Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 00074910152390865
Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies
ISSN: 0007-4918 (Print) 1472-7234 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbie20
IN MEMORIAM: PROFESSOR SUMITRO
DJOJOHADIKUSUMO, 19172001
Thee Kian Wie
To cite this article: Thee Kian Wie (2001) IN MEMORIAM: PROFESSOR SUMITRO
DJOJOHADIKUSUMO, 19172001, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 37:2, 173-181, DOI:
10.1080/00074910152390865
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00074910152390865
Published online: 17 Jun 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 58
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbie20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]
Date: 19 January 2016, At: 21:58
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2001: 173–81
IN MEMORIAM: PROFESSOR SUMITRO
DJOJOHADIKUSUMO, 1917–2001
Thee Kian Wie
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jakarta
Professor Sumitro Djojohadikusumo is
one of the principal architects of Indonesia’s post-independence economic policy.
He has held key economic portfolios in
both the immediate post-independence
and the New Order eras. In addition, as
Professor of Economics at the University
of Indonesia, and as a tireless lecturer and
writer on economic issues, he has been instrumental in shaping the education of
several generations of economists in Indonesia, many of whom are now in key
government positions.
Thus ran the introduction to an interview with Professor Sumitro, one of Indonesia’s foremost economic policy
makers, published in the December 1986
issue of the Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies under the title ‘Recollections of My Career’. While much is
known about Sumitro’s role as a cabinet minister and politician, relatively little is known about his role as the pioneer
of modern economic studies in Indonesia, as a prolific scholar and as a forceful
public advocate of sound economic policies. It is therefore fitting that this
obituary fo cuses primarily on his
achievements in these two fields.
As the son of a public servant in the
higher-middle echelons of the Netherlands Indies administration, Sumitro
was able to attend Dutch schools. On his
graduation from secondary school in
1935, his parents, at great sacrifice, sent
him to Rotterdam to study at the Neth-
erlands School of Economics (later renam ed the Facult y of Econo mics,
Erasmus University, Rotterdam). In
1937/38 Sumitro interrupted his studies in Rotterdam for a year, to read philosophy and history at the Sorbonne in
Paris. In 1943 he obtained the degree of
doctor of economics at the Netherlands
School of Economics, having successfully defended his doctoral dissertation,
Het Volkscredietwezen in de Depressie
[The People’s Credit Service during the
Depression]. From 1946 to 1950, Sumitro
was active as deputy chief of mission of
the Indonesian delegation to the United
Nations, advocating international support for Indonesia’s struggle for independence. After Dutch recognition of
Indonesia’s independence in late 1949,
Sumitro, at the young age of 33, was
appointed Minister of Trade and Industry in Mohammad Natsir ’s cabinet
(1950–51), and subsequently as Minister
of Finance in both the Wilopo cabinet
(1952–53) and Burhanuddin Harahap’s
cabinet (1955–56).
In 1957 Sumitro left for Padang, West
Sumatra, to join dissidents who had
become increasingly concerned about
the rising leftward bent of the central
government and the economic neglect
of the regions. When no compromise
was reached between the central government and the regional dissidents, the
latter proclaimed a rival government in
ISSN 0007-4918 print/ISSN 1472-7234 online/01/020173-9
© 2001 Indonesia Project ANU
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
174
Bukittinggi, which they called the Revolutionary Government of the Republic
of Indonesia (Pemerintah Revolusioner
Republik Indonesia, PRRI), and which
Sumitro joined as Minister of Communications and Shipping. The defeat of the
PRRI rebellion in the course of 1958
forced Sumitro and his wife and four
small children to go into a self-imposed
exile abroad, which lasted until 1967.
During this period he earned his living
as a private economic consultant in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Thailand, France
and Switzerland.
In 1968, Sumitro was called back to
Jakarta by President Soeharto, to the
surprise of some of his political opponents, to become Minister for Trade in
Soeharto’s first ‘development cabinet’.
In 1973 he was appointed Minister of
State for Research in Soeharto’s second
‘development cabinet’, a post he held
until 1978.
