Keywords

Legislative Oversight, Budget Transparency, Quality Internally Auditor, Performance

Introduction

The government's performance describes the achievements that have been achieved in the realization of the programs, goals, objectives, vision, and mission contained in planning (Negara et al., 2018). Good governance can assist the government in evaluating and monitoring government spending to improve performance. Local governments that have governance better, governance should perform better because of the policies and decisions made to meet the public interest (Ward et al., 2017). In general, an organization wants to present a positive performance achieved even though there are still some errors in the report (Hood, 2011; Moynihan, 2008). The presentation of reports that do not have good reliability will impact the government (Dalton & Dalton, 2005; Van de Walle, Van Roosbroek, & Bouckaert, 2008; Van Ryzin, 2011).

The role of supervision by legislative in the public sector is required to implement governance (good governance) both in the public sector. IFAC and The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) in " International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector " (2014) explain that good governance in the public sector. It requires a separation of power in two forms of control: non - executives (legislative body) and executive (a government agency or other public service agency). Good governance by IFAC and CIPFA requires supervisory functions performed by the legislative against suitable management activities undertaken by the executive in this respect, government institutions, and other public service agencies.

The role of corporate governance can create value for the corporation and support transparency (Lamm, 2010). Davey & Eggleton (2011) state a positive relationship between a company's size and its performance. Measurement of the quality variable of legislative supervision in this study is different from Anggraeni & Riduwan (2014); Primayana et al., (2014); Kusuma et al. (2016); and Efendi et al. (2017) with primary data through a questionnaire instrument. Kusumawardani (2012) and Sutaryo & Jakawinarna (2013), Saragih and Setyaningrum (2014) found that legislative size has a positive effect on financial performance. Sesotyaningtyas (2012); Sumarjo (2010); and Gilligan & Matsusaka (2015) use legislative measures for supervision, but the results of the study do not affect the financial performance of local governments. Fernandes (2015) and Anugriani (2013), with primary data, found that legislative oversight affects local government performance. Marhawai (2015) states that the legislative size partially has a fragile negative effect on local governments' financial performance.

The research offers alternative measurements using Follow-up Audit (TLHP) BPK as mandated in Law No. 23 of 2014. The study is also filed as a moderating influence total assets supervision, transparency, and internal quality auditor of local government performance. Total assets have been selected as the availability of resources because their value is more stable than income, several employees, or the entire production.

Literature Review

Jensen & Meckling (1976) describes an agency relationship as a contract in which one or more principals (principal) and their agents. In the context of submitting public organizations' financial statements, the government is an agent who is obliged to present useful financial information to users in its capacity as a principal in assessing accountability and making economic, social, and political decisions. The executive and legislative relationship viewed as a principal-agent relationship (Fozzard, 2001; Halim, 2007; Moe, 1984; Smith & Bertozzi, 1998). In this relationship, the regional government as the executive acts as an agent, while the Regional House of Representatives (RHR) represents the principal.

Agency theory to analyze the phenomenon of executive and legislative relations has not been widely used. There is a huge contingency factor towards the form and concept of democracy adopted by a country and the nature of the public sector, which is not always related to the personal interests that work in it (Christensen, 1992; Smith & Bertozzi, 1998). According to Lane (2003), this theory can be applied to government agencies as an accountability mechanism to ensure adequate monitoring, auditing, and reporting for the achievement of organizational goals (Cribb, 2006), ethically and profitably (Podrug, 2011).

In Indonesia's context, the oversight function of local government financial management is carried out by the RHR. Syahruddin & Taifur ( 2002) revealed that RHR plays an essential role in supervising local governments in carrying out their government activities to achieve the desired performance. Supervision activities aim to ensure that programs proposed by the government and approved by the RHR can run according to the stated objectives. The legislature is obliged to supervise activities carried out by the executive. So, the potential for irregularities that might harm the state minimized as much as possible. Tuasikal (2007) explained that external supervision does not have a significant effect.

Kusumawardani (2012) suggests that legislative size affects the financial performance of local governments. The more members of the legislature who supervise correctly, the greater the motivation for the provincial government's performance to provide services to the community or vice versa. Meanwhile, Pamungkas (2012) argues that the application of public sector financial accounting, supervision, and quality of government financial reports affects government agencies' performance accountability. It shows that the better the government's financial reports and adequate control when government performance is responsible. Will increase Bourdeaux & Chikoto ( 2008) state that legislative oversight positively affects management performance. Marfiana & Kurniasih ( 2013) explain that local governments with large legislative sizes should improve their performance.

