EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OBJECTIVE BUDGET OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FORCES


EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OBJECTIVE BUDGET OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FORCES
(Empirical Study on Government County Temanggung)

Translater : Google Translate

ABSTRACT
The aims of this research are to examine the influence of budgeting objectives on the performance characteristics of Local Government of Waterford Plaza.
Sampling technique used in this research was purposive sampling. This method was applied since the sample was selected purposively based on a certain criteria as Local Government Officers in the middle up to lower level commitment makers who were also in the sense that they Participate in budgeting and its implementation and also as staff in charge of budget arrangement . Number of samples processed in the research is 146 samples and processed using the SPSS program to examine hypothesis.
The Research found out that from five variables of budgeting objectives characteristics, four variables (the clarity of objectives, participation, feedback and objective achievement Difficulties) Significantly influence the performance of Local Government Officers of  Temanggung Plaza.

Keywords: Budgeting Objectives Characteristics, Performance, Local Government Officers.
INTRODUCTION
Background
Research Munawar (2006) is the development of research Maryanti (2002), namely budgetary purposes with variable characteristics budget participation, budget goal clarity, feedback, budgets, evaluation budgets and budgetary goal difficulty significantly influence behavior. This suggests that the characteristics of the overall budget goals produce a strong enough influence on the behavior of government officials in Kupang district budgeting plan. Other variables such as karaketristik budgetary purposes with variable budget participation, budget goal clarity, feedback, budgets, evaluation budgets, and overall budget goal difficulty generating strong influence on the attitude of government officials in implementing the budget Kupang. Looking for budget purposes characteristics represented by the variable budget participation, budget goal clarity, feedback good budget, the budget and the difficulty of evaluating budgetary objectives simultaneously affect the performance, which does not support the research Maryanti (2002).
Basically, this study is the development of research Munawar (2006) with the object of different studies, the Waterford district government officials, who have carried out according to the rules of budgeting Minister No.. 13 of 2006 which was subsequently revised by the Ministry of Home Affairs No. regulation. 59 Year 2007 on guidelines for financial management. Characteristics of the study is more specific budgeting purpose on the programs and activities of Work Unit (SKPD) contained in the Work Plan and Budget / RKA-SKPD which is a document that contains pengangggaran planning and revenue plans, planning programs and activities SKPD spending and financing plan as a basis for budgeting.
The reason for researchers to analyze the effect of the Budget to Performance Characteristics purpose district government officials Temanggung because:
1. Research related to the effect of budgetary goal characteristics on the performance of local government officials throughout the County Waterford authors’ knowledge has not been done.
2. Local government officials in SKPD as respondents in this study is the direct subject of budgeting is as planners, implementers, and responsible budget for programs and activities that local government is a form of elaboration of a strategic plan SKPD, so that respondents have a direct connection with the issues to be investigated.
3. This study assumes that the objective characteristics of Revenue and Expenditure made by the local government meets the criteria mandated by the Minister of Home Affairs Decree No. 29 of 2007, namely (1) in accordance with the vision, mission, goals, objectives and policies established Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMD) and other planning documents established by the Regional Head, (2) in accordance with the aspirations of the people who develop and consider local conditions and capabilities, (3) contains the desired direction and general guidelines agreed as a temporary ceiling strategy and budget and the preparation of the draft budget in one fiscal year.
4. The discrepancies of the results of previous studies on the studied variables such as research Kenis (1979), Maryanti (2002) and Research Munawar (2006) both from appliance and population analysis. Research Kenis (1979) is the independent variable characteristics budget goals and the dependent variable is the attitude and performance of the population and the sample taken from the private sector. Maryanti Research (2002) is the development of research Kenis (1979), but the difference is the dependent variable plus behavioral variables while the independent variable is the same as research Kenis (1979) with a sample population and the public sector (local government officials). Research Munawar (2006) is the development of research Maryanti (2002), with the same variables, However with objects and different analysis tools. Other research results of all three studies are not consistent as Kenis (1979) which indicates that the characteristics of the overall budget objectives produce an influence on managerial attitudes and performance variables such as job satisfaction, work stress, motivation budgets, attitudes toward budgeting, and performance budgeting assessed themselves. Maryanti Research (2002) menunujukkan that budget evaluation, feedback, budgets, budget goal clarity and positive impact on behavior and attitudes signfiikan local government officials East Nusa Tenggara Province, whereas participation variable and difficult budget budgetary purposes has no effect on performance and weak influence on attitudes and attitudes towards local government officials of East Nusa Tenggara province. Research Munawar (2006) showed that budget participation, budget goal clarity, feedback, budgets, evaluation budgets and budgetary goal difficulty affected the behavior, attitude and performance of local government officials Kupang.

