Pengaruh Transfer Pemerintah Pusat terhadap Belanja Modal Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota di Sumatera Utara tahun 2011-2013

  • 7. Labuhanbatu
  • 13. Langkat

  • 15. Humbang Hasundutan
  • 18. Serdang Bedagai
  • 20. Padang Lawas Utara
  • 25. Nias Barat
  • Kota/City
  • 28. Pematangsiantar

  17. Samosir

  X √

  √ √ Sampel 14

  19. Batu Bara

  X √

  √ √ Sampel 15

  21. Padang Lawas

  √ √ Sampel 16

  22. Labuhanbatu Selatan

  √ √ Sampel 17

  23. Labuhanbatu Utara

  √ √ Sampel 18

  24. Nias Utara

  X √

  X √

  26. Sibolga

  √ √ Sampel 19

  27. Tanjungbalai

  X √

  √ √ Sampel 20

  29. Tebing Tinggi

  √ √ Sampel 21

  30. M e d a n

  √ √ Sampel 22

  31. B i n j a i

  √ √ Sampel 23

  32. Padangsidimpuan

  √ √ Sampel 24

  33. Gunungsitoli

  √ √ Sampel 13

  √ √ Sampel 12

  16. Pakpak Bharat

  X √

  Lampiran 1 Daftar Populasi dan Sampel Penelitian Daerah kriteria Sampel Terpilih

  1

  2

   1. N i a s

  √ √ Sampel 1

   2. Mandailing Natal

  √ √ Sampel 2

   3. Tapanuli Selatan

  √ √ Sampel 3

   4. Tapanuli Tengah

  √ √ Sampel 4

   5. Tapanuli Utara

  √ √ Sampel 5

   6. Toba Samosir

  X √

  √ √ Sampel 6

   8. Asahan

  √ √ Sampel 7

   9. Simalungun

  √ √ Sampel 8

  10. D a i r i

  √ √ Sampel 9

  11. K a r o

  √ √ Sampel 10

  12. Deli Serdang

  X √

  √ √ Sampel 11

  14. Nias Selatan

  X √

  

Lampiran 2

Daftar Sampel Penelitian

No Kabupaten No Kota

  1 N i a s

  1 Langkat

  2 Mandailing Natal

  2 Sibolga

  3 Tapanuli Selatan

  3 Pematang siantar

  4 Tapanuli Utara

  4 Tebing Tinggi

  5 Labuhanbatu

  5 M e d a n

  6 Asahan

  6 B i n j a i

  7 Simalungun

  7 Padangsidimpuan

  8 Dairi

  9 Karo

  Humbang Hasundutan

  10 Pakpak Bharat

  11 Serdang Bedagai

  12 Padang Lawas Utara

  13 Padang Lawas

  14 Labuhanbatu Selatan

  15 Labuhanbatu Utara

  16 Tapanuli Tengah

  17

  Lampiran 3 Output Eviews

  BELANJA_MODAL DAU DAK DBH Mean 166606.4 449394.7 45908.45 49036.26 Median 132021.2 399524.5 45282.00 34713.27 Maximum 1201667. 1270245. 90869.00 374026.6 Minimum 27867.29 167780.0 17807.00 10624.71 Std. Dev. 145466.0 211195.2 17301.24 53680.53 Skewness 4.547546 1.720007 0.427559 3.819488 Kurtosis 29.74616 6.141625 2.541266 19.46142 Jarque-Bera 3192.311 86.81402 3.766662 1317.329 Probability 0.000000 0.000000 0.152083 0.000000 Sum 15994213 43141895 4407211. 4707481.

  Sum Sq. Dev.

