Penelitian sebelumnya

2.12. Penelitian sebelumnya

Dhalokia (2003) dalam studinya berjudul Regional Disparity in economic and Human Development in India megemukakan Regional disparity in income and human capital is often a source of political tensions and dissatisfaction in a federal system. Although the theory and measurement of such disparities have never received adequate attention in India, both the Planning Commission and the Finance Commissions have given very high (and sometimes exclusive) weightage to this aspect for deciding allocation of resources among states. Every time the allocation of resources among states is made to address the issue of regional disparity, one or the other theory gets acceptance of the policymakers over the rest of the competing alternatives. What is disturbing is that very often these choices are made without proper validation and verification of these theories in the Indian context.

For instance, during the late fifties to eighties, it was believed that investment is the prime mover in the system and adequate dose of investment cansolve any and all problems of growth and disparities. We found that it was not a correct remedy for reducing regional disparities once the state level capital stock and hence capital formation estimates were generated for the Indian states (see, Dholakia and Dholakia, 1980).

Dari studi tersebut Dhalokia menyimpulkan sebagai berikut We have examined the trends in regional disparity in the economic and human development in India over the last two decades. The concept and measurement problems involved in the Indian data on state domestic product are briefly discussed to point out the limitations of the past studies on the subject. We have applied an intuitively appealing and robust method to examine trends in regional disparity in the average per capita SDP (PCI) and human development indicators. While PCI does not show any significant trend in regional disparity over the last two decades, seven out of nine human development indicators display a declining trend. Similarly, 12 out of the other 16 related social and human development indicators show a marked decline in the regional disparity in India during 1981-91. Given the emphasis on reducing regional imbalances in economic and human development by the central institutions like Finance Commissions and the Planning Commission, we have examined the question of the direction of causality between the economic development and human development. In a cross-sectional setting, the Granger causality or precedence is tested by considering lags in the independent variable and interchanging the variables. We find that the Indian regional data suggest two-way causality between human and economic development.

The structure of the relationship (equation) varies over time when human development indicators (HDI’s) are the cause and PCI is the effect, but in the reverse causality case, the structure of the equations is stable over time. Moreover, HDI’s positively influence PCI with a lag of about eight years, whereas PCI affect the HDI’s within two years. We have also estimated elasticities in both the cases and they all turn out to be statistically significant. From our findings here, we can argue that the central institutions need not be unduly concerned about regional imbalance in human development since the regional disparity in this respect has been continuously decreasing in India. It is the income or economic development where the regional disparity has been stubborn and almost constant over the past two decades. Our findings on causality show that emphasis on economic growth as per the national priority is likely to address the issue of twin disparities in income and human development in the shortest time. If undue incentives are given for emphasising human development in different states, it may lead to the postponement of rapid economic growth by considerable time (about eight years) and also to some inefficiencies cropping up in the delivery of output resulting in further shifting of the structure of relationship between PCI (effect) and HDI’s (cause). In any case, since the regional distribution of HDI’s in 2001 is already given and available for 15 major states, we can work out its impact on the regional disparity of PCI during 2007-10 from Table 4 above. If no unexpected changes occur, our results suggest a clear and statistically significant declining trend in the regional disparity in PCI over the coming decade. The central institutions, therefore, need not be unduly concerned about reduction in the regional disparity either in PCI or in HDI’s. The states are best placed to choose their development strategy as per their felt need. This is the best time when the central institutions can and should pursue the national priority of achieving high economic growth. The other concerns are most likely to be addressed thereby. (The Journal of income and wealth, Vol. 25, No. 1 & 2, January-December 2003)

Mohammad Sharif Karimi, Zulkarnain Yusop, Law Siong Hook (2010) dalam studinya tentang ketimpangan pembangunan antar wilayah di Malaysia melalui penelitiannya yang berjudul Regional Development Disparities in Malaysia menyimpulkan sebagai berikut : During the Eighth Plan period, efforts were undertaken to promote balanced regional development. Despite all states recording economic growth, the development gaps between regions, states and rural-urban areas remained wide. During the next plans, measures will be undertaken to accelerate the development of less developed states, particularly in northern Peninsular Malaysia, the Eastern Corridor, Sabah and Sarawak to attain regional balance and reduce development gaps. The main objective of balanced development during the Future Plan period will be to narrow development gaps between regions, states as well as between rural and urban areas. Measures will be undertaken to reduce disparities in terms of per capita income and household income, incidence of poverty in the less developed states and disparities in terms of infrastructure and utilities, between the states in the Peninsular and between the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak. It is hoped that this attempt at providing a new technique of regional development measuring (Journal of American Science 2010;6(3). Departement of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, University Putra Malaysia Serdang 44300, Malaysia email : syarifkarimi@yahoo.com

