Suchergebnisse

This paper analyzes George J. Stigler's influential contributions to economic ideas, specifically on industrial structures, the functioning of markets, the causes and effects of public regulation, the economics of information, and on the development of economic thought. Stigler's most influential contribution to economic thought came in his work on information theory. Treating information as a valuable commodity, he explained why prices differ for identical goods. From his work, many other theories have been built to explain economic behavior. A considerable number of works on decision making under uncertainty could not have progressed without an understanding of the role of information. His swing of the pendulum in economic regulation constitutes a great turnabout. He started research, known as public choice, which assumes that government policy makers are driven by self-interest rather than pure concern for the public's welfare. His views have now become those of the mainstream.

There are competing "views" on the economic effects of debt finance. One view argues that tax and debt finance have identical effects on various economic measures, a view sometimes termed "Ricardian Equivalence". However, this "Ricardian view" remains controversial, with other views (the "Keynesian view" and the "Neoclassical view") concluding that debt finance is likely to have significant impacts on consumption, interest rates, and the current account. Empirical tests of these competing views, conducted mainly for developed countries, have failed to generate much consensus, and there are few studies for developing countries, especially a developing country that is heavily dependent on natural resources (e.g., oil). This paper provides a battery of empirical tests on the effects of government debt finance in one developing country, Indonesia. We focus on three empirical tests: effects on consumption, on interest rates, and on the current account balance. We find, across virtually all of our time series tests, that Ricardian Equivalence does not hold; that is, the predictions of the Ricardian paradigm are consistently and strongly rejected by most of our estimation results. The only results that tend to give some support to Ricardian Equivalence are those that recognize the importance of oil in the Indonesian economy. Even so, our results generally indicate that debt finance will increase the interest rate, will increase current consumption at the expense of future consumption, and will retard exports and stimulate imports through currency appreciation.

There are competing 'views' on the economic effects of debt finance. One view argues that tax and debt finance have identical effects on various economic measures, a view sometimes termed 'Ricardian Equivalence'. However, this 'Ricardian view' remains controversial, with other views (the 'Keynesian view' and the 'Neoclassical view') concluding that debt finance is likely to have significant impacts on consumption, interest rates, and the current account. Empirical tests of these competing views, conducted mainly for developed countries, have failed to generate much consensus, and there are few studies for developing countries, especially a developing country that is heavily dependent on natural resources (e.g., oil). This paper provides a battery of empirical tests on the effects of government debt finance in one developing country, Indonesia. We focus on three empirical tests: effects on consumption, on interest rates, and on the current account balance. We find, across virtually all of our time series tests, that Ricardian Equivalence does not hold; that is, the predictions of the Ricardian paradigm are consistently and strongly rejected by most of our estimation results. The only results that tend to give some support to Ricardian Equivalence are those that recognize the importance of oil in the Indonesian economy. Even so, our results generally indicate that debt finance will increase the interest rate, will increase current consumption at the expense of future consumption, and will retard exports and stimulate imports through currency appreciation.

Subsidi Bahan Bakar Minyak di Indonesia meningkat secara tajam dalam beberapa tahun terakhir dengan rata-rata peningkatan sebesar 18,29% per tahun dalam periode 2006 – 2013. Besaran subsidi mengambil porsi antara 22% hingga 39,7% terhadap APBN pada periode tersebut. Tingginya besaran subsidi tersebut menimbulkan beban berat pada anggaran pemerintah pusat. Salah satu upaya untuk mengurangi beban pemerintah adalah dengan mengurangi jumlah subsidi yang diberikan. Pengurangan subsidi tersebut harus dikembalikan kepada masyarakat dalam bentuk yang lebih produktif, salah satunya dalam bentuk insentif fiscal pemerintah pusat kepada pemerintah daerah.
Mekanisme pemberian insentif kepada pemerintah daerah dapat dilakukan dengan mempertimbangkan kebijakan dan program yang dijalankan oleh pemerintah daerah untuk mengurangi konsumsi BBM. Metode perhitungan besaran insentif dapat dilakukan dengan beberapa skenario dengan mempertimbangkan penghematan anggaran pemerintah karena pengurangan subsidi dan perubahan Dead Weight Loss (DWL) sebagai kerugian yang timbul karena alokasi anggaran yang tidak tepat.
Hasil perhitungan besaran insentif fiskal berdasarkan skenario harga BBM memperlihatkan adanya perbedaan cukup signifikan antara skenario 1 yang berbasis besaran subsidi yang dikeluarkan pemerintah, dengan skenario 3 yang berbasis pada besaran DWL. Alternatifnya, dapat diperhitungkan besaran insentif berdasarkan proporsi pengurangan DWL dibandingkan penghematan anggaran. Hasil perhitungan berdasarkan skenario ini memperlihatkan besaran insentif antara Rp1,2 tilyun (pada harga bensin Rp7.100) hingga Rp3,3 trilyun (pada harga bensin Rp9.500 atau subsidi dicabut). Sementara pada solar, besarannya antara Rp1,08 trilyun (pada harga solar Rp7.100) hingga Rp2,97 trilyun (pada harga solar Rp9.500 atau subsidi dicabut). Besaran ini relatif moderat dan dapat menjadi acuan dalam pemberian insentif kepada daerah.