Problem Formulation
Based on the background described above, then that becomes the central issue in this study can be formulated as follows:
1. Is Budget Participation positive effect on performance of local government officials?
2. Is the purpose of the Budget affects Clarity Performance Local Government Officials?
3. Is Performance Evaluation Budget affect local government officials?
4. Is Budget Feedback effect on performance Local Government Officials?
5. Is the purpose of budget difficulties affect the performance of local government officials?

Research Objectives
Based on the formulation of the problem stated above, the objectives of this study were:
1. To test empirically whether there is influence Budget Participation on Performance of Local Government Officials.
2. To test empirically whether there is clarity of purpose influences the Budget to Performance Local Government Officials.
3. To empirically test whether there was an effect on Performance Evaluation Budget Local Government Officials.
4. To test empirically whether there is influence of the Budget to Performance Feedback Local Government Officials.
5. To test empirically whether there are objective difficulties influence the Budget to Performance Local Government Officials.

Benefits of Research
If the goal of this study can be met, then the expected benefits of the research are:
1. For this research scholars are expected to contribute a thought or contribution to the development of literature Public Sector Accounting (ASP), particularly the development of management control systems in the public sector.
2. For the local government is expected to be input in supporting the implementation of regional autonomy in particular will improve the performance of government officials to achieve the desired budget.

THEORETICAL AND FORMATION HYPOTHESES

Characteristics goal Budget
The budget process should begin with setting goals, targets and policies. Common perception among the parties about what will be achieved, and linkages with various programs that aim to do, is crucial for the success of the budget. At this stage, the process of resource distribution started. Achieving consensus on the allocation of resources to be a door opener for the implementation of the budget. Long process of setting goals for the budget implementation stage often pass through a grueling, so attention to assessment and evaluation stage is often overlooked. This condition often appears in practical (Bastian, 2006a: 188)
In accordance with the mandate of Law No.. 17 of 2003 on State Finance explained that the budget is a tool of accountability, management and economic policy. Budget serves as a policy to achieve economic growth and economic stability as well as the distribution of income in order to achieve the goal state. In an effort to realign the objectives and functions of the budget is necessary to clearly setting role of the Parliament / Council and government in the process of preparation and adoption of the budget as an elaboration of the basic rules set out in the Constitution of 1945. Accordingly, the Act it is stated that government spending / shopping areas specified to organizational units, functions, programs, activities and type of expenditure. It is that any shift in the budget between organizational units, between activities, and between types of expenditure must be approved by Parliament / Council.
In a theoretical study as the basis for this study are still many uses theoretical study on private sector related variables examined. This is because the variables studied are still using the variables studied in the private sector. But does not reduce the theoretical studies related to the public sector as a basis / reference for research in the public sector. According to Kenis (1979) there are five (5) objective characteristics budget (budgetary Goal Characteristics), namely:
1. Participation Budget.
Participation budgeting is a general approach that can improve the performance, which in turn can improve organizational effectiveness. Argyris (1964) in Nor (2007) states that participation as a means to an end, participation as a means to integrate the needs of individuals and organizations. That participation can be interpreted as the share of influence, delegation procedures, involvement in decision-making and the empowerment. Good participation brings the following benefits: (1) a healthy influence on the initiative, moralism and enthusiasm, (2) gives a better result than a plan because of a combination of knowledge of some individuals, (3) to increase employment operation between departments, and (4) the employee can be more aware of the situation in the future relating to the objectives and other considerations Irvine (1978) in Nor (2007).
Participation budgeting vast menunujukkan how widespread participation for government officials to understand the budget proposed by the unit of work that affects the central purpose of their budget accountability.
Budgeting process is an important and complex activity, is likely to impact the functional and dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors of organizational members Milani (1975) in Nor (2007). To prevent the impact of dysfunctional budget, Argyris (1952) in Nor (2007) suggested that the greatest contribution of budgeting activity occurs when subordinates are allowed to participate in the preparation of the budget.
According Bronwell (1982) in Sarjito (2007) participation in the budget as a process involving oganisasi managers in determining budget goals which it is responsible. Participation many benefits for an organization, it is derived from the nearly participatory research. Medium according sord and Welsch, (1995) in Sarjito, (2007) suggested that higher levels of participation will result in better morale and higher initiative anyway.
Participation in the public sector budget occurs during budget discussions, where the executive and legislative branches clashing arguments in the discussion of the local budget. Where the budget made by the executive in this case through the proposed Regional Head of the unit of work delivered by the Head of Unit (SKPD), and after that the Head of the Regional Council jointly set a budget.
Aimee and Carol (2004) in Munawar (2006) found input mechanism citizen participation has a direct influence on budget decisions. Munawar (2006) found that the characteristics of the budget objectives with budgetary participation variables significantly influence behavior, attitude and performance of local government officials in Kupang district.

