Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 334 Download : 438

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The high level and trend of corruption in Indonesia Province could hinder the goal of Sustainable Development Goals point 16. This study aims to identify disclosures of integrity through websites and classify the Indonesia Provinces into 3 categories, namely high, medium, and low based on the integrity disclosure index using institutional theory. The data is based on content analysis to analyze practices through disclosure of integrity on 34 Indonesian Province websites using the Integrity Framework Disclosure Index instrument. The findings indicate that Indonesia has disclosed 775 items (48%). The items of vision, mission, and integrity report are the biggest disclosed items among other items that show Indonesia’s effort to create a “good image” in the public eyes. Several Provinces are in the moderate category because of a strategic issue in the field of education. Local governments still have to review the increase in integrity disclosure on websites and their real-life implementation to improve integrity and fight corruption in Indonesia.

Keywords

Integrity disclosure website disclosure institutional theory local government sustainable development goals

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Hellenikapoulos, M., & Utami, I. (2021). How strong is the integrity disclosure in Indonesian Province website?. Journal of Contemporary Accounting, 3(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.20885/jca.vol3.iss1.art4
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abadi, T. W., Prajarto, N., & Guntoro, B. (2014). Performance e-government untuk peningkatan partisipasi masyarakat dalam pembangunan infrastruktur di Kabupaten Sidoarjo. Jurnal Kawistara, 4(3), 225–330. https://doi.org/10.22146/kawistara.6379
  2. Ahyaruddin, M., & Akbar, R. (2016). The relationship between the use of a performance measurement system, organizational factors, accountability, and the performance of public sector organizations. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, 31(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.10317
  3. Al-Mamari, Q., Corbitt, B., & Gekara, V. O. (2013). E-government adoption in Oman: Motivating factors from a government perspective. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7(2), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161311325369
  4. Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan. (2016). Faktor-Faktor Penyebab Kepala Daerah Korupsi. BPKP. http://www.bpkp.go.id/puslitbangwas/konten/2674/16.050-Faktor-Faktor-Penyebab-Kepala-Daerah-Korupsi
  5. Changwony, F. K., & Paterson, A. S. (2019). Accounting practice, fiscal decentralization and corruption. British Accounting Review, 51(5), 100834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.04.003
  6. Cheng, R. . (1944). A Politico-economic model of government accounting policy choice. Emerald.
  7. Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to thr special research forum. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069284
  8. Díez-Martín, F., Prado-Roman, C., & Blanco-González, A. (2013). Beyond legitimacy: Legitimacy types and organizational success. Management Decision, 51(10), 1954–1969. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2012-0561
  9. Dillard, J. F., Rigsby, J. T., & Goodman, C. (2004). The making and remaking of organization context: Duality and the institutionalization process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(4), 506–542. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570410554542
  10. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 149. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
  11. Ekasari, K., Eltivia, N., & Soedarso, E. H. (2019). Analisis konten terhadap pengungkapan etika dan integritas pada sustainability reporting. Journal of Research and Application: Accounting and Management, 4(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.18382/jraam.v4i1.008
  12. Fernando, S., & Lawrence, S. (2011). A theoretical framework for CSR practices: Integrating legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and intitutional work. The Journal of Theoritical Accounting, 10(1), 149–178.
  13. García-Tabuyo, M., Saez-Martin, A., & Caba-Perez, C. (2017). Proactive disclosure of public information: Legislative choice worldwide. Online Information Review, 41(3), 354–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2016-0054
  14. Huberts, L. W. J. C. (2018). Integrity: What it is and why it is Important. Public Integrity, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2018.1477404
  15. IBAC. (2015). A review of integrity frameworks in six Victorian councils. In Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Comission. ibac.vic.gov.au/docs/default-source/reviews/a-review-of-integrity-frameworks-in-six-victorian-councils.pdf?sfvrsn=1876a75_11
  16. Indonesia Corruption Watch. (2017). Kasus Korupsi Di Provinsi. Indonesia Corruption Watch. https://antikorupsi.org/id/galeri/kasus-korupsi-di-provinsi