  2.01E+12

  4.24E+12

  2.84E+10

  2.74E+11 Observations

  96

  96

  96

  96 Dependent Variable: BELANJA_MODAL_Y Method: Least Squares Date: 06/09/15 Time: 09:35 Sample: 1 96 Included observations: 96 Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

  DAU_X1 0.437603 0.181483 2.411258 0.0179 DAK_X2 0.482776 0.146833 3.287922 0.0014

  DBH_X3 0.170731 0.090963 1.876934 0.0637 C -0.768550 1.328242 -0.578622 0.5643

  R-squared 0.545015 Mean dependent var 11.83392 Adjusted R-squared 0.530179 S.D. dependent var 0.567132 S.E. of regression 0.388732 Akaike info criterion 0.988920 Sum squared resid 13.90235 Schwarz criterion 1.095768 Log likelihood -43.46817 Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.032110 F-statistic 36.73485 Durbin-Watson stat 1.454037 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

  1.2 Series: Residuals Sample 1 96 Observations 96 Mean 4.91e-15 Median 0.024621 Maximum 1.118437 Minimum -1.004502 Std. Dev. 0.382545 Skewness -0.015597 Kurtosis 3.026428 Jarque-Bera 0.006686 Probability 0.996663

  10

  1.0

  0.8

  0.6

  0.4

  0.2

  0.0

  12

  8

  Heteroskedasticity Test: White F-statistic 1.825681 Prob. F(9,86) 0.0749 Obs*R-squared 15.39950 Prob. Chi-Square(9) 0.0805 Scaled explained SS 14.32983 Prob. Chi-Square(9) 0.1111 Test Equation: Dependent Variable: RESID^2 Method: Least Squares Date: 06/09/15 Time: 09:34 Sample: 1 96 Included observations: 96 Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

  6

  4

  2

  • 1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2

  DBH_X3^2 -0.069352 0.070887 -0.978350 0.3306 R-squared 0.160411 Mean dependent var 0.144816 Adjusted R-squared 0.072548 S.D. dependent var 0.207232 S.E. of regression 0.199573 Akaike info criterion -0.286939

  DAK_X2*DBH_X3 -0.308314 0.224845 -1.371230 0.1739 DBH_X3 0.066637 2.097610 0.031768 0.9747

  DAK_X2 -0.677810 3.233485 -0.209622 0.8345 DAK_X2^2 0.028877 0.270038 0.106936 0.9151

  DAU_X1^2 -0.100307 0.365921 -0.274121 0.7846 DAU_X1*DAK_X2 0.251255 0.541817 0.463727 0.6440 DAU_X1*DBH_X3 0.364737 0.274345 1.329483 0.1872

  C 27.40997 20.02988 1.368455 0.1747 DAU_X1 -3.810280 3.855945 -0.988157 0.3258 Sum squared resid 3.425334 Schwarz criterion -0.019819 Log likelihood 23.77307 Hannan-Quinn criter. -0.178965 F-statistic 1.825681 Durbin-Watson stat 2.166746 Prob(F-statistic) 0.074946

  DAU_X1 DAK_X2 DBH_X3 DAU_X1 1.000000 0.724603 0.713090 DAK_X2 0.724603 1.000000 0.462405 DBH_X3 0.713090 0.462405 1.000000

  Lampiran 4 Common Effect Model

  Dependent Variable: BM? Method: Pooled Least Squares Date: 06/09/15 Time: 09:41 Sample: 2010 2013 Included observations: 4 Cross-sections included: 24 Total pool (balanced) observations: 96 Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

  DAU? 0.437603 0.181483 2.411258 0.0179 DAK? 0.482776 0.146833 3.287922 0.0014 DBH? 0.170731 0.090963 1.876934 0.0637

  C -0.768550 1.328242 -0.578622 0.5643 R-squared 0.545015 Mean dependent var 11.83392 Adjusted R-squared 0.530179 S.D. dependent var 0.567132 S.E. of regression 0.388732 Akaike info criterion 0.988920 Sum squared resid 13.90235 Schwarz criterion 1.095768 Log likelihood -43.46817 Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.032110 F-statistic 36.73485 Durbin-Watson stat 0.956277 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

  Lampiran 5 Fixed Effect Model

  Dependent Variable: BM? Method: Pooled Least Squares Date: 06/09/15 Time: 09:42 Sample: 2010 2013 Included observations: 4 Cross-sections included: 24 Total pool (balanced) observations: 96 Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

