Build the village economy: A systematic review on academic publication of Indonesian village-owned

Abstract The Village-Owned Enterprises (VOE) are established with the capital provided by the central government of Indonesia, managed by the village government in collaboration with the self-reliant rural community in terms of the economy, but not optimal in operation. On the other hand, in the fourth quarter of 2022 the Indonesian economy is growing, with more than half growing in Java, while poverty is increasing in rural Indonesia. Throughout 2022 VOEs have not been operating at their maximum potential. These issues should have been addressed with the establishment of VOEs. The aim of this research is providing a formula for the village government to develop the rural economy through the presence of VOEs. The research methodology follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The materials used in this paper were collected online from existing publications. This paper presents a systematic literature review (SLR) of VOEs, classifying the literature into three system-based themes: antecedents, processes, and consequences. The research findings indicate that VOEs have limited operations in rural areas due to financial constraints and local leadership issues. Consequently, BUMDes operations damage the rural environment for the sake of economic improvement activities. The aim of this research is providing a formula for the village government to develop the rural economy through the presence of VOEs. The recommendation is to introduce further research that can expand the boundaries in developing environmentally sustainable VOEs in the future, without destroying the natural environment for the sake of improving the rural economy.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
This research follows the development of village institutions in Indonesia known as Village-Owned Enterprises (VOEs) or BUMDes.From 2014 to the end of 2022, there has been limited progress in the contribution of BUMDes to the welfare of rural communities.Many studies have been conducted about BUMDes, however the findings have not been effectively implemented.
This research highlights the concept of managing BUMDes related to the rural environment and natural resources, local leadership, empowerment, innovation, and technology.While the operational goal of BUMDes is improving the welfare of rural communities, it should not lead to environmental degradation or compromise the sustainability of the village.An interesting aspect of this study is how the concept of local leadership can enhance the welfare of rural communities through BUMDes.It is hoped that the findings of this research can contribute to solutions for rural development through village institutions including BUMDes.
that VOEs have limited operations in rural areas due to financial constraints and local leadership issues.Consequently, BUMDes operations damage the rural environment for the sake of economic improvement activities.The aim of this research is providing a formula for the village government to develop the rural economy through the presence of VOEs.The recommendation is to introduce further research that can expand the boundaries in developing environmentally sustainable VOEs in the future, without destroying the natural environment for the sake of improving the rural economy.

