program as stated in

Information
the LAKIP. Management
In LAKIP Wajoand
in 2011
Business
showed
Review
that (ISSN
the performance
2220-3796) of the program in 2011
amounted to 87.67%, while Vol.
the achievement
7, No. 4, pp. 6-22,
of theAugust
program's
2015performance 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.
The Effect of Performance-Based Budgeting Implementation towards the Institution Performance
Accountability (Case Study: Wajo)
Problem Formulation: Based on the background described above, the formulations of the problem in this
research are:
Seri Suriani
What are the impacts of the Budget
PlanningUniversity,
to the Performance
Hasanuddin
Indonesia Accountability in Wajo
Government?
seri_suriani@ymail.com
What are the impacts of the Budget Implementation to the performance accountability in Wajo
Government?
WhatThis
are study
the impacts
Reporting
/ Budget
Responsibility
to the
in
Abstract:
aimed of
at the
finding
out empirical
evidences
whether
theperformance
application ofaccountability
performance-based
Wajo Government?
budgeting
affected the performance accountability of Wajo government, seeing the effects of the application
What are the impacts
of the to
Evaluation
to the
Performanceof
Accountability
in Wajo Government?
of
performance-based
budgeting
performance
accountability
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
Hypothesis:
Based oninthe
fundamental
issues stated
above, of
the
hypotheses
(TAPD) who involved
formatting
the government
budgets
Wajo
regency. are:
Data were collected through
The
Budget Planning
had positive
significant impacts
to the Government
Performance
direct
observation
and survey
obtainedand
by distribution
of questionnaires
to the respondents.
This study used
Accountability.
multiple
linear regression models with software SPSS. The study results showed that the budget planning and
budget
The Budget
Planning
positive andgave
significant
impacts
to the Government
the
reporting
/ accountability
positive
and significant
impacts on Performance
performance Accountability.
accountability of

The
Reporting
/
Budget
Responsibility
had
significant
impacts
to
the
Government
Performance
government agencies, the implementation of the budget and the performance evaluation.
It is shown from the
Accountability.
results
of multiple linear regression test which showed Y = 7.904 + 0.223 X1 + 0.222 X2 + 1.433 + 0.227 X3

The
Performance
Evaluation had
significant Impactsbudgeting
to the Government
Performance
X4. In
conclusion,
the application
of performance-based
gave positive
effects onAccountability.
performance
accountability of government agencies.
Research Objectives: Based on the background and issues that have been mentioned previously, the
purposes of this study are:
To explain
the impacts
of Budgeting,
the budget Budget
planning
to the Performance
Accountability
in Wajo
Keywords:
Performance
Based
Planning,
Budget Implementation,
Reporting/Budget
government.
Responsibility,
Performance Evaluation, Accountability of Government Performance
To explain the impacts of the budget implementation to the Performance Accountability in Wajo
government.
1. Introduction
To explain the impacts of reporting / budget responsibility to thePerformance Accountability in Wajo
government.
To explain
impacts of
of the
the draft
budget
implementation
to the Performance
in Wajo
Background:
Thethe
Formation
budget
in the Government
Wajo startedAccountability
with the formation
of KUA
government.
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
Goal and
The targets
this research
were
in to process
the following
expectations:
and
delivery,
afterObjectiv:
the evaluation
of theofbudget,
when in
thisstated
evaluation
proposed
budget is accepted,
this researchofcan
beregulations
used as a reference
in analyzing
the performance-based
budgeting
the nextThe
stepresults
is the of
establishment
local
on the budget
and regulations
on the elaboration
of
performance
accountability
of has
government
subjects
in particular
regional and
heads
Budgets. Wajo
government
graduallyagencies
adjustedand
the science
structure
of the budget
in accordance
management
Budgeting.
with applicable
regulations,
especially the traditional budget system shift to performance-based system in
The with
results
of this research
are used
to local governments
to improve
the No. 58 of
accordance
Government
Regulation
No. as
105consideration
of 2000, as amended
by Government
Regulation

