Supply Response Analysis Of Paddy In Kediri Regency | Choirina | Agro Ekonomi 23013 68927 1 PB
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
107
SUPPLY RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF PADDY IN KEDIRI: MANAGERIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Analisa Respon Penawaran Padi Di Kediri: Implikasi Manajerial
Vii Nurul Choirina1, Slamet Hartono2, and Any Suryantini2
Student of Magister Manajemen of Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture
Universitas Gadjah Mada
2
Lecturer of Social Economic of Agriculture Department, Faculty of Agriculture
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Jl Flora, Bulaksumur, 55281 Yogyakarta
vii.choirina@gmail.com
1
Diterima tanggal : 5 April 2016 ; Disetujui tanggal : 13 Juni 2016
ABSTRACT
Research of farmer’s response analysis to price is important to increase paddy production
in Kediri. Farmers are conducted as the object of the research because they are the decision
maker on all of farming activities. This study is aimed to know the effect of harvest area
response, productivity response, supply response paddy, and managerial implications in
Kediri. The analysis method used the Nerlove approach through harvest area response and
productivity response. Data were collected annually from 1992 to 2015. The result showed
that harvest area in previous year was the signiicant factor to the harvest area. Grain
price, fertilizer price index, rainfall, harvest area in previous 2 years and 3 years had no
signiicant effect. Factors which had signiicant impact for the productivity were grain price
and productivity in the previous year, but fertilizer price index, harvest area, and rainfall
had no signiicant effect. Paddy supply-elasticity in short term and long term was inelastic
so that supply paddy was unresponsive on grain price changing. Managerial implication
formulation consists of procedural implications and policy implications. Procedural
implications included the use of a transplanter, jajar legowo system, use of fertilizer in 6
right-ways completed with a demonstration plot. The policy implication is was composed by
price and non-price policies. Price policies were showed by costs of good sold which was
supported by coopertaion between farmers and BULOG and the use of combine harvester.
Non-price policies were embodied with the increasing of cropping index and wetland
transformation into settlements.
Keywords: elasticity, managerial implications, paddy, price, supply response
INTISARI
Penelitian analisis respon petani terhadap harga penting untuk meningkatkan produksi padi
di Kediri. Petani diperlakukan sebagai objek penelitian karena mereka adalah pengambil
keputusan pada semua kegiatan bertani. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh
respon panen, respon produktivitas, respon penawaran padi, dan implikasi manajerial di
Kediri. Metode analisis menggunakan pendekatan Nerlove melalui respon areal panen
dan respon produktivitas. Data dikumpulkan setiap tahun dari tahun 1992 sampai 2015.
Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa luas panen tahun sebelumnya merupakan faktor yang
108
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
signiikan terhadap luas panen. Harga gabah, indeks harga pupuk, curah hujan, luas panen
pada 2 tahun sebelumnya dan 3 tahun tidak berpengaruh signiikan. Faktor yang memiliki
dampak signiikan terhadap produktivitas adalah harga padi dan produktivitas pada tahun
sebelumnya, namun indeks harga pupuk, luas panen, dan curah hujan tidak berpengaruh
signiikan. Elastisitas penawaran beras dalam jangka pendek dan jangka panjang bersifat
inelastis sehingga penawaran padi tidak responsif terhadap perubahan harga gabah. Formulasi
implikasi manajerial terdiri dari implikasi prosedural dan implikasi kebijakan. Implikasi
prosedural termasuk penggunaan transplanter, sistem jajar legowo, penggunaan pupuk
dalam 6 cara benar dilengkapi dengan plot demonstrasi. Implikasi kebijakannya disusun
oleh kebijakan harga dan non-harga. Kebijakan harga ditunjukkan oleh biaya barang yang
terjual yang didukung oleh kerjasama antara petani dan BULOG dan penggunaan pemanen
gabungan. Kebijakan non-harga diwujudkan dengan meningkatnya indeks tanam dan
transformasi lahan basah menjadi permukiman.
Kata Kunci : elastisitas, implikasi manajerial, harga, padi, respon penawaran
INTRODUCTION
by the width of the wetland but also the
Food is the most basic requirements
large of population which are relied on
for human resources of a nation. Food
agriculture for livelihood (BPS, 2015). The
security requiresavailability of food in
problems are luctuation of productivityand
suficient quantity and quality, distribution
declining of land area harvested from 2010
ways in affordable prices and food safety.
until 2013.
Food safety means they are safe to be
The rapid growth of the population
consumed for people to support their daily
of Kediri demands the availability of
activities.(Purwantini, et al., 2002).
rice on a local scale. Kediri government
East Java is one of the cetral of rice
should achieve food security and food
productions and contribute for national
self-sufficiency. One way to make it
spare. East Java is able to supply more than
happened is to make agriculture on the top
17 percent of national rice and provides
priority in development plan. Food security
rice for 15 others provinces through Bulog
can be done by some programs such as
(Deptan Jatim, 2014). In order to strengthen
the intensification of seeds, balanced
food security towards national food self-
fertilization, pest and disease control, and
suficiency, the government of East Java
utilizing marginal land.
province focuses on excalation production
The expansion can not be done easily
of staple food crops. One of them is paddy.
because one of the main characteristics
Kediri is the one of rice crops,
of agricultural products is the lag time
especially paddy in Jawa Timur. In the
between planting and harvesting which
other hand, Kediri is supported not only
is called as gestation period. The results
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
109
obtained by farmers based on estimation
will make decisions on production and
of future periods and their experiences
business activities.
in the past. When a commodities price
Hutaharuk (1996) showed a response
of agriculture increase at a certain time,
to the price of rice acreage outside Java
the increase is not followed automatically
was greater than in Java that indicated
by productivity and areal increasing. It is
that there were any limitations acreage in
beacuse resource allocation decisions have
Java. Response acreage outside Java was
been set at the previous time. The farmers’
responsive to the price of rice. It showed
responses occurred after the time difference
that price increasing wasfollowed by an
(lag) as the impact of changes in input
increase in acreage. This was a reason for
prices, output, and government policies.
farmers to plant the commodity. The price
If the price is estimated higher, farmers
was so important for the consideration of
will continue their ways and change their
farmers in planting a particular commodity.
ways at the next period by altering the
The problem of this research were: 1)
composition of the resource, so that in the
the factors that affect in response harvest
short term price elasticity is inelastic.
area; 2) factors that affect the response of
Improvement and sustainability of
productivity; 3) Paddy supply-elasticity
rice production is largely determined by the
in Kediri; 4) To describe the magerial
farmer’s participation in the government’s
impication of supply response result.
programs. Efforts to increase production
Then the study was conducted in
will not be achieved if farmers do not
order to: 1) determine the factors that affect
give any supports for the programs. In
the response harvest area and productivity;
this condition, farmers is the critical
2) determine the elasticity of supply of
success factos of agricultural production
paddy in Kediri, both short term or long
improvement program so goverment needs
term; 3) Determine magerial implication
to run incentif systems for those who
of supply response.
increase production sucessfully.
Farmer decisions in allocating
METHODS
resources, whether land, labor, and funds for
The basic method which was used
a variety of land-use options is determined
in this research was quantitative (statistic
by the response of farmers to price,
descriptive analysis and statistic inferential
government policies and other factors.
analysis) and qualitative. Qualitative
Supply response research determines the
method is a research methode based on
success of the price increase in production
positivisme, which is used to describe a
in Kediri, because in the end farmers who
natural object (Sugiyono, 2014). In this
110
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
research, the method is applied to know
Information:
manajerial implication from paddy supply
At
response. Method for determining the
HRGt = grain price in t year(Rp/Kg)
location was purposive method, that was
indeksHRGPPKt= fertilizer price index
Kediri.
