Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKSejak tahun 1990an, berbagai negara di Asia menerapkan kebijakan desentralisasi fiskal. Salah satu tujuan dari penerapan kebijakan ini adalah untuk menanggulangi kesenjangan pendapatan yang kian memburuk di masyarakat. Akan tetapi, evaluasi terhadap kebijakan ini sendiri masih menghasilkan kesimpulan yang beragam. Beberapa ahli berpendapat bahwa fiskal desentralisasi dapat memperparah kesenjangan pendapatan di daerah karena pemerintah pusat tidak lagi memegang kendali untuk mendistribusikan pendapatan nasional secara merata ke daerah. Di lain pihak, kebijakan desentralisasi fiskal justru dipandang sebagai salah satu cara mengurangi tingkat ketimpangan pendapatan karena kebijakan ini memberi insentif berupa kewenangan yang lebih luas kepada pemerintah daerah untuk memajukan daerahnya masing-masing. Guna mengetahui evaluasi kebijakan desentralisasi fiskal terhadap ketimpangan pendapatan daerah, penelitian ini melakukan analisis kuantitatif pada level nasional dengan menggunakan data 25 provinsi meliputi periode sebelum dan sesudah penerapan desentralisasi fiskal (1994-2000 dan 2001-2010). Hasil analisis pada sisi pengeluaran pemerintah daerah menunjukkan hubungan negatif antara desentralisasi fiskal dengan ketimpangan pendapatan daerah. Hal ini berarti bahwa ketimpangan pendapatan regional menurun pada periode setelah kebijakan desentralisasi diterapkan. Disamping itu, guna mendapatkan penjelasan lebih lanjut mengenai hasil estimasi pada tingkat nasional, dilakukan analisis kualitatif dan kuantitatif (regresi) pada tingkat provinsi, yaitu Provinsi DI Yogyakarta.

---

ABSTRACTSince 1990s, many Asian countries implemented a decentralization reform of their government system. One of the purposes of this reform was to mitigate the increasing income disparity. The evaluation of this policy is, however, contradictory. Many scholars argued that a fiscal decentralization increased regional income disparity because the central government lost its power to redistribute the national income. On the other hand, it was insisted that decentralization decreased regional income inequality because it could enhance the efforts of local government to improve the economic performance of their region. To come to a plausible evaluation, this study conducts an empirical analysis of the effect of fiscal decentralization on regional income equality in Indonesia, where a radical decentralization reform was implemented in 2001. Using panel data of 25 provinces in this country, this study conducts a regression analysis of the data for the period before and after the reform (1994 to 2000 and 2001 to 2010). Our analysis shows a negative correlation between fiscal decentralization and regional income disparity, which means that the former reduced the latter. On top of this national level analysis, we did research on Yogyakarta Province to know more precisely the process and meaning of the decentralization reform in Indonesia."

"Penelitian ini mengidentifikasi dampak desentralisasi fiskal terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi regional di Sumatera, Indonesia. Digunakan tiga model regresi untuk menganalisa data panel lima indikator utama desentralisasi fiskal periode 2007-2013 yaitu: OLS, Fixed  Effect Model dan Random Effect Model. Data yang digunakan pada penelitian ini merupakan data sekunder yang bersumber dari Badan Pusat Dtatistik (BPS) dan Direktorat Jenderal Perimbangan Keuangan Kementrian Keuangan Republik Indonesia. Temuan empiris penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa tiga indikator berupa pendapatan daerah, pengeluaran daerah dan jumlah penduduk memiliki dampak negatif terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi, sementara tingkat pendidikan dan tingkat serapan tenaga kerja berkorelasi positif terhdap pertumbuhan ekonomi di Sumatera, Indonesia.

