SURYANINGSUM, Sri and EFFENDI, Moch. Irhas and GUSAPTONO, R. Hendry (2016) TRUSTEESHIP GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY FISCAL. FEB UGM.
Preview |
Text
B27 Prof Jogiyanto.pdf Download (225kB) | Preview |
Preview |
Text
B27 Prof SWD.pdf Download (251kB) | Preview |
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how the strategy of regional heads Suyoto create
trusteeship governance and sustainability governance structure.Good government, based
on trusteeship governance according to Suyotobasedlslamic spirit. Human valuesare
beautiful inlslam.Suyotoleadershipis based onthe hadith. 'Auf Ibn Malik, "The best
leader is the one who loves and be loved by the people, who prays and be prayed. The
worst leader is the one who hates and be hated, who curses and be cursed by the
people."Bojonegoro District governs its government based on trusteeship
(Suryaningsum, et al 2016).
Research built with active interviews and in-depth interviews. Suyoto very open and
inviting researchers to follow the activities of the local government on Friday in
Bojonegoro. Research carried out for one year. Research has been carried out from
January to December, 2015. This research-based case study method. Researchers chose
Bojonegoro because it is able to overcome the defich of local budgets. Bojonegorodistric
govemsselectedbya successful development (Suryaningsum, at al 2015a).
The research results are Suyoto has a strategy to build on the trust and affection for the
people. Suyoto make sustainability order to focus on economic development, sustainable
fiscal policy, the environment, human development and social capital, and the
government is smart, nice and clean - smart, good and clean governance. The pillars were
able to cope with financial difficulties, the budget deficit in 2008. In 2008, the first year
was Suyoto leadership, the deficit occurred. The deficit occurred because several major
projects of the former government to be financed by debt. Suyoto policy at the beginning
of leadership is to manage finances very closely. At the beginning of the year, focusing
on the debt until 2012. The scale of spending priorities very tightened. Delaying the
construction of infrastructure that is not Directly related to the improvement of public
welfare or not so urgent, such as the rehabilitation of the buildings of governance etc.
Development policy then in 4 (four) things; education, health, infrastructure roads and
community empowerment.
| Item Type: | Other |
|---|---|
| Subjek: | H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) |
| Divisions: | x. Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences > School of Social Sciences |
| Depositing User: | Dr.SE.M.Si SRI SURYANINGSUM |
| Date Deposited: | 29 Oct 2018 03:18 |
| Last Modified: | 06 Nov 2018 03:59 |
| URI: | http://eprints.upnyk.ac.id/id/eprint/17154 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |