THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 28
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 29
Table 2.2.1: Gross national income per capita 2008, ATLAS method and purchasing power parity PPP of Southeast Asian countries
Source: World Development Indicators Data Base, World Bank, 2010, and the World Bank List of Economies, 2010
2.2.2 POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMMES: CHANGING STRATEGIES
Some argue that while the development strategies which began to be introduced through the Five Year Development Plans Repelita, Rencana Pembangunan Lima Tahun in the late 1960s and
throughout the 1970s under the New Order Suharto government focused on economic growth, inflation control, creating an investment climate, and other efforts for political and economic
stability see the discussion above, there were few initiatives which focussed directly on poverty reduction.
58
Over time, however, the focus on poverty alleviation in national development efforts has grown and changed form. With the irst Five Year Development Plan Repelita I, 1969-1974,
some initiatives were introduced to improve services for poor families such as the Poor Family Welfare Services Program Program Pelayanan Kesejahteraan Keluarga Miskin, a programme
that continued in various forms over the next two decades.
59
The initial Five Year Development Plans used a basic needs approach to poverty reduction,
60
in which the poverty line was established at a minimum of 2100 calories intake per capita per day.
Poverty reduction efforts intensified with Repelita IV 1985-1989 and began to be characterised by multi-sectoral approaches aimed at reducing inter-regional inequity through the special targeting
of particular disadvantaged regions and provinces. Examples include USAID sponsored Provincial Development Project, CIDA sponsored Sulawesi Regional Development Project, and World Bank
sponsored Yogyakarta Rural Development Project.
61
One of the more renowned redistributive
58 Shahrir 1986 Ekonomi politik kebutuhan pokok: Sebuah tinjauan prospektif, LP3ES GIVE FULL NAME: Jakarta, pxxi; Dewey, A., Dove, M. R., Retnandari, N. D., Sutrisno, L. 1993 Suatu tinjauan mengenai usaha-usaha pemberantasan kemiskinan di Indonesia 1968-1993:
Realita mikro dan konteks makro unpublished draft
59 Shahrir 1986, ‘Political economy of basic needs’, p93. This programme became the Family Welfare Support Program Bimbingan Kesejahteraan Keluarga in the Second Five Year Development Plan Repelita II, 1975-1979. As the programme grew, under the Third
Five Year Development Plan Repelita III, 1980-1984 it became The Development of Family Welfare Pengembangan Kesejahteraan Keluarga. In Repelita IV 1985-1989 and V 1990-1994, the name of the programme was changed to Donation and Alleviation of
Poor People Penyantunan dan Pengentasan Fakir Miskin. Dewey et al. 1993 Suatu tinjauan mengenai usaha-usaha pemberantasan kemiskinan di Indonesia 1968-1993
, pp29-30 60 The five main basic needs for people to survive and live in dignity were defined as food, health, water and sanitation, education and
shelter. 61 These programmes were later merged into the Regional Integrated Development Program PPWT, Program Pengembangan Wilayah
Terpadu, which was designed to minimize the weaknesses of sectoral programming. Other programmes have focused on the urban poor, such as the City Integrated Infrastructure Development Program Program Pembangunan Infrastruktur Perkotaan.
Country
Upper-middle income US3,856-11,905 Singapore
Brunei Darussalam Malaysia
Lower-middle income US976-3,855 Thailand
Timor-Leste Philippines
Indonesia Low Income US975 or less
Vietnam Lao PDR
Cambodia
GNI per capita, Atlas method US
34,050 27,050
7,250 3,670
2,460 1,880
890 760
640
Purchasing power parity International dollar
50,800 47,970
13,740 7,770
4,690 3,900
3,600
2,700 2,050
1,870
development initiatives of the later Suharto period was the Left-Behind Villages Program Program Inpres Desa Tertinggal, IDT, which was implemented through a Presidential Instruction
Inpres, Instruksi Presiden beginning in 1994 along with other Presidential Instructions, such as road building in rural areas.
