This Project was funded by Kemristek DIKTI/PTUPT 2017-2018
Direktorat Penelitian Universitas Gadjah Mada
Direktorat Penelitian Universitas Gadjah Mada
Researchers
Arie Setyaningrum Pamungkas
Ika Ayu Kristianingrum
Ika Kusmiyati
Muhammad Amrun
Muhammad Amrun
The mandate of the Law of the
Villages No. 6 of 2014 requires a principle of equitable distribution of
development to be conducted for rural and disadvantaged areas in Indonesia.
This mandate emphasizes a subsidiary system for rural development through a
recognition by the nation in order to treat villages not only as unitary units of
government but also as cultural institutions. In other words, the Law of the
Villages No. 6 of 2014 necessitates governmental agencies (bodies) to recognize villages as 'the
subject' of development, not merely object. It also means that public
services should be conducted by the central government by encouraging participation of
villagers for their socioeconomic improvement which also means efforts to
overcome socioeconomic gap between rural and urban developments. The whole process can be
developed by utilizing a facilitation model that passes between subjects
focus on each potentials of every villages area and by managing a mutual platform. This facilitation is expected to facilitate subjects (people who will be
involved in the community) with their various accesses to ICT and their different types of social and cultural forums. In practice,
such a digital platform is developed through an application of ‘Sistem
Informasi Desa’ (SID) – or the village information system.
The assessment of the implementation
of village digitalization is thus fundamentally addresses at how the management
of the village information systems (SID) have been conducted and how the
village potentials are institutionalized through various potentials that will support the establishment of a village owned enterprises
(Badan Usaha Milik Desa - Bumdes). Bumdes can be managed through various engagements that are rooted within socio cultural ecosystem of each villages.
The major concerns on utilizing ICT for rural development through the application of SID thus intends to examine the practice of rural development plan and what impacts generated through various managements of village information systems that can be integrated or linked within the institutionalization of the village enterprises (Bumdes).
On this account, governmental endorsement of Bumdes for rural participation especially for the well being of the villagers are also important to be assessed due to the fact that such various programs also provide opportunities for different social classes in the rural areas. This is important to be observed, given the fact that rural elites still dominates access to major information, for example information related to the inventory of citizen assets. At this point, the economic potentials of the smallest unit in the village to gain a wider marketing scope can be easily manipulated to attract investment. This issue needs to be ethically discussed especially because the discourse of BUMDES becomes one of the prerequisites for withdrawing (liquifying) the village funds (dana desa) from the central government. This policy of constituting the establishment of Bumdes is considered as an implementation of the Village Law No. 6 of 2014 which in fact the allocation budget funds is starting in 2017.
The major concerns on utilizing ICT for rural development through the application of SID thus intends to examine the practice of rural development plan and what impacts generated through various managements of village information systems that can be integrated or linked within the institutionalization of the village enterprises (Bumdes).
On this account, governmental endorsement of Bumdes for rural participation especially for the well being of the villagers are also important to be assessed due to the fact that such various programs also provide opportunities for different social classes in the rural areas. This is important to be observed, given the fact that rural elites still dominates access to major information, for example information related to the inventory of citizen assets. At this point, the economic potentials of the smallest unit in the village to gain a wider marketing scope can be easily manipulated to attract investment. This issue needs to be ethically discussed especially because the discourse of BUMDES becomes one of the prerequisites for withdrawing (liquifying) the village funds (dana desa) from the central government. This policy of constituting the establishment of Bumdes is considered as an implementation of the Village Law No. 6 of 2014 which in fact the allocation budget funds is starting in 2017.
The central government through
the Ministry of Villages, Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration (the
Kemendesa PDTT) has encouraged the efforts to maximize ICT function especially
for developing the village information system (Sistem Informasi Desa) whilst at
the same time developing alternative rural development to promote the villages’
economic potentials, sustainability development and increasing village
productivity. So it can be said that ideally the government runs a major knot
in the effort to distribute resources and efforts to maintain sustainability of
development in the villages by involving community nodes at the grassroots
level as well as with other civil society organizations. Efforts ideally could
also be made with 'platform' or blueprint for village development by optimizing
the distribution of information and utilization of technology involving the
participation of villagers. However, such platform of ICT for rural development
is not yet fully achieved (or comprehended) by the government due to other
priorities in utilizing the village funds (dana desa) especially for completing
basic infrastructure development in rural areas.
