Smart Village Governance: Citizen Participation In Panggungharjo Village-Owned Enterprise

year 2014 about village government (Aziiza & Susanto, 2020; Tiballa, 2017) Abstract. This study focuses on participation in the implementation and influence of community participation on the application of Smart Village in Village-Owned Enterprise. In the theory of community participation in the implementation phase, there are indicators to measure community participation, namely participation with energy, participation with money, participation with goods, and also participation with ideas. This research uses a quantitative approach with data collection, namely questionnaires and literature study. The population number of studies was 28141 people. The sample calculation results in this study were 100 respondents. The survey results are then processed using SmartPLS 3.0 software. The results show that of the four indicators of community participation mentioned above, two of them influence the development of Smart Village. At the same time, the other two do not affect the development of Smart Village. Indicators that influence the development of Smart Village are participation with energy and participation with goods. In other words, residents of Panggungharjo Village participated in the implementation of the Smart Village in Village-Owned Enterprise and donated some of the items needed to develop the Sustainable Village-Owned Enterprise Panggung Lestari. Whereas participation with money and participation with ideas do not influence the development of Smart Village. The recommendation in this study is that the village government or Village-Owned Enterprise managers can increase community participation in various ways such as involving the community directly in the management of Village-Owned Enterprise and providing space for the community to contribute actively to the form of physical participation


INTRODUCTION
The village is the bottom-most administrative region in Indonesia. Village according to Law No. 6 of 2014, village mentions can also be called by other names that have been recognized by the government (Aziiza & Susanto, 2020). The implementation of village governance, the village was led by the village head and was awed by the village consultative agency (BPD). Besides, to being responsible for the implementation of the village government to the BPD and the public, the village head must also be accountable to the community. Implementation of the official village law began in the year 1979 with the issue of LAW No. 5 the year 1979 and continued with ACT No. 32 .One concept to build a village is the Smart Village concept (Aries & Budiandrian, 2019;Somwanshi et al., 2016;Subekti & Damayanti, 2019). Smart Village is an innovation in the development of sustainable knowledge that involves the elements of human resources in managing the resources owned by the village to encourage the development of the village itself. The definition of Smart Village concept is the development of the village with the connectivity between the regional system in the context of national development planning (Aries & Budiandrian, 2019;Rachmawati, 2018).
The implementation of Smart Village in Indonesia is representative so that a village can understand and about the problems that exist in the village (understanding) and then be able to cope with the issues that occur (sensing), in addition to the set (Firmansyah & Syaepudin, 2018;Herdiana, 2019). The resources owned to be utilized and managed well effectively and efficiently to improve the welfare of the community. Besides, the implementation of Smart Village in Indonesia leads to effective and efficient economic development by supported and utilizing appropriate technology, so that there can be a good relationship between concept applied in rural, urban and national development sustainability (Larasdiputra, Anggiriawan, Kawisana, & Putra, 2019).
Smart village governance has to considered the participation of the citizen. In the theory of community participation in the implementation phase, there are indicators to measure community participation, namely participation with energy, participation with money, participation with goods and also participation with ideas (Phong et al., 2019;Pratiwi, Sujana, & Haris, 2019;Sofyani, Atmaja, & Rezki, 2019). The implementation of Smart Village governance is one of them by forming a village-owned enterprise (Kusuma & Krisnadewara, 2019;Srirejeki, 2018). In PERMENDES No. 39, 2010 Devolting Village-owned enterprise is a business built or established by the village government where the ownership of capital and management is carried out by the village government to increase the village government's finances to Government and increase the revenue of the villagers through various economic activities of the village community (Kushartono, 2016).
The village-owned enterprise also set in LAW No. 6 of 2014 which is written in CHAPTER X article 87-90 which mentions that in the establishment of village-owned enterprise is agreed upon by the village deliberation and managed with the universal and the family of Kegotongroyongan (collaboration).
The village-owned enterprise has two primary functions, namely as a commercial institution and a village social institution (Pratiwi et al., 2019;Sofyani et al., 2019). As a social institution has the role of a community ministry provider while functioning as a commercial institution has a purpose of seeking profit with the supply of local resources (goods and services) to the market.
Village-owned enterprise business type is governed by ministerial regulation which includes services, channelling 9 necessities, trade of agricultural products, and small and household industries that can be developed according to the needs and potentials of the village. Through Village-owned enterprise it is expected to be utilized for business development, Village development, village community empowerment and provision of assistance to the poor through social support, grants and revolving fund activities set out in the Village Budget (Kusuma & Krisnadewara, 2019). The study uses Ericson's theory of community participation in which there are several forms of participation, namely community participation in the planning stage, community participation in the implementation phase, participation in the utilization phase and participation in the evaluation phase (Iqbal, 2019;Nurfaisal, et al, 2020).
Same with Village-owned enterprise that exist in Panggungharjo village, Sewon subdistrict, Bantul Regency, DIY namely Village-owned enterprise Panggung Lestari. Village-owned enterprise was founded in 2013 as an attempt to empower the potential of the village and be expected to be an entity capable of lifting welfare and community empowerment. To be able to play a role as a tool to leverage the economy and as an agent to make the social change towards prosperity, Villageowned enterprise Panggung Lestari focuses its efforts in the field of environmental management services, especially household waste management With the name "KUPAS" which stands for With success achieved by Village-owned enterprise Panggung Lestari, researchers want to know how community participation in the implementation of Village-owned enterprise, whether community participation affects the implementation of the Village-owned enterprise or not. As it is known that in running a program is necessary participation from the community because the village government makes the Village-owned enterprise program along with the society, where the implementation is carried out by the village and community governments.

