165
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance
Volume 1 (2), June 2011
REFUSAL OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETING:
AN INTERPRETIVE CASE STUDY
Ana Sopanah
Economic Faculty, Departement of Accounting, Widyagama University of Malang
Phone: +62-341-492282, Fax: +62-341-496919
Email: anasopanah@yahoo.com
Abstract
Public participation is a process of planning development that involves society members in
making a decision on development projects. This active engagement aims to make the
implementation of projects successful. In the Indonesian context, “Musyawarah Perencanaan
Pembangunan or Musrenbang” (Participatory Development Planning) is a means of
addressing priority activities that cater to the needs and aspirations of society members. In
response to this issue, the purpose of the present study is to investigate how public
participation in development planning was practiced and why the society members refused a
project onwell drilling and construction in Polowijen an area located in East Java. Using an
interpretive paradigm and phenomenological approach, the present study aims to explore
public awareness of rural development projects. The findings show that the existing policies
and regulations exerted an influence on participation mechanisms. Society members’
awareness of involvement in development planning was based on the frequent attendance of
“Musrenbang.” Despite this participation, the development planning was ineffective because
the meeting did not address actual societal needs, had limited information access, and did not
based the planning on the concept of sustainable development. Another finding shows that
the well drilling development was refused. This refusal occurred inasmuch as there were
misunderstanding, no solid coordination, and miscommunication between the two parties
involved. The findings suggest that public participation should be well articulated and
coordinated among the participating society members.
Keywords:
project refusal, local government budgeting, phenomenology, public
participation
1. INTRODUCTION
The implementation of government run development programs generally aims to
solve problems such as poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment. These programs are
commonly funded by the National Budgeting and the Local Government Budgeting in which
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
166
these budgets are spent on public interests to provide excellent public services and improve
public welfare. Findings of my previous empirical studies in 2003-2006 show that the local
development, for example, in Malang one of the cities located in East Java Indonesia did not
address problems faced by the society members. The development project was merely a lip
service and had no knock-on effect on the society; as a result, the development was
unsuccessful.
The failure of this development was attributable to the ineffectiveness of the planning
and implementation of the development. The development planning was ineffective because
there were imposed top-down policies, and the development policies as stipulated in the
Medium and Long Term Development Plans (MLTDPs) did not meet society needs.
Lamentably, in many areas, MLTDPs seemed to be copied and pasted from those written by
other local governments. Indeed, such plans should be drafted based on diverse society needs
and aspirations. Mahardika (2001) maintains that the development project will be
unsuccessful unless the project involves society members in the project planning and
implementation.. This notion implies that a bottom-up approach is more favorable than a topdown approach in which in the bottom-up approach, participatory development planning and
implementation are encouraged. In Bolivia, a country that has the same concern as Indonesia
does, the society protest and rejection of development policy results from lack of public
participation (Radu 2009).
The planning and execution of development are unsuccessful because the project just
benefits policy makers or bureaucrats. Koven (1999) and Wildavsky (2004) point out that
government budgeting is a political game, so government funded development projects favor
bureaucrats. Development rejections by governmental and private sectors often occur in
various areas because policies on Urban Planning or Urban Land use Planning (ULuP) are
violently implemented. For instance, the development rejection in Malang, Matos and MOG
(Malls) and Arjosari and Mergosono Overpasses occurred. More specifically, the well
drilling development funded by the Local Government Budgeting was rejected by local
residents because the society members did not engage in planning and implementation of the
project.
Cooper and Elliot (2000), Layzer (2002), and Navaro (2002) reported that public
participation in development was indispensable because this participation had a significant
impact on development quality. They also found that participatory budgeting model was
effective in the democratic development at a local government level. In a similar vein, a study
by Sopanah (2009a) shows that public participation was crucial in planning a development
budget and implementing the development project. Another finding from the study is that the
informal participation seemed to become more effective than formal participation by the
government because through informal participation, the society members felt the need to
address development issues or problems in a forum called “Rembug Warga”. Drawing on the
previous studies, public participation plays a pivotal role in successful development planning
and implementation. In this participation, society members are involved in decision making
processes.
