Rising Income Inequality Amid Declining Poverty Incidence: Revisiting Reformation Era Development Policies in Indonesia
Muyanja-Ssenyonga Jameaba,Muyanja Jameaba
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3427006
2019-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:The paper examines the performance of successive post Suharto Indonesian governments on poverty reduction and income inequality mitigation. The paper uses qualitative, desk research methodology. Findings indicate that Suharto’s regime bequeathed to reformation era governments laudable achievements with respect to poverty reduction and income inequality performance. Nonetheless, the fundamental change in the political system from the benevolent, authoritarian and monolithically power-centered style to a decentralized, multi polar power centered democracy, has created an unstable and uncertain social, economic, and political environment, which has in part has reduced the pace of poverty reduction and income inequality mitigation. The country has had to undergo a new learning curve in building nascent democratic institutions, which efforts were thwarted, suppressed even banned during the entirety of 32 year Suharto’s regime. Thus, it is not surpassing that the advent of reformation era on the Indonesian political landscape, amid worsening global and domestic economic conditions initially led to a decline in poverty reduction and with time, an increase in income inequality. Improvements in public participation, representation, vibrant civil society, decentralized administration of key service delivery to districts and provinces, contributed to an increase in responsiveness and accountability of public officials to citizenry. That said, post Suharto regimes have been characterized by slow economic growth (which in part is attributable to external factors, hence beyond their control), putting interests of political parties ahead of public interests, and successive governments that have been based alliances of convenience. Rising public participation has not been translated into better (quality) representation, with political parties determining the form, composition, and direction of public policy often with little cognizance of problems that society faces. Consequently, government effectiveness, has tended to decline, as is regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. Even more disconcerting is the drop in the performance of five of the six good governance indicators in 2015. Protracted period of anemic economic growth, compounded by frequent change of governments , which in Indonesia’s context has largely signaled a dramatic shift in policy priorities; compounded by frequently changing in focus and orientation of policy priorities in education and human resource development, low financial inclusion, disparity in economic and social development between Western and Eastern Indonesia, limited fiscal space, and inability to create sufficient incentives for private investors to provide needed funding for much needed infrastructure revitalization, expansion and development, are some of the major challenges Indonesia still faces, and will continue to face, if it’s serious in its efforts to reduce poverty incidence and mitigate income inequality in future. The increase in income inequality in general and in urban areas in particular, which Indonesia has experienced over the recent past, may in part be attributable to increasing inelasticity of poverty reduction and income distribution to economic growth, albeit falling poverty incidence in general.Nonetheless, what cannot be overstated, is the influence that the nature, form, composition and level of advancement of institutions a country has in place on quality of economic growth policies in general, and extent to which such policies reflect and impact, on poverty incidence and income inequality, in particular. The relatively minimal impact on poverty reduction and income inequality by post Suharto governments may perhaps be the price Indonesians have to pay in the short and medium term, for supporting an evolving institutional environment that that will bear munificent fruits in the long term. Some of the policies recommended to reduce poverty incidence and income inequality at individual, social economic status, and regional level, include but not limited to tackling root causes of the persisting income divide through strengthening the effectiveness of pro poor development policies; reduce transaction cost of delivering goods and services by reducing tiers of middlemen that link producers of goods and services to consumption; implement programs that protect micro, small and medium size enterprises from unfair competition from large retailers and imported goods; promote organizing capacity of micro, small and medium sized players to reap benefits of economies of scale, financing efficiencies, low transaction cost, and high bargaining power; strengthen knowledge and information capacity of SMEs about prevailing prices, modern agronomy, firm management practices by linking them to relevant institutions that produce and have access to such knowledge and information (institutions of advanced education, research centers, private companies both local and foreign); reduce the infrastructural development that Indonesia has with other ASEAN 5 nations; revisit education policy especially post-secondary curriculum to ensure that skillsets and knowledge graduate have after their lengthy education match skillsets that employers need. Also important is the need to strengthen manufacturing capacity by retooling workers, manufacturing firms, and operating environment by fostering and developing infrastructure that encourages the adoption and use of technology in manufacturing and service provision; curb restrictions on trade in services and foster adoption of technology and digitization in conducting financial transaction. Not least in importance, however is the imperative to deepen, widen and strengthen, and intensify the scope and coverage of the ongoing anti-corruption drive.
English Else