Introduction
The majority of the world's population lives in rural areas, where 41% of the population resides.Half of them rely on agricultural activities to generate income and meet their needs, while those living in urban areas mostly engage in industrial and trade activities, with very few involved in agriculture (Kaur et al., 2022).The February 2023 report from the Indonesian Ministry of Finance stated that Indonesia's economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2022 was 5.01%, but it was concentrated at 56.48% in Java Island.However, poverty in rural areas increased to 12.29%, while in urban areas, it was only 7.50% (BPS, 2022).This report from the Ministry of Finance aligns with the findings of Shcherbak et al. (2020) (Shcherbak et al., 2020), indicating that Indonesia is experiencing a significant rural-urban gap, primarily driven by economic factors (Brotosusilo et al., 2022).Poverty alleviation is a global effort to narrow the rural-urban divide (Zhou et al., 2018), manifested through the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September 2015 (Maes et al., 2019;Struckmann, 2018).Empowering rural communities and women's empowerment are among the global initiatives aimed at poverty alleviation and promoting local and rural economies (Antoni et al., 2019;Bayeh, 2016).
In line with the needs of the country and the Indonesian economy, the Indonesian government issued permits in 2014 to establish independent enterprises in rural areas (Susilo et al., 2021), with the aim of empowering the rural economy and establishing operational regulations for Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes).In Law Number 6 of 2014 concerning Villages, BUMDes is defined as a business entity where the village directly or mostly owns its capital through direct participation, derived from the village's separated assets, to manage assets, provide services, and engage in other businesses for the welfare of the village community.This foundation is further reinforced by Government Regulation Number 11 of 2021 concerning BUMDes.With the establishment of BUMDes, the Indonesian government aims to advance the rural economy and help reduce poverty in rural areas (Antlöv et al., 2016), as highlighted in Belaid's research (2021) from an economic and political perspective.Besides other government programs aimed at economic improvement, overreliance on natural resources such as petroleum, driven by political and exploitative motives, can result in environmental damage (Belaid et al., 2021).Political interests and considerations often overlook the environmental degradation in rural areas, driven by economic pressure to exploit natural resources that hold potential for generating revenue for the country's needs (Dagher et al., 2020).It is crucial to prevent environmental destruction for the sake of political and economic interests.Top of Form A brief history of the establishment of Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) from the perspective of fiscal and political decentralization reveals that the state protects and empowers villages, aiming to create fair, prosperous, and prosperous village governance.In this context, BUMDes should generate profits and benefits if they take the form of a legal entity.However, the village law and government regulations do not explicitly mention the legal entity status of BUMDes (Jamal et al., 2023).The lack of clarity regarding the legal entity status of BUMDes can be politically exploited by certain parties.Therefore, it is advisable to establish BUMDes as Village State Enterprises (Perumdes) or Limited Liability Companies (Perseroan Desa) to ensure that they can generate profits for village development (Sutiyo et al., 2020).
The issues faced by Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) in Indonesia can be compared to Township-Village Enterprises (TVE) in China, the Netherlands, and Sweden, known as Community Based Enterprises (CBE) concepts.It is not directly comparable, as Indonesia is a developing country, while China, the Netherlands, and Sweden are developed countries.However, the focus of comparison lies in the "conceptual management of village institutions" (Shobande & Shodipe, 2019).The concept of BUMDes in Indonesia differs from the concept of Township-Village Enterprises (TVE) developed by China.However, the operational similarity between BUMDes in Indonesia and TVE in China is that both are operated and owned by the village government, although TVEs may be owned by larger private entrepreneurs (Liu et al., 2019), and TVEs have networks that extend internationally (Wang et al., 2022).TVEs have a different ideological development compared to Indonesia (Syukri, 2022).TVEs have deep roots in a command economy that allows for quick human-based decision-making (Zhu, 2017), while BUMDes have democratic roots that grant full power to the government and village communities in managing village-owned enterprises (Aji et al., 2022).TVEs have a long history dating back to the 1970s, while villageowned enterprises in Indonesia began in 2014 (Xie et al., 2022).BUMDes initially focused on nonagricultural industrial sectors before shifting their focus to the creative sector in 2018 (Liu et al., 2019;Shi et al., 2021).
From the beginning, BUMDes have focused on small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in agriculture, the creative sector, and rural tourism, to improve the rural economy (Nurhayati et al., 2022).Research and studies in the context of BUMDes benefit from large and standardized data, whereas BUMDes studies tend to be case studies with detailed national-level data unavailable (Bi et al., 2021;Gao et al., 2019).With these characteristics, studies in the context of BUMDes are still lagging behind TVEs, where village enterprises in China have become shareholders of large companies (Dai & Taube, 2021).In comparison, Indonesia (BUMDes) lags behind China (TVE) in terms of private ownership.In Indonesia, private entrepreneurs can only hold a maximum of 49% ownership, while the village government must hold a minimum of 51% ownership, limiting the overall international business network of BUMDes to some extent.However, some BUMDes engage in illegal activities, which adversely affect the village economy and disrupt the balance and environmental ecosystem of the village (Dagher & Hasanov, 2023).
The concept of Community-Based Enterprises (CBE) entails full ownership and management by the local community (Apostolopoulos et al., 2020;Bailey et al., 2018;Van Twuijver et al., 2020).Paredo and Crisman (2017) developed the theory of CBE, and in 2017, CBE transformed communities into entrepreneurial entities and companies (Peredo & Chrisman, 2017).Arifin et al. (2020) argue that Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) are one form of CBE.However, Arifin et al. (2020) also note that BUMDes are not exactly the same as CBE.Legally, BUMDes' capital does not come directly from the community but rather from village funds provided by the government (Arifin et al., 2020).In Indonesia, there is another type of CBE for small communities and rural areas called cooperatives.Cooperatives are the opposite of BUMDes, as they use direct funding from their members.However, cooperatives focus solely on the welfare of their members, rather than the overall community.Peredo and Chrisman (2017) affirm that cooperatives are not CBEs because they serve the interests of their members, not the community as a whole.Therefore, the difference or characteristic between cooperatives and CBEs lies in the source of capital and interest, where interests are prioritized.It is understandable that communities may not be able to gather funds collectively to establish CBEs, which is why they require external financial assistance, such as grants from the village government.These grants from the village government are used to establish CBEs.
There is a stark difference in the "management concept" between BUMDes, TVE, and CBE, which demands a different approach in understanding BUMDes.However, up until the end of December 2022, there has been no academic research that comprehensively examines the development of BUMDes.This systematic review summarizes the research conducted thus far on BUMDes in Indonesia, examining various determinants and consequences of BUMDes activities, and identifying various research agendas for further exploring the implementation of BUMDes.This research will be beneficial in supporting in-depth studies on BUMDes and comparing it with similar institutions in other countries in terms of the "management concept," particularly in developing countries.Ultimately, this research can contribute to the effective alleviation of poverty by utilizing business instruments in countries struggling with rural-urban disparities.
On the other hand, research contributions to rural environments, rural communities will engage in economic activities to meet their needs, which may result in the destruction of the village's environment, such as tree felling, sand mining, opening up agricultural land, and illegal mining (Belaid et al., 2021).On one side, the economic livelihood of rural communities is indeed aided by these economic activities in the short term (Ishrakieh et al., 2020), but this poses a dilemma for the village government.In such a situation, the village government needs to establish village institutions such as village-owned enterprises (BUMNDes) or establish new ones with a concept of professional management.The hope is that with the presence of BUMDes, the rural community's economy can continue to thrive and prosper, while ensuring the preservation of the village's environment and nature.The natural environment can be utilized for the progress and wellbeing of the community itself, as the quality of life and the health of the community are preserved (Shobande, 2023).This is where the contribution and role of village-owned enterprises (BUMDes) come into play when managed with the right concept.As a result, economic activities and initiatives in rural communities can be directed.Agricultural products can be collected and marketed through BUMDes, agricultural tools can be provided by BUMDes, and the natural environment can be managed as a source of income for the village community, both for agricultural management and tourism businesses.Therefore, the role of BUMDes can create a business environment for the rural community.Ultimately, the village government's policies aim to create a new balance between the economic activities of the community and the environment and nature (Shobande & Shodipe, 2019).
This study is a research conducted on village-owned enterprises (BUMDes) in Indonesia from 2021 to 2022.The purpose of this research is to examine the academic development of BUMDes and its benefits for the village government in implementing the "concept of BUMDes management."Furthermore, we aim to understand the role of BUMDes as one of the units or institutions contributing to the improvement of rural economic development.BUMDes serves as a receiver, collector, and marketer of agricultural products as well as home industry products.It provides agricultural tools and home industry equipment, manages the environment and nature to transform them into productive areas and tourist businesses.If possible, BUMDes can also serve as a microfinance institution in rural areas, where people can save and borrow money for their business needs.All of these roles of BUMDes can be effectively fulfilled when managed with a professional management concept.As a social benefit, this research can be utilized by village governments as a guide in making policies for managing Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) and implementing the concept of BUMDes management to enhance the economic well-being of the rural community.This research can also serve as a reference and guideline for village governments in managing the environment, natural resources, and the health of the rural community, with BUMDes playing a role as a village institution.Another social benefit of this research is that the concept of BUMDes can be applied as an educational institution for the rural community.With BUMDes operating professionally, young people can participate in internships and apply the knowledge gained from their studies in schools and universities.