The IDT programme also used a regional targeting and multi-sectoral approach to lift the standard of living in some of Indonesia’s more isolated villages. Since 2000, the targeting principles of
redistribution and intensified interventions in particular regions have continued to be employed in development efforts in Indonesia, through both the continuation of previous programmes in
the earlier part of the last decade and through new programmes implemented by the Directorate for Disadvantaged Regions at The National Development Planning Agency BAPPENAS, Badan
Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional. This includes development and rehabilitation programmes in conflict-affected areas such as the Support for Poor and Disadvantaged Areas Project P2DTK,
Percepatan Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal dan Khusus. Targeting disadvantaged regions has also been mainstreamed through the creation of the Ministry for the Development of
Disadvantaged Regions in 2004.
Aside from targeting particular regions, poverty reduction efforts began to include the principles of empowerment and improving human capabilities skills building in the final days of the
New Order, representing a significant departure from the basic needs approach. Such efforts have continued since the last SITAN 2000 was conducted, and have contributed to mitigating
the effects of the financial crisis, which triggered spiralling poverty levels. For example, the Kecamatan sub-district Development Program PPK, Program Pengembangan Kecamatan
was designed to address the self-defined needs and priorities of poorer groups and women in the country. With technical assistance from the World Bank, the Government of Indonesia GoI
began implementing the programme in many sub-districts throughout Indonesia in 1998. The PPK proved popular both with the government and in rural Indonesia and was scaled up to combat
the effects of the financial crisis. The programme has continued through several iterations over the last decade, becoming the largest community-driven development programme in the world.
62
In April 2007, the GoI launched a revised version of the programme,
63
the National Program for Community Empowerment - ‘Mandiri’
64
PNPM Mandiri, which, drawing on the national development budget, is now the cornerstone of the national development strategy.
Poverty reduction strategies in Indonesia, particularly in the second half of the past decade, have extended empowerment and human capabilities approaches to also focus on United Nations-
supported rights based approaches to development. The National Strategy on Poverty Reduction SNPK, Strategi Nasional Penanggulangan Kemiskinan, which was officially released by the
Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Kesejahteraan Rakyat in 2005, made poverty reduction and reducing inequality the top priority in the national
development strategy. The National Strategy prioritises both the rights of the poor and the obligations of the state to respect, protect, facilitate, and fulfil people’s rights in terms of welfare.
It aims to: 1 create entrepreneurial opportunities for the poor; 2 strengthen community institutions to improve access to information for the poor and enable them to participate in
formal decision-making processes through, for example, the musrenbang system mentioned above; 3 incorporate capacity building, through investment in health, education and training;
62 Barron, P., Diprose, R. and Woolcock, M. 2006; 2011 Contesting development: Participatory programmes and local conflict in Indonesia, Yale University Press: Ithaca
63 PNPM Mandiri, often known as just PNPM, combines many of the mechanisms and principles of the preceding Urban Poor Reduction Program P2KP, Program Penanggulangan Kemiskinan di Perkotaan, and the Kecamatan Development Program PPK, Program
Pengembangan Kecamatan. 64 Mandiri in Indonesian means to stand alone or be independent
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 30
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 31
4 improve social protection, through improving insurance, assistance, savings mechanisms and programmes, and the promotion of traditional social safety nets; and 5 build global
partnerships. In line with the Human Rights Based Approach to Development supported by UNICEF and other UN agencies, the GoI’s poverty reduction strategy, which has begun to be
implemented in the past five years, is both growth- and equity-oriented, creating a framework within which the needs of the most disadvantaged can be prioritised.
Indonesia, through its efforts to improve the economy, reform its political institutions, and through a number of poverty alleviation programmes and other initiatives at the time of the
crisis including fuel subsidies and later cash transfer programmes, as well as social safety net programmes described in Box 2.2.1 has managed over the past ten years to improve poverty
levels. The number of people living below the poverty line had fallen to 14.1 per cent 32.5 million people by March 2009, compared to 16.7 per cent 36.2 million people in 2004.