Research Questions, Method and
Theoretical Framework
The ideal expectation of ICT for
rural development is actually aimed to transform social relations between
citizens from old cultural patterns to a new pattern in order to support good
governance and economic sustainability or economic improvement.
Three research questions employed are:
- With regard to the application of SID for good governance, is the SID used as a tool to develop the village sustainability that ultimately has implications for social change and the improvement of citizens' well being? Or is the village itself (the village government) just developing SID because it is one of the main tasks required by the Village Law?
- With regard to the utilization of SID for alternative rural economy, is it true that Bumdes can provide a uniform and equitable economic impact, or simply transfer the outside capital (large capital / modern) to enter the village without considering the sustainability of the village as a cultural institution or cultural entity?
- With regard to the ICT utilization for good governance and increasing people wellbeing, what would be the advantages as well as vulnerabilities in the implementation of SID and Bumdes?
Aims of the research are:
(1) the implementation of village
information system (SID) and its application for good gorvernance of providing
transparency and public accountability and involving citizen participation for
rural development;
(2) the evaluation of the rural economic
development, especially in the practice of establishing 'village-owned
enterprises' (Badan Usaha Milik Desa or commonly abbreviated as BUMDES).
In order to gain the aims of the research, the case study employed an ethnography
method in which the observation is also conducted by a participatory
observation. An ethnography study in this case is crucial for further exploration on socio cultural impacts. A base study on the SID and Bumdes have been conducted by two related NGOS namely CRI (Combine Resource Institution) and IRE (Institute for Research and Emporwerment) – both have experiences in empowering rural development.
Four villages involved in the ethnography study were: Murtigading Village, Sanden District, Bantul Regency, DIY
Province; Panggungharjo Village, Sewon District, Bantul Regency, DIY Province;
Nglegi Village, Patuk District, Gunung Kidul Regency, DIY Province; Pejambon
Village, Sumberrejo Sub-District, Bojonegoro District, East Java Province.
The four villages were selected because they have implemented the village information system (SID) and initiated the formation of a village-owned enterprise (Bumdes). The selection of the four sites was also based on the importance of gaining a comparative study of the practices of SID and Bumdes by considering differences in geographic and demographic conditions, as well as the influence of urbanization in their respective regions. Two villages in DIY region were selected as the case study, i.e, Nglegi and Murtigading villages because they are villages with less influence of urbanization than those in Panggungharjo Village which seems to be a buffering zone for the urban expansion of Yogyakarta City, so this village also experiences a rapid urbanization process and has a likely urban life despite the fact that it is administratively recognized as a village administration area. While the selection of the village outside the province of Yogyakarta, Pejambon Village, in Bojonegoro, East Java, was selected due to the fact that the village has become a pilot project for the development of a good village information system (SID), despite its obstacles in developing alternative economic potentials through Bumdes.
The four villages were selected because they have implemented the village information system (SID) and initiated the formation of a village-owned enterprise (Bumdes). The selection of the four sites was also based on the importance of gaining a comparative study of the practices of SID and Bumdes by considering differences in geographic and demographic conditions, as well as the influence of urbanization in their respective regions. Two villages in DIY region were selected as the case study, i.e, Nglegi and Murtigading villages because they are villages with less influence of urbanization than those in Panggungharjo Village which seems to be a buffering zone for the urban expansion of Yogyakarta City, so this village also experiences a rapid urbanization process and has a likely urban life despite the fact that it is administratively recognized as a village administration area. While the selection of the village outside the province of Yogyakarta, Pejambon Village, in Bojonegoro, East Java, was selected due to the fact that the village has become a pilot project for the development of a good village information system (SID), despite its obstacles in developing alternative economic potentials through Bumdes.
