Fraud in Public Budgeting: Evidence from Indonesia
https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-5671-2023-27-2-152-161
Abstract
Fraudulent behavior of participants in the budgetary process depending on situational and individual factors is studied in this research. The situational factors included obedience pressure and opportunity. The individual factor included Machiavellianism. This study was a laboratory experiment with blended methods. The subjects were accounting employees in the public and private sectors of Indonesia. The results indicate that the authorities’ pressure significantly influenced their subordinates in decision-making. This opportunity is a root cause of fraud. This research also confirmed that individuals with high Machiavellianism have more fraudulent behaviors than those with low Machiavellianism. The sensitivity test found that the proportion of female participants did not affect the primary outcome. Similar to gender analysis, there was no difference in fraudulent behaviors between the accounting employees in the Indonesian public sector and those in the private sector. The Government understand the factors causing the employees’ fraudulent behaviors in budgeting. State institution will strive to maintain public trust and resources efficiently and effectively.
About the Author
N. W. Rustiarini
Universitas Mahasaraswati Denpasar
Indonesia
Competing Interests:
Indonesia
Ni Wayan Rustiarini - Assoc. Prof., Lecturer, Accounting Department
Denpasar, Bali
Competing Interests:
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare
References
1. Rustiarini N. W., Sutrisno S., Nurkholis N., Andayani W. Fraud triangle in public procurement: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Financial Crime. 2019;26(4):951–968. DOI: 10.1108/JFC-11–2018–0121
2. Raudla R. Politicians’ use of performance information in the budget process. Public Money & Management. 2022;42(3):144–151. DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2021.1989779
3. Maulidi A. Storytelling of bureaucratic white-collar crimes in Indonesia: Is it a matter of reciprocal norm? Journal of Financial Crime. 2020;27(2):573–586. DOI: 10.1108/JFC-07–2019–0087
4. Harrison A., Summers J., Mennecke B. The effects of the dark triad on unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018;153(1):53–77. DOI: 10.1007/s10551–016–3368–3
5. Mutschmann M., Hasso T., Pelster M. Dark triad managerial personality and financial reporting manipulation. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022;181(3):763–788. DOI: 10.1007/s10551–021–04959–1
6. Rustiarini N. W., Yuesti A., Gama A. W.S. Public accounting profession and fraud detection responsibility. Journal of Financial Crime. 2021;28(2):613–627. DOI: 10.1108/JFC-07–2020–0140
7. Gallani S., Krishnan R., Marinich E., Shields M. D. Budgeting, psychological contracts, and budgetary misreporting. Management Science. 2019;65(6):2924–2945. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3067
8. Luo X. R., Li H., Hu Q., Xu H. Why individual employees commit malicious computer abuse: A routine activity theory perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2020;21(6):5–25. DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00646
9. Rustiarini N. W., Sutrisno T., Nurkholis N., Andayani W. Why people commit public procurement fraud? The fraud diamond view. Journal of Public Procurement. 2019;19(4):345–362. DOI: 10.1108/JOPP-02–2019–0012
10. Triantoro H. D., Utami I., Joseph C. Whistleblowing system, Machiavellian personality, fraud intention: An experimental study. Journal of Financial Crime. 2020;27(1):202–216. DOI: 10.1108/JFC-01–2019–0003
11. Utami I., Wijono S., Noviyanti S., Mohamed N. Fraud diamond, Machiavellianism, and fraud intention. International Journal of Ethics and Systems. 2019;35(4):531–544. DOI: 10.1108/IJOES-02–2019–0042
12. Madein A., Sholihin M. The impact of social and environmental information on managers’ decisions: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Asian Review of Accounting. 2015;23(2):156–169. DOI: 10.1108/ARA-11–2013–0074
13. Puspasari N., Suwardi E. The effect of individual morality and internal control on the propensity to commit fraud: Evidence from local governments. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business. 2016;31(2):208–219. DOI: 10.22146/jieb.15291
14. Murphy P. R. Attitude, Machiavellianism, and the rationalization of misreporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 2012;37(4):242–259. DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2012.04.002
15. Sapta I. K.S., Rustiarini N. W., Kusuma I. G.A.E.T., Astakoni I. M.P. Spiritual leadership and organizational commitment: The mediation role of workplace spirituality. Cogent Business & Management. 2021;8(1):1–16. DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2021.1966865
16. Christie R., Geis F. L., eds. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1970. 415 p.
17. Carré J. R., Jones D. N., Mueller S. M. Perceiving opportunities for legal and illegal profit: Machiavellianism and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020;162:109942. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109942
Review
For citations:
Rustiarini N.W. Fraud in Public Budgeting: Evidence from Indonesia. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2023;27(2):152-161. https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-5671-2023-27-2-152-161
Views:
392
Email this article 