65
Higher poverty levels increase insecurity for children, put enormous pressure on families and limit the
opportunities for children and young people to access education, health services, clean water, sanitation, nutrition and the skills required for future employment. Nevertheless, many of those
that have recently ‘escaped’ poverty remain vulnerable to economic shocks and can easily slip back into poverty with, for example, high rates of inflation due to global economic crises.
66
Though poverty remains a challenge in terms of fulfilling the basic rights of households and children in particular, significant achievements have been made in the last decade through social
safety net programmes, cash transfer programmes, rural infrastructure and service improvement programmes especially in isolated and disadvantaged areas and other poverty eradication
programmes introduced to offset the devastating effects of the 1997 financial crisis see Figure 2.2.3 below. Based on the poverty headcount index, the percentage of the poor population
has decreased from 23 per cent in 1999 to 15 per cent in 2008.
67
Despite the efforts to reduce poverty, of the 32.5 million Indonesian people living under the poverty line it is estimated that
at least 14 million of them are children.
68
However, there is currently insuficient information on child poverty, in terms of a composite index of material and non-material indicators of poverty
for children. As of July 2010, UNICEF is working with the Social Monitoring and Early Response Research Institute the SMERU Research Institute to design and undertake a pilot child poverty
study to begin the process of filling the data gaps on child poverty.
Figure 2.2.3 shows an increase in poverty levels in 2006, although this was not as severe as in 1997. It is estimated that poverty increased from 16 per cent in 2005 to 17.8 per cent in 2006. It is
likely that the increase can be traced to when Indonesia stopped importing rice, the major staple food in the country, which led to a 33 per cent increase in the price of rice between February 2005
and March 2006. It is also likely that this was linked to the reduction in fuel subsidies in the same year - part of a rolling subsidy reduction which had been implemented over the preceding years.
After this, however, the poverty rate declined again to 14.15 per cent in 2009.
69 65 Government of Indonesia 2010 RPJMN 2010-2014, p15
66 Suryahadi, A. and Sumarto, S. 2010 ‘Poverty and Vulnerability in Indonesia before and after the Economic Crisis’, in: Hardjono, J., Akhmadi, N. and Sumarto, S. Eds. Poverty and Social Protection in Indonesia, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies: Singapore, pp36-62
67 A poor person is someone who cannot meet hisher basic needs, both food and non-food needs BPS - Statistics Indonesia, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007. A poor person is someone whose average per monthly per capita consumption falls under the BPS
defined poverty line BPS - Statistics Indonesia, 2008. A new poverty line was introduced in December 1998. The new poverty measure widens the scope of commodities considered a basic need. The resulting method provides a more realistic measure of poverty and is a
better tool for poverty comparison across regions through the introduction of a reference population and regional price deflators. The reference population consists of household whose nominal expenditures fall in the second and third deciles. The regional price deflators
are expressed as a proportion of the price level in Jakarta. This more dynamic poverty measure also facilitates time series comparisons.
68 From the calculations made by the Centre for Population and Policy Studies, Gajah Mada University, using 2007 National Socio- Economic Survey unweighted data the 2008 National Socio-Economic Survey does not have data on household expenditure, 46 per
cent of the poor population using BPS – Statistics Indonesia poverty indicators are aged under 18 years. Assuming that the proportion does not change in 2009, then in 2009 the number of poor children in Indonesia is estimated to be as high as 14,720,000.
