Lecturer : Prof. Dr. Ginandjar [email protected], www.ginandjar.com
AssistantProfessor
: Dr. Dadang Solihin, SE, [email protected]
INTRODUCTIONWhat is Poverty?Evolving Strategy for Poverty ReductionThe UN Millennium Development GoalsPoverty Definitions And Measures
POVERTY IN INDONESIAPoor Village Development Program
THE CRISISMAJOR POST‐CRISIS POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMS
CONTENTS
2www.ginandjar.comGRIPS_2012
EQUITY: A Continuous ChallengeThe Ever Present Problem of InequalityRegional DisparityAttempts at Equitable DevelopmentPersistent Disparity Amidst Economic GrowthUnemploymentHuman Development Index
THE ROLE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN POVERTY REDUCTION AND EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
LESSONS TO BE LEARNEDOn PovertyOn Equitable Development
CONTENTS
3www.ginandjar.comGRIPS_2012
4
1998 CRISIS
POVERTY IS PRONOUNCED DEPRIVATION IN WELL‐BEING.TO BE POOR IS TO BE HUNGRY, TO LACK SHELTER ANDCLOTHING, TO BE SICK AND NOT CARED FOR, TO BE ILLITERATE AND NOT SCHOOLED.
BUT FOR POOR PEOPLE, LIVING IN POVERTY IS MORE THAN THIS. POOR PEOPLE ARE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO ADVERSE EVENTS OUTSIDE THEIR CONTROL.
THEY ARE OFTEN TREATED BADLY BY THE INSTITUTIONS OF STATE AND SOCIETY AND EXCLUDED FROM VOICE AND POWER IN THOSE INSTITUTIONS.
WHAT IS POVERTY?
5www.ginandjar.comGRIPS_2012
THE PRESENT VIEW OF POVERTY IS ENCOMPASSING NOT ONLY MATERIAL DEPRIVATION (MEASURED BY AN APPROPRIATE CONCEPT OF INCOME OR CONSUMPTION)BUT ALSO LOW ACHIEVEMENTS IN EDUCATION ANDHEALTH.
LOW LEVELS OF EDUCATION AND HEALTH ARE OF CONCERN IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, BUT THEY MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION WHEN THEY ACCOMPANY MATERIAL DEPRIVATION.
THE NOTION OF POVERTY INCLUDES VULNERABILITYAND EXPOSURE TO RISK—AND VOICELESSNESS ANDPOWERLESSNESS.
6www.ginandjar.comGRIPS_2012
ANOTHER IMPORTANT REASON FOR CONSIDERING A BROADER RANGE OF DIMENSIONS—AND HENCE A BROADER RANGE OF POLICIES—IS THAT THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF POVERTY INTERACT AND REINFORCE ONE ANOTHER IN IMPORTANT WAYS.
THIS MEANS THAT POLICIES DO MORE THAN SIMPLYADD UP. IMPROVING HEALTH OUTCOMES NOT ONLY IMPROVES WELL‐BEING BUT ALSO INCREASES INCOME‐EARNING POTENTIAL.
7www.ginandjar.comGRIPS_2012
INCREASING EDUCATION NOT ONLY IMPROVES WELL‐BEING—IT ALSO LEADS TO BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES AND TO HIGHER INCOMES. PROVIDING PROTECTION FOR POOR PEOPLE (REDUCING VULNERABILITY IN DEALING WITH RISK) NOT ONLY MAKES THEM FEEL LESS VULNERABLE—IT ALSO ALLOWS THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIGHER‐RISK, HIGHER‐RETURN OPPORTUNITIES.
INCREASING POOR PEOPLE’S VOICE AND PARTICIPATIONNOT ONLY ADDRESSES THEIR SENSE OF EXCLUSION—ITALSO LEADS TO BETTER TARGETING OF HEALTH AND EDUCATION SERVICES TO THEIR NEEDS.
8www.ginandjar.comGRIPS_2012
THE APPROACH TO REDUCING POVERTY HAS EVOLVED OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS IN RESPONSE TO DEEPENING UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLEXITY OF DEVELOPMENT.
IN THE 1950S AND 1960S MANY VIEWED LARGE INVESTMENTS IN PHYSICAL CAPITAL AND INFRASTRUCTUREAS THE PRIMARY MEANS OF DEVELOPMENT. HENCE THE TRICKLING DOWN EFFECT IDEA.
IN THE 1970S AWARENESS GREW THAT PHYSICAL CAPITAL WAS NOT ENOUGH, AND THAT AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT WERE HEALTH AND EDUCATION.
EVOLVING STRATEGY FOR POVERTY REDUCTION
9www.ginandjar.comGRIPS_2012
THE 1980S SAW ANOTHER SHIFT OF EMPHASIS FOLLOWING THE DEBT CRISIS AND GLOBAL RECESSION AND THE CONTRASTING EXPERIENCES OF EAST ASIA AND LATIN AMERICA, SOUTH ASIA, AND SUB‐SAHARAN AFRICA.
IN THE 1990S GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONS MOVED TOWARD CENTER STAGE—AS DID ISSUES OF VULNERABILITY AT THE LOCAL AND NATIONAL LEVELS.
THE 20TH CENTURY SAW GREAT PROGRESS IN REDUCING POVERTY AND IMPROVING WELL‐BEING.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 10
IN THE LAST FOUR DECADES OF THE LAST CENTURY LIFEEXPECTANCY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD IN‐CREASED 20 YEARS ON AVERAGE, THE INFANT MORTALITY RATE FELL MORE THAN HALF, AND FERTILITY RATES DECLINED BY ALMOST HALF IN THE PAST TWO DECADES NET PRIMARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES INCREASED BY 13 PERCENT.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 11
HOWEVER THESE BROAD TRENDS CONCEAL EXTRAORDINARY DIVERSITY IN EXPERIENCE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD‐AND LARGE VARIATIONS AMONG REGIONS, WITH SOME SEEING ADVANCES, AND OTHERS SETBACKS, IN CRUCIAL NON INCOME MEASURES OF POVERTY.
WIDENING GLOBAL DISPARITIES HAVE INCREASED THE SENSE OF DEPRIVATION AND INJUSTICE FOR MANY. AND SOCIAL MOBILITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REMAIN ALIEN CONCEPTS FOR FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 12
“WE WILL SPARE NO EFFORTS TO FREE OUR FELLOW MEN, WOMAN AND CHILDREN FROM THE OBJECT AND DEHUMANIZING CONDITIONS OF EXTREME POVERTY, TO WHICH MORE THAN A BILLION OF THEM ARE CURRENTLY SUBJECTED. WE ARE COMMITTED TO MAKING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT A REALITY FOR EVERYONE AND TO FREEING THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE FROM WANT.”
(MILLENIUM DECLARATION, 2000)
MDGs: NEW INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IDEOLOGY
THE UN MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 13
THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS (MDG) WERE DERIVED FROM THE UNITED NATIONS MILLENNIUM DECLARATION, ADOPTED BY 189 NATIONS IN 2000. MOST OF THE GOALS AND TARGETS WERE SET TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE YEAR 2015 ON THE BASIS OF THE GLOBAL SITUATION DURING THE 1990s.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 14
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 15
POVERTY DEFINITIONS AND MEASURES
Poverty headcount index (Po): This is the share of the population whoseconsumption is below the poverty line. The headcount index, sometimes referred toas the ‘poverty incidence’, is the most popular poverty measure. However, thismeasure fails to differentiate between sub-groups of the poor and does not indicatethe extent of poverty. It remains unchanged even if a poor person becomes poorer orbetter off, provided that they remain below the poverty line. Therefore, in order todevelop a comprehensive understanding of poverty, it is important to complement theheadcount index with the other two poverty measures of Foster, Green andThorbecke (FGT).
Poverty gap index (P1): The mean aggregate consumption shortfall relative to thepoverty line across the whole population, with a zero value assigned to those abovethe poverty line. The poverty gap can provide an indication of how many resourceswould be needed to alleviate poverty through cash transfers perfectly targeted to thepoor. This index better describes the depth of the poverty but does not indicate theseverity of poverty. However, it does not change if a transfer is made from a poorperson to someone who is even poorer.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 16
Poverty severity index (P2): This measure gives more weight to the very poor bytaking the square of the distance from poverty line. It is calculated by squaring therelative shortfall of per capita consumption to the poverty line and then averagingacross population while assigning zero values to those above the poverty line. Whena transfer is made from a poor person to someone who is poorer, this registers adecrease in aggregate poverty.
US$1 and US$2 PPP per day poverty measures: To compare poverty acrosscountries, the World Bank uses estimates of consumption converted into US dollarsusing purchasing power parity (PPP) rates rather than exchange rates. The PPPexchange rate shows the numbers of units of a country’s currency needed to buy inthat country the same amount of goods and services that US$1 would buy in the US.These exchange rates are computed based on prices and quantities for each countrycollected in benchmark surveys, which are usually undertaken every five years. Chenand Ravallion (2001) present an update on world poverty using a US$1-a-day povertyline. According to their calculations, in 1993 the US$1-a-day PPP poverty line wasequivalent to Rp 20,811-a-month (US$2). The PPP poverty lines are adjusted overtime by relative rates of inflation, using consumer price index (CPI) data. So in 2006,the US$1 PPP poverty line is equivalent to Rp 97,218 per person per month while theUS$2 PPP poverty line is equivalent to Rp 194,439 per person per month.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 17
18
1998 CRISIS
DURING THE PREVIOUS THREE DECADES, THE INCIDENCE OF POVERTY IN INDONESIA HAD DECLINED SIGNIFICANTLY AS RESULT OF A RAPID ECONOMIC GROWTH COUPLED WITH INVESTMENT IN SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS HEALTH AND EDUCATION, PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RURAL INFRASTRUCTURES.
IN 1970S, SPECIAL MEASURES TO TARGETING TO THE ECONOMIC POOR WERE DIFFICULT DUE TO THE VERY HIGH PROPORTION OF PEOPLE LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LINE.
IN THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT INITIATED SOCIAL PROTECTION, THE POOR LEAN MOSTLY ON TRADITIONAL RISK POOLING MECHANISM.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 19
IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO 1997/98 ASIAN CRISIS, INDONESIA HAD ADOPTED A LONG‐TERM POVERTY ALLEVIATION STRATEGY VIA MASSIVE INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC EDUCATION AND HEALTH, AGRICULTURE AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
AMONG OTHERS, THIS APPROACH HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF HUMAN CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, CREATION OF NEWLY EDUCATED MIDDLE‐CLASS AND OPENING ISOLATED AREAS TO WIDER ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 20
GOVERNMENT PROGRAM SUCH RICE SELF‐SUFFICIENCY AND FAMILY PLANNING HAD TREMENDOUS EFFECT OF POVERTY REDUCTION.
