Accounting standards for semi-autonomous agencies: Experiences and lessons from Indonesia

Budi Waluyo

Abstract


The adoption of accrual accounting in government agencies has been so widespread. Following the global trend, Indonesian administration has implemented governmental accounting standards for its agencies. This study aims to explain accounting standards in the context of agencification, i.e. the use of semi-autonomous agencies to deliver public services. The paper explores formulation and implementation of accounting standards by investigating case studies from semi-autonomous agencies in Indonesia. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews with agency officials, policymakers, standards-setters, and experts. The results were analyzed through an inductive-deductive approach. The study shows that whilst accrual accounting has stimulated fundamental change on financial reporting in the agencies, thus dual accounting standards at the beginning of the adoption is considered unnecessary by agency managers, policymakers, and standard-setter. The research also finds a constraint in the accounting system design that could hinder agencies to improve their financial reporting.

Keywords


Accounting Standards, Accrual Accounting; Agencification; Government Accounting; Semi-Autonomous Agencies

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bach, T. (2012). Germany. Verhoest, K., Van Thiel, S., Bouckaert, G. and Lægreid, P. In Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 166–178.

Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.

Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., and Walsh, P. (1996). Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Bouckaert, G., & Verhoest, K. (1999). A Comparative Perspective on Decentralisation As a Context for Contracting in the Public Sector: Practice and Theory, in Y. Fortin (Eds.), La Contractualisation dans le Secteur Public des Pays Industrialisés depuis 1980. Paris: Harmattan.

Christensen, T., Lie, A., and Laegreid, P. (2008). Beyond New Public Management: agencification and regulatory reform in Norway. Financial Accountability & Management, 24(1), 15–30.

Douma, S., & Schreuder, H. (1998). Economic Approaches to Organizations, 2nd edition. London and New York: Prentice Hall.

Dunleavy, P. (1991). Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice: Economic Explanations in Political Science. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2009). Political leadership and bureaucratic autonomy: Effects of agencification. Governance, 22(4), 673–688.

Flinders, M. (2004). Distributed public governance in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 82(4), 883–909.

Flinders, M., & Smith, M. (1999). Realizing the democratic potential of quangos, in Flinders, M., & Smith, M. (Ed.), Quangos, Accountability and Reform: The Politics of Quasi-Government. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 201–210.

Gains, F. (1999). Understanding Department - Next Steps Agency Relationships, (PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield).

George, A. L., & Bannet, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. London: MIT Press.

Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Greve, C., Flinders, M., and Van Thiel, S. (1999). Quangos — what’s in a name? defining quangos from a comparative perspective. Governance, 12(2), 129–146.

Harun, H., Peursem, K. V., and Eggleton, I. (2012). Institutionalization of accrual accounting in the Indonesian public sector. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 8(3), 257–285.

Hood, C., & Jackson, M. (1991). Administrative Argument. Dartmouth: Aldershot.

Ika, S. R., & Widagdo, A. K. (2013). Transitioning from cash basis to full accrual basis of Indonesian public sector: Obstacles and recent progresses. Jurnal Bisnis dan Ekonomi EFEKTIF, 4(1), 48–61.

James, O. (2000). The 'Next Steps' agency model in UK central government 1988-1998 with special reference to the Benefits Agency (PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science).

James, O. (2003). The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest Versus Bureau-shaping Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

James, O., Petrovsky, N. Moseley, A., and Boyne, G. A. (2015). The politics of agency death: ministers and the survival of government agencies in a parliamentary system. British Journal of Political Science), 1–22.

Kasim, E. Y. (2015). Restatement and accrual basis issue in government accounting in Indonesia, the first International Conference on Economics and Banking, Atlantis Press.

Kosar, K. R. (2011). The Quasi Governmnet: Hybrid Organisations with Both Governmnet and Private Sector Legal Characeristics, Congressional Research Service, Report for Congress. Retrieved from: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30533.pdf

Migué, J. L., Bélangér, G., and Niskanen, W. (1974). Toward a general theory of managerial discretion. Public Choice, 17(1), 27–47.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Nasi, G., & Steccolini, I. (2008). Implementation of accounting reforms. Public Management Review, 10(2), 175–196.

Niskanen, W.A. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

OECD. (2002). Distributed Public Governance: Agencies, Authorities and Other Autonomous Bodies. Paris: OECD.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plum Book.

Overman, S., & van Thiel, S. (2016). Agencification and public sector performance: A systematic comparison in 20 countries. Public Management Review, 18(4), 611–635.

