Desentralisasi fiskal dan probabilitas terjadinya korupsi: Sebuah bukti empiris dari Indonesia

Abstract

Tujuan riset ini adalah untuk menguji pengaruh desentralisasi fiskal terhadap probabilitas terjadinya korupsi di pemerintah daerah. Riset ini menggunakan data panel, yaitu data korupsi yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap (inkracht) dari Mahkamah Agung untuk kasus korupsi yang terjadi pada Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah tahun anggaran 2010-2013. Unit analisis riset ini adalah pemerintah daerah provinsi. Total sampel riset ini sebanyak 132 pemerintah daerah. Variabel desentralisasi fiskal diukur menggunakan data jumlah dana perimbangan yang diberikan pemerintah pusat kepada pemerintah provinsi. Data dianalisis menggunakan analisis regresi logistik. Hasil riset menemukan bahwa desentralisasi fiskal berpengaruh positif terhadap probabilitas terjadinya korupsi. Ini berarti semakin besar dana perimbangan yang diberikan pemerintah pusat kepada daerah, maka semakin tinggi probabilitas terjadinya korupsi di pemerintah daerah. Temuan ini juga kokoh dalam analisis tambahan dengan menambahkan variabel kontrol, yaitu belanja pegawai, populasi penduduk dan wilayah. Desentralisasi fiskal berpengaruh positif terhadap probabilitas terjadinya korupsi di pemerintah daerah, sedangkan belanja pegawai, populasi penduduk dan wilayah tidak berpengaruh pada korupsi. Pelaksanaan desentralisasi fiskal terbukti membuka kesempatan terjadinya korupsi di pemerintah daerah. Oleh sebab itu, sistem pengendalian internal yang baik diperlukan untuk mengawasi pelaksanaan desentralisasi di pemerintah daerah agar kesempatan untuk melakukan korupsi dapat diperkecil.

Financial Distress, Regional Independence and Corruption: An Empirical Study in Indonesian Local Governments

“…A positive correlation between regional independence and corruption showed that the more independent the region, the higher the probability of corruption in the local government. This study finding is in line with the discovery of the studies conducted by Chang & Geoffrey (2002), Syurmita (2014), Setyaningrum & Safitri (2012), Maria et al (2018), Maria et al (2019a) that independent region tended to commit fraud or corruption in their regional budgets. This is because the uptake of the budget would be more widely used to fund personnel expenditure rather than for regional development activities and/or public service activities.…”

“…Uptake of funds in the autonomous areas is more widely used to fund personnel expenditure than for regional development activities and/or public service activities (CICA, 1997;Setyaningrum & Safitri. F, 2012;Syurmita, 2014;Maria et al, 2019a). Therefore, to examine the relationship between regional independence and corruption in the local governments, Indonesia, the second hypothesis of this study is stated as follows: H2: When the local governments are in an independent condition, the probability of corruption is increasing.…”

“…The selection of the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years was carried out because, in Indonesia, the trial process for fraud cases takes a long time to get to the permanent legal power (inkracht) decision. In Indonesia's judicial process, the defendants have the right to pursue legal efforts ranging from ordinary trials, appeals, and cassation (Maria et al, 2019a;Maria et al, 2019b). Therefore, the local governments' corruption cases in those years with inkracht decision can be used as a sample of this research.…”

Fiscal Decentralization Dilemma in Indonesia: Between Corruption Accountability and Probability at Local Levels

“…However, in some countries, it is found that the level of corruption is getting higher after the implementation of fiscal decentralization (Isufaj, 2014). Crook & Sverrisson (2001), Wu (2005), Chêne (2007), Liu (2007), and Maria et al (2019), in his research, found that fiscal decentralization has a positive impact on increasing corruption in the regions, rather than producing improvements in the quality of public services. Fiscal decentralization without support supported by Good Public Governance mechanism will only produce a corrupt government.…”

“…This proves that the implementation of decentralization in Indonesia has an ambiguous impact. On the one hand, the implementation of decentralization makes regions more responsive and flexible in providing public services, but on the other hand, the application of this policy makes corrupt practices occur not only in the central government but also spread to local governments (Akbar, 2013;Anan, 2012;Hartanto & Probohudono, 2013;Hill, 2012;Holtzappel & Ramstedt, 2009;Kuncoro, 2006;Maria et al, 2019;Puspasari & Suwardi, 2016;Rinaldi et al, 2007;Syarif, 2017;Utami, 2018).…”