Meutia Husna1,
Fifi Yusmita2, Syukriy Abdullah3
Universitas Syah
Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
meutia.unsyiah@gmail.com1,
fifiyusmitaaceh@gmail.com2, syukriyabdullah@unsyiah.ac.id3
KEYWORDS |
ABSTRACT |
regional original revenues, profit-sharing funds,
general allocation funds, excess budget calculations, official travel
expenditures. |
This study examines the effect of Regional Own Revenue,
Profit Sharing Funds, General Allocation Funds, and the excess budget
calculations on Official Travel Expenditures for District/City Governments in
Aceh Province from 2016 to 2019. The type of research used is hypothesis
testing. The total research sample for regional/city governments in Aceh
Province is 23 regional/city governments. The study used secondary data from
LRAs of 92 documents in LKPD for the 2016 to 2019 Fiscal Year (Audited) in 23
districts/City Governments in Aceh Province and analyzed using multiple
linear regression analysis. The results show that (1) PAD has no effect on
Business Travel Expenditure, (2) DBH influences Business Travel Expenditure,
(3) DAU influences Business Travel Expenditure, (4) SiLPA influences Business
Travel Expenditure, and (5) PAD, DBH, DAU and SiLPA jointly influence
Official Travel Expenditures. So that this research has implications for
adding insight to District/City Governments in Aceh Province about the
factors that contribute to Official Travel Expenditures and Helps improve
accountability and transparency of budget use in official travel. |
DOI: 10.58860/ijsh.v2i5.36 |
|
Corresponding
Author: Meutia Husna
E-mail: meutia.unsyiah@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
Implementing Law Number 17/2003 has become a reference
for reforming state financial management and the basis for implementing
decentralization and regional autonomy (Daniarsyah, 2016). The delegation of authority includes setting
directions, general policies, strategies, and priorities in the management of
the APBD and making technical decisions/policies related to the management of
the APBD. Regional financial management is carried out by the head of the
regional financial management work unit as the APBD management official and the
head of the regional work unit as the regional budget/goods user official,
which includes general authority and special authority (UU Number 17/2003) (Kalalo, 2016).
Regional Expenditure Management is managed by the
Regional Government autonomously, starting from regulation to management (UU
Number 23/2014 Article 1). Regional Expenditure Management includes planning,
budgeting, implementation, administration, supervision, reporting and
accountability of regional finances (PP Number 12/2019 Article 1). Official
Travel Expenditures are part of Regional Expenditures in the Direct
Expenditures group with the type of Goods and Services Expenditures with
account code 5.2.2.15 (Permendagri Number 13/2006 Article 50 and Article 52
Paragraph 2).
Management of Official Travel Expenditures has
several issues. First, the high level of potential for corruption and abuse
(BPK's LHP of 2019 LKPD). Second, there is a change in the budget for changes
to the Official Travel Expenditure budget (Qanun related to APBD-P in 23
Regencies/Cities in the 2019 FY in Aceh Province). Third, there is a variant of
the Official Travel Expenditure budget with the realization of Official Travel
Expenditures (BPK LHP on 2019 Fiscal Year LKPD).
Based on the Summary of 2019 Semester I
Examination Results, BPK RI on LKPD for the 2018 Fiscal Year stated that there
were 265 problems with double business travel costs and not complying with the
provisions of 242 local governments, which resulted in a loss of IDR 114.11
billion. The BPK recommends that regional heads instruct SKPD Commitment Making
Officials (PPK), Activity Technical Implementation Officials (PPTK) and
Expenditure Treasurers to comply with the provisions on Official Travel
Expenditures in their realization and instruct officials, employees, and other
parties to responsible for depositing regional losses to the state treasury.
(IHPS BPK RI Semester 1 of 2019 on LKPD FY 2018).
Problems of non-compliance with statutory
provisions related to Official Travel Expenditures occur from budgeting to
implementation. When preparing the Official Travel Expenditure budget, it was
inflated (Mark Up); the discrepancy in standard costs in preparing the budget
was due to the confusion in preparing the APBD by following PMK or Regional
Regulations following regional autonomy. At the same time, during
implementation, there was a waste of daily money payments, the provision of
money for representation did not comply with the provisions, spending double
official travel, official travel expenditure with unreal indications,
fictitious official travel, no evidence of accountability, official foreign
travel spending not following the State Input Cost Standard (IHPS BPK RI on
LKPD FY 2018).
Official Travel Expenditure can be seen in the
Regional Government Financial Report Notes in the Budget Realization Report
(LRA) section. LRA presents the budget, realization, and the difference between
the two. Within the scope of regional financial management, there is a
phenomenon in which the absorption of the Official Travel Expenditure budget
varies for each district/city.