69 World Bank 2006 Era baru pengentasan kemiskinan di Indonesia, World Bank: Jakarta
Figure 2.2.3: Percentage of poor population based on P0, poverty gap index, and poverty severity index over time, Indonesia 1999-2009
Source: - P0: Welfare Indicator 2003 data 1999 and 2002, 2005 data 2003, 2006 data 2004-2005, 2008 data 2006-
2008, BPS - Statistics Indonesia based on National Socio-Economic Survey - P1 and P2: BPS - Statistics Indonesia, Statistical Year-Book of Indonesia 2009
Per cent Index
Year
5.00 4.50
4.00 3.50
3.00 2.50
1.50 2.00
1.00 0.50
0.00 25
20 15
10 5
23.43
4.33
1.23 1.02
0.97 0.79
0.85 0.78
0.76 1.00
0.84 0.76
0.68 3.51
3.42 3.01
3.13 2.89
2.78 3.43
2.99 2.77
2.50 18.2
17.42 16.66
15.97 17.75
16.58 15.42
1999 2000
2001 2002
2003 2004
2005 2006
2007 2008
2009 Poverty Gap Index P1
Poverty Severity Index P2 Percentage of poor population based on head-countindex-P0
Box 2.2.1: Examples of social safety net programmes
The discussion below describes examples of social safety net programmes in Indonesia. This is not exhaustive, but rather provides examples of scholarships and block grants
programmes for schools, health insurance programmes, and conditional and unconditional cash transfer programmes. Other programmes not discussed here include subsidised rice
programmes, such as Rice for the Poor Raskin amongst others.
Scholarships From the 199899 to the 200203 academic year, the government provided a large number of
scholarships for poor students through the Social Safety Net JPS, Jaring Pengaman Sosial Education Sector Program. This programme was designed to reduce the impact of the
1997 economic crisis, which threatened the sustainability of education for children of poor families and those who had fallen into poverty as a result of the crisis i.e., leaving school
early and working to support families.
After reducing the fuel subsidy in 2001, the government provided subsidies via the Fuel Subsidy Reduction Compensation Program PKPS-BBM, Program Kompensasi Pengurangan
Subsidi BBM, including an Education Sector Program, which was known as Special Assistance for Students BKM, Bantuan Khusus Murid
. The scholarship programme of JPS was allocated to cover approximately 6 per cent of primary school students, 17 per cent of
junior secondary school students, and 9 per cent of senior secondary school students, while
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 32
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 33
70 The SMERU Research Institute 2006 ‘Pelaksanaan program Bantuan Operasional Sekolah BOS’, The SMERU Research Institute Newsletter No. 19, July-September, Jakarta
71 Ibid.; Suharyo, W. 2005 ‘A rapid appraisal of the PKPS-BBM Education Sector School Operational Assistance BOS’, the SMERU Research Institute: Jakarta
72 The SMERU Research Institute 2006 Pelaksanaan program Bantuan Operasional Sekolah BOS 73 Suharyo, W. 2005 A rapid appraisal of the PKPS-BBM Education Sector School Operational Assistance BOS
74 Ministry of National Education Departemen Pendidikan Nasional 2005 Buku Petunjuk Pelaksanaan BOS 75 Ibid.
76 Sparrow, R., Suryahadi, A. and Widyanti, W. 2010 Social health insurance for the poor: Targeting and impact of Indonesia’s Askeskin program
, The International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam and The SMERU Research Institute: Jakarta 77 Ibid.
78 Ibid. 79 Ibid.
80 Ibid.
the BKM programme was allocated to approximately 20 per cent of students at the primary, junior and senior secondary school levels. Despite this allocation, research has shown that
the percentage of poor households whose children were receiving scholarships was smaller, that is, less than 15 per cent.
70
The BOS programme Following the large reduction in the fuel subsidy in March and October 2005, commencing
in the 200506 academic year, the government made fundamental changes to the PKPS- BBM Education Sector Program concept and design for primary and junior high schools.
This BKM programme for primary and junior secondary schools was replaced by the School Operational Assistance programme BOS, Bantuan Operasional Sekolah. In contrast to the
BKM programme, which provided money directly to poor students who were selected by schools in accordance with the allocations they had received, BOS funds were provided to
schools to be managed in accordance with the requirements that had been determined by the central government. The size of the fund for each school was determined on the basis of
the number of students in accordance with the requirements that had been determined by the central government.