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF IRRIGATION, INLAND ROADS, ELECTRICITY THAT HAD COVERED AROUND 70 TO 80% OF THE POPULATION, AND NATION WIDE SCHOOLS AND HEALTH SERVICES, THE RURAL AS WELL THE URBAN AREAS WERE BOTH AFFECTED BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
THE HIGH ECONOMIC GROWTH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY IMPROVEMENTS IN VARIOUS SOCIAL INDICATORS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 21
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 22
DURING THE PERIOD, LIFE EXPECTANCY INCREASED, INFANT MORTALITY RATES FELL, AND SCHOOL ENROLLMENT RATES ROSE.
IN ADDITION, THE PROVISION OF BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE – WATER SUPPLIES, ROADS, ELECTRICITY, SCHOOLS, AND HEALTH FACILITIES ‐ ALSO ROSE SUBSTANTIALLY.
HOWEVER ALTHOUGH ALL STRATA OF INDONESIA’S SOCIETY ENJOYED THE BENEFIT OF DEVELOPMENT, THOSE AT THE TOP DISPROPORTIONABLY ENJOYED THE MOST, THEREBY WIDENING THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR.
BY 1990’S AT THE HEIGHT OF INDONESIA’S ECONOMIC RISE—BEING ONE OF THE ASIAN ECONOMIC TIGERS—THERE WAS A GROWING CONCERNED AMONG DEVELOPMENT PLANNERS THAT A MORE TARGETED AND SPECIAL POLICIES SHOULD BE ADOPTED TO ACCELERATE POVERTY ERADICATION.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 23
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT DURING THE PRE‐CRISIS HIGH GROWTH PERIOD, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDONESIA (GOI) UNDER SUHARTO HAD ACTUALLY CARRIED ON A NUMBER OF POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMS.
IN THE EARLY NEW ORDER ERA FOR EXAMPLE, SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS RUN AN EXPERIMENTAL SAVINGS AND LOANS PROJECTS; THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS CONDUCTED PROJECTS FOCUSED ON INCREASING THE WELFARE OF THE POOR AND NEEDY; AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MANAGED PROGRAMS AIMING TO INCREASE THE INCOME LEVEL OF SMALL FARMERS (LEITH ET.AL, 2003).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 24
BESIDES THERE WERE ALSO A MULTITUDE OF PRESIDENTIAL INSTRUCTIONS (INPRES) ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR EDUCATION, HEALTH, AND BLOCK GRANTS TO THE PROVINCES AND DISTRICS.
THEY ALL CONTRIBUTED TO THE FAST DROP IN POVERTY ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 25
PRIOR TO THE 1997/1998 CRISIS, THE GOVERNMENT TOOK IMPORTANT STEPS ON WHAT LATER WAS THE INSPIRATION OF POST‐CRISIS POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAM.
THE POVERTY REDUCTION INITIATIVES IN THE LATE NEW ORDER ERA INCLUDES: I. PRESIDENTIAL INSTRUCTION ON DISADVANTAGED VILLAGES (IDT); II. DISADVANTAGED VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM (P3DT); III. URBAN POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMME (P2KP); IV. MICRO CREDIT (TAKESRA/KUKESRA); V. SMALL FARMERS/FISHERMAN INCOME EXPANSION PROJECT (P4K);
AND VI. SUB‐DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (PPK/KDP).(LEITH ET.AL, 2003)
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 26
27
DESPITE THE FACT THAT POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN INDONESIA ACHIEVED A GREAT SUCCESS IN THE PERIOD OF 1970S UNTIL MID 1990S, THE TERM 'POVERTY' HAD NOT PLACED IN THE TOP PRIORITY OF THE COUNTRY'S DEVELOPMENT AGENDA UNTIL THE EARLY 1990S.
THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHAPTER ON POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN THE FIRST FIVE OF FIVE YEARS DEVELOPMENT PLAN (REPELITA), THE NATIONAL MEDIUM‐TERM DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE NEW ORDER ERA.
THE DEVELOPMENT IDEOLOGY AT THAT TIME FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS FROM THE WORLD BANK AN WESTERN COUNTRIES WERE GROWTH DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT COUNTING ON THE TRICKLE DOWN BENEFIT OF GROWTH TO THE POOR POPULATION.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 28
THE SIXTH REPELITA 1994/1995 ‐ 1998/1999 WAS THE FIRST DOCUMENT THAT MENTIONED POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND EQUITY OF DEVELOPMENT. THESE TWO ISSUES WERE ALSO INTEGRATED IN OTHER CHAPTERS OF THE PLAN.
A NEW APPROACH ON POVERTY ERADICATION WAS LAUNCHED IN 1993, UNDER THE SIXTH FIVE YEARS DEVELOPMENT PLAN (REPELITA VI).
THE IDT (INPRES DESA TERTINGGAL, OR PROGRAM FOR ASSISTANCE TO BACKWARD VILLAGES). EVEN THEN THE USA OF THE WORD “POOR” WAS STILL AVOIDED.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 29
IDT HAD THREE GOALS: 1) TO GALVANIZE A NATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR
POVERTY ERADICATION AND ENSURE THAT IT BECOMES A MASS (PEOPLE’S) MOVEMENT;
2) TO ACCELERATE REDUCTION IN INEQUALITIES OFINCOME AND WEALTH; AND
3) TO DEVELOP THE PEOPLE’S ECONOMY.
THE BASIC IDEA WAS EMPOWERING PEOPLE TO MAKE THEM CAPABLE TO LIFT THEMSELVES OUT OF POVERTY.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 30
POOR GROUPS ARE IDENTIFIED ACCORDING TO CATEGORIES REFLECTIVE OF LOCAL VILLAGE STANDARDS. EACH VILLAGES WAS PROVIDED FUNDS RP.20 MILLION PER VILLAGE (ABOUT US$10.000). IT WAS A GRANT, BUT WAS EXPECTED TO REVOLVE AMONG THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AS A SEED. THE USES OF THE FUNDS WERE ENTIRELY AT DISCRETION OF THE COMMUNITY THEMSELVES.
IN ONE VILLAGE THERE COULD BE MORE THAN ONE GROUP.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 31
WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION WAS SIGNIFICANT AND INMANY PLACES POKMAS MEMBERS WERE PREDOMINANTLY OR ALL WOMEN. MOST OF THEM DREW ON IDT FUNDS FOR INCOME‐GENERATING ACTIVITIES SUCH AS SMALL TRADING ACTIVITIES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY SUCH AS RAISING GOATS, CHICKENS AND DUCKS, FISH FARMS, HOME INDUSTRIES, OR IN ONE CASE OPERATING A NEWLY PURCHASED FISHING BOAT WITH THEIR HUSBAND.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 32
BY 1996, THE PROGRAM HAD COVERED 28,000 OF THE LEAST‐DEVELOPED VILLAGES, OR 43 PERCENT OF ALL VILLAGES IN THE COUNTRY. BENEFICIARIES WERE 136,000SELF‐HELP GROUPS (KELOMPOK MASYARAKAT OR POKMAS), COMPRISING OF 3.4 MILLION POOR HOUSEHOLDS.
SUPPORTING THE IDT, IN 1996 A RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM WAS LAUCHED.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 33
OTHER PROGRAMS RELATED TO POVERTY REDUCTION HAD ALSO BEEN UNDERTAKEN, FOCUSING ON VULNERABLE GROUPS: THE POOREST, ISOLATEDINDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES, THE DISABLED, ELDERLY, DESTITUTE CHILDREN, POOR WOMEN, AND SLUMDWELLERS. STILL OTHERS INVOLVE SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDING FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN AND INCOME GENERATING PROGRAMS.
THE RESULT WAS AN ACCELERATED REDUCTION IN POVERTY BETWEEN 1993‐1996.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 34
PRE‐CRISIS POVERTY INCIDENCE AND NUMBER OF POOR
40,1%
33,3%
28,6%26,9%
21,6%
17,4%
15,1%13,7%
11,3%
54,2
47,2
42,340,6
35
30
27,225,9
22,5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0,0%
5,0%
10,0%
15,0%
20,0%
25,0%
30,0%
35,0%
40,0%
45,0%
50,0%
1976 1978 1980 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996Source: BAPPENAS, 1999
Percent Millions
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 35
NOTE: THE POVERTY LINES EQUAL TO 2100 CALORIE PER CAPITA PER DAY FOR THE FOOD COMPONENT (52 COMMODITIES) PLUS BASIC NON FOOD CONSUMPTION I.E. HOUSING, APPAREL, HEALTH, EDUCATION, UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION (47‐51 COMMODITIES).
THE AVERAGE COMPOSITION IS 74% FOR FOOD CONSUMPTION AND 26% FOR NON‐FOOD CONSUMPTION;
IN URBAN AREA 70% VS. 30% AND IN RURAL AREA 80% VS. 20%.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 36
37
1998 CRISIS
IN JULY 1997 INDONESIA WAS STRUCK BY A CURRENCY CRISIS, WHICH BY THE FIRST HALF OF 1998 HAD ALREADY DEVELOPED INTO A FULL BLOWN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CRISIS, EXACERBATED BY A NATURAL DISASTER (EL NINO DROUGHT).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 38
DURING THIS CRISIS PERIOD, THE INDONESIAN PEOPLESAW: THE FALL OF THE VALUE OF RUPIAH TO AS LOW AS 15
PERCENT OF ITS PRE‐CRISIS VALUE IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR, ECONOMIC CONTRACTION BY AN UNPRECEDENTED
MAGNITUDE OF 13.7 PERCENT IN 1998, SKYROCKETING DOMESTIC PRICES (THE GENERAL INFLATION
RATE WAS 78 PERCENT IN 1998) AND PARTICULARLY THOSE OF FOOD (INFLATION RATE OF FOOD WAS 118 PERCENT IN 1998),
MASS RIOTING IN THE CAPITAL JAKARTA AND A FEW OTHER CITIES,
CULMINATING IN THE FALL OF THE NEW ORDER GOVERNMENT ‐WHICH HAD BEEN IN POWER SINCE MID 1960S TO MAY 1998.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 39
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE CRISIS, IN PARTICULAR ON POVERTY, WAS SUBSTANTIAL.
DURING THE PERIOD, THE NUMBER OF URBAN POOR DOUBLED, WHILE THE RURAL POOR INCREASED BY 75 PERCENT.