Financial reports have four qualitative
characteristics: relevant, reliable, comparable, and understandable (SAP).
Regional government financial reports can be compared with the previous year as
evidenced by a comparison of the realization of Official Travel Expenditures in
23 Regencies/Cities within the Government of Aceh.
The results of a one-year comparison of the
realization of Official Travel Expenditures in 23 Regencies/Cities in the
Government of Aceh show that Official Travel Expenditure in FY 2019 compared to
FY 2018 experienced an increase in realization in 21 District/City Governments.
Apart from the LRA related to official travel that is
charged in the fiscal year, you can also see the Operational Report (LO). Comparison between the
realization of Official Travel Expenditures on LRA and Official Travel Expenses
on LO in 23 Regencies/Cities within the government.
The data analysis results show three conditions:
LRA is greater than LO, LRA is smaller than LO, and LRA is equal to LO. This
shows that in one budget year, not everything starts from zero and ends with
zero. However, there are debts for last year's Business Travel Expenditures
that must be paid for the current year. There are debts for this year's
Business Travel Expenditures that will be paid next year. This is as stipulated
in PSAP Number 9 regarding Obligations paragraphs 69 and 70, which classify
liabilities as short-term obligations if paid within 12 (twelve) months after
the reporting date, such as debt to employees is a part that will absorb
current assets in the reporting year next (PP Number 71/2010, PSAP 09 paragraphs
69 and 70).
Based on these facts, it is very interesting to
study because Official Travel Expenditure is a problem with complexity,
materiality, and a high potential for corruption. Furthermore, research will
refer to the theory that has existed before because Official Travel
Expenditures are part of Regional Expenditures.
Balancing funds originate from APBN revenues
allocated to regional governments to fund regional needs in implementing
decentralization (Arina et al., 2021). Balancing funds consist of Revenue Sharing Funds (DBH), General
Allocation Funds (DAU) and Special Allocation Funds (DAK) stipulated in the
APBN, which are allocated to regional governments. DBH is a decentralized fund
allocated based on percentage figures for regional needs consisting of tax DBH
and non-tax DBH (PP No. 55/2005).
DAU is a decentralized fund with the aim of
allocation for equal distribution of regional financial capacity to finance
regional needs (UU Number 33/2004 Article 1 number 21). DAU is allocated to
provinces/regencies/cities with proportions calculated from a comparison
between the weight of government affairs that fall under the authority of
provinces/regencies/cities (UU Number 33/2004 Article 29).
The phenomenon of regional financial management
is that there is SILPA (Budget Financing Overtime), namely the remaining unused
budget until the end of the fiscal year, which becomes SiLPA (Budget
Calculation Overtime) in the next fiscal year (Abdullah, 2013). He also stated that SiLPA
for the previous fiscal year was part of the APBK financing revenue for the
current fiscal year and positively contributed to regional expenditure
allocations (Abdullah, 2013). This aligns with research, which states that SiLPA affects Social
Assistance Expenditures (Fauzi et al., 2014). The results of the study (Kasdy et al., 2018) also reveal that SiLPA affects the realization of Capital Expenditures.
Based on the above background, this study aims
to examine the effect of Regional Original Revenue, Production Sharing Fund,
General Allocation Fund, and calculation of excess budget on Travel Expenditure
of District/City Government Offices in Aceh Province from 2016 to 2019.
METHODS
The population of this study is local/city
governments in Aceh Province, with as many as 23 local/city governments. The
sample of this research is all regional/city governments in Aceh Province, as
many as 23 Regional/City Governments. This study uses secondary data from
Budget Realization Reports (LRA) of 92 documents in LKPD for the 2016 to 2019
Fiscal Year (Audited) for 23 District/City Governments in Aceh Province. This
study uses secondary data sourced from Regional Government Financial Reports
(LKPD), which have been audited by the BPK for 2016 to 2019 Fiscal Years in 23
District/City Governments in Aceh Province, which were obtained by requesting
data documentation techniques for BPK inspection reports. The data will then be processed using the SPSS application
version 26.