H1: The quality of legislative oversight affects the performance of local governments.

Leng & Mansor (2005) examined the dominant personality of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who is concurrently chairman and has a relationship with Malaysia's company performance. On the other hand, Haat et al. (2008) stated that there is no significant difference between companies with good and bad governance on performance regarding disclosure and submission of reports on time (timeliness) as a proxy for transparency. Chin (2015) found a significant relationship between corporate governance and company performance using market size (Tobin's Q Ratio). The use of accounting measure (ROA) causes a significant effect on only the board of commissioners and ownership concentration.

H2: Budget transparency has a positive effect on the performance of local government.

Aikins (2011) explains that auditing often leads to an increase in the adequacy and effectiveness of internal controls, thereby contributing to public accountability. Nasir & Oktari (2011) explain that internal control factors give the air a positive contribution to government agencies' performance. Warhana et al. (2015) find the inspectorate's significant characteristics to improved local government implementation performance. Suharyanto & Sutaryo (2016) and Sholeh (2017) state that there is a positive effect on internal government supervision on government performance accountability.

H3: Quality internal audit affects the performance of local government.

In the context of private organizations, organizational supervision is carried out by the board of commissioners. Implementing corporate governance practices can support the company's survival and increase public and investors' trust. Researchers carried out by Yi, Howard, & Eggleton (2011) state a positive relationship between a company's size and performance. The relationship between the company's size between supervision and its financial performance is that its size functions as a moderator between supervision and its financial performance. The moderating effect captured by supervision and firm value is that investment plays a role in developing the company to gain a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991).

H4: Total local government assets strengthen the influence of quality supervision on local government performance quality.

Mustikarini & Fitriasari (2012) stated that the larger the size of the region, which is assessed by the size of the total assets of the regional government, will encourage the characteristics of the local government to open information on resource management and have an impact on the higher performance of local governments. According to Nugroho and Rohman (2012), the government will build infrastructure and facilities needed by the state, reflected in its capital expenditure.

H5: Total local government assets strengthen the influence of budget transparency on local government performance.

Tama & Adi (2018) suggest that government size is a factor that determines local governments' financial performance. There is a tendency that when the government's measure gets bigger, local governments' understanding will get better. However, Nugroho and Prasetyo (2018) and Sari and Mustanda (2019) state that regional governments with large assets tend to be unproductive and unable to support local government performance.

H6: Total local government assets moderate the effect of internal audit quality on local government performance.

Research Design

The data in this study is in the form of cross-section data taken from the results of audits of regional (city and district) government financial reports throughout Indonesia conducted by BPK, city, and district government websites as well as Government Agency Performance Accountability scores (AKIP). The criteria for local government financial reports used are as follows:

1. This study's financial statements consist of district and city governments' financial reports during the 2017- 2018 period.

2. District and city governments have official websites that are actively updated, which contain information on both activities and data that can be consumed by the public.

3. The total sample results from 264 Local Governments (LG) consisting of 56 city governments and 208 district governments (districts) in 2018.

Research model are as follows:

KPD = a + b₁ . MPA + b₂ . TRA + b₃ . KIA + b₄ . (MPA * TA) + b₅ . (TRA * TA) + b₆. (KIA * TA) + b₇ . TA + b₈ . PAD + b₉ . POP + b₁₀ . GRDP + b₁₁ . MANDIRI + b₁₂ . CAPITA + e .

Information:

KPD = Local Government Performance

KLKPD = Quality of Local Government Financial Reports

bx = Regression Coefficient

KPL = Quality of Legislative Oversight

TRA = Budget Transparency

KIA = Quality of Internal Audit

TA = Total Assets

PAD = Regional Original Income

POP = Population (total population in natural logarithms)

GRDP = Gross Regional Domestic Product

MANDIRI = Level of Regional Independence

PERKAPITA = Income per capita

e = Error

Results

Descriptive analyzes carried out on 264 local government (LG) are composed of 56 municipal authorities and 208 district governments (district.) In 2018. Table 1 contains detailed descriptive statistics of variables empirically n this.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
Supervision	264	0.04	1.00	0.9351	0.14969
Transparency	264	1	20	4.73	3.913
TotalAsset	264	44990196925	32835917510688	3621877965824.60	3755719549125.134
PADasli	264	8452772191	2872568512687	277560016417.16	387620570508.258
Population	264	33978	5715009	635827.20	694337.727
Independent	264	0.01	0.86	0.1392	0.10156
GRDP	264	27	33	30.06	1.097
Percapita	264	15.70	25.67	17.2781	1.13760
Valid N (listwise)	264

On average, TLHP is high at 0.935 or 93.50 %. Thus the general government follows up on the findings of the BPK audit results. Blitar district government is the local government with the smallest TLHP, while 150 other local governments have 100% TLHP. The average disclosure of as much as 4.73 informational content with 3.9135 standard distribution so that the transparency of local government financial information on the website is low.

