Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengevaluasi pelaksanaan risk governance yang dilakukan oleh Kementerian Keuangan Kemenkeu . Sebagai salah satu instansi pemerintah, Kemenkeu menjadi penggagas pelaksanaan manajemen risiko pada tahun 2008 dan mulai menerapkan enterprise risk management ERM pada tahun 2016. ERM sendiri merupakan kombinasi antara risk management traditional dan risk governance. Oleh karena itu, risk governance menjadi hal yang penting dalam implementasi ERM Kemenkeu. Penelitian ini menggunakan wawancara mendalam dan kuesioner hasil modifikasi Financial Stability Board FSB Thematic Review dalam mereviu pelaksanaan risk governance pada 24 negara di tahun 2013. Hasil penelitian ini memberikan pemaparan bagaimana penerapan risk governance Kemenkeu. Kesimpulannya, rerata empat variabel tersebut sudah cukup sesuai dengan kriteria yang disampaikan oleh FSB. Namun, efektifitas pelaksanaan manajemen risiko dirasa belum optimal. Hal ini dikarenakan pengelolaannya belum terintegrasi dan selaras dalam pencapaian sasaran strategis. Selain itu, pengelolaan risiko dirasa membebani sebagai kewajiban administrasi. Hal ini dikarenakan pengelolaannya yang bersifat manual dan belum tersedianya aplikasi pendukung. Terakhir, peran dan tanggung jawab Pimpinan dan Komite Risiko sebagai salah satu peran sentral diharapkan dapat lebih baik dalam membangun budaya sadar risiko.

---

ABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of risk governance conducted by the Ministry of Finance MoF . As one of the government agencies, the Ministry of Finance became the initiator of the implementation of risk management in 2008 and began to implement enterprise risk management ERM in 2016. The ERM itself is a combination of traditional risk management and risk governance. Therefore, risk governance becomes important in the implementation of ERM MoF. This study uses in depth interviews and questionnaires modified Thematic Review Financial Stability Board in reviewing the implementation of risk governance in 24 countries in 2013. The study provides an explanation of how the application of risk governance MOF. In conclusion, the mean of four variables is sufficient according to the criteria presented by the FSB. However, the effectiveness of risk management are still not optimal. This is because management has not been integrated and aligned in achieving strategic objectives. In addition, the risk management perceived as burdensome administrative obligations. This is due to manual management and the unavailability of supporting applications. Finally, the role and responsibilities of Chairman and Risk Committee as one of the central role is expected to be better in building a culture of risk awareness.

Abstrak :
Contested Knowledge argues that the structural coupling between science and media in the context of risk politics has led to the creation of a scientific public sphere in the state of Kerala, India, and regional newspapers have become the most prominent site of public deliberation over science since the late 1990s. This new form of public engagement with science radically differed from its earlier form nurtured by the Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad (KSSP), the largest peoples science movement in India. The book discusses this shift and the resultant transformations of the scientific-citizen public of Kerala by examining three public controversies over science deliberated in the regional dailies in the early 2000s. Public deliberations during the controversies over clinical trials in the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC), Thiruvananthapuram, a series of micro-earthquakes and well collapses, and the strange phenomenon of coloured rain are analysed to understand how risks were perceived, knowledge claims were contested, disciplinary rigidities were dismantled and trust in science and the credibility of scientific institutions were re-negotiated. The book thus explores how the public contestation of knowledge staged by the mass media contributes to deepening democracy by re-instilling politics into science. Democratization of science under the agency of the scientific-citizen publics, the book suggests, is nonetheless limited as it fails to account for alternative forms of engagement offered by multiple publics. The book contends that the theory of deliberative democracy is inadequate to capture the multiplicity of public engagement with science.