METHODS
The research used is quantitative research. Quantitative research was seen in terms of objectives, this study was used to test a theory, present a fact, or describe statistics, and to demonstrate the relationship between variables and others who developed the concept, develop understanding, or describe many things. (Subana and Sudrajat, 2005).
This study used questionnaire techniques and library studies to obtain data to analysis the  For the first criterion (convergent validity) and the second criterion (discriminant validity) can be known by looking at the value or score from the outer model, namely the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value. There is a limit value on AVE that must be met by data if the data is to be said to be valid. The AVE value can be said to be valid if the AVE score exceeds or is more significant than (>) 0.50, and if the AVE score is smaller or less than (<) 0.50, then the data can be said to be invalid.

Testing The Inner Model
Testing the inner model or structural model is a test to measure or see the relationship between the construct, the significance value, and the R-square of the research model.
Measurement of the structural model is carried out using the value of the R-square for the dependent construct of the t-test as well as the significance of the coefficient of structural path parameters. Table 3 shows the results of R-square obtained through smartPLS.  Table 3 shows the result of the R-square influence of community participation in smart villages (Village-owned enterprise), which shows the number of 0.466. Thus, it can be said that the influence of the involvement with energy, involvement with money, participation with goods, and participation with ideas on the smart village (Village-owned enterprise) is 46.6%.

Hypothesis Test
The hypothesis test is a hypothetical test between the independent variable and the dependent variable and vice versa. To test it, use a statistical test that is the t statistic or t-test. The t value is obtained from the t table, where a test can be said to be significant if the T-statistic is greater than (>) 1.96, and the value of the P-values is less than (<) 0.05.

Figure: 3. Output Bootstrapping
Testing this hypothesis is done by looking at the output path coefficient of the bootstrap resampling results, which can be seen from Figure 3 and Table 4, that the results of hypothesis testing are only participation with energy (PDT) and participation with goods (GDP) received, which means it has a significant effect, whereas for participation with money and participation with the idea of testing hypotheses it was rejected, which meant it had no significant influence.

A. Hypothesis Test Result 1
The first hypothesis test in this study are: Ha: Participation with energy influenced the development of a Village-owned enterprise.
Ho: Participation with energy does not affect the development of Village-owned enterprises. Table 5 shows the results of the statistical T of 4.433. This number exceeds the limit or more than the value of the statistical T that has been set at 1.96. In addition, the value of P values is 0,000. This number is smaller or less than the value of P values that have been determined that is equal to 0.05. So, it can be concluded if the participation in the form of energy influences the development of Village-owned enterprise. Based on these results, the first hypothesis (H1) is accepted or proven (Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected). Lestari.
One of the Panggung Lestari Village-owned enterprise activities in the KUPAS business unit that is participated by the community is waste segregation activities. The villagers of Panggungharjo are invited to sort waste into three groups, namely organic waste, inorganic waste, and residue, which is then deposited in the KUPAS for reprocessing. Organic waste is reprocessed into organic fertilizer in both solid and liquid form, inorganic rubbish in rubbing form is resold and for residues disposed of or distributed to landfill.
Other activities in the KUPAS business unit that involve the community are the Waste Sorting Education Dissemination, which is carried out routinely in every hamlet in Panggungharjo Village, where the participants come from the dukuh residents. Other outreach activities carried out by the KUPAS Village-owned enterprise business unit Panggung Lestari are the socialization of the Garbage Bank and the Old Age Savings through waste sorting with economic value.

B. Hypothesis Test Result 2
The second hypothesis test in this study are: Ha: Participation with money influenced the development of the Village-owned enterprise.
Ho: Participation with money does not affect the development of Village-owned enterprises. Source: processed from primary data, 2019 Table 6 shows the results of the T statistical of 1.705, this number is smaller or less than the

C. Hypothesis Test Result 3
The third hypothesis test in this study are: Ha: Participation with goods influenced the development of the Village-owned enterprise.
Ho: Participation with goods does not affect the development of a Village-owned enterprise. Table 7 shows the results of the T statistic of 4.314, this figure exceeds the limit or more than the value of the statistical T that has been set at 1.96. In addition, the value of P values is 0,000, this number is smaller or less than the value of P values that have been determined that is equal

D. Hypothesis Test Result 4
The fourth hypothesis test in this study are: Ha: Participation with Ideas influenced the development of Village-owned enterprise.
Ho: Participation with Ideas does not affect the development of a Village-owned enterprise.  is either rejected or unproven (Ha is rejected, and Ho is accepted). Participation in the form of idea contributions has no effect on the development of the Panggung Lestari Village-owned enterprise because the regular Village-owned enterprise meetings that are held do not always include Panggungharjo Village residents, so the ideas that emerge mostly come from permanent members of the Panggung Lestari Village-owned enterprise and permanent managers KUPAS business unit. The recommendation in this study is that the village government or Village-Owned Enterprise managers can increase community participation in various ways. These methods can be done by involving the community directly in the management of Village-Owned Enterprise. In addition, by providing space for the community to contribute actively in the form of physical participation. By improving these two aspects, the implementation of smart village governance in Village-Owned Enterprise governance will be achieved. Furthermore, the author recommends the next researchers to examine more deeply the application of Smart Village Governance that is more comprehensive in the context of village governance based on the principles of good governance.