The Effect of Performance-Based Budgeting Implementation towards the Institution Performance Accountability (Case Study: Wajo)

: This study aimed at finding out empirical evidences whether the application of performance-based budgeting affected the performance accountability of Wajo government, seeing the effects of the application of performance-based budgeting to performance accountability of government agencies using four variables, namely, the budget planning (X1), the implementation of the budget (X2), the budget reporting/accountability (X3), and the performance evaluation (X4). In this study, the samples were 100 people. They are from 33 regional work units (SKPD) which consists of a team of Local Government Budget (TAPD) who involved in formatting the government budgets of Wajo regency. Data were collected through direct observation and survey obtained by distribution of questionnaires to the respondents. This study used multiple linear regression models with software SPSS. The study results showed that the budget planning and the budget reporting / accountability gave positive and significant impacts on performance accountability of government agencies, the implementation of the budget and the performance evaluation. It is shown from the results of multiple linear regression test which showed Y = 7.904 + 0.223 X1 + 0.222 X2 + 1.433 + 0.227 X3 X4. In conclusion, the application of performance-based budgeting gave positive effects on performance accountability of government agencies.


Introduction
Background: The Formation of the draft budget in the Government Wajo started with the formation of KUA and PPAS written in a PPA memorandum of understanding between the head of regional and the local parliament. After that a letter from the head of regional about guidelines for the formation of RKA-SKPD to be spread out. Every SKPD makes RKA-SKPD on proposed programs and activities during the year. Then do drafting local regulations on the budget and the draft regulation on the translation of regional heads budget and delivery, after the evaluation of the budget, when in this evaluation process proposed budget is accepted, the next step is the establishment of local regulations on the budget and regulations on the elaboration of regional heads Budgets. Wajo government has gradually adjusted the structure of the budget in accordance with applicable regulations, especially the traditional budget system shift to performance-based system in accordance with Government Regulation No. 105 of 2000, as amended by Government Regulation No. 58 of 2005 on regional financial management. In 2003 and previous budgeting system Wajo using MAKUDA (line items and incremental) which was formatted simplier. In 2005 the formation of APBD in Wajo regency adapted to performance-based budgeting system. Wajo government has implemented a performance-based budgeting in the formation budget 2012. By implementing the performance-based budgeting, it is expected the budget prepared by the government can be realized properly in accordance with the objectives and targets wants to be achieved by the government. Total expenses estimated for financing programs / activities show that between the budget planning and the realization of activities budget is not appropriate. This can be seen from the difference between the budgets with expenses realization which excess the budgets. It showed that in formatting the APBD budgeting, it is not in accordance with the applicable regulations and indicated the existence of programs / activities that have not been fully implemented. Based on APBD data from 2011 -2012 of the government of Wajo showed that direct expenses estimated to finance programs / activities have increased but the increase of the budget was not accompanied by an increase in the wrok performance. It can be seen from the achievements of the program as stated in the LAKIP. In LAKIP Wajo in 2011 showed that the performance of the program in 2011 amounted to 87.67%, while the achievement of the program's performance in 2012 amounted to 84.07%, it indicated that there was a decrease of 3.6% although according to the Guidelines for the Preparation Accountability Reports Performance the achievement was very good and well categorized.
Attitude and bureaucratic structure. According to Edwards (1980), the four variables must be carried out simultaneously as all of them have a close relationship. The Explanations to the four variables are as follows: A. Communication: The Implementation will be effective if the measures and policy objectives understood by individuals who are responsible of the policy objectives achievement. The clear measures and policy objectives need to be communicated appropriately with the implementers. The Consistency or uniformity of both need to be communicated so that implementors know the exact measures and purposes of the policy. B. Resources: This resource component includes the number of staffs, the capabilities of the implementers, the relevant and sufficient information to implement policies and fulfill related resources in the implementation of the program, the authority which ensures the programs can be directed as expected, as well as the supporting facilities. It can be used to carry out activities such as funding programs and infrastructures. Inadequate human resources (number and capabilities) can not result in the implementation of the program perfectly because they can not supervise them properly. C. Disposition or attitude: One of the factors that affacts the effectiveness of policy implementation is the attitude of the implementors. If the implementors agree with parts of the contents of the policy then they will execute them happily but if their views are different from the policy makers, it can affect the implementation process will encounter many problems. Besides, the support of the implementing authorities is needed to achieve program objectives. The realization of this support are included putting policies into priority programs and the provision of sufficient funds to provide incentives for program implementers in order for them to support and work in implementing policies / programs totally.