Sudah banyak dilakukan penelitian dan studi tentang ketimpangan pembangunan antar wilayah di Indonesia, diantaranya studi yang dilakukan oleh Sjafrizal (1997) dengan menggunakan data PDRB non migas hasil studinya dengan memakai indeks Williamson memperlihatkan tingkat ketimpangan antar provinsi di wilayah Indonesia bagian barat ternyata lebih rendah dibanding ketimpangan daerah rata – rata di Indonesia, angka indeks terendah sebesar 0,179, sedangkan angka indeks tertinggi sebesar 0,392 dengan kecenderungan untuk menurun, dilain pihak untuk kawasan Indonesia bagian timur indeks ketimpangannya bergerak dari paling rendah 0,396 hingga 0,544 dan cenderung untuk terus meningkat.

Peneliti lainnya seperti Brodjonegoro (1999) dan Mahi (2000) dalam Tambunan (2001) dengan menggunakan PDRB perkapita menurut harga konstan menghasilkan kesimpulan provinsi dengan PDRB perkapita untuk periode 1995 – 1997 sebesar 2 juta rupiah atau lebih selama periode yang diteliti tercatat indeks williamsonnya sebesar 0,716. Indeks ini kemudian menurun yang menandakan terjadinya perbaikan, namun pada saat krisis ekonomi terjadi indeks tersebut kembali memburuk menjadi 0,713.

Masih tentang ketimpangan, studi yang dilakukan oleh Akita (2000) dalam Masyhuri dan Hidayat (2001) dengan menggunakan metode two stage nested Theil Decomposition untuk tahun 1976 yang memecah ketimpangan pembangunan regional kedalam tiga komponen yaitu ketimpangan dalam provinsi, ketimpangan antar provinsi dan ketimpangan antar wilayah, mendapatkan hasil sebagai berikut :

1. Ketimpangan antar wilayah relatif kecil, hanya 0,021 sekalipun GDP wilayah Kalimantan 2,6 kali lebih besar dibanding wilayah lainnya yang GDPnya paling rendah.

2. Ketimpangan antar provinsi yang terbesar ditemukan di wilayah Jawa – Bali (Theil T = 0,169) dimana terdapat DKI Jakarta dengan GDP/kapitanya 5 kali lebih besar dibanding Jawa Tengah (termiskin dalam wilayah yang sam)

3. Ketimpangan dalam provinsi terbesar ditemukan di Riau dalam wilayah Simatera dengan Theil T yang menunjukkan angka 0,274. Ketimpangan ini sangat boleh jadi karena adanya pulau Batam yang PDRB perkapitanya mencapai 11 juta rupiah.

Studi yang dilalkukan Akita menyimpulkan bahwa ketimpangan dalam provinsi lebih signifikan dibanding ketimpangan antar wilayah dan antar provinsi. Selanjutnya untuk one stage Decomposition, Akita menemukan bahwa telah terjadi penurunan ketimpangan dari 0,181 tahun 1993 menjadi 0,172 pada tahun 1997 dengan memperhitungkan migas. Sedangkan tanpa migas angkanya menunjukkan peningkatan yaitu dari 0,144 tahun 1993 menjadi 0,149 pada tahun 1999. Hal ini sekaligus mencerminkan turunnya dominasi sektor migas dalam pembangunan wilayah di Indonesia.

Beberapa ahli ekonomi telah melakukan studi tentang ketimpangan pembangunan antar wilayah di Indonesia. Studi pertama dilakukan oleh Hendra Esmara (1975) yang menggunakan Williamson Index sebagai ukuran ketimpangan antar wilayah. Untuk mempertajam analisis, kalkulasi indeks ketimpangan disini dibedakan antara PDRB termasuk dan di luar minyak dan gas alam. Alasannya adalah karena produksi minyak dan gas alam yang hanya terdapat pada daerah tertentu saja akan cenderung memicu relatif tingginya tingkat ketimpangan ekonomi antarwilayah.

