Muhammad Syukri, Sulton Mawardi. Akhmadi, Sirojudin Arif, Kartawijaya, Asep Kurniawan
Agung Tri Darmawanto, Amelia Nur Puspita, Ari Ratna, Dhany Septimawan Sutopo, Irmia Fitriyah, Joko Purnomo, Mila M. Jamhari, Nashirul Uman, Pantri Muthriana Erza Killian, Tasyhudi, Tri Susanti ,Wiyarsanto
Nurus Shalihin Jamra, Testru Hendra, Abrar, Irsadunnas, Rezi Rahmazona, Fifi Erifawati, Lucky Zamzami, Firdaus, Devi Fitriani, Nofri Yani, Rozidateno Putri Hanida, Alfi Husni
South East Sulawesi:
Alimin Tasi, Anita Rahman, Asyriani, Awaluddin Hamzah, Mia Ariana, Mastri Susilo, Muhammad Mukmin Fahimuddin, Rosmini, Sitti Hermin Taher, Supriadin, M. Syahadat, Hardiana Bansi
This study aims to look at the impact of PNPM Rural especially on poverty reduction, community participation, and the accountability, transparency, and responsiveness of the government at the village level. In addition, this study also examines the impact of PNPMRural on the fulfillment of the poor’s primary needs in rural areas as well as the extent to which empowerment has occurred. The study was carried out in 18 villages in three provinces, namely East Java, West Sumatra, and Southeast Sulawesi. Initially, this study was designed to divide the research areas into treatment and control areas. However, because in 2010, PNPMRural covered all districts, there was no longer any research area that could be fully regarded as control areas. In terms of methodology, this study uses a qualitative panel and compares the results of the 2010 PNPM Impact Study with the 2007 PNPM Baseline Study. In general, this study finds that PNPM-Rural has been implemented properly. For the open menu program, almost all the villages used it for infrastructure development. However, only a small part of the SPP-PNPM program was actually accessed by the poor. In relation to poverty, there has been a decrease to varying degrees in almost all the research areas. It is only on the issues of participation, transparency, and accountability that the study finds a big difference between what happened inside and outside the program. Participation, transparency, and accountability worked very well in the implementation of PNPM-Rural. However, outside PNPM-Rural, namely in the village administration or in the implementation of programs other than PNPMRural, participation, transparency, and accountability remained low. Furthermore, there was almost no PNPM project in the study areas that corresponded to the primary needs of the poor. This may indicate that the PNPM program had not been successful in terms of empowering the poor.
Keywords: PNPM-Rural, impact, poverty, participation, transparency, accountability