Blended Finance, Entrepreneurial Budgeting, and Public Service Competitiveness

Jacline I. Sumual; Christofell M.O. Mintardjo; Pingkan O.V. Sumual; Joubert B. Maramis; Rita Taroreh

doi:10.61255/jeemba.v4i5.1921

Authors

Jacline I. Sumual Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Indonesia
Christofell M.O. Mintardjo Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Indonesia
Pingkan O.V. Sumual Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Indonesia
Joubert B. Maramis Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Indonesia
Rita Taroreh Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61255/jeemba.v4i5.1921

Keywords:

Blended Finance, Entrepreneurial Budgeting, Public Service Competitiveness, Fiscal Reform, Public Sector

Abstract

Purpose – This study examines the relationships among blended-finance practices, entrepreneurial budgeting, and perceived public service competitiveness. It also investigates the mediating role of entrepreneurial budgeting and the conditions under which fiscal reform practices support service competitiveness.

Design/methodology/approach - A convergent parallel mixed-methods design combines PLS-SEM based on responses from 218 public officials, key-informant interviews, and focus group discussions. The analysis is complemented by a descriptive cost-benefit analysis of 2020–2024 programs and a budget impact analysis for 2025–2029 scenarios.

Findings/Results - Blended finance and entrepreneurial budgeting are positively associated with public service competitiveness. Entrepreneurial budgeting partially mediates the relationship between blended finance and service competitiveness, while institutional alignment and governance capacity condition these relationships. The integrated reform category records a benefit-cost ratio of 3.27, while the broader reform portfolio records 2.74. The full integration scenario indicates potential Year-5 expenditure savings of 17.5% relative to the modeled baseline.

Originality/Value - This study integrates blended finance and entrepreneurial budgeting within a public-sector competitiveness framework and triangulates perceptual evidence with program and fiscal analysis. The findings highlight the importance of combining innovative financing, entrepreneurial budgeting, institutional alignment, and governance capacity in strengthening public service performance.

Abstract views: 18 ,

PDF downloads: 4

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andrews, M. (2013). The Limits of Institutional Reform in Development: Changing Rules for Realistic Solutions. Cambridge University Press.

Andrews, R., & Boyne, G. A. (2010). Capacity, leadership, and organizational performance: Testing the black box model of public management. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 443–454.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

Bhattacharya, A., Oppenheim, J., & Stern, N. (2016). Driving sustainable development through better infrastructure: Key elements of a transformation program. Brookings Global Working Paper Series.

Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Boyne, G. A. (2003). What is public service improvement? Public Administration, 81(2), 211–227.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Claxton, K., Martin, S., Soares, M., Rice, N., Spackman, E., Hinde, S., Devlin, N., Smith, P. C., & Sculpher, M. (2015). Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technology Assessment, 19(14), 1–503.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

Convergence. (2019). The State of Blended Finance 2019. Convergence Finance.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Darnall, N., Jolley, G. J., & Handfield, R. (2008). Environmental management systems and green supply chain management: Complements for sustainability? Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1), 30–45.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press.

Guetterman, T. C., Fetters, M. D., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561.

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(1), 82–109.

Hofman, B., & Kaiser, K. (2004). The making of the big bang and its aftermath: A political economy perspective. In J. Alm, J. Martinez-Vazquez, & S. Indrawati (Eds.), Reforming Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations and the Rebuilding of Indonesia (pp. 15–46). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press.

Nas, T. F. (2016). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Theory and Application. Lexington Books.

OECD. (2018). Making Blended Finance Work for the Sustainable Development Goals. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2019). Budgeting and Public Expenditures in OECD Countries 2019. OECD Publishing.

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Addison-Wesley.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

Robinson, M. (2011). Performance budgeting: Linking funding and results. In M. Robinson (Ed.), Performance Budgeting (pp. 1–26). Palgrave Macmillan.

Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Sjahrir, B. S., Kis-Katos, K., & Schulze, G. G. (2014). Administrative overspending in Indonesian districts: The role of local politics. World Development, 59, 166–183.

Sullivan, S. D., Mauskopf, J. A., Augustovski, F., Caro, J. J., Lee, K. M., Minchin, M., Orlewska, E., Penna, P., Rodrigues, J. M., & Shau, W. Y. (2014). Budget impact analysis — Principles of good practice: Report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value in Health, 17(1), 5–14.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2011). Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 367–386.

World Bank. (2020). Blended Finance and Collaboration with the Private Sector for Development: A Practitioner's Guide. World Bank Group.