CHt
= rainfallin t-year(mm/th)
At-1
= harvest area in the previous
The data used in this research was
= harvest area in t-year (ha)
secondary data. Data were collected
annually from 1992 to 2015.To guess the
year (Ha)
At-2
= harvest area in the previous 2
harvest area response and productivity
response, the resarche used the grain
years (Ha)
At-3
= harvest area in the previous 3
price, fertilizer price index, harvest
years (Ha)
area, productivity, and rainfall.All of
ut
data related to rupiah were delated by
b1,..,b6 = coeficient of regression
= error
the consumer price index by using the
base year 2007. Delation was needed
To facilitate the estimation using OLS,
to eliminate external factors, such as
the response equation harvest area was
inlation. The data were taken from Badan
transformed into a linear form as follows:
Pusat Statistik Kediri, Dinas Pertanian
LnAt = Lnb0 + b1LnHRGt +
Kediri, and BULOG Kediri. Both primary
b2indeksHRGPPKt + b3LnCHt+ b4
data and indepth interview were used
LnAt-1 + b5LnAt-2 + b6LnAt-3 + ut
in this research in which agriculture
departement, rice miller, and farmers
2. Productivity Response
as the subject of research. To determine
the factors that affect the response,
partial model Nerlovedeveloped by Marc
Partial adjustment models for
productivity response in this study as
follows :
Nerlove was adapted.The rearch used
harvest area response and productivity
Yt
= d0 + d1HRGt + d2 indeksHRGPPKt
+ d3CHt + d4At + d5Yt-1 + ut
response approach and regression
analysis.
1. Harvest Area Response
Partial adjustment models for harvest
Information:
Yt
(kw/ha)
area response in this study as follows:
At
= b0 + b1HRGt + b2 indeksHRGPPKt +
b3CHt+ b4At-1 + b5At-2 + b6At-3+ ut
= paddy productivity in t-year
HRGt = grain price in t-year (Rp/kg)
indeksHRGPPKt= fertilizer price index
CHt
= rainfall in t-year (mm/th)
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
At
= harvest area in t-year (Ha)
Yt-1
= paddy productivity previous
Supply elasticity deals can be
formulated as follows :
year (kw/ha)
ut
111
ԐP = ԐYP + ԐAP (1+ԐYA)
= error
d1,..,d6 = coeficient of regression
To fulil the estimation with OLS,
then the response equation productivitywas
transformed into a linear form as follows:
Information:
ԐP
= supply response commodity,
ԐYP
= productivity elasticity to the
price,
ԐAP
= area elasticity to the price, and
ԐYA
= productivity elasticity to the
LnYt = Lnd0 + d1LnHRGt +
harvest area.
d2indeksHRGPPKt + d3LnCHt +
d4LnAt + d5LnYt-1 + ut
3. To know managerial implication
To ind the managerial implication,
To analyze the supply elasticity
of short-term and long-term used the
following formula:
Elasticity area on output prices in the
short term (ԐAP ( sr )) and long term (ԐAP(
lr)) on the average value and the price of
each area were :
(ԐAP(sr)) = b1 (P/A)
(ԐAP(lr)) = (ԐAP(sr)) /(1-b4)
Elasticity of short-term productivity
of each of the output price (ԐYP (sr)) and
area (ԐYA(sr)) were :
(ԐYP(sr)) = d1(P/Y) dan (ԐYA(sr)) =
d5(A/Y)
Long-term elasticity of output and
productivity on the price of harvest areas
were:
(ԐYP(lr)) = (ԐYP(sr))/(1-d5) dan
(ԐYA(lr)) = (ԐYA(sr))/(1-d5)
we used:
a. Data reduction, the methode which
guided us to concern in choosing,
focusing, abstaracting, and also
transforming row-noticed data.
b. Data arranged in a logic way so that the
conclusion could be showed.
c. Conclusion was stated to ind the data
interpretation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Researsch Area Describtion
The total area of Kediriare 138 605
hectares and divided into 26 districts
scattered from the slopes of Mount Kelud
to the west,splited by the Brantas River
up to the slopes of Mount Wilis.There are
many rivers or natural channel, where the
fairly large water discharges and lows
throughout the year. Ground water of
these rivers is exploited by people for
112
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
daily needs and irrigation before it reachs
2. Supply Response Analysis
Brantas river.
a. Harvest Area Response
In the structure of the economy
The results of the analysis of the
Kediri, agriculture still had an important
factors that affect the harvest area were
role. Agriculture sector contributedabout
presented in Table 1.
26.94 percent and came as the irst position
The value of F arithmetic was 2.639
among all sectors to the GDP in 2014.
with a probability of 0.063. The value
Contribution of the agricultural sector was
was signiicant with an error rate of 10%.
dominant and absorbent employment in
The results showed that all independent
this sector was high enogh, the agricultural
variables (the price of grain, fertilizer
sector is still the prominentsector for its
price index, rainfall, the harvest area in the
economic condition.
previous year, harvest area in the previous 2
Kediri is known as one of the
years, and the harvest area in the previous
agricultural center in East Java province with
3 years) had significant effect on the
an area of 47.786 hectares paddy ields and
dependent variable (harvest area).
90.819 hectares areothers. In 2014, Kediri
R2 values of 0.53 or 53% indicated
tried hard to extense farm area to anticipate
that independent variables such as the price
its declining.As a result, the area of wetland in
of grain, fertilizer price index, rainfall,
the year increased by 0.14 percent. Although
harvest area in the previous year, harvest
the increase there were a few, but such efforts
area in the previous 2 years, and the harvest
should be continued to improve. It also need
area in the previous 3 years gave effect
any appreciationsto suceed food security.
of 53% the harvest area, while 47% were
The decline in rice production in 2014
was caused by irrigation possibilities that
influenced by other factors outside the
model.
already need to be repaired and upgraded, the
Signiicance test of the regression
harvest area was decreasing, and pests (BPS,
coeficient or t test in the study was held
2015). As a result, stems and grains of rice
by looking at the α value stated in the
which were produced no longer contained
column probability (prob.). and analyzed
solid, and a decrease in harvested area of
coeficient regression to determine short
195 ha or 0.38 percent. In 2014 Purwoasri,
term and long-term elasticity which
Plemahan and Kandangan district werethe
variables inluenced the harvest area. In
biggest three which contributued much in
the short-term elasticity changes to long-
rice production in Kediri. Beside that, districts
term elasticity there was the time to make
with a high production were in Kunjang,
adjustments or referred to the adjustment
Badas, Papar and Plosoklaten.
coeficient (δ). Adjustment coeficient (δ)
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
113
Table 1. Results of regression test harvest area
Variable
Ln C
Ln Grain Price
Ln Fertilizer price index
Ln Rainfall
Ln Harvest area in the previous year
Ln Harvest area in the previous 2 years
Ln Harvest area in the previous 3 years
coeficient
6.8443
**
0.0204
0.0003
0.0240
0.4334
*
-0.1081
0.0408
t-stat
2.7926
0.3650
1.0584
0.5515
1.9926
-0.6250
0.2625
prob.
0.0144
0.7205
0.3078
0.5900
0.0662
0.5420
0.7967
F hit= 2.639Prob = 0.063
R2 = 0.530
Source : Secondary data, 2016 (calculated)
Information:
***
= signiicant in error 1%
**
= signiicant in error 15%
*
= signiicant in error 10%
derived from 1-regression of coeficients
indicated the short-term elasticity means
harvest area in the previous year (1-b4At-1),
that if the harvest area in the previous year
that was 0.567.
increase 1 %, the harvest area in the current
Table 2 showed the elasticity of short-
year will increase by 0.433 %. In the short
term and long-term variables inluencing
term elasticity was inelastic which means
the harvest area.
that changes in harvest area in the previous
year larger than the harvest area. Long-term
Table2. Elasticity of short-term and longterm variables influencing the
harvest area
Variable
Ln Harvest
area in the
previous year
Short
Term
Elasticity
0.433
Long Term
Elasticity
elasticity of 0.763, which means was inelastic
too, if the harvest area in the previous year
increase 1%, the harvest area now would
increase by 0.763 %. The elasticity could be
seen in Table 2.
