Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"The restructuring of the Indonesian banking sector that were undertaken to restore the economy after being hit by the financial crisis, have caused changes in capital and asset risk taking attitude of the banking sector. Banks shifted their portfolios away from risky assets to safer assets, while maintaining their capital levels, which in turn affected their profits. The main issue is whether this attitude towards risk impacts banks performances in their role as financial intermediaries. By using pattern and panel data analysis, our findings show relationship between macro economic policy and banks1 capital. However, there is inconclusive evidence between other variables."

"Combining regional growth model and integration of financial institution model, this paper evaluates whether intermediary development influences growth in Indonesia. Recent research has proved that not only banks development influence economic growth positively but also its exogenous components.However, there are several different assumptions during adopt this model in Indonesia. Especially regional approach is differing than national approach in growth model. The point is the existence of intermediary integration across region whit causes the economic agent move freely within a nation.The data show that integration of financial intermediation was not always associated with economic growth. Only four of twenty six provinces which proved strong influence of financial intermediation on economic growth. Labor condition and average annual wages are not exogenous variables which explain growth due to financial intermediation in Indonesia. At least during 1987-1998."

"Analysis; Panel analysis; "

"[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.]"

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kondisi-kondisi di Pasar PerbankanIndonesia yang dapat mempengaruhi tingkat suku bunga yang ditawarkan olehkelompok bank badan usaha milik negara (BUMN) dan bank pembangunandaerah (BPD) serta menjelaskan faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan tingkat sukubunga deposito yang ditawarkan perbankan tidak responsif terhadap perubahan BIrate yang selama ini menjadi acuan perbankan dalam menetapkan suku bunga.Kondisi-kondisi yang diidentifikasi sebagai faktor yang mempengaruhi tingkatsuku bunga deposito yang ditawarkan perbankan adalah terkonsentrasinya asetperbankan, keberadaan bank-bank multipasar, tingkat inflasi, kondisi likuiditas dikantor bank serta cadangan likuditas bank. Selain itu, ketergantungan perbankanIndonesia terhadap sumber dana masyarakat menimbulkan suasana persainganyang tinggi dalam upaya meningkatkan dana pihak ketiga. Kondisi tersebutmenyebabkan bank-bank sulit untuk menurunkan suku bunga simpanan terutamasuku bunga deposito. Untuk itu, perbankan agar didorong untuk mencari alternatifsumber-sumber pendanaan lainnya, antara lain melalui pasar modal.

---

ABSTRACTThis research aims to recognize the banking market conditions that affectIndonesian Stated Owned Bank and regional development bank’s which influencedeposit interest rate they offer to the customers. Also, to examine theirresponsiveness of the state-owned and regional development bank’s time depositinterest rate to BI-rate’s changes. Conditions identified that affect the depositinterest rate are high concentration in bank market, existence of multimarketbanks, inflation, bank branches’s liquidity condition and bank’s liquidity reserveposition. Indonesian banking industry has a highly dependent to time deposit astheir main source of fund. This condition has raise a higher competition amongbanks in raising their fund through deposit in which result a reluctancy of interestrate to go down. Indonesian bank industry need to seek another source of fund,such as from capital market."

"ABSTRAKSejumlah penelitian yang sudah dilakukan sebelumnya telah menyimpulkan bahwa perkembangan pada sektor pariwisata suatu negara akan berdampak positif terhadap perkembangan ekonomi negara tersebut ((Fayissa, Nsiah & Tadasse, 2007), (Fayissa, Nsiah & Tadasse, 2009), dan (Gokovali & Bahar, 2006)). Penelitian ini menggunakan data dari 8 negara ASEAN (Indonesia, Singapura, Malaysia, Thailand, Filipina, Vietnam, Brunei Darussalam, and Laos) selama 15 tahun (1998 - 2013) dan telah menemukan hasil penelitian melalui model regresi data panel dan model kausalitas Granger, dengan menggunakan variabel sosial ekonomi pembangunan (GDP per kapita, tingkat kemiskinan, dan index pembangunan manusia). Dari regresi data panel, studi ini menemukan bahwa kedatangan wisatawan memiliki hubungan yang signifikan dan positif terhadap HDI, tetapi tidak terhadap GDP per kapita. Dari hasil kausalitas Granger, studi ini telah menunjukan bahwa beberapa negara ASEAN memiliki dampak positif antara kedatangan wisatawan dan hasil pembangunan, Thailand telah berhasil menurunkan tingkat kemiskinan melalui kunjungan wisatawan, sementara Malaysia, Filipina, dan Laos memiliki hubungan dua arah kausalitas Granger antara HDI dan kedatangan wisatawan.

---

ABSTRACTNumerous studies found that tourism development in a country will have a positive impact towards the socio economic development of the country itself ((Fayissa, Nsiah & Tadasse, 2009), (Fayissa, Nsiah & Tadasse, 2007), and (Gokovali & Bahar, 2006)). This study utilizes data from 8 ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, and Laos) over 15 years (1998 - 2013) and have found the research results through the panel data regression model and the Granger causality model, by using the socio economic variables and outcomes (GDP per capita, Level of Poverty, and Human Development Index). From the panel data regression, this study found that tourist arrivals have significant and positive correlation towards HDI, but not towards GDP per capita. From the Granger causality results, it has shown that some of the ASEAN countries have a positive impact between tourist arrivals and development outcomes. Thailand have succeeded in decreasing their poverty level through tourist arrivals, while Malaysia, Philippines, and Laos have bidirectional Granger causality between HDI and tourist arrivals."