---

This paper analyzes the impact of fiscal decentralization on regional economic growth in Sumatera, Indonesia.  Within the framework of an OLS, Fixed Effect Model and Random Effect Model was employed in this thesis on a set of dynamic panel data models with latent variables over a period 2007 – 2013.  Two indicators of fiscal decentralization, local revenue, and local expenditure were used to measure impact of fiscal decentralization in Sumatera. Data for this study comes from secondary sources; BPS and DJAPK ministry of Finance Republic of Indonesia. The empirical finding of this study suggests that two fiscal decentralization indicators and number of population have a negative significant impact on regional economic growth. However, number of education and employment rate are positively correlated with economic growth. Finally, there is a little consensus on the relationship between fiscal decentralization and economic growth in Sumatera, Indonesia."

"[ABSTRAKPenelitian ini menyelidiki pengaruh perubahan kebijakan fiskal selamapelaksanaan desentralisasi fiskal terhadap ketimpangan di Indonesia. Denganmenggunakan data panel dari 27 provinsi selama periode 2001-2012, penelitianini menjelaskan dampak dari peraturan baru tentang desentralisasi fiskal terhadapketimpangan pengeluaran. Penelitian ini menggunakan koefisien Gini, Theil L,dan Theil T sebagai ukuran ketimpangan, sedangkan variabel independen meliputiindeks desentralisasi fiskal (FDA dan FDB), PDRB per kapita (pcGRDP) danPDRB per kapita kuadrat (pcGRDP kuadrat). Variabel independen PDRB perkapita dan PDRB per kapita kuadrat berfungsi sebagai variabel kontrol.Hasil regresi panel menunjukkan bahwa selama pelaksanaan Undang-Undang Nomor 25 tahun 1999 (2001-2004), desentralisasi fiskal berdampaknegatif pada ketimpangan. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa desentralisasi fiskalmengakibatkan peningkatan ketimpangan pengeluaran. Semakin besardesentralisasi fiskal menyebabkan semakin besarnya ketimpangan pengeluaran.Perubahan undang-undang desentralisasi fiskal tahun 2004 menunjukkan bahwaketimpangan dapat dikurangi. Meskipun pengaruh desentralisasi fiskal padaketimpangan masih negatif setelah tahun 2004, besar dampaknya jauh lebih kecil.