0.763
Source: Secondary data, 2016 (calculated)
Factors that had no sidnniicant effect
were grain price, fertilizer price index,
rainfall, harvest area in the previous 2 years,
and harvest area in the previous 3 years. The
Factors that affect the harvest area was
grain price were not statistically signiicant
the harvest area in the previous year with
effect on the harvest area.According to Lipsey
marked positive and regression coeficient
0.433, signiicant at the 1 % error rate. Value
(1995) in Oktavianto (2009), the relationship
114
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
between the price of a commodity by the
of fertilizer decrease, farmers can not add
amount of the offer was positive, so the
acreage because of limited land. This also
higher the price of a commodity, the greater
happens with rainfall does not affect the
the amount of the commodity supplied,
harvest area. Increases or decreases in
and ceteris paribus. In this study were not
rainfall does not make farmers increase or
statistically correspond to the theory, this
decrease the acreage because of limited land.
is caused by the increase or decrease price
The harvest area in the previous 2 years
of grain does not make getting up or down
had no signiicant effect on the harvest area.
harvest area because doing extending very
It showed harvest area in the previous 2 years
dificult in the area of research. Beside that,
did not increase harvest area. The harvest area
the area in Kediri islikely to decline due to
in the previous 3 years had no signiicant
land conversion to residential.
effect on the harvest area.
The price index of fertilizer had
no signiicant effect on the harvest area.
b. Productivity Reponse
Subsidized fertilizer urea is a major fertilizer
The results of the analysis of the
in rice cultivation. In real condition the
factors that affected the productivity
increase or decrease in fertilizer prices
response were presented in Table 3.
will not make farmers reduce or increase
The test results F, R2, and the mean
acreage.In the research area, rice planting
of the regression model were shown in table
season has been scheduled so when prices
3. The value of F arithmetic amounted to
Table 3. Result of regression test of productivity
Variable
Ln C
Ln Grain Price
Ln Fertilizer price index
Ln Rainfall
Ln Harvest area
Ln Productivity in the previous year
coeficient
2.8563
0.0373
-0.0001
0.0039
0.0501
0.5028
F hit= 11.331Prob = 0.000
R2 = 0.769
Source: Secondary data, 2016 (calculated)
Information:
***
= signiicant in error 1%
**
= signiicant in error 5%
*
= signiicant in error 10%
t-stat
*
*
**
2.6079
2.7519
-1.3991
0.3343
-0.8619
3.2393
prob.
0.0184
0.0136
0.1797
0.7422
0.0660.4007
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
115
11.331 with a probability of 0.000. The value
Factors that significantly affected
was signiicant with an error rate of 1%. The
productivity was the grain price, harvest area
results showed that all independent variables
and productivity in the previous year. The
(price of grain, fertilizer price index, rainfall,
price of grain was statistically signiicant
harvest area, and productivity in the previous
effect on the productivity with marked positive
year) had signiicant effect on the dependent
and regression coeficient 0.037, signiicant
variable (productivity). R2 values of 0.769 or
at 5% error level. This value indicated the
76.9% indicated that independent variables
short-term elasticity means that if the grain
such as price of grain, fertilizer price index,
prices increase 1%, the productivity current
rainfall,harvest area, and the productivity in
year will increase by 0.037%. In the long
the previous year had the effect of 76.9%
term elasticity was 0.0748, if the grain prices
the productivity response, while 23.1% were
increase 1% the productivity increased by
inluenced by other factors outside the model.
0,0748%. In the short term and long termprice
Signiicance test of the regression
of grain inelastic, that means the change in
coeficient or t test in the study was held by
productivity greater than the real grain prices.
looking at the α value stated in the column
Nevertheles the increase grain prices made
probability (prob.). and analyzed coeficient
farmers more intensive to manage rice crops
regression to determine short term and long-
in ields.
term elasticity which variables inluencing
Productivity in the previous year
the productivity response.Adjustment
affectedstatistically signiicant with a positive
coeficient (δ) derived from 1-regression
regression coefficient of 0.50in 1% error
of coeficients productivity in the previous
level. It showed every 1% productivity in
year (1-b5Yt-1), that was 0.498.
the previous year could increase productivity
Table 4 showed the elasticity of short-
0.50% in the short term.In the long term
term and long-term variables inluencing
each 1% of productivity in the previous year
the productivity.
would increase 1,009% productivity (Table
4). Increased productivity in the previous year
Table4. Elasticity of short-term and longterm variables influencing the
productivity
variable
Grain Price
Productivity
in the
previous year
Short term
elasticity
0.0373
Long term
elasticity
0.0748
0.5028
1.0096
Source: Secondary data, 2016 (calculated)
made farmers more intensive to improve the
productivity of rice.
Factors that had no signiicant effect
werefertilizer price index, rainfall and harvest
area. Fertilizer price index did not signiicantly
affect to the productivity and negative market.
The increase in fertilizer price index did not
reduce the productivity of rice. It showed
116
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
that farmers would continue to produce rice
Table 5 showed that elasticity of
as possible as the increasing or decreasing in
harvest area to grain price was inelastic,
fertilizer prices. For farmers, fertilizer was the
0.0009 for the short term and 0.0016 for the
most important requirement of rice so that the
long term. The analysis showed that if the
price increase caused nothing.Rainfall was
prices increase by 100%, it would increase
also not signiicant effect and positive marked.
the harvest areaof 0.09% in the short term
It showed that increasing rainfall did not
and 0.16 % in the long term. Elasticity of
increasing productivity. Water requirements
productivity on the prices was inelastic for
for rice cultivation in the study area was illed
the short term that is 0.012 and 0.026 for
by irrigation, mostly taken from the Brantas
the long term. If the prices increase 100%,
River . When rainfall is low, farmers will use
it would increase productivity 1.2% for
the irrigation so that the decline in rainfall
the short term and 2.6% for the long term.
did not affect the productivity. Harvest area
Research conducted by Leo (2000), the
statistically had no signiicant effect on the
elasticity of harvest area and productivity
productivity of rice. According to Kepala
response of the rice price in Java was also
Dinas Pertanian Kediri, condition does not
inelastic both short term and long term.
occur in this research because extensiication
Productivity elasticity to the prices
can only be done in marginal areas and needs
was greater than the elasticity harvest
some adapatation techniques.
area to the prices, in the short term and
long term. It showed that the contribution
c. Supply Elasticity
of increased production due to increased
Supply elasticity results were
productivity was greater than the increase
shown in Table 5, which included elasticity
in harvest area. Increased productivity is
area, productivity, and supply.
done with the use of improved seed that
has a high yield.
Table 5. Area Elasticity, Productivity, dan
Paddy Supplyin Kediri
Elasticity
Harvest area
on prices
Productivity
on prices
Productivity
on harvest
area
Supply
Short
Term
Long
Information
Term
0,0009 0,0016 Inelastic
0,0126 0,0268 Inelastic
Elasticity productivity to the harvest
area was elastic, 4.72 in the short term and
10.04 in the long term (Table 5). Table 5
showed that the increase in the harvest area
of 100 % would increase productivity by 472
% in the short term and 100.4 % in the long
4,7212 10,0452 Elastic
term. Although it was elastic, increasing area
0,0731 0,2981 inelastic
the study area of the narrow and converted
Source: Secondary data, 2016 (calculated)
was dificult because the condition of land in
into a settlement.
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
117
Paddy supply elasticity in Kediri was
to sell to middlemen because farmers get
inelastic, 0.073 in the short term and 0,298 in
cash immediately without delay. BULOG
the long term. It can be argued that the change
uptakes in minimal quantity .Based onRice
of supply not responsive to changes in the
Productivity Index coeficient, BULOG only
price of grain. If the price increase 100%, the
absorbs below 70% of global production
supply would increase by 6.6% in the short
produced by Farmer (Citra Indonesia,2015).
term and 19.9% in the long term .