The majority of local government internal auditors used in this study are at level 2 with 211 local governments (79.9 %). There are 52 local governments (19.7%) at Level 1, and only one regional government has Level 3 internal audit quality.

The regression model has fulfilled all the classical assumptions required. The regression results presented in Table 2 show that transparency has a significant positive effect on local government performance. In contrast, total asset moderation on the impact of supervision on performance has a significant negative impact on local government performance. Other independent variables do not have a substantial effect on the quality of local government performance variables. Overall, the independent variable has a significant impact on local government performance with a significance level of 28, 9 %, and 0 000.

Table 2 Regression Results Model 3
Model 3		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	-6.860	3.461		-1.982	0.049
	Supervision	-0.223	0.331	-0.036	-0.674	0.501
	Transparency	0.032	0.013	0.135	2.474	0.014
	KIA	0.179	0.125	0.078	1.432	0.153
	Supervision_TA	-0.131	0.044	-0.167	-2.990	0.003
	Transparency_TA	0.020	0.060	0.018	0.328	0.744
	KIA_TA	-0.073	0.081	-0.056	-0.895	0.372
	PAD	0.397	0.175	0.425	2.271	0.024
	TA	-0.267	0.134	-0.195	-1.988	0.048
	Population	-0.042	0.130	-0.043	-0.321	0.748
	Independent	-0.221	1.090	-0.024	-0.203	0.839
	GRDP	0.245	0.107	0.290	2.294	0.023
	Percapita	-0.008	0.052	-0.010	-0.163	0.871
	R			0.567
	R-Squares			0.322
	Adjusted R-Squares			0.289
	Sig.			0.000

Discussion

Based on hypothesis 1 note's testing results, legislative oversight does not affect local government performance. Meaning, hypothesis point 1 of this study was rejected. While Local conditions of government performance range in B (44.7%) and CC (30.3%) with the highest criteria A and B. This condition indicates that local governments' performance is quite good (B), but many performances need improvement (CC criteria). In line with agency theory, the delegation of authority to the executive should be balanced with the legislature's oversight to ensure that the executive carries out its duties, vision, and mission to achieve its goals. Thus, the check-and-balance function runs well (Kumorotomo, 2007). The element of external supervision (through the legislature) is one factor that influences the improvement of local government performance (Widanarto, 2012).

This study's results align with Saragih and Setyaningrum (2012) findings, where legislative supervision proxied by political competition in the RHR does not significantly affect local government performance. Other studies in line with this study are Renas (2013) and Risma et al. (2015), which found that the BPK audit findings did not significantly affect local government performance. Meanwhile, Sudarsana (2013) found that audit findings harm local government performance. The legislative oversight function is more focused on political oversight, where members of the legislature are more concerned with fulfilling campaign promises to constituents who are the basis for elections (Afriansyah, 2013). The legislative oversight function is fragile, with factors suspected of personal background, political background, and budget management understanding. The findings of this study are in line with a survey conducted by the Indonesian Legal Roundtable (Detik.com, 2017), which found that the oversight function carried out by the RHR was inferior, the performance of the legislature at the national and regional levels related to all uses of House of Representative (HR) / RHR rights was below average.

Hypothesis point two is acceptable that the transparency of local government finance has a positive effect on the local government's performance. Information and communication have a good impact on improving performance because all parties obtain and exchange information needed to carry out operational activities. Werimon et al., (2007) said that the implementation of accountability and transparency causes excellent control of the community, causing government managers to work according to existing provisions to produce good government performance. The application of the principle of transparency in the regional government's administration allows the public to find various information regarding local government implementation in a correct, honest, and non-discriminatory manner. (best performance) to the community by increasing government goals following the vision and mission (Rahmanurrasjid, 2008).

