Main Article Content
This study was conducted by its 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 those 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 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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Boothroyd, P., & Davis, H. C. (1993). Community Economic Development: Three Approaches. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12(3), 230–240. doi:10.1177/0739456X9301200307
Cerutti, A. K., Bruun, S., Beccaro, G. L., & Bounous, G. (2011). A review of studies applying environmental impact assessment methods on fruit production systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), 2277–
2286. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.04.018
Constanza, R., Alperovitz, G., Daly, H. E., Farley, J., Franco, C., Jackson, T., … Victor, P. (2012). Building a S ust ainable and De sir able Economy in Society in Nature.
De Smedt, P. (2010). The Use of Impact Assessment Tools to Support Sustainable Policy. Ecology And Society, 15(4), 30–39.
Duflo, E. (2004). Scaling up and evaluation. Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, 341–369. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)67928-2
Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2015). Impact Assessment in the European Union: Lessons from a Research Project. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 5(1), 27–42.
European Commission. (2009). Impact assessment guidelines. Sec(2009) 92, (January), 1–51.
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, U. G. M., Rural and Regional Study Center, U. G. M., Center for Population and Policy Studies, U. G. M., & Ins titute fo r Res e arch and Empowerment, Y. (2017). Laporan Akhir Kajian Implementasi Dana Desa 2017.
Ghasemaghaei, M.,&Has sanein, K. (2016). An Impact Assessment Model for Web- Based Time Banks. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(14), 972–991. doi: 10.1016/j. chb.2015.09.027
Handoko, D., Mesran, M., Nasution, S. D., Yuhandri, Y., & Nurdiyanto, H. (2017). Application Of Weight Sum Model (WSM) In Determining Special Allocation Funds Recipients. The IJICS (International Journal of Informatics and Computer Science), 1(2), 31–35.
Hayati, E., Abdi, E., Majnounian, B., & Makhdom, M. (2013). Application of sensitivity analysis in forest road networks planning and assessment. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 15(4), 781–792.
Hopkins, W. G. (2007). A spreadsheet for deriving a confidence interval, mechanistic inference and c l inic a l inferencefromap value. Sportscience, 11.
Kersti Nogeste, D. H. T. W. (2015). International Journal of Managing Projects in Business Article information : The Projectification of University Research. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(2), 279–287.
Miller, M. A. (2013). Decentralizing Indonesian City Spaces as New “Centers.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 834–848. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2013.01209.x
Millstein, P., & Maya, A. (2001). An evaluation of occlusal contact marking indicators: A descriptive quantitative method. Journal of the A meric an D ent al Association, 132(9), 1280–1286. doi: 10.14219/jada. archive.2001.0373
Ministry of Finance, R. I. (2017). Buku Saku Dana Desa. Ministry of Finance Republik Indonesia.
O’Malley, M. A., Elliott, K. C., Haufe, C., & Burian, R. M. (2009). Philosophies of Funding. Cell, 138(4), 611–615. doi: 10.1016/j. cell.2009.08.008
Phillips, R., & Pittman, R. H. (2015). An Introduction to Community Development. Routledge (Vol.1). doi: 0.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Radaelli, C. M., & Meuwese, A. C. M. (2009). Better regulation in Europe: Between public management and regulatory reform. Public Administration, 87(3), 639–654. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01771.x
Republic Indonesia. (2016). UU Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Desa. doi:10.1145/2904081.2904088
Roodman, D. (2007). The anarchy of numbers: Aid, development, and cross-country empirics. World Bank Economic Review, 21(2), 255–277. doi: 10.1093/wber/lhm004
Setyoko, P. I. (2011). Akuntabilitas Administrasi Keuangan Program Alokasi Dana Desa ( ADD ). Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Negara, 11(1), 14–24.
Sharp, J. S., Agnitsch, K., Ryan, V., & Flora, J. (2002). Social infrastr ucture and community economic development strategies: The case of self-development and industrial recruitment in rural Iowa. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(4), 405–417. doi: 10.1016/ S0743-0167(02)00011-6
Usman, S., Mawardi, M. S., Poesoro, A.,Suryahadi, A., & Sampford, C. (2008). The Specific Allocation Fund (DAK): Mechanis ms and Uses. Retrieved from http://www.ghbook.ir/index.php?name= نی ون ی اه هن اس ر و گنه رف &option=com_ dbook&task=readonline&book_id=13650 &page=73&chkhashk=ED9C9491B4&Item id=218&lang=fa&tmpl=component
Vanclay, F. (2003). International principles for socia l impa ct a ssessment . I mpact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(1), 5–12. doi: 10.3152/147154603781766491
Widi, H., & Saptowalyono, C.A. (2018).Kesejahteraan Warga Desa Turun. Kompas, p. NA.
Willison, J., & Buisman-Pijlman, F. (2016). Article information : International Journal for Researcher Development, 7(1), 63–83. doi:10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0216