A STUDY (BY SURYAHADI, SUMARTO, AND PRITCHETT,2003) WHICH TRACKS DOWN POVERTY RATE OVER THE COURSE OF THE CRISIS SHOWS THAT THE POVERTY RATE INCREASED BY 164 PERCENT FROM THE ONSET OF THE CRISIS IN MID 1997 TO THE PEAK OF THE CRISIS AROUND THE END OF 1998.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 40
TO REDUCE THE ADVERSE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE CRISIS, IN 1998 THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED A SOCIAL SAFETY NET (JARING PENGAMAN SOSIAL OR JPS) PROGRAM AIMING TO PREVENT THE POOR FROM FALLING MORE DEEPLY INTO POVERTY AND REDUCING THE EXPOSURE OF VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS TO RISK.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 41
THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET (SSN) INVOLVED FOUR STRATEGIES:
I. ENSURING THE AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE FOOD,
II. IMPROVING HOUSEHOLD PURCHASING POWER THROUGH EMPLOYMENT CREATION,
III. PRESERVING ACCESS TO CRITICAL SOCIAL SERVICES, PARTICULARLY HEALTH AND EDUCATION, INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN AND LACTATING WOMAN IN POOR VILLAGES, AND
IV. SUSTAINING LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY THROUGH REGIONAL BLOCK GRANTS AND THE EXTENSION OF SMALL‐SCALE CREDITS.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SSN PROGRAMS HAD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THE WORST EFFECTS OF THE CRISIS (SUMARTO, SURYAHADI, AND WIDYANTI, 2002).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 42
TO PROTECT FOOD SECURITY, EDUCATION, HEALTH AND EMPLOYMENT OF THE POOR HOUSEHOLDS IN THE POOR AREAS, IN JULY 1998, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDONESIA INITIATED THE FIRST NATION WIDE SOCIAL PROTECTION SCHEME ON HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL, IN ADDITION TO SUBSIDIZED RICE AND CASH‐ FOR‐WORK PROGRAM FOR POOR HOUSEHOLDS AND AREAS (SPARROW, 2006, 2007; WORLD BANK, 2006).
WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS, MANY OF THESE INITIATED SOCIAL SAFETY NETS ARE STILL PRACTICED – SEVERAL OF WHICH ARE DISCUSSED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE POVERTY ALLEVIATION STRATEGY IN THE POST‐CRISIS INDONESIA.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 43
THE 1997/98 CRISIS WAS SIGNIFIED BY SKYROCKETING PRICE OF RICE, THE STAPLE FOOD FOR MOST INDONESIANS.
AMONG OTHERS DUE TO CROP FAILURE CAUSED BY SEVERE DRAUGHT (EL NIÑO) THE POOR, WHOSE RICE CONSUMPTION MADE UP TO A QUARTER OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES, WERE THE MOST NEGATIVELY AFFECTED.
THE DROP IN RICE CONSUMPTION WAS ACCOMPANIED BY AMONG OTHERS DIMINISHING HEALTH STATUS OF UNDER FIVE‐YEAR CHILDREN (WORLD BANK, 2006), INDICATING BAD COPING STRATEGY.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 44
FOOD SECURITY
DURING THE CRISIS, PER‐CAPITA LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE, DECLINED SUBSTANTIALLY AND POVERTY RATES HAVE RISEN BY AT LEAST 25 PERCENT.
IT APPEARED THAT TO SMOOTH CONSUMPTION, HOUSEHOLDS REDUCED THEIR INVESTMENT IN CHILDREN EDUCATION AND PUSH EARLY ENTRANCE TO LABOR MARKET.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 45
IN MITIGATING THE HYPERINFLATION, HOUSEHOLDS TRIED TO MAINTAIN THEIR PHYSICAL AMOUNT OF STAPLE FOOD CONSUMPTION BY INCREASING THE VALUE AND PROPORTION OF THEIR FOOD CONSUMPTION AT THE COST OF HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES, HAMPERING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF LONG‐TERM POVERTY ALLEVIATION STRATEGY THROUGH HUMAN CAPITAL ACCUMULATION.
THIS IS TRUE ESPECIALLY AMONG THE POOREST HOUSEHOLDS (FRANKENBERG, THOMAS, AND BEEGLE,1999).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 46
THE MOST IMPORTANT BASIC COMMODITY WAS RICE. A PROGRAM WAS INITIATED IN JULY 1998 TO PROVIDE 10 KG OF RICE AT ABOUT ONE‐HALF OF THE MARKET PRICE TO LOW‐INCOME FAMILIES FIRST IN THE JAKARTA AREA AND IN SEPTEMBER EXTENDED TO COVER 7½ MILLION VERY POOR FAMILIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
IN DECEMBER THE MONTHLY ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE SCHEME WAS INCREASED FROM 10 KILOGRAMS TO 20 KILOGRAMS PER FAMILY COVERING 17 MILLION POOR FAMILIES
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 47
TO IMPROVE PURCHASING POWER IN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS, THE GOVERNMENT HAD SET UP PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY TO BOOST INCOMES OF THE POOR FORTHE UNEMPLOYED AND THE UNDEREMPLOYED.
TO SUPPLEMENT THESE EFFORTS, CASH‐FOR‐WORK PROGRAMS ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED IN DROUGHT‐STRICKEN AREAS OF THE COUNTRY.
IMPROVING PURCHASING POWER
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 48
PRESERVING ACCESS TO CRITICAL SOCIAL SERVICES FOR THE POOR CONSTITUTED AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET.
IN WHAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE WORLD BANK AS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL INTERVENTION, AMONG THE SOCIAL SAFETY NETS HAD BEEN THE SCHOLARSHIP AND GRANT PROGRAM DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN ENROLMENTS AND QUALITY OF SCHOOLING AT PRE‐CRISIS LEVEL AND THE INTENSIFIED HEALTH CARE SERVICES.
SOCIAL SERVICES
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 49
EDUCATION
AMONG THE IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF THE ASIAN CRISIS WAS AN INCREASE IN DROP OUT RATES ESPECIALLY AMONG THE SCHOOL AGED GIRLS FROM POOR RURAL AREA, POTENTIALLY TRANSMITTING POVERTY TO NEXT GENERATION.
IN 1998, THE FIRST PRO‐POOR TARGETED SSN ON EDUCATIONAL WAS INTRODUCED TOGETHER WITH THE SSNON HEALTH.
THE SSN COMPOSED OF TWO PARTS: SCHOLARSHIP AND SCHOOL SUBSIDY PROGRAM.
BY FEBRUARY 1999, 5 PERCENT OF CHILDREN AGES 10 TO 18 (APPROXIMATELY 2.1 MILLION CHILDREN) HAD RECEIVED A SCHOLARSHIP (SPARROW, 2006).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 50
FROM 1999‐2002 DATA, SPARROW FOUND THAT PARTICIPATION IN THE SCHOLARSHIPS INCREASED THE PROBABLY OF ATTENDING SCHOOL IN THE PREVIOUS WEEK FOR 1.5 PERCENTAGE POINTS HIGHER THAN THE NON‐PARTICIPANTS.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE SCHOLARSHIPS REDUCED THE INCIDENCE OF CHILD TO WORK FROM 14.0% TO 10.2%. THE EFFECT ON LABOR WAS HIGHER FOR STUDENTS FROM POOR HOUSEHOLDS IN RURAL AREAS, AND FOR THE BOYS.
THE CASH TRANSFER THROUGH THE SCHOLARSHIPS HAD HELPED THE POOR HOUSEHOLDS, TO CERTAIN EXTENT, TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN ENROLMENT IN ELEMENTARY AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND AT THE SAME TIME PREVENT PREMATURE ENTRANCE TO LABOR MARKET.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 51
THE PROGRAM EXTENDED TO THE POOREST 6 PERCENT OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS, 17 PERCENT IN JUNIOR SECONDARY AND 10 PERCENT IN SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
IT ALSO PROVIDED GRANTS TO THE 60 PERCENT OF THE POOREST IN EACH CATEGORY (SEE WORLD BANK, 1999).
THE PROGRAM HAD REACHED 4 MILLION STUDENTS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 52
IN HEALTH SERVICES, THE PRIORITY WAS GIVEN TO THE POOR TO HAVE ACCESS TO BASIC HEALTH SERVICES AND ESSENTIAL MEDICINES, AND PREVENTED MALNUTRITION AND MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES.
THE GOVERNMENT MADE AVAILABLE SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD FOR YOUNG CHILDREN THROUGH THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND PREGNANT AND LACTATING WOMEN IN POOR VILLAGES. THIS PROGRAM HAD REACHED 8.1 MILLION PUPILS IN 52.5 THOUSAND SCHOOLS NATIONWIDE.
HEALTH
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 53
AMONG THE FIRST SOCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM TARGETED TO POOR HOUSEHOLDS WAS STARTED IN 1994 WITH THE PROGRAM HEALTH CARD (KARTU SEHAT) AND FULLY NSTITUTIONALIZED IN 1998 THROUGH HEALTH SOCIAL SAFETY NET (JARING PENGAMAN SOSIAL JPS ‐ KESEHATAN).
IT WAS FUNDED BY ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK AND RUN FROM 1998 TO 2001.
THE SSN WAS LATER REPLACED BY A FUEL PRICE COMPENSATION SCHEME WHICH USED THE SSN PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (PKPS‐BBM 2001‐2005).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 54
IN SSN SCHEME, ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD CAN APPLY FOR A HEALTH CARD (KARTU SEHAT) WHICH CAN BE USED TO WAIVE MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR OUTPATIENT AND INPATIENT CARE AT SUB‐DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS AND THIRD CLASS PUBLIC HOSPITAL WARDS.
BY FEBRUARY 1999, 11 PERCENT OF INDONESIANS OR APPROXIMATELY 22 MILLION PEOPLE LIVED IN A HOUSEHOLD WITH A HEALTH CARD.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 55
SINCE THE ASIAN ECONOMIC CRISIS IN 1997‐98, EFFORTS ON PROTECTING THE POOR THROUGH TARGETED SOCIAL SAFETY NET ON HEALTH, EDUCATION AND RICE CONSUMPTION AS WELL AS THE NEWLY INTRODUCED COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS AND MICRO‐ENTERPRISE EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS HAVE SIGNIFIED INDONESIA'S DEVELOPMENT POLICY AGENDA.
MAJOR POST‐CRISIS POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMS
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 56
FROM 1998 TO 2010, THE GOVERNMENT HAS SHIFTED ITS DEVELOPMENT AGENDA, NOT ONLY RELYING HEAVILY ON ECONOMIC GROWTH BUT ALSO CREATING POVERTY REDUCTION EFFORTS TO ENSURE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT GOALS.
SSN, THAT WAS COMMENCED AS AN EFFORT TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF FINANCIAL CRISIS THAT SEVERELY HIT THE POOR A DECADE AGO, HAS NOW EVOLVED INTO WIDER POVERTY REDUCTION EFFORTS. TODAY, POVERTY REDUCTION HAS BECOME ONE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE THAT IS FORMALLY STATED IN THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DOCUMENTS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 57
IN POST‐CRISIS ERA, WHAT WAS STARTED AS A RESPONSE TO THE ASIAN ECONOMIC CRISIS THAT SWEPT THE COUNTRY A DECADE AGO, A SET OF SOCIAL SAFETY NET (JARING PENGAMAN SOSIAL, JPS) PROGRAMS HAVE NOW BECOME INSTITUTIONALIZED IN THE POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMS IN INDONESIA.