In later years, at the request of President Soeharto and Pandji S oeroso,
known as the Father of Public Servants’
Cooperatives, Sumitro assumed the post
of General Chairman of the Central
Board of Cooperatives of Public Servants
(Induk Ko pera si Pegawa i N eger i,
IKPN). He also continued to provide
President Soeharto occasionally, and on
an informal basis, with an assessment of
economic conditions and problems, and
suggestions on how to deal with them.
But more than from his career as minister in various cabinets, Sumitro’s great
reputation and lasting legacy derived
from his considerable achievements and
contributions as the founder of modern
economic studies in Indonesia, as a prolific scholar and as a tireless public advocate of sound economic policies. He
is rightly considered the pioneer of economics education in Indonesia. While
economics had already been taught as a
separate discipline in the School of Law
in Jakarta since the early 1920s, a fully
Thee Kian Wie
fledged university education in economics could only be pursued in the Netherlands during the D utch colonia l
period. Because of financial constraints
only a few Indonesian students could
pursue such an education, including
Mohammad Hatta, Aboetari, Saroso and
Sumitro Djojohadikusumo.
Recognising the need to train qualified economists who would be able to
tackle the problems of Indonesia’s economic reconstruction, the Dutch authorities in 1948 established the first
School of Economics in Makasar as part
of the University of Indonesia. Dutch
professors and lecturers made up the
teaching staff of this School. At the revolutionary Gadjah Mada University in
Yogyakarta, economics was initially
taught in the Faculty of Law, mainly by
law graduates who had taken courses
in economics offered at the Law School
before the war. However, after the Dutch
recognition of Indonesia’s independence
in December 1949, a separate Faculty of
Economics was established in September 1950 as part of the University of Indonesia, and became known as FEUI.
Owing to the shortage of Indonesian
economists, a professor of law, the late
Professor Sunarjo Kolopaking, was appointed the first dean of the newly established Faculty of Economics.
Not long after his appoin tment,
however, Professor Sunarjo resigned
as dean, causing a crisis in the newly
established faculty. At the suggestion
of Mohammad Hatta, vice president
of Indonesia, a delegation of students
led by Suhadi Mangkusuwondo (who
later became professor of economics
himself at FEUI) approached Sumitro,
requesting him to become the new
dean. Being the only young Indonesian with a doctorate in economics,
and respected as a dynamic minister,
Sumitro was the obvious choice of the
economics students to lead FEUI. No
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
In Memoriam: Professor Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, 1917–2001
longer a minister after the fall of the
Natsir cabinet in 1951, Sumitro acceded to their request on condition that
they help him in administrative matters.
Sumitro held the deanship of FEUI
during its formative years from 1951 to
1957, and was able to develop the young
faculty into the country’s leading institution for the professional training of
economists. Although the shortage of
academically trained Indonesian economists was a major problem in building
up a strong teaching staff for FEUI,
Sumitro was able, through his past association with the Netherlands School
of Economics in Rotterdam, to recruit
Dutch professors and lecturers to fill the
void. Meanwhile the training of a new
generation of economists, who had had
their entire university education in Indonesia, proceeded apace. During the
academic year of 1953/54 the first two
I n d o n e s i a n - ed u c a ted ec o n o m i s ts
graduated from FEUI, followed by
four more graduates during the following two years. A peak output was
reached in 1959–60, when 209 economists graduated.
In 1953 Sumitro founded the Institute
of Economic and Social Research, which
became an integral part of FEUI. This
institute, which became kno wn as
LPEM-FEUI, was established to provide
faculty members and students with the
opportunity to apply and test the economic theories they had taught and
learned in the courses at FEUI. LPEMFEUI also bec ame a ‘kitchen’ for
Sumitro, to help him in formulating economic policies during the periods he
served concurrently as cabinet minister,
because its research capability was superior to that of the research outfits of
government departments.
Two years later Sumitro established
the Association of Indonesian Economists (Ikatan Sarjana Ekonomi Indonesia, ISEI). Under his leadership ISEI
175
quickly grew into the well regarded professional association it remains today.