accountability
of government
agencies.
2005 onperformance
regional financial
management.
In 2003 and
previous budgeting system Wajo using MAKUDA (line
The
results of this
research
are published
by scientific
journals
and used
as a in
teaching
material.
items and
incremental)
which
was formatted
simplier.
In 2005 the
formation
of APBD
Wajo regency
to performance-based budgeting system.
adapted
2. Literature Review
Wajo
government
has
implemented
a performance-based
budgeting
the formation
budgetin2012.
By
Agency
Theory: The
concept
of accountability
can be explained
usinginagency
theory, which
the wide
implementing
the
performance-based
budgeting,
it
is
expected
the
budget
prepared
by
the
government
can
meaning accountability can be viewed as people obligations in this case the government (agent) to provide
be
realized properly
in accordance
withdisclosing
the objectives
and targets
to be
by the government.
accountability,
serving,
reporting, and
all activities
whichwants
became
hisachieved
responsibilities
to the society
Total
expenses
for financing
programs
show
that between
budget planning
the
represented
by estimated
the Parliament
(principal)
who has/ activities
the right and
authority
to holdthe
accountability.
The and
concept
realization
of activities
budget
is notaccountability
appropriate. This
can be seen in
from
difference between the budgets
of agency theory
supports
variable
for performance
thisthe
research.
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
implemented.The
Based
on APBD
data
2011 the
- 2012
of the government
of Wajo showed
Theory
ofbeen
Policyfully
Implementation:
approach
used
in from
analyzing
implementation
of Performance
that
direct
expenses
estimated
to financebyprograms
/ activities
increased but
the increase
offour
the budget
Based
Budgeting
is the
theory proposed
George C.
Edward IIIhave
in (Widyantoro,
2009).
There are
was
not accompanied
by an increase
in the
wrok performance.
It can be seenResources,
from the achievements
of the
variables
in the implementation
of public
policies.
They are: Communication,
Dispositions or

7
6

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
and
strategicare
objectives
divided of
outthe
in organization
work units that
andexist
to establish
in the organization,
strategies that
so the
willdouble
be used
duplication
to achieveofthe
tasks
goals
and functions
objectives.doesnt
Strategic
happen.
planning
Based
made
on the
should
principles
be oriented
mentioned
desires
above,
and needs
the purposes
of the community
of the application
as the main
of
stakeholders.
PBK
are expected
In general,
to:
strategic plans generally have a period of a few years that has component at least
contains
Showing
the visions,
the linkmissions,
between goals,
funding
objectives
and achievement
and strategies
of performance
in the formtoofbe
policies
achieved
and(directly
programs
linkages
to achieve
thembetween
as well as
performance
providing performance
and budget)indicators as a measure of success / failure of a program / an activity.
Based
Improving
on the strategic
the efficiency
plan that
andhas
transparency
been set, itin
is the
annually
implementation
poured in an
(operational
annual performance
efficiency);plan. The
performance
Increasing
plan
flexibility
is a further
and elaboration
accountability
of the
unitstrategic
in carrying
plan
out
which
the duties
includes
andthe
budget
entiremanagement
performance
indicators
(moreand
flexibility
targetsand
to be
accountability).
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
According to the Guidelines on Performance-based Budgeting (Deputy IV BPKP), the conditions to be
reflect the relationship between the financial aspects of all activities and strategic objectives and annual
prepared as a trigger factor of the successful implementation of performance-based budgeting, namely:
performance plan.
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.
The
budget
submitted to the legislatures for approval. After obtaining the approval of the annual
annual
A strong
desireplan
to succeed.
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
Performance-Based
Framework:plan
Performance-based
has aand
framework
that itof
annual performanceBudgeting
plan. An Operational
usually includes budgeting
a schedulesystem
of activities
the provision
is
built systematically
to annual
produceperformance
a performance-based
budgeting.
general,
the framework
of performanceresources.
Based on the
plan, a plan
which hasInbeen
approved
annual budget
and annual
based
budgeting
system
performance
according
to the Guidelines
for Performance
Based Budgeting
Deputy
operating
plans, the
agencies
formulate
the performance
agreement.
The deal's performance
is basically
an
IV
BPKP (2005:
16) who
basically
performance-based
budgeting
canthe
nottargetbe separated
from the
agreement
between
the explained
principals that
to the
party that
received the messages
about
performance
will
cycle
of planning,
reporting
accountability on
the budget
itself.
The
strategic agreement
plan as
be achieved
withinimplementation,
a certain time based
on a/predetermined
budget
allocation.
The
Document
outlined
the
annual targets
is always
evaluated
andthe
continuously
improved
in the end.
Planning The
cycle
between in
the
legislatures
and the
executives,
namely
performance
of the contract
documents.
end of
described
belowthe
shows
how the Performance-Based
Budgeting
used as a feedback
within the
overall
the fiscal year,
performance
management conducts
review,isevaluation,
and assessment
after
the program
strategic
plan.completed
This can be
in theyear.
figure
below:
and activities
inseen
one fiscal
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
improvements Budgeting
next year. Framework
Figure
1:make
Performance-Based