Informational
capability is a concept that supports the idea of sustainable development through
an empowerment of community base development and the practice of democracy at
a grass root level. In developing sustainable
development by emphasizing cultural aspect especially for improving well being condition of poor villagers in the era of digital technology, the ICT utilization suggests to emphasize a combination of ICT medium and individual
capabilities in processing and utilizing information base that assigns individuals
roles within their social agencies and their connections at multiple community
bases. Bjorn-Soren Gigler (2015) argues that informational capability paradigm helps to explain how
ecological changes in information communication systems take place whereas the
ecology is not just a matter of individual or group adaptation on ICT devices
alone but also on how to integrate 'information literacy' as a 'shared'
capability within community.
Research Findings: Comparative
Practices of Informational Capabilities in Four Digital Villages in Rural Java
There are two main indicators of
'informational capability' in the utilization of ICT for rural development
applied in this study, as follows:
(1) ICT utilization access which is
undertaken and facilitated by the village governments and communities involved
in rural development to include citizen participation for rural development
(2) The institutionalization of
participation in organizing communities through the application of SID (the
village information system) particularly for rural economic development
These indicators help to explain
the quality of cultural implications of utilizing village information system
for rural development where the application of digital technology is expected
to increase the development capability more rapidly without injuring the
democratic processes and participation at the local level which in turn has
also a significant impact on the tradition and specificity of the village
community in general.
The four villages selected as a case study in this research according to the development index in Indonesia
are considered as the representatives of the autonomous and the developing
villages. Panggungharjo village and
Mutigading village in Yogyakarta are autonomous villages (desa mandiri) which
means the villages have autonomous economic income and thus potentially become
developed villages (desa maju) in the near future. Meanwhile, Nglegi village in
Yogyakarta and Pejambon village in East Java are considered as developing
villages (desa berkembang) that still need more governmental supports for infrastructure
development, but have potentials or advantages to be economically autonomous in
providing alternative employment for their citizens.
From the fieldwork notes it can be
said that in general the development of informational capability in each village
observed is not yet fully achieved due to two main problems located on:
(1) the interpretation of utilizing SID and the
village data management which means authority of utilizing the village data and
data privacy of the village assets including monograph data and demographic
data whether they should be publicly accessible or not
(2) the interpretation of building or forming
Bumdes due to the fear of facing legal risks and the resistance of citizens
(villagers) who are afraid of being threatened because of competition in almost
the similar business.
Those two main problems of the
implementation of ICT for rural development because the central government
itself has not yet formulated a general platform of the village information
system (SID) that determines standards of public services and the pre-requisite
for building Bumdes seems to be comprehended only by some village elites in
most cases in order to meet the requirements of gaining the village funds (dana
desa) from the central government.
One of the main problems of the
implementation of ICT for rural development that underlies this research is the
fact that can be found in determining priorities for rural development. This is
exemplified for instance in the Decree of the Ministry of Village,
Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration which is called ‘PERMENDESA’ whereas
the PERMENDESA No 22 of 2016 on 'Determination of Priority of Village Fund
Usage Year 2017' is changed to PERMENDESA No 4 of 2017 on 'Changes on
PERMENDESA NO.22 Year 2016 on Stipulation Priority of Village Fund Usage 2017.’
In the first year after the ratification of the Village Law, the vision of the
Village Law is implemented through the priority of village funding allocations
to apply to establish the village information systems (SID) in almost all
villages throughout Indonesia. In the subsequent years, the priority was also
given as much as 30% of village funds for the construction of rural physical
infrastructure. In 2017 the vision of village development is also aimed at
strengthening the village economy and developing the village's creative economy
by forming the village-owned enterprise (Bumdes). This has implications for the
village governments’ responses and how to organize the village communities at
the grassroots level.
In practice since the
implementation of the Village Law, two other issues have arisen regarding the
management and distribution of village information systems. The first is the
matter of village autonomy, and the second is the distribution of information
through the ICT practices that tend to be elitist. The issue of village
autonomy concerns on how to manage data and information owned by villages that
are accessible for wider public, not just by the villagers. Village monograph
data for instance is not only administrative data that can be utilized by the
government alone, but also opens up other opportunities or loopholes that can
be utilized by other parties who seek benefits from rural development by
excluding the involvement of local residents. On the other hand, there are
still village elites who control information unilaterally so that the data is
very likely to be misused. For example, with regard to the inventory of citizen
assets (such as land ownership), the economic potential of the smallest unit in
the village (Micro Small Medium Enterprises - MSMEs) to the wider scope can be
easily used to attract investment. While it may open up rural economic
opportunities creatively outside the traditional village economic sector (such
as agriculture), this needs to be addressed more deeply when the discourse of
developing the village's creative economy through village-owned enterprises
(Bumdes) is strengthened. In fact, Bumdes cannot always provide a uniform and
equitable economic impact because the development of the economic institution
is not always include the villagers’ participation due to pragmatic reasons.