Structure of Bureaucracy:
Discussing about a policy implementing agencies, it can not be separated from the bureaucratic structure. Bureaucratic structure is characteristic, norms and patterns of relationships that occur repeatedly in the executive agencies that have a potential or real relationship with what they have in carrying out the policy. Complex policies require the cooperation of many people. Elements that may affect the organization in the implementation of such policy-level hierarchical control of the decisions of the sub units and processes within the executing agency.

New Public Management:
Since the mid-1980s, there has been changes in public sector management quite dramatically from the traditional management systems that seem to be rigid, bureaucratic, and hierarchical become a model of public sector management which is more flexible and accommodative the market. The changes are not just small and simple, but the major changes that have transformed the role of government, especially in terms of the relationship between government and society. The new paradigm emerges the management of the public sector is the approach of New Public Management (NPM). Model NPM focuses on public sector management performance-oriented, rather than on policy. The use of the new paradigm causes some consequences on the government, they are the demands for efficiency, cut costs (cost cutting), and the tender competition. One model of governance in the era of NPM was a governance model proposed by Osborne and Gaebler (1995) in Mardiasmo (2002) are as follows:  The government of the catalyst (focuses on providing public services directives not public services productives)  The government belongs to the people (more empowering people than serving the public  The Competitive government (encouraging competitive enthusiasm in providing public services  The government is driven by the mission (changing the organization driven by regulation in to driven by the mission)  The results-oriented government (finance result not input)  The Customer -oriented government (fulfilling the needs of the customer, not the bureaucracy)  The entrepreneurial government (able to create income and not just spend)  Anticipatory government (attempting to prevent rather than to cure)  The government decentralization (from hierarchy to participation and teamwork)  Market -mechanism oriented government (making changes with the market mechanism / system of incentives and not the administrative mechanism / procedure systems and compulsion).
New Public Management purpose is to change the administration so the public administration functioned as a service provider for the public to be aware of their duty to produce an efficient and effective service, but not oriented to profit (Osborne and Gaebler, 1995) in Mardiasmo (2002).

Definition of Public Sector Budget:
According to the National on Governmental Accounting (NCGA) which now has become the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), the definition of the budget (the budget) is a financial operating plan, which includes estimation of proposed expenses and expected sources of revenue to finance it in a certain time period ( Bastian, 2006: 164). The Public budget contains a plan of activities presented in the form of revenue and expense plans in monetary units. In its simplest form the public budget is a document that describes the financial condition of an organization which includes information on revenues, expenditures, and activity Mardiasmo (2002).

Performance-Based Budgeting
Definition of Performance-Based Budgeting: Performance-based budgeting is basically an organisation system of output oriented budgeting and closely linked to the vision, mission and strategic plan of the organization Bastian (2006;171). Performance-based budgeting is a method of budgeting for management to associate each funding as outlined in the activities with outputs and expected results, including efficiency in the achievement of these outputs Kurniawan (2009). Programs on performance-based budgeting is defined as a policy instrument that contains one or more activities to be undertaken by government agencies to achieve the goals and objectives as well as budget allocations or community activities coordinated by government agencies. Budget Performance is basically a system of local budget preparation and management oriented on achieving results or performance. The performance reflects the efficiency and effectiveness of public services, which means oriented public interest (Mardiasmo, 2002: 105).
The processes of drafting local budgets are to select in advance and to accommodate community needs to be fulfilled within a certain period so that the figures stated in the budget is equal with the needs of the community. Performance-based budgeting requires the creation of new programs and activities (innovation) and a strategy to get around the limitations of resources. Performance-based budgeting approach developed to overcome the weaknesses in the traditional budget; in particular weaknesses are due to the absence of benchmarks that can be used to measure performance in achieving the goals and objectives of public service. The Budgets with performance approach strongly emphasizes the concept of value for money and supervision over the performance output. This approach also prioritizes mechanisms for determining and prioritizing goals and systematic and rational approach in the decision making process (Mardiasmo, 2002: 84).

