Analisa Peringkat Penanggulangan Kemiskinan Kabupaten/Kota

Thia Jasmina, Akhmad Bayhaqi, Ledi Trialdi and Usman
Additional contact information
Thia Jasmina: Researcher, Institute for Economic and Social Research, Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia, Jakarta
Akhmad Bayhaqi: Researcher, Institute for Economic and Social Research, Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia, Jakarta
Ledi Trialdi: Researcher, Institute for Economic and Social Research, Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia, Jakarta
Usman: Researcher, Institute for Economic and Social Research, Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia, Jakarta

Economics and Finance in Indonesia, 2001, vol. 49, 423-449

Abstract: The increasing poverty in Indonesia has encouraged Indonesian government to place poverty alleviation program as a core program in economic development strategy. The implementation of the program will be more effective and well targeted if local government performs significant roles in poverty reduction, especially after regional autonomy. The papers will analyse local government poverty alleviation program based on the public/development expenditure and local government strategic planning. The local government budget analysis is conducted using the proportion of public spending to selected sectors which considered pro-poor and using public spending incidence analysis to observe how effective the budget is allocated for the poor. The sectors selected are agriculture, transportation, education, health and housing. Whereas, to analyse local government awareness in reducing poverty, qualitative analysis conducted by exploring specific poverty alleviation programs in the local government strategic planning/program. Based on the proportion of each sector to total expenditure in 1999/2000 budget for 288 kabupaten/kota, the highest average allocation expenditure is for transportation (26%), followed by education (12%) and housing (10%). While allocation for agriculture and health sector each are only 5%. However, the incidence analysis shows that the most pro-poor budget is agriculture, education and housing, which means the spending for these sectors are more beneficial to the poorest 20%. While, for transportation and health the budget policy tends to be neutral and not pro-poor, which means the spending for these sectors give the same benefit for the poorest 20% and the richest 20% or even tends to be more beneficial to the richest 20%. On the other hand, the qualitative analysis shows that from 40 kabupaten/kota, only 18 kabupaten/kota that explicitly elaborate poverty alleviation program in the strategic planning / program (Propeda / Renstra).

Date: 2001
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://lpem.org/repec/lpe/efijnl/200116.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:lpe:efijnl:200116

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Economics and Finance in Indonesia from Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Muhammad Halley Yudhistira ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).