By contrast, Laurian (2004) and Adams (2004) found that the societal awareness of
participation in public decision-making, including development planning was still low. The
167
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
society members were not eager to attend public meetings to discuss the proposed
development. These results are consistent with Sopanah (2003, 2004, and 2005) where public
participation in the development budgeting was still low. This low participation occurred
because the society members were not well informed of the proposed development project,
and they felt antipathetic to the project. This indicates that the project was not transparent;
only the government and legislative body made a political negotiation which benefitted them.
In the present study, public participation is defined as a process of planning
development in which society members are involved in proposing and planning the
development projects. This participation is also intended to envision successful
implementation of the projects and cater to the societal needs; and it is implemented through
“Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan or Musrenbang (a Meeting on Participatory
Development Planning) at rural, urban, and regional levels. Before this planning is
conducted, each Neighborhood (RT/RW) has a meeting to propose and discuss possible
development and training programs and activities. All the proposals made by neighborhoods
are submitted to Musrenbang Committees to set out priorities at a rural level. This public
participation mechanism is a form of development planning which commonly occurs in
Indonesia.
“Musrenbang” is a platform for addressing priority activities that cater to the societal
needs and aspirations. If the entire planning and budgeting is done in an integrated and
transparent manner, Local Government Budgeting can improve societal welfare. However,
there has been an interesting current issue that the LGRE funded development project was
refused by society members residing in Polowijen, one of the rural areas in Malang. In
response to this phenomenon, there is a need to probe deep into how a societal participation
in rural development was practiced and why people refused a project on well drilling and
construction located in Polowijen.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In the most recent scholarly literature, studies on public participation in budget
planning and project development are extensive. However, there is a paucity of research into
refusal of local government funded rural development project s. For this reason, in this
literature review, I would like to briefly discuss a conceptual framework for public
participation in development and budget planning in the Indonesian context because this
concept underlies my findings.
At a rural level, public participation in development planning is an undertaking or
effort which engages all society members actively in discussing a proposed development
project. This is mediated through a forum or meeting called “Musrenbang” or Participatory
Development Planning. This forum adopts a bottom-up approach, which considers society
members as active actors who can spell out their medium and long-term needs. The
“Musrenbang” is managed and monitored by Empowerment for Rural Society Body (ERSB).
This body can play a role in accommodating societal aspirations, monitoring societal
participation in public development projects, and facilitating Musrenbang activities. Joint
Circular of the State Minister for National Development Planning/Head of Bappenas and the
Ministry of Home Affairs No. 1354/M.PPN/03/2004050/744/SJ on “Guidelines for
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
168
Participatory Planning Forum and the Regional Musrenbang” encourages societal
participation which is the foundation of all development activities.
Although the societal participation is already set out, the current problem arising in
the society is that the existing participation mechanisms do not provide a sufficient
appreciative space for participation because such mechanisms are superficial, manipulative,
and politically laden (Prasetyo 2003). Consequently, the societal needs are not well addressed
and clearly articulated. This case makes society members reluctant to propose and plan
development activities in their own rural area because such activities merely benefit policy
makers and spend allotted development funding unwisely.
In developmental policy, any form of rejection and protest by the society members
results from the low level of participatory planning. Many cases in developing countries
where democracy has not been consolidated yet optimally, such as in Bolivia, development
plans often leave society members out of a decision making process (McNeish 2006).
McNeish (2006) argues that recent protests in Bolivia are linked to the failure to improve
democratic participation in the country where few political elites control the decision making
process.
In a similar vein, Radu (2009 : 76) mentioned that in the case of Romanian, “Even if
citizens have a chance to be heard, the political elected officials hold the control over the
decision-making process”. The aspirations of citizens in relation to development plan or any
other policy is taken for granted without taking follow up actions. The main problem is that
decisions reflect the interest of some leaders or elites which overrides that of the citizens. The
consequence is the dissatisfaction and rejection cases against local policies on development
or public services. Radu (2009) pinpoints that “The main cause for the cases when certain
decisions encounter resistance and dissatisfaction from citizens is that the citizens believe that
the decision-makers choose to address the problems of some interest groups, and not the
general interest of the community” (Radu 2009).
The cases in Bolivia and Romania show how public participation, even there is a good
potential of it, is dominated by some leaders in the decision of developmental plan. Hence in
the case of Bolivia and Romania, the society refused and protested the development project.