2. Clarity of purpose Budget

Because of the breadth of budget clarity of purpose, then the purpose of the budget must be specifically stated, clear and understandable by anyone who is responsible.
Munawar (2006) found that government officials can determine Kupang regency business results through effective evaluation to determine the clarity of purpose of the budget that has been made and they are satisfied with the budget that has been created to benefit the public interest.
3. Budget Feedback
Job satisfaction and motivation found significant budget with a rather tenuous relationship with feedback budget. Feedback on the level of achievement of the budget is not effective in improving performance and only marginally effective in improving the attitude of the manager (Kenis, 1979).
Munawar (2006) found that the area of ​​Kupang district officials know the results of his efforts in preparing the budget and budget to implement so as to make them feel successful.
4. Evaluation Budget
Pointing to the extent of differences in the budget which are reused by individual department heads and used in the evaluation of their performance.
The discovery Kenis (1979) that managers react unfavorable to use the budget in the performance evaluation in a punitive fashion (increasing work stress, lower budget performance). The trend relationships among the variables to be weak.
Munawar (2006) found that the evaluation of the budget affect the behavior of local government officials Kab. Kupang. This suggests that in preparing their budget is always an evaluation activities have been programmed and the implementation of the budget, they also do an evaluation of the activities that have been carried out so that they get better performance.
5. Budget goal difficulty.
Kenis (1979) that managers have goals that are too tight budgets have significantly higher work stress and low work motivation, performance budgeting, and cost efficiency compared to the budget have a proper purpose or tight budget but can be achieved. It is identified that can be achieved is tight but the difficulty level budgetary purposes.
Munawar (2006) found that members of the local district. Kupang is not affected by the budget goal difficulty, so that in preparing the budget is not too easy or difficult it is noticed that the budget is achieved.

Performance of Local Government Officials
Assessment is the process by which organizations evaluate / assess employee performance. This activity can improve personnel decisions and provide feedback to employees about their performance (Hani Handoko, 1988)
According Suprihanto (1987) performance appraisal is a system used to assess and find out if someone has done their job as a whole or a process that occurs in organizations assess or determine a person’s performance. Glueck (1978) define a performance evaluation as an activity to determine the degree to which a person carry out their duties effectively
Byars and Rue (2000) defines performance assessment as the process of determining and communicating to employees and to implement them as ideally, performance improvement plans. According to Raymond (2000) performance appraisal is the process by which organizations get the information how well employees perform their duties.
Parker (1993:3) in Sadjiarto Arja (2000) mentions five benefits of the measurement / assessment of the performance of a government entity that is:
a. Improved performance improve the quality of decision making.
Often the government’s decision made in limited data and the various political considerations and pressure from interested parties. The process of developing performance measures will allow the government to define the mission and set a goal of achieving a particular outcome. In addition, it can also be selected method of performance measurement to see the success of existing programs. On the other hand, the measurement of performance make the legislature to focus attention on the results obtained, give a true evaluation tehadap budget implementation and conduct discussions on proposals for a new program.
b. Measurement of performance enhancing internal accountability.
Given these performance measurements, it will automatically create lines of accountability throughout the government, from top to bottom lines. Top line also then be responsible to the legislature. In this case the suggested use of standardized measurement systems such as management by objectives for the measurement of outputs and outcomes.
c. Measurement of performance enhancing public accountability.
Although for some, reporting government performance evaluation to the public perceived to be quite scary, but the publication of this report is critical to the success of a good performance measurement system. Community involvement on government policy making becomes larger and the quality of a program is also getting attention.
d. Performance measurement supports strategic planning and goal setting.
Strategic planning process and goals will be less meaningful without the ability to measure the performance and progress of a program. Without these measures, the success of the program also never be judged objectively.
e. Performance measurement allows an entity to determine the effective use of resources.
People are increasingly critical to assess the basic government programs in connection with the increasing taxes imposed on them. Evaluation tends to lead to the assessment of whether the government is able to provide the best service to the community. The government also has a chance to give up some public services to the private sector while aiming to provide the best service.