71
BOS was available for all primary and junior high schools, including Sekolah Dasar Primary School, MI Madrasah Ibtidaiya, Islamic-based primary school, Sekolah Dasar Luar Biasa
Primary School for Children With Special Needs, Sekolah Menengah Pertama Junior
Secondary School, MT Madrasah Tsanawiyah , Islamic-based Junior High School, and
Sekolah Menegah Pertama Luar Biasa Junior Secondary School for Children with Special
Needs. Both public and private schools running the compulsory education programme at primary and junior high schools or equivalent were entitled to receive BOS. Schools
that considered themselves as well-off were, however, allowed to opt out of the BOS programme.
72
The introduction of the BOS programme was expected to reduce the cost of education borne by students’ parents. Under the programme, poor students should receive free education.
Although the objectives of the programme as stated in the Operational Guidelines for BOS 2005 did not specify free education for poor students, this has been emphasised in the
implementation and regulation of the programme. The programme regulations require the elimination of school tuition for schools that, prior to receiving BOS, had smaller school
tuition fees schedules than the BOS funding. Schools that, prior to receiving BOS, had school tuition fees schedules greater than the BOS funding were permitted to collect school tuition
fees, but had to exempt poor students from tuition fees and reduce the tuition for other students. In addition to the regulations on school tuition fees, the regulations also allow
schools to use the funds to provide transportation allowances as special assistance for poor students deemed to be in need.
73
The objective of the BOS programme “The BOS Program aims to provide assistance to schools in order that they can exempt
students from their school tuition. This exemption, however, will not result in decreased quality of the education services provided for the community…The BOS Program is aimed
at releasing poor students from education cost and reducing the costs for other students, so they obtain a better quality basic education until the completion of nine years of
basic education in order to achieve the goal of the nine year compulsory basic education programme.”
74
Because recipient schools used most BOS funds for operational activities that supported teaching and learning activities, the BOS funds were of benefit to all students, including
those from both well-off families and poor families. Most schools also decided to give the same treatment to all students in the school charges that were levied on students.
75
Health insurance Indonesia introduced the first phase of its plan to achieve universal health coverage through
a mandatory public health insurance scheme in 2004. Asuransi Kesehatan Masyarakat Miskin, or Askeskin, was targeted to the poor. The key objective of Askeskin was to improve
access to healthcare and provide financial protection against health shocks and illnesses for poor households that lack access to formal insurance.
76
It initially targeted the poorest 60 million people.
77
In 2008, Askeskin evolved into Jaminan Kesehatan Masyarakat, or Jamkesmas
, a Ministry of Health ‘insurance’ programme that now covers over 76.4 million poor Indonesians.
78
The Askeskin programme reimbursed providers in two ways: 1 a payment provided to community health centres puskesmas based on the number of registered poor; and 2
fee-for-service payments covering third-class hospital beds reimbursed through P.T. Askes a state-owned insurer. All public hospitals were automatically qualified as providers, while
Askes contracted with private mostly non-profit hospitals individually.
Changes to Askeskin implemented in 2005 resulted in differences in two major areas. First, rather than being a purely government-run programme, it provided a block grant
to P.T. Askes, which then targeted the poor with Askeskin cards and reimbursed hospital claims. Second, the beneficiary cards in Askeskin were individually targeted rather than the
household cards used in previous programmes. By 2008 Askeskin had expanded to cover over 70 million people.
79
Then in 2008, Askeskin evolved into Jamkesmas. Many district governments have followed the lead of Jamkesmas and established district-
based insurance schemes typically called Jamkesda that cover the near-poor or those not covered under Jamkesmas. These schemes take different forms. Some Jamkesda are
designed as extensions of Jamkesmas, with the goal of covering an additional population of near-poor, on top of those covered by Jamkesmas; other schemes focus on specific services,
such as in Yogyakarta, where maternal and child health services for 104,500 children and pregnant women are covered under a district-led scheme.
80
