Determinan Akuntabilitas Publik: Sistem Politik, Demokrasi, Pertumbuhan Ekonomi, Kualitas Sumber Daya Manusia, Korupsi, dan Sistem Akuntansi

Abstrak

Public accountability is a fundamental component of effective governance, as it requires governments to justify the exercise of public authority, the allocation of public resources, and the consequences of their decisions. However, existing studies tend to examine the determinants of public accountability in isolation, resulting in a fragmented understanding of how institutional, economic, human, informational, and governance factors interact to shape accountability outcomes. This study addresses this gap by systematically synthesizing empirical evidence on six major determinants of public accountability: political systems, democratic quality, economic growth, human resource quality, corruption, and accounting systems. A systematic literature review was conducted using selection and reporting procedures adapted from PRISMA 2020, supported by thematic coding, a synthesis matrix of 30 empirical studies, and a structured quality assessment. The findings reveal four interconnected pathways underlying public accountability: institutional pressure, arising from political and democratic arrangements; economic capacity, reflecting the resources available to support accountable governance; human capability, representing the competence and quality of public-sector human resources; and information infrastructure, encompassing accounting systems, financial reporting, auditing, and transparency mechanisms. Corruption is identified as an accountability friction that can weaken the effectiveness of these mechanisms by distorting institutional incentives, reducing transparency, and undermining public oversight. Building on these findings, this study proposes the Integrated Public Accountability Determinant Framework (IPADF), a multidimensional framework that conceptualizes public accountability as the outcome of interactions among institutional pressure, economic capacity, human capability, information infrastructure, public oversight, and corruption-related friction. The synthesis further highlights a critical distinction between formal accountability—reflected in reporting compliance and audit outcomes—and substantive accountability, which concerns whether government actions are genuinely transparent, answerable, and responsive to public interests. Seven empirically testable hypotheses are subsequently formulated, including the proposition that democratic quality moderates the relationship between accounting systems and public accountability. The IPADF contributes to the accountability literature by integrating previously fragmented determinants into a coherent analytical framework and provides a basis for future cross-country panel studies and empirical research on local governments in Indonesia.