Those cases are similar to what happen in the Philippines, Malaysia, or Vietnam. Swain and
Chee (2004) pinpoint that one of the factors of community’s resistance to the policy of ‘Dam’
development in Thailand and Malaysia is the absence of negotiation and deliberation between
community members and policy makers.
In general, the cases of community members’ protest, dissatisfaction, and rejection of
the development projects in Bolivia, Romania, and Southeast Asia, especially in Indonesia
are an important lesson that policy on development should meet community members’
aspirations. So, the goal of development projects, that is to solve problems such as poverty,
unemployment, and underdevelopment are so doable that the projects can improve public
welfare.
169
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
3. METHODS
The present study was conducted in Polowijen, Malang located in East Java. The
informants selected included policy leaders of urban-rural areas, Empowerment for Rural
Area Body members, executive rural development committee members, and community
leaders, and community members refusing the development projects. All the informant names
remain anonymous due to ethical considerations. The empirical data were collected from
February to Juli 2010. The research instruments were direct and participant observations, indepth and group focus interviews, and document or content analysis.
Participant observation was conducted by the researcher directly in the budgeting
process for about six months. The first observation was undertaken on January 30, 2010 in
the event of “Musrenbang kelurahan” an annual discussion forum of stakeholders to come to
an agreement on the Action Plan for Rural Development for the upcoming year. In addition to
attending the “Musrenbang kelurahan”, the researcher attended "rembug warga” a
preparation which is usually held by each village though it is no formal mechanism for this
activity. During “Musrenbang kelurahan”, unstructured interviews were conducted both for
the organizers and the participants in order to explore community involvement in the
Musrenbang forum.
The next step was attending “Musrenbang Kecamatan” on February 27, 2010 in
which this meeting was convened by the District and attended by representatives from
respective villages; there were five people representing these villages). Musrenbang
Kecamatan is a forum which is a platform for building shared commitment, enhancing
Musrenbang Desaprograms, and incorporating possible measures to address development
problems. In other words, the Musrenbang Kecamatan forum allows for an agreement on
action plans regarding national rural development in accordance with the aspirations and
needs of society members. During Musrenbang Kecamatan, unstructured interviews were
conducted both for the organizers and the participants to explore community involvement in
the Musrenbang forum.
The third step was attending the SKPD Forum and “Musrenbang Kabupaten” held on
March 20 – 22, 2010. Focus Group discussion was conducted to synchronize their respective
activities in the SKPD forum. In this forum, there were no representatives of the community
members. Then, the final stage in the preparation of the Budget is the Musrenbang Kabupaten
coordinated by Bappeda and attended by different stakeholders such as SKPD, district,
academics and NGOs. The fourth step was obtaining information on public participation in
the budgeting process. In order to explore issues on refusal of well drilling and construction
located in Polowijen, the researcher interviewed the two : those who are responsible for the
development in the village like LPMK, RT and RW; and the community members refusing
the development project.
The current study adopted a qualitative approach because it gathered and examined
natural phenomena in which it did not answer hypothetical questions. The qualitative
research in accounting and management has been strongly influenced by the publication of
the book of Burrell and Morgan in 1979 on sociological analysis of organization (Ryan,
Scapens, and Theobold 2002). Such development was also driven by the publication of two
leading scientific journals espousing the ideas of doing qualitative research in accounting,
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
170
namely Accounting Organization and Society and Critical Perspective in Accounting.
Currently the qualitative approach is about to be "another mainstream" in European
organization or accounting journals. The qualitative research is now also growing in
Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (Djamhuri 2009).
The research paradigm is interpretive. Anchored in Burrell & Morgan’s work (1979),
interpretive sociology is categorized as sociology of regulation. In this sociology, the
subjectivity of the researcher is not utilized to deconstruct social realities. Borrowing from
Blaikie’s terminology, an interpretive researcher may deliberately decide to “go native”
(Blaikie 2003). The phenomenological approach was used to examine social interactions and
symbols that humans experience and make (Saladien 2006). According to Husserl, the
phenomenological approach examines intrinsic characteristics which feature awareness
(Salim 2001). This approach can be used to explore societal phenomena (e.g., development
project rejections). The analysis in the present study uses to unpack or construe lived
religious, moral, aesthetic, and spiritual experience and awareness. This phenomenological
approach includes (1) phenomenal description, (2) theme identification, (3) noetic-noematic
correlation, and (4) abstraction.
