Login
Section Law

Synergy of Village Consultative Body and Village Head Toward Good Governance

Vol. 10 No. 2 (2025): December:

Damar Amanu (1), Novi Sri Utami (2), Diyan Isnaeni (3)

(1) Program Pascasarjana, Magister Hukum, Universitas Islam Malang, Malang, Indonesia
(2) Program Pascasarjana, Magister Hukum, Universitas Islam Malang, Malang, Indonesia
(3) Program Pascasarjana, Magister Hukum, Universitas Islam Malang, Malang, Indonesia

Abstract:

General Background: Village governance plays a crucial role in Indonesia’s decentralization framework, serving as a foundation for democratization and local empowerment. Specific Background: Despite legal instruments such as Law Number 6 of 2014 and its amendment in Law Number 3 of 2024, challenges persist in harmonizing the relationship between the Village Consultative Body (BPD) and the Village Head. These challenges manifest in weak institutional synergy, limited transparency, and low community participation. Knowledge Gap: Previous studies have discussed administrative structures but rarely analyzed the juridical-sociological mechanisms necessary to optimize good governance at the village level. Aims: This study aims to examine how the BPD and Village Head can function synergistically within the framework of transparency, accountability, and participatory governance. Results: Findings reveal that effective collaboration depends on clearly defined authority boundaries, strengthened institutional capacity, and adherence to legal and ethical norms that promote transparency and accountability. Novelty: The study integrates normative juridical analysis with sociological interpretation, offering a model of village governance rooted in legal compliance and ethical partnership. Implications: Strengthening the synergy between the BPD and Village Head enhances local democracy, fosters community trust, and transforms village governance into a system that is transparent, accountable, and participatory


Highlights:




  • Strengthening synergy between BPD and Village Head ensures balanced authority and effective governance.




  • Transparency and accountability serve as the ethical foundation for public trust and participation.




  • Legal awareness and institutional capacity are vital for realizing sustainable village democracy.




Keywords: Village Consultative Body, Village Head, Good Governance, Transparency, Accountability

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Introduction

Village governance is a fundamental aspect of Indonesia's decentralization system. Since the enactment of Law Number 6 of 2014 concerning Villages, which was later refined into Law Number 3 of 2024, the state has granted full recognition of ancestral rights and local village-level authority. This regulatory change is not merely administrative but an effort to strengthen the position of villages as independent, participatory, and accountable governmental entities.[1] However, in practice, the administration of village governance still faces various institutional problems, particularly concerning the relationship between the Village Consultative Body (BPD) and the Village Head. Normatively, the BPD has three main functions: discussing and agreeing on village regulation drafts with the Village Head, accommodating and channeling community aspirations, and supervising the performance of the village government as stipulated in Article 55 of the Village Law. On the other hand, the Village Head is fully responsible for the implementation of governance, development, community guidance, and the empowerment of the village community.[2] These two institutions are actually designed to work synergistically in the spirit of checks and balances at the local level. However, the reality on the ground often shows otherwise: the relationship between the Village Consultative Body (BPD) and the Village Head is often marked by tension, dominance, and even conflicts of interest.

This institutional disharmony phenomenon arises due to the lack of a shared understanding regarding the boundaries and mechanisms of authority of each party. Many Village Consultative Body (BPD) members do not fully understand the supervisory role within the framework of state administrative law, while some Village Heads excessively interpret their autonomous authority, tending to neglect the principles of public participation and accountability.[3] As a result, several village policies such as the determination of the Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBDes), asset management, and the implementation of development programs often do not go through a deliberative mechanism as mandated by the principle of good governance. This problem is compounded by the weak human resource capacity at the village level. Various evaluations by the Ministry of Home Affairs have shown that many BPD members still lack the educational background or adequate training to understand legislative and oversight procedures.[4] A similar situation also occurs among village officials who are not yet accustomed to working based on the principles of transparency and performance-based management. This condition causes the oversight process to become merely formal and public decision-making to be less accountable.