Systematic review
A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021).The search process yielded numerous articles based on the selected keywords in the first step.In the subsequent step, duplicate and irrelevant articles were discarded, and researchers examined the remaining research abstracts to ensure their feasibility and relevance, as was done by Dikert et al. (2016) in a systematic review study of large companies (Dikert et al., 2016).
Qualitative thematic analysis of the included literature was conducted using an inductive approach, aiming to explore all the articles and focus on the similarities and differences in findings to present tentative results (Roberts et al., 2019).Finally, each eligible study was thoroughly reviewed, and data including publication year, author names, research title, and scope of the study were recorded.The pre-design electronic search model utilized databases such as Taylor & Francis, MDPI, Inderscience, Routledge, Sage, ScienceDirect, and Emerald to retrieve available English literature, using the search strings "Village-Owned Enterprises" (BUMDes) and "communityowned company."We employed the keyword BUMDes as it specifically refers to Village-Owned Enterprises in Indonesia.However, for references in journals managed by Springer, a research search was conducted from 2016 to 2022, but no results were found using the BUMDes keyword.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Original research studies in English language, utilizing the above-mentioned keywords BUMDes and "Village-Owned Enterprises" (BUMDes).
Exclusion criteria: Conference papers, unofficial reports, non-scientific publications, and publications related to topics other than the main objective of this research.