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Public Participation Process
The findings show that the existing participation mechanisms comply with policies
and regulations. The following excerpts describe such findings in detail.
Excerpt 1: Rural or Village Leader (Translated Version)
"Community members’ participation in development in the Polowijen Village in my
opinion is good because the mechanism of societal participation is based on a bottomup approach. Musrenbang activities at a rural level were conducted in JanuaryFebruary in which all community members, leaders, and stakeholders attended such
activities. In these activities, all the parties deserve to be selected as delegates who are
assigned to attend Musrebang at an urban level (SH, February 20, 2010)
In a similar vein, an urban or district leader said that in the Polowijen Village,
community participation in planning a budget for the rural development abides by regulations
and policies set out by the central government. This can be further seen in the following
excerpt.
Excerpt 2: Urban or District Leader (Translated Version)
"Public participation in the Village District Polowijen Blimbing in the budget process
is good because most villagers attended the Musrenbang Forum. This participation is
also high because there are block grants for rural development programs. This funding
seems to encourage rural people to participate in the development in which allotted
funding is worth 500 million rupiahs or 62,500 AUD per village. To my knowledge,
this funding is the highest in Indonesia. (S, March, 8, 2010)
171
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
As further confirmed by the Head of Data and Research BAPPEDA Malang (Regional
Development Planning Bureau, which coordinates the implementation of Musrenbang at a
regional level, Malang), the following excerpt shows the same opinions as what rural and
urban leaders said.
Excerpt 3: Head of Data and Research BAPPEDA Malang (Translated Version)
"In my opinion, the Musrenbang in rural and urban areas in Malang is implemented in
accordance with laws and regulations. This Musrenbang at a rural level aims to
propose and accommodate possible programs which suit their rural needs. The
Musrenbang at a district level aims to identify priority programs as proposed by the
rural Musrenbang committee. The Urban Musrenbang is responsible for planning
priority programs as proposed by the District Musrenbang. (MS, May, 5, 2010).
What the informants from the governmental leaders articulated shows that the societal
awareness of development projects is high. This is a starting point for building democracy
and boosting welfare. This finding seems to be positive in relation to public participation.
However, from the perspectives of rural society members and leaders, three main problems
occurred.
The first problem faced by the society members pertains to societal needs analysis on
the implementation of Musrenbang. The societal needs were not thoroughly addressed. One
of the informants says:
Excerpt 4: Community Female Leader (Translated Version)
"As one of the LPMK committee member, I myself felt that public participation in the
proposed development was ineffective because several programs funded by local
government budgeting did not meet the community needs. For example, many
community members would have Program X funded, but another program (Program
Y) was prioritized and funded because Program Y was proposed by one who has a
close relationship with the governmental leaders. (AS, February, 20, 2010)
Another problem is no information access to the implementation of Musrenbang.
Only a few community members were well informed of the development activities, as
articulated by another community leader:
Excerpt 5: Community Male Leader (Translated Version)
"I think the community members participated in the government run development.
But, the actual implementation was not effective because only a small number of
community members had information access to development project plans and
development mobilization was of top priority where development quality was
disregarded. (HS, March, 27, 2010)
The last problem is development sustainability. All the government run development
projects did not seem to be continual. This finding can be shown in the following excerpt:
Excerpt 6: District Level Communication Forum Chair (Translated Version)
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
172
"Community participation in development through the mechanism of Musrenbang in
my opinion is less effective because many development programs proposed by the
society members were rejected by the government authorities. The most important
thing is that all the projects do not seem sustainable. Such projects merely spent all
allotted budgets and catered to political interests which overrode the sustainability
principle."(MW, March, 8, 2010)
Drawing on the data gathered from participant observations, in-depth and group focus
interviews, first finding shows that the public participation in development projects was high
and the public participation mechanisms abided by the existing policies and regulations. The
findings show awareness of the society members’ involvements in planning development was
good in terms of the number of attendance at “Musrenbang”. This allows for building
democracy and boosting welfare as earlier pointed out. This supports findings previously
found by Sopanah (2009a and 2009b), and the finding supports Cooper and Elliot (2000),
Layzer (2002), and Navaro (2002) that public participation in development is indispensable,
and this participation exerts a significant impact on development quality.
