Urgensi Integrasi Manajemen Risiko dalam Perencanaan Kinerja dan Anggaran Sektor Publik di Indonesia: Kajian Literatur Komparatif
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59188/jurnalsostech.v6i3.32741Keywords:
manajemen risiko, perencanaan kinerja, penganggaran, sektor publik, kebijakan publikAbstract
Integrasi manajemen risiko dalam perencanaan kinerja dan penganggaran merupakan fondasi penting bagi tata kelola pemerintahan yang adaptif dan akuntabel. Indonesia telah memiliki kerangka Sistem Pengendalian Intern Pemerintah (SPIP) dan Sistem Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah (SAKIP), namun praktik integrasi keduanya masih parsial, terutama pada aspek regulasi, kapasitas kelembagaan, dan pemanfaatan data risiko. Artikel ini bertujuan menganalisis urgensi integrasi manajemen risiko dalam perencanaan kinerja dan penganggaran sektor publik melalui kajian literatur komparatif. Metode yang digunakan adalah comparative literature review dengan tahapan identifikasi, seleksi literatur, koding tematik, dan analisis lintas negara. Literatur yang dikaji mencakup regulasi, laporan audit, serta publikasi akademik terkait praktik di Australia, Inggris, Kanada, Selandia Baru, dan Amerika Serikat. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwa negara-negara tersebut telah menempatkan manajemen risiko sebagai bagian integral dari siklus kinerja dan anggaran, melalui regulasi (misalnya PGPA Act, Green Book, Policy on Results, dan GPRA Modernization Act) serta instrumen integrasi seperti Statement of Risks, business case berbasis risiko, dan enterprise risk management. Temuan ini menegaskan pentingnya transparansi fiskal, metodologi analitis, dan budaya risiko untuk mendukung akuntabilitas. Penelitian ini berkontribusi dengan menawarkan rekomendasi kebijakan untuk memperkuat integrasi SPIP, SAKIP, dan PBB di Indonesia, sehingga sistem perencanaan dan penganggaran lebih adaptif, transparan, dan berkelanjutan.
References
Ahmeti, F. (2017). Risk management in public sector: Comparative perspectives. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(6), 323–330.
Ahmeti, R., & Vladi, B. (2017). Risk management in public sector: A literature review. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 323–329.
Audit Commission. (2006). CPA 2005: Key lines of enquiry for corporate assessment.
Australian Government – Department of Finance. (2022). Commonwealth Risk Management Policy. Canberra: Australian Government.
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). (2024). Risk Management: Audit Lessons. Canberra: ANAO.
Azam, M., et al. (2024). Performance-based budgeting reform and evolution of performance information quality. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management.
Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan (BPKP). (2020). Evaluasi akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah. Jakarta: BPKP.
Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan (BPKP). (2020). Laporan evaluasi pelaksanaan Sistem Pengendalian Intern Pemerintah (SPIP). Jakarta: BPKP.
Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan (BPKP). (2020). Laporan evaluasi pelaksanaan Sistem Pengendalian Intern Pemerintah (SPIP). Jakarta: BPKP.
Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan (BPKP). (2021). Roadmap SPIP menuju level 3 maturitas nasional. Jakarta: BPKP.
Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan (BPKP). (2021). Roadmap SPIP menuju level 3 maturitas nasional. Jakarta: BPKP.
Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan (BPKP). (2022). Laporan Hasil Penilaian Maturitas SPIP Nasional. Jakarta: BPKP.
Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. Routledge.
BPKP. (2020). Laporan evaluasi pelaksanaan Sistem Pengendalian Intern Pemerintah (SPIP). Jakarta: BPKP.
Bracci, E. (2024). The integration of performance management and risk management in the public sector: An empirical case. Journal of Management Control, 35(2), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-024-00369-2
Bracci, E. (2024). The integration of performance management and risk management in the public sector: An empirical case. Journal of Management Control, 35(2), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-024-00369-2
Bracci, E., Bruno, A., D’Amore, A., & Ievoli, R. (2024). The integration of performance management and risk management in the public sector: an empirical case. Public Management Review.
