Law Enforcement on Misuse of Social Assistance Funds: A Legal Sociology Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is good and discusses a relevant theme. There are needed improvements:

Sentence clarity: There are several places where the sentence is not clear and in need of clarity. In the abstract, it said 81.7% of the report -----. Which report or report of what? This is common in most places where such data are cited.

Method Clarity: Data were qualitatively analysed through a descriptive approach. I think this is not clear. It is a qualitative study, but the analytical framework I see in the paper is more of a Thematic analysis. Second, the number of people interviewed should be stated rather than mentioning their positions. Do you have the consent to mention their positions? You need to state what informed the number of respondents and why they were chosen. Given that you interacted with like 3 people, it suggests your approach is Key Informant Interview, and the best standard is to anonymize them. As it is, they are identifiable. Do you have an ethical clearance that allows the study to mention the respondents?

Others: 

Line 75-76: 81.37 of what?

Line 86-88: Reference is needed

Who or what is Soerjono Soekanto?

The list of laws (line 146-162) will be better in a table format. Two or three column Table: The Law, the objectives/purpose

It seems the term law enforcement is used to represent all government officials. Is that so? I think you should define what law enforcement is and law enforcement officials, if it is used differently from the typical meaning. In some contexts, it looks like criminal enforcement agents (Police etc), in others, it looks like any type of public agents, clarify this in this article

Line 245: The Transparency International report was mentioned, but not referenced

Author Response

Comment 1 : Sentence clarity: There are several places where the sentence is not clear and in need of clarity. In the abstract, it said 81.7% of the report -----. Which report or report of what? This is common in most places where such data are cited.
Response 1 : Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We have clarified the source and context of the data in the revised abstract. The percentage “81.37%” refers to data released by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia based on public complaints received by the Online Complaint Post (Posko Pengaduan Daring) from April 29 to May 29, 2020. Specifically, 81.37% of 1,004 complaints were related to the misdistribution and misuse of COVID-19 social assistance funds. We already put in reference. find in line: 84-86

Comment 2 : Data were qualitatively analysed through a descriptive approach. I think this is not clear. It is a qualitative study, but the analytical framework I see in the paper is more of a Thematic analysis
Response 2 : We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful observation. We agree that the analytical framework used in the study aligns more closely with a thematic analysis approach rather than a purely descriptive one. Accordingly, we have revised the methodology section to reflect this. Find in line : 150-160

Comment 3 : the number of people interviewed should be stated rather than mentioning their positions. Do you have the consent to mention their positions? You need to state what informed the number of respondents and why they were chosen. Given that you interacted with like 3 people, it suggests your approach is Key Informant Interview, and the best standard is to anonymize them. As it is, they are identifiable
Response 3 : We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We fully agree that the methodological description should explicitly mention the number of respondents, their selection criteria, and ensure anonymity. Accordingly, we have revised the Methods section to provide greater clarity. In line: 150-160

Comment 4 : Do you have an ethical clearance that allows the study to mention the respondents?
Response 4 : We are currently processing the documents at the ethics committee. Once the documents are complete, we will send you the recommendation letter from our ethics committee.

Comment 5 : Line 75-76: 81.37 of what?
Response 5 : The percentage “81.37%” refers to data released by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia based on public complaints received by the Online Complaint Post (Posko Pengaduan Daring) from April 29 to May 29, 2020. Specifically, 81.37% of 1,004 complaints were related to the misdistribution and misuse of COVID-19 social assistance funds. The revised in line: 84-86

Comment 6 : Line 86-88: Reference is needed
Response 6 : We have added references. The corrections can be found on lines 97-100.

Comment 7 : Who or what is Soerjono Soekanto?
Response 7 : Thank you for the comment. We have added a brief explanation to introduce Prof. Dr. Soerjono Soekanto and clarify the theoretical framework applied in the study. Soerjono Soekanto (1932–1997) was a prominent Indonesian legal sociologist whose theory identifies five interrelated factors influencing law enforcement: the legal substance, law enforcement officers, supporting infrastructure, society, and culture. This framework is widely used in Indonesian socio-legal research to analyze the relationship between law and society.

Comment 8 : The list of laws (line 146-162) will be better in a table format. Two or three column Table: The Law, the objectives/purpose
Response 8 : Thank you for your input. We have created a table that can be viewed on line 200.

Comment 9 : It seems the term law enforcement is used to represent all government officials. Is that so? I think you should define what law enforcement is and law enforcement officials, if it is used differently from the typical meaning. In some contexts, it looks like criminal enforcement agents (Police etc), in others, it looks like any type of public agents, clarify this in this article
Response 9 : Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that clarification is necessary to avoid confusion between the narrow (criminal justice) and broad (administrative) meanings of “law enforcement.”  We have added a paragraph to the introduction on line: 127-136.