Principles and Objectives PBK:
The principles used in the performance based budgeting include:  Budget Allocation on performance-Oriented (output and outcome oriented). The budget allocation arranged in the work plan and budget document is intended to get benefit as much as possible by using resources efficiently. In this case, the program / activity should be aimed at achieving results stated in the plan.  Flexibility in budget management to achieve results by maintaining the principle of accountability (let the manager manages). The principles describe the work unit manager flexibility in carrying out activities to achieve the outputs as planned. The flexibility includes determining the manner and stages of an activity to achieve the outputs and results on the current implementation of activities, which allow different action plans. Ways and stages of activity and budget allocation at the time of the planning is the basis for the implementation of activities. In the framework of accountability in the management of state finances, a work unit manager is responsible for the use of funds and achievement of predetermined performance (outcomes).

Money Follow Function, Function Followed by Structure:
Money follow function is a principle which illustrates that the allocation of the budget to fund an activity based on the tasks and functions and the purpose in founding work units (usually expressed in the applicable legislation). Furthermore, the principle is associated with the principle of Function Followed by Structure, which is a principle that describes the organizational structure established in accordance with the functions carried. Duties and functions of an organization are divided out in work units that exist in the organization, so the double duplication of tasks and functions doesn't happen. Based on the principles mentioned above, the purposes of the application of PBK are expected to:  Showing the link between funding and achievement of performance to be achieved (directly linkages between performance and budget)  Improving the efficiency and transparency in the implementation (operational efficiency);  Increasing flexibility and accountability unit in carrying out the duties and budget management (more flexibility and accountability).
According to the Guidelines on Performance-based Budgeting (Deputy IV BPKP), the conditions to be prepared as a trigger factor of the successful implementation of performance-based budgeting, namely:  Leadership and commitment of all components of the organization.  Focus on continuous improvement of the administration.  Sufficient resources for the business improvement (money, time and people).  Award (reward) and sanctions (punishment) is clear.  A strong desire to succeed.

Performance-Based Budgeting Framework:
Performance-based budgeting system has a framework that it is built systematically to produce a performance-based budgeting. In general, the framework of performancebased budgeting system performance according to the Guidelines for Performance Based Budgeting Deputy IV BPKP (2005: 16) who explained that basically performance-based budgeting can not be separated from the cycle of planning, implementation, reporting / accountability on the budget itself. The strategic plan as outlined in the annual targets is always evaluated and continuously improved in the end. Planning cycle described below shows how the Performance-Based Budgeting is used as a feedback within the overall strategic plan. This can be seen in the figure below: Based on the picture above, it can be explained that the initial budget planning process begins with the drafting of the strategic plan of the organization. The plan is the process to determine visions, missions, goals, and strategic objectives of the organization and to establish strategies that will be used to achieve the goals and objectives. Strategic planning made should be oriented desires and needs of the community as the main stakeholders. In general, strategic plans generally have a period of a few years that has component at least contains the visions, missions, goals, objectives and strategies in the form of policies and programs to achieve them as well as providing performance indicators as a measure of success / failure of a program / an activity. Based on the strategic plan that has been set, it is annually poured in an annual performance plan. The performance plan is a further elaboration of the strategic plan which includes the entire performance indicators and targets to be achieved within one year. The performance plan is a benchmark that will be used to assess the successes and failures of government organizations in organizing agency for the annual period. Based on the performance plan, agencies draft the budget that is necessary to realize the results (outcomes) to be achieved in the year. The budget drafted by the approach of performance because in this budget, it can reflect the relationship between the financial aspects of all activities and strategic objectives and annual performance plan.
The annual budget plan submitted to the legislatures for approval. After obtaining the approval of the annual budget plan terbitlah approved by the legislatures. Based on the annual budget plan approved by each agency, they set annual operational plans. The Annual budget plan is the plan of activities implementation which will be carried out in order to achieve program goals and objectives that have been set forth in the annual performance plan. An Operational plan usually includes a schedule of activities and the provision of resources. Based on the annual performance plan, a plan which has been approved annual budget and annual operating plans, the agencies formulate the performance agreement. The deal's performance is basically an agreement between the principals to the party that received the messages about the target-performance will be achieved within a certain time based on a predetermined budget allocation. The Document agreement between the legislatures and the executives, namely the performance of the contract documents. The end of the fiscal year, the performance management conducts review, evaluation, and assessment after the program and activities completed in one fiscal year. The Accountability success or failure in achieving the performance targets in performance agreements are reported in an annual performance report. The Performance report includes financial and performance reports and reports of non-financial performance that can be used as input to make improvements next year. B. Implementation of the Budget: All the local reception and local expenditures in the implementation of local government affairs are managed in the APBD budget. The Implementation of the budget includes the implementation of the budget revenues, expenditures, and financing. Budget execution by the Head SKPD implemented after the Budget Implementation Document SKPD (DPA-SKPD) is determined by PPKD with the approval of the Regional Secretary. The Implementation of the budget involves more people than preparations and considers feedbacks from actual experiences. Therefore, the implementation of the budget must: (a) ensuring that the budget will be implemented in accordance with the authority given in both the finance and policy aspects; (b) adjusting the implementation of the budget with the significant change in the macro economy; (C) deciding any issues that mat occur in the implementation; (D) handling the purchases and the use of resources efficiently and effectively. The Budget execution system should ensure adherence to the budget authority and the ability to conduct surveillance and reporting which can be directly aware of any problems implementing the budget and to provide flexibility for managers.