Older Research and Development of Hypotheses
1. Effect of Performance Against Budget Participation.
Participation budgeting is a general approach that can improve the performance, which in turn can improve organizational effectiveness. Participation in the public sector budget occurs during budget discussions, where the executive and legislative branches clashing arguments in the discussion of the local budget. Where the budget made by the executive in this case through the proposed Regional Head of the unit of work delivered by the Head of Unit (SKPD), and after that the Head of the Regional Council jointly set a budget.
According Bronwell (1982) in Sarjito (2007) participation in the budget as a process involving oganisasi managers in determining budget goals which it is responsible. Participation many benefits for an organization, it is derived from the nearly participatory research. Medium according sord and Welsch (1995) in Sarjito (2007) suggested that higher levels of participation will result in better morale and higher initiative anyway.
Munawar (2006) found that the characteristics of the budget objectives with budgetary participation variables significantly influence behavior, attitude and performance of local government officials in Kupang district.
Based on the theoretical basis and empirical findings above, because of the participation of the budget is expected to improve the performance of the individuals involved in it, the researchers propose hypotheses as follows:
H 1: Participation budget positive effect on the performance of government officials.
2. Clarity of purpose influence performance against budget.
Locke and Schweiger (1979) showed that the clarity of purpose to improve managerial performance, whereas the lack of clarity leads to confusion and dissatisfaction with the executive, resulting in decreased performance. Several studies support the positive influence of clarity of purpose on managerial performance (Ivancevich, 1976; Steers, 1975; Imoisili, 1989). Managers who work without a clear purpose will come with a high uncertainty of achieving the goals set previously
Munawar (2006) found that government officials can determine Kupang regency business results through effective evaluation to determine the clarity of purpose of the budget that has been made and they are satisfied with the budget that has been created to benefit the public interest.
Based on the theoretical basis and empirical findings above, for clarity purposes the budget is expected to improve the performance of the individuals involved in it, the researchers propose hypotheses as follows:
H 2: Clarity of purpose budgetary positive effect on the performance of government officials.
3. Effect of Performance Against Budget Feedback.
Steers (1975) empirically found that feedback and the clarity of objectives related to performance. Through field experiments, Kim (1984) also supports that goal setting and feedback jointly impact on performance. Clarity of purpose and difficulties, if accepted, will improve performance (Latham & Baldes, 1975; Locke, Carrledge & Knerr, 1970).
Munawar (2006) found that the area of ​​Kupang district officials know the results of his efforts in preparing the budget and budget to implement so as to make them feel successful.
Based on the theoretical basis and empirical findings above, due to feedback the budget is expected to improve the performance of the individuals involved in it, the researchers propose hypotheses as follows:
H 3: Feedback budgets positive effect on the performance of government officials.
4. Effect Of Budget Performance Evaluation.
Kenis (1979) that managers react unfavorable to use the budget in the performance evaluation in a punitive fashion (increasing work stress, reduce performance, budget). The trend relationships among the variables to be weak.
Munawar (2006) found that the evaluation of the budget affect the behavior of local government officials Kab. Kupang. This suggests that in preparing their budget is always an evaluation activities have been programmed and the implementation of the budget, they also do an evaluation of the activities that have been carried out so that they get better performance.
Based on the theoretical basis and empirical findings above, because the evaluation of the budget is expected to improve the performance of the individuals involved in it, the researchers propose hypotheses as follows:
H 4: Evaluation of budget positive effect on the performance of government officials.

5. Influence Difficulty goal performance against budget.
Kenis (1979) that managers have goals that are too tight budgets have significantly higher work stress and low work motivation, performance budgeting, and cost efficiency compared to the budget have a proper purpose or tight budget but can be achieved. It is identified that can be achieved is tight but the difficulty level budgetary purposes.
Hirst & Lowy (1990) proved that difficult goals result in higher performance than if you set goals that are specific or easier, as well as a general purpose. Various studies have indicated that the budget goal difficulty and performance are closely linked persepsian (Hoftsede, 1968; Kenis, 1979; Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Mia, 1989)
Difficulties also positively related to objective criteria of success (Carroll & Tosi, 1979). The higher the goal, the higher the performance (Locke, 1966, 1967).
Based on the theoretical basis and empirical findings above, because of difficulties in budgetary purposes is expected to increase the performance of the individuals involved in it, the researchers propose hypotheses as follows:
H 5: Difficulty budget goals positive effect on the performance of government officials.
METHODS

Measurement of Variables
This study used five independent variables (independent) and one dependent variable (the dependent). Operationalization of variables done through questionnaires intrumentasi shaped. Questions measured in five-point Likert scale.

DATA ANALYSIS METHOD

1. Multiple Regression Analysis
This analysis was used because this study analyzed the influence of the dependent variable with multiple independent variables. As the dependent variable is the performance of local government officials, the independent variable budget participation, clarity of purpose budget, budget evaluation, feedback and budgetary difficulties budgetary purposes.
To determine the effect of each independent variable can be seen from the significant t values ​​are: Y = α + β1X1a β2X1b + + + β3X1c β4X1d β5X1e + + e
Description:
Y = performance of local government officials
α = constant
regression coefficient β =
X1a = Participation Budget
X1b = Clarity of purpose of the Budget
X1c = Evaluation Budget
X1d = Budget Feedback
X1e = Difficulty Budget Destination
E = Error

2. T test (t-test)
This test is performed to determine the significance of each independent variable on the dependent variable. With α = 0.005, the hypothesis being tested will be accepted.

