Strategi Transformasi Badan Usaha Milik Desa Berbasis Kinerja Dalam Penguatan Ekonomi Perdesaan Berkelanjutan

  • Teguh Purmawanto * Mail Kementerian Desa dan Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal, Indonesia
Keywords: Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes); performance management; rural development; digital governance; public policy

Abstract

Although the number of Village Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) has increased significantly, their contribution to rural economic development remains limited because existing supervision emphasizes administrative compliance rather than organizational performance. This study aims to formulate a performance-based transformation strategy to strengthen the productivity, accountability, and sustainability of BUMDes. A qualitative policy analysis approach was employed by reviewing regulations, literature, and secondary data, complemented by the Urgency Seriousness Growth (USG) analysis, root cause analysis, and Bardach's policy evaluation framework. The findings reveal that the weak performance of BUMDes stems from three interrelated factors: the absence of a national performance based regulatory framework, fragmented performance information systems, and limited institutional capacity and managerial competence. The recommended policy option is a comprehensive systemic reform consisting of the implementation of a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) based governance framework, the development of the SIAB-DESA integrated performance information system, competency standardization for BUMDes managers, and performance-based incentive and disincentive mechanisms. These reforms are expected to shift BUMDes governance from an administrative compliance approach to results oriented management, enabling BUMDes to become professional, productive, and sustainable drivers of rural economic development.

References

R. Febrina, A. Marta, R. M. Amin, and S. Hadi, “Economic development and the rural environment: BUMDES development strategy,” in E3S Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, Mar. 2024. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202450602005.

G. Bouckaert and J. Halligan, “‘MANAGING PERFORMANCE-International comparisons’ (Routledge, London 2008),” 2008. [Online]. Available: www.apsc.gov.au/publications

W. van. Dooren, Geert. Bouckaert, and John. Halligan, Performance management in the public sector. Routledge, 2015.

A. H. Citra Wijaya and R. Akbar, “THE INFLUENCE OF INFORMATION, ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS, AND EXTERNAL PRESSURE TOWARDS THE ADOPTION OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM IN PUBLIC SECTOR,” 2013.

Z. Fang, “E-Government in Digital Era: Concept, Practice, and Development,” International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, vol. 10, Jan. 2002.

S. Kim, K. N. Andersen, and J. Lee, “Platform Government in the Era of Smart Technology,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 82, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1111/puar.13422.

N. Aoki, M. Tay, and S. Rawat, “Whole-of-government and joined-up government: A systematic literature review,” Jun. 01, 2024, John Wiley and Sons Inc. doi: 10.1111/padm.12949.

G. Hammerschmid, E. Palaric, M. Rackwitz, and K. Wegrich, “A shift in paradigm? Collaborative public administration in the context of national digitalization strategies,” Governance, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 411–430, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1111/gove.12778.

F. Fusi, “When Local Governments Request Access to Data: Power and Coordination Mechanisms across Stakeholders,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 23–37, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1111/puar.13307.

L. Ramadani, C. F. Breidbach, and S. Kurnia, “Investigating information and communication technology-enabled national development as a multi-level social process,” Information Systems Journal, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 130–153, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1111/isj.12381.

N. Haug, S. Dan, and I. Mergel, “Digitally-induced change in the public sector: a systematic review and research agenda,” Public Management Review, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1963–1987, 2024, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917.

E. Ruijer, G. Porumbescu, R. Porter, and S. Piotrowski, “Social equity in the data era: A systematic literature review of data-driven public service research,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 316–332, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1111/puar.13585.

A. Deslatte and E. Stokan, “Sustainability Synergies or Silos? The Opportunity Costs of Local Government Organizational Capabilities,” in Public Administration Review, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Nov. 2020, pp. 1024–1034. doi: 10.1111/puar.13237.

Y. Yan, K. I. Saguin, and M. K. Coban, “Policy Capacity in the Global South: Linking Theory and Empirics,” May 01, 2026, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. doi: 10.1002/pad.70070.

T. H. Clausen, M. A. Demircioglu, and G. A. Alsos, “Intensity of innovation in public sector organizations: The role of push and pull factors,” Public Adm., vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 159–176, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1111/padm.12617.

Q. Thanh Nguyen, “National digital data governance in developing countries: An institutional capability framework and its illustrative relevance to Vietnam,” Information Development, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.1177/02666669261462053.

G. Ongena, S. Horst, and P. Ravesteyn, “Digital maturity and performance of public organizations: the mediating role of dynamic capabilities,” International Journal of Public Sector Management, pp. 1–20, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-07-2025-0322.

A. Ben Brik and M. Hussein, “Organisational determinants of evaluation maturity in the public sector: A resource-based perspective,” Evaluation, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 539–558, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1177/13563890251347270.

Dimensions Badge
Published
2026-08-15
How to Cite
Purmawanto, T. (2026) “Strategi Transformasi Badan Usaha Milik Desa Berbasis Kinerja Dalam Penguatan Ekonomi Perdesaan Berkelanjutan ”, Jurnal Akutansi Manajemen Ekonomi Kewirausahaan (JAMEK), 6(3), pp. 486-495. doi: 10.47065/jamek.v6i3.3148.