During the early years, the major
problems facing FEUI were building up
a strong teaching staff, finding adequate
accommodation for lecture rooms, and
establishing a library. But Sumitro soon
realised the need for basic changes in the
economics curriculum, which was based
largely on the curricula of the faculties
of economics in the Netherlands, and
therefore not entirely appropriate to the
specific needs of Indonesia as a developing country. The major changes in the
curriculum of FEUI introduced during
the academic year of 1955/56 included
the elimination of courses in law at the
undergraduate level, a greater emphasis on macroeconomics, in place of the
focus on microeconomics that had been
a feature of the ‘continental’ economics
curriculum, and greater specialisation at
the graduate level. With a stronger emphasis on applied than on pure economics, teaching and research were to be
geared to the problems of economic development facing Indonesia. In line with
the changes in the economics curriculum, the Dutch system of ‘free study’
was replaced by an American-style
‘guided system ’ of study, which
included the regular schedulin g of
obligatory class work, assignments and
examinations, and the direct relationship of examinations to the material
taught in lectures.
In 1955–56, as more and more Dutch
professors and lecturers began to leave
Indonesia, Sumitro embarked on the
search for an appropriate foreign institution of higher learning with which
FEUI could initiate an affiliation project
to provide its teaching faculty with postgraduate training in economics. Initially
he was thinking of inviting the London
School of Economics (LSE) to be its counterpart, to provide lecturers to fill the
void left by the departure of the Dutch
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
176
professors and to provide scholarships
to enable FEUI’s teaching faculty to pursue postgraduate study at LSE. During
his student years in Europe, Sumitro had
taken some courses at LSE and had been
greatly impressed by Harold Laski’s socialist ideas. The plan to establish an affiliation program with LSE could not be
realised, however, because the British
Council was not able to finance the
project.
Sumitro then turned his attention to
the US, even though as a socialist he was
less attracted to America’s capitalist system. By chance, during this time he met
Michael Harris, Representative of the
Ford Foundation in Indonesia, to whom
he confided his plan for an affiliation
project with the department of economics of a good American university. Responding positively, Harris approached
the University of California (UC) at
Berkeley. As Sumitro also happened to
know Professor Andreas Papandreou
well, who at the time was chairman of
the Department of Economics there, an
agreement on the proposed affiliation
project was quickly reached, and duly
signed on 19 July 1956.
In general, the affiliation project was
successful in filling the temporary void
caused by the departure of the Dutch
professors, and in building up a strong
teaching staff for FEUI. The American
faculty members who in the late 1950s
replaced the Dutch included Professors
Bruce G la ssburner, Leon M ears,
Leonard Doyle, Donald Blake, and two
postgraduate students, Hans Schmitt
and Ralph Anspach. In the late 1950s and
early 1960s, a number of FEUI’s young
faculty members, including Widjojo
Nitisa stro, M oham ma d S adli, Ali
Wardhana, Emil Salim, Suhadi Mangkusuwondo, J.B. Sumarlin and Saleh Afiff,
were sent to pursue postgraduate study
in economics and business administration at UC Berkeley and other Ameri-
Thee Kian Wie
can universities. During the New Order
period these FEUI economists, led by
Widjojo, occupied senior positions in
government.
Sumitro was concerned not only with
building up FEUI as a strong institution
of economics education and research,
which he liked to call the ‘Jakarta School
of Economics’, but also with spreading
and strengthening economics education
in state universities that were established during this period in other provinces, particularly outside Java. FEUI
itself undertook affiliation projects, like
that between itself and UC Berkeley,
with the fledgling faculties of economics of these new universities, including
Sriwijaya University in Palembang,
Andalas University in Padang, Syah
Kuala University in Banda Aceh, and
Hasanuddin University in Makasar.
The small core of qualified teaching
staff in these new economics faculties
consisted of graduates from FEUI and
the other older faculties of economics,
such as that of Gadjah Mada University,
who had returned to their places of origin upon graduation. As part of the affiliation projects with the new state
universities, Sumitro initiated the ‘flying lecturers’ (dosen terbang) system,
under which selected young faculty
members of FEUI commuted by air to
the faculties of economics in Sumatra
and Sulawesi on a periodic basis, to bolster the core teaching staff there. This
played a significant role in strengthening the younger economics faculties
during their early years.
