Abstract
This study aims to describe and analyze the use of village funds in poverty alleviation and the factors that influence the use of village funds sourced from the State Budget for poverty alleviation. The research used the case study method. The results showed that the utilization of village fund had been implemented in accordance with the Regent Regulation No. 6 of 2019 concerning technical instructions and procedures for the distribution and determination of details of village fund given to 142 villages in 13 sub-districts, allocated equally and fairly based on the basic allocation, affirmation allocation, and formula allocation calculated by taking into account the number of villagers, the village poverty rate, the area of the village and the level of geographical difficulty. In terms of utilization of village fund through a mechanism agreed upon in the village deliberations as the highest village forum involving village government officials, the Village Consultative Body, and elements of the village community, the use, and utilization of village fund which increase every year are more prioritized in Physical Village development (95.28%) of the total village fund, compared to the use of village fund for community development and empowerment activities (4.72%) for poverty reduction, and the use of village fund has not significantly reduced poverty rates in rural areas. Factors that influence the use of village funds are (1) conflicting regulations on the use of village funds, (2) weak supervision from both government officials and the community, (3) the low commitment of village elites in utilizing village funds to reduce poverty rates in rural areas.
Highlights
Village autonomy is the right, authority, and obligation to regulate and manage government affairs and community interests, based on the rights of origin and socio-cultural values that exist in the community to grow and develop following the development of the village
The results showed that the utilization of village fund had been implemented in accordance with the Regent Regulation No 6 of 2019 concerning technical instructions and procedures for the distribution and determination of details of village fund given to 142 villages in 13 subdistricts, allocated and fairly based on the basic allocation, affirmation allocation, and formula allocation calculated by taking into account the number of villagers, the village poverty rate, the area of the village and the level of geographical difficulty
In terms of utilization of village fund through a mechanism agreed upon in the village deliberations as the highest village forum involving village government officials, the Village Consultative Body, and elements of the village community, the use, and utilization of village fund which increase every year are more prioritized in Physical Village development (95.28%) of the total village fund, compared to the use of village fund for community development and empowerment activities (4.72%) for poverty reduction, and the use of village fund has not significantly reduced poverty rates in rural areas
Summary
Village autonomy is the right, authority, and obligation to regulate and manage government affairs and community interests, based on the rights of origin and socio-cultural values that exist in the community to grow and develop following the development of the village. The regulations regarding the procedures for the distribution and determination of details of Village fund for each Village in Wajo District have been contained in the technical instruction for the use of Village fund, based on the Wajo Regent Regulation No 3 of 2017 With this technical instruction, the Village Government is required to manage the Village fund effectively and accountably. There is a strong and developing impression among the community that the utilization of village fund sourced from the State Budget, which is billions of rupiah, has not provided significant benefits for poverty alleviation in Wajo District, especially in rural areas, where the poverty rate is still relatively high around 13%, while the national average poverty rate is 9.41%
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