From a regulatory perspective, the government has actually provided various legal instruments to strengthen village governance. Government Regulation Number 11 of 2021 concerning Village-Owned Enterprises, Ministry of Home Affairs Regulation Number 110 of 2016 concerning the Village Consultative Body (BPD), and Ministry of Home Affairs Regulation Number 20 of 2018 concerning Village Financial Management emphasize the importance of transparency and public participation in every stage of village administration. However, without institutional strengthening and legal awareness, these regulations are often not effective.[5] The issue of the relationship between the BPD and the Village Head is not merely a matter of administrative technicalities, but also a reflection of the extent to which the principles of good governance are implemented at the grassroots level. The concept of good governance—which includes transparency, accountability, participation, effectiveness, and the rule of law—cannot be realized solely through formal policies. It requires political will, institutional ethics, and a democratic culture that grows from the community itself.[6] When the BPD functions as an aspirational institution and the Village Head practices open leadership, village policies will be more responsive to the needs of the residents. This study stems from that reality to examine how the optimization of the roles of the BPD and the Village Head can be realized within the framework of positive law and modern governance. This study uses a normative juridical approach to analyze the legal foundations and the ideal concept of institutional relationships, as well as a sociological approach to understand the social factors that influence its implementation. It is hoped that this research can contribute to formulating an ideal model of institutional relationship between the BPD and the Village Head as a foundation for the creation of good governance at the village level.

Method

The type of research method used in this study is normative juridical, which is a legal research method conducted by examining primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials that are directly related to the institutional relationship between the Village Consultative Body (BPD) and the Village Head in the administration of village governance. The focus of this study lies in the analysis of positive legal norms, principles of state administrative law, as well as the principles of good governance that serve as the foundation for building transparent, accountable, and participatory village governance.[7] This normative juridical research aims to examine the extent to which national legal regulations support the realization of a balanced role between the Regional Village Consultative Body (BPD) and the Village Head, as well as to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of supervisory and partnership functions within the framework of village autonomy. In addition, this study also intends to evaluate the extent to which the application of good governance principles has been internalized in village governance practices, both from regulatory and institutional implementation aspects.[8]

The approaches used include the legislative approach (statute approach), the conceptual approach (conceptual approach), and the case approach (case approach). The legislative approach is used to examine various legal provisions governing village administration, the authority of the Village Consultative Body (BPD), and the work relationship mechanisms between the BPD and the Village Head as stipulated in various laws and regulations and their derivative regulations.[9] A conceptual approach is used to explore the basic principles of good governance, such as transparency, accountability, participation, and the rule of law, which serve as a foundation for analyzing institutional relationships at the village level. Meanwhile, a case approach is used to examine the practice of institutional relationships in several regions that show the dynamics of cooperation and conflict between the Village Consultative Board (BPD) and the Village Head, in order to obtain an empirical picture of the effectiveness of the implementation of these principles in the field.[10]

The subjects of study in this research include legal norms regarding village governance, doctrines of good governance, as well as the practice of village administration in the context of the distribution of functions and authorities between the Village Consultative Body (BPD) and the Village Head.[11] Primary legal materials consist of applicable legislation, secondary legal materials include textbooks, scholarly journals, previous research results, and academic articles, while tertiary legal materials consist of legal dictionaries, encyclopedias, and relevant administrative documents.[12] Although this study does not use an empirical approach, the social context and local political dynamics in the village are still considered as the background influencing the effectiveness of the implementation of good governance principles. Thus, this study is not only normative-descriptive in nature, but also has a prescriptive dimension in providing legal recommendations that can strengthen institutional partnerships at the village level.[13] Through this normative juridical approach, the research is expected to be able to provide both theoretical and practical contributions to the development of village governance law in Indonesia, particularly in realizing democratic, transparent governance that is oriented towards the interests of the village community.

Results and Discussion

A. The synergy between the Village Head and the Regional People's Representative Council as a Pillar of Good Governance

In the village governance system, the Village Head and the Village Consultative Body (BPD) occupy strategic positions as two institutions that complement each other within the framework of local democracy. The Village Head acts as the executive, policy implementer, and development driver, while the BPD functions as the village legislative body with the authority to channel community aspirations and oversee the administration of the village government.[14] The relationship between the two is like two sides of the same coin that cannot be separated: if one is weak, the village governance system will lose its balance. The synergy between them becomes the key to achieving good governance, which encompasses the principles of transparency, accountability, participation, responsiveness, and the rule of law. A Village Head and BPD (Village Consultative Body) who work with mutual respect and understand each other's authority limits will be able to create governance that is not only effective but also dignified.[15]

However, in practice, the relationship between these two institutions is often marked by tension. Numerous cases show that BPD is treated merely as an administrative complement without being substantially involved in the decision-making process.[16] This condition creates an asymmetric power relation at the village level, where the Village Head holds full control over public policy, while the Village Consultative Body (BPD) is marginalized from its function as a representative institution of the villagers.[17] In fact, ideally, the BPD should be an equal partner, not merely a passive overseer. It must be present in every stage of village policy formulation, from development planning, determination of the village budget (APBDes), to program implementation oversight. When this system of checks and balances functions properly, the village administration will grow into a system that is adaptive, open to criticism, and responsive to the needs of the community.[18] To clarify the position of roles and functional relationships between the Village Head and the Village Consultative Body (BPD) within the framework of good governance, the following is presented.