Results and discussion
The keyword "Village Owned Enterprises" provides many articles, but most of them are articles from China which are not suitable for the purpose of this research.Table 2 shows the search results from the database under study.Figure 1 shows the search process according to PRISMA.
One hundred and eighty-six papers were initially retrieved (60 from Taylor & Francis, five from Routledge, seven from MDPI, 30 from Emerald, 25 from SAGE, 58 from ScienceDirect, and one from Inderscience) (Table 2), out of which 21 were identified as duplicates.Among the remaining 165 papers to be screened, 118 were deemed irrelevant and excluded.From the final set of 47 papers, four could not be obtained in full text.The remaining studies were then reviewed, and it was found that seven did not specifically mention VOE (Village-Owned Enterprises).In the final stage, 36 studies were included and reported in Table 3. Content analysis yielded three themes: antecedents, processes, and consequences (Table 3).

Findings
Among the numerous studies on Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) in Indonesia and rural economic development, the achievement has not been optimal, especially in terms of the

Identification
Studies included in previous version of review (n=0) Report of studies included in previous version of review (n=0) Records identified from; -Taylor and francis (n=60) Records removed before screening : -Duplicate record removed (n=21)

Included
Records excluded.Not dealing with the topic (n=118) Reports not retrieved (n=4)
Source: (Page et al., 2021).objectives and roles of BUMDes itself.This reflects one of the government's shortcomings in addressing poverty in villages by the end of 2022 through the use of BUMDes (Raharjo et al., 2022).With this research, it is hoped that it can contribute ideas and concepts in BUMDes management, offering potential solutions to the existing challenges.The existing BUMDes management concept may be applicable to other countries if it aligns with their governance and human resource conditions, as a way to address poverty alleviation and rural development, based on the BUMDes management concept proposed and discovered in this study.
The themes in this study are organized as a process flow, consisting of inputs (antecedents), processes, and outputs (consequences).This process flow enables researchers to analyze the causality surrounding the implementation of Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes).In this context, antecedents refer to factors that encourage or hinder the formation of Village-Owned Enterprises.The processes describe how BUMDes is carried out, both in actual and hypothetical scenarios.Actual implementation refers to direct descriptions from research reports, while hypothetical implementation provides suggestions on how BUMDes implementation should be conducted.The outputs or consequences are the impacts of organizing BUMDes.

Shared vision
Multiple parties involved in the organization of Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) not only need to be engaged but even those who share the same vision for advancing the village's economy collectively should be involved (Hamdani & Yudiardi, 2020).Having a shared and effective vision will lead to organized and successful organization growth (Kotter, 2017), and these parties should not only be involved but also have a common vision to facilitate the development of BUMDes (Aritenang, 2021).Involvement alone without a unified vision, as seen in conflicts between village elites and farmer groups (Sahide et al., 2020), weakens the organization and its performance, complicating the achievement of goals and hindering the direction of development and BUMDes growth (Soomro et al., 2018).The community should be involved as they are the ones benefiting from the existence of BUMDes (Qoriah et al., 2020).Similarly, external stakeholders such as academic groups or think tanks need to be engaged (Fatonie, 2020), and NGOs (Ngo, 2017) are also important in supporting BUMDes development.BUMDes leaders should be participatory and reach an agreement with stakeholders, including prospective leaders (Tucker et al., 2017).
The participatory principle is crucial for members of an organization or community (Fernandez & Rainey, 2017), as relying solely on the village head's initiative without seeking commitment from the community (Kushandajani & Alfirdaus, 2019).Results in people only acting upon orders, rather than their own conscience.In line with this, leaders at both the village and BUMDes levels need to have a strong commitment to the agreed-upon vision (Priharjanto et al., 2020).The village government should synergize with BUMDes to achieve effective implementation of BUMDes (Kania et al., 2021).This synergy is crucial to ensure alignment between implementation, regulations, plans, and the established vision (Kania et al., 2021;Minner, 2016).

Village funds
Village funds are financial assistance from the central government to establish and manage BUMDes (Arifin et al., 2020).Village funds play a crucial role in creating initial capital and operational support for BUMDes (Wan Tan et al., 2021).However, there are various competing interests for village funds, such as infrastructure (Nugroho et al., 2022) or conservation (Watts et al., 2019).According to data from the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia, the disbursed village funds from 2015 to 2022 amounted to Rp.400.1 trillion, which will be used for infrastructure development in 74,961 villages across 434 regencies/cities in Indonesia.For the year 2022, village funds amounting to Rp. 68 trillion have been allocated for infrastructure projects.Therefore, BUMDes should not solely rely on village funds as their operational source, as the majority of village funds are intended for physical infrastructure development in the village (Bustomi et al., 2020).Dependency on village funds can even lead to issues where the allocation of village funds is not solely for BUMDes development (Permatasari et al., 2021).The issues that may arise include non-performing loans when people continuously borrow money from BUMDes without intending or having the ability to repay the funds (Nurlinah & Haryanto, 2020).Thus, the commitment of the village government is needed to allocate village funds for BUMDes development, as demonstrated by China (Tzeng, 2020).

