Fiscal decentralization in villages: high nepotism low capacity

Abstract

Abstract Fiscal transfer of nearly one billion to the village accounts made the struggle for village heads tense. This tension is because the legacy of the village founder (huta), who is the basic foundation of village governance in the past, has to deal with liberal democracy in the practice of the current election of village head. Collective communitarian democracy as a feature of self-governing capacity at the village level has not been completely abandoned, but it has to carry out individual liberal democracy at the same time . In general, village heads in the two sub-districts of this study have participated in capacity building related to their duties and functions such as the preparation of the Village Medium Term Development Plan (RPJM-Desa), Village Regulations (Perdes), except the establishment of Village Owned Enterprise (Bumdes). Even so, the village documents are only slightly stored in the files of each village. The kinship politics of the village apparatus (village head, village secretary, village treasurer) as well as between village apparatuses, namely the Village Government Agency (BPD), were marked by a very close relationship. This kinship politics is because they are the first clan of the village. This village is only inhabited by the descendants of the clan group, and there is almost no imigration. The political implication of this kinship is a reluctance to monitor each other (both intra and between village units) when power abuse occurs.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.