C. Reporting / Accountability 0f the Budget:
The Accountability of SKPD budget reportr is carried out periodically that include a. SKPD budget realization report b. Balance SKPD c. Notes on the SKPD financial statements The SKPD head compiles and reports cash flows periodically to the head of region. The report prepared and presented based on the government regulations which manage the government accounting standards.

D. Performance Evaluation:
Performance evaluation is to assess the activities or to see the success and failure of an organization or unit of work in carrying out the duties and functions assigned to him. The purpose of performance evaluation is the organization know realization achievement, progress and constraints encountered or causes of failure in order to achieve the missiosn that have been planned so that expected institution can improve its performance in the future.

Government Performance Accountability (AKIP)
Definition of Government Performance Accountability: Accountability can also mean a responsibility manifestation of any person or organization unit, in managing the resources that have been granted and controlled in order to achieve the goals, through a medium that is performance accountability reports periodically. The resources are a mean of support given to a person or organization unit in order to facilitate the implementation of the tasks that have been assigned to him. The realization of these resources generally is human resources, funds, infrastructure, and working methods. While the definition the resources in the context of the country could be government officials, natural resources, equipment, money, and the rule of law and politics. The Decree of the Head of the LAN 239 / IX / 6/8/2003 on Guidelines for Preparation of Reporting Accountability Government Performance, explained that the performance accountability of government agencies is the realization of the obligation of a government agency to account for the success and failure of the implementation of the organization's mission in achieving the goals and objectives that have been determined through periodic accounts system periodically. From the description above, it can be said that accountability is a manifestation of one's duties or organizational unit to account for the management and control of resources and implementation of policies entrusted to him in order to achieve the goals or objectives that have been set out in the planning document through accountability media periodically. Implementation principles of Government Performance Accountability: Based on Guidelines for Preparation of Reporting Accountability Government Performance set by the Head of State Administration Institute, AKIP implementation should be based on the principles as follows:  The commitment of the leaders and the entire staff agenciesconcerned.  Based on a system that can ensure proper use of resources consistently with the applicable laws and regulations.
Showing the level of achievement of goals and objectives that have been set.  Oriented on achieving the visions and missions, as well as the results and benefits which are obtained.  To be honest, objective, transparent, and accurate.  Presenting the success / failure in achieving objectives and purposes have been set. In addition to the principles mentioned above, to make the implementation of the accountability system more effective, it is required a strong commitment from the organization that has the authority and responsible for monitoring and evaluating the performance accountability of government agencies.
A Cycle of Government Performance Accountability: Performance accountability system is an order of government agencies, instruments, and methods of accountability that essentially includes the steps as follows:  Determination of strategic planning.  Measurement of performance.  Reporting of performance.
 The use of performance information for continuous performance improvement.
The Cycle of government performance accountability can be described as follows: The Cycle of government performance accountability as shown in the picture above, starting from the drafting of the strategic plan (Plan) which includes the preparation of the visions, missions, goals, and objectives and defines the strategy to be used to achieve the goals and objectives set. Strategic planning is then translated into an annual performance plans made each year. This performance plan reveals the whole performance targets to be achieved (output / outcome) from all strategic objectives in the current year as well as strategies to achieve it. The performance plan is a benchmark that will be used in the assessment of governance performance for certain period. After the performance plans are set, the next step is measuring performance. In doing the activities, the collection and recording of performance data are carried out. The performance data is performance achievements expressed in units of performance indicators. With the need for performance data to be used for performance measurement, government agencies need to develop a system of data collection performance. They are: the order, instruments, and performance data collection method. At the end of a period, the performance achievements are reported to interested parties or the ones who request in the form of Government Performance Accountability Report (LAKIP). The last stage, the information outlined in LAKIP used for ongoing improving agency performances.