Human resource quality
Human resource quality in their respective fields are needed to effectively manage BUMDes both operationally and managerially.In some situations, many BUMDes are developed and managed by individuals with political motives, which prevents the utilization of BUMDes by the village community due to these political factors (Kania et al., 2021;Qoriah et al., 2020).The recruitment of BUMDes managers should be based on the needs and competencies of the local community, including young people and housewives.After receiving education and training, they can become professionals, which is the best approach and one of the actions for empowering the rural community (Qoriah et al., 2020).By taking such steps, BUMDes plays a role in absorbing rural labor (Sit et al., 2021), increased employment opportunities through BUMDes contribute to the economic well-being of rural communities, as individuals earn income from working in BUMDes operations (Sinarwati et al., 2020).The role of BUMDes in human resources development enhances the standard of living in rural communities and promotes small and micro enterprises.This approach can also have positive effects on the environment, as competent individuals understand and prioritize environmental sustainability (Shobande & Enemona, 2021).

Social capital
Social capital receives special attention in the study of BUMDes as it plays a crucial role in building trust, particularly in sensitive economic and financial matters that rely heavily on trust (Ishrakieh et al., 2020).Aritenang (2021) emphasizes the importance of social capital in driving the economic performance of BUMDes.Meanwhile, Badaruddin et al. (2021) examine the role of social capital in empowering rural communities (Badaruddin et al., 2021).The sense of trust and collective action fostered through village institutions in the form of BUMDes have a positive effect on adapting to the environment and advancing the economy (Paul et al., 2016), as social capital helps open up opportunities for resources, networks, and investments (Flap & Boxman, 2017).

Community participation
Community participation is highlighted in the study by Indarti et al. (2019), with a focus on women.As community participation is also part of social capital (Yuliastuti et al., 2017), studies on BUMDes within the context of social capital also address the issue of community participation (Aritenang, 2021;Badaruddin et al., 2021).Community participation also influences village government policies for the success of BUMDes (Tzeng & Wang, 2017).

Communication
Failure in managing stakeholders in a participatory system can lead to a sense of injustice and suspicion among stakeholders, which can harm the sustainability of BUMDes (Fathoni et al., 2021;Nisar et al., 2019).Efforts to promote a sense of fairness include building effective internal and external communication within BUMDes (Kusuma et al., 2019).Communication can clarify the reasons behind certain actions and facilitate the expression of criticism and suggestions from stakeholders to build and grow BUMDes together (Lock et al., 2016).

Training
Training does not stop during the period leading up to the establishment of BUMDes, as training remains important and relevant to BUMDes (Schafft, 2016).Training should be conducted continuously, targeting a wider range of individuals, including village heads (Syukri, 2022).BUMDes needs to have explicit community empowerment programs (Kushandajani & Alfirdaus, 2019;Nurlinah & Haryanto, 2020).These empowerment programs can be directed at providing communities with an understanding that BUMDes is not the sole pathway to their economic well-being (Indarti et al., 2019).

Village autonomy
Village funds are not only intended for Village-Owned Enterprises (Fahmid et al., 2020) but also for other needs such as infrastructure, empowerment, education, access to water, crops, peatland rehabilitation, and improving the livelihood productivity of the community (Watts et al., 2019).Therefore, Village-Owned Enterprises need to be financially independent (Albab & Munandar, 2020).This independence can come from income after allocating profit-sharing funds for the community (Kushandajani & Alfirdaus, 2019).
Observations by Kania et al. (2021) indicate that at least since 1999, there have been Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) that have been able to create self-reliant villages (Kania et al., 2021).Logically, this can be accepted because if Village-Owned Enterprises perform very well, the village will generate its own source of income, reducing dependence on village funds.However, more recent research questions this notion (Nugroho et al., 2022).Critics argue that the performance of Village-Owned Enterprises should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.Nevertheless, the existence of high-performing Village-Owned Enterprises ideally should be able to create self-reliant villages, as proposed by Kania et al. (2021).

Economic empowerment
Most research highlights the effectiveness of Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) in promoting economic empowerment.There are cases that support and oppose this proposition.Some studies confirm that well-performing BUMDes can empower the local economy (Badaruddin et al., 2021;Fatonie, 2020) and foster fisheries economy (Wan Tan et al., 2021).Instances of failure, as reported by Nugroho et al. (2022) and Aritenang (2021), are more a result of weak BUMD performance, both in terms of utilization and management (Arifin et al., 2020).