  DAU? 1.106484 0.197116 5.613360 0.0000 DAK? 0.648908 0.199572 3.251500 0.0018 DBH? -0.017267 0.250056 -0.069051 0.9451

  C -9.205975 3.731242 -2.467268 0.0161 Fixed Effects

  (Cross) _1--C -0.434477 _2--C -0.444751 _3--C -0.232241 _4--C -0.003074 _5--C -0.633977 _6--C -0.540941 _7--C 0.075372 _8--C -0.857403 _9--C 0.240947

  _10--C -0.028430 _11--C -0.139084 _12--C 0.298718 _13--C 0.203466 _14--C -0.091240 _15--C 0.365303 _16--C 0.206713 _17--C -0.103294 _18--C 0.439187 _19--C 0.138838 _20--C -0.400477 _21--C 0.396358 _22--C 0.653365 _23--C 0.620256 _24--C 0.270867

  Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables) R-squared 0.826739 Mean dependent var 11.83392 Adjusted R-squared 0.761452 S.D. dependent var 0.567132 S.E. of regression 0.276995 Akaike info criterion 0.502623 Sum squared resid 5.294107 Schwarz criterion 1.223846 Log likelihood 2.874087 Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.794153 F-statistic 12.66318 Durbin-Watson stat 2.302259 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

  Lampiran 6 Uji Chow

  Redundant Fixed Effects Tests Pool: GRACE Test cross-section fixed effects Effects Test Statistic d.f. Prob.

  Cross-section F 4.878015 (23,69) 0.0000 Cross-section Chi-square 92.684512 23 0.0000 Cross-section fixed effects test equation: Dependent Variable: BM? Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 06/09/15 Time: 09:43 Sample: 2010 2013 Included observations: 4 Cross-sections included: 24 Total pool (balanced) observations: 96 Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

  DAU? 0.437603 0.181483 2.411258 0.0179 DAK? 0.482776 0.146833 3.287922 0.0014 DBH? 0.170731 0.090963 1.876934 0.0637

  C -0.768550 1.328242 -0.578622 0.5643 R-squared 0.545015 Mean dependent var 11.83392 Adjusted R-squared 0.530179 S.D. dependent var 0.567132 S.E. of regression 0.388732 Akaike info criterion 0.988920 Sum squared resid 13.90235 Schwarz criterion 1.095768 Log likelihood -43.46817 Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.032110 F-statistic 36.73485 Durbin-Watson stat 0.956277 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

   Lampiran 7 Random Effect Model

  Dependent Variable: BM? Method: Pooled EGLS (Cross-section random effects) Date: 06/09/15 Time: 09:44 Sample: 2010 2013 Included observations: 4 Cross-sections included: 24 Total pool (balanced) observations: 96 Swamy and Arora estimator of component variances Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

  DAU? 0.797781 0.166070 4.803889 0.0000 DAK? 0.506039 0.146025 3.465433 0.0008 DBH? -0.011693 0.096053 -0.121730 0.9034

  C -3.750859 1.418112 -2.644966 0.0096 Random Effects

  (Cross) _1--C -0.197567 _2--C -0.299733 _3--C -0.119124 _4--C 0.016291 _5--C -0.269918 _6--C -0.324089 _7--C 0.033144 _8--C -0.406484 _9--C 0.183344

  _10--C -0.002488 _11--C -0.057005 _12--C 0.139971 _13--C 0.396409 _14--C -0.113557 _15--C 0.100762 _16--C 0.013657 _17--C -0.162079 _18--C 0.138648 _19--C 0.039597 _20--C -0.194404 _21--C 0.197988 _22--C 0.380019 _23--C 0.350989 _24--C 0.155628

  Effects Specification S.D. Rho Cross-section random 0.213269 0.3722 Idiosyncratic random 0.276995 0.6278

  Weighted Statistics R-squared 0.526502 Mean dependent var 6.445175 Adjusted R-squared 0.511062 S.D. dependent var 0.435388 S.E. of regression 0.304441 Sum squared resid 8.526962 F-statistic 34.09957 Durbin-Watson stat 1.450478 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

  Unweighted Statistics R-squared 0.508715 Mean dependent var 11.83392 Sum squared resid 15.01152 Durbin-Watson stat 0.823912

  Lampiran 8 Uji Hausman

  Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test Pool: GRACE Test cross-section random effects Chi-Sq.

