HUBUNGAN KEAGENAN PEMERINTAHAN DAERAH DALAM KONTEKS ANGGARAN: SEBUAH AGENDA REKONSTRUKSI

Ratna Ayu Damayanti

Sari

The objectives of this study seem to analyze the agency relationship between executive and legislative in Jembrana local government in budgeting context during the three periods (e.g. new era, reform era, and euphoria reform era), and adat local village in Bali. This study also analyzes the instrument used by the adat local village in reducing conflict of interest and agency loss. Based on the information in adat Bali local village, the study aims at constructing a concept of agency to accommodate the agency relationship in the local government which is suitable for its organization. The method to approach to the study considers the Derrida Model to emphasize the wisdom of local culture values, or also the other isolated models. The paradigm accepts, compares, or synergizes all thoughts, and therefore, neither of definitions, texts nor ideologies appears established. All of these grow like the flowing water to follow the batch or the event flow in the field. It means that the character of the approach does not have absolute structure, form, and formality. The study, hence, utilizes ethnography as a strategy to explore and to map the local value wisdom. The conclusions of this study are: capitalism will be the artificial field where the market must replace the life. The breathing human community becomes merely an object, not subject. The study, then, looks for other alternative outside this consideration by promoting the local wisdom. Such effort really contributes to the construction of yadnya (sincere, balanced) agency relationship pattern and of compensation forms, like olihan-olihan, in which the citizen determines the proportion accepted by the agent.

Kata Kunci

Governmental accounting; agency theory; budget; local wisdom; post-modernism

Teks Lengkap:

PDF

Referensi

Adams, G. B.; dan V. H. Ingersoll. 1990. Culture, technical rationality and organizational culture. American Review of Public Administration. 20(4): 285-302.

Alesina, Alberto; dan Roberto Perotti. 1996. Budget Deficits and Budget Institutions. IMF Working Paper, 96/52. Washington D.C.

Al-Fayyadl, Muhammad. 2005. Derrida. Penerbit LkiS. Yogyakarta.

Asyhadie, N. 2004. Hampiran Hamparan Gramatologi Derrida. Penerbit: LkiS, Yogyakarta.

Bass, A.. 1982. Margins of Philosophy. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Carr, J. B.; dan Ralph S. Brower. 2000. Principled opportunism: Evidence from the organizational middle. Public Administration Quarterly, 24:1

Castels, S. 2001. Studying Social Transformation. International Political Science Review. 22(1): 13-32.

Chambliss, William J. 1973. Vice, Corruption, Bureaucracy, and Power, dalam William J. Chambliss, 1973, Sociological and Readings in the Conflict Perspective, Addison-Wesley Publishing House, Reading, Mass.

Chaniago, Andrinof A. dan Israr Iskandar. 2004. Studi Korupsi di Era Otonomi Daerah Perubahan Pola Dan Kesinambungan Korupsi Dari Orde Baru Ke Orde Reformasi. Program Tahunan The Habibie Center, Jakarta.

Christensen, J. G. 1992. Hierarchical and Contractual Approaches to Budgetary Reform. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 4(1): 67-91.

De Soto, Hernando. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why CapitalismTriumphs the West and Fail Everywhere Else, terjemahan Pandu Aditya K., 2006, The Mystery of Capital: Rahasia Kejayaan Kapitalisme Barat, Penerbit Qalam.

Demartoto, Argyo. 2007. Perilaku Korupsi di Era Otonomi Daerah: Fakta Empiris dan Strategi Pemberantasan Korupsi di Indonesia. Spirit Publik. 3(2).

Emery, F. E.; dan E. L. Trist. 1965. The casual texture of organizational environments, in Dixon, John; Alexander Kouzmin; dan Nada Korac Kakabadse, 1998, Managerialism Something Old, Something Borrowed, Little New: Economic Prescription Versus Effective Organizational Change in Public Agencies. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 11(3): 164-187.

Flam, H. 1990. Emotional ‘man’: corporate actors as emotion-motivated emotion managers, International Sociology. 5(2): 225-42.

Fozzard, A. 2001. The Basic Budgeting Problem: Approaches to Resource Allocation in The Public Sector and Their Implications for Pro-Poor Budgeting, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Friedman, J. 1999. Indigenous Struggles and the Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. Journal of World System Research. 2: 391-413.