The secondary data analysis technique used to
obtain valid results in this study uses the classic assumption test, namely the
normality test, multicollinearity test, autocorrelation test and
heteroscedasticity test. This follows, who states that there are four classic assumption tests,
namely: Normality Test, Multicollinearity, Autocorrelation and
Heteroscedasticity Test (Hair et al.,
2019). The
classic assumptions of this study were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Version 2
application.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Diacritical Analysis
Descriptive analysis describes the
characteristics of the variable data used in the research. Data description
determines the minimum value, maximum value, average, standard deviation, and
the amount of data analyzed. The results of descriptive statistics are briefly
presented in the following table:
Table 1. Descriptive Analysis
Description |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Average |
Standard Deviation |
BPD |
10,322,749,371 |
53,943,965,696 |
28,807,387,830.72 |
9,017,187,594,740 |
PAD |
38,955,598,635 |
388,251,800,973 |
118,437,619,821.67 |
71,292,316,174.173 |
DBH |
9,168,876,498 |
217,403,555,279 |
29,781,942,459.94 |
34,852,813,459.351 |
DAU |
343,605,010,000 |
893,015,394,074 |
555,260,105,519.93 |
148,635,115,933,983 |
SilPA |
1,349,497,366 |
423,790,444,408 |
69,436,854,103.88 |
63,950,127,177,123 |
Valid N (listwise): 92 |
Source: Data
Processing Results (2022)
Classical assumption testing is a requirement that must
be met before testing linear regression analysis so that the regression
equation can provide valid results. The classical assumption test carried out
in this study used the normality test, multicollinearity test, autocorrelation
test, and heteroscedasticity test. The classic assumptions of this study were
analyzed using the IBM SPSS Version 26 application. The normality test aims to
determine whether the confounding or residual variables in the regression model
have a normal distribution. The normality
test method in this study uses two methods, namely the Probability Plot (P
Plot) and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test. The multicollinearity test tests whether
the regression model correlates with the independent this is; this type of test
is only intended for with that have more than one independent variable. A good
regression model, where there is no correlation between the independent
variables. The multicollinearity test in this study used the Pairwise
Correlation test and the Tolerance-Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test. The
autocorrelation test aims to test whether, in the linear regression model, there
is a confounding error between the period (t) and the previous t-1 period. A
good regression model, where there is no correlation between the variables. The
autocorrelation test in this study uses the Run Test and Durbin Watson. The
heteroscedasticity test aims to test whether, in the regression model, there is
an inequality of variance from the residuals of one observation to another.
Suppose the residual variance from one observation to another observation
remains. In that case, it is called homoscedasticity; if it is different, it is
called heteroscedasticity. A good regression model, where the regression model
is homoscedasticity or not heteroscedasticity. The heteroscedasticity test in
this study used the scatterplot test with the provision that if there is no
clear pattern, such as the dots spreading above and below the number 0 on the Y
axis, the regression model does not contain heteroscedasticity.
The regression test used in this study is
multiple linear regression testing because, in this study, there are multiple
independent variables (more than one independent variable). This test aims to
determine whether there is an influence of the independent variable on the
dependent variable. Multiple linear regression analysis in this study was to
test the effect of PAD, DBH, DAU and SiLPA on Business Travel Expenditures. The
results of multiple linear regression testing are presented in the following
table:
Table 2. Multiple Linear Regression Testing
Coefficients a |
|||
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
||
B |
std. Error |
||
1 |
(Constant) |
16,213,955,616,688 |
4068368224,691 |
PAD |
- 0.000 |
0.022 |
|
DBH |
- 0.011 |
0.031 |
|
DAU |
0.022 |
0.011 |
|
SilPA |
0.011 |
0.015 |
|
a. Dependent Variable: Business Travel Expenditures |
Source: SPSS output (processed, 2022)
The regression equation used in this study is:
Yit = α + β
1X1it + β 2X2it + β 3X3it + β
4X4it + εit
Based on the above, the regression equation is
obtained as follows:
Y= 16,213,955,616.7 - 0.000X1 - 0.011X2 + 0.022X3 +
0.011X4 + ε
The regression equation can be explained that
the constant value of the regression equation above is 16,213,955,616.688. This
means that if there is no variation in the PAD, DBH, DAU and SiLPA variables,
then official travel expenditure is worth 16,213,955,616.7. The PAD regression
coefficient is 0.000. This shows that β1 = 0, concluding that PAD has no
effect on Official Travel Expenditures for District/City Governments in Aceh
Province. The DBH regression coefficient is -0.011. This shows that β2
≠ 0, concluding that BDH influences Official Travel Expenditures in
District/City Governments in Aceh Province. DBH has a negative effect; if the
percentage of DBH decreases, official travel expenditure will decrease by 1.1%.
The DAU regression coefficient is 0.022. This shows that β3 ≠ 0,
concluding that the DAU influences Official Travel Expenditures for
District/City Governments in Aceh Province. This means that if the percentage
of DAU increases, then official travel expenditure will increase by 2.2%. The
SiLPA regression coefficient is 0.011. This shows that β4 ≠ 0,
concluding that SiLPA influences Official Travel Expenditures for District/City
Governments in Aceh Province. This means that if the percentage of SiLPA
increases, the Official Travel Expenditure will increase by 1.1%.