Furthermore, Callahan (2002) and Ebdon (2002) have arrived at the same findings
that public participation in budgeting planning to project development is very important.
Ebdon (2002) also points out that the lack of participation brings about distrust, resistance,
internal conflicts, and dysfunctional behaviors. As argued by Flamholtz (1983: 153), some
distrust in planning budgeting process to project development results in low participation.
This finding seems to be positive regarding the public participation in planning project
development. This participation has knock-on impacts on the development of the project.
4.2. Well Drilling Rejection
With regards to the second question statement, the grounds for the rejection of well
drilling development in Polowijen were articulated by two parties: government authorities or
representatives and community members.
Excerpt 7: Empowerment for Rural Society Body Chair (Translated Version)
"I do regret that the refusal of the development project happened. Actually, all the
community members know that this development is a need since their rural leaders
signed the development project plans. Out of thirty proposed projects, only one
seemed to arouse a problem. I do not want this problem to be publicly exposed. I am
sure that this problem arose due to miscommunication. (EF, July, 27, 2010).
This is confirmed by Technical Committee Chair as follows:
Excerpt 8: Technical Committee Chair (Translated Version)
"... I do not know why people rejected the development project. They do not seem to
know that I have revised development project proposals several times and how hard I
have worked for them at an administrative level. I was wondering why this project
was refused since the allotted funding was available for the development project. The
173
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
people just enjoyed the drilled well. I think that this case is not serious and just needs
mutual understanding. (S, July, 27, 2010).
Drawing on the development rejection case, one neighborhood leader (RW) had the
same opinions as what the two informants as earlier mentioned. He says:
Excerpt 9: One Rural Leader (Translated Version)
"The construction of well drilling was proposed by the Elderly community members.
But, this construction was rejected by most community members because it was
drilled in an inappropriate location (Front Rural Hall self funded by the community
members). Most community members were not involved in discussing this
construction plan and location. The community members felt that what they built was
displaced by a new development project without considering a multiplier impact. I
think that this case is sort of misunderstanding and miscommunication. (S, July, 26,
2010)
By contrast, another neighborhood leader (RT) says:
Excerpt 10: Another Rural Leader (Translated Version)
"Frankly, I do not know the proposed development project in detail. Indeed, the night
before well drilling, the RW let me know that project, but he did not inform me of the
project location. The person who wrote a proposal did not coordinate this plan with
me. So, I was surprised when community members reported to me that there was a
demonstration against a well drilling project. They wanted this project to cease. I
think that the community members felt irritated, so this protest happened (SR, July,
26, 2010).
It is important to know what the person in charge who wrote the proposal said, as seen
in the following excerpt.
Excerpt 12: Elderly Community Representative (Translated Version)
"I think that the location is appropriate because it is close to “Elderly Posyandu
Activity. This proposed development project helps us improve the facility. I talked
about it to RW leader without discussing this with community members and RT
leader because I assumed that the RW leader would inform all the RT leaders and
community members of this. I never thought that the community members did a
demonstration against the project. I think they could make use of this artesian well.
(B, July, 27, 2010).
The following experts show demonstrators’ perspectives of well drilling project.
Excerpt 12: Demonstrator Representatives (Translated Version)
12.a. Demonstrator 1
"The Hall of RT was self-funded. I do not mind that the Elderly Posyandu Community
makes use of that hall for their activity. What I do mind is that the artesian well was
built in front hall without permission. Of course, we felt offended. (A, July, 28, 2010).
