Published date: Oct 02 2023

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: 1st Doctoral International Conference 2023

Pages: 304–323

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v8i17.14123

Emi Hidayatiemi@iaiibarahimy.comLecturer at Ibrahimy, Banyuwangi University

Akhmad SofyanLecturer at Faculty of Arts, Jember University

Djoko PoernomoLecturer of Business Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Jember University

Supranoto .Lecturer of State Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Hasanuddin University

of a government-driven program, namely involving the transformation of DBM (Dana Bergulir Masyarakat) into Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDesa). This research will hopefully help in developing the best transformation model to enhance policy effectiveness and empower BUMDesa as the primary pillar in the spirit of partnership, by taking into account BUMDesa policy after the publication of the village law and its derivative regulations in the face of complex policy challenges. The Nawacita agenda, recognition-subsidiarity principle, and granting local autonomy at the village scale were the core principles of the preceding BUMDesa policy shift. BUMDesa’s current job is to change the government-centric agenda into practices that reflect the delegation of local power at the village scale, at both the village and rural area levels. Understanding the Berdesa tradition is essential for the broader policy agenda to promote village economic enterprises so that it is carried out in practice and still recognizes, respects, and elevates communities in Indonesia. Elinor Ostrom (1990) provides a thorough understanding of institutions in the management of common goods to achieve sustainability, and her work complements the conceptual framework developed by Douglass C. North and Bromley to understand the relationship between institutions and policies in the context of resource management. This study is guided by the theory of institutional change, and uses a qualitative approach with a case study design.

Keywords: institutiional transformation, village credit agency, microfinance institution

[1] Yustika AE. Ekonomi kelembagaan definisi, Teori, dan strategi. Bayumedia Publishing. 2008.

[2] Yustika AE, Baks R. Konsep ekonomi kelembagaan: Pedesaan, pertanian dan kedaulatan pangan. Malang: Empat Dua. 2015.

[3] Setiawan S. Membangun Indonesia dari pinggiran desa. setkab.go.if. 2019.

[4] Yunus M, Weber K. Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism. New York: Public Affairs. 2007.

[5] Stiglitz JE. Whither socialism? USA: MIT Press. 1997.

[6] Freixas X, Rochet JC. Microeconomics of banking. USA: MIT Press. 2008.

[7] Chliova M, Brinckmann J, Rosenbusch N. Is microcredit a blessing for the poor? A meta-analysis examining development outcomes and contextual considerations. 2015;30:467-https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.10.003

[8] Siwale J, Kimmitt J. Discourse on institutional change in the Zambian microfinance sector. Africa Journal of Management. 2019;5(1):47–78.

[9] Khavul S, Chavez H, Bruton GD. When institutional change outruns the change agent, the contested terrain of entrepreneurial microfinance for those living in poverty. Special Issue: Learning and Instruction. 2013;28:30–50.

[10] Maguire S, Hardy C, Lawrence TB. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV.AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Acad manage. 2004;47:657-679.

[11] Mair J, Marti I. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing. 2009;24(5):419–35.

[12] McKague K, Oliver C. Network bricolage as a reconciliation of indigenous and transplanted institutions in Africa. Journal of Management. 2016;2:300–29.

[13] McMullen JS. Delineating the domain of development entrepreneurship: A marketbased approach to facilitating inclusive economic growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2011;35(1):185–215.

[14] Rajwani T, Liendong TA. Political activity and firm performance in non-market research: A review and international comparative assessment. Journal of World Business. 2015;50(2):273–83.

[15] North DC. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance: The political economy of institutions and decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678

[16] Hira A, Hira R. New institutionalism: Contradictory notions of change. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 2000;59(2):267–82.

[17] Davis LE, North DC. Institutional change and American economic growth. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511561078

[18] Daniel WB. Economic interest and institutions: Conceptual foundations of public policy. New York: Basil Blackwell. 1989.

[19] Tachjan H, Mariana D, Paskarina C. Implementasi kebijakan publik. Bandung: AIPL. 2006.

[20] Dichter T, Harper M. What is wrong With microfinance? Warwickshire: Practical Action Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780440446

[21] Barth JR. Bank regulation and supervision: What works best? Bank Capital Adequacy. 2004;13:205–48.

[22] Mersland R, Øystein Strøm R. Performance and governance in microfinance institutions. Journal of Banking and Finance. 2009;33(4):662–9.

[23] Scott WR. Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Los Angeles: SAGE. 2014.

[24] Hardin G. The tragedy of the commons. Science New Series. 1968:1243–1248.

[25] Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: A method source book. SAGE Publications. 2014.

[26] Putra AS. Buku 7 badan usaha milik desa spirit usaha kolektif desa. Kementrian Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal. 2015.

[27] Zikos D. Revising the role of institutions in transformative contexts: Institutional change and conflicts. Sustainability. 2020;12.

[28] Ostrom E. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. The Political Economy of Institutions, and Decisions. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763