Hypothesis testing was carried out to determine
the effect of the independent variables PAD (X1), DBH (X2), DAU (X3) and SiLPA
(X4) on the dependent variable Business Travel Expenditures (Y) as formulated
in the previous chapter. The test results show the following Effect of PAD on
Business Travel Expenditure Ha1: β1 = 0.000, then β1 = 0. Thus, Ha1 is rejected,
meaning PAD does not affect Business Travel Expenditures in District/City
Governments in Aceh Province. Effect of DBH on Business Travel Expenditure.Ha2:
β2 = -0.011, then β2 ≠ 0. Thus, Ha2 is accepted, but because there
is a minus sign, it means that DBH harms Business Travel Expenditure in
District/City Governments in Aceh Province. The Effect of DAU on Official
Travel Expenditures. Ha3: β3 = 0.022, then β3 ≠ 0. Thus, Ha3 is
accepted, meaning the DAU influences Official Travel Expenditure at
District/City Governments in Aceh Province. Effect of SiLPA on Business Travel
Expenditure Ha4: β4 = 0.011, then β4 ≠ 0. Thus, Ha4 is
accepted, meaning that SiLPA influences Business Travel Expenditures in
District/City Governments in Aceh Province.
The Effect of PAD on Official Travel Expenditures
Expenditure for Official Travel differs from
Regional Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Social Assistance Expenditure and
Official Travel Expenditure are operational and relatively routine. Hence, they
tend to be funded by the DAU.
Based on Table 2, the value of the PAD
regression coefficient on business travel expenditure is 0.000. The design of
hypothesis testing refers to the requirement that states that the amount of PAD
has no effect on Business Travel Expenditure. If β1 = 0, then Ha1
is rejected. Thus, PAD did not affect Official Travel Expenditure in
District/City Governments in Aceh Province in 2016-2019.
The results of this study are in contrast to the
results of research, which concluded that PAD has a positive effect on Regional
Expenditures, where the greater the PAD obtained by an area, the greater the
Regional Expenditures (Amalia, 2015). The same thing, which concluded that PAD significantly
affects Regional Expenditures (Ahmad, 2021). PAD significantly affects Capital Expenditures (Ahmad, 2021) and research, PAD positively affects Capital
Expenditures (Indriyani & Adi, 2020). Likewise, research has a positive and significantly
affectsnificant effect on direct spending. If PAD increases, direct spending
will increase (Hidayah & Setyawati, 2014). PAD will also tend to increase government spending on
routine and capital expenditures.
Differences in research results also occur
compared to research which suggests that PAD can be a background for decision
makers to behave in opportunism, especially in the SKPD and SKPKD bureaucracies
and contain political preferences from politicians in parliament at the DPRK
level (Abdullah, 2013). PAD also affects the allocation of spending in the
same year, especially direct spending from a perspective where the
determination of PAD in the Pure APBD or Revised APBD involves the legislature
in terms of preparation and the executive for approval.
The results of this study are also inconsistent
with research, showing that PAD harms Social Assistance Expenditures where
local governments do not prioritize the allocation of PAD for Social Assistance
Expenditures (Fauzi et al., 2014). This study's results are inconsistent with that
research because the characteristics of Official Travel Expenditures are more
routine in nature, not projects that are taken advantage of by Regional
Officials and the DPRK. So, from the perspective of agency theory (agency
theory). The allocation of Official Travel Expenditure in the budget and its
realization is not considered important or profitable if PAD funds it. The
results of this study show the effect of regional own-source income on official
travel expenditures showing an influence level of 0.000, meaning that the local
government does not prioritize PAD allocations for official travel expenditures
and PAD does not have an impact on business travel expenditures at
district/city governments in Aceh Province.
The Effect of DBH on Official Travel Expenditures
Based on the research results, the DBH
regression coefficient on business travel expenditure is -0.011. In the design
of hypothesis testing, referring to the requirement to state that the amount of
DBH has a negative effect on Business Travel Expenditures if β2
≠ 0, then Ha2 is accepted. Thus, it can be stated that DBH negatively
affected Official Travel Expenditures in district/city governments in Aceh
Province from 2016 to
very.
This study's results differ from the research,
which concluded that DBH significantly affects capital expenditures, where Capital
Expenditures in 23 district/city governments in Aceh Province still depend on
central government transfer funds (Jatmiko & Wicaksono, 2019). DBH positively affected Capital Expenditures in
districts/cities for the 2012 to 2016 fiscal year in Riau Province (Sartika et al., 2017).
The same thing happened to research, which
concluded that DBH revenue sources would greatly influence capital expenditure,
and also concluded that DBH had a positive influence on Social Assistance
Expenditure in district/local governments (Junita & Abdullah, 2016). Cities in Aceh from 2007 to 2012 (Fauzi et al., 2014).
