effective tool for government reform? Public Administration, 91(3), 544-560. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.01982.x
  18. Lederman, D., Loayza, N. V., & Soares, R. R. (2005). Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter. Economics & Politics, 17(1), 1-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0343.2005.00145.x
  19. Lessmann, C., & Markwardt, G. (2010). One size fits all? Decentralization, corruption, and the monitoring of bureaucrats. World Development, 38(4), 631-646. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.11.003
  20. 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.
  21. Mardiasmo. (2009). Akuntansi Sektor Publik (4 ed.). Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi.
  22. Nye, J. S. (1967). Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. American Political Science Review, 61(2), 417-427. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1953254
  23. Olken, B. A. (2006). Corruption and the costs of redistribution: Micro evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Public Economics, 90(4), 853-870. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.05.004
  24. Olken, B. A. (2007). Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia. Journal of political economy, 115(2), 200-249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/517935
  25. 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.
  26. 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: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2012.671918
  27. Pepinsky, T. B., & Wihardja, M. M. (2011). Decentralization and Economic Performance in Indonesia. Journal of East Asian Studies, 11(3), 337-371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1598240800007372
  28. 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: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-11-2013-0045
  29. Qian, X., & Sandoval-Hernandez, J. (2016). Corruption Distance and Foreign Direct Investment. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 52(2), 400-419. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2015.1047301
  30. 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: http://dx.doi.org/10.24034/j25485024.y2017.v1.i4.2597
  31. Rinaldi, T., Purnomo, M., & Damayanti, D. (2007). Fighting corruption in decentralized Indonesia: case study on handling local government corruption
  32. Setiawan, D., & Rizkiah, F. (2017). Political budget cycles in muncipalities: evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Society, 18(3), 533-546. http://www.ijbs.unimas.my/images/repository/pdf/Vol18-no3-paper9.pdf
  33. Setiawan, D., & Setyorini, E. (2018). Dampak pemilihan kepala daerah terhadap alokasi belanja daerah. Kajian Ekonomi dan Keuangan, 2(2), 106 - 119. doi: https://doi.org/10.31685/kek.v2i2.365
  34. Shon, J., & Cho, Y. K. (2020). Fiscal Decentralization and Government Corruption: Evidence from U.S. States. Public Integrity, 22(2), 187-204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2019.1566427
  35. 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.
  36. 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. http://buscompress.com/uploads/3/4/9/8/34980536/riber_7-s3_vvk18-159_281-296.pdf
  37. 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: https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2012.654485
  38. TI. (2017). Corruption Perception Index 2017.
  39. Tippett, J., & Kluvers, R. (2010). Accountability and information in local government. World Journal of Management, 2(3), 22-33. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/30922149/accountabilityand-information-in-local-government-wbiausorg
  40. Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 399-457. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00092-4
  41. Tumennasan, B. (2005). Fiscal decentralization and corruption in the public sector. (PhD), Georgia State University.
  42. 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: https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2018.1552983

Hak Cipta & Lisensi Akses Terbuka

Hak Cipta (c) 2021 Penulis. Artikel ini dilisensikan di bawah CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0.