Galtung, J.; dan D. Ikeda. 1995. Choose Peace: A Dialogue Between Johan Galtung and Daisaku Ikeda, in Chwastiak, Michele, 1999, Deconstructing The Principal-Agent Model: A View From The Bottom, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10: 425-441.

Groehendijk, Nico. 1997. A principal-agent model of corruption. Crime, Law, and Social Change. 27: 207-229.

Haris, Syamsuddin. 2005. Desentralisasi dan Otonomi Daerah: Desentralisasi, Demokratisasi dan Akuntabilitas Pemerintahan Daerah, LIPI Press, Jakarta.

Huyghe, R,; dan D. Ikeda. 1991. Dawn After Dark. Weatherhill, New York.

Jensen M. C.; dan W. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. 11(4): 5-50.

Kobrak, P. 1992. The logic of caveman management, Public Administration Quarterly. 15.

Lupia, Arthur. 200. Delegation of Power: Agency Theory, dipublikasikan di Neil J. Smelser; dan Paul B. Baltes, 2001, (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5: 3375-3377, Elsevier Science Limited, Oxford, UK.

Lupia, Arthur; dan Mathew McCubbins. 2000. Representation or abdication? How citizens use institutions to help delegation succeed. European Journal of Political Research. 37: 291-307.

McCubbins, M. D.; R. G. Noll; dan B. R. Weingast. 1987. Administrative Procedure as Instruments of Political Control. Journal Law, Economic and Organization. 3: 243-79.

Mitnick, B. M. 1973. Fiduciary Responsibility and Public Policy: The Theory of Agency and Some Consequences. Presented at Annual Meeting American Political Science Association, 69th. New Orleans, Los Angeles.

Moe, Terry M.. 1984. The New Economics of Organizations. American Journal of Political Science. 28(4): 739-77.

Niskanen, W. A. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government, in Lane, Jan E., 1990, Institutional Reform: A Public Policy Perspective, Gower Publishing Company, Worcester.

Niskanen, W. A.. 1973. Bureaucracy: Servant or Master?, in Cope, Stephen, 2000, Assesing Rational Choice Models of Budgeting From Budget Maximising to Bureau Shaping: A Case Study of British Local Government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management. 12: 4.

Niskanen, W. A. 1975. Bureaucrats and Politicians. Journal of Law and Economics. 18(3): 617-43.

Piliang, Yasraf A. 2005. Transpolitika: Dinamika Politik di dalam Era Virtualitas, Penerbit Jalasutra, Yogyakarta.

Ritzer, George; dan Douglas J. Goodman. 2003. Teori Sosiologi Modern. Edisi 6, Fajar Interpratama Offset, Jakarta

Robinson, W. I. 2001. Social Theory and Globalization: The Rise of Transnational State, Theory and Society. 30: 157-200.

Santiso, Carlos; dan Arturo Garcia Belgrano. 2004. Politics of Budgeting in Peru: Legislative Budget Oversight and Public Finance Accountability in Presidential Systems, SAIS Working Paper Series, WP/01/04., Washington, DC.

Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict, in E. Noreen, 1988, The economics of ethics: A new perspective on agency theory. Accounting, Organizations, and Society. 13(4): 359-69.

Shapiro S. P. 2005. Agency theory, Annual Review of Sociology. 31: 263

Smith, R. W.; dan Mark Bertozzi. 1998. Principals and agents: An explanatory model of public budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management. (Fall): 325-353.

Sunardi, S. T. 2004. Semiotika Negativa. Penerbit Buku Baik. Yogyakarta.

Thompson, F.; dan L. R. Jones. 1986. Controllership in the Public Sector. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 5(3): 547-571.

Triyuwono, Iwan. 2006. Perspektif, Metodologi dan Teori Akuntansi Syariah. PT Rajagrafindo Persada, Jakarta.

UU No. 32 tahun 2004. tentang pokok-pokok pemerintahan daerah.

UU No. 33 tahun 2004. tentang perimbangan keuangan pusat dan daerah.

Waterman R. W.; dan K. J. Meier. 1998. Principal-agent models: an expansion?, Journal of Public Administration. 8: 173-202.

Weingast, Barry. 1983. A Principal agent perspective on congressional-bureaucratic relations. Paper delivered at the Fifth Carnegie Conference on Political Economy. June, Carnegie Mellon University.

Wirawan, Sarlito. 1992. Psikologi Lingkungan. Grasindo, Jakarta.

Refbacks

  • Saat ini tidak ada refbacks.