  17. Joseph, C., Gunawan, J., Madi, N., Janggu, T., Rahmat, M., & Mohamed, N. (2019). Realising sustainable development goals via online integrity framework disclosure: Evidence from Malaysian and Indonesian local authorities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 112–122. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.057
  18. Junaidi, I. K. P. (2018). Korupsi, pertumbuhan ekonomi dan kemiskinan di Indonesia. Riset Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia, 3(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.23917/reaksi.v3i1.5609
  19. Khalid, M. A., Alam, M. M., & Said, J. (2016). Empirical assessment of good governance in the public sector of Malaysia. Economics and Sociology, 9(4), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-4/18
  20. KPK. (2019). Pola Korupsi Pemerintah Daerah dan Pimpinan Transformasional. Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. Pola korupsi pemerintah daerah dan pimpinan transformasional
  21. KPK. (2020). 3 strategi pemberantasan korupsi. Pusat Edukasi Antikorupsi.
  22. Kristiyanto, E. N. (2019). Urgensi keterbukaan informasi dalam penyelenggaraan pelayanan publik. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 19(10), 517–538.
  23. Kurniawan, F., Rakhmawati, N. A., Abadi, A. N., Zuhri, M., & Sugiyanto, W. T. (2017). Indonesia local government information completeness on the web. Procedia Computer Science, 124, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.125
  24. Lee, T. (David). (2017). Clear, conspicuous, and improving: US corporate websites for critical financial literacy in retirement. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(5), 761–780. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-01-2016-0010
  25. Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553–563. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/256976
  26. Macaulay, M., Hickey, G., & Begum, N. (2013). Local government in England: Fault lines in ethical governance? Looking for Consensus?: Civil Society, Social Movements and Crises for Public Management, 2, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2045-7944(2013)0000002018
  27. Maesschalck, J., & Bertok, J. (2009). Towards a Sound Integrity Framework: Instruments, Processes, Structures and Conditions for Implementation. Global Forum on Public Governance.
  28. Michener, G., & Bersch, K. (2013). Identifying transparency. Information Polity, 18(3), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-130299
  29. Midin, M., Joseph, C., & Mohamed, N. (2017). Promoting societal governance: Stakeholders’ engagement disclosure on Malaysian local authorities’ websites. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(4), 1672–1683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.122
  30. Nobanee, H., & Ellili, N. (2017). Anti-money laundering disclosures and banks’ performance. Journal of Financial Crime, 25(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-10-2016-0063
  31. Nor, W., Hudaya, M., & Novriyandana, R. (2019). Financial statements disclosure on Indonesian local government websites. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 4(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajar-06-2019-0043
  32. Prabowo, H. Y., Sriyana, J., & Syamsudin, M. (2018). Forgetting corruption: Unlearning the knowledge of corruption in the Indonesian public sector. In Journal of Financial Crime (Vol. 25, Issue 1, pp. 28–56). https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-07-2016-0048
  33. Ratmono, D. (2013). Pelaporan keuangan pemerintah daerah di internet: Pengujian teori institusional dan keagenan. Media Ilmiah Akuntansi, 1(2), 28–48.
  34. Rini, R., & Damiati, L. (2017). Analisis asil audit pemerintahan dan tingkat korupsi pemerintahan provinsi di Indonesia. Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi Dan Bisnis, 4(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.24815/jdab.v4i1.4933
  35. Said, J., Alam, M. M., & Aziz, M. A. B. A. (2015). Public accountability system: Empirical assessment of public sector of Malaysia. Asian Journal of Scientific Research, 8(2), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajsr.2015.225.236
  36. Transparency International. (2020a). CPI 2019 Global Highlights. Transparency International. https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2019-global-highlights#
  37. Transparency International. (2020b). The importance of political integrity in eradicating corruption in Indonesia. Transparency International. https://voices.transparency.org/the-importance-of-political-integrity-in-indonesia-36b6daf38e82
  38. Transparency International. (2020c). What is Corruption? Transparency International. https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption
  39. Zheng, D., Chen, J., Huang, L., & Zhang, C. (2013). E-government adoption in public administration organizations: Integrating institutional theory perspective and resource-based view. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.28