  Test Summary Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob. Cross-section random 22.134967 3 0.0001 Cross-section random effects test comparisons: Variable Fixed Random Var(Diff.) Prob.

  DAU? 1.106484 0.797781 0.011276 0.0036 DAK? 0.648908 0.506039 0.018506 0.2936 DBH? -0.017267 -0.011693 0.053302 0.9807

  Uji F dan t Cross-section random effects test equation: Dependent Variable: BM? Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 06/09/15 Time: 09:44 Sample: 2010 2013

  Included observations: 4 Cross-sections included: 24 Total pool (balanced) observations: 96 Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

  C -9.205975 3.731242 -2.467268 0.0161 DAU? 1.106484 0.197116 5.613360 0.0000 DAK? 0.648908 0.199572 3.251500 0.0018 DBH? -0.017267 0.250056 -0.069051 0.9451

  Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables) R-squared 0.826739 Mean dependent var 11.83392 Adjusted R-squared 0.761452 S.D. dependent var 0.567132 S.E. of regression 0.276995 Akaike info criterion 0.502623 Sum squared resid 5.294107 Schwarz criterion 1.223846 Log likelihood 2.874087 Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.794153 F-statistic 12.66318 Durbin-Watson stat 2.302259 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Dokumen yang terkait

BAB II TINJAUAN PUSTAKA - Pengaruh Campuran Bahan Bakar Premium, Hidrogen, Dan Etanol 96% Terhadap Performansi Dan Emisi Gas Buang Esin Genset Otto

0 0 21

BAB II TINJAUAN PUSTAKA - Perencanaan Sistem Drainase Pada Rencana Kawasan Industri Deli Serdang di Kecamatan Medan Amplas

0 0 33

BAB II PROFIL PT. BANK MANDIRI (Persero) Tbk A. Sejarah PT. Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk - Analisis Transfer Antar Bank Via Sistem Kliring Nasional Pada Pt. Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk

0 1 16

BAB II PROFIL PERUSAHAAN A. Sejarah Singkat Pusat Penelitian Kelapa Sawit (PPKS) - Sistem Pelaksanaan Perhitungan Pph Pasal 21 Pada Ppks ( Pusat Penelitian Kelapa Sawit ) Unit Usaha Marihat Pematang Siantar

0 2 15

BAB II PROFIL INSTANSI 2.1. Sejarah Kantor Gubernur Provinsi Sumatera Utara 2.1.1. Sejarah Berdirinya Kantor Gubernur Provinsi Sumatera Utara - Tugas Akhir dengan judul Peranan Sekretaris dalam Perjalanan Dinas Staf Ahli Gubernur pada Sekretariat Staf Ahl

0 0 20

BAB I PENDAHULUAN 1.1. Latar Belakang - Tugas Akhir dengan judul Peranan Sekretaris dalam Perjalanan Dinas Staf Ahli Gubernur pada Sekretariat Staf Ahli Gubernur di Kantor Gubernur Provinsi Sumatera Utara

0 1 9

BAB II PROFIL DINAS PENDAPATAN PROVINSI SUMATERA UTARA A. Sejarah Ringkas Dinas Pendapatan Provinsi Sumatera Utara - Etiket Kerja Sekretaris Dinas Pendapatan Provinsi Sumatera Utara Dalam Memberikan Pelayanan Kepada Tamu Di Dinas Pendapatan Provinsi Sumat

0 0 20

BAB III PEMBAHASAN A. Tempat dan Waktu Penelitian - Pelaksanaan Manajemen Perkantoran Pada Dinas Pertanian Provinsi Sumatera Utara

0 0 13

Struktur Komunitas Nekton di Danau Pondok Lapan Kecamatan Salapian Kabupaten Langkat

0 0 13

Pemberian Larutan Jahe Merah (Zingiber officinale var rubra) dengan Metode Pengolahan Berbeda terhadap Performans Ayam Broiler Yang Terinfeksi Eimeria tenella

0 0 11