Likewise, research suggests that DBH is part of
the regional income derived from tax and natural resource revenue sharing (Mulyati & Yusriadi, 2017). Changes in the DBH budget are due to adjustments to
the regional government budget related to the position of DBH revenue as the
right of the regional government. The change or revision of the budget is based
on the Decree of the Minister of Finance (KMK) or the Minister of Finance
Regulation (PMK), which states matters related to the revision of DBH or
district/city DBH allocations. The variable calculation uses the difference
between DBH in the Revised APBD and DBH in the pure APBD.
The results of this study show that the DBH to
Business Travel Expenditures is -0.011. This means that each additional DBH
will cause a reduction in the percentage of official travel expenditure
allocation by 1.1% because the characteristics of official travel expenditure
are more routine and tend to be budgeted consistently in each SKPD for each
budget year for the implementation of local government programs and activities.
The Effect of DAU on Official Travel Expenditures
Based on the DAU regression coefficient value on
Official Travel Expenditure of 0.022. The hypothesis testing design refers to
the requirement that the amount of DAU affects business travel expenditure. If β3
≠ 0, then Ha3 is accepted. Thus, it can be stated that the DAU has had a
positive effect on Official Travel Expenditures for District/City Governments
in Aceh Province from 2016 to 2019.
The DAU regression coefficient on Business
Travel Expenditures has the largest regression coefficient value among all the
independent variables in this study. This means that the DAU plays a very
important role in the budget allocation for Official Travel Expenditures in 23
District/City Governments in Aceh Province from 2016 to 2019. Any additional
DAU will positively affect Official Travel Expenditures by 2.2%.
DAU is the main source of income for regional
governments. It is usually used to finance regional government operational
expenditures, especially routine ones. Therefore, the DAU allocated for official
travel shows a very reasonable thing.
This is related to Law Number 33/2004 Article
21, which states that DAU is a fund transferred by the central government in
the context of decentralization to distribute financial capacity among regions
and fund regional needs. DAU for a Region is allocated based on fiscal gaps and
basic allocations, where the fiscal gap is the fiscal need minus the fiscal
capacity of the region. The calculation of the basic allocation is based on the
salary of Regional Civil Servants (UU Number 33/2004 article 27). Furthermore,
Article 34 states that the government formulates and calculates DAU by considering
the considerations of the council tasked with providing advice and
considerations on regional autonomy policies and Article 29 states that
determining the proportion of provincial/district/city DAU is based on a
balance of authority between provinces/regencies/cities.
This is in line with the concept of a balanced
budget, which states that local governments must submit a budget to the
legislature before the current fiscal year without setting priorities and
expenditure components (Holtz-Eakin et al., 1994). Local governments make it possible to smooth out
expenditures because there are no effective rules for preventing smoothing.
Agency theory has been practiced since autonomy and decentralization was handed
over to local governments. Agency problems in budget formulation occur in the
process of preparing pure budgets and budget changes based on self-interest by
budget decision-makers.
Based on the perspective of agency theory, also
states that agents or politicians in the local government act as if they
maximize the utility of middle-income individuals (voters), down in society. Smith
& Bertozzi stated that all principals and agents act in their interests to
maximize their welfare (Arifah, 2012). This can be seen from several forms of realization
of opportunistic executive behavior when proposing spending, namely proposing
activities that are not a priority, proposing large, lucrative opportunistic
activities, allocating components of expenditure that are not important in an
activity, proposing that the amount of spending is too large for the
expenditure component and the budget for each activity, as well as increasing
the budget for activities whose results are difficult to measure (Amelia et al., 2019).
The results of this study are in line with the
results of previous research by Abdullah and Halim (2004), which concluded that
DAU had a positive influence on Regional Expenditure in 90 regencies/cities in
Java and Bali, meaning that if the greater the DAU received by a region, the
greater the Regional Expenditures.
There are two types of transfers (grants) from
the central government to the regions: matching grants and non-matching grants.
Both are used to meet development spending and routine spending by local
governments. Development spending is generally in physical forms, such as
buildings, roads, bridges, and electricity and drinking water network
procurement. In contrast, non-physical development expenditure takes the form
of health services, improving the quality of education and maintaining
security. Routine spending occurs repeatedly and continuously every fiscal
year, including employee salaries and honorarium spending.
DAU is a "block grant," which allows
local governments to use DAU according to priorities and needs to improve
services to communities in the region (Putra, 2017). DAU significantly influenced total spending on the
Poso Regency Government from 2011 to 2015, where DAU increased by 66.15%. If
the DAU increases, the total Regional Expenditure will also increase, but its
development is fluctuating/unstable.