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
174
12.b. Demonstrator 2
"I am a resident who first stopped the project. The reason for this is that I need to ask
all community members to show mutual respect with one another. We need to have a
meeting, a discussion, and coordination regarding this project. I hate someone who
likes to propose a project because his relationship is close to the RW leader. (SR, July,
28, 2010)
12.c. Demonstrator 3
"We realized that we did not refuse the artesian well construction because what we
proposed was irrigation construction and road repair because these projects really suit
what we are in need. (IW, July, 28, 2010)
Drawing on the findings above, the rural development projects do not involve all the
community members. This results in project refusal and failure. This study supports Swain
and Chee (2004), McNeish (2006), and Radu (2009). Swain and Chee (2004) argues that one
of the factors of community’s resistance of the policy on ‘Dam’ development in Thailand and
Malaysia is the absence of negotiation and deliberation between community members and
policy makers. McNesih (2006) adds that recent protests in Bolivia are linked to the failure of
efforts to improve democratic participation in the country in which few political elites control
the decision making process. In addition, Radu (2009:90) points out that “the main cause for
the cases when certain decisions encounter resistance and dissatisfaction from citizens is that
the citizens believe that the decision-makers choose to address the problems of some interest
groups, and not the general interest of the community”.
Generally, the case of community members’ protest, dissatisfaction, and rejection of
the development project in Indonesia happened because of misunderstanding, no solid
coordination, and miscommunication. This finding is compatible with those of the studies in
Bolivia, Romania, and Southeast Asia. Thus, the purposes of development need to be well
articulated and coordinated among the participating society members.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings and discussions, the existing participation mechanisms comply
with policies and regulations, and the awareness of society’s engagement in planning
development is fairly good as indicated by the high attendance at the Musrenbang. Although
all the policies and regulations of the implementation of rural development are clearly
stipulated, the actual development planning is ineffective due to no societal needs, limited
information access, and no development sustainability. This participation is also high because
there are block grants for rural development projects, which expectedly suit societal needs
and interests. This funding seems to be a trigger for the high society’s participation because
the allotted funding is considered the highest in Indonesia.
The rejection of well drilling development in Polowijen as reported by two parties:
government representatives and community members’ results from misunderstanding, no
175
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
solid coordination, and miscommunication. This phenomenon has become a conflict of
interest between government parties and community members because the government
parties always practice top-down decision making. This practice does not seem to suit
community members who need bottom-up decision making where all community members
are well involved in development project planning and implementation, and their aspirations
and needs are well accommodated. The findings also suggest that the participatory
development planning and implementation is favorable in this case study.
Implications of this study are summarized as follows (1) rural governments need to
accommodate the needs and interests of all community members; (2) society members are
expected to be actively involved in development planning, implementation, and monitoring;
(3). Empowerment for Rural Society Body (ERSB) should function as a medium of
communicating societal needs and interests to neighborhood leaders. Anchored in these
implications, further studies into the mechanism of public participatory development
planning and implementation at a rural level need to be undertaken.
REFERENCES
Adams, B, “Public Meeting and the Democratic Process.“ Public Administration Review, 64,
Issue 4 (2004): 43-54.
Blaikie, N. W. H. Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2003.
Callahan, K. “The Utilization and Effectiveness of Citizen Advisory Committees in the
Budget Process of Local Governments.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and
Financial Management 14, No. 9 (2003): 295-319.
Burrel, G. and G. Morgan. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of
the sociology of corporate life. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 1979.
Cooper, L. M. and J. A. Elliot. Public Participation and Social Acceptability in the Philippine
EIA Process. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM)
2, Issue 3 (2000): 339-367.
Djamhuri, Ali. “A Case Study of Governmental Accounting and Budgeting eform at Local
Authority in Indonesia: an Institutionalist Perspective,” Thesis for the Degree of Doctor
Philosophy at the School of Management Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2009.
Ebdon, C. “Beyond the Public Hearing: Citizen Participation in The Local Government
Budgeting Process.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial
Management 4, No. 2 (2002): 273-294.
Flamholtz Eric G., “Accounting, Budgeting and Control System and their Organizational
Context: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives.” Journal of Accounting Organization
and Society 8 (1983) 153–169.
Koven, S.G. Public Budgeting in United States; The Cultural and Ideological settings.
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1999.
Layzer, J. A. “Citizen Participation and Goverment Choice in Local Environmental
Controversies.” Policy Studies Journal 30, No 2 (2002): 193-207.
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
176
Laurian, Lucie. Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making: Findings from
Communities Facing Toxic Waste Cleanup, Winter, 2004.
Mahardika, Timur. Pendidikan Politik Pemberdayaan Desa: Panduan Prakti. Jogjakarta:
Pustaka Utama LAPERA, 2001.