3. Test determinant coefficient (R2)
This test is used to show how much percentage of the variation in the variables is needed which can be explained by variations in the independent variable. Rated R lies between the values ​​0 and 1. If R2 is getting close to one, the greater the variation in the independent variable. This means that the right of the regression line represents the results of actual observations (Wheel Wright and Makridakis, 1995).

Classical Assumptions Testing Results
1. Heteroscedasticity
Tests performed using SPSS heteroscedasticity two stages, namely the value of residual absolute first and calculate the correlation between the value of the variable with the residual value. The criteria used to declare whether there is heteroscedasticity or not between observational data can be seen the value of coefficient significance (in this case the set α = 0.005). If the coefficient of greater significance than α (0.005), then it can not happen otherwise heteroscedasticity between the observational data.
The results of processing the data using SPSS for each variable can be seen in table 4.11. From the above data it can be seen that all the significant value above 0.05, so it can be concluded that all the data used there is no heteroscedasticity.
Table 4.11:
The significance of the test heteroscedasticity

Variable Sig Alfa Conclusion
PA – Residual PA 0.930 0.05 No heteroscedasticity
KTA – Residual KTA 0.481 0.05 No heteroscedasticity
EA – EA Residual 0.418 0.05 No heteroscedasticity
UBA – Residual UBA 0.269 0.05 No heteroscedasticity
KT – KT Residual 0.554 0.05 No heteroscedasticity

2. Multicollinearity
This test is performed to determine whether a correlation was found between the independent variables. If there is a correlation, then there is a multicollinearity problem. A good regression model should not happen correlation between the independent variable. Harmful multicollinearity occurs when the value of the variance inflation factor (VIF) greater than 10 (Gujarati, 1993).
Table 4.12:
Values ​​of tolerance and VIF test multicollinearity

Variable Tolerance VIF Conclusion
Participation Budget 1.437 0.696 Non multicollinearity
Clarity of purpose Budget 1.683 0.594 Non multicollinearity
Budget evaluation 1.179 0.848 Non multicollinearity
Feedback Articles 0.505 1.979 Non multicollinearity
Difficulty TujuanAnggaran 1.254 0.798 Non multicollinearity

The results of processing the data using SPSS. for each variable can be seen in table 4.17. From the above data it can be seen that all VIF values ​​well below 10 good on the model, so it can be concluded that all the data used there is no multicollinearity.
3. Autocorrelation
This test is performed to determine whether the regression results no correlation between residual processing on a single observation with other observations in a single variable. The consequences of autocorrelation is biased variant with a smaller value than the actual value, so the value of R2 and F likely overestimated. How to detect autocorrelation is to use testing Durbin Watson (DW) with the following conditions: DW values ​​between 1.65 to 2.35 can be concluded there is no autocorrelation (Makridakis et al, 1995).
From the data processing DW value is 1.780 which tells us the value DW is between 1.65 to 2.35 so it can be concluded that all the data used is free from autocorrelation.

Hypothesis Testing Results and Discussion
a. Multiple Regression Analysis
The results of multiple regression analysis to determine the effect of independent variables Budget participation, goal clarity Budget, Budget Evaluation, Feedback Budget, Budget Difficulty objective dependent variable performance of local government officials, used to use SPSS as shown in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13:
The results of multiple regression analysis
Independent Variable Coefficients
Beta t Sig count. Interpretation
(Constant) 2.868 0.902 0.369
Budget Participation 0.411 4.156 0.000 * H1 proven
Clarity of purpose 0.440 4.111 0.000 Budget * H2 proved
Evaluation Budget 0.139 1.536 0.127 H3 is not proven
Budget Feedback * 0.626 4.712 0.000 H4 proved
Difficulty Achievement
Tujauan 0.239 3.174 0.042 Budget * H5 proven
R = 0.789 F = 46.023 count
R2 = 0.622 Sig. = 0.000 *
Adjusted R2 = 0.608
*) Significant at 0.05 level
Dependent Variable: Performance of Local Government Officials