Employment opportunities
Ideally, with Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes), new sources of income would be created for communities and new labor would be absorbed in Indonesian villages.In contrast, according to the research by Zheng et al. (2017) in China, Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs) became a source of income and absorbed new labor in China (Zheng et al., 2017).Chen (2017), in his book, emphasizes the continuous innovation of TVEs, where full-time contracts transformed into profitsharing arrangements, becoming a source of income for rural communities in China and absorbing labor (Chen, 2017).However, the situation in other parts of the world is different.Based on the research by Cucchi et al. (2022) in Malawi, TVEs became a source of conflict among communities, but eventually led to socioeconomic changes and equality (Cucchi et al., 2022).The question is whether this influx of new labor is significant enough to reduce unemployment rates in rural areas (Noja et al., 2018).
An econometric study with a national sample of 1,361 villages by Arifin et al. (2020) found no evidence that the presence of Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) can improve employment opportunities in rural communities.This finding is explained as a result of low community participation and the dominant sample characteristics on the island of Java, where budgets for BUMDes tend to be lower.Therefore, the low employment opportunities are not a consequence of high BUMD performance but rather the relatively low performance of BUMDs.The study by Arifin et al. (2020) itself does not measure the performance of BUMDes.They only measure the presence of BUMDes in a village without assessing whether the BUMD operates effectively or not.Hence, there is still an open question of whether well-performing BUMDes have an impact on increasing the labor force in villages.Theoretically, this consequence is logical; however, the number of jobs created will be directly proportional to the characteristics of the BUMDes.

Work productivity
The presence of Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) should ideally improve the work productivity of the community by providing various support for their work (Widyastuti & Ambarwati, 2020).Work productivity is closely related to the enhancement of community capacity, and research shows that community capacity does indeed increase due to BUMDes (Kania et al., 2021).Ngo (2017) reported a 50% increase in income for farmers on the outskirts of forests since the establishment of BUMDes.Studies on BUMDes in the savings and loan sector also indicate that BUMDes enhance work productivity and effectiveness (Kariono et al., 2021).

Emission reduction
Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) are part of the discourse on sustainable development that targets economic, social, and environmental aspects.The environmental aspect is crucial in development as it directly and indirectly supports the economic, social, and even psychological well-being of communities (Sato et al., 2022).Some researchers regret that village funds are more directed towards BUMDes rather than emission reduction (Watts et al., 2019).However, this goal can also be pursued without sacrificing others.Muttaqin et al. (2019) and Puspitaloka et al. (2021) state that BUMDes can be directed to encourage communities to be more proactive in reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, as well as peatland restoration (Muttaqin et al., 2019;Puspitaloka et al., 2021).