After he left government in 1978,
Sumitro resumed teaching at FEUI. In
the ensuing years he wrote a large
number of books, several of which were
based on the insights and knowledge he
had gained as a cabinet minister. Three
of these—Persoalan Ekonomi di Indonesia
[Economic Problems in Indonesia];
Ekonomi Pembangunan [Development
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
In Memoriam: Professor Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, 1917–2001
Economics]; and Ekonomi Umum: AsasAsas Teori dan Kebijaksanaan [General
Economics: Principles of Theory and
Policy]—were intended to provide the
economics students with reading material relevant to the economic problems
facing Indonesia, and were used in his
course on Economic Analysis and Public Policy. This course was designed to
bridge the gap between economic analysis and public policy (Djojohadikusumo
1986: 32). While Sumitro recognised the
importance of analytical techniques, he
also thought it important that his students know their country’s economic
and social history, since economic analysis had to be seen in a societal framework. In fact, the link between general
economic theory and development
should be provided by a theory of economic dynamics, that is, the study of
economic phenomena in their historical
perspective and at the same time with a
view towards the future. For this reason,
he saw pioneering studies on economic
growth by great economists such as
Simon Kuznets and Nicholas Kaldor,
which succeeded in establishin g a
bridge between the vantage points of
economists and historians, as relevant to
Indonesia’s current development efforts
as well as to historical studies of the
economy (Djojohadikusumo 1993: 39).
In Sumitro’s view, economic development entailed a continuous effort to rectify structural rigidities and imbalances,
especially with regard to resource endowments, the allocation of productive
resources, the distribution of wealth and
income, and the prevailing institutional
framework. While institutions could be
impediments to modernisation, they
should not be taken as constants. Hence,
according to Sumitro’s structuralist perspective, public policies should aim at
changing the set of conditions imposed
by structural rigidities and imbalances.
As a structuralist and a socialist, Sumitro
177
was much more inclined towards government intervention to tackle structural
rigidities and imbalances, rather than
relying on market forces to solve these
problems. Three types of inter-related
operational policies had to be pursued,
namely those aimed at achieving more
rapid growth in terms of value added
(output), at generating more employment opportunities, and at safeguarding
the balance of pa ym ents (D jo jo hadikusumo 1986: 32). In his later writings, Sumitro continued to emphasise
the importance of these three interrelated operational policy objectives. In
the context of the economic efficiency of
the social system, policies intended to
maximise value added growth by redirecting the allocation of resources to particular industries would have to take
account of their impact on employment
and the balance of payments. The pursuit of value added growth with a disregard for expansion of employment
opportunities was tantamount to inviting social unrest and internal political
instability. Neglect of the balance of payments would also lead Indonesia into
the bondage of international indebtedness (Djojohadikusumo 1985: 3).
Sumitro’s concern about the structural rigidities and imbalances facing
government efforts to develop the
economy were evident in his public polemic in early 1952 with Sjafruddin
Prawiranegara, at that time the first governor of the Java Bank (later renamed
Bank Indonesia), about whether Indonesia should first put emphasis on agricultural development (as advocated by
Sjafruddin) or whether it should begin
to industrialise the country as rapidly as
possible (as advocated by Sumitro). Like
Raul Prebisch, whose structuralist views
had greatly influenced Sumitro’s thinking about the need to switch from a reliance on trade and primary exports to
domestic market-based industrialisation
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
178
(Djojohadikusumo 1986: 36; Kirkpatrick
1989: 67–8), Sumitro held that economic
development in the developing countries was hampered by the monopolistic systems of the industrial countries.
With much agricultural activity in the
developing countries geared to producing raw materials for the industrial
countries, which also controlled the
trade and transport of these raw materials, an emphasis on agricultural development would in Sumitro’s view merely
perpetuate the unbalanced structure of
the economy and the weak economic position of the Indonesian people.
Hence, only by widening the basis of
the economy through industrialisation
could the people’s incomes be raised. In
the first instance, Indonesia’s industrialisation would have to be geared to producing consumption goods for the
domestic market (which in the early
1950s was still characterised by a great
scarcity of these goods). Industrialisation would not mean replacing the
agrarian base of the country by an industrial ba se, however. Instead, it
should be seen as an important complem ent to agriculture , which would
achieve a stronger and more balanced
economic structure (Djojohadikusumo
1952). But efforts would also have to be
made to assist small farmers to move
into non-farm activities, inclu ding
processing and transport, by providing
them with better education, training, vocational guidance, and cooperatives to
strengthen their bargaining power
(Djojohadikusumo 1986: 35).