Besides that, Firdaus (2008)
Paddy supply elasticity was less
mentioned that agricultural commodities
responsive because farmers could not
was seasonal and dependent on nature.
immediately adjust their production activities
Seasonal nature of agricultural commodities
in response to price increasing because
made farmers less responsive to the price.
farmers will adjust price forecasts in the future
The higher prices raisesafter the harvest
in the form of the difference between the
time. Kediri planting pattern is paddy at the
estimated proportion with the reality. Gujarati
irst season and followed by other crops.
(2005) , mentioned three main reasons
underlying it, namely 1) psychological; 2)
Table 6. Respondents percentage.
technical; and 3) institutional.
No
Psychologically farmers were often
1.
reluctant to make changes because it
is generally fixed on the old traditions.
Technically, the agricultural production
process needs lag time in between planting
and harvesting. Similarly, the introduction
2.
of new production techniques requires time
to be adopted by farmers and growers adapt
new production techniques before it could
eventually increase the production.
Institutional change could not
happened because there were rules, such
as the existence of a contractual agreement
binding on production time. Farmers in
Kediri sell their grain in the middleman
with the prices below the loor price set by
goverment. Though BULOG provides grain
prices above the base price, but farmers prefer
3.
Aspect
Reason
The
The widht of
width of area dificult to
area
upgrade:
- Limited area
to be rented.
- Housing
replacement
Grain
- The price
price
did not give
some effect
to change the
kind of plant.
- The price
gave no
effect in term
of the wide o
planting area.
Fertilizer The luctuation
price
of fertilizer
price did not
affect farmers
to change their
plant and also
give no effect
in the width of
farming area.
Persentage
(%)
28,5%
100%
100%
100%
100%
118
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
So, the price-response of paddy happened
beire The jajar legowo system was compared
after the other crops harvested.
with tanam tegel system—the conventional
system one. This note was used in evaluatin
3. Managerial implication
meeting in farmers organization.
Mnagerial implicationis divide into
The fertilizer price index did not
two terms : procedural implication and
signiicantly give effect in widht area and
policy implication. Procedural implication
productivity. So the additional subsidized
relates to the way and procedur in increasing
fertilizer was no need to do. To make sure
the rice production. Policy implication
that the fertilizer was proper enough, the
is the right policy to motivate farmers in
soil test should be taken to konow that the
increasing production result.
use of fertilizer was in a right kind, in a
Table 6 showed the result of indepth
right way, in a right time, and also in a right
interview.
matter. The demonstartion plot was neede
a. Implikasi Prosedural
to show that the right use of fertilizer colud
Respondents stated that
lead us into the high productivity.
extensification manner by increasing
farming area was imposible (Table 6).
b. Policy implication
Respondents said that there were so many
The main objectives of Policy
farm area which was repalced into the
implication was to make the productivity
housing area. Extensiication could be done
higher and harvest area getting wider. The
by renting the farm area but there wre a few
policy impplied in price and non price
chance to rent because the land owner was
implication.
less than those who wante to rent.
Rice harvest index was the solution
Intensiication process was used by
of non-price policy. Harvest index was the
getting the wider farm to increase produtivity.
average of harvesting produced in a year.
Jajar legowo and the using of transplanter
Farmers planted rice in twice or ifth times
were used in Kediri to support intensiication
in a year because water irigation was served
system. In the other case, some farmers did not
properly. Departement of agriculture and
follow thistechnology because they assumed
farmers organization made a regulation in
that their conventional way of farming was
planting pattern to ind the certain harvest
beneficially enough. Some demotration
index.
plots were build by using transplanter and
The location which was choosen
jajar legowo system and the harvest index
as the demontration plot to get a higher
signiicantly higher. Others things whih was
harvest index were: (a) The planting time
important to do was recording the production
was more than 12 months and equally with
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
119
fourth season; (b) The water irigation was
previous year with the positive marked.
available a year long; (c) Each farming
Grain price, fertilizer price index,
activites was held quic and fast and
rainfall, harvest area in the previous 2
overlapped in some process; and (d) The
year and 3 year had no signiicant effect.
rice was plated in the same times.
Harvest area afected significant and
Brantas river was the source of Kediri
caused positive effect; productivity in
water irrigation but to deliver the water
the previous year afected signiicant and
to farm, the legal regulation and social
caused negative in productivity response,
regulation were needed.
but fertilizer price index and rainfall
Other policy was also needed to
had no signiicant effect. Supply paddy
state the regulation in replacing farm into
elasticity in short term and long term
another function such as housing and
is inelastic which means supply paddy
industrial area. All of this was regulated in
unresponsive on grain price.
UU num. 41 2009.
Procedural implication which was
Price policy is done by increasing grain
choosen in this way was to arrange jajar
price When government attempt to increase
legowo planting system, to use fertilizer
the price of rice, the productivity will higher
in certain doze and to build a laboratorium
because farmers will more interesting in
ield as this demonstartion plot. Non-price
their farm activities. They know that they
implication was applied by increasing
will gain the higher beneit. The price policy
rice plant index and regulating 0ver land
was regulated in Inpres Number 5 2015 by
function. The price imlication could be
determining the grain price.
followed with increasing the rice price
The use of rice corporation as the
and binding a good linkage with BULOG.
center of rice market was also a good policy
Suggestion for this research are
to apply. Farmers, land owner, and everyone
1) to gain the significant variables
who had relationship in agriculture activity
which give effects in productivity and
were binded in this cooperate. In Kediri, the
harvest area, it needs the longer periods
agriculture cooperate has the same function
of research as its following research;
with farmers organization. To sell their rice
2) the policy in adding harvest area is
to BULOG, farmers organization hold an
more important than the policy related
important role.
to price intervention due to its impact
in productivity; 3) goverment should
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
apply both price policy and non price
Factors affected significantly
policy appropriately so that costumer and
harvest area response was harvest area in
farmers get the optimum beneit.
120
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
1. To both parents and all of families for
uncountable prays and unconditional
Gujarati, D. 2005. Ekonometrika Dasar.
Penerjemah: Zain dan Sumarno.
Jakarta : Penerbit Erlangga.
support.
2. To all lecturers and staffs who help this
research for the guidance and support.
3. Special thanks to Dr.Slamet Hartono,
SU.M.Sc and Dr. Any Suryantini, SP,
MM, who gives the chance to build
the research.
Hutahuruk, J. 1996. Analisis Dampak
Kebijakan Harga Dasar Padi dan
Subsidi Pupuk terhadap Permintaan
dan Penawaran Beras di Indonesia.
Program Pasca Sarjana. IPB.
Leo, Zukhiri Agusty. 2000. Respon
Penawaran Padi di Indonesia. Bogor
REFERENCES
Badan Pusat Statistik. 2015. Kabupaten
: IPB.
Kediri Dalam Angka 2015, Bab V
Oktavianto, L.K. 2009. Analisis Respon
Pertanian, Tanaman Pangan. Kediri
Penawaran Kelapa Sawit di
: BPS Kabupaten Kediri Jawa Timur.
Indonesia. Fakultas Ekonomi dan
Citra Indonesia. 2015. Diunduh di
http://citraindonesia.com/201509/
[internet], accesed 12 April 2016.
Manajemen. IPB. Bogor.
Purwantini, T.B., Ariani Mewa, Marisa Yuni.
2002. Analisis Kerawanan Pangan
dalam Perspektif Disentralisasi
Deptan Jatim. 2014. Rencana Strategis
Pembangunan di Nusa Tenggara
(Renstra) Dinas Pertanian Provinsi
Timur. Pusat analisis ekonomi dan
Jawa Timur Tahun 2009-2014
Kebijakan Pertanian. Bogor.
(Revisi). Surabaya : Dinas Pertanian
Provinsi Jawa Timur.
Singarimbun. 1995. Metode Penelitian
Survei. Jakarta : LP3ES.
Firdaus, M. 2008. Manajemen Agribisnis.
Jakarta : Bumi Aksara.
Sugiyono. 2014. Metode Penelittian Bisnis.
. Bandung : Alfabeta.
Garside dan Hasyimi. Simulasi
Ketersediaan Beras di Jawa Timur.
