Performance of Budgeting, Accountability System for Government Institutions, Performance Internal Control and Accountability Performance Report of Government Agencies in East Kalimantan.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.611.5536Keywords:
Performance Budgeting, Government Institution Performance Accountability System (SAKIP), Government Agency Performance Accountability (AKIP), Internal Audit, Government Performance Accountability Report (LAKIP)Abstract
The form of the accountability report for regional financial management for one budget year for central government agencies for one fiscal year is in the form of Government Institutional Performance Accountability Reports (LAKIP), in which this financial report contains annual performance reports and accountability for the performance of a regional government or central government agency.To ensure that the budget that has been set is carried out properly and in accordance with the goals of the organization, it is necessary to apply controls. the purpose of this research is to explain the causal relationship between research variables by testing the hypotheses that have been formulated. In this study will explain the causal relationship between internal or exogenous variables in the form of Performance Budgeting, Government Agency Performance Accountability System (SAKIP), and Government Institution Performance Accountability (AKIP) in the form of external variables or endogenous Internal Control 1 and external or endogenous variables 2 Performance Accountability Report Government Agencies (LAKIP). From the results of the study showed that the effect of Performance Budgeting had no significant effect on internal control, while the results of other variables have a significant effect on the Government Institutional Performance Accountability System (SAKIP), and Government Institutional Performance Accountability (AKIP), Internal Control and Government Institution Performance Accountability Reports (LAKIP)References
Anonymous, Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 1992. Internal Control – Integrated Framework. http://www.coso.org/.
_______, Presidential Instruction (Inpres) Number: 7 of 1999 concerning Accountability of Government Institution Performance (AKIP)
_______, Institution of State Administration Number 589 / IX / 6 / Y / 99 concerning Guidelines for Reporting Accountability of Government Agencies.
_______, Institute of State Administration. 2003. Guidelines for Preparing Government Institution Performance Accountability Reports. Jakarta.
______, Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2005 Standar Akuntansi Pemerintah Pernyataan. Jakarta.
______, Government Regulation No. 8 of 2006 concerning Financial Reporting and Performance of Government Agencies.
______, Permendagri Number 59 of 2007 Amendment to the Guidelines for Regional Financial Management, Permendagri Number 13 of 2006.
Anggraeni, Rafika. 2009. The Influence of Budget Participation and Organizational Commitment to the Performance of SKPD in Labuhan Batu District Government. North Sumatra University. Field.
Arens, Alvin A. et al. 2006. Auditing and Assurance Services, Volume 1. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Kurniawan, Teguh, 2009, The Role of Public Accountability and Community Participation in Limiting Corruption in Government, Business and Bureaucracy. Journal of Administrative and Organizational Sciences.
Mardiasmo, 2002, Regional Autonomy Series: Regional Autonomy & Regional Management, ANDI, Yogyakarta.
Shim, Jae K and Siegel, Joel G, 2000. Budgeting. Erlangga. Jakarta.