From the analysis of the data, the results of the regression equation is as follows:
Y = 2.868 + 0.411 + 0.440 X1 + 0.139 X2 + 0.626 X3 + 0.239 X4 X5
Meaning:
Regression coefficients for the variables Budget Participation (X1), Clarity Destination Budget (X2), Evaluation of the Budget (X3), Budget Feedback (X4) and Difficulty Achieving Tujauan Budget (X5) showed a positive effect on performance of local government officials (Y) County Waterford.
b. T test
This test is to determine the effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable. If the value of significance α ≤ 0.05, it can be said that there is a significant effect between the independent variables with the dependent variable individually. Conversely, if the value of significance α> 0.05 then there is no significant effect (Santosa, 2000:168).
1) Budget Participation Variables (X1), showed beta coefficient of 0.411 at a significance level of 0.000, for 0.000 ≤ 0.05 significance level. This means that the variable participation Budget (X1) significantly affect the performance of the variable local government officials (Y) County Waterford, thus hypothesis H1 proven.
2) Clarity of objective variables Budget (X2), indicating a beta coefficient of 0.410 at a significance level of 0.000, 0.000 for a significance level of ≤ 0.05. This means clarity of objective variables Budget (X2) significantly affect the performance of the variable local government officials (Y) County Waterford, thus hypothesis H2 proved.
3) Variable Evaluation Budget (X3), showed beta coefficient of 0.139 at a significance level of 0.127, for a significance level of 0.127> 0.05. This means that the variable Budget Evaluation (X3) does not significantly affect the performance of the variable local government officials (Y) County Waterford, thus unproven hypothesis H3.
4) Variable Feedback Articles (X4), indicating a beta coefficient of 0.626 at a significance level of 0.000, 0.000 for a significance level of ≤ 0.05. This means that the variable feedback Budget (X4) significantly affect the performance of the variable local government officials (Y) County Waterford, thus Hypothesis H4 proved.
5) Variable Difficulty Achieving Objectives Budget (X5), indicating a beta coefficient of 0.239 at a significance level of 0.042, 0.042 for a significance level of ≤ 0.05. This means that the variable difficulty Achievement Tujauan Budget (X5) significantly affect the performance of the variable local government officials (Y) County Waterford, thus Hypothesis H5 proven.
c. The coefficient of determination (R2)
The coefficient of determination (R2) was conducted to determine how much contribution the influence of independent variables on the dependent variable fluctuations. If R2 is close to 1, indicating that the independent variables collectively influence the dependent variable so that the model used can be good. From the results of the regression analysis can be known refined adjusted R squared of 0.622. This indicates that the variable performance of district government officials Temanggung really explained by the Budget Participation variable (X1), Clarity Destination Budget (X2), Evaluation of the budget (X3), Budget Feedback (X4) and Difficulty Achieving Tujauan Budget (X5) of 62.2% and 37.8 explained by other variables outside of the study.

Research Findings and Discussion
a. The findings of the hypothesis H 1 and discussion
The first findings in this study indicate that there is a positive and significant effect of budgetary participation variable on the variable performance of local government officials, this means that an increase in the participation of local government officials in making budget goals will improve the performance of local government officials, otherwise if the participation of local government officials in making budget goals down the performance of local government officials will also be down. Therefore, in this study the hypothesis H1 is accepted.
The results of this study strengthen the research Argyris (1952) has found the participation of subordinate plays a central role in the achievement of goals. With the involvement of the manager or the head of an organizational unit in the budgeting process, will have implications for the clarity of tasks and targets are achieved, thereby helping managers achieve organizational goals as in budget planning. These results also further strengthens research Munawar (2006), who found that budgetary participation affects the performance of local government officials Kab. Kupang. This suggests that the budget established by the local government officials are specific and clear, thus improving the performance of local government officials.
These findings also support research Kenis (1979) which examines the impact of budgetary goal characteristics on managerial behavior and performance of department managers with research subjects. Findings are budgeting participation and clarity of purpose tend to budget a positive effect on the behavior of managers.
b. The findings and discussion of Hypothesis H2
The results of these two findings in this study indicate that there is a positive and significant budget goal clarity variable on the variable performance of local government officials, this means that the apparent clarity of purpose in the budget budgeting eat the higher performance of local government officials in carrying out the duties and responsibilities., Otherwise if less obvious budgetary purposes the performance of local government officials will also be down. Therefore, in this study the hypothesis H2 is accepted.
These results support the research Argyris (1952) who concluded that one key to effective performance budgeting is clarity of purpose plays a central role in the achievement of goals. With a clear goal in the budgeting process, will have implications for the clarity of tasks and targets are achieved, thereby helping managers achieve organizational goals as well as in planning the budget.
These results are also consistent with the results of the study Kenis (1979) which examines the impact of budgetary goal characteristics on managerial behavior and performance of department managers with research subjects found that clarity of purpose of the budget has a strong influence on performance budgeting.
These findings further support the research Locke and Schweiger (1979) suggests that the budget goal clarity can improve managerial performance, whereas the lack of clarity leads to confusion and dissatisfaction with the executive, resulting in decreased performance. Several studies support the positive influence of clarity of purpose on managerial performance (Ivancevich, 1976; Steers, 1975; Imoisili, 1989). Managers who work without a clear purpose will come with a high uncertainty of achieving the goals set previously.
These results also reinforce the findings Steers (1975) empirically found that clarity of purpose related to performance. Through field experiments, Kim (1984) also supports that goal-setting impact on performance. Clarity of purpose budget will improve performance (Latham & Baldes, 1975; Locke, Carrledge & Knerr, 1970).
c. The findings of hypothesis H3 and discussion
The results of these three findings in this study indicate that there is no significant effect of the variable on the variable performance evaluation budget government officials. Therefore, in this study the hypothesis H3 is rejected.
These results contradict the research that has been done Kenis (1979) which examines budgeting evaluation found weak influence on the performance of managers. These results also contradict the research of Michael and Troy (2000) in Munawar (2006) who explained that to measure the performance of a local government in comparison with the objectives that have been set will require local governments accountable.
d. The findings of hypothesis H4 and discussion
Four findings in this study indicate that there is a positive and significant effect of the variable on the variable feedback budgetary performance government officials, this means that the higher the feedback received, the higher government officials performance of local government officials in carrying out duties and responsibilities, otherwise if the bait slightly behind budget will weaken the performance of local government officials will also be down. Therefore, in this study the hypothesis H4 is accepted.
The results of this study support the Steers (1975) who found empirically that the performance-related feedback. Through field experiments, Kim (1984) also supports that feedback significantly impact on performance.
e. The findings of hypothesis H5 and discussion
The findings of this study is the fifth in difficulty achieving positive budget significantly to the performance of local government officials. Thus hypothesis H5 in this study received.
These results support the Hirst and Lowy (1990) which proved that difficult goals result in higher performance than if you set goals that are specific or easier, or purpose of a general nature. These results as well as supporting a variety of research mengindefikasikan that budget goal difficulty and performance are closely linked (Hoftede, 1968; Kenis, 1979; Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Mia, 1989).
These results are consistent with research Latham & Baldes, (1975); Locke, Carrledge & Knerr, (1970) in which the objective difficulties if accepted, will improve performance.