Sumitro also argued that during the
early stages of industrialisation the state
would have to play a pioneering role,
by making direct investments in various
industries and physical infrastructure in
order to encourage investment by private enterprise. In discussing the role of
foreign direct investment (FDI), Sumitro
took issue with Sjafruddin, who held
Thee Kian Wie
that whatever industrialisation was being undertaken would be better left to
foreign firms, as domestic development
efforts would first have to focus on agricultural development. While Sumitro
did not reject a role for FDI, he nevertheless felt that pursuing a liberal policy
towards it would merely open up the
country to the monopolistic forces of the
advanced countries. For this reason, he
believed that industries of vital and strategic interest to the country should be
established, or at least be controlled, by
the state (Djojohadikusumo 1952).
Two decades later, as Minister for
Research, Sumitro was able to act on his
long felt concern about Indonesia’s longterm development, when in late 1973 he
initiated and directly supervised a national research project entitled the ‘Study
on Indonesia’s Long-Term Growth Perspectives’. This was carried out by the
National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Indonesian Institute of
Sciences, in cooperation with other research institutes, particularly the Institute of Economic and Social Research,
Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia, and the Institute for Regional
Economic Research, Faculty of Economics, Andalas University. Its objective was
to obtain a perspective of the various
feasible patterns of long-term economic
growth, which could be used as a basis
for formulating government policies directed at leading the nation towards the
goal of a just and prosperous society
(Thee et al. 1978: 1).
Sumitro had conceived this study because of his concern that significant factors that would have a bearin g on
Indonesia’s long-term growth—specifically its human and natural resources
and technological progress, and the dynamic interactions between them—were
not taken into sufficient consideration in
the Five-Year Development Plans prepared by the National Planning Board
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
In Memoriam: Professor Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, 1917–2001
(Bappenas). In Sumitro’s view, forward
perspectives to, say, 2000 would be helpful in envisaging future preconditions
for a tolerable human existence. These
would provide a needed additional dimension to the present context, ensuring that current actions would meet
future requirements. Conversely, current
policies and programs would have
longer-term ramifications that might
shape the distant future to an important
degree (Djojohadikusumo 1975: 211).
Sumitro held that in the Indonesian
setting population was the single most
important factor among a range of social and economic dynamics. Population
growth would be the given reality for
the rest of the 20th century and beyond,
whatever the results even of vigorously
pursued population policies. In this context two ‘routes of variables’ pertinent
to Indonesia’s future were to be considered. These two routes would be interrelated, each using the same variable,
namely Indonesia’s population growth,
as a point of departure, and the year 2000
as a ‘terminal date’ (Djojohadikusumo
1975: 211–12).
Two sets of questions pertaining to
these two routes emerged. The first set
would relate to the basic requirements
of the population in the year 2000, expressed in quantitative terms of food,
habitation, clothing, health, and educational facilities. Without the future capacity to provide the people with a
minimum quantum of these basic necessities, social stability and political viability would be seriously endangered
(Djojohadikusumo 1975: 212). The second set of questions would stem from a
view of the structural pattern of Indonesia’s economic growth up to the year
2000. This growth would involve a structural shift, with a broadening of the economic base, which would be reflected
in changes over time in the relative sector contributions to GDP. This would
179
have important ramifications for development, opening up greater possibilities
for future growth and for strengthening
the balance of payments, but would also
present problems from the viewpoint of
population and employment (Djojohadikusumo 1975: 222).
Despite its merits, particularly as a
useful input to the Five-Year Development Plans, this perspective study of
Indonesia’s long-term growth was terminated in 1978 when Sumitro was replaced by Dr B.J. Habibie as Minister of
State for Research and Technology.