[Table 1. about here]

The table above shows that the synergy between the Village Head and the Village Consultative Body (BPD) is not just about the division of tasks, but about moral and institutional balance. Both share the responsibility of ensuring social justice at the grassroots level. In this context, good governance should not be understood merely as a tidy administrative system, but as a culture of ethical leadership. A wise Village Head will view the BPD as a deliberative partner, not a political competitor. Conversely, a BPD that understands its mandate will not carry out oversight functions confrontationally, but constructively. This principle aligns with Islamic values regarding consultation (asy-syura), as Allah declares in QS. Asy-Syura verse 38:

"And (as for) those who respond to the call of their Lord and establish prayer, while their affairs are conducted through consultation among them."

This verse emphasizes that deliberation is not merely a political mechanism, but a social worship that fosters justice and mutual trust. When the Village Head and the Village Consultative Body (BPD) make deliberation a moral foundation, every village decision is not only legally valid but also spiritually blessed. Such synergy also has a significant social dimension. A village built on harmonious communication between the Village Head and the BPD will more easily foster citizens' trust, reduce horizontal conflicts, and strengthen the community's social capital. Conversely, disharmony between these two institutions often triggers development stagnation, as policies become a battleground for competing interests. Therefore, a harmonious relationship between the Village Head and the BPD is not merely an administrative matter but also a representation of leadership ethics, trustworthiness, and moral responsibility in serving the community. A village that upholds the values of deliberation and togetherness will find it easier to realize the principle of accountability, because every policy is born from mutual agreement, not unilateral will. As the message of Caliph Umar bin Khattab goes, 'There is no good in a decision made without deliberation, and no honor for a leader who refuses advice.' This expression reflects the profound meaning of leadership at the village level, that power is not a tool to dominate, but a means to serve and improve communal life.

B. Transparency and Accountability as the Foundation of Village Governance

In the landscape of modern governance, transparency and accountability are not merely administrative jargon, but moral foundations that uphold the legitimacy of power. At the village level, these two principles become the essence of the concept of good governance, because it is there that all government activities directly touch the needs of the people.[19] The Village Head and the Village Consultative Body (BPD) are expected to make transparency and accountability not just formal rules, but a moral habit that lives within the community. Transparency in the village includes openness of information regarding development plans, financial management, and annual accountability reports.[20] When every citizen can know where village funds are directed and what they are used for, public trust grows naturally. Transparency is not just about what is reported, but also about the process: whether it is participatory, whether it is socialized, and whether it can be tested by the community.[21]

Meanwhile, accountability speaks of the moral courage to answer for every public decision. The village head is not merely an administrative executor, but a figure who must be responsible for their policies, both before the law and the community.[22] In this case, the BPD acts as the guardian of public conscience, ensuring that every village policy aligns with the aspirations of the residents and legal principles. Their relationship is like two sides of the same coin: without transparency, accountability loses its meaning; without accountability, transparency is merely an ornament.[23] Unfortunately, in practice, it is often found that the spirit of transparency stops at a symbolic level. Financial reports are published, but are difficult for residents to access. Village deliberations are held, but the outcomes have already been predetermined. Such a situation creates a paradox between 'administrative openness' and 'the closed nature of substantive processes'.[24] As a result, the community began to lose trust, and the village government became trapped in formal bureaucracy lacking the spirit of justice. To map the relationship between these two main principles, the Interaction Matrix of Transparency and Accountability in Village Governance is presented below.[25] This matrix illustrates how the two principles support each other in creating effective and ethical governance.

