Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

Rural poverty in East Kalimantan remains higher than urban poverty despite a declining overall poverty rate. Although previous studies have examined rural poverty, village development, and Village-Owned Enterprises (BUM Desa), the relationship between institutional capacity, business mechanisms, policy implementation, and socioeconomic outcomes remains insufficiently explored. This article analyzes the documented capacity and implementation of BUM Desa and their potential contribution to poverty alleviation. Using a descriptive qualitative approach, the study examines poverty statistics, village development indicators, regulations, policy documents, and evaluations of BUM Desa financial assistance. Data are analyzed across four dimensions: institutional governance, business and market capacity, program implementation, and socioeconomic outcomes. The Urgency, Seriousness, Growth (USG) method serves as a prioritization tool based on scores documented in existing policy assessments. The findings reveal an output–outcome gap: financial assistance and capacity-building initiatives have generated economic activities and employment opportunities, but have not consistently strengthened village economies. Key constraints include managerial capacity, financial administration, market access, product development, capital, mentoring, and partnerships. This study contributes an analytical framework positioning BUM Desa as a link between policy inputs and socioeconomic outcomes. It highlights the need for institutional professionalization, business planning, market integration, financing access, digitalization, partnerships, and meaningful participation of poor communities in local economic activities.

Keywords

Village-Owned Enterprises (BUM Desa) rural poverty local economic development institutional capacity policy implementation East Kalimantan

Article Details

References

  1. Agustina, R. E., & Yahya, A. (2022). Village development and district poverty rates in Indonesia. Jurnal Litbang Sukowati, 6(1), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.32630/sukowati.v6i1.329
  2. Akhyar, A., & Firdaus, F. (2019). Poverty alleviation through the National Community Empowerment Program (PNPM)-Mandiri Perkotaan. Journal of Communication and Culture, 100–106.
  3. East Kalimantan Central Statistics Agency. (2023). Labor statistics and socioeconomic indicators. East Kalimantan BPS.
  4. Central Statistics Agency of East Kalimantan Province. (2026). Poverty in East Kalimantan, September 2025. Central Statistics Agency of East Kalimantan Province.
  5. World Bank. (2022). East Asia and the Pacific Economic Update, October 2022: Reforms for Recovery. World Bank.
  6. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  7. Feby, F. P., Kushandajani, & Manar, D. G. (2022). Rural poverty in Wonosobo Regency (A case study in Purwosari Village, Kaliwiro District, Wonosobo Regency). Journal of Politics and Government Studies, 11(1), 65–80.
  8. Fathony, A. A., Iqbal, M., & Sopian, A. (2019). The impact of village fund allocation on community empowerment and improved community welfare in Langonsari Village, Pameungpeuk Subdistrict, Bandung Regency. Akurat: Scientific Journal of Accounting, 41–57.
  9. Hardianto. (2021). Determinants of community empowerment and rural poverty alleviation: An analysis of village funds and their allocation. Journal of Education Management and Social Sciences, 3(1), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.38035/jmpis.v3i1
  10. Kadji, Y. (2013). Poverty and its theoretical concepts. Gorontalo State University.
  11. Mila, E., & Paselle, E. (2025). Analysis of the implementation of development strategies for underdeveloped villages by the East Kalimantan Provincial Office of Community Empowerment and Village Administration. eJournal of Public Administration, 13(2).
  12. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
  13. Murdiyana, & Mulyana. (2017). Analysis of poverty alleviation policies in Indonesia. Journal of Politics and Governance, 10(1).
  14. Nurjihadi, M., & Dharmawan, A. H. (2018). The vicious cycle of poverty in rural communities: A case study of tobacco farmers in rural areas of Lombok Island. Faculty of Economics and Business, Sumbawa University of Technology.
  15. Otheliansyah, G., & Hizwar, R. (2023). The Impact of Village Fund Direct Cash Assistance and Village Self-Reliance During the Pandemic on Rural Poverty in Indonesia. Journal of Treasury Management, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.33105/jmp.v4i2.409
  16. Sopiah, L., & Haryatiningsih, R. (2023). Characteristics of the poor and causes of poverty in Sukagalih Village. Journal of Economic and Business Research, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.29313/jrieb.v3i1.1977
  17. Suherman, M., & Rohaeni, N. (2023). The effectiveness of the Independent Village program in achieving community welfare. Remik: Research and E-Journal of Computer Information Management, 7(3), 1534–1542. https://doi.org/10.33395/remik.v7i3.12846
  18. Suryahadi, A., Al Izzati, R., & Suryadarma, D. (2012). The evolution of poverty and inequality in Indonesia. SMERU Research Institute.
  19. Todaro, M. P. (2006). Economic development in the Third World (4th ed., Vol. 1). Erlangga.
  20. Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S. C. (2020). Economic Development (13th ed.). Pearson.