The result of testing hypothesis 3 shows that internal auditors' quality does not affect local government performance. Thus the research hypothesis is rejected. Internal auditors play a role in improving the accuracy and reliability of financial information to correct internal control deficiencies. Internal auditors help local governments to be accountable to the community by enhancing internal control. It is known that 7 9.9% of internal auditors' quality is at level 2, which means that the government's internal control system is still weak and has not been appropriately handled. The implementation of internal control practices has been carried out. Still, it is not well documented, and its performance is highly dependent on the individual and has not involved all organizational units. The effectiveness of control has not been evaluated so that many weaknesses have not been adequately addressed.

These findings are consistent with research reported by MacRae and Gils (2014). There is more than 90 percent of public sector organizations from all regions (Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe-Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East, United States, and Canada, and Western Europe) have scored overall proficiency performance levels at Level 1 (34%) and Level 2 (62%). It is also reported that less than five percent of the public sector's internal audit activity, regardless of region, has achieved higher than Level 2 Infrastructure. Similar to previous research conducted in Malaysia also revealed the same results (Fern, 2015; Haron et al., 2016).

The Role of Total Assets In Moderating The Influence of Independent Variables on Local Government Performance

Total assets as the organization's size have an essential role in achieving organizational performance (Chi, 2004; Vijayakumar & Tamizhekvan, 2010; Abbasi & Malik, 2015). Total asset is a measure acts as a determinant of performance, and its role is also analyzed as an essential moderating variable for the company (Rauch et al., 2009). Based on the results of testing for hypothesis 4, it is known that total assets weaken the effect of supervision on local government performance. These results meet the expectations of the formulation of this research hypothesis, which proposes a statement that total assets moderate (strengthen/weaken) the effect of supervision on local government performance. Thus the research hypothesis is accepted.

Local governments' ability to follow up on BPK audit results is determined by factors of coordination between units in the regions, commitment from leaders, the number of regional government organizations, and the availability of resources (assets). The research found out that regional assets cannot moderate legislative oversight of local government performance resulting from legislative scrutiny of a political nature and resource misuse. In this case, the local assets are more widely abused for legislative interest to serve their constituency constituents.

Based on the results of testing for hypothesis 5, it is known that total assets do not moderate the effect of transparency on local government performance. Thus the research hypothesis is rejected. The provincial government budget's openness is still low due to local governments' capacity to implement transparency through the official website (Purwanti, 2020). This finding is supported by the poor condition of local government asset management, where asset problems include several problems that often arise. Namely inaccurate asset recording, unreliable asset data, unsupported assets with reliable data, non-compliance reporting process, assets not yet optimized, standard operating procedures (SOP) have not been prepared, assets in the form of uncertified land, assets controlled by other parties, and unknown assets. Thus, the inadequate management of local government assets causes assets not to moderate local government performance transparency.

This study explores the total assets' role as an independent variable and moderating variable on local government performance. Local governments that have more considerable total assets have a more extraordinary average performance. Thus, it is hoped that large assets will strengthen and motivate local governments to improve their Internal Auditors' quality. A right but to the contrary is obtained based on the BPK obstacles encountered in upgrading internal auditors' capabilities. These results indicate that the challenges faced in developing internal auditors' quality are the lack of awareness, understanding, and commitment from top management, the governor, regent, and mayor regarding the benefits and roles of APIP.

The absence of top management commitment is the lack of capacity and knowledge of APIP management in managing APIP resources. It impacts the lack of APIP personnel capability and the inadequacy of the assurance and consulting function provided by APIP (BPKP, 2018). The local government leadership commitment's weakness will ultimately impact the use of regional assets to support the internal quality auditor's strengthening. To regional leaders, as the owner does not use local assets n assets, it has to keep auditors' internal resources in governance according to the region. This research shows that total assets do not moderate the internal auditors' quality,h caused by the quality of internal auditors' resources being less competent. After all, local governments' investments do not support them due to a lack of regional heads' commitment to internal control.

This study includes total assets, local revenue, GRDP, per capita income, and population. Research by Khasanah and Rahardjo (2015), Maulana and Handayani (2015), Yunara et al. (2016), and Sofyan (2016) found a positive effect of total assets on the disclosure of local government financial statements (LKPD). However, Setyowati (2016) found an influence negative between the asset size and the LKPD disclosure level. Research by Hilmi and Martani (2010), Setyaningrum and Syafitri (2012), Silfia et al. (2015), Feriyanti et al. (2015), and Setyowati (2016) found that regional wealth affects the level of LKPD disclosure. Wenny (2012) PAD has a total effect on the financial performance of local governments. Batubara (2009) PAD is having a significant impact on financial performance. Wenny (2012) and Mustikarini & Ritriasasi (2012) found that Regional Original Income (PAD) affects local government performance.