The results of this study are also in line with
research, which suggests that DAU has a significant positive influence on
Direct Spending (Purwantoro &
Setyowati, 2019). This is because if the income from the DAU increases
in the APBD, the impact of direct spending will also increase. DAU efficiency
shows positive regression efficiency, meaning that every DAU increases/addition
will encourage the growth of Direct Expenditures. DAU positively influences
Social Assistance Expenditure, where the DAU influence value is 0.018 (Fauzi et al., 2014). This means that any increase in the DAU in the APBD
will affect Social Assistance Expenditure distributed to the community.
The same conclusion also occurs in research, which
states that DAU has empirically had a positive influence on district/city APBD
Capital Expenditures for the 2012 to 2016 fiscal year in Riau Province (Sartika et al., 2017).
Likewise, who concluded that DAU also had a significant positive
influence on Capital Expenditures in Central Java on the realization of the
2014 to 2018 APBD (Indriyani & Adi
2020). This shows that district/city governments in Central Java depend on
DAU transferred by the central government as a source of Capital Expenditure
financing to support public facilities and infrastructure for public services
to create social welfare. The same thing, DAU has a significant influence on
Capital Expenditures and emphasizes DAU points from the center to the regions
for the provision of infrastructure, which is a type of expenditure financed by
regional governments through Capital Expenditures.
The results of the study are not in line with
research which concluded that there was no influence of DAU on district/city
Regional Expenditure in South Sulawesi in 2009-2011 (Nur, 2015). Research also concluded that DAU has no significant
effect on Capital Expenditures in 32 provinces in Indonesia (Andriani &
Yuliana, 2016).
Research expressed their opinion that the effect
of DAU was very small on capital expenditure capacity, namely only 39.4% based
on the allocation of Capital Expenditures from DAU sources in the APBD of
Mamberamo Tengah Regency for 2010 to 2016 (Jikwa et al., 2017). Based on APBD documents with information that is quite
minimal, it is known that the 2013 DAU expenditure budget is for coordination
costs, office costs and others. Capital Expenditure activities are limited to
releasing customary land and maintaining operational vehicles. Based on the
2016 expenditure portrait, it is known that the DAU allocated for Capital
Expenditure was used for the construction of the Bethel church in the amount of
IDR 5,100 billion which was an organizational assistance to the community. DAU
spending is also allocated for government building rehabilitation programs,
letter applications, performance reporting, preparation of regional regulations
and APBD.
The Effect of SiLPA on Official Travel Expenditures
Based on the results of Epenlitain, the SiLPA
regression coefficient on official travel expenditure is 0.011. The hypothesis
testing design refers to the requirement that the amount of SiLPA affects
Business Travel Expenditures. If β4 ≠ 0, then Ha4 is accepted. Thus, it can be
stated that SiLPA affected Official Travel Expenditure in District/City
Governments in Aceh Province from 2016 to 2019.
The results of this study are consistent with
the results of research, which states that SiLPA has a significant and positive
influence on Capital Expenditures in 32 provinces in Indonesia, where an
increase in SiLPA by 1 unit causes an increase in Capital Expenditure of 0.51
Billion Rupiah in ceteris paribus condition (Andriani & Yuliana, 2016). Likewise, research shows that SiLPA also has a
positive effect on Social Assistance Expenditure which is part of Regional
Expenditures for district/city governments in Aceh from 2007 to 2012, where the
level of influence of SilPA is 0.035 (Fauzi et al., 2014). This means that the greater the existence of SiLPA,
the allocation of social assistance spending issued by district/city
governments in Aceh Province will increase for people's welfare.
The results of the study concluded that
empirically SiLPA had no effect on Capital Expenditures (Sartika et al., 2017). The results of his research also state that all or
part of SiLPA is prioritized in order to finance services for local government
programs and activities, as well as spending on procurement of goods with a
benefit value of < 12 (twelve) months on average SiLPA for each
district/city in Riau Province is very large.
Permendagri Number 21 of 2011 stipulates that
SiLPA is the excess difference between the realization of budget revenues and
expenditures during the previous budget period, which is used to cover the
current year's budget deficit if the realization of income is less than the
realization of expenditure. SiLPA is also used to fund other obligations that
have not been completed by the end of the year and to fund the implementation
of follow-up activities on direct expenditures (personnel, capital, and goods
and services).