---

ABSTRACTThis study attempts to investigate the effect of change in fiscal regulationduring implementation of fiscal decentralization on inequality in Indonesia. Usinga provincial panel data set consisting of 27 provinces during 2001-2012 periods,this study explains the impact of new regulation on fiscal decentralization onexpenditure inequality. This study employs Gini coefficient, Theil L, and Theil Tas a measure of inequality, while independent variables include indices of fiscaldecentralization (FDA and FDB), per capita GRDP (pcGRDP) and per capitaGRDP squared (pcGRDP squared). Independent variables, pc GRDP and pcGRDPsquared serve as control variables.The panel regression results show that during the implementation of the lawNo.25/1999 (i.e., from 2001 to 2004), fiscal decentralization has a negative impacton inequality. In particular, this study finds that fiscal decentralization appears tohave increased expenditure inequality. Higher degree of fiscal decentralizationviiUniversitas Indonesiainduces larger expenditure inequality. However, the implementation of the revisedfiscal decentralization law in 2004 seems to have mitigated inequality. Though theeffect of fiscal decentralization on inequality is still negative after 2004, themagnitude of the effect is much smaller.;This study attempts to investigate the effect of change in fiscal regulationduring implementation of fiscal decentralization on inequality in Indonesia. Usinga provincial panel data set consisting of 27 provinces during 2001-2012 periods,this study explains the impact of new regulation on fiscal decentralization onexpenditure inequality. This study employs Gini coefficient, Theil L, and Theil Tas a measure of inequality, while independent variables include indices of fiscaldecentralization (FDA and FDB), per capita GRDP (pcGRDP) and per capitaGRDP squared (pcGRDP squared). Independent variables, pc GRDP and pcGRDPsquared serve as control variables.The panel regression results show that during the implementation of the lawNo.25/1999 (i.e., from 2001 to 2004), fiscal decentralization has a negative impacton inequality. In particular, this study finds that fiscal decentralization appears tohave increased expenditure inequality. Higher degree of fiscal decentralizationviiUniversitas Indonesiainduces larger expenditure inequality. However, the implementation of the revisedfiscal decentralization law in 2004 seems to have mitigated inequality. Though theeffect of fiscal decentralization on inequality is still negative after 2004, themagnitude of the effect is much smaller.;This study attempts to investigate the effect of change in fiscal regulationduring implementation of fiscal decentralization on inequality in Indonesia. Usinga provincial panel data set consisting of 27 provinces during 2001-2012 periods,this study explains the impact of new regulation on fiscal decentralization onexpenditure inequality. This study employs Gini coefficient, Theil L, and Theil Tas a measure of inequality, while independent variables include indices of fiscaldecentralization (FDA and FDB), per capita GRDP (pcGRDP) and per capitaGRDP squared (pcGRDP squared). Independent variables, pc GRDP and pcGRDPsquared serve as control variables.The panel regression results show that during the implementation of the lawNo.25/1999 (i.e., from 2001 to 2004), fiscal decentralization has a negative impacton inequality. In particular, this study finds that fiscal decentralization appears tohave increased expenditure inequality. Higher degree of fiscal decentralizationviiUniversitas Indonesiainduces larger expenditure inequality. However, the implementation of the revisedfiscal decentralization law in 2004 seems to have mitigated inequality. Though theeffect of fiscal decentralization on inequality is still negative after 2004, themagnitude of the effect is much smaller., This study attempts to investigate the effect of change in fiscal regulationduring implementation of fiscal decentralization on inequality in Indonesia. Usinga provincial panel data set consisting of 27 provinces during 2001-2012 periods,this study explains the impact of new regulation on fiscal decentralization onexpenditure inequality. This study employs Gini coefficient, Theil L, and Theil Tas a measure of inequality, while independent variables include indices of fiscaldecentralization (FDA and FDB), per capita GRDP (pcGRDP) and per capitaGRDP squared (pcGRDP squared). Independent variables, pc GRDP and pcGRDPsquared serve as control variables.The panel regression results show that during the implementation of the lawNo.25/1999 (i.e., from 2001 to 2004), fiscal decentralization has a negative impacton inequality. In particular, this study finds that fiscal decentralization appears tohave increased expenditure inequality. Higher degree of fiscal decentralizationviiUniversitas Indonesiainduces larger expenditure inequality. However, the implementation of the revisedfiscal decentralization law in 2004 seems to have mitigated inequality. Though theeffect of fiscal decentralization on inequality is still negative after 2004, themagnitude of the effect is much smaller.]"

"Desentralisasi fiskal dilaksanakan dengan keyakinan bahwa Pemerintah Daerah lebihmemahami tingkat kebutuhan masyarakat di daerahnya dibandingkan dengan PemerintahPusat. Dengan kebijakan desentralisasi fiskal, Pemerintah Daerah diharapkan dapatmewujudkan kesejahteraan masyarakat yang lebih merata. Penelitian ini dilakukan karenasemakin tingginya tuntutan masyarakat agar pemerintah memperhatikan kebutuhannya,terutama pendidikan yang kini menjadi kebutuhan utama bagi masyarakat dan bahkantermasuk dalam salah satu prioritas nasional. Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah: 1.Peningkatan Pendapatan Asli Daerah (PAD), Dana Alokasi Umum (DAU), dan Dana AlokasiKhusus (DAK) pendidikan dapat meningkatkan pengeluaran pendidikan oleh PemerintahKabupaten/Kota; 2. Peningkatan pengeluaran pendidikan oleh Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kotadapat meningkatkan aksesabilitas pendidikan oleh masyarakat; 3.Kesejahteraan daerahkabupaten/kota dapat meningkatkan pengeluaran pendidikan oleh PemerintahKabupaten/Kota dan aksesabilitas pendidikan oleh masyarakat; 4. Di daerah kaya,peningkatan pengeluaran pendidikan Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota berpengaruh lebih besarterhadap peningkatan aksesabilitas pendidikan masyarakat daripada di daerah miskin; 5.Kebijakan desentralisasi fiskal dapat meningkatkan aksesabilitas pendidikan olehmasyarakat."