FROM THE ONSET OF THE CRISIS, THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYED A SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM THAT WAS A MIXTURE OF UNIVERSAL SUBSIDIES AND TARGETED SAFETY NET PROGRAMS.
THE AIM OF THIS INITIATIVE IS TO PREVENT THE CHRONIC POOR FROM FALLING MORE DEEPLY INTO POVERTY AND REDUCING THE EXPOSURE OF VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS TO RISKS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 58
IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS, SUCCESSIVE ADMINISTRATIONS HAS TAKEN A POLITICALLY DIFFICULT BUT ECONOMICALLY RATIONAL AND PRO‐POOR STEP IN ALLOCATING RESOURCES MORE EFFECTIVELY IN SECTORS THAT MATTER TO THE SOCIAL WELFARE.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 59
THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT, ON FEBRUARY 2010 THE GOVERNMENT ISSUED THE PERPRES NO. 15/2010ABOUT POVERTY REDUCTION ACCELERATION. BASED ON THIS PERPRES, THE POVERTY REDUCTION BODY CHANGEITS NAME BECOMES THE NATIONAL TEAM FOR POVERTY REDUCTION ACCELERATION (TNP2K).
TNP2K HAS THREE MAIN TASKS, I.E. FORMULATE THE POVERTY REDUCTION POLICY AND PROGRAM, MAKE THEPOVERTY REDUCTION ACTIVITIES MORE SYNERGIC BETWEENMINISTRIES AND INSTITUTIONS, AND PERFORM THEMONITORING AND EVALUATION FUNCTION.
THIS NEW REGULATION ALSO HIGHLIGHTS A CHANGE INORGANIZATION AS THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS DESIGNATED TO LEAD THIS TEAM.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 60
NATIONAL TEAM FOR POVERTY REDUCTION ACCELERATION
The Organization Chart based on Perpres No. 15/2010GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 61
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY(Four‐Track Strategy)
• Pro‐Growth: Strategy to increase and accelerate economic growth through promoting investment, exports, and businesses including the improvement of investment climate.
• Pro‐Job: Strategy to create employment opportunities including the establishment of a flexible labor market and creation of conducive industrial relations.
• Pro‐Poor: Strategy to reduce poverty and to revitalize agriculture sector, forestry, maritime, rural economy. In the medium and long‐term period the poverty alleviation strategy is also aimed at increasing the participation (including the capacity and quality of the people at community level) to local development and providing access for the poor to basic services including education, health, sanitation/clean water, as well as rural infrastructure.
• Pro‐Environment: Strategy to protect and maintain the environment through sustainable development. Resources are optimally used while preserving the environment to meet present human needs and generations to come.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 62
SOCIAL PROTECTION IN INDONESIA
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 63
Improvement on Social Welfare
• Growth: 6,3‐6,8%• Inflation: 4‐6%• Open Unemply : 5‐6% (2014)• Poverty Rate: 8‐10% (2014)
Pro Poor• Social development• Cluster 1,2, dan 3Programs (SocialAssistance Programs)
Pro Job• Decent work• Social Security• Labor Competency•Migrant WorkersPro Growth
• Social Protection•Macro strategy• Sector strategy•Micro strategy (SME)
Social Welfare Development (Indicators)
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ON SOCIAL WELFARE
Growth &Economics stabilization(PRO‐POOR GROWTH)
Job Opportunity Creation(PRO‐JOB)
Poverty Reduction(PRO‐POOR)
Social WelfareImprovement (GROWTH with
EQUITY)
Family BasedSocial
AssistancePrograms
CommunityEmpowerment
Programs
PNPM Mandiri Core and Support
• Fiscal and MoneterPolicy
• Accelerate infrastructure development
• Improvement of Investment climate
• Policy on Energy sector
• Policy on small and medium enterprises
• Policy on Industrial sector
• Policy on Trade• Price stabilization basic needs
• National Social Security System
Conditional Cash Transfer (Program Keluarga Harapan/PKH), Subsidized Rice for Poor Families (RASKIN), Scholarship for
student from poor family, Health assistance
Small and Medium Enterprises
EmpowermentPrograms
Credits for the poor, Access to productive Resources, Training
64
POVERTY ALLEVIATION STRATEGY
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 65
Reduction in the Number of Poor and
Poverty Rate
Improvement in Purchasing Power
Improvement in Access to MarketPopulation Control
Productivity/ Capacity
Improvement
Improvement in Access to Basic
Services
Availability of Health services, Education, Clean water, Legal protection,
and other types of infrastructure
Family Planning programs
Market information availability, Access to productive resources
(capital, credit), Empowerment of micro & small scale enterprises
Quality growth (pro‐poor and pro‐job), Inflation control, Price stabilization for basic needs, Subsidy policy, Social
assistanceEmpowerment of poor
community, Improvement of community participation
FOUR CLUSTERS PRO‐PEOPLE PROGRAM
VERYPOOR
POOR
NEAR POOR
1ST CLUSTER
1. RICE SUBSIDY,2. CASH
TRANSFERS,3. HEALTH
INSURANCE, 4. SCHOLARSHIPS
2nd CLUSTER
1. Block grants for 6,408 sub‐districts (rural, urban, dis‐advantaged regions, regional & village infrastructures)
2. PNPM Mandiri
3rd CLUSTER
1. Micro credits provision (< Rp 5 million) through banks,
2. Other types of financial assistance
4th CLUSTER1. VERY CHEAP HOUSE PROGRAM2. CHEAP PUBLIC TRANSPORT VEHICLE PROGRAM3. CLEAN WATER PROGRAM FOR PEOPLE4. CHEAP & SAVE ELECTRICITY PROGRAM5. Fishermen's Life Improvement Program*)6. Urban Poor Community Life Improvement Program*)
MACRO‐ECONOMIC POLICY
• Improved Welfare• Expansion andIncreasing Employment Opportunities
VERYPOOR *)
POOR *)
NEAR POOR
Poverty Reduction
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 66
*) Fishermen's Life Improvement Program and Urban Poor Community Life Improvement Program are targeted for 60% poorest
Clusters of Poverty Alleviation Programs
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 67
Assistance &Social Protection Programs
Target: 17.5 mil. poor HH: rice subsidy, cash transfers,
health insurance, & scholarships
Target: the poorest, poor & near poor Households
Target: poor communities of subdistricts
Community Empowerment Programs
Block grants for 6,408 sub‐districts (rural, urban, dis‐
advantaged regions, regional & village infrastructures) PNPM
MandiriTarget: SMEs
Micro‐ & Small‐scale Enterprise Empowerment
Micro credits provision (< Rp 5 million) through banks, & other types of financial
assistance
1ST CLUSTER[Provide fish]
2nd CLUSTER[Facilitate with fish rod]
3rd CLUSTER[Assist to have fish‐rod & boat]
4th Cluster
6 Pro‐Poor Programs and 3 additional
programs
SOCIAL PROTECTION AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (CLUSTER I)
GOVERNMENT SOCIAL ASSISTANCE IN PROTECTING RICE CONSUMPTION, EDUCATION AND HEALTH OF POOR HOUSEHOLDS.
THERE ARE FIVE PROGRAMS I.E. RASKIN SUBSIDIZED RICE, SOCIAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JAMKESMAS), POOR STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP (BKM/BSM) , SCHOOL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT FUND (BOS), CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER FOR HOUSEHOLDS (PKH).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 68
IN ADDITION TO THESE FIVE PROGRAMS, THE PNPM GENERASI CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER FOR COMMUNITY IS INCLUDED SINCE, ALTHOUGH IT IS CATEGORIZED AS PART OF CLUSTER 2 ON COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT, IN PRACTICE IT PROVIDED DIRECT PROVISION OF TRANSPORT INCENTIVES, BOOKS, UMBRELLAS, AND SHOES FOR POOR STUDENTS AS WELL AS TRANSPORT INCENTIVES FOR PREGNANT‐MOTHER TO VISIT THE MIDWIVES AT POSYANDU (FEBRIANY, TOYAMAH AND SODO, 2010).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 69
CURRENT GOVERNMENT SCHEME ON PROTECTING RICE CONSUMPTION, EDUCATION, AND HEALTH OF POOR HOUSEHOLDS
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 70
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (CLUSTER 2)
THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES TO INTEGRATE EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS SCATTERED IN DIFFERENT MINISTRIES AND INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE PROGRAM NASIONAL PEMBERDAYAAN MASRYARAKAT(PNPM) , A NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (NPCE) IN POOR DISTRICTS AND SUB‐DISTRICTS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 71
PREVIOUSLY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH PROGRAMS HAD RESULTED IN INEFFICIENCY AND INEFFECTIVENESS, THERE IS AN OVERLAPPING PROGRAMS IN VARIOUS SECTOR IN DIFFERENT REGIONS AS WELL AS EXCLUDED PROGRAMS IN OTHER SECTORS AND OTHER REGIONS.
IN 2006 A NEW POLICY WAS LAUNCHED TO ACCELERATE THE POVERTY ALLEVIATION EFFORTS AND TO EXTEND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE POOR BY CONSOLIDATING VARIOUS EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS UNDER THE PNPM (NPCE).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 72
AS MENTIONED, THE COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM IS NOT A NEW APPROACH IN THE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH IN INDONESIA. THERE WERE INPRES DESA TERTINGGAL (IDT) AND VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURES PROGRAM (P3DT) BEFORE CRISIS.
AFTER THE CRISIS, THIS KIND OF EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM HAS EXTENDED INTO VARIOUS PROGRAMS, SUCH AS EMPOWERMENT OF THE REGIONS TO OVERCOME THE IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS (PDM‐DKE), KECAMATAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (PPK), URBAN POVERTY PROGRAM (P2KP), FARMER AND FISHER'S INCREASING INCOME PROJECT (P4K), AND ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT FOR COASTAL COMMUNITY (PEMP).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 73
THE PNPM ITSELF ADOPTS THE SCHEME AND MECHANISM OF THE PPK. THE PPK ACTUALLY IS INITIATED BEFORE THE CRISIS AS A REVISION FROM IDT AND P3DT. THE FIRST PHASE OF PPK (PPK I) STARTED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1998/1999 UNTIL 2002, PPK II HAD BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN THE PERIOD 2003‐2006, WHILE PPK III HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN 2006‐2007.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 74
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AIMS AT CREATING AND ENHANCING COMMUNITY CAPACITY TO EFFECTIVELY OVERCOME VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS FACED BY THE COMMUNITIES.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 75
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
Building community capacity as social capital
Enhancing social entrepreneurship at community level through facilitators/community leaders
Providing economic capital through community block
grants
A BASE FOR NATION BUILDING
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 76
RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT/EMPOWERED COMMUNITIES
Strengthening bottom‐up planning and budgeting; Improving local government representation and
responsiveness; Improving social service delivery to the poor; Pro‐poor planning and budgeting
BLOCK GRANT TRANSFER TO
THE POOR
Market linkages Non-bank and
microfinance SADI (smallholder dvpt) Information technology Renewable energy
Social Protection Women’s participation Justice for the poor Helping marginal groups Budget transparency Community trust funds Sustainability
POVERTY REDUCTION THROUGH COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 77
TRAIN THE COMMUNITIES IN IDENTIFICATION, ANALYSIS AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO TACKLE THEIR POVERTY PROBLEMS
CREATE/EXPAND SMALL SCALE INFRASTRUCTURES AND COMMUNITY ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITIES.