Maulana & Handayani (2015) found that the local government's size positively affects the LKPD disclosure level. Priharjanto and Wardani (2016) Regional wealth has no significant effect. Sesotyaningtya's (2012) variable leverage, legislative size, and intergovernmental revenue have no impact on local government financial performance based on performance efficiency ratios. Meanwhile, the local tax revenue variable harms local governments' financial performance based on the performance efficiency ratio.

Anzarsari (2014) states prosperity (wealth) and transfers from the central government on the local government's performance. As measured by total revenue, the size of local governments does not affect local government performance. It indicates that the role of local government measures in improving the performance of district/city governments has not been able to function correctly. The regional size does not affect the district/city government's performance because the local government has not been able to properly manage the local government with a considerable measure of wealth (PAD) should have a high-performance value. Suppose an LG with a large size and PAD turns out to have a low score. In that case, the Regional Government must be aware and reflective that its performance means that its performance is lower than a Regional Government with a smaller size and PAD.

It is hoped that the balancing fund will be used by the transfer of funds from the central government to local governments, one of which is by improving existing infrastructure to create development and have an impact on economic activities in the area to enhance the performance of local governments. Sumarjo (2010) found a link between balancing funds and local government financial performance. Kusumawardani (2012) found that legislative size and size variables affect Indonesia's local governments' financial performance. In contrast, prosperity and leverage do not affect the financial performance of local governments in Indonesia. This study indicates that the PAD and the provincial government's size influence local governments' financial performance. Transfers and leverage do not affect the financial performance of local governments.

The next factor that is estimated to affect financial performance is the dependence on funding from the central government, which the central government provided to overcome fiscal imbalances. The central government offers a balanced fund sourced from the National Budget (APBN) allocated to regions to finance regional needs in implementing decentralization. The central government hopes that the greater the intergovernmental revenue, the provincial governments can improve their performance.

Conclusion

This study aims to examine the effect of legislative oversight, budget transparency, and quality of internal auditors on local government performance and the quality of local government financial reports, as well as the moderating role of total assets on the effect of legislative oversight, budget transparency, and quality of internal auditors on local government performance and quality of financial reports for local government.

Legislative oversight does not affect local government performance. The practice of legislative oversight is more oriented towards political supervision than technical supervision. Budget transparency has a positive effect on local government performance. Transparency means more information and communication, which positively impacts performance because all parties obtain and exchange information needed to carry out operational activities. The quality of internal auditors does not affect local government performance. The quality of internal government auditors is still low. It has not been handled correctly, resulting in the implementation of internal control practices that are not well documented. Their performance is highly dependent on individuals and has not involved all organizational units. The effectiveness of control has not been evaluated so that many weaknesses have not been addressed.

Total assets weaken the effect of supervision on local government performance. Local governments' ability to follow up on BPK audit results is determined by factors of coordination between units in the regions, commitment from leaders, the number of regional government organizations, and the availability of resources (assets). As evidenced by the majority of the findings, the unavailability of adequate assets is in the area of asset management. Total assets are not able to moderate the effect of transparency on local government performance. Assets problems include some of the issues that often arise: the recording of assets that are not accurate; the data assets are not reliably; a reliable data reporting process does not support the asset. The assets have not been optimized, standard operating procedures (SOP) has not been prepared, assets in the form of uncertified land, assets controlled by other parties, and assets whose whereabouts are unknown.

Total assets do not moderate the effect of internal auditor quality on local government performance. The overall asset capacity allows the provincial government to develop the capacity/capability of the internal auditor. These results indicate that the obstacles faced in developing internal auditors' quality, the main factor being the lack of awareness, understanding, and commitment from top management, in this case, the governor, regent, and mayor regarding the benefits and roles of APIP.

This study resulted in several findings that showed that legislative oversight did not affect local governments' financial and non-financial performance. The lack of legislative oversight has resulted in minimal control over organizational performance and behavior, resulting in unhealthy regional government administration practices.

