Corruption Prevention in Village Fund Management
Keywords:
Corruption Prevention; Village Fund Management; Transparency; Accountability; Community Participation; Good Village GovernanceAbstract
This study examines corruption prevention in Village Fund management within the framework of good village governance. The increasing allocation of Village Funds has enhanced rural development opportunities while simultaneously raising the risk of fund misuse and corruption at the village level. This research aims to analyze the role of transparency, accountability, human resource capacity, community participation, internal control systems, and institutional oversight in preventing corruption in Village Fund management. The study adopts a quantitative explanatory approach using primary data collected through structured questionnaires distributed to village officials and community representatives involved in Village Fund management. Data analysis is conducted using descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analysis to examine the relationships between variables. The findings reveal that transparency, accountability, human resource capacity, and internal control systems have a significant positive effect on corruption prevention. Institutional oversight also plays a critical role in strengthening financial discipline and compliance with regulations. Community participation contributes positively to corruption prevention; however, its impact remains relatively limited due to procedural participation and low monitoring capacity. The use of information technology supports transparency and accountability but depends on infrastructure availability and digital literacy. This study concludes that corruption prevention in Village Fund management requires a comprehensive and integrated approach. Strengthening governance mechanisms, improving human resource capacity, empowering communities, and enhancing institutional oversight are essential to ensuring transparent, accountable, and integrity-based management of Village Funds, ultimately supporting sustainable rural development.
References
Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2006). Decentralization, corruption and government accountability: An overview. International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, 161–188. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847203106
Gaventa, J., & McGee, R. (2013). The impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. Development Policy Review, 31(S1), s3–s28. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12017
Grindle, M. S. (2007). Going local: Decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. Princeton University Press.
Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling corruption. University of California Press.
Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2009). Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? World Development, 37(3), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.07.002
Mardiasmo. (2018). Public sector accounting. Andi Publisher.
Olken, B. A. (2007). Monitoring corruption: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2), 200–249. https://doi.org/10.1086/517935
Rothstein, B. (2011). The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective. University of Chicago Press.
Shah, A. (2007). Local budgeting. World Bank Publications.
Sukmajati, M., & Aspinall, E. (2014). Money politics in Indonesia: Democracy and corruption. NUS Press.
Transparency International. (2022). Corruption perceptions index. Transparency International.
United Nations Development Programme. (2015). A guide to anti-corruption policy and practice. UNDP.
World Bank. (2017). Enhancing government effectiveness and transparency: The fight against corruption. World Bank Group.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rahima Br. Purba

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.




