Governing Village Fund in Indonesia: Is It Erradicting Poverty? 14 Governing Village Fund in Indonesia: Is It Erradicating Poverty?

This study was conducted by finding that there were inconsistencies and uncorrelated data from the government score-based report about Village Fund, and the public perception of the village fund. This research observes relevance of numbers using the Impact Assessment concepts. This research can act as a useful insight for the governments, researchers and societies to evaluate the commitment of the government to build Indonesia from village. By using descriptive quantitative research method, this paper critically summarises the government report of the Village Fund by contrasted the priorities target of the fund. From the assessment, it was found that the development of the village facilities, infrastructure, and community empowerment program currently increased, but the village fund still has a problem with its equalisation and utilisation of the fund. In conclusion, the achievement numbers of the village fund do not have any correlation with the poverty reduction, because there are lack of equalisation and perception as a mean of utilisation in some sectors. The perception index does not correlate with the satisfaction index in terms of infrastructure development, and the intervention of the village fund does not have a connection with the understanding of people on the use of the fund.


Introduction
The impact of the village funds cannot be separated by its measured impacts on development. Development itself can be measured by 2 (two) aspects, tangible and intangible.

Erwan Agus Purwanto
is the Dean of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences Universitas Gadjah Mada (FISIPOL UGM), Yogyakarta, Indonesia. In 1987-1992 he graduated his Bachelor Studies in Public Administration at FISIPOL UGM. Continuing his Masters in Public Policy andManagement in 1995-1997 and his PhD at the University of Amsterdam taking Social Sciences in 2000-2004. Specializing in the fi eld of Studies in Human Society/ Public Administation/ Policy and Administration. His research interest includes Policy Formulation, Public Policy Evaluation, and Public Policy Implementation. His research experiences for example are in 2006-2010 entitled "Regional Government Transparency in Budgeting, Policy Formulation and Procurement of Goods and Services", in 2006 entitled "Governance Assessment Survey in Indonesia", and in 2007 entitled "Data Based Survey". Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 14-27 DOI: https://doi.org/10. 30589/pgr. v4i1.169 Village Fund in Indonesia:

Is It Eradicating Poverty?
economic environments, or outside the tropics, or on average, but with diminishing returns (Roodman, 2007).
S e c o n d l y , i n t a n g i b l e a s p e c t s e e s development outside its achievement of numbers.
It includes how the numbers achievement meets its sociological targets of the programme as the outcomes. This also includes the delivery strategy of the programme, by identifying prioritizing, and de ining intangible project outcomes and their aligned project outputs (Kersti Nogeste, 2015).
According to these two meanings of development, it can be said that development is not only about achieving statistical numbers as output, but also how those statistical numbers also meet sociological accession consist of the expected outcome of the programme.
There are many development projects in the world, which view development not only as the attainment of numbers, but also the achievement of the projected outcome. One of them is the fund programme. Apart from its orientation of statistical achievement, the fund programme has a philosophy that funding programme should have an impact to the multidimensional account of scienti ic inquiries, which are justice to the people and communities to a broader effect (O'Malley et al., 2009). This means, the fund programme also aims to support the overall background people and communities, including underprivileged people and region.
This also means that the fund programme requires independent management to its people and region. The requirement its with the village fund programme in Indonesia In order to answer the question, we observe the report on the village fund in 2017 as the main document of assessment. We particularly assess statistical evidences from the report with the objective of the village fund itself. Moreover, we also contradict the statistical evidences with the evidences of the practical aspect of the village fund.

Impact Assessment
The notion of the impact assessment (IA) is to assess certain policies in a technical way or based on evidence, in purpose of creating a better regulation (Radaelli & Meuwese, 2009 policies, but also a formal document. Therefore, the Impact Assessment can also be de ined by the term of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA).
However, in the practical area, sometimes IA or RIA can be approached by political way, which can be described by interests, such as bargaining, entrenched commitments, and diverse stakeholder values and interests (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2015). This is far beyond the main intention of IA or RIA itself, where the main assessment is evidence-based. This happens for 2 (two) reasons. First, politicians are the main actors of formulating regulations which often neglect evidence. Politicians carry interests from their group, in order to formulate regulation. Second, RIA deals with quite many sectors and aspects.
Sectors can be varying from energy, environment, enterprise whilst aspects could be seen by the main aim of RIA is sustainable.
Aside from that, IA was designed to be a process that prepares for political decision makers, evidence on the advantages and  (Phillips & Pittman, 2015).
Aligned to that, Constanza et al. (2012) gives a rational relation between infrastructure and provision and community development. It is important to note that the infrastructure is considered as a tool to facilitate people to meet better activity, productivity, and sustainability (ASP) of life. It was assumed that better infrastructure will increase better activity, productivity, and sustainability (Hayati et al., 2013). Further, Sharp et al. (2002) explained the discussion on infrastructure and community development includes issues on: 1. Orientation of utilising infrastructure, and 2. the complexity of facilitating people. The orientation of utilising infrastructure was classi ied as having inward look, to facilitate people to have more activities in their daily life, therefore, it brings people to get economic gain as well as social bene it. Also, the complexity of facilitating people is indicated as high if it produces of high sensitive actions to initial condition. The actions were created to facilitate people to develop their assets and capabilities, include social, economic, and political interest (Hayati et al., 2013).
Thus, the important aspect that can be drawn from the policy intervention is the social impact. A social impact is de ined as a cognitive or physical effect experienced by humans and their communities, caused by a change in the social or ecological environment (Vanclay, 2003). The To assess the implementation of the village fund, the use of the fund is really crucial. By analyzing the programs and the output of the programs can make a broader sense to know to what extent the impact was. The Impact assessment must depart from it. As the use of the village fund is the factor that makes a change either negative or positive.

Village Fund
There are no exact de initions of the village fund. However, based on the history of the village fund, the fund can be categorized as a special allocation fund. It is reasonable, due to the village fund comes from the allocation of the Indonesian Government Budget. This is indeed different than micro inance programme which has a size of the intervention and its consequent to policy importance (Du lo, 2004). The special allocation fund is diverse than the micro-inance programme, due to the only intention of the village fund to build the interest of the village development.
Indeed Fund (DAK). Moreover, special allocation fund could be seen as the channel from the regional budget (APBD), and hence, regional governments must justify their management of the funds to the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) (Usman, et. al., 2008).
From the description, it can be seen that the special allocation fund was highly politically in luenced by two reasons. First, special allocation fund is allocated from the country revenues, which the aims of developing such facilities and infrastructure. Emphasize on country revenues showed the political side of the special allocation fund. This is because the country revenues can be gained from various sources, such as tax, retribution, revenue from nation companies, ines and seizures that are run legally by the government, citizen's donation, money printing, the result of country lottery, domestic or foreign loans, and gifts or grants (Miller, 2013).
Second, the mechanism of special allocation fund is decentralization, which has 4 (four)

Results and Discussions Assessment of Village Funds on Infrastructure of the Village
As mentioned in the report, the allocation of the village funds for infrastructure and physical development is intended to ful ill the needs of the society, which can be directly felt by the society.
Therefore, the support of the village funds is pivotal.
Take a look at the evidence of Figure 1  It shows from the evidence above. Satisfaction percentage in Sumatera, Java, and Bali is good, yet and Papua was not as high in Sumatera, Java, and Bali, but their perception of village fund was better than people in Sumatera, Java, and Bali.

Resource Development
Another   The regulation clearly mentioned that the village fund should be spread in an equal way. The fact that there are differences between the impact of the fund and the opinion amongst the receiver makes the village fund examined by its practice in a qualitative way, which will be explained in the next sub-chapter.