| Summary: | Reformation of regional budget has been emerging several issues until
now. This study is aimed to reveal local budget responsiveness in Sleman
Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta and its relation with public participation,
budget transparency, and commitment of local government in term of the local
budgeting process in 2013, especially on education sector. This relationship has
been explored based on qualitative and quantitative methods, including analysis of
education budget allocation in Sleman Regency during 2010-2013.
The results of this research showed that: First, public participation in local
budgeting process is still partial which was manifested in public discussion and
hearing. Meanwhile, the discussion of budgeting process (KUA-PPAS and
RAPBD) was still far from public attention. This was the domain of budget actors
from two key institutions (executive and legislative). Second, budget transparency
was still in surface and did not touch substantial aspect especially details of
budget allocation and its mechanism of use. Third, commitment of local
government became contradictory when it was associated with the dynamics of
the local budgeting process in 2013 and 2014. During the discussion of budgeting
process, a coercive strategy was used as an alternative prescription by legislative
when their political interests were not accommodated. On the contrary, the
executive used bureaucracy interests as basis in bargaining process. The dynamics
of the discussion during revision of the budget (APBD Perubahan 2013) provoked
negotiations of budget interest among political elites. The mode of political
interests of executive and legislative were fragmented especially in enactment of
local expenditure and financing (SiLPA). It reflected that the local budgeting
process that should be conducted to meet public interest, but in fact it was inserted
by parochial interests (elites and their groups).
In term of budget allocation, the local budget responsiveness had not been
based on the calculations of public needs. In education sector, most of budget
allocation was used for indirect expenditure with an average 81.82% of total
expenditures from 2010 to 2013. At the same time, the proportion of direct
expenditure of the educational programs in the Department of Education was still
dominated by spending on goods and services with an average 45%. The
budgeting process had not been performed transparently. Budget preparation that
should be based on performance budgeting, but in reality it was infiltrated by
contestation of interests. Meanwhile, public involvement especially grassroots
organizations (educational institutions) in decision-making was still limited.
In conclusion, public participation and transparency should be encouraged
continuously given its positive impacts on budget responsiveness. The
commitment of local government is not only the amount of budget allocation, but
it also requires a policy act to reduce contestation of interests in the budgeting
process. Therefore, the intentions of executive and legislative should become
essential element in policy process which is responsive to the public interest.
|
|---|