Discussion
The types of inputs in the BUMD process found in the literature correlate with different types of capital.In general, there are six types of capital: natural, economic, human, organizational, social, and symbolic (Watson & Mathew, 2021).Research on BUMDes focuses on strategic planning capital, shared vision capital, village funds capital, human resource quality capital, and sustainable innovation capital.Strategic planning can be seen as a form of organizational capital as it relates to the structure and routines within an organization.Shared vision can be considered as social capital as the collective aspect becomes a source of strength for this capital.The concept of innovation can be viewed as capital, capability, or process, depending on the perspective from which we approach it (Zaragoza-Sáez et al., 2023).
Village funds are considered a form of economic resource as they are financial in nature.However, the status of innovation as capital is somewhat questionable (Robinson & Ji, 2022).If innovation is seen as a product, it can be seen as economic capital that is visible, or symbolic or organizational capital if it is not seen as financial capital (Pokrovskaia et al., 2021).If viewed as potential, it is suitable to be positioned as capability in managing resources, which constitute inputs in a resource-based perspective (Iranmanesh et al., 2021).Innovation can be seen as a component of the process with the main inputs being human resources and the rural human resource development system (Stucki & Wochner, 2019).Literature on BUMDes views innovation as an input in the production process to enhance adaptive capacity, particularly during crises (Priharjanto et al., 2020;Yaya et al., 2022).
Natural resources are missing from the focus of BUMDes studies.These natural resources exist and serve as important input elements in natural resource-based BUMDes sectors such as agriculture and industry.Natural resources are also increasingly important in organizational literature for pursuing sustainable development and circular economy (Howard et al., 2022).The absence of a focus on natural resources in BUMDes studies indicates that the attention of BUMDes is still primarily focused on the social and economic pillars of sustainable development.
This trend does not mean that ecosystem aspects are disregarded in VOE studies (Ren et al., 2021).Some research highlights emission reduction as part of the outcomes of VOEs (Muttaqin et al., 2019;Puspitaloka et al., 2021;Watts et al., 2019).However, these studies do not elaborate on the mechanisms of sustainability.They only state that BUMDes have the potential to contribute to emission reduction without providing specific examples of how this is implemented.As a result, there is an opportunity for further research to examine the contribution of BUMDes to the environmental pillar of sustainable development.
Local leadership is an important aspect that is absent in BUMDes studies when it comes to human and social capital.This aspect has been extensively studied in TVE studies in China (Liu et al., 2019) and VOEs but has been generally overlooked (Priharjanto et al., 2020).Villages in Indonesia have various unique and cultural leadership systems, such as maternal leadership, religious leaders, traditional leaders, and tribal leaders (Adeney-Risakotta, 2016).The diversity of these leadership models provides an opportunity to study how BUMDes can thrive within these traditional systems.However, there is currently no research highlighting the role of leadership in this context.Symbolic capital is also not examined in VOE studies.BUMDes can have a reputation and image that can drive its consumption.However, BUMDes cannot operate outside their original village (Trihartono, 2020).As a result, the scope of the effects of symbolic capital is only present in the local context, and competition between BUMDes and similar companies in the village is increasing.
The VOE process described in the literature includes training, communication, and management.Training can be seen as part of a broader management system, namely human resource management.What is missing from VOE research is characterization, R&D, and relationships.Characterization is an essential element in the organizational process.Organizations identify various requirements and important needs during the operational process and strive to find and position them as additional inputs that strengthen the process.An example of characterization is the human resource recruitment process.Relationships are also not found in VOE studies.The relationship between VOE and other organizations is needed to streamline the process.Some may view relationships as part of management, particularly relationship management (RM) or stakeholder management (SM).From this perspective, these management aspects have received considerable attention in BUMDes studies (Kurniawan et al., 2022;Syahza et al., 2018;Syukri, 2022).However, these studies are still in the early stages, and the development of relationship management is still in the form of suggestions without in-depth research on implementation.Finally, there is no research focusing on the R&D process in VOE.Innovation is indeed a target for Priharjanto et al. (2020) and Yaya et al. (2022), as well as strategic planning (which includes village potential studies), but more as inputs rather than processes.As a result, there is a significant gap in the VOE process.
The studied outcomes of BUMDes include village autonomy, economic empowerment, employment opportunities, and work productivity.These outcomes are logical consequences of BUMDes as business organizations aimed at alleviating rural poverty.Certainly, BUMDes studies focus on the collective level to assess the performance of BUMDes.However, the individual level also needs to be examined.So far, there have been no studies that address individual aspects of workers and the community, such as job satisfaction and work commitment.The outputs are more focused on organizational dimensions, and even at the individual level, they are still primarily focused on quantitative measures of work productivity (Kariono et al., 2021).There is no research targeting collective aspects, such as community well-being.The absence of studies on community wellbeing is regrettable because through the Village Law, the government has formally affirmed that BUMDes are aimed at achieving the welfare of rural communities.

Theoretical implications
In terms of theoretical implications, this study contributes to the literature by summarizing the development of BUMD studies in terms of organizational inputs, processes, and outputs.This research has not been conducted before, thus holding significant value for future VOE research.The study also identifies several research gaps that can serve as future research agendas.The findings of this study confirm that there are no studies targeting aspects such as natural resources, local leadership, symbolic capital, relationship management, stakeholder management, characterization, R&D processes, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, emission reduction, and community well-being.Furthermore, based on the existing research, it can be generally concluded that BUMDes are viable business models for rural communities.Many research findings indicate that underperformance can be attributed to issues in processes and inputs rather than problems related to the overall business model.
The findings of this systematic literature review can be visualized in Figure 2 below.This framework illustrates the input, process, and output system of BUMDes.Several studies and new components can be identified within this model.These new components provide opportunities for further research on BUMDes themes.

Managerial implications
This study offers several practical implications for BUMDes managers.Firstly, the findings help managers understand the importance of social capital, village funds, shared vision, and strategic planning in enhancing organizational performance, which is essential for BUMDes to improve community well-being.The findings emphasize the significance of process management and communication in driving BUMDes performance.This implies that managers should allocate time to organize managerial processes and communication with a focus on BUMDes performance and its contribution to community welfare.Furthermore, in addition to targeting organizational outcomes, managers should take steps to enhance individual performance in supporting BUMDes

Input
Process Out Put  goals.This includes job satisfaction and organizational commitment as aspects of individual performance Furthermore, managers need to pay special attention to the long-term outcomes of BUMDes to maximize its performance impact on the well-being of rural communities and positive ecological effects.Causality implies that in implementing BUMDes, managers should consider social and environmental indicators, not just economic indicators.This focus highlights the importance of BUMDes in sustainable development and achieving sustainable development goals.