Expenditures for Official Travel are operational
and relatively routine expenditures and are budgeted for each fiscal year. Each
fiscal year, there is a cycle of preparing and ratifying the APBD between the
district/city government and the DPRK. Agency theory explains a contractual
relationship between the principal and the agent, in which the principal
delegates responsibility for decision-making to the agent based on an agreed
work contract. The agent carries out the duties, powers, responsibilities, and
decision-making authority for the principal's benefit. The relationship between
principal and agent is often determined by accounting numbers, thus triggering
agents to think of ways that can be used to maximize their interests.
Stage of the budget preparation process, there
are gaps where budget corruption occurs. The budgeting process in government is
not free from agency problems Isaksen (2005). Agency theory analyzes
contractual arrangements between two or more individuals, groups, or
organizations (Nashiri & Amanah, 2018). One party (principal) makes a contract, either
implicitly or explicitly, with another party (agent) in the hope that the agent
will act or do the job the principal desires.
All principals and agents act in their own
interests to maximize their welfare (Wardoyo et al., 2021). This can be seen from several forms of realization of
opportunistic executive behavior when proposing spending, namely proposing
activities that are not a priority, proposing large, lucrative opportunistic
activities, allocating components of expenditure that are not important in an
activity, proposing that the amount of spending is too large for the
expenditure component and the budget for each activity, as well as increasing
the budget for activities whose results are difficult to measure (Amelia et al., 2019). Agency problems in budget formulation occur in the
process of preparing pure budgets and budget changes based on self-interest by
budget decision-makers.
CONCLUSION
This study uses multiple linear regression
analysis to determine the effect of DAU, DBH, DAU and SiLPA on Business Travel
Expenditures. Based on the results of the research and discussion, the
following conclusions are drawn: PAD did not affect Official Travel
Expenditures for District/City Governments in Aceh Province from 2016 to 2019.
DBH harmed Official Travel Expenditures in District/City Governments in Aceh
Province from 2016 to 2019. This is different from the hypothesis, which states
DBH has a positive effect on Official Travel Expenditures. DAU influences
Official Travel Expenditures for District/City Governments in Aceh Province
from 2016 to 2019. SiLPA influences the Official Travel Expenditures of
District/City Governments in Aceh Province from 2016 to 2019. PAD, DBH, DAU and
SiLPA jointly influenced Official Travel Expenditures for District/City
Governments in Aceh Province from 2016 to 2019.
REFERENCES
Abdullah,
S. (2013). Defisit/Surplus dan SILPA dalam Anggaran Daerah. Apakah Saling
Berhubungan? Syukriy.Wordpress.Com.
https://syukriy.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/defisit-dan-surplus-dalam-anggaran-daerah-apakah-saling-berhubungan/
Ahmad,
S. (2021). Pengaruh Pendapatan Asli Daerah, Dana Alokasi Umum, Dana Alokasi
Khusus Terhadap Tingkat Kemandirian Daerah Di Kota Makassar. Jurnal
Ekonomika, 5(1), 17–37.
Amalia,
F. (2015). Analisis Flypaper Effect pada Belanja Daerah Kabupaten dan Kota di
Provinsi Banten. Jurnal Organisasi Dan Manajemen, 11(1), 15–25.
Amelia,
D., Arfan, M., & Abdullah, S. (2019). Analisis belanja daerah sektor
pendidikan sebagai pemediasi pengaruh dana bagi hasil, dana alokasi umum, dana
alokasi khusus, dan pendapatan asli daerah terhadap outcomes bidang pendidikan
pada pemerintah provinsi di Indonesia. Jurnal Perspektif Ekonomi Darussalam (Darussalam Journal of
Economic Perspec, 5(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.24815/jped.v5i1.13822
Andriani, N. L., & Yuliana, L. (2016). Analisis
Determinan Belanja Modal Pemerintah Provinsi di Indonesia Tahun 2010-2013. Jurnal
Ilmiah WIDYA, 3(3), 140–146.
Arifah, D. A. (2012). Praktek Teori Agensi pada Entitas
Publik dan Non Publik. Jurnal Prestasi, 9(1), 85–95.
Arina, M. M., Koleangan, R. A. M., & Engka, D. S. M.
(2021). Pengaruh Pendapatan Asli Daerah, Dana Bagi Hasil, Dana Alokasi Umum,
Dan Dana Alokasi Khusus Terhadap Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Kota Manado. Jurnal
Pembangunan Ekonomi Dan Keuangan Daerah, 20(3), 26–35.
Daniarsyah, D. (2016). Faktor-Faktor Menentukan Dalam
Keberhasilan Optimalisasi Pengelolaan Penerimaan Negara Di Sektor Kelautan Dan
Perikanan. Jurnal Administrasi Publik, 7(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.31506/jap.v7i1.2449
Fauzi, T., Darwanis, D., & Abdullah, S. (2014).
