Indonesian national low productivity of salt which is unequal between the need level and salt consumption eventually results in salt import made mainly to meet the industrial needs. The government through the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries has released a Public Salt Business Empowering Program (known as PUGAR/Pemberdayaan Usaha Garam Rakyat). PUGAR is an empowering program focusing on the improvement of job opportunities and welfare for salt farmers/managers to achieve the self-sufficiency of salt for consumptions and industries. This research aims at examining the influence of salt business empowering program on the salt farmers’ income improvement in Kedungmalang village of Jepara Regency; the implementation level of salt business empowering program in Kedungmutih Village of Demak Regency when compared to that in Kedungmalang Village of Jepara Regency; and the influence of salt business empowering program on the salt farmers’ income improvement in Kedungmutih village of Demak regency. The research was conducted using a descriptive method with a case study approach. The program implementation was quantitatively analyzed. Furthermore, the effectiveness of PUGAR on income was analyzed using T-test. The test result showed that there were income differences in Kedungmutih and Kedungmalang Village before and after the implementation of PUGAR. This finding showed that PUGAR was proven as an effective program to improve the salt farmers’ welfare through income improvement.
Administration is the backbone of any institute, which not only utilizes the human and material resources in the best possible way but also gives direction for the achievement of its goals and objectives. This study aimed to compare the administrative practices of public and private sector universities of Pakistan. The administrative practices consisted of amendments in university statutes; university governing bodies; its members selection; tenure; meetings; decision making practice; and implementation of decisions; recruitment/selection/appointment and promotion of official and faculty; provision of facilities to faculty; administrative, financial and academic matters; establishment of new departments; allocation of funds; university timings suitability; scholarships; evaluation of the employees; Procedure for overcoming irregularities; university management; dealing of university with community, HEC; Government, and other universities; HEC influence in university affairs; students admission; affiliation to colleges; and the like. The population of the study consisted of all administrators and academicians in the universities of Punjab and KPK provinces of Pakistan. Eight universities, four each from Punjab and Khyber Pakhtoon-khwa (two public and two private of each provinces) were randomly selected as sample of the study. Questionnaire for Administrative Practices (QAP), consisted of 32 domains, was utilized for data elicitation. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to measure the reliability of QAP, resulting in 0.963. Data was analyzed through the utilization of Mean score and t-test. Significant difference was observed between public and private sector universities regarding the administrative practices i.e. amendments in the statutes; universities bodies tenure; the provision of facilities to staff; officials attitude for handling of ixacademic matters; official’s way of supervising their subordinates; student admission; university timings suitability; process of college affiliation; evaluation of employees; procedure for overcoming irregularities; meeting with authorities; university management. While insignificance difference was found for universities bodies members selection; student representation in university bodies; their meetings; decision making; decision implementation; official appointment; staff promotion; administrative and financial matters; relations with community; HEC; Government and other universities; HEC influence in administration and other matters; scholarships; fund allocation; process to visit authorities and establishment of new departments. Significant difference was found between the opinions of academicians of public and private sector universities in terms of amendments in statutes; bodies decision making; staff selection; financial matters; academic matters; HEC influence in administration; student admission; university timings; meeting with authorities, and university management. Significant difference was observed between the opinions of administrators of public and private sector universities in terms of universities bodies’ tenure; bodies’ decision implementation; provision of facilities to staff; administrative matters; academic matters; official supervision; relations with other universities; HEC influence; fund allocation; university timings; College affiliation; procedure for overcoming irregularities; and university management. It was concluded from the findings that both public and private sectors are performing numerous practices in different ways and means. The university stakeholders’ administrators and academicians have lack of coordination. xIt is recommended that the coordination body HEC may arrange workshops, seminars for both public and private sectors universities. In the universities a body may be established which strives for the coordination between administrators and academicians.