Pierre, J. (2004). Central agencies in Sweden: a report from Utopia, in Pollit, C., & Talbot, C. (Eds.), Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. New York: Routledge, 319–341.

Pliatzky, L. (1992). Quangos and agencies. Public Administration, 70(4), 555–563.

Pollit, C. (2016). Advanced Introduction to Public Management and Administration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Pollit, C., Bathgate, K., Caulfield, J., Smullen, A., and Talbot, C. (2001). Agency fever? Analysis of an international policy fashion. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 3(3), 271–290.

Pollitt, C. (2004). Theoretical overview, in Pollitt, C. and Talbot, C. (Eds.), Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. New York: Routledge, 319–341.

Pollitt, C., & Talbot, C. (2004). Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. London: Routledge.

Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J., and Smullen, A. (2004). Agencies: How Governments do things through Semi-Autonomous Organizations. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ribbens, J. (1989). Interviewing: An ‘unnatural situation’? Women's Studies International Forum, 12,(6), 579–592.

Sahlin-Anderson, K. (1996). Imitating by editing success: the construction of organizational fields, in Czarniawksa, B. and Sevon, G (Eds) Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: De Guyter, 69–91.

Schick, A. (2002). Why most developing countries should not try New Zealand reforms. The World Bank Research Observer, 13(1), 123–31.

Siallagan, W. & Stewart, J. (2014). Implementing financial management reform in Indonesia: The significance of within-country variability. Asian Review of Public Administration, 25(2), 64–77.

Smullen, A. (2004). Lost in translation? shifting interpretations of the concept of agency: the Dutch case, in Pollit, C., & Talbot, C. (Eds.), Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. London: Routledge.

Talbot, C. (2004). The Agency Idea. Sometimes Old, Sometimes New, Sometimes Borrowed, Sometimes Untrue, in Pollit, C., & Talbot, C. (Eds.), Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. New York: Routledge.

Taliercio, R. (2004). The design, performance and sustainability of semi-autonomous revenue authorities in Africa and Latin America, in Pollit, C., & Talbot, C. (Eds.), Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. New York: Routledge.

Thynne, I. (2003). Making sense of organizations in public management: A back-to-basics approach. Public Organization Review, 332, 317–332.

Trondal, J. (2014). Agencification. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 545–549.

Van Thiel, S. (2001). Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Van Thiel, S. (2004a). Quangos in Dutch Government, in Pollit, C., & Talbot, C. (Eds.), Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. New York: Routledge, 167–183.

Van Thiel, S. (2004b). Trends in the public sector: Why politicians prefer quasi-autonomous organizations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16(2), 175–201.

Verhoest, K., Roness, P., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K., and MacCarthaigh, M. (2010). Autonomy and Control of State Agencies: Comparing States and Agencies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Verhoest, K., Van Thiel, S., Bouckaert, G., and Lægreid, P. (2012). Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yamamoto, K. (2004). 'Agencification in Japan: Renaming or revolution?', in Pollit, C., & Talbot, C. (Eds.), Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. New York: Routledge.

Yesilkagit, K. (2004). Bureaucratic autonomy, organizational culture and habituation. Administration and Society, 36(5), 528–552.

Yesilkagit, K., & van Thiel, S. (2008). Political influence and bureaucratic autonomy. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 137–153.

Yin, R. E. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage Publications.

Young, S., Nagpal, S., and Adams, C. A. (2016). Sustainable procurement in Australian and UK universities. Public Management Review, 18(7), 993–1016.




DOI: http://doi.org/10.33312/ijar.539

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research (IJAR)

Editorial Secretariat

Master of Science and Doctoral Programs
Faculty of Economics and Business, Gadjah Mada University

Jl. Nusantara, Bulaksumur Yogyakarta 55281
CP : Novita
Phone  : +62 85227764898
Fax    : +62 274 524606
Website: http://ijar-iaikapd.or.id/
Email  : sekretariat@ijar-iaikapd.or.id

Marketing and Sales Office

Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia
Graha Akuntan, Jl. Sindanglaya No.1 Menteng, Jakarta Pusat 10310
CP : Reza Fauzi
Divisi Pelayanan, Keanggotaan dan Mitra IAI.
Grha Akuntan, Jl. Sindanglaya No.1, Menteng.
Telp.021-31904232 Ext.324/321

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISSN 2086-6887 (Print)
ISSN 2655 - 1748 (online)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creative Commons License

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

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------