Comment 10 : Line 245: The Transparency International report was mentioned, but not referenced
Response 10 : Thank you for pointing this out. We have now added the appropriate reference to the Transparency International Indonesia survey that reported the 34% figure. The revised text in the manuscript and reference on line 302-305

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a focused and insightful analysis of the misuse of social assistance funds in Indonesia, identifying key challenges such as weak regulatory frameworks, limited enforcement capacity, and societal factors. It presents both preventive and repressive strategies, supported by international comparisons, and offers valuable implications for social policy and legal sociology, though some recommendations could be more concise and actionable.

Contextualization

• Strengths: The study is well-situated within the broader literature on social assistance programs in developing countries and Indonesia’s socio-economic context. It clearly articulates the problem of fund misuse, supported by robust data from credible sources, including the Indonesian Ombudsman, POLRI, and ADB. The integration of legal sociology frameworks strengthens the link between theory and practice.
• Weaknesses: While contextualization is generally strong, the manuscript could further explore regional differences within Indonesia and how varying socio-political contexts affect the misuse of social assistance.

Clarity and Structure

• Strengths: The manuscript demonstrates clear organization, moving logically from introduction to methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Subsections addressing preventive and repressive law enforcement and the obstacles encountered enhance accessibility.
• Weaknesses: Certain sections are densely detailed, which may overwhelm readers. Condensing these areas without losing essential content could improve clarity and readability.

Policy Implications

• Strengths: The manuscript offers substantive policy recommendations, including establishing a specific law governing social assistance, leveraging technology for monitoring, and promoting public legal education. International case studies (e.g., Singapore, Denmark, Brazil, Peru, India) provide useful insights for Indonesia.
• Weaknesses: Some recommendations remain general and could benefit from more actionable, context-specific guidance tailored to Indonesia’s institutional and cultural environment.

Case Studies/Examples

• Strengths: The study employs both domestic and international examples to illustrate effective preventive and repressive measures, supporting the argument for targeted legal and technological reforms.
• Weaknesses: While informative, some case studies could be summarized more succinctly, and additional local Indonesian examples could further strengthen contextual relevance.

Conclusion & Recommendation

• Strengths: The conclusions effectively synthesize the study’s findings, emphasizing collaboration, technological integration, and public engagement. Recommendations are aligned with the evidence and offer practical guidance.
• Weaknesses: The conclusion could be more concise and explicitly link each recommendation to the challenges identified earlier in the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Strengths: The study is well-situated within the broader literature on social assistance programs in developing countries and Indonesia’s socio-economic context. It clearly articulates the problem of fund misuse, supported by robust data from credible sources, including the Indonesian Ombudsman, POLRI, and ADB. The integration of legal sociology frameworks strengthens the link between theory and practice.
Weaknesses: While contextualization is generally strong, the manuscript could further explore regional differences within Indonesia and how varying socio-political contexts affect the misuse of social assistance.
Response 1 : Thank you for the valuable comment. We have expanded the contextualization section in the Introduction to address regional disparities and socio-political variations that influence the misuse of social assistance funds. The revised text now highlights how differences in governance capacity, infrastructure, and local patronage networks affect fund distribution and oversight. The following paragraph has been added line 101-117.

Comment 2: Strengths: The manuscript demonstrates clear organization, moving logically from introduction to methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Subsections addressing preventive and repressive law enforcement and the obstacles encountered enhance accessibility.
Weaknesses: Certain sections are densely detailed, which may overwhelm readers. Condensing these areas without losing essential content could improve clarity and readability
Response 2 : Thank you for your input. We have proofread the manuscript. With the help of professional grammar corrections, we hope that the essence of every message we want to convey through this manuscript can be understood clearly.

Comment 3: Strengths: The manuscript offers substantive policy recommendations, including establishing a specific law governing social assistance, leveraging technology for monitoring, and promoting public legal education. International case studies (e.g., Singapore, Denmark, Brazil, Peru, India) provide useful insights for Indonesia.Weaknesses: Some recommendations remain general and could benefit from more actionable, context-specific guidance tailored to Indonesia’s institutional and cultural environment
Response 3 : Thank you for your excellent feedback on improving this manuscript. We have added a discussion on lines 485-522 to reinforce the discussion in line with this feedback.

Comment 4: Case Studies/Examples
Strengths: The study employs both domestic and international examples to illustrate effective preventive and repressive measures, supporting the argument for targeted legal and technological reforms.
Weaknesses: While informative, some case studies could be summarized more succinctly, and additional local Indonesian examples could further strengthen contextual relevance.
Responde 4 : Thank you for your excellent feedback on improving this manuscript. We have added a discussion on lines 413-422 to reinforce the discussion in line with this feedback.