Pengaruh Pendapatan Asli Daerah, Dana Bagi Hasil, Dana Alokasi Umum, Dan Sisa
Lebih Perhitungan Anggaran Terhadap Belanja Bantuan Sosial Pemerintah Daerah Di
Aceh. Jurnal Telaah Dan Riset Akuntansi, 7(2),
76–92.
Hair,
J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and
how to report the results of PLS-SEM. In European Business Review.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hidayah,
N., & Setyawati, H. (2014). Pengaruh Dana Alokasi Umum, Dana Alokasi Khusus
Dan Pendapatan Asli Daerah Terhadap Belanja Langsung Di Propinsi Jawa Tengah. Jurnal
Akuntansi, 18(1), 45–58.
Indriyani, I., & Adi, S. W. (2020). Pengaruh
Pendapatan Asli Daerah (PAD), Dana Alokasi Umum (Dau), Dana Alokasi Khusus (DAK),
Dan Sisa Lebih Pembiayaan Anggaran (SILPA) Terhadap Belanja Modal.
Jatmiko,
B., & Wicaksono, I. G. (2019). Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi
Pendapatan Asli Daerah Kabupaten Banjar Negara. Jurnal Akuntansi Trisakti,
6(2), 157–174.
Jikwa,
E., Salle, A., & Allo Layuk, P. K. (2017). Pengaruh Pendapatan Transfer Dan SiLPA Terhadap Belanja Modal
di Kabupaten Mamberamo Tengah. Jurnal Kajian Ekonomi Dan Keuangan
Daerah, 2(2), 217600.
Junita,
A., & Abdullah, S. (2016). Pengaruh Fiscal Stress Dan Legislature Size
Terhadap Expenditure Change Pada Kabupaten/Kota Di Sumatera Utara. Jurnal
Akuntansi, 20(3), 467–478.
Kalalo,
F. P. (2016). Kekuasaan Pejabat Pengelola Keuangan Daerah Berdasarkan
Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2014 Tentang Pemerintahan Daerah. LEX
ADMINISTRATUM, 4(2).
Kasdy,
L. M., Nadirsyah, N., & Fahlevi, H. (2018). Pengaruh pendapatan asli
daerah, dana perimbangan, dan sisa lebih perhitungan anggaran terhadap belanja
modal dan implikasinya pada realisasi belanja modal pada pemerintahan
kabupaten/kota di indonesia. Jurnal Perspektif Ekonomi Darussalam
(Darussalam Journal of Economic Perspec, 4(1), 1–18.
Mulyati,
S., & Yusriadi, Y. (2017). Pengaruh Dana Bagi Hasil dan Dana Alokasi Umum
terhadap Belanja Daerah pada Kabupaten/Kota di Provinsi Aceh. Jurnal
Visioner & Strategis, 6(2).
Nashiri,
F. I., & Amanah, L. (2018). Pengaruh DAU, DBH, dan PAD Terhadap Belanja
Daerah dan Analisis Flypaper Effect. Jurnal Ilmu Dan Riset Akuntansi (JIRA),
7(11).
Nur,
M. (2015). Pengaruh Pendapatan Asli Daerah, Dana Alokasi Umum, dan Dana Alokasi
Khusus terhadap Belanja Daerah di Sulawesi Selatan. Assets: Jurnal Ekonomi,
Manajemen Dan Akuntansi, 5(1), 78–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.22303/accumulated.1.2.2019.160-170
Purwantoro,
P., & Setyowati, L. (2019). Pengaruh
Pendapatan Daerah terhadap Belanja Daerah Provinsi Jawa Tengah. Jurnal
Bisnis Dan Ekonomi, 26(1).
Putra, F. (2017). Pengaruh Desentralisasi Fiskal, Luas
Wilayah, dan Sisa Lebih Pembiayaaan Anggaran Terhadap Pengalokasian Belanja
Modal (Studi Empiris pada Kabupaten dan Kota di Provinsi Sumatera Barat tahun
2010-2014). Jurnal Akuntansi, 5(1).
Sartika, N., Kirmizi, K., & Indrawati, N. (2017).
Analisis Faktor-faktor dalam Struktur APBD dan Kinerja Keuangan Daerah yang
Mempengaruhi Belanja Modal pada Kabupaten/Kota di Provinsi Riau. Sorot, 12(2),
121–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.31258/sorot.12.2.121-135
Wardoyo,
D. U., Rahmadani, R., & Hanggoro, P. T. (2021). Good Corporate Governance
Dalam Perspektif Teori Keagenan. EKOMA: Jurnal Ekonomi, Manajemen, Akuntansi,
1(1), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.56799/ekoma.v1i1.25
© 2023 by the authors. It was submitted for
possible open-access publication under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY SA)
license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). |