Under the New Order, Indonesia finally achieved the rapid industrial transformation to which Sumitro had aspired
since the early 1950s. However, by the
early 1980s Sumitro had become increasingly concerned about the pattern of industrial development, which in his view
was being distorted by the ‘featherbedding’ of various domestic industries
owned by special interests. In a hardhitting commencement address to the
Indonesian Institute for Management
Development in Jakarta on the occasion
of the first graduation ceremony of its
MBA Program, which was given wide
publicity in the news media, Sumitro
strongly criticised the government’s perverse application of the ‘infant industry’
argument for protection, which provided the highest effective protection to
the oldest industries and most well established firms. The high protection being enjoyed by various industries had
resulted in excessively high costs in
terms of resource use relative to the net
value added being generated. According to Sumitro, the deficiencies in the
tariff structure, combined with the indiscriminate and injudicious application
of quantitative restrictions, had brought
about serious distortions, as reflected in
the fact that in several cases the highest
effective protection was being enjoyed
by the least efficient industries. If not
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
180
rectified soon, Sumitro warned, this high
protection would only reinforce inefficiency, and the perpetuation of excessively high costs inimical to the interests
of the lower-income groups that constituted the larger part of the population.
In the final analysis it would impede the
development of a strong industrial base
for Indonesia (Djojohadikusumo 1985:
4–5). Hence, in order to raise productivity and promote the efficient use of
scarce resources, and to prevent powerful vested interests from being unduly
influential, commerce and industry
would need to be exposed to competition, whether from domestic or foreign
firms (Djojohadikusumo 1985: 7–8).
As Indo nesia entere d the 1990s,
Sumitro’s worries about the course of
Indonesia’s economic development
and the proliferation of ‘rent-seeking
activities’ steadily increased. When in
1996 the so-called ‘national car ’ program was launched, Sumitro openly
ridiculed it, stating that it was a travesty of industrial policy. By this time
Sumitro had given up hope of being
a bl e to p er s ua d e th e n Pr es id en t
Soeharto, even in a discreet way, to
adhere to sound economic policies.
The steep rupiah depreciation that
began in 1997, and Indonesia’s subsequent economic meltdown, must not
have come as too great a surprise to
Sumitro. In a public warning published
in The Jakarta Post daily of 12 January
1998, Sumitro attributed the loss of public confidence to a series of what he
called ‘institutional diseases’, such as ex-
Thee Kian Wie
tensive corruption, collusion between
government officials and businessmen,
government-sanctioned monopolies, legal uncertainty, and a weak judicial system. He warned that getting out of the
crisis would require immediate and firm
action, specifically by attacking these institutional diseases in a more focused
manner, despite the strong resistance
that could be expected from vested interests (Djojohadikusumo 1998: 1).
Besides his concern about Indonesia’s
protracted economic crisis, Sumitro was
also distressed about the violent religious and ethnic conflicts in various regions in Indonesia, which had caused a
human tragedy of unimaginable scale as
hundreds of thousands of innocent people were forced to flee their homes. As a
person free of any religious, ethnic or
racial bigotry (as reflected by the diverse
religious, ethnic and racial composition
of his own close-knit family), he was
deeply worried about the unravelling
cohesion of Indonesian society.
It must have given Sumitro no satisfaction at all that his prophetic warning in early 1998 about the need to
deal decisively with the institutional
diseases was not heeded, and that Indonesia fell into an abyss from which
it has not yet been able to extricate itself, despite the massive foreign aid it
has received since being hit by the
Asian crisis of 1997/98. Sadly, Professor Sumitro did not live long enough
to witness the economic and political
recovery of Indonesia, the country he
loved so much.
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
In Memoriam: Professor Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, 1917–2001
181
REFERENCES
The discussion of Sumitro’s role as the
founder of modern economic studies in
Indonesia is based largely on material contained in the following two publications:
Katoppo, Aristides, et al. (2000), Sumitro
Djojohadikusumo: Jejak Perlawanan Begawan
Pejuang [Sumitro Djojohadikusumo: The
Trail of Resistance of a Champion Fighter],
Pustaka Sinar Harapan, Jakarta; and
Thee K ian Wie (1979), ‘Economics’, in
Koentjaraningrat (ed.), The Social Sciences
in Indonesia, Vol. II, Indonesian Institute
of Sciences, Jakarta: 225–86.
The discussion of Sumitro’s economic thinking is based on his own writings, including:
Djojoha dikusum o, Sumitro
(195 2),
‘Indone sie’s E conomische O pbouw:
Aantekeningen op de Beschouwing van
Mr Sjafruddin Prawiranegara [Indonesia’s Economic Development: Some Notes
on Mr Sjafruddin Prawiranegara’s Views],
in Nieuwsgier daily, 17–22 March.