Bracci, E., Mouhcine, T., Rana, T., & Wickramasinghe, D. (2022). Risk management and management accounting control systems in public sector organizations: A systematic literature review. Public Money & Management, 42(6), 395–402.
Bracci, E., Mouhcine, T., Rana, T., & Wickramasinghe, D. (2022). Risk management and management accounting control systems in public sector organizations: A systematic literature review. Public Money & Management, 42(6), 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2021.1963071
Bui, B., Hunt, C., & Fowler, C. (2008). A risk-focused performance management system framework for planning change in organisations subject to significant environmental pressures and uncertainty (Working Paper No. 61). Victoria University of Wellington.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2013). Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Canberra: Federal Register of Legislation.
Cook, A.-L. (2004). Managing for outcomes in the New Zealand public management system (Treasury Working Paper 04/15). The Treasury, New Zealand.
Department of Finance. (2014). Commonwealth Risk Management Policy. Canberra: Australian Government.
Department of Finance. (2014). Commonwealth Risk Management Policy. Canberra: Australian Government.
Ferry, L., & Eckersley, P. (2019). Budgeting and governing for deficit reduction in the UK public sector: Act four – Risk management arrangements. Public Money & Management (short piece).
Firmansyah, A. (2020). Tantangan penerapan manajemen risiko dalam sistem akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah di Indonesia. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia, 24(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.20885/jaai.vol24.iss2.art3
Firmansyah, A. (2020). Tantangan penerapan manajemen risiko dalam sistem akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah di Indonesia. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia, 24(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.20885/jaai.vol24.iss2.art3
GAO. (2003). Performance budgeting: Current developments and future prospects (GAO-03-595T). U.S. General Accounting Office.
GAO. (2005, June 29). Strategic budgeting: Risk management principles can help DHS allocate resources to highest priorities (GAO-05-824T). U.S. Government Accountability Office.
GAO. (2016). Enterprise risk management: Selected agencies’ experiences illustrate good practices in managing risk (GAO-17-63). U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Goh, S. C., Elliott, C., & Richards, G. (2015). Performance management in Canadian public organizations: Findings of a multi-case study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2013-0170
Greer, R. A., & Bullock, J. B. (2017). Risk management and reducing improper payments: A case study of the U.S. Department of Labor. IBM Center for The Business of Government.
Haris, A. (2023). Disaster Risk Index on Disaster Management Budgeting (Indonesia Local Government). Journal of Risk and Financial Management.
Hillson, D. (2016). The road to resilience: Managing risk for public and private organizations. Routledge.
Himawan, A., & Pribadi, Y. (2021). Risk Management Implementation in Indonesian State Budget Fiscal Risk Disclosure. Optimum: Jurnal Ekonomi dan Pembangunan. https://doi.org/10.12928/OPTIMUM.V11I1.3277.
Himawan, H. (2021). Manajemen risiko sektor publik: Konsep dan implementasi. Jakarta: Prenadamedia Group.
HM Treasury. (2022). The Green Book: Central government guidance on appraisal and evaluation (maintained 2022 ed.).
HM Treasury. (2023). The Orange Book: Management of Risk – Principles and Concepts. London: UK Government.
HM Treasury. (2023). The Orange Book: Management of risk – Principles and concepts (2023 ed.).
HM Treasury. (2023). The Orange Book: Management of risk—Principles and concepts. London: HM Treasury.
Hood, C., & Rothstein, H. (2001). Risk regulation regimes: A comparative analysis of the UK, USA, and Germany. Oxford University Press.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 31000:2018 risk management – Guidelines. Geneva: ISO.
Jones, L. R., & McCaffery, J. L. (2010). Performance budgeting in the U.S. federal government: History, status and future implications. Public Finance and Management, 10(3), 482–523.
Kementerian PANRB. (2021). Peraturan Menteri PANRB Nomor 88 Tahun 2021 tentang Evaluasi Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah. Jakarta: Kementerian PANRB.
Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. (2019). Pedoman evaluasi akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah. Jakarta: Kementerian PANRB.
Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. (2019). Pedoman evaluasi akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah. Jakarta: Kementerian PANRB.
Lawrence, J., Allan, S., & Clarke, L. (2021). Inadequacy revealed and the transition to adaptation as risk management in New Zealand. Frontiers in Climate, 3, 734726. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.734726
National Audit Office UK (NAO). (2023). Overcoming Challenges to Managing Risks in Government. London: NAO.
National Audit Office. (2023). Overcoming challenges to managing risks in government: good practice guide.
New Zealand State Services Commission, & The Treasury. (2008). Performance measurement: Advice and examples on how to develop effective frameworks. Wellington: State Services Commission & The Treasury.
OECD. (2014). Risk Management and Corporate Governance. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD. (2019). OECD good practices for performance budgeting. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c90b0305-en
OECD. (2019). OECD good practices for performance budgeting. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c90b0305-en
OECD. (2019). OECD good practices for performance budgeting. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c90b0305-en
OECD. (2020). Public sector risk management: Ensuring resilience in an uncertain world. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2024). Framework on the Governance of Critical Risks. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD. (2025). Managing emerging critical risks: Country case study – United States. OECD Publishing.
Office of the Minister of Finance. (2025). Cabinet Paper: EXP-24-SUB-0034: Insights from initial performance plans (Budget 2025 information release). The Treasury, New Zealand.
Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. (2014). Analysis of performance budgeting during recent fiscal consolidation. Ottawa: Government of Canada.
Oluwaseun, A., et al. (2019). An evaluation of risk factors impacting project budget performance in New Zealand. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(6), 1235–1256. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-03-2019-0056
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2014). Risk management and corporate governance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). Risk management and corporate governance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Palermo, T. (2014). Accountability and expertise in public sector risk management: A case study. Financial Accountability & Management, 30(3), 322–341.
Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. (2008). Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 60 Tahun 2008 tentang Sistem Pengendalian Intern Pemerintah (SPIP). Jakarta: Sekretariat Negara.
Public Law 111–352. (2011, January 4). GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. 124 Stat. 3866–3871.
Rana, T. (2021). Embedding a risk management framework in public sector governance, performance, and accountability practices: Insights from Australia. In Public Sector Reform and Performance Management in Developed Economies (pp. 97–116). Routledge.
Rana, T., Hoque, Z., & Jacobs, K. (2018). Public sector reform implications for performance measurement and risk management practice: Insights from Australia. Public Money & Management, 38(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2018.1439151
Rana, T., Wickramasinghe, D., & Bracci, E. (2019). Embedding risk management in the public sector: Tensions and opportunities. (lihat dalam korpus ulasan Bracci et al., 2022).
Rana, T., Wickramasinghe, D., & Bracci, E. (2019). New development: Integrating risk management in management control systems—Lessons for public sector managers. Public Money & Management, 39(2), 148–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1580921
Robinson, M. (2013). Program classification for performance-based budgeting: How to structure budgets to enable the use of evidence. International Monetary Fund.
Russo, S., Ruggiero, P., Mussari, R., & Bracci, E. (2025). Understanding public sector risk management in contexts of hybridity: A structured literature review. Financial Accountability & Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.70010
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2016). Policy on results. Ottawa: Government of Canada.
UK Government. (2020–2023). Risk Appetite Guidance, Risk Reporting Good Practice, Risk Management Skills & Capabilities Framework, Portfolio Risk Management Guidance (serangkaian panduan pendukung Orange Book).
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
Whittla, C. B. (2023). Performance-based budgeting in Canada: Assessing the association between past performance and subsequent resource allocation (Master’s thesis, University of Victoria). Retrieved from https://dspace.library.uvic.ca
World Bank. (2018). Spending more or spending better: Improving education financing in Indonesia. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2021). Indonesia economic prospects: Boosting the recovery. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Vony Wahyunurani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-SA). that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