For instance the village governments seem to view the establishment of Bumdes
as a requirement imposed by the central government therefore they have to
manage a limited time and energy – in order to achieve a quick profitmaking
rather than considering social benefits of the Bumdes for the villagers. In
some cases, the establishment of Bumdes, seem simply transfer the outside
capital (large capital / modern) to enter the village without considering the
sustainability of the village as a cultural institution or cultural entity and
at the same time threatens the solidarity of the villagers have traditionally
had a mechanism of defense in keeping their communities from the threat of
social conflict due to economic disparities among citizens.
In general, there are two
important aspects that need to be critically reviewed in assessing the village
information system (SID), e.g:
(1) Appropriate approach model that will be used
in the village information system;
(2) Appropriate content that should be filled
into the village website that is publicly accessible.
In the first aspect there
are two models of approaches implemented in the village information systems
(SID) relating to the distribution of village authorities. First is the SID
model that is top down. In this model, village top-down management makes the
bureaucracy central, either as an initiator or organizer, or a facilitator in
the implementation of government programs. Second is the bottom-up SID model
which in this approach runs from the community's initiative in the village
development plan. In this context, the informational community independently
supports building the required facilities such as the development of the
village website, and other support for enlarging networks. For example, in Pejambon
Village Bojonegoro has an online site with a very detailed administration of
village administration data such as salaries of village government officials,
to data on school conditions in the village. The existence of complete data
such as shown by Pejambon Village is possible to be presented due to a strong
initiative from the informational community who empower the villagers for ICT
literacy.
The second aspect concerns how
the village builds the website content that can be incorporated into the SID that
supports village management. It delineates the ideal outputs generated by SID
that the data originating from the people used as a database in village
development planning should be benefitted the people, so it is not limited to
display village profiles that have many loopholes to be misused. In other
words, the SID implementation should not be limited to the supporting system of
the village-wide system, but as an entry point for discussing authority issues.
In other words, the SID is only a tool, but it can be useful otherwise it can
be risky as well, because at this point SID (the village information system)
can be functioned to encourage a better governance and thus optimizing the SID
is directed at measuring the village government's commitment to democratic
values that underlie SID's implementation of transparency, accountability and
community participation. Therefore, the discourse of practicing SID should be
extended from the issues of technology tools only (both hardware and software),
but moves forward to socializing the function of the SID into community or
villagers so that they can participate optimally as well. In many cases, the
SID implementation in villages involving government synergy (central and
local), community, and village institutions, where all three should be able to
control each other. Another major obstacle is the unavailability of internet
access where not all villages have internet connection.
Despite the fact that
infrastructure for internet network is already facilitated by the central
government, discrepancy of knowledge in digital literacy may occur due to
limited human resources, for instance in the case of a gap in updating the data
because the officials have been more accustomed to input data manually. In
addition there is a problem of data centralization with the level of density if
the village data is collected centrally into one server. There is an imbalance
knowledge gained by the system managers (officials who run SID) and citizens.
This inequality can be clearly seen in the village where the village
bureaucracy controls all citizens' data to be displayed on the village site,
but the villagers themselves as part of the data owner do not know (realize)
that their data has been used by the village bureaucracy. The disparities in
the implementation of the SID has enabled the tendency of increasingly less
citizen participation in the planning processes of village development. In
other words, the use of SID applications without a clear platform can also
threaten the existing traditional citizen forums.