CONCLUSION
From the test results and statistical analysis in this study, it can be concluded as follows:
1. Budgetary participation is significantly positive effect on the performance of local government officials County Waterford.
2. Clarity of purpose of the budget is significantly positive effect on the performance of local government officials County Waterford.
3. Evaluation of the Budget does not significantly affect the performance of local government officials County Waterford.
4. Feedback budget significantly positive effect on the performance of local government officials County Waterford.
5. The difficulty of achieving positive budget significantly to the performance of local government officials County Waterford.
6. Characteristics budget goals (participation, clarity, evaluation, feedback and trouble) together have a positive and significant impact on the performance of local government officials County Waterford.
7. Five characteristic variables budgetary purposes (participation, clarity, evaluation, feedback and difficulty) affecting government performance officer jointly by 62.2% whilst the 37.8% influenced by other variables that are not modeled in this study.

Managerial Implications
Based on the conclusions from the above results, it can be given suggestions or recommendations as follows:
1. Kurangnnya officials over the handling of priority projects the needs of society, should be handling these types of projects more attention again, because the function of local government officials as public servants.
2. Participation of local government officials is needed in County Waterford meningkatkat performance, because participation kurangnnya opinion on budget planning, policy-makers should pay more attention to the opinions of local government officials
3. The importance of clarity of purpose of the budget in improving the performance of local government officials and County Waterford officials are less conscious of the importance of goal-SKPD RKA that priority and the need for greater emphasis on budgetary goals.
4. The importance of feedback between colleagues and between the leadership to improve the performance of local government officials, they should more frequently use the feedback at the end of the budget planning cycle for use in practice.

Limitations of Research
Several limitations of this study include:
1. Sample research use only one employee / government officials are taken, making the lack of characteristic sampled respondents, made some research results are not consistent with previous studies, where the results are only a special case only. So as to yield a consistent yet this needs to be tested again in a couple of other local government officials.
2. This research only load variables budgetary goal characteristics as a basis for building a government apparatus performance. The possibility of other variables that affect the performance of the apparatus that can not be described in the study.
3. Less profound analysis performed on the variable characteristics of the budget and the purpose of the variable performance of local government officials.

Suggestion
Based on the limitations of this study, some suggestions for future research are as follows:
1. The sampling of respondents from research using some type of employee / government officials.
2. Future research can add some variables that may be, influential in conducting research on the performance of local government officials.
3. Less deepening our analysis of the study variables, we suggest for future research, it may be deeper in analyzing the problem.
4. Although no hypothesis was not proven in this study, we still recommend to keep using variables that are not significant in this study, to study again. Because in previous studies of these variables is a key factor to consider.

REFERENCES
Argyris, Chris. The Impact of Budgets on People (Controllership Foundation, 1952).

Brownell, Peter.1981. Participation in Budgeting, Locus of Control and Organizational Effectiveness. Accounting Review, Page 844-860.