Namun demikian, karena ketersediaan data tentang Pendapatan Regional di Indonesia pada saat itu masih sangat terbatas, maka jangka waktu pembahasan pada analisis juga masih terbatas sehingga generalisasi untuk mendapatkan kesimpulan umum masih sulit dilakukan. Kelemahan studi ini kemudia diatasi oleh Uppal, J.S. and Budiono Sri Handoko (1986) dengan menggunakan cara yang sama, tetapi dengan seri waktu data yang lebih panjang. Kesimpulan yang dapat ditarik dari kedua studi ini adalah bahwa ketimpangan pembangunan antarwilayah di Indonesia ternyata lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan Negara maju. Bahkan diantara sesama Negara berkembang, ketimpangan pembangunan antar wilayah termasuk lebih tinggi. Hal ini yang perlu digaris bawahi secara faktual. http://fallinginlol.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/ekonomi-regional-5-ketimpangan-pembangunan-antar-wilayah/

For years regions has asked for more equal development since the severe disparities between the western regions with the centre and east regions in Indonesia. Poorer regions had expressed their disappointment with the centre government’s development policy, and demand larger income transfers and more authority to administrate their region. Following financial crisis 1997 and the fall of the New Order regime, Indonesia enters the new political order with decentralization as it core. The autonomy system, with economic and cultural reasons, leads regions to separate and expanded the number of regions. Before the decentralization, Indonesia had 27 provinces and in 2006 it increased to 33 provinces with some 300 municipalities/regency. The study of disparities has studies has been conducted variously regarded Indonesia regions.In Resosudarmo and Viddyattama (2006), it was found that disparities is still severe and the were also evidence that the disparities were between regions and within regions (Akira and Alisyahbana,; 2002). In addition, studies of other countries show that industrial types (Fan, 2003), and main economy sector and political order (Shankar and Shah; 2003), effects the level of disparities between and within countries. Consequently, theories and econometric analysis on regional inequality and convergence also has been develop in the last two decades such as Quah (1992), Martin and Sunley (1998), and Barro and Sala-I-Martin (2004),

This study has three empirical studies aim. First this study will show the effect ofglobalization to poverty growth in Indonesia regions. To achieve this goal, the paper will present income evolution on provincial data using several inequality methods. Second, to examine whether poverty reduction and economic growth are in progress, this paper will use the general growth model (convergence theory) as written by Barro (1991) based on panel data technique. Last, with decentralization taking place since 2001, we will see to what extend devolution in the provinces level has change through these years. Each empirical study will examine how it affected disparities and inequality among Indonesia regions.

(Adiwan F. Aritenang 2008, A Sudy on Indonesia Region Disparity : Post Decentralization, MPRA Paper No..2245 posted 21 September 2010 20 : 26 UTC) paper builds on a paper deliver at conference N-AERUS Workshop 2008, Edinburgh, University College London, 12th December 2008 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/25245/

Muhammad Firdaus, Krismanti dan Wiwiek Rindayanti (2012) dalam penelitiannya yang berjudul The Dynamic of Regional Disparity in Java in Java Island After Fiscal Decentralization mengemukakan dengan cermat antara lain From many literatures, there is a debate of predicting of convergence process in regional income. Some competing theories can be summarized as follows. The behavior of economies over time has been modeled strongly by the neoclassical wing. A key of implication of the Solow model is that, if all countries (regions) have the same potential (or steady state) level of income, poor will grow faster than rich and eventually catch up at the steady state. It is also known as idea of club convergence, that is hypothesis that only countries with similar structural characteristics and initial conditions will converge to one another. There are two important kinds of catch-up. First, given the right economic structure and environment, poor countries tend to have high rates of return to capital. The accumulation of physical and human capital, whether financed by domestic saving or capital inflows, leads to rapid growth. Second, they tend to have rapid rates of growth of total factor productivity. They can emulate the technologies and “best practice” management innovations of the more advanced economies that have gone before them. Growth can therefore be facilitated as much through the accumulation of factors as through increases in the efficiency of the use of these factors.

Theory Founder (year) Predicting of convergence/divergence

Neoclassical Solow (1950) Convergence

Cumulative causation Myrdal (1957)

Kaldor (1970) Divergence

Endogenous growth Romer (1986)

Lucas (1988) Convergence or divergence depends on increase in human or physical capital

New economic geography Krugman (1991) Convergence or divergence

depends on both history and future expectations

However, the new growth theorists have pointed out to the failure of the

poorer economies to catch up to the richer ones (cumulative causation and the later theories). Some authors argued that a fundamental factor in growth is the presence of non-convexities in production, which can create a non-diminishing relationship between an economy’s initial conditions and its output level over arbitrarily long horizons. The striking differences in the empirical implications of the neoclassical and new growth perspectives have led to a literature, which has formally tested the convergence hypothesis. For example, by introducing control variables such as human capital; distribution of income and openness, the neoclassical growth model tends to lead to the conditional convergence hypothesis rather than to the absolute convergence hypothesis.