Local Financial Management

A. Budget planning: To ensure that the development of activities are effective, efficient, and targeted, it is
necessary to have National Development Planning and uniformity of regulations in order to achieve the
objectives of the state and to avoid imbalances between regions. Provisions concerning the National
Development Planning System, which includes the implementation of macro planning or planning to be at the
level of national policy for all government functions and covers all areas of life in an integrated manner in the
territory of the Republic of Indonesia stipulated in Law No. 25 of 2004 on National Development Planning
System. Overall local budget planning includes the drafting of Public Policy budget up to the formulation of
the draft budget consists of several stages of the local budget planning process. Based on Law No. 17 of 2003
and Act No. 32 and 33 of 2004.

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
budgetGuidelines
authority and
abilityPerformance-Based
to conduct surveillance
and reporting
whichIV
can be
directly
aware of
any
Source:
forthe the
Budgeting
Deputy
BPKP
(2005:
16).
problems implementing the budget and to provide flexibility for managers.
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,

11
10

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, througha 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.

12

The Cycle
and
Budget
ofExecution
government
of the
performance
Performance
accountability
Accountability
canofbeGovernment
described as
Agencies
follows: in South Jakarta State
Secretariat. The Research results indicated that there are significant Budget Planning effects towards the
Government
Accountability
in SouthAccountability
Jakarta City Secretary and there are significant Budget
Figure 2: The Performance
Cycle of Government
Performance
Implementation effects on Government Performance Accountability Secretariat Jakarta Municipality City
Selatan. From hypothesis testing results obtained that t 27.697> t table 1.645. There is the influence of Budget
Strategic
Planning and Budget Execution together
towardsPlanning
the Government Performance Accountability in South
Jakarta City Secretary.