Herawati (2011) conducted a study entitled The Clarity Budget Target, Accounting Control and Reporting
System for Local Government Performance Accountability Jambi. The results showed that simultaneously the effects of budget goal clarity, accounting controls and reporting systems for performance accountability government agencies in the city of Jambi has a significant positive effects. Partially it had negative effects, namely variables X1 (Clarity budget targets) and X2 (Accounting Control). Variables that have a positive effect were reporting system variable (X3). Muda (2005)  Putra (2010), examined the Implementation Effects of Performance-Based Budgeting and Fiscal Management Information System Performance towards SKPD In Simelungun District Government with the independent variables Performance-Based Budgeting and Financial Management Information System, and the dependent variable SKPD performance. He concluded that either simultaneously or partially, the implementation of performance-based budgeting and financial management information systems affected the performance of SKPD in Simelungun District Government.
Yusriati (2008), examined the Effect of Performance-Based Budgeting SKPD implementation in Mandailing Natal regency by using the independent variable and the Performance-Based Budgeting dependent variable SKPD performance. From the results of the research showed that there were influences of the implementation of performance-based budgeting to performance on education, on the other hand the implementation of performance-based budgeting in SKPD in Mandailing Natal regency was still relatively low. Julianto (2009) examined the Effects of Performance-Based Budgeting implementation to SKPD performance in Regency Cliff High by using the independent variable and the Performance-Based Budgeting dependent variable SKPD performance. From the results showed there were effects of the application of performancebased budgeting to SKPD performance in Regency Cliff High. Nina (2009) examined the Effects of Implementation of the Performance-Based Budgeting Accountability Local Government Agencies by using the independent variables Performance-Based Budgeting and Accountability of Government Agencies dependent variable. The research results showed that the implementation of performance-based budgeting had positive effects but it did not have significant effects on the accountability of local government agencies.

Methodology
Research Design: The design of this study is to determine whether the application of performance-based budgeting as independent variables affect the Accountability of Government Performance Wajo as the dependent variable.

Location Research:
This research was conducted in the scope of government Wajo. Wajo is a city that is bounded on the north by Sidrap, Luwu district in the east, in Bone in the south, and the west side Soppeng. The total area of 129.33 km2 Wajo recorded, which includes 4 districts (District of Tempe, Sabbang lung, Pammana, Maniang Pajo, Gilireng, Sajoanging, Majauleng, Ball, and Penrang) and 145 villages. In addition, the scope of government Wajo has 31 work units (SKPD).

Population and Sample:
The population in this study are all working units (SKPD) within the scope of the Government Wajo the number SKPDs total of 33 consisting of 3 organizations Secretariat, 8-shaped Organization Board, 14 shaped Organization Department, 4-shaped Organization Office, and the District of 4 shaped Organization . The number of samples in this study were 100 respondents, sample selection methods using purposive sampling because respondents who selected only relates to the Local Government Budget Team (TAPD). The study sample consisted of head office, secretary, one of the chief part of sector departments, and some staff SKPDs.

Types and Sources of Data:
Source of data used in this research was primary data. The type of data in this study was the type of subject data obtained in the form of opinions, attitudes, experiences and characteristics of respondents who became the subject of research.

