Reformulation Of Fiscal Decentralization To Promote Sustainable Regional Development Governance: The Challenge Of Preventing APBD Corruption

Authors

  • Gilang Muhammad Mumtaaz Universitas Indonesia
  • Angga Dwi Ferdiansyah Faculty of Law, University of Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
  • Murjani Faculty of Syariah, Sultan Aji Muhammad Idris State Islamic University Samarinda, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v24i1.5782

Keywords:

Desentralisasi Fiskal, Korupsi, Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah, APBD, Tata Kelola, Pembangunan Daerah, Pemerintah Daerah, Hukum Pemerintahan Daerah, Hukum Tata Negara, Pemerintahan Berkelanjutan, Reformulasi, Regional Original Revenue (PAD), TKDD, Pemeriksaan, Pengawasan, AKuntabilitas, Transparansi, Anti Korupsi, Pidana, Aparat Pengawas Internal Pemerintah, Pelayanan Publik, Undang-Undang Perimbangan Keuangan, KPK, Birokrasi, Desentralisasi Asimetrik, Dana Alokasi Umum, Dana Bagi Hasil, Dana Alokasi Khusus

Abstract

Abstract

Since entering the Reformation era, Indonesia has entered a new era in the government system, where most of the affairs for basic services that were previously in the hands of the central government are devolved through decentralization policies, which are also referred to as regional autonomy policies. Regional development in the autonomy era provides an opportunity for local governments to innovate by building local growth centers to encourage regional economic growth. In practice, Indonesia adoptsasymmetric decentralization, which in principle can be based on conditions: (1) administrative (management), (2) political, and (3) fiscal. Regarding fiscal decentralization, starting from the regime of Law 25/1999, Law 33/2004, to Law 1/2022, the central role of fiscal decentralization from the beginning aimed to support the financing of devolved affairs, known as the Money Follows Functions principle. The fiscal decentralization policy provides certainty that the devolved affairs can be properly implemented by the Local Government. However, in its empirical dynamics, during the 23 years that regional autonomy has been implemented, at least there are various problems originating from regulations and local governments themselves, which result in inefficiencies in regional spending. Starting from the effect of incumbent spending allocations in regional head elections (pilkada), known as the political budget cycle (PBC) effect; weak local government governance that causes inefficiencies in regional financial management; central and regional budgeting support that has not been optimal in implementation; to the biggest problem, namely the problem of corruption of the Regional Budget by the definitive Regional Head and the ranks of the regional government. This research uses a normative juridical approach method with a statutory approach accompanied by an analytical descriptive case approach. The type of data is secondary data collected and studied using literature studies and analyzed using qualitative analysis methods. The results and discussion of this study conclude, First, it cannot be denied that corruption drastically distorts fiscal decentralization in the regions. It is estimated that about 30 percent of Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja (APBD) funds evaporate due to corruption, and about 70 percent of them occur in the procurement of government goods and services. the emergence of APBD corruption is weak planning and budgeting. There are several sectors that are vulnerable to potential corruption, especially in expenditures sourced from the Transfer to Regional Funds, Village Funds and Deconcentration Funds, which have implications for the high cost economy. Second, the ideal formulation used to inhibit the potential for corruption in the regions, especially the APBD, includes optimizing the implementation of fraud audits such as investigative audits or corruption audits, creating an internal whistleblowing system for local governments, improving the regional budgeting system, and strengthening the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus. In terms of encouraging sustainable regional development governance, policy recommendations are needed, including: increasing sustainable public transparency; considering results-based accountability; making extensive use of ICT (Information and Communication Technology); increasing the role of reward and penalty mechanisms; and changing the paradigm from money follows function to money follows program.

Keywords: Fiscal Decentralization; Corruption; APBD

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

References

C.R. Ahlin. 2001. Corruption: Political Determinants and Macroeconomic Effect. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.

Burhan Asofa. 2001. Metode Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Hofman B. and Kaiser K. 2004. The Making of the ‘Big Bang’ and its Aftermath: A Political Economy Perspective.

M.C. Burkens. et.al.. 1997. Beginselen van de Democratische Rechtsstaat. Deventer: Kluwer.

Carbonara. 1999. Bureaucrazy. Corruption and Decentralization. Bologna: University of Bologna.