With regard to authority and data
privacy, another obstacle is how to manage and process what information that
can be publicly displayed. In the SID there are three key figures involved to
run the system management, consisting of village officials, the operators, and
the village volunteers (the informational community). These three key figures
play the roles to encourage the involvement of all citizens-including building
synergies for system management and minimizing the risk of particular group or
elites that want to take advantage of situation where dispute of data
management is present. With regard to the SID practice and the formation of
Bumdes for instance, when the data is incomplete, while the village funds from
the central government will continue to be liquefied then a program that is
perfunctory will be found. From the observations and interviews conducted with
village activists, the most important aspect in managing village data is the
planning of the existing data in the village so that anyone who will enter the
village development roles, whether NGOs, the government or academia, must
adjust to the potentials of each village. Currently Bumdes opens opportunities
for all businesses run by the people, but at the same time the village
government should also provide protection on the business people with small
capital.
Conclusion
In general, it can be summed up
that the SID cannot be simply interpreted as a practice of a digital
application for data input, indeed not even just a village website. The village
system information (SID) and websites are only a small part of the expected
goals of ICT for rural development. Since the SID contains village data
including village development data, village areas and other important information,
it can be functioned as media to convey data or public information so that
people (citizen) can easily gain public services. On the other hand, the
application of digital technology should prioritize the consideration of
community access to technology. Technology that is too forced to be rushed
built into particular community will create another problem of lacking social
participation. The availability of data that is not accompanied by community
access to the data itself also impedes community participation.
The application
of SID should consider how the community can utilize or benefit the information
contained in the information system. Access to information is a basic
prerequisite to ensure it. In general, the principles of the implementation of
ICT for rural development are participation and accountability of being
transparent, inclusive and sustainable. These aspects of utilization and
engagement will make a measurable development milestone.
Bumdes's main goal is to improve
the well being of the villagers, therefore the benefits cannot be only enjoyed
by a handful of village elites. In fact, the problems are still emerging in the
development of Bumdes. In this sense the establishment of Bumdes needs to be
reoriented. Bumdes has not been positioned as a business entity devoted to
generating benefits and tends to be oriented only to immediately create
profits. In the development of Bumdes, many villages have directed Bumdes
programs just to create profits immediately without considering the other
significant benefits such as the preservation of nature, and the balance of
social harmony among citizens. On the other hand, the village has no clear
authority in the management of village assets, especially for management by and
through Bumdes. The potentials and assets of the villages have not been
optimally utilized to overcome economic and social problems that exist in the
rural areas. Another obstacle of establishing Bumdes is due to the fact that
there is no clarity and certainty in the mechanism and procedures of
participation of village capital funds and the participation of funds from
other parties. Since Bumdes is not a cooperative, but rather a business entity
that is specifically owned legally by the village, it also does not mean a
village-owned limited company (in Indonesian sense is CV). This means that the
legal status of an entity Bumdes also still does not have a specific clarity
that is affirmed in the state regulation. It still opens up vulnerable
conflicts and disputes that occasionally may arise in rural communities. With regard to Bumdes’ reorientation through
the application of SID, it should be directed to developing aspects of'
economic business' and 'social business' in maintaining a balance of benefits
and potential economic benefits in the village with inclusive participation of
its citizens through the mechanism of the informational capabilities building.
References
Cocg, Coppelie. 2013.
“Anthropological Places, Digital Spaces, and Imaginary Scapes: Packaging a
Digital Samiland”. Folklore 124 (April 2013): 1-14.
Hansen, Nina etal. 2012. “ICT and Cultural Change: How ICT Change Self Construal and Values”, Social Psychology, Vol. 43(4): 222-231.
Sulistyowati, Fadjarini, et.al. 2017. “Pelembagaan Partisipasi Masyarakat Sebagai Upaya Implementasi Sistem Informasi Desa”. Jurnal ASPIKOM Vol. 3 No. 2: 215-224.
Usman, Sunyoto. 2016. “Pengembangan Desa Broadband Terpadu.” Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi (JIK) UPN Veteran Yogyakarta, Vol. 14. No. 13: 189-198.
Books
Alias, Nor Aziah. 2013. ICT Development for Social and Rural Connectednes. Malaysia: Universiti MARA, Sah Alam and Springer.
Bakardjieva, Maria. 2011. “Internet in Everyday Life: Diverse Approaches”, in Consalvo, Mia and Ess, Charles, (eds.), Handbook of Internet Studies. United Kingdom: Willey Blackwell
Eko, Sutoro, Barori, dan Hastowiyono. 2017. Desa Lama, Negara Baru. Yogyakarta: Pascasarjana STPMD APMD.