Data Collection Techniques:
The Communication mode to obtain data from respondents in this study using a questionnaire.

Research Variable Operational Research Definitions
A. Implementation of Performance-Based Budgeting 1. Budget Planning (X1) Budget Planning is estimated expenditures step for executing activities must be in accordance with the visions, missiosn, goals, objectives, and policies that have been formulated in the strategic plan of the organization.  Implementation / Budget Execution (X2): During the implementation phase, the chief of the agencyis responsible for monitoring the implementation of activities and the accounting department records of the use of the budget (input) and output in the financial accounting system.  Reporting / Budget Responsibility (X3): Reporting includes the amount of budget allocation unit, the size of the budget that has been removed together with the achievement of the work or activities or programs that have been implemented.  Performance Evaluation (X4): The performance evaluation is done based on the performance report.
The leader could do evaluation that can determine and analyze the efforts to achieve the goals set. When he saw the irregularities or obstacles in the implementation of the budget, then the leaders can take steps or policies to face the irregularities or obstacles.

The Accountability of Government Performance (Y):
Performance accountability of government agencies is the embodiment of the obligation of a government agency to account for the success and failure of the mission of the organization in achieving the goals and objectives that have been established through periodic accountability system.

Results
The Reliability test was conducted to measure whether or not reliable questionnaires used to measure the research variables. The method used to measure the reliability of each variable was Cronbach Alpha method. A research instrument said to be reliable if the value of alpha> 0.600. Based on the reliability of the test results above, all of the variables used as instruments in this study were reliable or powerful because it showed a high degree of reliability, it is proved by the value of the alpha coefficient is more than 0.60 so it can be used as a measuring device that can be reliable or trustworthy. A Normality test aims at testing whether in the regression model, both dependent and independent variables have a normal distribution or not. In the normality test used the histogram graph and spread curve P-Plot.

Figure 3: Histogram Graph
Source: Output SPSS 16.0, 2014 By looking at the histogram graph, it can be concluded that the histogram showed that the histogram provided distribution patterns close to normal; this is proved by looking at chart symmetrical form and follow the diagonal line. But this histogram graphs the results were not very accurate especially when the small number of samples used. More accurate method to see whether the data are normally distributed is normal probability plot

Figure 4: Normal Probability Plot
By looking at the normal chart plot, we can see that the point spread around a diagonal line and spread following the diagonal line, so it can be said that the distribution pattern is normal. By looking at the two charts above, we can conclude that the regression model in this study can be used because it can meet the assumption of normality. This test is intended to detect the symptoms of correlation between the independent variables and other independent variables. In the good regression model there should not be correlation between the independent variables. One way to do multicollinearity test is by looking at the value of VIF (Variance Inflation Factors). If the value of VIF> 10 then multicollinearity occurs. Based on the table above, the proposed regression model for the independent variables are all free from multicollinearity. It can be seen from the data processing which showed the independent variable has a value of VIF <10, so it can be concluded that the independent variables can be used to determine its effect on performance accountability of government agencies. Heteroscedasticity test aimed at testing whether the regression model occurred inequality variance from residual one observation to another observation. If the variance remains then it is called homoscedasticity and if it is different then there is a problem of heteroscedasticity. A good regression model results homoscedasticity or the heteroscedasticity did not happen. To detect the presence of heteroscedasticity, the method used is the method chart (scatterplot diagram). If:  If there is a particular pattern of dots is registered that forms a specific pattern that is irregular (wavy, widened, then narrowed), then there is heteroscedasticity.  If there is no clear pattern, and the dots spread above and below the 0 on the Y axis, then there is no heteroscedasticity.

Figure 5: Scatterplot Diagram
Source: Output SPSS 16.0, 2014 Based on the scatterplot diagram above, the data scattered randomly without forming a certain pattern, and the dots spread above and below the 0 on the Y axis, this is the evidence the heroscedicity did not happen. It can be concluded that in the regression model, there are differences in the variance of the residuals from one observation to another observation.

