Why Public Financial Management Matters
Public financial management covers a range of activities, including budget planning, implementation, accountability, internal control, transparency, and financial reporting. These processes influence how effectively governments allocate and manage public resources.
Bekasi City and Bekasi Regency are administratively separate areas but are economically connected within the Greater Jakarta metropolitan system. Public agencies in both areas face increasing service demands, administrative complexity, and pressure to demonstrate accountable use of public funds.
The researchers therefore examined financial management practices across public-sector organizations in both jurisdictions. The article does not specify the exact period when the survey data were collected, but the paper was received in July 2026, revised in August, and accepted in September 2026.
How the Study Was Conducted
The research used a quantitative, cross-sectional survey involving 120 respondents from 12 public agencies in Bekasi City and Bekasi Regency. The respondents included finance staff, treasurers, budget analysts, financial subdivision officials, commitment-making officials, and internal control or audit personnel.
The sample was evenly divided between the two jurisdictions, with 60 respondents from Bekasi City and 60 from Bekasi Regency. Most respondents held undergraduate degrees.
The researchers assessed seven areas of public financial management using questionnaire responses: budget planning, budget implementation, transparency, accountability, internal control, financial reporting, and financial performance.
The data were analyzed using a composite-based structural modeling approach with 5,000 bootstrap samples. The model explained 28.5% of the variation in financial performance, indicating that the financial management variables examined in the study accounted for a meaningful portion of differences in reported performance.
Transparency Remains the Weakest Dimension
Overall, public financial management practices were categorized as good, with an average index of 3.643. However, the results showed differences between individual dimensions.
Budget planning recorded an average score of 3.758, while financial reporting reached 3.721. Accountability had the highest mean at 3.800.
In contrast, transparency recorded the lowest mean at 3.402, placing it in the moderate category. The finding indicates that although financial management practices were generally viewed positively, information disclosure and communication of budget changes still require greater attention.
The study also found differences among individual agencies. Bappeda Kota Bekasi recorded the highest overall financial management index at 3.875, while the Social Affairs Agency of Bekasi Regency recorded the lowest at 3.393 and was categorized as moderate. The researchers noted that differences were not only related to jurisdiction but also to organizational conditions and specific management dimensions.
Budget Planning and Reporting Show the Strongest Relationships
The structural analysis identified two factors with statistically significant positive relationships with financial performance.
Budget planning had a coefficient of 0.268 with a p-value of 0.005. This indicates that stronger planning practices were associated with better financial performance.
Financial reporting also showed a significant positive relationship, with a coefficient of 0.232 and a p-value of 0.023.
Transparency showed a positive indicative relationship at the 10% level, with a coefficient of 0.180 and a p-value of 0.063.
Meanwhile, budget implementation, accountability, and internal control did not show statistically significant direct relationships with financial performance in the full model. The researchers emphasize that these results should not be interpreted as meaning those functions are unimportant. Their effects may instead operate indirectly or may be less distinguishable when other financial management factors are considered.
Implications for Local Government
The findings point to the importance of strengthening financial management before and after budget execution.
For local governments, evidence-based budget planning can help connect program priorities, available resources, and actual public needs. Better planning can reduce mismatches between allocations and intended programs.
High-quality financial reporting also provides information for decision-making, evaluation, and accountability. The researchers suggest that reports should be timely, accurate, complete, and consistent with applicable standards.
The relatively low transparency score also highlights the need for more practical forms of disclosure. These may include clearer information about budget allocations and changes, digital reporting systems, monitoring dashboards, and better communication with stakeholders.
Sari of Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya University and Simorangkir of Mercu Buana University conclude that local governments should prioritize data-based budget planning and high-quality financial reporting while strengthening transparency as a practical governance mechanism.
About the Authors
Pratiwi Nila Sari is affiliated with Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya University, Indonesia, while Rona Tumiur Mauli Carolin Simorangkir is affiliated with Mercu Buana University, Indonesia. The article identifies their university affiliations but does not provide their academic degrees or specific fields of expertise, so these details cannot be established from the source.
0 Komentar