JITI 14 (1): 47-58
107
SUPPLY RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF PADDY IN KEDIRI: MANAGERIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Analisa Respon Penawaran Padi Di Kediri: Implikasi Manajerial
Vii Nurul Choirina1, Slamet Hartono2, and Any Suryantini2
Student of Magister Manajemen of Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture
Universitas Gadjah Mada
2
Lecturer of Social Economic of Agriculture Department, Faculty of Agriculture
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Jl Flora, Bulaksumur, 55281 Yogyakarta
vii.choirina@gmail.com
1
Diterima tanggal : 5 April 2016 ; Disetujui tanggal : 13 Juni 2016
ABSTRACT
Research of farmer’s response analysis to price is important to increase paddy production
in Kediri. Farmers are conducted as the object of the research because they are the decision
maker on all of farming activities. This study is aimed to know the effect of harvest area
response, productivity response, supply response paddy, and managerial implications in
Kediri. The analysis method used the Nerlove approach through harvest area response and
productivity response. Data were collected annually from 1992 to 2015. The result showed
that harvest area in previous year was the signiicant factor to the harvest area. Grain
price, fertilizer price index, rainfall, harvest area in previous 2 years and 3 years had no
signiicant effect. Factors which had signiicant impact for the productivity were grain price
and productivity in the previous year, but fertilizer price index, harvest area, and rainfall
had no signiicant effect. Paddy supply-elasticity in short term and long term was inelastic
so that supply paddy was unresponsive on grain price changing. Managerial implication
formulation consists of procedural implications and policy implications. Procedural
implications included the use of a transplanter, jajar legowo system, use of fertilizer in 6
right-ways completed with a demonstration plot. The policy implication is was composed by
price and non-price policies. Price policies were showed by costs of good sold which was
supported by coopertaion between farmers and BULOG and the use of combine harvester.
Non-price policies were embodied with the increasing of cropping index and wetland
transformation into settlements.
Keywords: elasticity, managerial implications, paddy, price, supply response
INTISARI
Penelitian analisis respon petani terhadap harga penting untuk meningkatkan produksi padi
di Kediri. Petani diperlakukan sebagai objek penelitian karena mereka adalah pengambil
keputusan pada semua kegiatan bertani. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh
respon panen, respon produktivitas, respon penawaran padi, dan implikasi manajerial di
Kediri. Metode analisis menggunakan pendekatan Nerlove melalui respon areal panen
dan respon produktivitas. Data dikumpulkan setiap tahun dari tahun 1992 sampai 2015.
Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa luas panen tahun sebelumnya merupakan faktor yang
108
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
signiikan terhadap luas panen. Harga gabah, indeks harga pupuk, curah hujan, luas panen
pada 2 tahun sebelumnya dan 3 tahun tidak berpengaruh signiikan. Faktor yang memiliki
dampak signiikan terhadap produktivitas adalah harga padi dan produktivitas pada tahun
sebelumnya, namun indeks harga pupuk, luas panen, dan curah hujan tidak berpengaruh
signiikan. Elastisitas penawaran beras dalam jangka pendek dan jangka panjang bersifat
inelastis sehingga penawaran padi tidak responsif terhadap perubahan harga gabah. Formulasi
implikasi manajerial terdiri dari implikasi prosedural dan implikasi kebijakan. Implikasi
prosedural termasuk penggunaan transplanter, sistem jajar legowo, penggunaan pupuk
dalam 6 cara benar dilengkapi dengan plot demonstrasi. Implikasi kebijakannya disusun
oleh kebijakan harga dan non-harga. Kebijakan harga ditunjukkan oleh biaya barang yang
terjual yang didukung oleh kerjasama antara petani dan BULOG dan penggunaan pemanen
gabungan. Kebijakan non-harga diwujudkan dengan meningkatnya indeks tanam dan
transformasi lahan basah menjadi permukiman.
Kata Kunci : elastisitas, implikasi manajerial, harga, padi, respon penawaran
INTRODUCTION
by the width of the wetland but also the
Food is the most basic requirements
large of population which are relied on
for human resources of a nation. Food
agriculture for livelihood (BPS, 2015). The
security requiresavailability of food in
problems are luctuation of productivityand
suficient quantity and quality, distribution
declining of land area harvested from 2010
ways in affordable prices and food safety.
until 2013.
Food safety means they are safe to be
The rapid growth of the population
consumed for people to support their daily
of Kediri demands the availability of
activities.(Purwantini, et al., 2002).
rice on a local scale. Kediri government
East Java is one of the cetral of rice
should achieve food security and food
productions and contribute for national
self-sufficiency. One way to make it
spare. East Java is able to supply more than
happened is to make agriculture on the top
17 percent of national rice and provides
priority in development plan. Food security
rice for 15 others provinces through Bulog
can be done by some programs such as
(Deptan Jatim, 2014). In order to strengthen
the intensification of seeds, balanced
food security towards national food self-
fertilization, pest and disease control, and
suficiency, the government of East Java
utilizing marginal land.
province focuses on excalation production
The expansion can not be done easily
of staple food crops. One of them is paddy.
because one of the main characteristics
Kediri is the one of rice crops,
of agricultural products is the lag time
especially paddy in Jawa Timur. In the
between planting and harvesting which
other hand, Kediri is supported not only
is called as gestation period. The results
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
109
obtained by farmers based on estimation
will make decisions on production and
of future periods and their experiences
business activities.
in the past. When a commodities price
Hutaharuk (1996) showed a response
of agriculture increase at a certain time,
to the price of rice acreage outside Java
the increase is not followed automatically
was greater than in Java that indicated
by productivity and areal increasing. It is
that there were any limitations acreage in
beacuse resource allocation decisions have
Java. Response acreage outside Java was
been set at the previous time. The farmers’
responsive to the price of rice. It showed
responses occurred after the time difference
that price increasing wasfollowed by an
(lag) as the impact of changes in input
increase in acreage. This was a reason for
prices, output, and government policies.
farmers to plant the commodity. The price
If the price is estimated higher, farmers
was so important for the consideration of
will continue their ways and change their
farmers in planting a particular commodity.
ways at the next period by altering the
The problem of this research were: 1)
composition of the resource, so that in the
the factors that affect in response harvest
short term price elasticity is inelastic.
area; 2) factors that affect the response of
Improvement and sustainability of
productivity; 3) Paddy supply-elasticity
rice production is largely determined by the
in Kediri; 4) To describe the magerial
farmer’s participation in the government’s
impication of supply response result.
programs. Efforts to increase production
Then the study was conducted in
will not be achieved if farmers do not
order to: 1) determine the factors that affect
give any supports for the programs. In
the response harvest area and productivity;
this condition, farmers is the critical
2) determine the elasticity of supply of
success factos of agricultural production
paddy in Kediri, both short term or long
improvement program so goverment needs
term; 3) Determine magerial implication
to run incentif systems for those who
of supply response.
increase production sucessfully.
Farmer decisions in allocating
METHODS
resources, whether land, labor, and funds for
The basic method which was used
a variety of land-use options is determined
in this research was quantitative (statistic
by the response of farmers to price,
descriptive analysis and statistic inferential
government policies and other factors.
analysis) and qualitative. Qualitative
Supply response research determines the
method is a research methode based on
success of the price increase in production
positivisme, which is used to describe a
in Kediri, because in the end farmers who
natural object (Sugiyono, 2014). In this
110
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
research, the method is applied to know
Information:
manajerial implication from paddy supply
At
response. Method for determining the
HRGt = grain price in t year(Rp/Kg)
location was purposive method, that was
indeksHRGPPKt= fertilizer price index
Kediri.
