Digital budget transparency and perceived budget credibility: Technocratic and normative mechanisms in Indonesian local governments
-
Author(s)Renny MaisyarahLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7808-9749
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/pmf.15(1).2026.04
-
Article InfoVolume 15 2026, Issue #1, pp. 43-57
- 5 Views
-
1 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
Budget credibility is a critical indicator of fiscal reliability in local governments, yet the mechanisms through which digital transparency enhances credibility remain poorly understood. This study examines how digital budget transparency influences perceived budget credibility in Indonesian regency and city governments, using performance information (technocratic mechanism) and procedural justice (normative mechanism) as two parallel mediating pathways. The technocratic mechanism reflects the instrumental application of budget data in planning and decision-making, while the normative mechanism reflects perceptions of fairness and legitimacy in budgeting processes. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling with data from 362 public officials (specifically heads of planning agencies, budget officials, and financial managers) across 33 regencies and city governments in North Sumatera, Indonesia, the study tests these dual pathways. Results show that digital budget transparency has only a modest direct effect on perceived budget credibility (β = 0.118), but exerts far greater influence through mediation. Procedural justice proved to be the primary mediating mechanism (indirect effect β = 0.081), with the use of performance information serving as a secondary pathway (β = 0.035). Multi-group analysis confirms that these relationships hold across both regency and city governments. The findings suggest that digital transparency by itself will not improve budget credibility. Its influence hinges on whether disclosed information actually gets used in decision-making and whether budgeting processes are perceived as fair. Reforms should, therefore, target both information usability and procedural legitimacy if they are to strengthen fiscal discipline in decentralized governance systems.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)H72, H83, D73
-
References41
-
Tables8
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Measurement model
-
- Table 1. Respondent characteristics
- Table 2. Descriptive statistics
- Table 3. Measurement model evaluation
- Table 4. Discriminant validity (HTMT and Fornell–Larcker criterion)
- Table 5. Path coefficient results
- Table 6. Cross-validated redundancy (Q²) and adjusted R²
- Table 7. MICOM (measurement invariance assessment) results
- Table 8. Multi-group analysis (MGA) results
-
- Anindito, D. B., Sagala, S. A., & Tarigan, A. K. M. (2022). E-musrenbang: A digital framework for local participatory planning at the community level. International Development Planning Review, 44(2), 191-216.
- Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396-402.
- Battaglio, R. P., Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2019). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: A synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304-320.
- Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., Sicilia, M., & Steccolini, I. (2018). Framing effects under different uses of performance information: An experimental study on public managers. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 841-851.
- Brändle, T., & Elsener, M. (2024). Do fiscal rules matter? A survey of recent evidence. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 160(1), Article 11.
- Campbell, J. W. (2023). Public participation and trust in government: Results from a vignette experiment. Journal of Policy Studies, 38(2), 23-31.
- Cantarelli, P., Bellé, N., & Belardinelli, P. (2020). Behavioral public HR: Experimental evidence on cognitive biases and debiasing interventions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 56-81.
- Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
- Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., & Bisogno, M. (2022). Budget transparency and financial sustainability. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 34(6), 210-234.
- Desmidt, S., & Meyfroodt, K. (2021). How does public disclosure of performance information affect politicians’ attitudes towards effort allocation? Experimental evidence from Flemish local councillors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(4), 756-772.
- Gootjes, B., & De Haan, J. (2022). Do fiscal rules need budget transparency to be effective? European Journal of Political Economy, 75, Article 102210.
- Gopinathan, U., Dale, E., & Evans, D. B. (2023). Procedural fairness in health financing for universal health coverage: Why, what and how. Health Policy and Planning, 38(Supplement_1), i1-i4.
- Greve, C., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). The Nordic model revisited: Active reformers and high performing public administrations. In C. Greve, P. Lægreid, & L. Rykkja (Eds.), Nordic administrative reforms: Lessons for public management (pp. 189-212). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
- Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2020). Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), Article 101497.
- Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Danks, N. P. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R. Cham: Springer.
- Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.
- Herian, M. N., Hamm, J. A., Tomkins, A. J., & Pytlik Zillig, L. M. (2012). Public participation, procedural fairness, and evaluations of local governance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 815-840.
- Hofer, K., Wicki, M., & Kaufmann, D. (2024). Public support for participation in local development. World Development, 178, Article 106569.
- Hong, S. (2019). A behavioral model of public organizations: Bounded rationality, performance feedback, and negativity bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(1), 1-17.
- Hood, C., & Heald, D. (Eds.). (2006). Transparency: The key to better governance? Liverpool University Press.
- International Budget Partnership, & United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2023). Assessing the credibility of government budgets through external audits.
- Johnsen, Å., Solholm, K., & Tufte, P. A. (2024). Performance measurement system design as link between strategy formulation and performance information use in public sector organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 47(4), 813-848.
- Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10.
- Kroll, A. (2015). Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 459-486.
- Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121.
- Matheus, R., Janssen, M., & Janowski, T. (2021). Design principles for creating digital transparency in government. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), Article 101550.
- Modell, S. (2022). New developments in institutional research on performance measurement and management in the public sector. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 34(3), 353-369.
- Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849-866.
- Musiega, A., Tsofa, B., Nyawira, L., Njuguna, R. G., Munywoki, J., Hanson, K., Mulwa, A., Molyneux, S., Maina, I., Normand, C., Jemutai, J., & Barasa, E. (2023). Examining the influence of budget execution processes on the efficiency of county health systems in Kenya. Health Policy and Planning, 38(3), 351-362.