______
(1975), ‘Indonesia towards the Year
2000’, Economics and Finance in Indonesia
XXIII (3): 211–60.
______
(1985), Added Value, Productive Employment, Balance of Payments: A Reminder of Ground Rules, Commencement
Address to the Indonesian Institute for
Management Development at the first
graduation ceremony of its MBA Program, Jakarta, 22 August.
______
(1986), ‘Recollections of My Career’,
Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 22
(3): 27–39.
______
(1993), ‘An Economist’s Approach to
Historical Perspectives: Some Random
Thoughts’, Keynote address delivered at
the First Conference on Indonesia’s Modern Economic History (1815–1990), Jak arta, and publis hed in J. Thom as
Lindblad (ed.), New Challenges in the Modern Economic History of Indonesia, Programme of Indonesian Studies (PRIS),
Leiden: 37–46.
______
(1998), ‘Backsliding on Reforms Can
Cause Depression’, The Jakarta Post, 12
January: 1.
Other references in the text are to:
Kirkpatrick, Colin (1989), ‘Trade Policy and
Industrialisation in LDCs’, in Norman
Gemmell (ed.), Surveys in Development
Economics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford: 56–89.
Thee Kian Wie, M. Arsyad Anwar and J.L.
Tamba (1978), The Study on Indonesia’s
Long-Term Growth Perspectives, Report
presented at the PREPF (Population, Resources, Environment, and the Philippine
Future) Conference, Tagaytay City, 10–11
January.
ISSN: 0007-4918 (Print) 1472-7234 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbie20
IN MEMORIAM: PROFESSOR SUMITRO
DJOJOHADIKUSUMO, 19172001
Thee Kian Wie
To cite this article: Thee Kian Wie (2001) IN MEMORIAM: PROFESSOR SUMITRO
DJOJOHADIKUSUMO, 19172001, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 37:2, 173-181, DOI:
10.1080/00074910152390865
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00074910152390865
Published online: 17 Jun 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 58
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbie20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]
Date: 19 January 2016, At: 21:58
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2001: 173–81
IN MEMORIAM: PROFESSOR SUMITRO
DJOJOHADIKUSUMO, 1917–2001
Thee Kian Wie
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jakarta
Professor Sumitro Djojohadikusumo is
one of the principal architects of Indonesia’s post-independence economic policy.
He has held key economic portfolios in
both the immediate post-independence
and the New Order eras. In addition, as
Professor of Economics at the University
of Indonesia, and as a tireless lecturer and
writer on economic issues, he has been instrumental in shaping the education of
several generations of economists in Indonesia, many of whom are now in key
government positions.
Thus ran the introduction to an interview with Professor Sumitro, one of Indonesia’s foremost economic policy
makers, published in the December 1986
issue of the Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies under the title ‘Recollections of My Career’. While much is
known about Sumitro’s role as a cabinet minister and politician, relatively little is known about his role as the pioneer
of modern economic studies in Indonesia, as a prolific scholar and as a forceful
public advocate of sound economic policies. It is therefore fitting that this
obituary fo cuses primarily on his
achievements in these two fields.
As the son of a public servant in the
higher-middle echelons of the Netherlands Indies administration, Sumitro
was able to attend Dutch schools. On his
graduation from secondary school in
1935, his parents, at great sacrifice, sent
him to Rotterdam to study at the Neth-
erlands School of Economics (later renam ed the Facult y of Econo mics,
Erasmus University, Rotterdam). In
1937/38 Sumitro interrupted his studies in Rotterdam for a year, to read philosophy and history at the Sorbonne in
Paris. In 1943 he obtained the degree of
doctor of economics at the Netherlands
School of Economics, having successfully defended his doctoral dissertation,
Het Volkscredietwezen in de Depressie
[The People’s Credit Service during the
Depression]. From 1946 to 1950, Sumitro
was active as deputy chief of mission of
the Indonesian delegation to the United
Nations, advocating international support for Indonesia’s struggle for independence. After Dutch recognition of
Indonesia’s independence in late 1949,
Sumitro, at the young age of 33, was
appointed Minister of Trade and Industry in Mohammad Natsir ’s cabinet
(1950–51), and subsequently as Minister
of Finance in both the Wilopo cabinet
(1952–53) and Burhanuddin Harahap’s
cabinet (1955–56).