The benefit of Work

Work Measurement

Information
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
Work
Reporting
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.
Source : Pusdiklatwas BPKP, 2007
The Cycle
Yusriati
(2008),
of government
examined performance
the Effect of Performance-Based
accountability as shown
Budgeting
in the SKPD
picture
implementation
above, startinginfrom
Mandailing
the
Natal regency
drafting
of the by
strategic
using the
plan
independent
(Plan) whichvariable
includesand
thethe
preparation
Performance-Based
of the visions,
Budgeting
missions,
dependent
goals, and
variable
SKPD performance.
objectives
and defines
From
thethe
strategy
resultsto
ofbe
theused
research
to achieve
showed
thethat
goals
there
andwere
objectives
influences
set. Strategic
of the
planning is
implementation
then
translated into
of performance-based
an annual performance
budgeting
plans to
made
performance
each year.
onThis
education,
performance
on theplan
other
reveals
hand the
the whole
implementation
performance
targets
of performance-based
to be achieved (output
budgeting
/ outcome)
in SKPD
from
in Mandailing
all strategicNatal
objectives
regency
in was
the current
still relatively
year aslow.
Julianto
well
as strategies
(2009) examined
to achieve
theit.
Effects
The performance
of Performance-Based
plan is a benchmark
Budgeting that
implementation
will be used to
in SKPD
the assessment
performance
of
in Regency Cliff
governance
performance
High by using
for certain
the independent
period. After
variable
the performance
and the Performance-Based
plans are set, theBudgeting
next step is
dependent
measuring
variable SKPDIn
performance.
performance.
doing the activities,
From thethe
results
collection
showed
and
there
recording
were effects
of performance
of the application
data are carried
of performanceout. The
based budgeting
performance
datatoisSKPD
performance
performance
achievements
in Regency
expressed
Cliff High.
inNina
units(2009)
of performance
examinedindicators.
the EffectsWith
of the need
Implementation
for
performance of
data
thetoPerformance-Based
be used for performance
Budgeting
measurement,
Accountability
government
Local Government
agencies need
Agencies
to develop
by using
a the
independent
system
of data
variables
collection
Performance-Based
performance. They
Budgeting
are: the order,
and Accountability
instruments, of
and
Government
performance
Agencies
data collection
dependent
variable. At
method.
The
the
research
end of aresults
period,
showed
the performance
that the implementation
achievements of
are
performance-based
reported to interested
budgeting
partieshad
or the
positive
ones
effects
who
request
but it in
didthe
notform
have
ofsignificant
Government
effects
Performance
on the accountability
Accountability
ofReport
local government
(LAKIP). Theagencies.
last stage, the
information outlined in LAKIP used for ongoing improving agency performances.
3. Methodology
Previous Research: The issuance of Law No. 17 of 2003 which stipulates that the local budget (APBD) must
be
draftedDesign:
based on
performance
makes the
SKPD
as a unit of performance-based
budget users are
Research
Theapproach
design oftothis
study is toachievement
determine whether
application
required
toas
apply
for the Work
Plan and
Budget
SKPD (RKA-SKPD)
were really Performance
good in accordance
budgeting
independent
variables
affect
the Accountability
of Government
Wajo aswith
the the
needs,
economical
dependent
variable., efficient, and effective.The Research on the effect of the application of performance-based
budgeting to performance accountability of local government agencies have been investigated by several
researchers, including:
Location
Research:
Thishas
research
was a
conducted
in theentitled
scope of
Wajo isImplementation
a city that is
Sugih
Meaning
(2005)
conducted
research with
thegovernment
Influence ofWajo.
the Budget
on
bounded
on the
north
by Sidrap, Luwu
district
in the
east,
in Bone inofthe
south, and
west of
side
Performance
Based
Accountability
towards
Depok
City
Department
Education.
Thethe
results
theSoppeng.
research
The total area
of 129.33
km2variable
Wajo recorded,
which includes
4 districts
of Tempe,influence
Sabbangthe
lung,
indicated
that the
economic
performance-based
budgeting
did(District
not significantly
level of
Pammana,
Maniang
Pajo,City
Gilireng,
Sajoanging,
Majauleng,
and Penrang)
and 145 villages.
In addition,
the
accountability
of Depok
Department
of Education
and Ball,
a variable
performance-based
budgeting
efficiency
scope
of government
Wajo has affected
31 work on
units
and
effectiveness
significantly
the(SKPD).
level of accountability of Depok City Department of Education.
Kurniawan (2009) conducted a research entitled The Effect of Performance-Based Budgeting Accountability
Performance towards Local Government Agencies in Region IV Priangan.The results of the research showed
Population
and Sample: The population
in thissignificant
study areand
all working
(SKPD)
within the scope
of the
that the performance-based
budgeting gave
positiveunits
effects
on performance
accountability
of
Government
Wajo the number
of 33 consisting
of 3 organizations
8-shaped
government agencies.
HarjantiSKPDs
(2009)total
conducted
a study entitled
The Effect ofSecretariat,
Implementation
of the
Organization
Board, Budgeting
14 shapedPerformance
OrganizationAccountability
Department, 4-shaped
Organization
Office,
the District
Performance-Based
on Government
Agencies.
Theand
results
of the of 4
shaped
. The
ofof
samples
in this Based
study were
100 respondents,
sample
selection
methods
researchOrganization
indicated that
thenumber
adoption
Performance
Budgeting
had very little
influences
on the
using
purposive
sampling
because
respondents
who
selected
only
relates
to
the
Local
Government
Budget
accountability of government agencies.
Team (TAPD). The study sample consisted of head office, secretary, one of the chief part of sector
departments, and some staff SKPDs.