Comment 5: Strengths: The conclusions effectively synthesize the study’s findings, emphasizing collaboration, technological integration, and public engagement. Recommendations are aligned with the evidence and offer practical guidance.
Weaknesses: The conclusion could be more concise and explicitly link each recommendation to the challenges identified earlier in the manuscript.
Response 5: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We have revised the Conclusion to make it more concise and to explicitly link each recommendation to the key challenges identified earlier in the manuscript—namely weak legal frameworks, limited enforcement capacity, inadequate infrastructure, and socio-cultural factors. On line 545-591.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. This paper addresses an important and timely issue: the misuse of social assistance funds in Indonesia, and how law enforcement can respond through both preventive and repressive mechanisms, framed within a legal sociology perspective. The study is highly relevant in light of ongoing challenges in public fund governance, particularly in developing countries.

Your contribution is commendable in its:

• Originality, focusing on a legal-sociological framework rather than solely doctrinal legal analysis;
• Practical significance, offering clear policy-oriented recommendations;
• Comprehensive literature engagement, including Indonesian and international cases.

Below are several comments and suggestions aimed at strengthening your already valuable manuscript:

Strengths

• The use of Soerjono Soekanto’s legal system theory provides a structured and locally grounded analytical framework.
• You offer a well-balanced discussion of preventive (e.g. legal education, digitalization, public participation) and repressive (e.g. criminal sanctions, regulatory reform) strategies.
• The manuscript is richly referenced, drawing on national regulations, policy reports, and recent academic work from 2020–2023.
• Comparative examples (e.g. Brazil, India, Denmark, Singapore) enhance the paper’s international relevance and applicability.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Clarify the research questions and objectives early on
   While the aim is stated, it would be helpful to present formally structured research questions in the introduction. This would sharpen the focus and provide better guidance for readers.
2. Strengthen the methodology section
   The paper identifies itself as a qualitative socio-legal study, but:
   • Please elaborate on the sampling logic, number of interviews, interview format (structured/unstructured), and coding strategy.
   • Consider including brief sample quotes from interviews to illustrate findings and enhance transparency.
3. Enhance structural clarity through subheadings and summary points
   The manuscript would benefit from short subheadings within longer sections (e.g., under the "Preventive Efforts" section) and summary tables for the main findings, such as:
   • Factors hindering enforcement
   • Recommended legal/policy reforms
   • International best practices referenced
4. Language polishing and paragraph structure
   The paper is generally well-written, but some paragraphs are overly long and dense, making comprehension harder. Consider:
   • Breaking long paragraphs into 2–3 shorter ones;
   • Reviewing article usage and verb tenses for consistency;
   • A final language edit (perhaps with editorial assistance) to improve fluency.
5. Reflect briefly on limitations
   Consider briefly acknowledging the limits of generalizability, given that the findings are largely based on expert interviews and literature. This adds transparency and academic balance.

Conclusion

This is a relevant and impactful contribution to the legal, policy, and development discourse on public fund accountability in Indonesia. It brings strong scholarly grounding together with practical policy implications. 

I commend your thoughtful work and hope these suggestions are helpful as you revise the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1 : Clarify the research questions and objectives early on
While the aim is stated, it would be helpful to present formally structured research questions in the introduction. This would sharpen the focus and provide better guidance for readers.
Response 1 : Thank you for your feedback. We have added a research question to the introduction, which can be found on lines 137-146.

Comment 2 : Strengthen the methodology section
Response 2: Thank you, but we cannot fully follow your suggestions regarding the methodology. We have clarified several parts of the methodology, which you can see on lines 150-160. 

Comment 3 : Enhance structural clarity through subheadings and summary points
Response 3 : We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion to enhance structural clarity by introducing more subheadings and summary tables. We agree that structural improvements can aid readability. However, after careful consideration, we have decided to retain the current structural flow and formatting of the manuscript. Our decision is based on the belief that the current structure—which flows logically from the legal sociology theory to the analysis of preventive and repressive efforts—is essential for maintaining the coherence and integrity of our socio-legal argument. Inserting numerous subheadings or tables might disrupt the narrative flow required for complex theoretical discussion. Instead of adding new subheadings and tables, we have addressed the underlying concern for readability by implementing two key improvements: First, We have followed the reviewer’s subsequent advice by breaking down overly long and dense paragraphs into two to three shorter, more focused paragraphs to improve comprehension. Second, We have ensured that the transition sentences between major discussion points are clearer and more explicit, guiding the reader through the argumentation smoothly. We trust that these refinements will significantly enhance clarity while preserving the established structural integrity of the manuscript.