INCREASE COMMUNITY CAPABILITY AND SELF‐HELP TO ACHIEVE BETTER STANDARD OF LIVING
MAIN ACTIVITIES
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 78
EMPOWERMENT PROCESS
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 79
WHY NPCE?
THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF POVERTY ERADICATION ACTIVITIES WITHIN MINISTRIES/INSTITUTIONS CREATING INEFFICIENCY AND OVERLAPPING ACTIVITIES, MECHANISMS, COMMUNITY'S INSTITUTIONS NEED HARMONIZATION.
IMPERFECT MARKET, ESPECIALLY IN MEETING PEOPLE’S NEEDS IN REMOTE AND ISOLATED AREAS.
DIFFICULTIES TO REACH THE POOR.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 80
HOW IT WORKS?
PNCE‐SECTORAL PROGRAMS • CONSIST OF SECTORAL
EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS• COMPONENTS:
• SECTORAL BLOCK GRANTS (RURAL ROADS, IRRIGATION, ETC)
• EXTENSION SERVICES
PNCE‐CORE PROGRAMS (IN 2008)• CONSIST OF:
• KDP: RURAL‐BASED COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
• UPP: URBAN‐BASED COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
• RISE: FAST‐GROWTH AREAS COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
• COMPONENTS:• COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANTS• FACILITATION, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TRAINING, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 81
PREVIOUS CONDITIONPROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRAM
OVERLAPPING WITH OTHER PROGRAMS
FIELD COORDINATION
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
FIELD COORDINATION
??
MISDELIVEREDPROGRAM
?
OVERNUMBER IN MEDIATORS
??
IGNORED
????
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 82
UNDER NPCE
Data collection and targeting on the poor accurately
All programs run similar norms/criteria, standard, process, procedure
and guidance Community through
empowering groups conduct NPCE, supported by SectoralEmpowering Packages (BLM,
facilitator, training etc)
All empowering supports rest under and managed by “participative community body” which is formed by public itself, in each village
The aid is directly delivered to the hand of community so that they could receive bigger and integrated aid
Program
ProgramProgram
Program
Program
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 83
MICRO‐ENTERPRISE EMPOWERMENT (CLUSTER 3)
THIS CLUSTER IS INTENDED TO EMPOWER THE POOR AND NEAR POOR WHO HAS AN OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS TO FULFILL THEIR BASIC NEEDS BUT THEY STILL NEED TO IMPROVE THE WELLBEING.
ALBEIT THE ROLE OF MICRO‐ENTERPRISE IN ERADICATING POVERTY HAS BEEN WIDELY KNOWN SINCE FEW DECADES AGO, THE CRISIS 1997/1998 SHOWED HOW SIGNIFICANT THE EXISTENCE OF MICRO‐ENTERPRISE HELPS THE POOR TO GET SURVIVED AND RECOVERED FROM THE CRISIS.
IT IS ALSO BEEN KNOWN THAT MOST POOR WORK IN INFORMAL SECTOR CONSISTS OF SMALL SCALE AND MICRO‐ENTERPRISE THAT PRODUCING OR DISTRIBUTING GOODS AND SERVICES.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 84
THESE ENTERPRISES ARE GENERALLY INDEPENDENT, LARGELY FAMILY OWNED, EMPLOY LOW LEVELS OF SKILLS AND TECHNOLOGY, AND ARE HIGHLY LABOR INTENSIVE. INDEED, MICRO‐ENTERPRISES PROVIDE INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT FOR SIGNIFICANT PROPORTIONS OF WORKERS IN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS (HARVIE, 2003).
FOR INDONESIA, MICRO‐ENTERPRISES NOW HAS REACHED 43 MILLION UNITS AND SHARED MORE THAN 50% OF NATIONAL GDP.
THE DATA ALSO SHOWS THAT ONE UNIT MICRO‐ENTERPRISE CAN ABSORB ON AVERAGE 1‐5 WORKERS (TKPK, 2009).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 85
HARVIE (2003) ALSO POINTS OUT THAT MICRO‐ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT‐COMPLEMENTED WITH PROPER MICRO‐FINANCE SUPPORT‐CAN PLAY PART IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF MAIN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES, NAMELY POVERTY REDUCTION, WOMEN EMPOWERMENT, EMPLOYMENT CREATION, AND PRIVATE SECTOR ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT.
THOUGH THESE FOUR OBJECTIVES CANNOT BE FULLY SEPARATED, WE WILL FOCUS ON THE ROLE OF MICRO‐ENTERPRISE EMPOWERMENT TO REACH THE OBJECTIVES ON POVERTY ALLEVIATION.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 86
THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVE IS TO INCREASE ACCESS OF THE POOR TO A CHEAP CAPITAL. FURTHERMORE, THE SNPK HAS ALSO ELABORATED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MICRO‐ENTERPRISES, MICRO FINANCE, AND MICRO CREDIT IN THE AGENDA OF POVERTY ALLEVIATION.
THIS PROGRAM IS A CONTINUATION AND INTEGRATION OF VARIOUS MICRO‐CREDIT PROGRAMS INITIATED BY PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 87
MICRO CREDIT (KUR) SCHEME
Source: TKPK, 2009GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 88
CLUSTER 3
THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES A SUBSIDIZED GUARANTEE SCHEME AT AMOUNT 70% IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT PAYS THE PREMIUM.
THE TARGET OF THIS MICROCREDIT PROGRAM IS THE MICRO‐ENTERPRISES AND COOPERATIVES WHICH HAVE FEASIBLE BUSINESS BUT ARE NOT BANKABLE BECAUSE OF LACK OF COLLATERAL.
MOREOVER, THIS MICROCREDIT ALSO PROVIDES ACCESS TO COMMUNITY GROUPS WHICH HAVE BEEN EMPOWERED IN THE PREVIOUS PROGRAM.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 89
982
11.475
4.733
17.229
1.856
3.828
6.469
8.771
11.216
14.578
17.467
0
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
14.000
16.000
18.000
20.000
2007 2008 2009 2010 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 Mei-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Agust-11 Sep-11 Okt-11 Nop-11 Des-11
Realisasi
1.6003.400
5.000
6.600
8.300
10.000
11.600
13.30015.000
16.60018.300
20.000
20.45922.236
24.40426.474
29.003
Target
(Rp Billion)
Realized
TARGET AND REALIZATION 2007‐ DECEMBER 2011
Source: Office of the Economic Coordinating Minister
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 90
SOCIAL PROTECTION COVERAGE
Social AssistanceSocial Security
•Pension.
•Old Age Security.
•Health.
•Work Injury.
•Death.
Social Security
•Pension.
•Old Age Security.
•Health.
•Work Injury.
•Death.• Scholarship.• Subsidized Rice.• CCT.*• Social Health Assistance• UCT (if needed)• Disabled.• Neglected Children.• Neglected Seniors.*
• Scholarship.• Subsidized Rice.• CCT.*• Social Health Assistance• UCT (if needed)• Disabled.• Neglected Children.• Neglected Seniors.*
NationalProgram onCommunity
Empowerment (PNPM)
NationalProgram onCommunity
Empowerment (PNPM)
•Credit Facility toSMEs
•Skilltraining for Indonesia’smigrantWorker
•Other Schemes
•Credit Facility toSMEs
•Skilltraining for Indonesia’smigrantWorker
•Other Schemes
Cluster 1Cluster 1
Cluster 2Cluster 2
Cluster 3Cluster 3
Q5Q5
Q4Q4
Q3Q3
Q2Q2
Q1Q1
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 91
* Pilot for the poorest households
Clusters of Poverty Alleviation ProgramsFourth Cluster
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 92
Access for the poor to buy very low price ‘basic needs’
‐ subsidized by government ‐
EXAMPLES:• Housing• Clean water services• Electricity• Vehicle for public transportation
Three Clusters Poverty Alleviation and Social Welfare Improvement
The fourth cluster is planned to start in 2012 (complement to the three clusters)
4th CLUSTER
93
GOALS: ALIGNMENT OF KEY GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES WITH MDGs
INDICATORS/TARGET (%) 2002ACTUAL
2009TARGETS
MDGs 2015 TARGETS
PovertyPopulation below US$ 1 a day 7.2 10.3Poverty head‐count ratio 18.2 8.2 7.5HealthUnder 5 mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 60 26 33Maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births) 307 226 105EducationNet enrollment rate in primary education 92.7 99.6 100
Gross and net enrollment rate at junior level 79.7 98 ‐Literacy rate of 15‐24 y.o 98.7 100Water & Sanitation% of population that has access to improved water 78 80Rural Development Agricultural sector growth 35
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 94
POVERTYPOVERTY
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 95
POOR ↔ NON POOR MOVEMENT
POVERTY STATUS UNIT POVERTY STATUS 2009
POOR NON‐POOR
POOR % 45.6 54.4
NON‐POOR % 7.6 92.4
POVERTY STATUS UNIT POVERTY STATUS 2010
POOR NON‐POOR
POOR % 46.4 53.6
NON‐POOR % 7.3 92.7
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 96
IMPORTANT NOTE: NON‐INCOME POVERTY IS A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM THAN
INCOME POVERTY. WHEN ONE ACKNOWLEDGES ALL DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN WELL‐BEING—ADEQUATE CONSUMPTION, REDUCED VULNERABILITY, EDUCATION, HEALTH AND ACCESS TO BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE—THEN ALMOST HALF OF ALL INDONESIANS WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE EXPERIENCED AT LEAST ONE TYPE OF POVERTY.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 97
98
POVERTY INCIDENCES USING DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT (%)
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 99
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 100
101
1998 CRISIS
THE EVER PRESENT PROBLEM OF INEQUALITY
WHILE, AS MENTIONED ABOVE INDONESIA’S DEVELOPMENT HAD A WIDESPREAD EFFECT ON THE POPULATION IN GENERAL AS INDICATED BY DECLINING POVERTY INCIDENCES AND VARIOUS SOCIAL INDICATORS, THERE WAS GROWING AWARENESS OF THE WIDENING GAP BETWEEN INCOME GROUPS, BETWEEN REGIONS, AND BETWEEN ETHNICS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 102
AT THE HEIGHT OF THE PRAISE FOR THE NEW ORDER ACHIEVEMENT, MANY INDONESIAN SCHOLARS AND CRITICS NOTED THE LACK OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE AS ONE OF THE MAJOR CRITICISM OF THE NEW ORDER.
