BIES Interactive

Authors: Katy Cornwell and Titik Anas

The arrival of a new year has brought with it an increased focus on Indonesia’s 2014 legislative and presidential elections. While voters may be disillusioned with established political figures, a strong presidential candidate has yet to emerge. Many voters appear to yearn for an experienced and uncorrupt leader with new and proactive policies, which is why Jakarta’s new governor, Joko Widodo, is being viewed as a potential candidate.

The Constitutional Court has made two major, controversial rulings in recent months: the first concerned the upstream oil and gas regulator BPMigas, the second the international-standard pilot-project schools (Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional, RSBIs). The Court ruled both institutions unconstitutional and called for their immediate disbandment.

In 2012, Indonesia’s year-on-year economic growth slowed slightly, to a still healthy 6.2%, owing to continued weak global demand for its exports and a contraction in government expenditure. In contrast, foreign direct investment and portfolio investment were particularly strong, with respective increases of 25% and more than 142%. At 4.3%, inflation for the 2012 calendar year still remains well within the government’s and Bank Indonesia’s expectations. However, inflation expectations are high for 2013, owing to likely reforms to energy subsidies; the expected effect of bad weather on food prices; and increases in minimum wages, which attracted attention in 2012 because of their magnitude and their apparent disparity among regions. Concerns also exist that these rises in minimum wages will hamper Indonesia’s international competitiveness and could discourage investment in labour-intensive industries.

Minimum-wage policy is also controversial because of doubts about its relevance to the genuinely poor sections of society – those in informal employment or with primarily subsistence income, who constitute a large proportion of the population. Indonesia has experienced a steady increase in income inequality in the last decade, indicating that the benefits of strong economic growth have not been shared equally. Potential reasons for this increasing inequality relate to labour-market segmentation amid a growing middle class, weak institutional foundations, and commodity-driven growth.

It appeared in 2012 that Indonesia has also been one of the world’s poorest performers in HIV/AIDS prevention in recent years. While prevalence rates are low, the number of new HIV infections in 2011 was more than four times that of any other South Asian or Southeast Asian country, and the infection rate among the working-age population has risen by more than 25% since 2001. Infection rates among high-risk groups are also alarmingly high compared with those of other Southeast Asian countries. Targeted prevention, treatment and support programs among these groups are paramount.

Author: Vikram Nehru

Since the global financial crisis of 2008, the world has been riveted by China’s rapid growth and its contribution to the global recovery. But less attention has been paid to India and Indonesia – Asia’s two other giants – which also displayed resilience during the crisis and show promise of sustaining this performance. Also remarkable are their geographical, historical and cultural proximity; notwithstanding their differences, these two countries are alike in many respects and face similar challenges, as reflected in their emerging policy priorities. China’s large size and rapid growth may have absorbed the attention of Indian and Indonesian policy makers, but this paper argues that a comparative approach to the issues that both countries face can yield interesting insights and provide potential solutions to their development challenges.

Authors: Teguh Dartanto and Nurkholis

We use the ‘spell’ approach to identifying poverty and apply an ordered logit model to examine the determinants of poverty dynamics in Indonesia, categorising households as poor, transient poor (–), transient poor (+) or non-poor. Observing the National Socio-Economic Survey (Susenas) balanced-panel data sets of 2005 and 2007, we found that 28% of poor households are classified as chronically poor (that is, remaining poor in two periods) while 7% of non-poor households are vulnerable to being transient poor (–). Our estimations confirmed that the determinants of poverty dynamics in Indonesia are educational attainment, the number of household members, physical assets, employment status, health shocks, the microcredit program, access to electricity, and changes in employment sector, employment status and the number of household members. We also found that households in Java–Bali are more vulnerable to negative shocks than those outside Java–Bali.

Authors: Susan Olivia and John Gibson

To measure real income growth over time, a price index is needed to adjust for changes in the cost of living. The consumer price index (CPI) is often used for this task; but several country studies show that it is a biased measure of such changes, leading to potentially inaccurate estimates of the rate of real income growth. This paper calculates CPI bias for urban Indonesia by estimating food Engel curves for households with the same level of CPI-deflated incomes at four different points in time between 1993 and 2008. The results suggest that CPI bias was negative during the 1997–98 crisis but has been positive since 2000. From 1993 to 2008, CPI bias averaged 4% annually, equivalent to almost one-third of the measured inflation rate.

Authors: Kunta Nugraha and Phil Lewis

Indonesia has experienced significant economic growth in recent years (on average, 5% in 2000–08), but many people are still living in poverty. Income inequality, as measured by the official Gini coefficient, has also increased. This paper evaluates household income and income inequality in Indonesia, assessing both market and non-market income to reach a more accurate measure of how actual income affects living standards. We find that if household income considers non-market income, income distribution is significantly more balanced, the coefficient of income inequality falls from 0.41 to 0.21 and the income share of the population’s poorest deciles increases more than fivefold. The results suggest that market income alone is a misleading measure of income distribution in Indonesia.

Read the rest of this article at Taylor & Francis Online (full article available only to subscribers).

Authors: Paul J. Burke & Budy P. Resosudarmo

Author: Sandra Hamid

Authors: Emmanuel Skoufias, Roy S. Katayama & B. Essama-Nssah

Authors: Cut Dian R.D. Agustina, Wolfgang Fengler & Günther G. Schulze

Authors: Anu Rammohan & Elisabetta Magnani