Performance Measurement of Local Government in Indonesia: A Conceptual Study
Abstract
This study begins with the problem of the many Indonesia’s local governments that have not been able to compile a Government Agency Performance Accountability Report or LAKIP. This is because there are still many local governments that have not been able to measure performance with applicable standards. And therefore, many local governments still get poor grades in preparing their LAKIP. This due to several factors such as the commitment of management which is still questionable, the lack resources used to measure performance and so forth. This study aims to find out how far have local government efforts are taken to measure performance according to organizational factors of local government in Indonesia specifically in Bekasi. Through the institutional theory, this study has three objectives, to find out the effects of technical knowledge, management commitment, and resources on performance measurement. Therefore, this study contributes to provide a picture for the local government in measuring performance based on organizational factors.
Downloads
References
Aswar, K., & Saidin, S. Z. (2018). Accrual accounting adoption in Java Municipalities: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR). 11 (3). 24-30.
Aswar, K. (2019). Factors on the accrual accounting adoption: empirical evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR). 12 (3). 36-42.
Brignall, S., & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the new public sector. Management Accounting Research, 11(3), 281-306.
Cavalluzzo, K. S., & Ittner, C. D. (2004). Implementing performance measurement innovations: Evidence from government. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3-4), 243-267.
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Dirsmith, M. W., Jablonsky, S. F., & Luzi, A. D. (1980). Planning and control in the US federal government: A critical analysis of PPB, MBO and ZBB. Strategic Management Journal, 1(4), 303-329.
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168-176.
Gudono. (2012). Analisis data multivariat (multi variate data analysis). Yogyakarta: BPFE UGM.
Hatry, H. P. (1999). Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Julnes, P., & Holzer, M. (2002). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: an empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693-708.
Jurnali, T., & Siti-Nabiha, A. K. (2015). Performance management system for local government the Indonesian experience. Global Business Review, 16(3), 351-363.
Laurensius, F., & Halim, A. (2005). Pengaruh faktor-faktor rasional, politik dan kultur organisasi terhadap pemanfaatan informasi kinerja instansi pemerintah daerah. Proceeding of 8th National Accounting Symposium, 774-790.
Newcomer, K., Jennings, E., Broom, C., & Lomax, A. (2002). Meeting the Challenges of Performance-Oriented Government. Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
Primasanti, H., & Akbar, R. (2015). Factors influencing the success of performance measurement: evidence from local government. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, 30(1). 56-71.
Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493-511.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, W. R. (2004). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. dalam Smith, K. G., & Hitt, M. A. (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (460-484). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tzempelikos, N. (2015). Top management commitment and involvement and their link to key account management effectiveness. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(1), 32-44.
Wang, X., & Berman, E. (2000). Hypotheses about performance measurement in counties: finding from a survey. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 403-428.
Wijaya, A. H. C., Akbar, R. (2013). The influence of information, organizational objectives and targets, and external pressure towards the adoption of performance measurement system in public sector. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, 28(1), 62-83.
Yang, K., & Hsieh, J. Y. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: testing a middle?range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861-879.
Copyright (c) 2020 Lovina Eka Putri, Khoirul Aswar, Ermawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.
This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.