Davey. 1989. “Financing Local Government in Indonesia. Monographs in International Studies. South East Asias Series.” Central Local Financial Relations. Chapter 6. No. 84. Ohio University.

Haryono in Johnny Ibrahim. 2005. Teori dan Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Malang: Bayumedia.

Komite Nasional Kebijakan Governance. 2008. Pedoman Sistem Pelaporan Pelanggaran SPP (Whistlebowling System-WBS). Jakarta: KNKG.

Kuncoro. 2002. The New Laws of Decentralization and Corruption in Indonesia: Examination of Provincial and District Data. Dortmund: European Regional Science Association.

Benedictus Raksaka Mahi. 2023. Refleksi Peran Desentralisasi Fiskal bagi Pembangunan Daerah: Relevansinya di Masa Kini dan Mendatang. Depok: Universitas Indonesia.

Bagir Manan and Kuntana Magnar. 1993. Beberapa Masalah Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia. Bandung: Alumni.

Peter Mahmud Marzuki (Peter Mahmud I). 2005. Penelitian Hukum: Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

OECD. 2020. Asymmetric Decentralisation. OECD: Regional Development Papers. Chapter 10.

T. Rinaldi. 2007. Fighting Corruption in Desentralized Indonesia. Washington DC: World Bank.

Soerjono Soekanto and Sri Mamudji. 2004. Penelitian Hukum Normatif Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Ismail A. B. and Hamzah. M. Z.. 2006. Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth Nexus: Evidence from Provincelevel Cross-section Data for Indonesia. Review of Islamic Economics. Vol. 10. No. 22.

Alfada. 2019. “Does Fiscal Desentralization Encourage Corruption in Local Government? Evidence From Indonesia.” Journal of Risk and Financial Management. Vol. 12. No. 3.

Zaherman Armandz. “Negara Berdasarkan Hukum (Rechtsstaats) Bukan Negara Kekuasaan (Machsstaat)/Rule of Law and Not Power State”. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan. Edisi No. 3 Vol. 6. Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan MA RI. 2017.

Bisariyadi. 2016. “Pergulatan Paham Negara Kesejahteraan (Welfare State) dan Negara Regulasi (Regulatory State) dalam Perkara Konstitusional”. Jurnal Ius Quia Iustum. Vol. 23. No. 4. Oktober.

Fishman. R. 2002. “Decentralization and Corruption: Evidence Across Countries.” Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 83.

Handra. H. 2006. “Inequality in The Level of Local Public Services in Indonesia: An Observation of The Cobditin in the Early Stages of Decentralization.” Jurnal Sosiologi SIGAI. Vol. 7.

Labuschagne. 2006. “Corruption and Fraud: Any Lessons For the Auditor?” Kournal Meditari. Vol. 14. No. 1.

F. Misra. 2011. “Peran Corruption Auditing dan Audit Kinerja dalam Mencegah Deteksi dan Menginvestigasi Korupsi.” Jurnal Tirtayasa Ekonomika. Vol. 6. No. 1.

A. Pandjaitan. 2018. “Analysis Whistlebowling: Meningkatkan Hasil Audit Forensik dalam Pengungkapan Tindak Korupsi oleh Auditor Pemerintah.” Juripol. Vol. 1. No. 1.

Prud’homme. “The Dangerd of Decentralization.” The World Bank Research Observer. Vol. 10. No. 2.

Samutska. R. 1980. “Questionable Payment and Practis: Why? How? Detection? Prevention?” Kournal of Accountancy. No. 149.

Sommaliagustina. 2019. “Implementasi Otonomi Daerah dan Korupsi Kepla Daerah.” Journal of Governance Innovation. Vol. 1. No. 1.

Treisman. 2000. The Causes of Corruption: Across National Study.” Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 76.

Ulum. S. 2019. “The Role of Natural Resources Moderating the Relationship Between Fiscal Desentralization and Corruption: Evidence in Indonesia.” International Journal of Energy Economic and Policy. vo. 9. No. 1.

1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia

Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Amendment to Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption.

Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government.

Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration.

Law No. 5 of 2014 on State Civil Apparatus.

Law No. 1 of 2022 on Financial Relations between the Central Government and Regional Governments

Downloads

Published

2025-03-31