Herawati
Types
and(2011)
Sources
conducted
of Data: Source
a studyof
entitled
data used
The in
Clarity
this research
Budget Target,
was primary
Accounting
data. Control
The type
and
of Reporting
data in this
study was
System
forthe
Local
type
Government
of subject data
Performance
obtainedAccountability
in the form of Jambi.
opinions,
Theattitudes,
results showed
experiences
that simultaneously
and characteristics
the
of respondents
effects
of budget
who
goal
became
clarity,the
accounting
subject ofcontrols
research.
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
Data
Techniques:
The(X3).
Communication
mode
to obtain
data entitled
from respondents
this
studyPlanning
using
were Collection
reporting system
variable
Muda (2005)
conducted
a study
The Effectsinof
Budget
a questionnaire.

14
13

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.
Data Analysis
Descriptive Analysis: This descriptive analysis is the data analysis shows self-respondents, obtained from
respondents through questionnaire. Then the data obtained from the respondents' answers was calculated
the percentage (Nugroho, 2011: 22).
Y = 0 + 1X1 + 2X2 + 3X3 + 4X4
Explanation:
Y: Accountability of Government Performance
X1: Budget Planning
X2: Budget Implementation / Execution
X3: Budget Reporting / Accountability get
X4: Performance Evaluation
0: Constants
1, 2, 3, 4: coefficient regression

4. 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.
Table 1: Reliability Test Result
Variable
Budget planning
Budget Execution
Budget Reporting/Responsibility
Performance Evaluation
Accountability of Government Performance

Koefisien alpha
0,716 > 0,600
0,775 > 0,600
0,830 > 0,600
0,761 > 0,600
0,742 > 0,600

Keterangan
Reliable
Reliable
Reliable
Reliable
Reliable

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

15

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.

16

Table 2: Test of Multicollinearity- coefficientsa

Collinearity Statistics
ModelTolerance VIF
1

(Constant)
X1.716
X2.446
X3.396
X4.470
a. Dependent Variable: Y
Source: Output SPSS 16.0, 2014

1.397
2.241
2.523
2.127

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.

17

Table 3: Test of Multiple Linear Regressions

Unstandardized Coefficients
ModelBStd. Error
1

(Constant)
X1
X2
X3
X4

7.904
.223
.222
1.433
.227

3.595
.097
.310
.262
.301

a. Dependent Variable: Y
Source: Output SPSS 16.0, 2014
From the table above can be obtained regression formula as follows:
Y = 7,904 + 0,223 X1 + 0,222 X2 + 1,433 X3 + 0,227 X4
In the above regression equation, the constants (0) 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.
Table 4: The coefficient of determination (R 2)
Model Summary
Model R
1

.773a

R Square

Adjusted
Square

.597

.580

R Std. Error of
the Estimate
2.60436

a. Predictors: (Constant), X4, X1, X2, X3

Source: Output SPSS 16.0, 2014
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