Test of Multiple Linear Regressions:
The Multiple linear regression test to determine whether there is influence of independent variables on the dependent variable or not. The magnitude of the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable together can be calculated through a multiple regression equation. In the above regression equation, the constants (β0) were equal to 7.904. It means that if there is no change in the budget planning variables (X1), the implementation of the budget (X2), reporting / accountability of the budget (X3), and performance evaluation (X4) that affect, then performance accountability of government agencies that occurred in government Wajo is equal to 7.904. While the results of multiple regression test for independent variables can be explained as follows:  The coefficient value of budget planning (X1) is 0.223. It has positive effects on performance accountability of government agencies (Y). This implies that any increases in budget planning one unit then the variable performance accountability of government agencies arise by 0.223 with the assumption that the other variables remain independent.  The coefficient value of implementation of the budget (X2) is 0.222. IT has positive effects on performance accountability of government agencies (Y). This implies that any increases in budget planning one unit then the variable performance accountability of government agencies arise by 0.222 with the assumption that the other variables remain independent.  Coefficient value of budget accountability reporting (X3) is 1,433. It has positive effects on performance accountability of government agencies (Y). This implies that each increase in budget planning one unit then the variable performance accountability of government agencies increases by 1,433 with the assumption that the other variables remain independent.  The coefficient value of performance evaluation (X4) is 0.227. It has positive effects on performance accountability of government agencies (Y). This implies that each increase of one unit of the performance evaluation variable performance accountability of government agencies increase by 0.227 with the assumption that the other variables remain independent.
The coefficient of determination (R2): Coefficient of determination analysis performed to see how big a percentage of variables influence of the budget planning, budget implementation and reporting performance against performance accountabilityof government agencies. Based on the table above, it shows that the value of R square obtained is 0,597 which showed that the performance accountability of government agencies that exist in government Wajo influenced by variables of budget planning, implementation / execution of the budget, and reporting / accountability budgeting, and performance evaluation is 59.7 %, and the remaining 40.3% is influenced by other variables that have not been examined in this study. By looking at the high coefficient indicates the effect of variables -the independent variable on the dependent variable was also high at 59.7%.

Simultaneous Testing (Test F):
The testing was conducted to test whether there is a significant difference among the budget planning, budget implementation and reporting performance towards the performance accountability of government agencies altogether. Based on the table above, it shows the significant value F is 0000. Based on testing criteria that if the probability value is <0.05, then Ha is accepted. It can be concluded that the variable of budget planning, implementation / execution of budget, reporting / accountability of the budget and performance evaluation simultaneously significant affect the performance accountability of government agencies. It is shown on a significant value F = 0.000 <0.05. So if the budget planning, implementation / execution of budget, reporting / accountability and performance evaluation of budget altogether increases, the performance accountability of government agencies will also increase.

Partial Test (Test t):
Partial test (t test) was performed to determine whether a variable budget planning, budget execution, reporting / accountability of budget, and performance evaluation affect the performance accountability of government agencies partially. The table above shows the t test results are:  The Budget planning had significant and positive effects on performance accountability of government agencies partially. It is is evidenced by the level of significance <0.05 and Ha1 hypothesis is accepted.  The Implementation of the budget had positive and no significant effects on performance accountability of government agencies partially. This is evidenced by the significance level obtained> 0.05 and Ha2 hypothesis is rejected.
 The Reporting / Accountability of budget had positive and significant effects on performance accountability of government agencies partially. This is evidenced by the level of significance <0.05 and HA3 hypothesis is accepted.  The Evaluation of performance had positive and and no significant effects on performance accountability of government agencies partially. This is evidenced by the significance level obtained> 0.05 and Ha4 hypothesis is rejected.

Discussion
A. Test Results of Budget Planning effects (X1) towards Government Performance Accountability (AKIP) (Y): Based on the partial test results that have been done between the budget planning as X1 on performance accountability of government agencies as a variable Y indicates that t is at 2.309 with a significance value is 0.023 <0.05 and regression test results indicated the coefficient value is 0.223 indicated that the variable budget planning had positive and significant impacts on performance accountability of government agencies. It can be concluded that when the budget planning done better or bigger, the bigger the performance accountability of government agencies. So as to improve the accountability performance, it should be done good budget planning because it is the foundation in determining the success or failure of an organization or agency. The results are consistent with the research conducted by Young (2005)