THEY ARGUED THAT THE INDONESIAN ECONOMIC SUCCESS HAD BENEFITED THE URBAN AND INDUSTRIAL SECTOR WHILE (RELATIVELY) MARGINALIZING THE RURAL AND TRADITIONAL SECTORS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 103
DESPITE THE LIBERALIZATION MEASURES UNDERTAKEN IN RESPONSE TO THE WAVE OF GLOBALIZATION IN THE MID‐1980S, CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY CONTINUED TO BE DIRECT, THROUGH MONOPOLIES IN KEY INDUSTRIES (ENERGY, PAPER, STEEL, COMMODITIES, TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS), OR THROUGH THE CREDIT‐ALLOCATION POWERS OF FINANCIAL AGENCIES THAT WERE CONTROLLED BY OR PREJUDICED IN FAVOR OF PRIVILEGED AND POLITICALLY CONNECTED BUSINESS GROUPS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 104
PRIVATIZATION IN THE 1980s OFTEN MEANT THE TRANSFER OF INDUSTRIES FROM DIRECT STATE MONOPOLY TO HANDS THAT WERE ONLY NOMINALLY PRIVATE BUT REALLY HIGHLY DIVERSIFIED CONGLOMERATES WHO ENJOYED PROTECTION FROM OPEN COMPETITION AND GUARANTEED ACCESS TO STATE FUNDS AND FACILITIES.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 105
AT THE HEIGHT OF THE PRAISE FOR THE NEW ORDER ACHIEVEMENT, A SCHOLAR (PABOTINGGI) NOTED THE LACK OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE AS ONE OF THE MAJOR CRITICISM OF THE NEW ORDER. HE ARGUED THAT THEINDONESIAN ECONOMIC SUCCESS HAD BENEFITED THE URBAN AND INDUSTRIAL SECTOR WHILE (RELATIVELY)MARGINALIZING THE RURAL AND TRADITIONAL SECTORS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 106
HE ALSO BELIEVED THAT THE STATE OF THE INDONESIAN ECONOMY WAS FAR FROM BRIGHT. RAMPANT MONOPOLY, OLIGOPOLY, AND NEPOTISM INCREASED INEFFICIENCY AND HOBBLE THE ECONOMY. IN PARTICULAR, REPRESENTING MANY VIEWS AMONG OBSERVERS OF INDONESIAN AFFAIRS, HE SAW PROBLEM IN THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN THE INDIGENOUS AND NON‐INDIGENOUS ECONOMIC PLAYERS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 107
POLARIZATION OF THE INCOME DISTRIBUTION OCCURRED IN INDONESIA AS THE ECONOMY GREW AND THAT THIS CONTRIBUTED TO THE PERSISTENT FEELING IN INDONESIA THAT THE MANY ECONOMIC REFORMS LED NOT TO AN IMPROVEMENT IN GENERAL WELFARE, BUT ONLY AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE WELFARE OF THE RICH.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 108
ANOTHER ARGUMENT RAISED AGAINST THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF INDONESIA’S DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TURNS THE SPOTLIGHT ON THE ISSUE OF INCOME DISTRIBUTION. SOME CRITICS OF THE ECONOMIC REFORMS ARGUED THAT INCOME DISTRIBUTION WORSENED THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF RAPID GROWTH.
THERE IS IN FACT SOME EVIDENCE FOR THIS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 109
THE GINI COEFFICIENT, CALCULATED FROM EXPENDITURE DATA, SHOW THAT INCOME DISTRIBUTION IMPROVED WITH THE GINI‐COEFFICIENT FALLING FROM 0.35 IN 1970 TO 0.32 IN 1990.
BUT THEREAFTER THE DATA SUGGEST SOME WORSENING IN THE DISTRIBUTION WITH THE GINI COEFFICIENT RISING TO 0.34 IN 1993 AND TO 0.36 IN 1996, A RISE THAT OCCURRED IN BOTH RURAL AND URBAN AREAS ALTHOUGH THE INCREASE IN THE RURAL GINI‐COEFFICIENT WAS SMALL.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 110
HOWEVER, INDONESIA’S INCOME DISTRIBUTION COMPARES FAVORABLY TO THAT FOUND IN NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES.
OVER THE PERIOD 1993‐98, THE GINI INDEX WAS 36.5 FOR INDONESIA, 41.3 FOR THAILAND, 46.2 FOR THEPHILIPPINES AND 48.5 FOR MALAYSIA (WORLD BANK. WORLD DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS 2000).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 111
CENTRALIZED POWER AND UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH CREATED DISSATISFACTION AMONG PEOPLE IN THE OUTLYING REGIONS. WITH ECONOMIC GROWTH AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, JAVA AND SOME PROVINCES PROGRESSED FASTER THAN THE REST OF THE REGIONS, ESPECIALLY THE EASTERN PART THE COUNTRY.
REGIONAL DISPARITY
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 112
THESE PROVINCES, RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES, WERE RESENTFUL OF THE RETURNS THAT THEY RECEIVED FROM THEIR REGIONS’ CONTRIBUTION TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY. THE WIDENING DISPARITY BETWEEN REGIONS WAS ANOTHER SOURCE OF CRITICISM AGAINST THE NEW ORDER.
TO A SIGNIFICANT EXTENT THIS PROBLEM STILL PERSISTS TODAY, AND IS ONE FACTOR DRIVING THE SOVEREIGNTY CONFLICTS IN ACEH AND PAPUA.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 113
DURING THE NEW ORDER PERIOD VARIOUS MEASURES WERE UNDERTAKEN TO ADDRESS THE IMBALANCES.
THROUGH VARIOUS SCHEMES: GRANTS, MICRO CREDIT IS, SUBSIDIES, USING VARIOUS MECHANISMS THROUGH THE BANKING SECTOR AND THROUGH FISCAL POLICIES, THERE WERE ATTEMPTS TO RIGHT THE BALANCE.
THE PRESIDENTIAL INSTRUCTION (INPRES) MECHANISM WAS AMONG THE MOST EFFECTIVE MECHANISM PROVIDING GRANTS TO THE REGIONS AS WELL AS TO SECTORS SUCH EDUCATION AND HEALTH AND TARGETED TO THE POOR SUCH AS IDT.
ATTEMPTS AT EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 114
THOSE MEASURES WERE EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING POVERTY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT IN OVERCOMING THE IMBALANCES.
IN THE 1980’S THROUGH THE PROMOTION OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS CAMPAIGN, THE GOVERNMENT LAUNCHED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT LOCAL PRODUCTS. IN PARTICULAR COMING FROM SMALL AND MEDIUM INDUSTRIES (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 10/1980).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 115
THE PROGRAM WAS EXPANDED TO GIVE ASSISTANCE TO THE INDIGENOUS (PRIBUMI) BUSINESSMEN. THE RESULT WAS VISIBLE, NOW MANY OF THOSE INDIGENOUS BUSINESSMEN PROMOTED AT THAT TIME HAD RISEN TO BECOME BIG BUSINESSMEN AND EVEN CONGLOMERATES.
IN THE 1990’S THE INPRESESWERE ENLARGED BOTH IN COVERAGE AND AMOUNT TO ASSIST THE REGIONS WITH MORE GRANTS.
BUT ALL THOSE EFFORTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ARREST THE WIDENING GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR, BOTH INCOME GROUPS AS WELL AS REGIONS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 116
117
FOR THE COMMON PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO ONLY HAVE MEAGER INCOMES, PEOPLE IN THE RURAL AREAS AND IN THE OUTER REGIONS ESPECIALLY IN THE EASTERN PART OF INDONESIA, THERE IS THE PREVAILING SENSE OF INJUSTICE. ONE OF THE CRITICISMS DIRECTED AT THE GOVERNMENT IS THE WAY POVERTY IS MEASURED. INDONESIA'S POVERTY LINE CORRESPONDS TO PURCHASING POWER PARITY (PPP)US$ 1.25, WHILE THE WORLD BANK USES PPP US$ 2 AS THE PROPERTY THRESHOLD.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 118
IF ONE APPLIES THE WORLD BANK STANDARDS TO INDONESIA’S STATISTICS (US$2 PPP), THEN PEOPLE LIVING UNDER POVERTY LINE WILL BE 23.78%. IT CORRESPONDS TO 51 MILLION PEOPLE IN 1993 PPP US$. IF ONE APPLIES 2005 PPP US$, IT WILL BE 49.91% OR 120 MILLION IN 2011.
IN ITS 2006 REPORT, THE WORLD BANK UNDERLINES THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING BELOW US$2‐A‐DAY IN INDONESIA COMES CLOSE TO EQUALING ALL THOSE LIVING ON OR BELOW US$2‐A‐DAY IN ALL THE REST OF EAST ASIA OUTSIDE CHINA.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 119
IF PEOPLE LIVING ABOVE INDONESIA'S POVERTY LINE BUT BELLOW INTERNATIONAL (WORLD BANK) POVERTY LINE IS CATEGORIZED TO BE NEAR POOR, THEN THERE ARE 11.42% OR 27.3 MILLION NEAR‐POOR.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE POOR AND NEAR‐POOR IS ACTUALLY ONLY IN STATISTICS. IN REAL LIFE THERE IS LITTLE THAT DISTINGUISHES THE POOR AND THE NEAR‐POOR, SUGGESTING THAT POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGIES SHOULD FOCUS ON EMPOWERING AND IMPROVING THE WELFARE OF AT LEAST A QUARTER OF THE POPULATION (STILL USING THE 1993 PPP US$ INSTEAD OF 2005).
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 120
DISPARITY IS A REAL PROBLEM.
FIRST BETWEEN RURAL AND URBAN AREA. 15.72% OF RURAL POPULATION ARE POOR COMPARED TO 9.23% IN THE URBAN AREA. MOST OF THE POOR PEOPLE IN THE RURAL AREAS WORK IN AGRICULTURE. AND MANY WORK ON SMALL PLOTS OF LAND OR AS LABOR FARMERS.
REGIONALLY, THE HIGHEST POVERTY INCIDENCES ARE FOUND IN EASTERN PART OF INDONESIA, NOTABLY PAPUA’S 32%, WEST PAPUA’S 31.9%, MALUKU’S 23%, EAST NUSATENGGARA’S 21.2%, AND WEST NUSATENGGARA’S 19.7%. ACEH, A RICH PROVINCE BUT RAVAGED BY YEARS OF HOSTILITY, WAS SIXTH AT 19.6%.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 121
INDONESIA IS LOSING ITS INVESTMENT [DURING THE NEW ORDER] ON IRRIGATION BECAUSE IRRIGATED LAND HAS TURNED INTO CONCRETE OR ASPHALT. AND AS A RESULT, WE ARE NOW AGAIN BECOMING THE BIGGEST RICE IMPORTER AS WE WERE, BEFORE WE ATTAINED RICE SELF‐SUFFICIENCY BACK IN THE1980’S.