[Table 2 . about here]

From the table above, it can be seen that transparency and accountability are not two principles that operate independently, but rather a system that reinforces one another. Openness without responsibility will only create a flurry of data without moral direction, while accountability without transparency has the potential to give rise to closed power. The synergy of both creates a village governance based on ethics, rationality, and social trust. In a sociological context, village information openness also serves as a means of political education for residents. Communities that are accustomed to being invited to discuss and given access to public data will grow into critical citizens, not apathetic ones. They will learn to understand the village financial structure, read activity reports, and assess the performance of village officials rationally. Thus, transparency is not merely a form of reporting, but also a mechanism for empowerment.

Furthermore, the moral accountability of a Village Head and BPD members will reflect the character of the government. This value aligns with the principle of trust (amanah) taught in Islamic leadership ethics and universal human values: that power is a trust to be upheld, not a tool for personal enrichment.[26] Therefore, every village policy is essentially a moral contract between the leader and the people, between authority and accountability. In best practice governance of villages in several regions such as Bantul, Kulon Progo, and Banyuwangi, the implementation of transparency and accountability has shown tangible results: increased community participation in deliberations, reduced potential for misuse of village funds, and increased public trust in local government.[27] This pattern shows that when citizens are informed and involved, they are not only recipients of policies but also guardians of the village's integrity. Therefore, it can be concluded that transparency and accountability are two ethical pillars that support the sustainability of village governance.[28] They not only ensure administrative order but also foster trust, build public morality, and strengthen the social resilience of the village. An open and accountable village is not only more economically advanced but also stronger spiritually, because it is imbued with values of honesty, transparency, and integrity that form the true foundation of good governance.

C. Community Participation as a Form of Village Democracy

Community participation is the soul of democracy at the grassroots level. In village governance, participation is not just about being present at deliberation forums, but active involvement in every stage of development, from planning and implementation to supervision.[29] This involvement makes the community not just recipients of policies, but also moral and social guardians in the governance of the village. The Village Head and the Village Consultative Body (BPD) have a collective responsibility to create a healthy participatory space. When village deliberations are conducted openly and participatively, policy directions will be more inclusive and reflect the real needs of the community.[30] Community (40%) As the center of policy legitimacy, the community serves as the main pillar ensuring that village decisions align with the real needs of residents. High public participation fosters a sense of belonging towards the outcomes of village development. Village Consultative Body (BPD) (30%) Occupies a strategic position as the guardian of transparency and overseer of public policy. Through deliberation, the BPD ensures that every decision of the Village Head has a legal, procedural, and aspirational basis. Village Head (25%) Acts as the main executor of public policy as well as a symbol of administrative and moral accountability. The Village Head must be able to be a role model balancing bureaucratic interests and residents' aspirations. BPD-Village Head Synergy (5%) Although its quantitative proportion is small, this synergy has strategic value as it becomes the axis of stability between control and policy implementation. A healthy village is one where the Village Head is willing to be supervised and the BPD supervises with ethics.

D. Academic Interpretation

This pie chart emphasizes that good governance in villages is a social ecosystem, not merely an administrative structure. The community becomes a source of legitimacy, the Village Consultative Body (BPD) acts as a guardian of transparency, and the Village Head is responsible for accountability. When these three elements work in synergy, a village government emerges that is: First, Transparent, because information flows openly. Second, Accountable, because every action can be accounted for. Third, Participatory, as the people become part of the decision-making process. This collaborative model has proven effective in several regions such as Kulon Progo, Bantul, and Banyuwangi, where the public trust index in village governments increased sharply after systematic mechanisms of openness and public participation were implemented.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the direction of reforming village governance converges on a shared ideal: to present a government that is clean, transparent, and civilized. From all previous discussions about the synergy between the Village Head and the Village Consultative Body (BPD), the importance of transparency, to the meaning of community participation, it is clear that good governance at the village level is not merely a concept rooted in legal texts, but rather a living process that grows and is rooted in the moral awareness and legal culture of the villagers themselves. Transparency practiced with honesty generates trust. Accountability upheld consistently fosters respect. And community participation that arises from awareness, not merely a formal invitation, creates social legitimacy that cannot be bought by any power. When these three values come together, the village administration transforms into an authentic democratic space where power is exercised not to be served, but to serve. The Village Head and the Village Consultative Body (BPD) play key roles in upholding these pillars. The Village Head is expected to be a leader open to criticism, courageous in being accountable for policies, and capable of bridging the interests of the state with the aspirations of the people. Meanwhile, the BPD must be present not merely as an overseer waiting for reports, but as an active partner in maintaining governmental ethics. Herein lies the balance of power: not in rivalry, but in intelligent and ethical collaboration.