References

1. Abbasi, A., & Malik, Q.A. (2015). Firms' size moderating financial performance in growing firms: An empirical evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(2), 334-339.
2. Afriansyah. (2013). Implementation of general election commission regulation number 15 of 2013 concerning P installation a tribute campaign for legislative candidates in samarinda City. Dedikasi Jurnal Mahasiswa.
3. Aikins, S.K. (2011). An examination of government internal audits' role in improving financial performance. In Public Finance and Management (11).
4. Anggraeni, D.T., & Riduwan, A. (2014). Factors that affect reporting finance government area (Studies on SKPD In the district of Sidoarjo). Journal of Accounting Science and Research.
5. Anshari, E.S. (2016). Effect of management goods regional property of quality report of finance government of padang. Padang State University, 4(1), 1–18.
6. Anugriani, R.M. (2014). The effect of accountability, transparency, and supervision on budget performance with the concept of value for money on the government in bone regency. JIMAT (S1 Accounting Student Scientific Journal).
7. Anzarsari, D. (2014). Effect of characteristics regional government on performance government area (Study Empirical at the District / City all Jawa Tengah). Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689-1699.
8. Artha , RD, Basuki, P., & Mt, A.M. (2015). The influence of regional government characteristics and bpk audit findings on local government implementation performance (Empirical Study of District / City Governments in NTB Province). InFestasi, 11(2), 214.
9. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
10. Coal, D.N. (2009). Local Own Revenue (PAD) on financial performance in district and city governments in north sumatra province. The University of North Sumatra.
11. Bourdeaux, C., & Chikoto, G. (2008). Legislative influences on performance management reform. Public Administration Review, 6(82), 253-265.
12. BPKP. (2018). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5005/jp/books/13104_18
13. Chin, T.W. (2015). Corporate Governance Structure and Performance of Malaysian Listed Companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(7) & (8), 1034–1062
14. Christensen, C.M. (1992). Exploring the limit of the technology S-Curve Part I: Component Technologies (Vol. 4).
15. Cribb, J. (2006). Agents or stewards? contracting with. Policy Quarterly, 11–17.
16. Dalton, C.M., & Dalton, D.R. (2005). Boards of directors: Utilizing empirical evidence in developing practical prescriptions. British Journal of Management, 16 (SPEC. ISS.).
17. DetikNews. (2017). Survey ILR: Function oversight DPR very disappointing. DetikNews. Retrieved from https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3633886/survei-ilr-fungsi-pengawasan-dpr-sangat-mengeclease
18. Efendi, L., Darwanis, & Abdullah, S. (2017). Factors that affect the quality of reporting of finance regions. Darussalam Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(2), 182–195.
19. Feriyanti, M., Hermanto, H., & Suransi, N.K. (2016). Determinants of compliance with the provisions for mandatory disclosure of regional government financial reports (Studies in Districts / Cities in West Nusa Tenggara Province). InFestasi, 11(2), 171. https://doi.org/10.21107/infestasi.v11i2.1130
20. Fernandes, F. (2015). O negro no mundo dos brancos. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.id/books?id= PMZcBAAAQBAJ&dq=o+negro+no+mundo+dos+brancos&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7jZP-sf7rAhWQdn0KHVo5BNwQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg
21. Fozzard, A. (2001). The basic budgeting problem: approaches to resource allocation in the public sector and their implications for pro-poor budgeting. Overseas Development Institute.
22. Gilligan, T.W., & Matsusaka, J.G. (2001). Fiscal policy, legislature size, and political parties: Evidence from state and local governments in the first half of the 20th Century. National Tax Journal, 54(1), 57–82.
23. Haat, M.H.C., Rahman, R.A., & Mahenthiran, S. (2008). Corporate governance, transparency, and performance of Malaysian companies. Managerial Auditing Journal.
24. Halim, A. (2007). Accounting and Regional Financial Management Control. Yogyakarta: UPP STIM YKPN.
25. Haron, H., Ismail, I., Ganesan, Y., Hashim, F., & Fern, AMS (2016). Assessment of internal audit capability level in a public sector organization: A case study on two government agencies. Journal of Public Sector Auditing, 1–22.
26. Haron, H., Ismail, I., & Yusof, NAZM (2016). Importance of internal audit capability in management accounting and organization performance. Universiti Malaysia Pahang.
27. Hilmi, A.Z., & Martani, D. (2012). Analysis of factors that affect the level of disclosure statements of finance government of the province. XV National Symposium on Accounting, 1–26.
