Unveiling Fraud Practices in Village Fund Management Using Dramaturgy Theory: A Case Study in Village X
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59890/ijaeam.v4i5.6Keywords:
Fraud, Village Funds, Dramaturgy, Front Stage, Back Stage, Impression Management, Case StudyAbstract
This study aims to uncover fraudulent practices in village fund management using Erving Goffman’s (1956) dramaturgy theory, with a case study of Village X. The phenomenon under investigation is a village fund corruption case that received a final and binding ruling based on the Supreme Court Decision No. 7430 K/Pid. Sus/2022, in which the Village Head of Village X was proven to have abused authority in managing village funds for the 2019 fiscal year. This study employs a qualitative approach with an intrinsic case study design. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with key informants, such as the Village Secretary, Local Village Facilitator, Inspectorate, and the Community and Village Empowerment Agency, as well as field observations and document analysis. The findings reveal that fraudulent practices are sustained through three dramaturgical pillars: first, frontstage characterised by administrative compliance, formal transparency, and convincing physical evidence of development; second, backstage involving a shadow actor who controls decision-making through personal power relations with the incumbent village head, creating a separation between decision-makers and those legally responsible; and third, impression management through amicable settlements, restitution of state losses, and maintenance of public image. This study ’s contributionis to enrich forensic accounting and public sector literature through a micro-sociological perspective that has long been neglected, as well as to provide policy recommendations for strengthening behavior-based and power relation-based village fund oversight systems
References
Benford, R. D., & Hare, A. P. (2015). Dramaturgical Analysis. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (2nd ed., Vol. 6, pp. 645–649). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32046-3
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, R. E. (2005). Acting presidential: The dramaturgy of Bush versus Kerry. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(1), 78–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764205279397
Chen, Y.-M., & Wang, M.-Y. (2018). Applying Dramaturgy Theory in Computer Maintenance Services. Services Marketing Quarterly, 39(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2017.1398027
Corrigan, L. T. (2018). Budget making: The theatrical presentation of accounting discourse. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 55, 12–32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.12.001
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Curry, A. (2024). Accounting talks – how operations managers nuance their frontstage performance with backstage negotiations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 37(9), 248–274. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2023-6504
de Casanova, E. M., Brenner-Levoy, J., & Weirich, C. (2020). All the World’s a Con: Frontstage, Backstage, and the Blurred Boundaries of Cosplay. Symbolic Interaction, 44(4), 798–818. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.533
Demott, K., & Messner, M. (2025). ‘Whose Story is it?’: Co-production and Psychological Ownership of Narrative Reports. European Accounting Review, 34(2), 573–599. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2023.2273968
Eckersall, & Peter. (2024). Dramaturgy to Make Visible: The Legacies of New Dramaturgy for Politics and Performance in Our Times (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003163879
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books.
Goffman, E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre.
Graaf, J. (2018). Equity market interactions: Exploring analysts’ role performances at earnings presentations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 31(4), 1230–1256. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2016-2565
Indonesia Corruption Watch. (2024). Laporan Hasil Pemantauan Tren Korupsi Tahun 2023. Indonesia Corruption Watch.
Jeacle, I., & Carter, C. (2012). Fashioning the popular masses: Accounting as mediator between creativity and control. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(4), 719–751. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571211225114
Jin, Y., Tian, Y., & Wu, H. (2022). The Presentation of Self on Online Social Network Platforms from the Perspective of Dramaturgical Theory: Taking WeChat Moments and Anonymous Question Platform “Tape” as Examples. The 2021 International Conference on Social Development and Media Communication, 1112–1117. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220105.204
Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Pembangunan Manusia dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. (2024). Realisasi Penyaluran Dana Desa Tahun 2024. Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Pembangunan Manusia dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia.
Lim, W. M. (2025). What Is Qualitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), 199–229. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
Lokanan, M. E., & Sharma, P. (2023). Two Decades of Accounting Fraud Research: The Missing Meso-Level Analysis. SAGE Open, 29, 1–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231197305
Ma, W., Perlow, L. A., & Eun, E. (2024). Backstage Matters: Collective Energy and Information-Sharing on Global Teams. Academy of Management Discoveries, 10(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2022.0131
Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2022). Putusan Nomor 7430 K/Pid.Sus/2022. Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Pebruary, S., Edward, M. Y., Fuad, E. N., Adhiatma, A., Widiyanto, W., & Ismanto, H. (2025). Understanding fraud risk: how legal ambiguity, work pressure, and rationality shape fraudulent behavior. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(3), 427–441. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(3).2025.31
Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail—Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problem. Governance, 26(3), 449–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12032
Scott, J. (1990). A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. Polity Press.
Smejkalova, T., Palíšek, P., & Štěpáníková, M. (2024). A Dignified Judge’s (Re)Presentation of Self. Papers Om Social Representations, 1–34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/e9myz
Sofyani, H., Pratolo, S., & Saleh, Z. (2022). Do accountability and transparency promote community trust? Evidence from village government in Indonesia. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 18(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-06-2020-0070
Supriadi, T., Tjakrawala, K., Suryadnyana, N. A., & Sjam, J. M. E. (2024). Fraud Prevention in the Public Sector: The Role of Internal Audit. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research, 7(3), 313–320. https://jicrcr.com/index.php/jicrcr/article/view/2659
Szatkowski, Janek. (2019). A Theory of Dramaturgy (1st ed.). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781351132114/theory-dramaturgy-janek-szatkowski
Williams, D. (2010). Geographies of requiredness: Notes on the dramaturg in collaborative devising. Contemporary Theatre Review, 20(2), 197–202. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/0951357121122511410.1080
Wilson, N. (2013). Interaction without walls: Analysing leadership discourse through dramaturgy and participation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(2), 180–199. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12024
Yi, Y. (2016). Information Control and Political Impression Management: A Dramaturgical Analysis of the Chinese Premier’s Press Conference. International Journal of Communication, 10, 5473–5493. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4147