18

performance
evaluation
is 59.7 %, and of
the
remaining
40.3% isand
influenced
by other
that have not
The Reporting
/ Accountability
budget
had positive
significant
effectsvariables
on performance
been examined
in this study.
By looking
at the high
coefficient
the
of variables
- the <0.05
accountability
of government
agencies
partially.
This isindicates
evidenced
byeffect
the level
of significance
independent
variable
on the is
dependent
and HA3
hypothesis
accepted.variable was also high at 59.7%.
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>
Simultaneous Testing (Test F): The testing was conducted to test whether there is a significant difference
0.05 and Ha4 hypothesis is rejected.
among the budget planning, budget implementation and reporting performance towards the performance
accountability of government agencies altogether.
Discussion
Table 5: Simultaneous Testing Results (Uji F)
ANOVA
A. Test bResults 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
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square F
Sig.
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
1
Regression
953.804
4
238.451
35.156
.000a value is 0.223 indicated
that the Residual
variable budget
planning had positive
significant impacts on performance accountability of
644.356
95 and6.783
government
It can be concluded99
that when the budget planning done better or bigger, the bigger the
Totalagencies. 1598.160
performance accountability of government agencies. So as to improve the accountability performance, it
should
be done
good budget
because it is the foundation in determining the success or failure of an
a. Predictors:
(Constant),
X4, planning
X1, X2, X3
organization
or
agency.
The
results
are
consistent with the research conducted by Young (2005) entitled The
b. Dependent Variable: Y
Influence
of Budget
and Budget Execution towards The Accountability of Government Performance
Source: Output
SPSSPlanning
16.0, 2014
In South Jakarta City Secretary. The Research results indicate that the positive effect on the Budget Planning
had positive impacts on Accountability of Government Performance.
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
B. Test Results Effect of Implementation of the Budget (X2) Against Government Performance
simultaneously significant affect the performance accountability of government agencies. It is shown on a
Accountability (AKIP) (Y): Based on the partial test results that have been made between the
significant value F = 0.000 <0.05. So if the budget planning, implementation / execution of budget, reporting /
implementation of the budget as X2 for performance accountability of government agencies as a variable Y
accountability and performance evaluation of budget altogether increases, the performance accountability of
indicates that t is at 0.176 with a significance value of 0.476> 0.05 and regression test results indicate the
government agencies will also increase.
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
Partial
Test (Test
t): Partial
test)
wassignificant
performedinfluence
to determine
whether a variable
budgetofplanning,
government
agencies,
but test
does(tnot
occur
of implementation
/ execution
the budget
budget
execution,accountability
reporting / accountability
of budget,
and
performance
evaluationof
affect
the performance
and performance
of government
agencies
because
of the possibility
variable
execution /
accountability
ofof
government
partially.
implementation
the budget agencies
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
Table 6: Partial
TestAccountability
Results (Uji t) of Government Performance In South Jakarta City Secretary. Research
results indicate
that the Budget Implementation positive effect on Accountability of Government
Coefficients
a
Performance.
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
BStd. ErrorBeta
Model
t
Sig.
C. Test Results 0f Reporting / Budget Responsibility effects (X3) towards Government Performance
1
(Constant)
7.904
3.595
2.199
.030 between the budget
Accountability (AKIP) (Y): Based on the partial test results that have been conducted
X1
.223
.097
2.309
.023
reporting / accountability as the X3's performance towards
.178 the performance accountability of government
.310
.716
.476
agenciesX2
as a variable.222
Y indicated that
t is at 5.468 with
.070a significance value is 0.000 <0.05 and the regression
X3
1.433
.262
5.468
.000 reporting / accountability
test results indicated the coefficient value is 1.433 indicated
that variable of budget
.566
X4 and significant
.227 impacts on
.301
.453agencies. It can be
had positive
performance .072
accountability of.753
government
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
a.
Variable:
Y
beDependent
done reporting
/ accountability
of the budget in accordance with predetermined rules associated with the
Source : Output SPSS 16.0, 2014
budgetreporting/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
The table above shows the t test results are:
Government Regulation No. 58 of 2005 mandated accountability Local Government shall submit the form:
The Budget planning had significant and positive effects on performance accountability of
The Budget Realization Report,
government agencies partially. It is is evidenced by the level of significance <0.05 and Ha1 hypothesis
Balance Sheet,
is accepted.
Statements of Cash Flows, and
The Implementation of the budget had positive and no significant effects on performance
Notes on Financial Statements.
accountability of government agencies partially. This is evidenced by the significance level obtained>
0.05 and Ha2 hypothesis is rejected.

19
20

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.

5. 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.

