| dc.identifier.citation | [1] Muttaqien, D. (2008), Reformasi Regulasi dan Kelembagaan Ekonomi Islam. La_Riba vol 2(1). 9-22. [2] Wardhono, A. 2009. Transformasi Kelembagaan Kepemilikan Tanah Desa Klompangan Kabupaten Jember. J-SEP Vol. 3(2). 1-10. [3] Baksh, R and Ahmad E.Y. 2008. Sugarcane Farmers in East Java: Institutional Arrangement Perspective. Journal of Indonesian Applied Economics Vol 2(1). 43-56. [4] Ngumar, S and Ikhsan B.R. 2003. Identifikasi Faktor-faktor dalam Mengembangkan Model Kelembagaan Investasi Terpadu di Provinsi Jawa Timur. Ekuitas Vol.10(1). 42-62. [5] Maflahah, I. 2010. Model Sistem Kelembagaan Pengembangan Industri Talas. Agrointek Vol. 4(2). 87-99. [6] Anantanyu, S. 2011. Kelembagaan Petani: Peran dan Strategi Pengembangan Kapasitasnya. SEPA Vol. 7(2). 102-109. [7] Pemerintah Daerah Sragen. 2011. Evaluasi Kegiatan Peningkatan Kapasitas Pemerintah Daerah. Pemda Sragen: Sragen. [8] Sato, I., Hisaaki M. and Hiroko S. 2000. Organizational Capacity of Executing Agencies in the Developing Countries Case Studies on Bangladesh, Thailand and Indonesia. JBIC Review, No. 1. 83-106. [9] Plescovic, B, Anders A, William B and Robert C. 2002. Capacity Building in Economics: Education and Research in Transition Economies. World Bank Police Research Working Paper Number 2763. [10] Yuswijaya. 2008. Analisis Pengembangan Kapasitas Organisasi Kantor Satuan Polisi Pamong Praja Kabupaten Lahat. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi, Vol IV(1). 85–99. [11] Riyardi, A. and Widojono. 2011. Analisis Efisiensi, Efektifitas dan Responsibilitas Sumber Daya Manusia Pemerintah Daerah Sragen. Jejak. Vol 4(2). 91–101. [12] Riyardi, A, Widojono and Muzakar I. 2013. Analysis of the Sragen Local Government Organizational Capacity. Asean Journal of Economics, Management and Accounting Vol 1(2). 1-10. [13] Johanson, I. 1968. Production Functions and the Concept of Capacity, Collection Economie et Mathematique et Econometrie, 2. 46–72 [14] Berndt, E and J. Morrison. 1981. Capacity Utilization Measures: Underlying Economic Theory and an Alternative Approach. American Economic Review, 71, 1981. 48–52. [15] Petrofić, D. and Zoran S. 2009. Methodological Position(s) of Institutional Economics. Economics and Organization Vol 6(2). 105–114. [16] Hodgson, G.M. 1998. The Approach of Institutional Economics. Journal of Economic Literature Volume XXXVI, March 1998. 166–192. [17] Santosa, P.B. 2008. “Relevansi dan Aplikasi Aliran Ekonomi Kelembagaan” Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan Vol 9 (1). 46–60. [18] Pujiyono (2006). Struktur Organisasi Birokrasi Daerah yang Ideal Berdasarkan Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) Nomor 8 Tahun 2003 Tentang Pedoman Organisasi Perangkat Daerah. Yustisia Edisi Nomor 69. 44-54. [19] Rutherford, M. 2001. Institutional Economics: Then and Now. Journal of Economics Perspectives Vol 15(3). 173-194. [20] Yustiono, E. 2008. Manajemen SDM Organisasi Sektor Publik: Problematika dan Alternatif Solusi. Journal Ilmu Administrasi Vol IV(3). 221-232. | in_ID |
| dc.description.abstract | The institutional capacity is a part of the institutional economics. There are two standards of the institutional capacity. The first standard is the optimality capacity of micro, mezzo, and macro levels. The second standard is the criteria of expertise, specificity, and incentives. However, analysis on the concept of institutional capacity is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the application of the institutional capacity in Surakarta city local government and to obtain empirical facts of the optimal capacity of micro, mezzo and macro levels and its correlation with the institutional criteria. Descriptive method was applied to measure the capacity optimization in the micro, mezzo, and macro levels and to describe its correlation with the institutional criteria, namely expertise, specificity, and incentives. To examine the level of the capacity optimization, the percentage of the expected and prevailed was analyzed, whereas the dynamics of each criterion since 2005 to 2011 was analyzed to illustrate the correlation with the institutional criteria. The study indicated the overall capacity of Surakarta city government has not been optimal, due to their suboptimal mezzo and macro levels capacity. In addition, the capacity of micro, mezzo and macro level of Surakarta government turns to have correlation with the institutional criteria. The micro level correlates with the expertise criterion, the mezzo level with the specificity in authority and incentives criteria, and the macro level with the specificity in responsiveness criteria. | in_ID |