Any rejection of absolute convergence does not necessarily imply a rejection of the neoclassical growth model (Lee, 2002). Thus, the convergence hypothesis is important to reexamine.Some studies related to the testing of convergence theories have been done. Firdaus and Yusop (2009) pointed out that the regions in Indonesia experienced the convergence process, but with a very low rate of convergence (0.29 percent).In this study, the disparity of regional income was tested among the provinces based on the regional gross domestic data.

The results are different with some studies conducted in more developed countries. Ralhan and Dayanandan (2005) found that regional income among the provinces in Canada experienced the convergence process with the rate of 6.5 percent. The authors also tested that there was convergence of disposable income data among the provinces, with the lower rate of 2.9 percent.

The study conducted by Badinger (2002) in European countries also found the similar rate of convergence process among 196 regions.This study was renewed by Bussoletti and Esposti (2004), and the authors found the convergence rate was about 7.5 percent among 206 regions in Europe. All those studies employed the generalized method of moment (GMM) to estimate the regional income convergence. This study tests the convergence process among regions in Java island, based on data of regional gross domestic product and data ofregional income. The regional income was accounted using household expenditure. (International Journal of Economics and Management 6(1): 150 – 166 (2012) ISSN 1823 – 836X)

Dalam pada itu, suatu analisis yang dikembangkan oleh Faishal Fadli yang berjudul Analysis on Direct and Indirect Effect of Fiscal Desentralization and Regional Disparity (case Study Provinces in East and West Indonesia Year 2006 – 2012, mengemukakan : In Indonesia, efforts to promote fiscal decentralization in the area to obtain a bright spot with the initial issuance of Law No. 22 of 1999 on regional government later revised into Law No. 32 of 2004 to establish the concept of autonomy that has been built since the collapse of some of the new order years ago relating to the authority as well as central and local government affairs. While law No. 25 of 1999 which deals with fiscal balance between the central government and local governments have been revised to Act No. 33 of 2004 pertaining to the finance division of regional heads .

The term decentralization is not easy to define because it covers a very broad institutional. It is the same as what has been revealed by Bird (1993) that decentralization often connotes anything, according to the people who use it for his own benefit shocking pink. But in general the process can be interpreted as a delegation of authority from central government to underneath level of government. In general, according to Osoro (2003) concept of decentralization consists of political decentralization, administrative decentralization, fiscal decentralization, economic decentralization.

The administrative decentralization, delegation of authority is intended to redistribute authority, responsibility and financial resources for providing public services. Administrative decentralization is classified into three types, namely (i) concentration, delegation of authority from the central government to the officials who are in line with the hierarchy of the central government in the region, (ii) devolution, devolution to the government at a lower level in finance or administration tasks and the local authorities got uncontrolled direction from the central government, (iii) delegation, the delegation of authority for certain tasks to organizations that are outside the regular bureaucratic structure which is not directly controlled by the central government.

According DeMelo (2000) Fiscal decentralization is one component of decentralization, so that later in the fiscal decentralization is expected to promote the efficiency of the public sector, as well as public accountability and transparency in providing public services and transparent decision-making and democratic. Moreover, according to the World Bank (Khusaini, 2006) Gain potential of fiscal decentralization to regional development is to improve the efficiency of public services, reducing the cost of information, and reduce transaction costs. In addition, the presence of this fiscal decentralization, since the reception area were also submitted to the local government so that local governments seeking to make the reception area large enough that one of them by exploring the potential areas for centralized government system has not been touched. With the potential of the region can be explored region's revenue is expected to rise from the previous.

Although decentralization is a positive set of ideas, but that does not mean it will lead to a positive impact as well, assuming there are three negative impacts of decentralization: first, the importance of national unity and integrity. It is, in particular, feared for developing countries that are relatively new stand, where national unity is still fragile so the devolution of power to regions can lead to disintegration. Second, the desire to ensure the provision of a standard public goods and services are the same, that every citizen has the right to a standard of services / goods the same public, despite living in an area with economic capacity and resources vary. The role of central government in this regard is indispensable in ensuring the provision of public goods and services in the same standard among local governments. Third, local governments are less efficient. Often the form of the successful implementation of the local government at the central and regional levels of government is determined by management and the efficient management of local autonomy.