28. Hood, C. (2011). From FOI world to wikileaks world: A new chapter in the transparency story? Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 24(4), 635–638.
29. Howard, D., Eggleton, IRC, & Yi, A. (2011). The Effects of Industry Type, Company Size and Performance on Chinese Companies’ IC Disclosure: A Research Note. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 5(3), 107–116.
30. Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior agency costs and ownership structure. In Journal of Financial Economics (Vol. 3). Q North-Holland Publishing Company.
31. Khasanah, N.L., & Rahardjo, S.N. (2014). Effect of characteristics, complexity, and findings of the audit to level disclosure statement finance government of regions. 3(2), 864–874.
32. Kumorotomo, W. (2007). Improve the Guard and Balance Mechanism (Checks and Balances) in the Local Government System. 1–20.
33. Kusuma, F.P., Yasa, I.N.M., & Djayastra, I.K. (2016). Analysis of factors that affect the quality of information reporting finance government of the regional district of Jembrana. E-Journal of Economics and Business, Udayana University, 5(12), 4115–4150.
34. Kusumawardani, M. (2012). The influence of size, prosperity, legislative size, leverage on regional government financial performance in Indonesia. Accounting Analysis Journal, 1 (1), 27–35.
35. Lamm, J. (2010). The rise of governance. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-1593-6_1
36. Lane, P.R. (2003). The cyclical behaviour of fiscal policy: Evidence from the OECD. Journal of Public Economics, 87(12), 2661–2675.
37. Leng, A.C.A., & Mansor, S.A. (2005). Can good corporate governance practices contribute to firms' financial performance? - evidence from Malaysian companies. Int. J. Business Governance and Ethics, 1(4), 350–362.
38. MacRae, E., & Gils, D. van. (2014). Nine Elements Required for Internal Audit Effectiveness in the Public Sector (2nd ed.). Internal Auditors Research Foundation's (IIARF's) publication Internal Audit.
39. Mak, S.F.A. (2015). Assessment on internal audit capability level: case study of two (2) Penang State Agencies. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
40. Marfiana, N., & Kurniasih, L. (2013). Examination audit of performance finance government regional district / city. Journal & Proceedings of Jenderal Soedirman University, 3 (1), 1–16.
41. Marhawai. (2015). Effect of size legislature, prosperity government area, size of government regional and intergovernmental revenue of performance finance government area (Study at Regency /City In Aceh Year 2010 SD 2014). Journal Assessing and Research Accounting, 8 (1), 49-58.
42. Maulana, C., & Handayani, B.D. (2015). Effect of characteristics, complexity government, and findings of the audit to level disclosure mandatory LKPD. Accounting Analysis Journal, 4(4), 1–11.
43. Moe, T.M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.
44. Moynihan, D.P. (2008). Learning under uncertainty: Networks in crisis management. Public Administration Review, 68 (2), 350–365.
45. Mustikarini, W.A., & Fitriasari, D. (2012). Influence of characteristics of government regional and findings audit. Against Performance Government Regional District / City in Indonesia Year Budget 2011. Symposium on National Accounting XV Banjarmasin.
46. Nasir, A., & Oktari, R. (2011). Influence use of technology information and control of internal against performance agencies government. Journal of Economics, 19(2), 1–14.
47. Negara, I.G.B.S., Susetyo, D., Kadir, S.A., & Yuliana, S. (2018). Effect of commitment, internal audit, and financial management on local government performance in south Sumatra. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 8 (4), 327–334.
48. Nugroho, F., & Rohman, A. (2012). Effect of shopping capital of growth performance finance regions with revenue PAD for variable intervening. Diponogoro Journal of Accounting, 1 (2), 1–14.
49. Nugroho, R.A. (2014). Influence of Characteristics of Government Regional and Findings Audit Of Performance Government of Regions.
50. Nugroho, T.R., & Prasetyo, N.E. (2018). Influence of characteristics of government areas of performance finance government regional district & municipality in Jawa Timur. Assets: Journal of Accounting and Education, 7 (1), 27.
51. Pamungkas, B. (2012). Effect of application of accounting sector public and supervision perhadap quality reports financial and implications of accountability performance agency government. Ranggading Scientific Journal, 12 (2), 1–10.
52. Podrug, N. (2011). Influence of national culture on decision-making style. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 6 (1), 37–44.
53. Priharjanto, A., & Wardani, Y.Y. (2017). Influence findings, rate deviation, opinion audit, and is characteristic of the government of regions against level disclosure statement finance government of the province in Indonesia. Artha Info, 1, 97–110.