B. Test Results Effect of Implementation of the Budget (X2) Against Government Performance Accountability (AKIP) (Y):
Based on the partial test results that have been made between the implementation of the budget as X2 for performance accountability of government agencies as a variable Y indicates that t is at 0.176 with a significance value of 0.476> 0.05 and regression test results indicate the coefficient value of 0.222 indicates that the variable implementation of the budget but not significant positive effect on performance accountability of government agencies. It can be concluded that when the implementation of the budget is done the better or greater, the greater the performance accountability of government agencies, but does not occur significant influence of implementation / execution of the budget and performance accountability of government agencies because of the possibility of variable execution / implementation of the budget is affected by the variable budget planning. Results of the study are not consistent with research conducted by Young (2005) with the title Influence Budget Planning and Budget Execution Against Accountability of Government Performance In South Jakarta City Secretary. Research results indicate that the Budget Implementation positive effect on Accountability of Government Performance.

C. Test Results 0f Reporting / Budget Responsibility effects (X3) towards Government Performance Accountability (AKIP) (Y):
Based on the partial test results that have been conducted between the budget reporting / accountability as the X3's performance towards the performance accountability of government agencies as a variable Y indicated that t is at 5.468 with a significance value is 0.000 <0.05 and the regression test results indicated the coefficient value is 1.433 indicated that variable of budget reporting / accountability had positive and significant impacts on performance accountability of government agencies. It can be concluded that when the reporting / accountability of the budget done is better or bigger, the bigger the performance accountability of government agencies. So as to improve performance accountability, it should be done reporting / accountability of the budget in accordance with predetermined rules associated with the budget reporting / accountability. The Reporting / accountability of the budget is done to strengthen the pillars of accountability and transparency. In the framework of financial management that is accountable and transparent, the Government Regulation No. 58 of 2005 mandated accountability Local Government shall submit the form:  The Budget Realization Report,  Balance Sheet,  Statements of Cash Flows, and  Notes on Financial Statements.

D. Test Results of Performance Evaluation effects (X4) towards Government Performance Accountability (AKIP) (Y):
Based on the partial test results that have been carried out between X4 performance evaluation as X4 towards the accountability of the performance of government agencies as a variable Y indicatesd that t is at 0.753 with a significance value is 0.453> 0.05 and the regression test results indicated the coefficient value is 0.227 indicated that the variable budget reporting / accountability had positive and no significant effects on performance accountability of government agencies. It can be concluded that when reporting / accountability of the budget done is better or bigger, the bigger the performance accountability of government agencies. But it has no significant impacst on performance accountability of government agencies because the variable of performance evalution is perhaps affected by the variable of the reporting / accountability of the budget. The purpose of doing the performance evaluation is the concerned organizations know the realization achievement, progress and constraints encountered or reasons for not achieving performance in order to achieve the mission that has been planned so that expected institution can improve its performance in the future.

Conclusion
Based on the data analysis that has been described in previous chapters, it can be concluded as follows:  Based on the simultaneous testing (test F), it showed that the budget planning, the implementation / execution of the budget, the reporting / accountability of the budget and the performance evaluation affect simultaneously on performance accountability of Wajo government agencies.  Based on the test results of multiple regression showed that the variables of budget planning and budget reporting / accountability had positive and significant impacts on performance accountability of government agencies and the variable of budget implementation and performance evaluation had positive and no significant effects on performance accountability of Wajo government agencies.  Based on the coefficient of determination or R square is 0.597 indicated that 59.7% of performance accountability of government agencies affected by the budget planning, execution / implementation of the budget, the budget reporting / accountability, and the performance evaluation. While the rest is 40.3% is influenced by other variables that have not been examined in this research.  Based on the results of testing all the variables namely the budget planning, execution / implementation of the budget, the budget reporting / accountability, and performance evaluation of the indicators in the implementation of performance-based budgetingshowed that four variables had positive effects on performance accountability of government agencies so that it can be concluded that when the application of performance-based budgeting increase, then the performance accountability of government agencies also increase. This is in line with the statement of Bastian (2006: 54) stated that the relevance of the performance-based budget performance accountability of government agencies is that the effort to create a performance-based budget management system which is expected to be able to meet the various demands and needs of the community, namely the forming of the spirit of decentralization, democratization, transparency, and accountability in the governance process in general and financial management processes in particular.