McNeish, J-A. “Stones on the Road: The Politics of Participation and the Generation of
Crisis in Bolivia.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 25, No. 2 (2006): 220–240.
Navarro, Zander. “Dezentralization, Participation and Social Control of Public Resources:
Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil,” In Papers fromCitizen Partisipation
in the Context of Fiscal Decentralization: the Best practices in Municipal
Administration, Tokyo dan Kobe Japan, September 2002.
Prasetyo, Ngesti. Studi Identifikasi Pembuatan Kebijakan Bidang APBD di Kota Malang. PP
Otoda Universitas Brawijaya Malang Kerjasama dengan Yappika Jakarta, 2003.
Radu, Bianca. Citizen Participation In The Decision Making Process At Local And County
Levels In The Romanian Public Institutions (2009). http://www.rtsa.ro/en/files/TRAS31E-5-HARUTA,%20RADU.pdf (October 2011).
Ryan, B., Scapens, R. W. and M. Theobold. Research Method and Methodology in Finance
and Accounting (Second ed.). London: Thomson, 2002.
Salim, A. Teori dan Paradigma Penelitian Sosial; Buku Sumber Untuk Penelitian Kualitatif
(Edisi kedua) Yogyakarta: Penerbit Tiara Wacana, 2001.
Saladien. “Rancangan Penelitian Kualitatif. Modul Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif.”
Presented at Pelatihan Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif Program Studi Ilmu
Ekonomi, Fakultas Ekonomi, Universitas Brawijaya, 6-7 Desember 2006.
Sopanah. “Pengaruh Partisipasi Masyarakat dan Transparansi Kebijakan Publik Terhadap
Hubungan antara Pengetahuan Dewan tentang Anggaran dengan Pengawasan
Keuangan Daerah.” Procedings Papers from Simposium Nasional akuntansi VI,
Membangun Citra Akuntan melalui Peningkatan Kualitas Pengetahuan, Pendidikan
dan Etika Bisnis, Surabaya, 16-17 Oktober 2003.
Sopanah. “Memantau Anggaran Pendapatan Belanja Daerah (APBD) Dalam Kerangka
Peningkatan Akuntabilitas Publik Di Era Otonomi Daerah.” Jurnal Manajemen
Akuntansi dan Bisnis I, No. 2 (2004): pp. 1-14.
Sopanah dkk. “Partisipasi Masyarakat Dalam Proses Penyusunan APBD di Kota Malang.”
Unpublished Research Report, Kerjasama MCW dan Yapika Jakarta, 2004.
Sopanah, dan I. Wahyudi. “Strategi Penguatan Partisipasi Rakyat terhadap Pengawasan
dalam Proses Penyusunan dan Pelaksanaan APBD Kota Malang.” Papers from
Simposium Riset II ISEI, Percepatan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi dan Pengurangan
Pengangguran, Surabaya 23-24 November 2005.
Sopanah. “Strategi Penguatan Masyarakat sipil dalam meminimalisasi Distorsi Penyusunan
APBD Kota Malang.” Papers from Simposium Riset II ISEI, Percepatan Pertumbuhan
Ekonomi dan Pengurangan Pengangguran, Surabaya 23-24 November 2005.
Sopanah. “Model Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Proses Penyusunan APBD di Kota Malang.”
Papers from Simposium Riset Akuntansi Sektor Publik Ke II, Kerjasama 2009a
Depdagri dengan Forum Dosen Akuntansi Sektor Publik
177
Sopanah, Refusal of A Local Government Budgeting: An Interpretive Case …..
Sopanah. “Studi Fenomenologis: Menguak Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Proses Penyusunan
APBD.” Papers from Simposium Nasional Akuntansi (SNA) 12 Palembang,
Universitas Sriwijaya Palembang, 4-6 November 2009b.
Swain, Ashok and Chee, Ang Ming. Political Structure and ‘Dam’ Conflicts: Comparing
Cases
in
Southeast
Asia
(2004).
http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/Library/Publications_and_reports/Pr
oceedings_Water_Politics/proceedings_waterpol_pp.95-114.pdf (October 2011).
Wildavsky, A. The New Politic of Budgetary Process (Fifth edition). New York: Pearson,
2004.