__________, A Field Study Examination of budgetary Participaton and locus of control. The Accounting Review (1982) This 766-777.

__________, & M. McIness. Budgetary Participation, Motivation and Managerial Performance. The Accounting Review (1986) This 587-600.

Bastian, Indra.2006. Public Sector Accounting System, Salemba Four Jakarta.
Coryanata Isma.2007. Accountability, Public Participation and Transparency in Public Policy as Pemoderating Relations Board Knowledge About Financial Supervision (APBD), National Accounting Symposium X Unhas Makassar.

Gujarati, Damodar. 1993. Basic Econometrics, third impression, Jakarta; grants

Gunawan R Sudarmanto.2005. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis with SPSS, Graha Science, Yogyakarta.

Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly. 1995 Organizations 8th ed. Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Hanson, Ernest I., The budgetary Control Function. The Accounting Review (April 1966), p 239-243.

Handoko, T. Hani, (2000) Management, 2nd Edition, BEFE, Yogyakarta.

Imosili, O. A., The Role of Budget Data in the Evaluation of Managerial Performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society (1989). It 325-335.

Joko Susilo. , 2008. Linear Regression With Moderating Variables, http://jonikriswanto.blogspot.com/2008/08/.html

Kim, Jay S., Effects of Behavior Plus Outcome Goal Setting and Feedback on Employee Satisfacation and Performance. The Academy of Management Journal (March 1984) Page 139-149.

Kenis, I., Effects of budgetary Goal Characteristics on Managerial Attitudes and Performance. The Accounting Review (October 1979). It 707-721

Luthan, Fred. Organizational Behacior. International Edition, Seventh Edition. McGraww-Hill. New york, 1989.

Libby, T., The Influence of Voice and Explanation on Performance in a Budgeting Setting Participativ. Accounting, OrganizationsThe Accciety (1999). It 125-137

Mardiasmo.2006. Public Sector Accounting. Andi Yogyakarta.

Maryanti, H., A., 2002. Characteristics Influence Behavior Against Budget Interest, Attitudes and Performance of Local Governments in East Nusa Tenggara Province. (Thesis)

Munawar, 2006. Characteristics Influence Behavior Against Budget Interest, Attitudes and Performance of Local Government Officials in Kupang district. (Thesis).

Mia, L., The Impact of Participation in Budgeting and Job Difficulty on anagerial Performance and Work Motivation: Research Note. Accounting Organizations and Society (1989). It 347-357.

Milani, Ken. The Relationship of Participation in Budget Setting to Industrial Supervisor Performance and Attitudes: A Field Study. The Accounting Review (April 1975) Page 274-284

Nor, Wahyudin.2007. Decentralization and Style Kepemimpina As Variables Moderating the Relationship between Budgetary Participation and
Performance Managerial Accounting National Symposium X Unhas Makassar.

Riduwan. Thesis Preparation Methods and Techniques. Alfabeta Bandung.

Rahayu, Sri. , 2007. Study Fenemologis Against Local Budgetary Process Empirical Evidence from One SKPD in Jambi province, National Finance Symposium X Unhas Makassar.

Republic of Indonesia. , 2003. Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finance. Jakarta Financial Management Improvement Committee.

Republic of Indonesia. , 2004. Law No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Government, Jakarta.

Republic of Indonesia. , 2005. Law No. 33 of 2004 on Financial Balance and Regional Center, Jakarta.

__________, Government Regulation. 58 Year 2005 on Regional Financial Management, Jakarta.

__________, No. Permendagri. 13 Year 2006 on Regional Financial Management, Jakarta.

__________, No. Permendagri. 59 Year 2007 on Regional Financial Management Guidelines, Jakarta.

__________, No. Permendagri. 30 of 2007 on Guidelines for Preparation of Revenue and Expenditure for Fiscal Year 2008, Jakarta

__________, Waterford No. decree. 050/42/2006 on Guidelines for Management of budgets County Waterford. Waterford County Government.

Sarjito, Bambang. , 2007. Effect of Budgetary Participation Performance Against Government Officials: Organizational culture and Organizational Commitment as Moderating Variable, Accounting National Symposium X Unhas Makassar.

Sekaran, Uma. , 2006. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. Four Edition. New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc..

Sadjiarto Arja, 2000. Government Accountability and Performance Measurement, Journal of Accounting & Finance Vol 2, November 2000: 138-150

Steer, RM, Task-Goal Attributes, Achievemen, and Supervisory Performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (June 1975). It 392-403

Worimon, Samson. , 2007. Public Participation and Transparency Influence Public Policy Toward Relationship between Science Council On Budget With Blood Comptroller (budget), National Accounting Symposium X Unhas Makassar.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s