Gigler, Bjorn-Soren. 2015. Development as Freedom in the Digital Age: Experience of the Rural Poor in Bolivia. Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /The World Bank.
Jahja, Ranggoaini, dkk. 2014. Buku Pintar: Sistem Administrasi dan Informasi Desa. Yogyakarta: FPPD (Forum Pengembangan Pembangunan Desa), bekerjasama dengan Australian Community Development and Civil Society Strengthening Scheme (ACCESS) Phase II.
James, Jefferey. 2004. Information Technology and Development: A New Paradigm for Delivering the Internet to Rural Areas in Developing Countries. London and New York: Routledge.
Kementrian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/BAPPENAS. 2015. Indeks Pembangunan Desa 2014: “Tantangan Pemenuhan Standar Minimum Desa”. Jakarta: Kementrian PPN/Bappenas dan Biro Pusat Statistik.
Kemendesa PDTT, 2015. Indeks Desa Membangun. Jakarta: Kemendesa, PDTT
Kominfo RI. 2017. “Petunjuk Pendaftaran Nama Domain Desa. Id” https://domain.go.id/PendaftaranDomainDesa.pdf. Retrieved on 30th March 2017.
Menteri Dalam Negeri Republik Indonesia. 2014. SALINAN. PERATURAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI REPUBLIK INDONESIA NO 114 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG PEDOMAN PEMBANGUNAN DESA.
Menteri Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal, dan Transmigrasi Republik Indonesia. 2017. SALINAN. PERATURAN MENTERI DESA PEMBANGUNAN DAERAH TERTINGGAL DAN TRANSMIGRASI, REPUBLIK INDONESIA. NO. 4 TAHUN 2017.
Menteri Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal, dan Transmigrasi Republik Indonesia. 2017. SALINAN. PERATURAN MENTERI DESA PEMBANGUNAN DAERAH TERTINGGAL DAN TRANSMIGRASI, REPUBLIK INDONESIA. NO. 4 TAHUN 2015 TENTANG BADAN USAHA MILIK DESA.
Mitra Wacana. 2017. Menjadi Warga Aktif Dalam Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Desa Partisipatif. Yogyakarta: Mitra Wacana.
Policy Brief No.15, Februari 2014 “Pemberdayaan dan Pendampingan Desa” Yogyakarta: FPPD (Forum Pengembangan Pembangunan Desa)
Purnomo, Joko dan Tim Infest. 2016. Seri Buku Saku UU Desa: Pendirian dan Pengelolaan Badan Usaha Milik Desa (BUM Desa). Yogyakarta: Infest (Institute for Education Development, Social, Religious and Cultural Studies), bekerjasama dengan MAMPU (Maju Perempuan Indonesia untuk Penanggulangan Kemiskinan) dan AusAid
Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional. 2015. Anotasi Undang-Undang No 6 Tahun 2014. Jakarta: PATTIRO dan Asia Foundation.
Rukminto, Isbandi. 2008. Intervensi Komunitas Pengembangan Masyarakat Sebagai Upaya Pemberdayaan Masyarakat. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia. 2014. UNDANG-UNDANG DESA NO 6 TAHUN 2014. SALINAN.
Sen, Amartya. 2000. Development as Freedom. New York: Alred A Knof
Sudjatmiko, Budiman dan Zakaria, Yando. 2015. Desa Kuat, Indonesia Hebat. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Pustaka Yustisia.
UNDP. 2013. Panduan Penerapan Sistem Informasi Desa (SID) dan Monitoring Partisipatif. Jakarta: UNDP Indonesia bekerjasama dengan Merapi Recovery Response (MRR) dan Disaster Risk Reduction Based Rehabilitation and Reconsctruction (DR4).
Weinman, Joe. 2015. Digital Diciplines: Attaining Market Leadership via the Cloud, Big Data, Socia Medial, Mobile, and the Internet of Things. New Jersey: Wiley.
Zamroni, Sunaji, dkk. 2015. Desa Mengembangkan Penghidupan Berkelanjutan. Yogyakarta: IRE (Institute for Research and Empowerment).