CHt
= rainfallin t-year(mm/th)
At-1
= harvest area in the previous
The data used in this research was
= harvest area in t-year (ha)
secondary data. Data were collected
annually from 1992 to 2015.To guess the
year (Ha)
At-2
= harvest area in the previous 2
harvest area response and productivity
response, the resarche used the grain
years (Ha)
At-3
= harvest area in the previous 3
price, fertilizer price index, harvest
years (Ha)
area, productivity, and rainfall.All of
ut
data related to rupiah were delated by
b1,..,b6 = coeficient of regression
= error
the consumer price index by using the
base year 2007. Delation was needed
To facilitate the estimation using OLS,
to eliminate external factors, such as
the response equation harvest area was
inlation. The data were taken from Badan
transformed into a linear form as follows:
Pusat Statistik Kediri, Dinas Pertanian
LnAt = Lnb0 + b1LnHRGt +
Kediri, and BULOG Kediri. Both primary
b2indeksHRGPPKt + b3LnCHt+ b4
data and indepth interview were used
LnAt-1 + b5LnAt-2 + b6LnAt-3 + ut
in this research in which agriculture
departement, rice miller, and farmers
2. Productivity Response
as the subject of research. To determine
the factors that affect the response,
partial model Nerlovedeveloped by Marc
Partial adjustment models for
productivity response in this study as
follows :
Nerlove was adapted.The rearch used
harvest area response and productivity
Yt
= d0 + d1HRGt + d2 indeksHRGPPKt
+ d3CHt + d4At + d5Yt-1 + ut
response approach and regression
analysis.
1. Harvest Area Response
Partial adjustment models for harvest
Information:
Yt
(kw/ha)
area response in this study as follows:
At
= b0 + b1HRGt + b2 indeksHRGPPKt +
b3CHt+ b4At-1 + b5At-2 + b6At-3+ ut
= paddy productivity in t-year
HRGt = grain price in t-year (Rp/kg)
indeksHRGPPKt= fertilizer price index
CHt
= rainfall in t-year (mm/th)
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
At
= harvest area in t-year (Ha)
Yt-1
= paddy productivity previous
Supply elasticity deals can be
formulated as follows :
year (kw/ha)
ut
111
ԐP = ԐYP + ԐAP (1+ԐYA)
= error
d1,..,d6 = coeficient of regression
To fulil the estimation with OLS,
then the response equation productivitywas
transformed into a linear form as follows:
Information:
ԐP
= supply response commodity,
ԐYP
= productivity elasticity to the
price,
ԐAP
= area elasticity to the price, and
ԐYA
= productivity elasticity to the
LnYt = Lnd0 + d1LnHRGt +
harvest area.
d2indeksHRGPPKt + d3LnCHt +
d4LnAt + d5LnYt-1 + ut
3. To know managerial implication
To ind the managerial implication,
To analyze the supply elasticity
of short-term and long-term used the
following formula:
Elasticity area on output prices in the
short term (ԐAP ( sr )) and long term (ԐAP(
lr)) on the average value and the price of
each area were :
(ԐAP(sr)) = b1 (P/A)
(ԐAP(lr)) = (ԐAP(sr)) /(1-b4)
Elasticity of short-term productivity
of each of the output price (ԐYP (sr)) and
area (ԐYA(sr)) were :
(ԐYP(sr)) = d1(P/Y) dan (ԐYA(sr)) =
d5(A/Y)
Long-term elasticity of output and
productivity on the price of harvest areas
were:
(ԐYP(lr)) = (ԐYP(sr))/(1-d5) dan
(ԐYA(lr)) = (ԐYA(sr))/(1-d5)
we used:
a. Data reduction, the methode which
guided us to concern in choosing,
focusing, abstaracting, and also
transforming row-noticed data.
b. Data arranged in a logic way so that the
conclusion could be showed.
c. Conclusion was stated to ind the data
interpretation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Researsch Area Describtion
The total area of Kediriare 138 605
hectares and divided into 26 districts
scattered from the slopes of Mount Kelud
to the west,splited by the Brantas River
up to the slopes of Mount Wilis.There are
many rivers or natural channel, where the
fairly large water discharges and lows
throughout the year. Ground water of
these rivers is exploited by people for
112
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
daily needs and irrigation before it reachs
2. Supply Response Analysis
Brantas river.
a. Harvest Area Response
In the structure of the economy
The results of the analysis of the
Kediri, agriculture still had an important
factors that affect the harvest area were
role. Agriculture sector contributedabout
presented in Table 1.
26.94 percent and came as the irst position
The value of F arithmetic was 2.639
among all sectors to the GDP in 2014.
with a probability of 0.063. The value
Contribution of the agricultural sector was
was signiicant with an error rate of 10%.
dominant and absorbent employment in
The results showed that all independent
this sector was high enogh, the agricultural
variables (the price of grain, fertilizer
sector is still the prominentsector for its
price index, rainfall, the harvest area in the
economic condition.
previous year, harvest area in the previous 2
Kediri is known as one of the
years, and the harvest area in the previous
agricultural center in East Java province with
3 years) had significant effect on the
an area of 47.786 hectares paddy ields and
dependent variable (harvest area).
90.819 hectares areothers. In 2014, Kediri
R2 values of 0.53 or 53% indicated
tried hard to extense farm area to anticipate
that independent variables such as the price
its declining.As a result, the area of wetland in
of grain, fertilizer price index, rainfall,
the year increased by 0.14 percent. Although
harvest area in the previous year, harvest
the increase there were a few, but such efforts
area in the previous 2 years, and the harvest
should be continued to improve. It also need
area in the previous 3 years gave effect
any appreciationsto suceed food security.
of 53% the harvest area, while 47% were
The decline in rice production in 2014
was caused by irrigation possibilities that
influenced by other factors outside the
model.
already need to be repaired and upgraded, the
Signiicance test of the regression
harvest area was decreasing, and pests (BPS,
coeficient or t test in the study was held
2015). As a result, stems and grains of rice
by looking at the α value stated in the
which were produced no longer contained
column probability (prob.). and analyzed
solid, and a decrease in harvested area of
coeficient regression to determine short
195 ha or 0.38 percent. In 2014 Purwoasri,
term and long-term elasticity which
Plemahan and Kandangan district werethe
variables inluenced the harvest area. In
biggest three which contributued much in
the short-term elasticity changes to long-
rice production in Kediri. Beside that, districts
term elasticity there was the time to make
with a high production were in Kunjang,
adjustments or referred to the adjustment
Badas, Papar and Plosoklaten.
coeficient (δ). Adjustment coeficient (δ)
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
113
Table 1. Results of regression test harvest area
Variable
Ln C
Ln Grain Price
Ln Fertilizer price index
Ln Rainfall
Ln Harvest area in the previous year
Ln Harvest area in the previous 2 years
Ln Harvest area in the previous 3 years
coeficient
6.8443
**
0.0204
0.0003
0.0240
0.4334
*
-0.1081
0.0408
t-stat
2.7926
0.3650
1.0584
0.5515
1.9926
-0.6250
0.2625
prob.
0.0144
0.7205
0.3078
0.5900
0.0662
0.5420
0.7967
F hit= 2.639Prob = 0.063
R2 = 0.530
Source : Secondary data, 2016 (calculated)
Information:
***
= signiicant in error 1%
**
= signiicant in error 15%
*
= signiicant in error 10%
derived from 1-regression of coeficients
indicated the short-term elasticity means
harvest area in the previous year (1-b4At-1),
that if the harvest area in the previous year
that was 0.567.
increase 1 %, the harvest area in the current
Table 2 showed the elasticity of short-
year will increase by 0.433 %. In the short
term and long-term variables inluencing
term elasticity was inelastic which means
the harvest area.
that changes in harvest area in the previous
year larger than the harvest area. Long-term
Table2. Elasticity of short-term and longterm variables influencing the
harvest area
Variable
Ln Harvest
area in the
previous year
Short
Term
Elasticity
0.433
Long Term
Elasticity
elasticity of 0.763, which means was inelastic
too, if the harvest area in the previous year
increase 1%, the harvest area now would
increase by 0.763 %. The elasticity could be
seen in Table 2.