Comment 4 : Language polishing and paragraph structure
The paper is generally well-written, but some paragraphs are overly long and dense, making comprehension harder. Consider: Breaking long paragraphs into 2–3 shorter ones; Reviewing article usage and verb tenses for consistency;m A final language edit (perhaps with editorial assistance) to improve fluency.
Response 4 : We sincerely thank the reviewer for these crucial observations regarding the clarity and linguistic quality of the manuscript. We fully recognize that language polishing and structural refinement are essential for high-impact publication. In response, we have implemented a dual strategy. Fisrt, Paragraph Structure: We have manually reviewed the entire manuscript and carefully broken down all instances of overly long and dense paragraphs into two to three shorter, more focused units. This significantly enhances the flow and comprehension, as suggested. Second, Professional Language Editing: To ensure the highest level of linguistic accuracy, address the consistency issues with article usage and verb tenses, and improve overall fluency, the entire manuscript has undergone a comprehensive, professional proofreading and language editing process. We are confident that these substantial revisions have resulted in a manuscript that is now clearer, more fluent, and meets the rigorous standards of English-language scholarly publishing.

Comment 5 : Reflect briefly on limitations
Consider briefly acknowledging the limits of generalizability, given that the findings are largely based on expert interviews and literature. This adds transparency and academic balance.
Response 5 : Thank you for your feedback. We have added this section to the script, which can be read on lines 579-581.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the improvement in the article. There are mistakes and missing references in a couple of places. I have highlighted some of these (see the attached document). Generally, the article still struggles with sentence clarity. I will therefore suggest that the author look into this. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are clarity issues. Too numerous in the article. I suggest that this be looked into.

Author Response

Comment 1 : Thank you for the improvement in the article. There are mistakes and missing references in a couple of places. I have highlighted some of these (see the attached document). Generally, the article still struggles with sentence clarity.
Response 1 : Thank you for reviewing our research manuscript. Your review has been very helpful in clarifying the results of this study. We have carefully considered your feedback in revising our article, including adding several references to the sections you noted, revising the grammar through proofreading by a native speaker, and also improving the points that were still lacking in the second revision we sent you.

Comment 2 : There are clarity issues. Too numerous in the article.
Response 2 : Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the grammar through proofreading by native speakers in the second revision that we sent you.

Comment 3 : line 195-196 As can be seen from various previous researches, one of the serious problems that exist in  the current law system in social assistance is the lack of a specific law that regulates the  legal concept (Mikhael et al. 2021, 263-300; Octa et al. 2022, 424-429; Wardani & Utama  2022, 53-61; Morado 2021, 122-137). Social assistance entitlements are currently fragmented and scattered across a number of SIs which include:Law No. 11 of 2009 on Social Welfare;
Response 3 : We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. The statement in lines 195–196 has been revised to clarify that the problem lies not merely in the absence of a single legal statute, but in the lack of a lex specialis providing an integrated legal framework and substantive principles governing social assistance in Indonesia. This elaboration strengthens the conceptual and theoretical basis by connecting the argument with Friedman’s legal system theory and the need for coherence in legal substance and legal structure. Revisions can be seen in lines 200-207.

Comment 4 : Table 1 *Title that describes the table’s content
Response 4 : We have given the table a title. The correction can be seen in line 201. Table 1: Current regulations related to social assistance

Comment 5 : Line 299-300 (Reference)
Response 5 : We agree with you to add references. The corrections can be seen on lines 308-313.

 

Comment 6 : Line 416 (Reference)
Response 6 : We agree with you to add references. The corrections can be seen on lines 424-427.

Comment 7 : (line 425-427) Problems of the supply and dispersion of social assistance should also be resolved to make the chances of misuse as minimal as possible (This is not clear, what you are trying to say is not obvious).
Response 7 : Thank you for this important observation. We have clarified that the term “supply and dispersion” refers to the imbalance between central and local government capacity in providing, managing, and distributing social assistance funds. The revised section now elaborates how inefficiencies in logistical supply chains, uneven regional distribution, and weak inter-institutional coordination create administrative vulnerabilities that lead to potential misuse. This revision aligns with the broader socio-legal analysis developed in the manuscript, emphasizing that improving distribution governance is essential to reducing corruption risks. The correction can be seen on lines 436-443.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the changes, the article improved. 

Author Response

Comment 1 : Based on the changes, the article improved. 
Responsed 1 : Thank you for reviewing our research paper. Your review has been very helpful in clarifying the results of this study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept your comments.

Author Response

Comments 1 : I accept your comments.
Response 1 : Thank you for reviewing our research paper. Your review has been very helpful in clarifying the results of this study.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There has been good improvement. 

Take a look at the numbering of the sections. In section B, it went from 1,2,---4. It looks confusing and these should be changed accordingly, using different numbering pattern.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It has improved