Online Articles on the Website
Kombinasi, Pusat Pengetahuan Media Komunitas. 2011. Membangun Desa dengan Data: Belajar dari Pembangunan Desa Terong dan Desa Nglegi dalam Membangun Sistem Informasi Desa (SID). Laporan Penelitian-online. Yogyakarta: Combine Resource Institute. Retrieved on 15th July 2016. (http://www.kombinasi.net/sid-membangun-desa-dengan-data/)
Keuangan Desa. 2016. “Kerjasama dan Penyerahan Keuangan Asset Desa”. Retrieved on 17th June 2017. (http://www.keuangandesa.com/2016/04/kerjasama-usaha-dan-penyerahan-aset-desa-yang-disalurkan-part-4/)
Penabulu Alliance. 2016. “Pendekatan Utuh Penguatan Kelembagaan Ekonomi Desa. Jakarta: Penabulu Alliance”. Retrieved on 10th April 2017. (http://keuanganlsm.com/kerjasama-usaha-dan-penyerahan-aset-desa-yang-disalurkan-part-4/)
“Sumber Pendampingan Desa”. 2016. Retrieved on 4th June 2016. (http://pendamping2016.kemendesa.go.id/index.php).
UNESCO. 2015. “Culture and ICT as Drivers of Sustainable Development”. Artikel online. Retrieved on 5th April 2017. (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/singleview/news/culture_and_ict_as_drivers_of_sustainable_development/)
Online News
Hansen, Nina etal. 2012. “ICT and Cultural Change: How ICT Change Self Construal and Values”, Social Psychology, Vol. 43(4): 222-231.
Sulistyowati, Fadjarini, et.al. 2017. “Pelembagaan Partisipasi Masyarakat Sebagai Upaya Implementasi Sistem Informasi Desa”. Jurnal ASPIKOM Vol. 3 No. 2: 215-224.
Usman, Sunyoto. 2016. “Pengembangan Desa Broadband Terpadu.” Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi (JIK) UPN Veteran Yogyakarta, Vol. 14. No. 13: 189-198.
Books
Alias, Nor Aziah. 2013. ICT Development for Social and Rural Connectednes. Malaysia: Universiti MARA, Sah Alam and Springer.
Bakardjieva, Maria. 2011. “Internet in Everyday Life: Diverse Approaches”, in Consalvo, Mia and Ess, Charles, (eds.), Handbook of Internet Studies. United Kingdom: Willey Blackwell
Eko, Sutoro, Barori, dan Hastowiyono. 2017. Desa Lama, Negara Baru. Yogyakarta: Pascasarjana STPMD APMD.
Gigler, Bjorn-Soren. 2015. Development as Freedom in the Digital Age: Experience of the Rural Poor in Bolivia. Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /The World Bank.
Jahja, Ranggoaini, dkk. 2014. Buku Pintar: Sistem Administrasi dan Informasi Desa. Yogyakarta: FPPD (Forum Pengembangan Pembangunan Desa), bekerjasama dengan Australian Community Development and Civil Society Strengthening Scheme (ACCESS) Phase II.
James, Jefferey. 2004. Information Technology and Development: A New Paradigm for Delivering the Internet to Rural Areas in Developing Countries. London and New York: Routledge.
Kementrian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/BAPPENAS. 2015. Indeks Pembangunan Desa 2014: “Tantangan Pemenuhan Standar Minimum Desa”. Jakarta: Kementrian PPN/Bappenas dan Biro Pusat Statistik.
Kemendesa PDTT, 2015. Indeks Desa Membangun. Jakarta: Kemendesa, PDTT
Kominfo RI. 2017. “Petunjuk Pendaftaran Nama Domain Desa. Id” https://domain.go.id/PendaftaranDomainDesa.pdf. Retrieved on 30th March 2017.
Menteri Dalam Negeri Republik Indonesia. 2014. SALINAN. PERATURAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI REPUBLIK INDONESIA NO 114 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG PEDOMAN PEMBANGUNAN DESA.
Menteri Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal, dan Transmigrasi Republik Indonesia. 2017. SALINAN. PERATURAN MENTERI DESA PEMBANGUNAN DAERAH TERTINGGAL DAN TRANSMIGRASI, REPUBLIK INDONESIA. NO. 4 TAHUN 2017.