Reference
Bastian, I. (2006). Sistem Akuntansi Sektor Publik, Edisi 2. Jakarta:Salemba Empat.
DEPUTI IV BPKP. (2005). Pedoman Penyusunan Anggaran Berbasis Kinerja (Revisi). Jakarta: BPKP.
Ghozali, I. (2009). Ekonometrika: Teori Konsep dan Aplikasi dengan SPSS 17. Semarang: Badan Penerbit
Universitas Diponegoro.
Herawati, N. (2011). Pengaruh Kejelasan Sasaran Anggaran, Pengendalian Akuntansi, dan Sistem Pelaporan
terhadap Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah Daerah Kota Jambi. Jurnal Penelitian Universitas
Jambi, 13(2).
Harjanti, H. P. (2009). Pengaruh Penerapan Anggaran Berbasis Kinerja Terhadap Akuntabilitas Kinerja
Instansi Pemerintah Daerah Kota Depok. Tesis. UNPAD. Jawa Barat.
Julianto. (2009). Pengaruh Penganggaran Berbasis Kinerja terhadap Kinerja SKPD di Pemkab Tebing Tinggi.
Tesis. USU. Sumatera Utara.
Keputusan Kepala Lembaga Administrasi Negara Nomor 239/IX/6/2003 tentang Perbaikan Pedoman
Penyusunan Laporan Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah.

21

Kurniawan. (2009). Pengaruh Penganggaran Berbasis Kinerja terhadap Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi
Pemerintah Daerah di Wilayah IV Priangan. Skripsi. UPI. Jakarta.
Mardiasmo. (2002). Akuntansi Sektor Publik. Yogyakarta:Penerbit ANDI.
Muda, T. D. (2005). Pengaruh Perencanaan Anggaran dan Pelaksanaan Anggaran terhadap Akuntabilitas
Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah pada Sekretariat Kota Kotamadya Jakarta Selatan. Disertasi. UNPAD.
Jawa Barat.
Nina, W. H. (2009). Pengaruh Penganggaran Berbasis Kinerja Terhadap Akuntabilitas Kinerja Terhadap
Akuntabilitas Instansi Pemerintah Daerah Kabupaten Sukabumi. Tesis. UNPAD. Jawa Barat.
Nugroho, Y. A. (2011). Olah Data dengan SPSS. Yogyakarta: PT. Skripta Media Creative.
Pusat Pendidikan dan Pelatihan BPKP. (2007). Modul Akuntabilitas Instansi Pemerintah (Revisi). Jakarta:
Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan.
Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 105 tahun 2000 tentang Pengelolaan dan
Pertanggungjawaban Keuangan Daerah.
Permendagri No. 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Pedoman Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah.
Permendagri No. 59 Tahun 2007 tentang Perubahan atas Permendagri No.13 Tahun 2006 Tentang Pedoman
Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah.
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 58 Tahun 2005 tentang Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah.
Pusdiklatwas BPKP. (2007). Akuntabilitas Instansi Pemerintah. Edisi 5. Jakarta.
Putra. (2010). Pengaruh Penerapan Anggaran Berbasis Kinerja dan Sistem Informasi Pengelolaan Keuangan
Daerah Terhadap Kinerja SKPD di Pemerintah Kabupaten Simalungun. Tesis. Medan : Progran
Pascasarjana Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Sumatera Utara.
Sugih-Arti, A. (2010). Pengaruh Penerapan Anggaran Berbasis Kinerja terhadap Akuntabilitas Dinas
Pendidikan Kota Depok. Tesis. Jakarta: Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Gunadarma.
Sugiyono. (2007). Metode Penelitian Bisnis, Bandung: Alfabeta.
Undang-Undang RI Nomor 32 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah. 2004. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal
Otonomi Daerah.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 33 Tahun 2004 tentang Perimbangan Keuangan Antara
Pemerintah Pusat Dan Pemerintahan Daerah. 2004. Jakarta: Departemen Keuangan Republik
Indonesia.
Umar, H. (2003). Metode Riset Bisnis, Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta.
Widyantoro, A. E. (2009). Implementasi Performance Based Budgeting: Sebuah Kajian Fenomologis. Tesis.
Semarang : Program Pascasarjana Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Diponegoro.
Yusriati. (2008). Pengaruh Penerapan Anggaran Berbasis Kinerja Terhadap Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah
Daerah Kabupaten Mandailing Natal. USU. Sumatera Utara.

22

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.