54. Primayana, K.H., Atmadja, A.T., & Darmawan, N.A.S. (2014). Effect of capacity resources power manuris, control of internal accounting, utilization technology of information and supervision of financial regional against countability reporting finance government area (Studies in Government Regional District of Buleleng). E-Journal of S1 Ak Ganesha University of Education, 1 (1).
55. Purwanti, N. (2017). Analysis of factors that affect transparency of information finance regions via website. Analysis of Factors That Affect Transparency of Information Finance Regions Via Website, 1 (6), 1-26.
56. Rahmanurrasjid, A. (2008). Accountability and transparency in the accountability of government regions to realize the government is good in the area. Diponegoro University.
57. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33 (3), 761–787.
58. Saragih, H.A., & Setyaningrum, D. (2015). The effect of functional and legislative supervision on the performance of local government in Indonesia in 2011-2012. 1–26.
59. Sari, N.M.D.P., & Mustanda, I.K. (2019). Effect of size of government regional revenue regional original and expenditure capital of performance finance government area. E-Journal of Management of Udayana University, 8 (8), 4759.
60. Sesotyaningtyas, M. (2012). Effect of leverage, the size of the legislature, the intergovernmental revenue and income tax regions of performance finance government area. Accounting Analysis Journal, 1(1).
61. Setyaningrum, D., & Syafitri, F. (2012). Analysis of effect of characteristics of government regional against level disclosure reports financial. Journal of Accounting and Finance Indonesia, 9(2), 154-170.
62. Setyowati, L. (2016). Determinants that affect disclosure statement of financial government area. Essence, 6 (1), 45–62.
63. Sholeh. (2017). The Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus's Characteristics on the Government Agency Performance Accountability System (SAKIP). Lampung University.
64. Smith, R.W., & Bertozzi, M. (1998). Provincials and agents: An explanatory model for public budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 10 (3), 325-353.
65. Sudarsana, H.S., & Rahardjo, S.N. (2013). Influence of characteristics of government regional and findings audit of performance government area. Diponegoro Journal Of Accounting, 2 (4), 1-13.
66. Suharyanto, A., & Sutaryo. (2016). Internal monitoring and accountability of local government performance in Indonesia. XIX National Accounting Symposium in Bandar Lampung.
67. Sumarjo, H. (2010). Influence of characteristics of government areas of performance finance government areas of study empirically government area of district/city in Indonesia. Thesis Bachelor of Economics Department of Accounting University Eleven in March. Surakarta, 1–76.
68. Sutaryo & Jakawinarna. (2013). Characteristics of DPRD and Local Government Implementation Performance: Empirical Support from an Agency Theory Perspective. National Accounting Symposium XVI, I (2013), 1124–1153.
69. Tuasikal, A. (2007). Effect of supervision, understanding the system of accounting finance, and managing finances to the unit's performance of work the device area in the district and town in the Province of Maluku. Journal of Finance and Banking, 66–87.
70. Van de Walle, S., Van Roosbroek, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2008). Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences.
71. Van Ryzin, G.G. (2011). Outcomes, processes, and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (4), 745–760.
72. Vijayakumar, A., & Tamizhselvan, P. (2010). Corporate size and profitability: An empirical analysis. Journal for Bloomers of Research. Retrieved from https://scholar.-x6o8ySG0sC% 26tzom% 3D-420
73. Wardhani, R., Rossieta, H., & Martani, D. (2017). Good governance and the impact of government spending on the performance of local government in Indonesia. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 3(1), 77–102.
74. Wenny, C.D. (2012). Analysis influence of revenue (pad) against performance finance on government district and municipality in the province of south sumatra cherrya. Business and Entrepreneurship Forum Scientific Journal STIE MDP, 2(1), 39–51.
75. Werimon, S., Ghozali, I., & Nazir, M. (2007). The effect of public participation and transparency of public policy on the relationship between council knowledge about the budget and regional financial supervision (APBD) (Empirical Study in Papua Province). Journal and Proceedings of SNA - National Symposium on Accounting, 10.
76. Widanarto. (2012). Internal Supervision, External Oversight, and Government Performance.
77. Yunara, D., Puspita, D.F., & Herawati. (2016). The influence of regional government characteristics on the compliance of mandatory disclosure in regional government financial reports (Study on LKPD Regency / City of West Sumatra Province). Journal of the Faculty of Economics. Retrieved from https://ejurnal.bunghatta.ac.id/index.php?journal=JFEK