- Nguyen, H., Drejer, I., & Marques, P. (2024). Citizen engagement in public sector innovation: Exploring the transition between paradigms. Public Management Review, 26(12), 3622-3642.
- Park, H., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2017). Transparency is in the eye of the beholder: The effects of identity and negative perceptions on ratings of transparency via surveys. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(1_suppl), 177-194.
- Piotrowski, S. J., Berliner, D., & Ingrams, A. (2022). The power of partnership in open government: Reconsidering multistakeholder governance reform. MIT Press.
- Pirannejad, A., & Ingrams, A. (2023). Open government maturity models: A global comparison. Social Science Computer Review, 41(4), 1140-1165.
- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
- Raudla, R., & Douglas, J. W. (2022). Austerity and budget execution: Control versus flexibility. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 34(2), 292-309.
- Ripamonti, J. P. (2024). Does being informed about government transparency boost trust? Exploring an overlooked mechanism. Government Information Quarterly, 41(3), Article 101960.
- Rocco, P., & Kass, A. (2024). Using national data sources to compare subnational policies: Insights from the American Rescue plan act. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 26(6), 626-647.
- Scorsone, E. A., & Plerhoples, C. (2010). Fiscal stress and cutback management amongst state and local governments: What have we learned and what remains to be learned? State and Local Government Review, 42(2), 176-187.
- United Nations (UN). (2024). Strengthening perceived budget credibility: The pocket guide for auditors. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
- Van der Voet, J., & Lerusse, A. (2024). Performance information and issue prioritization by political and managerial decision-makers: A discrete choice experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(4), 582-597.
- Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. London: Routledge.
-
Perceived health risk, online retail ethics, and consumer behavior within online shopping during the COVID-19 pandemic
Yuniarti Fihartini ,
Arief Helmi ,
Meydia Hassan ,
Yevis Marty Oesman
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.17(3).2021.02
Innovative Marketing Volume 17, 2021 Issue #3 pp. 17-29 Views: 6136 Downloads: 2170 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe risk of virus contracting during the COVID-19 pandemic has changed consumer preference for online shopping to meet their daily needs than shopping in brick-and-mortar stores. Online shopping presents a different environment, atmosphere, and experience. The possibility of ethical violations is higher during online than face-to-face transactions. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the influence of perceived health risk and customer perception of online retail ethics on consumer online shopping behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, involving seven variables, namely perceived health risk, security, privacy, non-deception, reliability fulfillment, service recovery, and online shopping behavior. The data were collected through an online survey by employing the purposive sampling technique to a consumer who has shopped online during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. 315 valid responses were obtained and analyzed through quantitative method using SEM-Amos. The results showed that perceived health risk and four variables of online retail ethics including security, privacy, reliability fulfillment, and service recovery affected online shopping behavior. Meanwhile, non-deception was found to have an insignificant effect. The coefficient value proved perceived health risk to be more dominant in influencing online shopping behavior than the variables of online retail ethics. Thus, consumers pay more concern for their health during online shopping. However, positive consumer perceptions of the behavior of online retail websites in providing services also can encourage consumers to shop online during this pandemic.
-
Human resource management in promoting innovation and organizational performance
I Gede Riana ,
Gede Suparna ,
I Gusti Made Suwandana ,
Sebastian Kot 
,
Ismi Rajiani
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(1).2020.10
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 18, 2020 Issue #1 pp. 107-118 Views: 5682 Downloads: 1367 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯHuman resource management (HRM) is one of the elements enabling an organization to remain competitive in turbulence conditions. The effective practice of HRM makes competent and innovative employees contributing to the achievement of organizational objectives. This study aims to analyze HRM practices in creating innovation and organizational performance. The questionnaire was used to measure the respondents’ perceptions of variables used by a Likert scale. A survey of 126 manager samples and middle managers at export-oriented short and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Bali, Indonesia, was conducted to test the model. The analysis has shown that the proposed model was proven to be compliant with the research hypotheses. HRM significantly affects organizational performance and innovation, and it was found out that innovation can improve organizational performance. However, in the process of simultaneous testing, it was found out that innovation cannot improve organizational performance. The lack of attention to investments in human resources became one of the barriers to SMEs in creating innovation.
-
Positive contribution of the good corporate governance rating to stability and performance: evidence from Indonesia
RR. Iramani , Muazaroh Muazaroh , Abdul Mongid
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(2).2018.01
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 16, 2018 Issue #2 pp. 1-11 Views: 4278 Downloads: 665 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis paper aims to examine the impact of Good Corporate Governance (GCG) practice on bank stability and performance. Governance is measured using the GCG rating that covers eleven aspects. The authors apply instrumental regression to link governance to performance and stability. The study covers a sample of 150 banks. The result shows that bank stability can mediate bank governance and bank performance. On the determinant of bank performance, it can be concluded that the GCG rating is positive and directly influences bank performance. Bank stability is also positive for bank performance indicating the indirect contribution of the GCG rating to bank performance. NPL, LDR, CAR and bank’s size (LASSET) are all negative and significant. The aim of this paper is to provide strong empirical evidence on the importance of governance and stability for performance. The limitations of this paper are the size of the sample and that it only covers public banks which are theoretically required to apply better governance in all aspects of their business by the Capital Market Authority.
