: Based on Presidential Instruction Number 7 of 2015, the Indonesian Prosecutor's Office deems it necessary to provide assistance to relevant government officials in terms of development acceleration and strategic national development programs. In addition, the Indonesian Attorney General's Office as a law enforcement agency has a role in supporting the success of national government and regional governance and development through escort and security, both in planning, implementing and utilizing development outcomes, including efforts to prevent state irregularities and losses. The establishment of TP4D in Semarang Regency, as an effort to be able to prevent the occurrence of Corruption Crime (Tipikor), mainly related to Village Fund Financial Management (APB Desa). In the effort to prevent Tipikor in managing APBDesa often faced with internal problems of the Village Government, among others: low levels of devotion, low ethics and integrity, egoistic behavior, low professionalism. While those related to external problems, among others: the first factor of the government administration system, in the form of: regulations that are still overlapping, sectoral and institutional selfishness, limited internal supervision, development of HR management is still limited. The second is related to cultural factors, among others: the existence of a culture of "tired money / facilitation money" as an additional income for the apparatus, an attitude of reluctance, and a shift in social and economic values. The strategy that has been carried out by the Semarang District Government and the Village Government in suppressing the occurrence of corruption in APBDesa management, namely, among others: strengthening the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus (APIP) institutions, monitoring planning, implementation and accountability, conducting APBDesa information disclosure, and increasing HR Village Apparatus
Master i styring og ledelse ; I denne masteroppgaven har jeg undersøkt hvorfor Haugesund og Karmøy har kommet frem til ulikt utfall i kommunereformen. Haugesund ønsker en storkommune på Haugalandet, mens det politiske flertallet i Karmøy, vil at Karmøy skal være egen kommune også i fremtiden. Kommunene er store i norsk sammenheng med rundt 40.000 innbyggere hver. De har en rekke likhetstrekk, likevel er de ulike på noen sentrale punkt. Haugesund er en sentralisert by, mens Karmøy er desentralisert, med tre byer og flere bygder. Reformen er initiert nasjonalt, mens gjennomføringen skjer lokalt. Regjeringens argumentasjon ligger hovedsakelig i reformens mål og virkemidler. Tidligere undersøkelser viser imidlertid at ulike lokale forhold også kan virke inn på sammenslåingsprosesser lokalt. Hensikten med undersøkelsen har vært å finne ut hvorfor kommunene har kommet frem til ulikt utfall i reformen, om Regjeringens argumentasjon har hatt ulik betydning i beslutningsprosessene, og hvilken betydning lokale forhold har hatt for utfallet. Undersøkelsen har vært gjennomført som en komparativ casestudie, med personlige intervjuer. Informasjonen fra intervjuene danner grunnlaget for analysen. Reformens målsettinger har vært vesentlige for begge kommunene. Særlig aktuell er målsettingen om en mer helhetlig og samordnet samfunnsutvikling. Kommunene er en del av det Regjeringen kaller flerkommunale byområder. Kommunegrensene samsvarer ikke med de funksjonelle samfunnsutviklingsområdene. Dette gir utfordringer i forhold til arealplanlegging. Haugesund er regionsenter med regionsenter-utfordringer, den mangler eksempelvis areal til videre vekst. Kommunen ser kommunesammenslåing som løsningen på mange av sine utfordringer. Det politiske flertallet i Karmøy, ser ikke at reformens målsettinger nås ved kommunesammenslåing. Karmøy er en stor, veldreven kommune. Den har lite å hente på å inngå i en storkommune. De interkommunale problemene løses gjennom interkommunalt samarbeid. Når det gjelder styringsvirkemidlene har disse hatt liten betydning for utfallet. De fleste informantene etterlyser hardere virkemiddelbruk for å lykkes med reformen. Alle informantene beskriver at lokale forhold har vært viktige i reformprosessen. Langvarige, historiske og kulturelle konflikter mellom kommunene har gjort sammenslåing vanskelig. Lokale forhold som ulik kommuneøkonomi, forholdet by-land, identitet og til dels tjenestelokasjon har bidratt til det negative utfallet i Karmøy. Til tross for at Karmøy er større enn Haugesund, ser det ut for at sentrum-periferi konflikten har vært viktig for utfallet i de to kommunene. ; In this study, I have tried to find out why Haugesund and Karmøy have reached different outcome in the local government reform. Haugesund wanted one large municipality in the region, while the political majority in Karmøy, wanted Karmøy to remain as one municipality, further on. The municipalities are big in a Norwegian scale, with approximately 40.000 citizens. They are very much alike, but differ at some points. Haugesund is a city with centralized structure, while Karmøy is decentralized, consisting of three villages and several rural centres. The reform is a national initiative from the government, but is carried out locally. The arguments from the government contain both political goals and -instruments. According to previous studies, several local conditions may influence on local merging- processes. The intention of the study is to find out why the two municipalities have reached different outcomes in the reform, whether political goals and instruments have different impact on the local decision making processes, and whether local conditions have influenced on the outcome. The study is a comparative case study using personal interviews. Information from the interviews is used in the analysis. According to the political goals, they seem to have been important to both municipalities. Most relevant is a more holistic and coordinated community development. The municipalities are a part of what the government calls multi-communal city areas. These are areas where the administrative boundaries no longer reflect people's daily-life areas. This gives certain challenges according to spatial planning. Haugesund is the center of the region with some typical city-problems. One is lack of space to further growth. Haugesund sees the reform as the solution to their problems. The political majority in Karmøy do not think that the reform will contribute to goal achievement. Karmøy is large, and does well. It will not have much to gain by joining a merged municipality. Inter-municipal cooperation solves regional problems. The political instruments of the reform, have been quite unimportant to the outcome in the municipalities. Most informants believe that the instruments should be harder, for the government to succeed. All informants report that local conditions have been important to the outcome. Longlasting historical and cultural conflicts have complicated the process. Differences in economy, the center-periphery relation, identity and partly location questions, have contributed to the negative outcome in Karmøy. Even though Karmøy is the largest of the two, it seems that the center-periphery conflict has been important in both municipalities. ; acceptedVersion