Limitations and avenues for future research
Although the objectives of this study have been achieved, limitations that can be addressed in future research should be highlighted.First, this study is a literature review, which limits its ability to present objective findings and consider research heterogeneity.To obtain objective results, empirical research, both cross-sectional and longitudinal, is recommended.Second, the data were collected from Indonesia, the only country implementing BUMDes.However, similar organizations to BUMDes can be established in other countries, so further research needs to examine research trends in those organizations and compare them with BUMDes.
Finally, as revealed by this study, there are several opportunities for further research.Included in the agenda for future research are studies related to natural capital, symbolic capital, and leadership, particularly the role of local leadership in the processes and performance of BUMDes.On the process side, further research opportunities include relationship management, stakeholder management, characterization processes, and research and development processes.Studies on the outputs of BUMDes can focus on individual aspects such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, ecological aspects such as emission reduction, and social aspects such as community well-being.Future research should empirically examine the influence of input variables on the process and their impact on the output formulated in the framework of this study's findings.

Recommendations
This literature review study has two main implications for theory and practice.Firstly, the literature review offers unique insights in analyzing the determinants by exploring the causal relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic factors.The proposed model highlights the importance of knowledge and emotional domains within the intrinsic factors to bring about management and operational changes, as well as the role of BUMDes in rural economic development through consensus or alignment of vision and mission, the use of village funds, BUMDes management, and emission reduction for environmental sustainability.This collaboration involves the village government, academia, and community leaders.BUMDes plays a role by implementing the concept of visualizing the findings of financial and human resource capital, as well as local leadership.Secondly, the identification of educational content is essential for enhancing the quality and competence of rural communities, and it should be disseminated through rural economic-based education to uphold the key intrinsic factors that influence BUMDes management and its role in rural economic development, which has received limited attention in previous research.Further research can focus on testing the proposed model within the BUMDes application system in Indonesia.This research would be beneficial in applying the "Management Concept" to support in-depth studies on BUMDes and in comparing BUMDes with similar institutions in other countries, particularly in developing countries.Additionally, the findings of this research can be utilized to improve programs targeted towards the function and role of BUMDes in rural economic development.

Conclusion
Based on the comprehensive literature review conducted, rural economic development is one of the roles of rural institutions in the form of BUMDes, which has a distinct concept compared to BUMDes in other countries or even cooperatives.BUMDes in Indonesia, where the capital comes from the village government, aims to improve the economy and welfare of the entire rural community.Therefore, the current operational scope of BUMDes is limited to the local village area, and its existence does not have a positive impact on job seekers in villages where capital and operations are limited.
The lack of focus on natural resources in the study of BUMDes indicates that the attention of BUMDes is still primarily directed towards the socioeconomic pillars of sustainable development.
While some studies mention the potential of BUMDes, there are no concrete examples of its implementation, necessitating further research focusing on natural resources.Indonesia is known for its various unique models of local leadership, which presents an opportunity for the development of BUMDes.However, there is no research highlighting the role of these unique local leaderships.In terms of management, BUMDes has received special attention, particularly concerning stakeholders in the village.However, research regarding individual satisfaction, community satisfaction, and workers' satisfaction has not been extensively studied yet.
The findings from the systematic literature review, as depicted in Figure 2 above, have several theoretical implications.It is evident that there is a lack of research targeting aspects such as natural resources, local leadership, symbolic capital, management relationships, stakeholder management, job satisfaction, and organizational satisfaction.This model of business is deemed suitable for rural communities.The managerial implications highlight the need for BUMDes leaders or managers to invest significant time in managing the managerial processes and communication, with a focus on BUMDes performance that contributes to the well-being of the community.

Figure
Figure 2. A framework of VOE input, process, and output.Note: bold denotes areas for further research.

Table 3 . The results of the literature review according to PRISMA No Title Author, Year, and Publication Relevant findings Categories
provides an opportunity for villages to become more self-reliant.It is a success story from the beginning of the BUMDes concept in 1999.groups, civil society, and NGOs to build policy networks and achieve policy changes in order to produce a Village Law that focuses on poverty alleviation, which in turn impacts local economic empowerment through Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes).