How Robust Is Indonesia’s Poverty Profile? Adjusting for Differences in Needs

Poverty profiles showing how the magnitude of poverty differs across subgroups of a population are important tools in designing effective social protection programs. Using data from the March 2013 round of the National Socio-economic Survey (Susenas) and the fourth round of the Indonesia Family Life Survey (2007–8), I explore the sensitivity of Indonesia’s poverty profile to different assumptions about the relative costs of individuals, taking into account differences in age, gender, body weight, and physical activity levels. I adopt parameter estimates for my simulation exercises from various Indonesia-specific publications, as well as from a joint intergovernmental consultation on nutrition. I compare my estimates with the per capita scale used by Statistics Indonesia (BPS), the central statistics agency. My findings suggest that the age–poverty relationship in Indonesia is sensitive to assumptions about the relative costs of individuals, with all alternative scales showing substantially lower poverty incidence among young children than by BPS’s estimate. Overall, however, I find that Indonesia’s poverty profile is relatively robust.     

Revisiting the Impact of Consumption Growth and Inequality on Poverty in Indonesia during Decentralisation

This article analyses the consumption growth elasticity and inequality elasticity of poverty in Indonesia, with a particular focus on the decentralisation period. Using provincial panel data, we show that the effectiveness of growth in alleviating poverty across provinces was greater during decentralisation—that is, between 2002 and 2010—than at any other point since 1984. The growth elasticity of poverty since 2002 is estimated to have been –2.46, which means that a 10% increase in average consumption per capita would have reduced the poverty rate by almost 25%. However, we also find that rising income inequality negated a quarter to a third of the 5.7-percentage-point reduction in the headcount poverty rate. This increasing inequality has contributed to a lower level of pro-poor growth than that maintained in Indonesia before decentralisation.     

Estimating the Impact of Covid-19 on Poverty in Indonesia

Covid-19 has infected and will continue to infect millions of people all over the world. The economic impact is predicted to be large and millions of people will be pushed into poverty. In this paper, we estimate the impact of Covid-19 on poverty in Indonesia. The economic impact is expected to be severe, reducing the economic growth rate projected for 2020 from about 5% to between 4.2% and –3.5%. We find that under the best-case scenario, the poverty rate will increase from 9.2% in September 2019 to 9.7% by the end of 2020, pushing 1.3 million more people into poverty. Under the worst-case scenario, the poverty rate will increase to 16.6%, close to the level seen in 2004 when the poverty rate was 16.7%. This means that 19.7 million more people will become poor, substantially reversing Indonesia’s progress in reducing poverty. The implication is that Indonesia will need to expand its social protection programs to assist the new poor as well as the existing poor.     

The determinants of poverty dynamics in Indonesia: evidence from panel data

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.     

Economic growth and poverty reduction in Indonesia before and after the asian financial crisis

This paper assesses the relationship between poverty reduction and economic growth in Indonesia before and after the Asian financial crisis. The annual rate of poverty reduction slowed significantly in the post-crisis period. However, the trend in the growth elasticity of poverty indicates that the power of each percentage point of economic growth to reduce poverty did not change much between the two periods. In both, service sector growth made the largest contribution to poverty reduction in both rural and urban areas. Industrial sector growth largely became irrelevant for poverty reduction in the post-crisis period even though the sector contributed the second-largest share of GDP. Agricultural sector growth, mean-while, remained important, but in rural areas only. The findings suggest the need to formulate an effective strategy to promote sectoral growth in order to speed up the pace of poverty reduction.     

Assessing Poverty Trends in Indonesia by International Poverty Lines

Indonesia has made well-documented and drastic progress in raising average incomes and reducing poverty. This article adds to the literature by providing a complementary perspective of poverty between 1984 and 2011. We discuss the evolution of poverty in Indonesia using international poverty lines—$1.25 per person per day (in 2005 purchasing power parity dollars) and $2.00 per day, and we add $10.00 per day. We generate estimates of poverty since 1984 and make projections based on various trends in growth and inequality. We find that Indonesia has the potential to become a high-income country by around 2025 and end $1.25-per-day and $2.00-perday poverty by 2030, but this will require strong economic growth and favourable changes in distribution. Looking ahead, the end of poverty in Indonesia may mean that a large proportion of the population will remain vulnerable to poverty for some time to come, suggesting that public policy priorities will need to balance insurance and risk-management mechanisms with more ‘traditional’ poverty policy.     

Revisiting growth and poverty reduction in Indonesia: what do subnational data show?

Indonesia has an impressive record of economic growth and poverty reduction over the past two decades. The growth-poverty nexus appears strong at the aggregate level. However, newly constructed panel data on the country's 285 districts reveal huge differences in poverty change, subnational economic growth and local attributes across the country. The results of econometric analysis show that growth is not the only factor to affect the rate of poverty change; other factors also directly influence the welfare of the poor, as well as having an indirect effect through their impact on growth itself. Among the critical ones are infrastructure, human capital, agricultural price incentives and access to technology. While fostering economic growth is crucial, a more complete poverty reduction strategy should take these relevant factors into account. In the context of ecentralisation, subnational analysis can be an instructive approach to examining local governance in relation to growth and poverty reduction.     

Poverty and Inequality in The Soeharto Era: An Assessment

This paper surveys the evidence on trends in poverty and inequality during the years of Soeharto's presidency. That Indonesia saw a decline in the incidence of poverty, and improvements in other welfare indicators such as infant mortality rates and literacy rates over these years, seems indisputable. Comparative studies show that by the latter part of the 1980s, the headcount measure of poverty in Indonesia was below that in the Philippines although above that in Malaysia and Thailand. But relative poverty has declined more slowly, and indeed increased in some urban areas between 1987 and 1996. The paper also examines evidence on the determinants of rural poverty in Indonesia in 1993, and suggests that rural development programs targeted to the specific needs of poor people in poor areas will be essential if rural poverty is to be further reduced in future years.     

Good Care Practices Can Mitigate the Negative Effects of Poverty and Low Maternal Schooling on Children’s Nutritional Status: Evidence from Accra

This study uses data from a representative survey of households with preschoolers in Accra, Ghana to: (a) examine the importance of care practices for children’s height-for-age Z-scores (HAZ); and (b) identify subgroups of children for whom good maternal care practices may be particularly important. Good caregiving practices related to child feeding and use of preventive health services were a strong determinant of children’s HAZ, specially among children from the two lower income terciles and children whose mothers had less than secondary schooling. In this population, good care practices could compensate for the negative effects of poverty and low maternal schooling on children’s HAZ. Thus, effective targeting of specific education messages to improve child feeding practices and use of preventive health care could have a major impact on reducing childhood malnutrition in Accra.     

Does Economic Growth Really Benefit the Poor? Income Distribution Dynamics and Pro-poor Growth in Indonesia

We explore the nexus between poverty, inequality, and economic growth in Indonesia between 2002 and 2012, using several pro-poor growth concepts and indices to determine whether growth in this period benefited the poor. Our regression-based decompositions of poverty into growth and redistribution components suggest that around 40% of inequality in total household expenditure in Indonesia was due to variations in expenditure by education characteristics that persisted after controlling for other factors. We find that economic growth in this period benefited households at the top of the expenditure distribution, and that a ‘trickle down’ effect saw the poor receive proportionately fewer benefits than the non-poor. If reducing poverty is one of the Indonesian government's principal objectives, then policies designed to spur growth must take into account the possible impacts of growth on inequality.     

Counting The Poor in Indonesia∗

A confusing aspect of the now rather large literature on trends in poverty in Indonesia in the New Order period is that virtually every study has used a different poverty line concept; indeed, even the World Bank appears to have used different poverty lines in different published studies and unpublished reports Unlike the government of Malaysia, for example, the Indonesian government has not chosen to promulgate a poverty line in its official planning documents, and successive Five Year Development Plans have had very little to say about poverty trends. However, the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) has in recent years put forward its own poverty line concept which has been used to estimate numbers in poverty in urban and rural areas, and these estimates have been published for some years in the annual Indikator Kesejahteraan Rakyat [Welfare Indicators]. Although the BPS estimates are now widely quoted in Indonesia, they have not won universal acceptance, and other authors continue to use other poverty line concepts and thus derive different conclusions regarding the extent of poverty in Indonesia, the regional distribution of the poor and trends in poverty over time.

One purpose of this paper is to review critically these different poverty concepts and to explain why they have produced different results. A second aim is to compare the Indonesian poverty line estimates with those from neighbouring ASEAN countries. Finally, some suggestions will be made on possible new initiatives in poverty research in Indonesia.

     

Managing Food Price Instability in Asia: A Macro Food Security Perspective*

The present paper describes the benefits and costs, in qualitative terms, of managing food price instability in Asia in the context of promoting economic growth and poverty reduction to improve food security. The experience of Asian governments in actual practice with price stabilization is discussed in the context of managing an efficient transition to market‐mediated food security. Recent experience in Indonesia, where a sharp increase in rice prices (caused by a ban on rice imports) pushed 4 million people into poverty, provides continued motivation for the analytical story in this paper.     

Asset indexes and the measurement of poverty,inequality and welfare in Southeast Asia

Using data on household consumer durables from the Asian Barometer Survey, this paper examines the evolution of inequality, poverty and welfare in six countries of South East Asia: Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. We start by deriving the most common order of acquisition of these durables, using first an algorithm proposed by Paroush (1965), and then Item Response Theory. We also compute the frequency distribution of the number of durables owned by households. We then use these results to compute inequality, poverty and achievement or welfare indices adapted to the case of ordinal variables.Our empirical results confirm the existence of an order of acquisition. The results show that inequality was higher in Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines and lower in Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia. A similar classification of countries was obtained when computing multidimensional poverty indices.Finally, using the welfare or achievement index recently introduced by Apouey et al. (2019), we found that welfare was generally higher in Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia and lower in Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines.     

Poverty in Indonesia 1984–2002: the impact of growth and changes in inequality

This paper examines the growth elasticity of poverty across three development episodes in Indonesia between 1984 and 2002, after controlling for inequality. It relies on estimation of panel data from the National Socio-Economic Survey conducted by the central statistics agency. Contrary to expectations, the growth elasticity of poverty was virtually indistinguishable across the three development episodes – a period of far-reaching policy liberalisation (1984–90); a second period of slower liberalisation (1990–96); and the period of recovery from the Asian financial crisis (1999–2002). Growth was pro-poor in all three periods, while the impact of growth on poverty was either augmented or offset by changes in inequality, depending on the period. Only during the first liberalisation period did a reduction in inequality serve to augment the impact of growth on poverty.     

The end of destitution: evidence from urban British working households 1904-37

We estimate the reduction, almost to elimination, of absolute poverty among working households in urban Britain between 1904 and 1937. We exploit two recently-digitized data sets. The paper presents a statistical generalization, to working families in the whole of urban Britain, of the poverty decline found in the town studies by, amongst other, Bowley and Rowntree. We offer corroborative evidence and perform a simulated decomposition of the poverty reduction into its proximate causes. The two most important causes were the rise, 1904–37, of about 30% in real wages on the one hand and the reduction of one-third in the number of people in the average household over the same period. Between them, these two changes imply a near doubling of the income per capita of an average household supported by a worker on the average wage. We conclude with a discussion of deeper causes.     

Towards a better measure of income inequality in Indonesia

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.     

Intragenerational Economic Mobility in Indonesia: A Transition from Poverty to the Middle Class in 1993–2014

Economic mobility, especially through expansion of the middle class, will dominate the future of Indonesia’s development agenda. Based on data from five waves of the Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS), we found that (1) poverty decreased significantly between 1993 and 2014, from 86.1% to 20.2%, while the middle class grew by almost nine times; (2) 34.4% of the poor moved into the middle class, but 11.9% were still categorised as chronically poor; (3) 42.3% of the middle class did not move into the upper class; (4) the middle and upper classes are vulnerable and easily fall into the lower classes. Our econometric estimations confirm that the drivers of economic mobility are educational attainment, formal employment, water and electricity supply, land ownership, and health investment. These findings suggest that investment in human and physical capital are the two main strategies to expand the middle class.     

Does Allocation of Public Spending Matter in Poverty Reduction? Evidence from Thailand*

The present paper uses a panel dataset to estimate the marginal returns to different types of government expenditure on agricultural growth and rural poverty reduction in Thailand. The study finds that additional government spending on agricultural research provides the largest return in terms of agricultural productivity and has the second largest impact on rural poverty reduction. Increased investment in rural electrification has the largest poverty reduction impact, mainly through improved nonfarm employment. Rural education has the third largest impact on both productivity and poverty reduction. Irrigation has a positive impact on agricultural productivity, but regional variation is considerable. Government spending on rural roads has no significant impact on agricultural productivity and its poverty reduction impact ranks last among all investment alternatives considered. Additional investment in the Northeast Region has a greater impact on poverty reduction than in other regions.     

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES: CHINA AND INDONESIA COMPARED

China's and Indonesia's development strategies have been compared with others, but rarely with each other. Radically different political contexts have produced both similar and distinctly different development patterns. Each using formal planning, Indonesia spurred radical reforms to promote growth, whereas China opted for incremental reforms to ‘grow out of the Plan’, as a political device and to discover what policies and institutions worked. Both strategies produced environments largely conducive to rapid development. Indonesia relied on a few economic technocrats to oversee development; China used decentralisation and party reforms to create a credible environment for non-state investment. Both shared concern for agricultural reform and food security; both opted to open up for trade—China gradually, Indonesia radically. Both did well in growth and poverty reduction following reform. China's growth performance is in a league of its own, especially since Indonesia's Asian crisis setback, but Indonesia had more equitable growth and survived a difficult political transition with, in hindsight, modest costs.