0.763
Source: Secondary data, 2016 (calculated)
Factors that had no sidnniicant effect
were grain price, fertilizer price index,
rainfall, harvest area in the previous 2 years,
and harvest area in the previous 3 years. The
Factors that affect the harvest area was
grain price were not statistically signiicant
the harvest area in the previous year with
effect on the harvest area.According to Lipsey
marked positive and regression coeficient
0.433, signiicant at the 1 % error rate. Value
(1995) in Oktavianto (2009), the relationship
114
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
between the price of a commodity by the
of fertilizer decrease, farmers can not add
amount of the offer was positive, so the
acreage because of limited land. This also
higher the price of a commodity, the greater
happens with rainfall does not affect the
the amount of the commodity supplied,
harvest area. Increases or decreases in
and ceteris paribus. In this study were not
rainfall does not make farmers increase or
statistically correspond to the theory, this
decrease the acreage because of limited land.
is caused by the increase or decrease price
The harvest area in the previous 2 years
of grain does not make getting up or down
had no signiicant effect on the harvest area.
harvest area because doing extending very
It showed harvest area in the previous 2 years
dificult in the area of research. Beside that,
did not increase harvest area. The harvest area
the area in Kediri islikely to decline due to
in the previous 3 years had no signiicant
land conversion to residential.
effect on the harvest area.
The price index of fertilizer had
no signiicant effect on the harvest area.
b. Productivity Reponse
Subsidized fertilizer urea is a major fertilizer
The results of the analysis of the
in rice cultivation. In real condition the
factors that affected the productivity
increase or decrease in fertilizer prices
response were presented in Table 3.
will not make farmers reduce or increase
The test results F, R2, and the mean
acreage.In the research area, rice planting
of the regression model were shown in table
season has been scheduled so when prices
3. The value of F arithmetic amounted to
Table 3. Result of regression test of productivity
Variable
Ln C
Ln Grain Price
Ln Fertilizer price index
Ln Rainfall
Ln Harvest area
Ln Productivity in the previous year
coeficient
2.8563
0.0373
-0.0001
0.0039
0.0501
0.5028
F hit= 11.331Prob = 0.000
R2 = 0.769
Source: Secondary data, 2016 (calculated)
Information:
***
= signiicant in error 1%
**
= signiicant in error 5%
*
= signiicant in error 10%
t-stat
*
*
**
2.6079
2.7519
-1.3991
0.3343
-0.8619
3.2393
prob.
0.0184
0.0136
0.1797
0.7422
0.0660.4007
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
115
11.331 with a probability of 0.000. The value
Factors that significantly affected
was signiicant with an error rate of 1%. The
productivity was the grain price, harvest area
results showed that all independent variables
and productivity in the previous year. The
(price of grain, fertilizer price index, rainfall,
price of grain was statistically signiicant
harvest area, and productivity in the previous
effect on the productivity with marked positive
year) had signiicant effect on the dependent
and regression coeficient 0.037, signiicant
variable (productivity). R2 values of 0.769 or
at 5% error level. This value indicated the
76.9% indicated that independent variables
short-term elasticity means that if the grain
such as price of grain, fertilizer price index,
prices increase 1%, the productivity current
rainfall,harvest area, and the productivity in
year will increase by 0.037%. In the long
the previous year had the effect of 76.9%
term elasticity was 0.0748, if the grain prices
the productivity response, while 23.1% were
increase 1% the productivity increased by
inluenced by other factors outside the model.
0,0748%. In the short term and long termprice
Signiicance test of the regression
of grain inelastic, that means the change in
coeficient or t test in the study was held by
productivity greater than the real grain prices.
looking at the α value stated in the column
Nevertheles the increase grain prices made
probability (prob.). and analyzed coeficient
farmers more intensive to manage rice crops
regression to determine short term and long-
in ields.
term elasticity which variables inluencing
Productivity in the previous year
the productivity response.Adjustment
affectedstatistically signiicant with a positive
coeficient (δ) derived from 1-regression
regression coefficient of 0.50in 1% error
of coeficients productivity in the previous
level. It showed every 1% productivity in
year (1-b5Yt-1), that was 0.498.
the previous year could increase productivity
Table 4 showed the elasticity of short-
0.50% in the short term.In the long term
term and long-term variables inluencing
each 1% of productivity in the previous year
the productivity.
would increase 1,009% productivity (Table
4). Increased productivity in the previous year
Table4. Elasticity of short-term and longterm variables influencing the
productivity
variable
Grain Price
Productivity
in the
previous year
Short term
elasticity
0.0373
Long term
elasticity
0.0748
0.5028
1.0096
Source: Secondary data, 2016 (calculated)
made farmers more intensive to improve the
productivity of rice.
Factors that had no signiicant effect
werefertilizer price index, rainfall and harvest
area. Fertilizer price index did not signiicantly
affect to the productivity and negative market.
The increase in fertilizer price index did not
reduce the productivity of rice. It showed
116
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
that farmers would continue to produce rice
Table 5 showed that elasticity of
as possible as the increasing or decreasing in
harvest area to grain price was inelastic,
fertilizer prices. For farmers, fertilizer was the
0.0009 for the short term and 0.0016 for the
most important requirement of rice so that the
long term. The analysis showed that if the
price increase caused nothing.Rainfall was
prices increase by 100%, it would increase
also not signiicant effect and positive marked.
the harvest areaof 0.09% in the short term
It showed that increasing rainfall did not
and 0.16 % in the long term. Elasticity of
increasing productivity. Water requirements
productivity on the prices was inelastic for
for rice cultivation in the study area was illed
the short term that is 0.012 and 0.026 for
by irrigation, mostly taken from the Brantas
the long term. If the prices increase 100%,
River . When rainfall is low, farmers will use
it would increase productivity 1.2% for
the irrigation so that the decline in rainfall
the short term and 2.6% for the long term.
did not affect the productivity. Harvest area
Research conducted by Leo (2000), the
statistically had no signiicant effect on the
elasticity of harvest area and productivity
productivity of rice. According to Kepala
response of the rice price in Java was also
Dinas Pertanian Kediri, condition does not
inelastic both short term and long term.
occur in this research because extensiication
Productivity elasticity to the prices
can only be done in marginal areas and needs
was greater than the elasticity harvest
some adapatation techniques.
area to the prices, in the short term and
long term. It showed that the contribution
c. Supply Elasticity
of increased production due to increased
Supply elasticity results were
productivity was greater than the increase
shown in Table 5, which included elasticity
in harvest area. Increased productivity is
area, productivity, and supply.
done with the use of improved seed that
has a high yield.
Table 5. Area Elasticity, Productivity, dan
Paddy Supplyin Kediri
Elasticity
Harvest area
on prices
Productivity
on prices
Productivity
on harvest
area
Supply
Short
Term
Long
Information
Term
0,0009 0,0016 Inelastic
0,0126 0,0268 Inelastic
Elasticity productivity to the harvest
area was elastic, 4.72 in the short term and
10.04 in the long term (Table 5). Table 5
showed that the increase in the harvest area
of 100 % would increase productivity by 472
% in the short term and 100.4 % in the long
4,7212 10,0452 Elastic
term. Although it was elastic, increasing area
0,0731 0,2981 inelastic
the study area of the narrow and converted
Source: Secondary data, 2016 (calculated)
was dificult because the condition of land in
into a settlement.
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
117
Paddy supply elasticity in Kediri was
to sell to middlemen because farmers get
inelastic, 0.073 in the short term and 0,298 in
cash immediately without delay. BULOG
the long term. It can be argued that the change
uptakes in minimal quantity .Based onRice
of supply not responsive to changes in the
Productivity Index coeficient, BULOG only
price of grain. If the price increase 100%, the
absorbs below 70% of global production
supply would increase by 6.6% in the short
produced by Farmer (Citra Indonesia,2015).
term and 19.9% in the long term .
Besides that, Firdaus (2008)
Paddy supply elasticity was less
mentioned that agricultural commodities
responsive because farmers could not
was seasonal and dependent on nature.
immediately adjust their production activities
Seasonal nature of agricultural commodities
in response to price increasing because
made farmers less responsive to the price.
farmers will adjust price forecasts in the future
The higher prices raisesafter the harvest
in the form of the difference between the
time. Kediri planting pattern is paddy at the
estimated proportion with the reality. Gujarati
irst season and followed by other crops.