THE MEAGER LAND AVAILABLE FOR THE FARMERS TO TOIL IS SHRINKING. AS IT IS NOW 17.17% OF FARMER HOUSEHOLDS OWN LESS THAN 0.10 HA WHILE 39.24% OWN BETWEEN 0.10 TO 0.50 HA. THIS SITUATION CONTRIBUTES TO THE ABJECT POVERTY OF FARMING FAMILIES. AGRARIAN REFORM IS A MUST, AND URGENTLY NEEDED TO GET TO THE CORE OF RURAL POVERTY.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 122
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 123
WITH ALL THOSE PROGRAMS INDONESIA'S BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS TO SOCIAL AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES AS A PROPORTION OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) STILL REMAIN AMONG THE LOWEST IN SOUTHEAST ASIA.
OBVIOUSLY THE POLICY MAKERS FACE A CRITICAL TRADE‐OFF BETWEEN BALANCING THE STATE BUDGET AND MAKING NECESSARY SOCIAL INVESTMENTS (SUMARTO, SURYAHADI, AND BAZZI, 2008).
THERE IS INSUFFICIENT MEASURES TO CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR.
THE SITUATION IS ILLUSTRATED BY A REPUTABLE BUSINESS MAGAZINE, FORBES ASIA. IN ITS DECEMBER 2011 ISSUE, THE MAGAZINE PUBLISHED 40 WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN INDONESIA.
THE MINIMUM WEALTH TO GAIN ENTRY, MEANING THE “POOREST” AMONG THE RICH, IS $630 MILLION.
TOGETHER THEIR WEALTH IS $85 BILLION, AN INCREASE OF 18% FROM LAST YEAR, COMPARE TO INDONESIA’S GDP GROWTH WHICH WAS “ONLY” 6.5%. AND $85 BILLION IS EQUAL TO 10% OF INDONESIA’S GDP.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 124
THOSE ARE THE VERY FEW PEOPLE THAT GET THEIR RICHES FROM INDONESIA’S LAND, MINERALS, TREES AND PLANTATIONS, WATER, AND PEOPLE’S SAVINGS. IN THE MEANTIME, INDONESIA HAS 57.2 MILLION POOR AND NEAR‐POOR PEOPLE, AND TWICE THAT NUMBER IF ONE APPLIES 2005 US$ PPP. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE SUBSIDY EVEN FOR THE VERY BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 125
IN STATISTICAL TERM, THE DISPARITY SHOWN BY THE Q5/Q1 RATIO (THE HIGHEST/LOWEST QUINTILE RATIO)WHICH ACCORDING TO OUR STATISTICAL BUREAU [BPS] IN 2010 WAS 6.28, WHILE IN 2006 IT WAS 4.81 INDICATING THAT THE GAP IS WIDENING IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 126
AVERAGE EXPENDITURES BY DECIL
Growing disparity: lower growth in lower income group
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 127
RISING GINI RATIO
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 128
129
UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY
SOURCE: BPS
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 130
EMPLOYMENT 1988‐2011
5,78%
7,24%
6.46%
6,50% 7,82%
4,70%
‐13,13%
0,79%
4,92%3,64%
4,78% 5,50% 6,06%
4,30%
6,10%6,50%
‐14%
‐11%
‐8%
‐5%
‐2%
1%
4%
7%
‐14,0
‐11,0
‐8,0
‐5,0
‐2,0
1,0
4,0
7,019
88
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Million
Changes in labor forceChanges in employmentEconomic growth
BETWEEN 2002‐2005, NEW ENTRANTS TO THE LABOUR FORCE WAS LARGER THAN EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY.
2006‐2010: EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY WAS LARGER THAN NEW ENTRANTS TO THE LABOUR FORCE, REDUCING UNEMPLOYMENT.
IN 2011 THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN LABOUR FORCE OF 800 THOUSANDS, WHILE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ROSE BY1.46 MILLION.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 131
RISE IN FORMAL EMPLOYMENT
2010‐2011, THERE WAS AN INCREASED IN FORMAL EMPLOYMENT BY 5.71 MILLION, RISING FROM 33.07% TO 37.83%
THE NUMBER OF INFORMAL WORKER DECLINED BY 4.24 MILLION, OR FROM 66.93% TO 62.17%.
30,73%33,07%
37,83%
69,27%66,93%
62,17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
2005 2010 2011
Persentase
Jumlah pekerja
Formal (dalam juta) Informal (dalam juta)
% Formal % Informal
MILIIO
N OF WORK
ERS
PERC
ENTA
GE
FORMAL (MILLION) INFORMAL (MILLION)
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 132
OPEN UNEMPLOYMENT AND UNDER‐EMPLOYMENT (2005 ‐ 2010)
2005 2010OPEN EMPLOYMENT (NOT WORKING) 11,9 MILLION (11,2%) 8,3 MILLION (7.1%)
UNDER‐EMPLOYMENT (WORKING LESS THAN 35 HOURS/WEEK) 28,9 MILLION (30,8%) 33,3 MILLION (30.7%)
27
28,3
29,6
30,9
32,2
33,5
UNDER
‐EMPLOYM
ENT (M
ILLION)
7
8
9
10
11
12
OPE
N EMPLOYM
ENT (M
ILLION)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
27,7
28,929,2
27,9
28,9 29,1
30,431,1
31,6
33,3
8,0
9,1
9,910,3
11,9
10,9
10,09,4
9,08,3
UNDER‐EMPLOYMENT OPEN EMPLOYMENT
OPEN UNEMPLOYMENT AND UNDER2001 ‐ 2010
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 133
UNEMPLOYMENT BY AGE
‐
500.000
1.000.000
1.500.000
2.000.000
2.500.000
3.000.000
3.500.000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 *)
UNEM
PLOYED
15 ‐ 19
20 ‐ 24
25 ‐ 29
30 ‐ 34
35 ‐ 39
40 ‐ 44
45 ‐ 49
50 ‐ 54
55 +
31%29%
134
AGE 15‐24 YEARS
%
2007 (Ø) 35
2008 (Ø) 29
2009 (Ø) 28
2010 (Ø) 29
Ø = AVERAGE FEBRUARY AND AUGUST
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 134
IMBALANCE ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE
POOR HOUSEHOLD 135
Mining (11,15%)
Agriculture (15,34%)
Transportation (6,50%)
Finance (7,21%)
Services (10,19%)
Manufacturing (24,82%)
Trading (13,72%)
Construction(10,29%)
Electricity(0,78%)
ECONOMIC STRUCTURE2010
Agriculture (38,17%)Transportation (5,02%)Finance (1,85%)
Social Services (15,30%)
Mining (1,22%)
Manufacturing (12,31%)
Trading (20,88%)
Construction (5,02%)Electricity, gas, water (0,23%)
EMPLOYMENT STRUCTUREFebruary 2011
Unemployed7%
Agriculture72%
Manufacturing/Industry
6%
Others15%
3,644,50 4,78 5,03 5,69 5,50
6,35 6,014,58
6,10
4,89 5,28
6,30 7,13
7,81 7,43
8,96 8,55
6,02
8,19
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
8,00
9,00
10,00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
PDB Sektor non tradable
2.64
3.863.51 3.23 3.72 3.47
Sektor tradable
Sektor tradable: (1) Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Forest and Fishery, (2) Mining (3) Manufacturing Industry. Sektor non‐tradable: 1. Electricity, Gas, Clean Water, 2. Construction, Trading, Hotel, and Restaurant, 3. Transportation and Communication, 4.Finance, Real Estate and Corporate Service, 5. Social Services.
3.81 3.853.05
3.85
TRADABLES AND NON TRADABLES IN GDP 2001‐2010 (%)
Non TradableGDP Tradable
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 136
REGIONAL DISPARITY
Poverty incidence by provice (2011)
3.7 4.25.3 5.8 6.3 6.6 6.8 7.4
8.5 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.0 9.210.310.7
11.3
13.914.214.214.615.815.816.1
16.917.518.819.6
19.721.2
23.0
31.9 32.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35Jakarta
Bali
Kalse
lBabel
Banten
Kalteng
Kaltim
Kepp
riRiau
Sulut
Kalbar
Jambi
Sumbar
Malut
Sulse
lJabar
Sumut
Sulbar
Jatim
Sumsel
Sultra
Jateng
Sulteng
Yogya
Lampu
ngBengkulu
Goron
talo
Aceh
NTB NTT
Maluku
P.Barat
Papu
a
Jakarta = 3,75%, Papua = 31,98%, Indonesia = 12.49%
12.5
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 137
WESTERN VS EASTERN INDONESIA
% RGDP 1980 1990 2000 2010
WI 80 84 83 82
EI 20 16 17 18
Western Indonesia: Aceh, Sumut, Sumbar, Riau, Kepri, Jambi, Sumsel, Babel, Bengkulu, Lampung, DKI, Jabar, Banten, Jateng, DIY, Jatim, BaliEastern Indonesia: Kalbar, Kalteng, Kalsel, Kaltim, Sulut, Gorontalo, Sulteng, Sulsel, Sultra, Sulbar, NTB, NTT, Maluku, Malut, Papua, Papua Barat
% Population 1980 1990 2000 2010
WI 83 82 81 80
EI 17 18 19 20
GiniCoefficient 2007 2008 2009 2010
WI 0.33 0.31 0.32 0.35
EI 0.34 0.33 0.34 0.38
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 138
139
THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX IS A SUMMARY MEASURE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. IT MEASURES THE AVERAGE ACHIEVEMENTS IN A COUNTRY IN THREE BASIC DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT:
1. A LONG AND HEALTHY LIFE, AS MEASURED CY LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH.
2. KNOWLEDGE, AS MEASURED BY THE ADULT (OVER 25) POPULATION MEANS YEARS OF SCHOOLS AND EXPECTED YEARS OF SCHOOLING.
3. A DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING, AS MEASURED BY GDP PERCAPITA IN PURCHASING POWER PARITY (PPP) TERMS IN US DOLLAR.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 140
COUNTRY2010
LEVEL INDEXSINGAPORE 27 0.846BRUNEI 37 0.805
MALAYSIA 57 0.774
THAILAND 92 0.654
PHILLIPINES 97 0.638
INDONESIA 108 0.600
VIET NAM 113 0.572
CAMBODIA 124 0.490
MYANMAR 132 0.451
169
HDI ASEAN 2010
In 2009 Indonesia’s HDI was 111Source: HDR 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations (UNDP)
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 141
HDI BY COMPONENTS(Selected Countries, 2011)
LIFE EXPECTANCY MEANS YEARS OF SCHOOLING
EXPECTED YEARS OF SCHOOLING
Philippines 68.7 8.9 11.9
China 73.5 7.5 11.6
Thailand 74.1 6.6 12.3
Malaysia 74.2 9.5 12.6
Indonesia 69.4 5.8 13.2
Viet Nam 75.2 5.5 10.4
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 142
Source: HDR 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations (UNDP)
HDI BY PROVINCE, 2004 ‐ 2010
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 143
*Using BPS incidesSource: BPS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX INDONESIA, 1980‐2011
Source: Human Development Report – UNDP, 2011
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 144
INDONESIA’S HDI TRENDS(By Components)
Based on consistent time series data, new component indicators and methodologySource: Human Development Report – UNDP, 2011
LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH
EXPECTED YEARS OF SCHOOLING
MEANS YEARS OF
SCHOOLING
GNI PER CAPITA
(2005 PPP$)
HDI VALUE
1980 57.6 8.7 3.1 1.318 0.423
1985 60.0 10.1 3.5 1.539 0.460
1990 62.1 10.4 3.3 2.007 0.481
1995 64.0 10.5 4.2 2.751 0.527
2000 65.7 11.1 4.8 2.478 0.543
2005 67.1 11.8 5.3 2.840 0.572
2010 68.9 13.2 5.8 3.644 0.613
2011 69.4 13.2 5.8 3.716 0.617
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 145
146
1998 CRISIS
IN MOST DEVELOPING COUNTRIES POOR PEOPLE HAVE TROUBLE GETTING PROMPT, EFFICIENT SERVICE FROM THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.