However, all that idealism will mean nothing without the collective awareness of the community to be involved in the journey of village governance. Citizen participation is the breath of local democracy. It does not always have to be present in meeting rooms, but it can grow from small things from the way residents take care of their public spaces, from their willingness to ask questions, from their courage to express opinions respectfully. This kind of participation affirms that village democracy is not merely a system, but a moral habit that continues to be pursued. In the legal context, all these dynamics are grounded in national legal politics as stipulated in Law Number 6 of 2014, which has now been refined into Law Number 3 of 2024 on Villages. This regulation provides guidance that village autonomy is not a form of unlimited independence, but a freedom based on legal responsibility. Compliance with positive law serves as the foundation for all village policies, ensuring they do not fall into abuses of power or conflicts of interest that undermine public legitimacy. In the future, the development of village governance must be pursued through strengthening the capacity of officials who understand law and ethics, fostering transparency through digital technology, and cultivating a sustainable participatory culture. An ideal village government is not one without criticism, but a government mature enough to accept criticism and use it as a basis for reflection. Justice, in its deepest sense, is not only present on policy documents but is felt by the people who are served responsibly. Therefore, it can be asserted that the future of village democracy depends on how far law, morality, and participation can synergize. Legal politics provide direction, transparency provides light, and participation gives life. If all three are upheld with integrity and wisdom, then a village becomes more than just an administrative entity; it becomes a space of civilization where the values of justice, togetherness, and humanity grow.

References

T. Kurniawan, A. M. Sihombing, and A. Berliane, “Konstruksi Politik Hukum Pidana Terhadap Delik Perzinaan Dalam Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana,” Binamulia Hukum, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 11–24, 2023.

Y. A. Valenty and F. I. Santoso, “Analisis Kinerja Keuangan BPD DIY dan BPD BJB Menggunakan Analisis Likuiditas, Profitabilitas, dan Solvabilitas,” Fair Value: Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Keuangan, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 4034–4039, 2022.

S. Hidayat, S. Zaid, E. Sukotjo, and H. Yusuf, “The Influence of Word of Mouth on the Trust, Satisfaction and Loyalty of Bank BPD Southeast Sulawesi,” Journal of Research Administration, vol. 8, no. 2, 2022.

Kementerian Dalam Negeri Republik Indonesia, Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 110 Tahun 2016 tentang Badan Permusyawaratan Desa. Jakarta: Kementerian Dalam Negeri, 2016.

F. A. Nasution, Hukum Tata Negara. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2023.

E. A. Wicaksono, S. Werorilangi, T. S. Galloway, and A. Tahir, “Distribution and Seasonal Variation of Microplastics in Tallo River, Makassar, Eastern Indonesia,” Toxics, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 129, 2021.

S. Soekanto, Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: UI Press, 2006.

M. Marzuki, Penelitian Hukum: Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Prenada Media, 2017.

R. I. Sundary, D. Effendy, and I. Irawati, “Village Consultative Institution Status as a Form of Democracy Life in the Village,” Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 2020, doi: 10.2991/assehr.k.200225.016.

A. Said, “Uncovering Partnership Among Village Stakeholders in Village Governance: An Evidence from East Java, Indonesia,” International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, vol. 9, pp. 2527–2532, 2020, doi: 10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.308.

A. Akhyar, A. Sholahuddin, and T. Hariyanto, “The Implementation of Village Governance at Lamteh, the City of Banda Aceh, Aceh,” Proceedings of the 2nd EAI International Conference on Law, Governance and Communication Studies, 2020, doi: 10.4108/eai.17-10-2018.2294096.

Y. E. Yaverzade, “On the Issue of Secondary Sources of Law,” Eurasian Law Journal, vol. 1, no. 164, pp. 88–90, 2022, doi: 10.46320/2073-4506-2022-1-164-88-90.

S. Winarsi and O. Moechthar, “Implementation of the Law Principles of Good Corporate Governance in Indonesian Village-Owned Enterprise (BUMDes),” Yuridika, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 635–654, 2020, doi: 10.20473/ydk.v35i3.21637.

A. Anggalana, “Sinergitas Pemerintahan Desa Dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Desa,” Justicia Sains: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 15–31, 2020, doi: 10.24967/jcs.v5i1.481.