(2005) , mentioned three main reasons
underlying it, namely 1) psychological; 2)
Table 6. Respondents percentage.
technical; and 3) institutional.
No
Psychologically farmers were often
1.
reluctant to make changes because it
is generally fixed on the old traditions.
Technically, the agricultural production
process needs lag time in between planting
and harvesting. Similarly, the introduction
2.
of new production techniques requires time
to be adopted by farmers and growers adapt
new production techniques before it could
eventually increase the production.
Institutional change could not
happened because there were rules, such
as the existence of a contractual agreement
binding on production time. Farmers in
Kediri sell their grain in the middleman
with the prices below the loor price set by
goverment. Though BULOG provides grain
prices above the base price, but farmers prefer
3.
Aspect
Reason
The
The widht of
width of area dificult to
area
upgrade:
- Limited area
to be rented.
- Housing
replacement
Grain
- The price
price
did not give
some effect
to change the
kind of plant.
- The price
gave no
effect in term
of the wide o
planting area.
Fertilizer The luctuation
price
of fertilizer
price did not
affect farmers
to change their
plant and also
give no effect
in the width of
farming area.
Persentage
(%)
28,5%
100%
100%
100%
100%
118
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
So, the price-response of paddy happened
beire The jajar legowo system was compared
after the other crops harvested.
with tanam tegel system—the conventional
system one. This note was used in evaluatin
3. Managerial implication
meeting in farmers organization.
Mnagerial implicationis divide into
The fertilizer price index did not
two terms : procedural implication and
signiicantly give effect in widht area and
policy implication. Procedural implication
productivity. So the additional subsidized
relates to the way and procedur in increasing
fertilizer was no need to do. To make sure
the rice production. Policy implication
that the fertilizer was proper enough, the
is the right policy to motivate farmers in
soil test should be taken to konow that the
increasing production result.
use of fertilizer was in a right kind, in a
Table 6 showed the result of indepth
right way, in a right time, and also in a right
interview.
matter. The demonstartion plot was neede
a. Implikasi Prosedural
to show that the right use of fertilizer colud
Respondents stated that
lead us into the high productivity.
extensification manner by increasing
farming area was imposible (Table 6).
b. Policy implication
Respondents said that there were so many
The main objectives of Policy
farm area which was repalced into the
implication was to make the productivity
housing area. Extensiication could be done
higher and harvest area getting wider. The
by renting the farm area but there wre a few
policy impplied in price and non price
chance to rent because the land owner was
implication.
less than those who wante to rent.
Rice harvest index was the solution
Intensiication process was used by
of non-price policy. Harvest index was the
getting the wider farm to increase produtivity.
average of harvesting produced in a year.
Jajar legowo and the using of transplanter
Farmers planted rice in twice or ifth times
were used in Kediri to support intensiication
in a year because water irigation was served
system. In the other case, some farmers did not
properly. Departement of agriculture and
follow thistechnology because they assumed
farmers organization made a regulation in
that their conventional way of farming was
planting pattern to ind the certain harvest
beneficially enough. Some demotration
index.
plots were build by using transplanter and
The location which was choosen
jajar legowo system and the harvest index
as the demontration plot to get a higher
signiicantly higher. Others things whih was
harvest index were: (a) The planting time
important to do was recording the production
was more than 12 months and equally with
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
119
fourth season; (b) The water irigation was
previous year with the positive marked.
available a year long; (c) Each farming
Grain price, fertilizer price index,
activites was held quic and fast and
rainfall, harvest area in the previous 2
overlapped in some process; and (d) The
year and 3 year had no signiicant effect.
rice was plated in the same times.
Harvest area afected significant and
Brantas river was the source of Kediri
caused positive effect; productivity in
water irrigation but to deliver the water
the previous year afected signiicant and
to farm, the legal regulation and social
caused negative in productivity response,
regulation were needed.
but fertilizer price index and rainfall
Other policy was also needed to
had no signiicant effect. Supply paddy
state the regulation in replacing farm into
elasticity in short term and long term
another function such as housing and
is inelastic which means supply paddy
industrial area. All of this was regulated in
unresponsive on grain price.
UU num. 41 2009.
Procedural implication which was
Price policy is done by increasing grain
choosen in this way was to arrange jajar
price When government attempt to increase
legowo planting system, to use fertilizer
the price of rice, the productivity will higher
in certain doze and to build a laboratorium
because farmers will more interesting in
ield as this demonstartion plot. Non-price
their farm activities. They know that they
implication was applied by increasing
will gain the higher beneit. The price policy
rice plant index and regulating 0ver land
was regulated in Inpres Number 5 2015 by
function. The price imlication could be
determining the grain price.
followed with increasing the rice price
The use of rice corporation as the
and binding a good linkage with BULOG.
center of rice market was also a good policy
Suggestion for this research are
to apply. Farmers, land owner, and everyone
1) to gain the significant variables
who had relationship in agriculture activity
which give effects in productivity and
were binded in this cooperate. In Kediri, the
harvest area, it needs the longer periods
agriculture cooperate has the same function
of research as its following research;
with farmers organization. To sell their rice
2) the policy in adding harvest area is
to BULOG, farmers organization hold an
more important than the policy related
important role.
to price intervention due to its impact
in productivity; 3) goverment should
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
apply both price policy and non price
Factors affected significantly
policy appropriately so that costumer and
harvest area response was harvest area in
farmers get the optimum beneit.
120
Agro Ekonomi Vol. 27/No. 1, Juni 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
1. To both parents and all of families for
uncountable prays and unconditional
Gujarati, D. 2005. Ekonometrika Dasar.
Penerjemah: Zain dan Sumarno.
Jakarta : Penerbit Erlangga.
support.
2. To all lecturers and staffs who help this
research for the guidance and support.
3. Special thanks to Dr.Slamet Hartono,
SU.M.Sc and Dr. Any Suryantini, SP,
MM, who gives the chance to build
the research.
Hutahuruk, J. 1996. Analisis Dampak
Kebijakan Harga Dasar Padi dan
Subsidi Pupuk terhadap Permintaan
dan Penawaran Beras di Indonesia.
Program Pasca Sarjana. IPB.
Leo, Zukhiri Agusty. 2000. Respon
Penawaran Padi di Indonesia. Bogor
REFERENCES
Badan Pusat Statistik. 2015. Kabupaten
: IPB.
Kediri Dalam Angka 2015, Bab V
Oktavianto, L.K. 2009. Analisis Respon
Pertanian, Tanaman Pangan. Kediri
Penawaran Kelapa Sawit di
: BPS Kabupaten Kediri Jawa Timur.
Indonesia. Fakultas Ekonomi dan
Citra Indonesia. 2015. Diunduh di
http://citraindonesia.com/201509/
[internet], accesed 12 April 2016.
Manajemen. IPB. Bogor.
Purwantini, T.B., Ariani Mewa, Marisa Yuni.
2002. Analisis Kerawanan Pangan
dalam Perspektif Disentralisasi
Deptan Jatim. 2014. Rencana Strategis
Pembangunan di Nusa Tenggara
(Renstra) Dinas Pertanian Provinsi
Timur. Pusat analisis ekonomi dan
Jawa Timur Tahun 2009-2014
Kebijakan Pertanian. Bogor.
(Revisi). Surabaya : Dinas Pertanian
Provinsi Jawa Timur.
Singarimbun. 1995. Metode Penelitian
Survei. Jakarta : LP3ES.
Firdaus, M. 2008. Manajemen Agribisnis.
Jakarta : Bumi Aksara.
Sugiyono. 2014. Metode Penelittian Bisnis.
. Bandung : Alfabeta.
Garside dan Hasyimi. Simulasi
Ketersediaan Beras di Jawa Timur.
JITI 14 (1): 47-58