TO CHANGE THIS, THE FIRST STEP IS BUILDING THE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.
OFFICIALS NEED TRACTABLE REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS, WITH PROPER PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES AND MECHANISMS TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS TO CLIENTS, INCLUDING POUR PEOPLE.
POOR ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN ENGENDERS INEFFICIENCY AND CORRUPTION, TYPICALLY HURTING POOR PEOPLE THE MOST.
(World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty, World Bank)
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 147
DURING THE PAST TWO DECADES, AS SOCIETIES AND THEIR GOVERNMENTS HAVE BECOME AWARE OF THE NEED OF PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS TO FOCUS PUBLIC ACTION AND PROGRAMS ON SOCIAL PRIORITIES AND INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF THE STATE TO REDUCE POVERTY.
PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM AND MODERNIZATION HAVE GREAT POTENTIAL TO REDUCE POVERTY, IF THEY ARE AT THE CORE OF A DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY THAT ESTABLISHES CLEAR PRIORITIES FOR PUBLIC ACTION.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 148
THE FUNCTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR NEEDS TO BE RATIONALIZED TO IMPROVE RESOURCE ALLOCATION FOR PROGRAMS THAT ARE SOCIAL PRIORITIES AND HAVE GREATER CAPACITY TO REDUCE POVERTY.
MOST IMPORTANT IS TO STREAMLINE AND "RIGHTSIZE" PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE ENTITIES AND PRIVATIZE PUBLIC ENTERPRISES AND OTHER OPERATIONAL PUBLIC PROGRAMS.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 149
BEYOND RATIONALIZING THE STRUCTURE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR THERE IS A NEED TO IMPROVE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS TO MAKE PUBLIC PROGRAMS MORE EFFICIENT AND ACCOUNTABLE.
INVOLVING CIVIL SOCIETY IN PLANNING, MONITORING, AND EVALUATING PUBLIC PROGRAMS AND POLICIES IS ALSO CRUCIAL TO ENSURE STEADY PROGRESS TOWARD A FULLY RESPONSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE STATE.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 150
LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT OF THE EXECUTIVE, CARRIED OUT ACCORDING TO TRANSPARENT PROCEDURES, IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF MONITORING AND IMPROVING PERFORMANCE. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS ALSO NEED TO BE SUPPORTED AND ACTIVELY MONITORED BY POLITICAL LEADERS.
BUT SOMETIMES THIS PROCESS BECOMES SUBJECT TO POLITICAL PARTY’S INTEREST OR THE PERSONAL GOALS OR WHIMS OF INDIVIDUAL POLITICIAN, RESULTING IN EXCESSIVE POLITICAL INTERFERENCE. THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC SERVICE IS REDUCED WHEN PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE MORE TO THEIR HIERARCHICAL SUPERIORS THAN TO THE PEOPLE 'THEY SERVE.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 151
152
1998 CRISIS
POVERTY IN INDONESIA HAS THREE SALIENT FEATURES. FIRST, MANY HOUSEHOLDS ARE CLUSTERED AROUND THE NATIONAL
INCOME POVERTY LINE OF ABOUT PPP US$1.25‐A‐DAY, MAKING EVEN MANY OF THE NON‐POOR VULNERABLE TO POVERTY.
SECOND, THE INCOME POVERTY MEASURE DOES NOT CAPTURE THE TRUE EXTENT OF POVERTY IN INDONESIA; MANY WHO MAY NOT BE ‘INCOME POOR’ COULD BE CLASSIFIED AS POOR ON THE BASIS OF THEIR LACK OF ACCESS TO BASIC SERVICES AND POOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES.
THIRD, GIVEN THE VAST SIZE OF AND VARYING CONDITIONS IN THE INDONESIAN ARCHIPELAGO, REGIONAL DISPARITIES ARE A FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF POVERTY IN THE COUNTRY.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 153
ON POVERTY
THREE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE POVERTY REDUCTION. FIRST, ALL PROGRAMS SHOULD INTEGRATE EQUITY OBJECTIVES. IT
WAS A CORRECTION FOR THE PAST APPROACH EMPHASIZING ONLY EFFICIENCY.
SECOND, THE POOR, WHO ARE THE FOCUS OF THE PROGRAMS, MUST PARTICIPATE FULLY IN THEIR DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND MONITORING.
THIRD, MORE SPECIFICALLY, THEY MUST BE EMPOWERED TO RUN THE PROGRAMS THEMSELVES.
THE KEY IS EMPOWERMENT, NOT CHARITY.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 154
INCOME DISPARITY IS A PROBLEM IN INDONESIA AS IT IS IN MOST OF THE DEVELOPING WORLD.
DESPITE THE POSITIVE TRENDS IN POVERTY REDUCTION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, THE GAP IS NOT NARROWING, IT IS WIDENING.
GROWTH IS ESSENTIAL, THROUGH GROWTH NEW JOBS WILL BE CREATED, THE COUNTRY’S DEBT WOULD BE BETTER SERVICED, MACROECONOMIC STABILITY WOULD BE STRENGTHENED AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, POVERTY WOULD DECLINE.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 155
ON EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
BUT GROWTH IS NOT AN END IN ITSELF. IT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT GROWTH WILL NOT RESULT IN INCREASES IN INEQUALITY, AS OFTEN OCCURS IN MOST DEVELOPING ECONOMIES INCLUDING IN INDONESIA. HIGH GROWTH IS MOST DESIRABLE, BUT IT ALSO HAS TO BE BALANCED AND INCLUSIVE, AND ALSO SUSTAINABLE.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 156
THE PATTERN OF GROWTH IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE RATE GROWTH. THE RIGHT KIND OF GROWTH IS NOT THE VERTICAL FLOWS ALLOWING FOR THE TRICKLE DOWN OF BENEFIT TO THE POOR, BUT THE KIND THAT ALLOWS HORIZONTAL FLOWS, BROADLY BASED, EMPLOYMENT INTENSIVE AND NOT COMPARTMENTALIZED (KENDRA AND SILK, 1995 AND RANIS, 1995)
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT OF GROWTH TO EQUILIZE BENEFIT OF DEVELOPMENT. IT MAY TRICKLE DOWN BUT ONLY IN TRICKLES, THE MAIN STREAM GOES INTO OTHER DIRECTION, THE HAVES.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 157
INDONESIA’S RELATIVELY HIGH GROWTH SO FAR HAS BEEN AT THE EXPENSE OF ITS ENVIRONMENT. ITS FOREST HAS BEEN OVER EXPLOITED, RIVERS POLLUTED, CITIES LITTERED WITH WASTE.
THE SAD STORY OFTEN TOLD IN INDONESIA ABOUT ITS WEATHER WHEN IT IS DRY THERE IS SHORTAGE OF WATER WHICH AFFECTS THE CROPS. BUT WHEN IT IS WET THE RICE FIELDS AND THE VILLAGES ARE FLOODED. SO THE CARE OF ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE SPELLED IN THE SAME BREATH AS THE NEED FOR GROWTH.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 158
PUTTING A CURB ON INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE,INVENTIVENESS AND COMPETITIVENESS, IS NOT AN OPTION. ON THE CONTRARY IT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ENCOURAGED.
BUT THE WEALTH OF THE INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE SHARED BY OTHERS, IN A FAIR AND JUST WAY.
NOT ONLY FOR THE RICH TO GET RICHER, BUT ALSO TO GET THEIR BUSINESS SUCCESSES DIRECTLY BENEFIT THE PEOPLE.
SOME COUNTRIES, INCLUDING INDONESIA ADOPTED. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR). IT IS FINE BUT NOT ENOUGH.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 159
ONE OPTION IS PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX SYSTEM. TAX SYSTEM NOW FAVOURS THE RICH. INDONESIA SHOULD ADOPT PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, A RISING TAX RATES AS INCOME RISES. IT CAN GO TO AS HIGH AS 50% FOR THE HIGHEST INCOME BRACKET, AND FOR INHERITANCE.
JAPAN, SCANDINAVIAN AND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAVE DOING SO FOR DECADES.
IF THE RICH WANT TO AVOID THE HIGH INCOME TAX, THEY CAN ALWAYS REINVEST AGAIN, SO THE TAXABLE INCOMES WILL NOT GROW THAT MUCH AND BY DOING SO THEY WILL CREATE MORE JOBS, AND STILL CONTINUE TO BECOME RICHER.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 160
THERE IS A NEED TO RECALIBERATE INDONESIA’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY.
MORE ACTIVE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE IDEALS OF ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE EMBODIED IN THE CONSTITUTION, ARE ACHIEVABLE.
MORE ACTIVE REDISTRIBUTION EFFORT FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS A MUST.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 161
IN CONCLUSION, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BECOME A SPECTATOR IN THE ECONOMIC GAME, BELIEVING THAT THE LESS GOVERNMENT IS THE BETTER GOVERNMENT AND THE LEAST GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST GOVERNMENT.
THE GOVERNMENT NOT ONLY HAS TO SET THE RULES OF THE GAME AND MAKE SURE THE RULES ARE FOLLOWED, BUT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE PART IN THE GAME AS A PACE MAKER.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND SMART INTERVENTION ON THE PART OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ARE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN POVERTY ERADICATION AND EQUITABLE DEVELOMENT.
GRIPS_2012 www.ginandjar.com 162
どうもありがとうございましたどうもありがとうございました