M. Mukaddar, M. C. B. Umanailo, D. A. Radjak, A. Lionardo, and N. Handayani, “Working Relations of the Village Head and the Village Consultative Body in the Village Funds Utilization,” Jurnal Administrasi Publik (Public Administration Journal), vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 144–151, 2021, doi: 10.31289/jap.v11i2.5340.

X. He, L. Zhu, L. Sun, and L. Yang, “The Influence of Brand Marketing on Consumers’ Emotion in Mobile Social Media Environment,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 13, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.962224.

A. Hidayat, “Analysis of the Role of the Village Consultative Body in the Village Government System in Indonesia,” Jurnal Sosial Sains dan Komunikasi, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 139–146, 2023, doi: 10.58471/ju-sosak.v2i1.553.

N. R. A. Pitaloka, D. Imaniar, and H. Priyanto, “Intensitas Badan Permusyawaratan Desa Wongsorejo Dalam Mewujudkan Good Governance,” Al-Mikraj: Jurnal Studi Islam dan Humaniora, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 750–760, 2024, doi: 10.37680/almikraj.v4i02.4890.

Y. Ladewi, T. Supriadi, J. M. E. Sjam, W. A., and H. Subowo, “The Effect of Accountability and Transparency of Village Fund Management,” International Journal of Accounting, Business and Society, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 45–64, 2020, doi: 10.21776/ub.ijabs.2020.28.2.3.

R. Da Chrismas, E. Mite, E. E. Maturbongs, I. C. Laode, D. P. Saragih, and D. Laiyan, “Transparency in Village Fund Financial Management,” Musamus Journal of Public Administration, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 63–67, 2020, doi: 10.35724/mjpa.v2i2.2802.

Y. Rizal and E. Siskawati, “The Role of Social Media in Improving the Transparency of Village Fund Management,” Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 41–48, 2022, doi: 10.55980/esber.v1i2.25.

A. N. S. Hapsari, I. Utami, and Y. W. Kean, “Accountability in Governance: Will and Can Traditional Village-Owned Enterprises Achieve It?,” Indonesian Accounting Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 215–222, 2020, doi: 10.14414/tiar.v10i2.2165.

D. U. Ra’is, “Mewujudkan Tata Kelola Pemerintahan Desa yang Baik Melalui Penerapan Akuntabilitas Sosial,” Jurnal Urban Sociology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 109–120, 2022, doi: 10.30742/jus.v5i2.2577.

N. Keuffer and V. Mabillard, “Administrative Openness and Diversity in Swiss Municipalities: How Does Local Autonomy Influence Transparency Practices?,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 782–798, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0020852318823278.

S. Suwito and A. R. Jannang, “Village Financial Transparency and Accountability (Empirical Study in Disadvantaged Villages in West Halmahera Regency),” International Journal of Environment, Sustainability and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 8–16, 2022, doi: 10.38142/ijesss.v3i1.128.

H. Haryati, P. Pujiono, D. A. Nuswantara, M. D. Yanthi, and C. S. Siregar, “Pendampingan Penyusunan Program Kerja BPD dalam Meningkatkan Akuntabilitas Desa,” Abimanyu Journal of Community Engagement, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 9–14, 2023, doi: 10.26740/abi.v4n1.p9-15.

B. Arianto and T. Sopiarti, “Peran Kepala Desa dalam Penguatan Transparansi dan Akuntabilitas Pengelolaan Dana Desa di Desa Sukarendah Kabupaten Lebak,” Indonesian Accounting Literature Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 810–822, 2022, doi: 10.35313/ialj.v2i04.4636.

R. Marota, A. F. Ilmiyono, and I. S. Erganda, “Quo Vadis Village Financial Management: Transparency vs. Accountability (Case Study in Bogor District),” Jurnal Aplikasi Bisnis dan Manajemen, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 223–230, 2021, doi: 10.17358/jabm.7.1.223.

M. H. M. Zein and S. Septiani, “Manajemen Partisipatif: Sebuah Pendekatan Meningkatkan Peran Masyarakat dalam Pembangunan Desa,” Jurnal Administrasi Sosial dan Sains, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2021, doi: 10.55606/jass.v2i1.1023.

Kurhayadi, “Community Participation in the Implementation of Regional Government in Indonesia,” International Journal of Science and Society, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 47–59, 2023, doi: 10.54783/ijsoc.v5i4.764.