"Desentralisasi fiskal yang dilaksanakan sejak tahun 2001 telah membawa perubahan yang besar bagi tata kelola keuangan publik di Indonesia. Penelitian ini mencoba melihat pengaruh pelaksanaan desentralisasi fiskal di Indonesia terhadap ukuran pemerintah daerah provinsi [rasio antara pengeluaran pemerintah daerah provinsi (konsolidasi provinsi dan kabupaten kota) terhadap PDRB provinsi]. Hal tersebut sesuai dengan hipotesis yang dikemukakan oleh Brennan dan Buchanan (1980) dan Wallis dan Oates (1988) mengenai pengaruh desentralisasi fiskal terhadap ukuran pemerintah daerah.Selain melihat pengaruh desentralisasi fiskal terhadap ukuran pemerintah daerah provinsi, penelitian ini juga mencoba melihat pengaruh ukuran pemerintah daerah provinsi terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi daerah provinsi. Hal tersebut mengacu pada hipotesis yang dikemukakan oleh Armey (1995), bahwa ukuran pemerintah juga berpengaruh terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan model ekonometrika data panel untuk data dari 26 provinsi di Indonesia pada tahun 1995-2013.Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa desentralisasi fiskal di Indonesia berpengaruh positif terhadap ukuran pemerintah daerah provinsi. Ukuran pemerintah daerah provinsi juga berpengaruh positif terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi daerah provinsi. Namun, penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa ukuran optimal dari pemerintah daerah provinsi yang memaksimumkan pertumbuhan ekonomi daerah provinsi belum/tidak terjadi di Indonesia berdasarkan data yang digunakan.

---

Fiscal decentralization which has been doing since 2001 brought massive transformation for the governance of the public finance in Indonesia. This research aimed to observe the effect of fiscal decentralization in Indonesia on provincial government size [ratio between provincial government expenditure (consolidation between province and district, city) on GDRP of province]. It was based on hypothesis by Brennan & Buchanan (1980) and Wallis & Oates (1988) about the effect of fiscal decentralization on subnational government size.

In addition to observing the effect of fiscal decentralization on provincial government size, this research also aimed to observe the effect of provincial government size on the regional economic growth. It based on hypothesis stated by Armey (1995) that government size is related to economic growth. Method of the research was econometric panel data modelling for data of 26 provinces in Indonesia from 1995 to 2013.

Result showed that fiscal decentralization in Indonesia had positive effect on provincial government size. Provincial government size also positively affected regional economic growth. However, this study showed that optimal size of provincial government in order to maximize regional economic growth had not or did not occur in Indonesia based on data used."

"Masalah ketimpangan pendapatan masyarakat yang semakin besar terjadi pada era desentralisasi. Penelitian ini dimaksudkan untuk mengetahui pengaruh dana perimbangan (DBH, DAU, DAK) terhadap ketimpangan pendapatan masyarakat di 33 provinsi tahun 2006-2013. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa DBH, DAU, dan rasio belanja APBD terhadap PDRB meningkatkan ketimpangan pendapatan masyarakat di daerah secara signifikan. Sedangkan DAK menurunkan ketimpangan pendapatan masyarakat di daerah secara signifikan. Sementara itu tingkat partisipasi sekolah di level universitas dan konstribusi sektor pertambangan terhadap PDRB meningkatkan ketimpangan, namun tidak signifikan dalam mempengaruhi ketimpangan pendapatan masyarakat. Sedangkan tingkat partisipasi sekolah di level SMU menurunkan ketimpangan pendapatan masyarakat namun tidak signifikan.

---

The problem of income inequality occurred greater in the era of decentralization. This study aimed to determine the effect of equalization funds (DBH, DAU, DAK) against income inequality in 33 provinces in 2006-2013. The results showed that DBH, DAU, and the ratio of budget expenditures to the GRDP increased income inequality in the region significantly. DAK decreased income inequality in the region significantly. The rate of enrollment at the university level and the mining sector's contribution to the GRDP increased income inequalities, but not significant. While enrollment in the high school level decreased income inequality but not significant."