Analysing decentralisation and corruption in Indonesia: a fraud triangle approach

Prasetyono, Pipin (2017): Analysing decentralisation and corruption in Indonesia: a fraud triangle approach.

Abstract

Implementation of a decentralisation system in 2001 has brought a fundamental change in institutional arrangements between central and local government in Indonesia. Despite its success story to foster local development and economic growth in Indonesia, decentralisation has also been regarded as one of the responsible factors in the growing number of corruption cases in local areas. This paper attempts to systematically examine the rising corruption phenomena at local level in Indonesia’s decentralisation system from the perspective of fraud triangle which are perpetrators’ non-shareable pressure, perceived opportunity and rationalisation to engage in corrupt activities. This paper argues that decentralisation systematically shapes pressure and creates opportunity for the emergence of corruption in Indonesia, while growing corruption cases and a corrupt justice system become two strong rationalisation factors towards corrupt behaviour.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: decentralization; corruption; fraud
• Subjects: H - Public Economics > H1 - Structure and Scope of Government > H11 - Structure, Scope, and Performance of Government; H - Public Economics > H3 - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents > H30 - General; H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government ; Intergovernmental Relations > H77 - Intergovernmental Relations ; Federalism ; Secession; Y - Miscellaneous Categories > Y8 - Related Disciplines > Y80 - Related Disciplines

References

Aisyah, S 2007, ‘The effect of fiscal decentralization on economic growth’, ISS Research Paper, Institute of Social Studies, Graduate School of Development Studies, The Hague, viewed 26 September 2016, < https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/6735/Siti%20Aisyah%20ECD.pdf>.

Anand, V, Ashford, BE & Joshi, M 2004, ‘Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations’, Academy of Management Executive, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 39-53.

Arikan, GG 2004, ‘Fiscal decentralization: a remedy for corruption?’, International Tax and Public Finance, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 175-195.

Asthana, AN 2012, ‘Decentralisation and corruption revisited: evidence from a natural experiment’, Public Administration and Development, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 27-37.

Bertelsmann Stiftung 2016, BTI 2016: Indonesia country report, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gutersloh, viewed 3 October 2016, < https://www.bti-project.org/fileadmin/files/BTI/Downloads/Reports/2016/pdf/>

Byars, N 2009, ‘The corruption triangle’, CEE Working Paper, The Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship, No. 6, Rockford, viewed 27 September 2016, < http://www.ethicsandentrepreneurship.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Byars-2009.pdf>.

Cressey, DR 1954, ‘Differential association theory and compulsive crimes’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 29-40.

Cressey, DR 1973, Others people’s money: a study in the social psychology of embezzlement, Patterson Smith, Monclair, New Jersey.

DFAT, see Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2016, Fraud control and anti-corruption plan, viewed 27 September 2016, < http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/fraud-control-anti-corruption-plan.pdf>.

Dorminey, J, Fleming, AS, Kranacher, MJ & Riley Jr, RA 2012, ‘The evolution of fraud theory’, Issues in Accounting Education, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 555-579.

Fan, CS, Lin, C & Treisman, D 2009, ‘Political decentralization and corruption: evidence from around the world’, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 14-34.