Menteri Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal, dan Transmigrasi Republik Indonesia. 2017. SALINAN. PERATURAN MENTERI DESA PEMBANGUNAN DAERAH TERTINGGAL DAN TRANSMIGRASI, REPUBLIK INDONESIA. NO. 4 TAHUN 2015 TENTANG BADAN USAHA MILIK DESA.
Mitra Wacana. 2017. Menjadi Warga Aktif Dalam Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Desa Partisipatif. Yogyakarta: Mitra Wacana.
Policy Brief No.15, Februari 2014 “Pemberdayaan dan Pendampingan Desa” Yogyakarta: FPPD (Forum Pengembangan Pembangunan Desa)
Purnomo, Joko dan Tim Infest. 2016. Seri Buku Saku UU Desa: Pendirian dan Pengelolaan Badan Usaha Milik Desa (BUM Desa). Yogyakarta: Infest (Institute for Education Development, Social, Religious and Cultural Studies), bekerjasama dengan MAMPU (Maju Perempuan Indonesia untuk Penanggulangan Kemiskinan) dan AusAid
Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional. 2015. Anotasi Undang-Undang No 6 Tahun 2014. Jakarta: PATTIRO dan Asia Foundation.
Rukminto, Isbandi. 2008. Intervensi Komunitas Pengembangan Masyarakat Sebagai Upaya Pemberdayaan Masyarakat. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia. 2014. UNDANG-UNDANG DESA NO 6 TAHUN 2014. SALINAN.
Sen, Amartya. 2000. Development as Freedom. New York: Alred A Knof
Sudjatmiko, Budiman dan Zakaria, Yando. 2015. Desa Kuat, Indonesia Hebat. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Pustaka Yustisia.
UNDP. 2013. Panduan Penerapan Sistem Informasi Desa (SID) dan Monitoring Partisipatif. Jakarta: UNDP Indonesia bekerjasama dengan Merapi Recovery Response (MRR) dan Disaster Risk Reduction Based Rehabilitation and Reconsctruction (DR4).
Weinman, Joe. 2015. Digital Diciplines: Attaining Market Leadership via the Cloud, Big Data, Socia Medial, Mobile, and the Internet of Things. New Jersey: Wiley.
Zamroni, Sunaji, dkk. 2015. Desa Mengembangkan Penghidupan Berkelanjutan. Yogyakarta: IRE (Institute for Research and Empowerment).
Online Articles on the Website
Kombinasi, Pusat Pengetahuan Media Komunitas. 2011. Membangun Desa dengan Data: Belajar dari Pembangunan Desa Terong dan Desa Nglegi dalam Membangun Sistem Informasi Desa (SID). Laporan Penelitian-online. Yogyakarta: Combine Resource Institute. Retrieved on 15th July 2016. (http://www.kombinasi.net/sid-membangun-desa-dengan-data/)
Keuangan Desa. 2016. “Kerjasama dan Penyerahan Keuangan Asset Desa”. Retrieved on 17th June 2017. (http://www.keuangandesa.com/2016/04/kerjasama-usaha-dan-penyerahan-aset-desa-yang-disalurkan-part-4/)
Penabulu Alliance. 2016. “Pendekatan Utuh Penguatan Kelembagaan Ekonomi Desa. Jakarta: Penabulu Alliance”. Retrieved on 10th April 2017. (http://keuanganlsm.com/kerjasama-usaha-dan-penyerahan-aset-desa-yang-disalurkan-part-4/)
“Sumber Pendampingan Desa”. 2016. Retrieved on 4th June 2016. (http://pendamping2016.kemendesa.go.id/index.php).
UNESCO. 2015. “Culture and ICT as Drivers of Sustainable Development”. Artikel online. Retrieved on 5th April 2017. (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/singleview/news/culture_and_ict_as_drivers_of_sustainable_development/)
Online News
Tempo.Co. 2017. “Kemendes PDTT terus Sosialisasikan BUMDES”. Berita Online. Retrieved on 20th July 2017. (https://www.tempo.co/read/news/2017/05/15/299875378/kemendes-pdtt-terus-sosialisasikan-Bumdes