In 1957 Sumitro left for Padang, West
Sumatra, to join dissidents who had
become increasingly concerned about
the rising leftward bent of the central
government and the economic neglect
of the regions. When no compromise
was reached between the central government and the regional dissidents, the
latter proclaimed a rival government in
ISSN 0007-4918 print/ISSN 1472-7234 online/01/020173-9
© 2001 Indonesia Project ANU
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
174
Bukittinggi, which they called the Revolutionary Government of the Republic
of Indonesia (Pemerintah Revolusioner
Republik Indonesia, PRRI), and which
Sumitro joined as Minister of Communications and Shipping. The defeat of the
PRRI rebellion in the course of 1958
forced Sumitro and his wife and four
small children to go into a self-imposed
exile abroad, which lasted until 1967.
During this period he earned his living
as a private economic consultant in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Thailand, France
and Switzerland.
In 1968, Sumitro was called back to
Jakarta by President Soeharto, to the
surprise of some of his political opponents, to become Minister for Trade in
Soeharto’s first ‘development cabinet’.
In 1973 he was appointed Minister of
State for Research in Soeharto’s second
‘development cabinet’, a post he held
until 1978.
In later years, at the request of President Soeharto and Pandji S oeroso,
known as the Father of Public Servants’
Cooperatives, Sumitro assumed the post
of General Chairman of the Central
Board of Cooperatives of Public Servants
(Induk Ko pera si Pegawa i N eger i,
IKPN). He also continued to provide
President Soeharto occasionally, and on
an informal basis, with an assessment of
economic conditions and problems, and
suggestions on how to deal with them.
But more than from his career as minister in various cabinets, Sumitro’s great
reputation and lasting legacy derived
from his considerable achievements and
contributions as the founder of modern
economic studies in Indonesia, as a prolific scholar and as a tireless public advocate of sound economic policies. He
is rightly considered the pioneer of economics education in Indonesia. While
economics had already been taught as a
separate discipline in the School of Law
in Jakarta since the early 1920s, a fully
Thee Kian Wie
fledged university education in economics could only be pursued in the Netherlands during the D utch colonia l
period. Because of financial constraints
only a few Indonesian students could
pursue such an education, including
Mohammad Hatta, Aboetari, Saroso and
Sumitro Djojohadikusumo.
Recognising the need to train qualified economists who would be able to
tackle the problems of Indonesia’s economic reconstruction, the Dutch authorities in 1948 established the first
School of Economics in Makasar as part
of the University of Indonesia. Dutch
professors and lecturers made up the
teaching staff of this School. At the revolutionary Gadjah Mada University in
Yogyakarta, economics was initially
taught in the Faculty of Law, mainly by
law graduates who had taken courses
in economics offered at the Law School
before the war. However, after the Dutch
recognition of Indonesia’s independence
in December 1949, a separate Faculty of
Economics was established in September 1950 as part of the University of Indonesia, and became known as FEUI.
Owing to the shortage of Indonesian
economists, a professor of law, the late
Professor Sunarjo Kolopaking, was appointed the first dean of the newly established Faculty of Economics.
Not long after his appoin tment,
however, Professor Sunarjo resigned
as dean, causing a crisis in the newly
established faculty. At the suggestion
of Mohammad Hatta, vice president
of Indonesia, a delegation of students
led by Suhadi Mangkusuwondo (who
later became professor of economics
himself at FEUI) approached Sumitro,
requesting him to become the new
dean. Being the only young Indonesian with a doctorate in economics,
and respected as a dynamic minister,
Sumitro was the obvious choice of the
economics students to lead FEUI. No
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
In Memoriam: Professor Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, 1917–2001
longer a minister after the fall of the
Natsir cabinet in 1951, Sumitro acceded to their request on condition that
they help him in administrative matters.
Sumitro held the deanship of FEUI
during its formative years from 1951 to
1957, and was able to develop the young
faculty into the country’s leading institution for the professional training of
economists. Although the shortage of
academically trained Indonesian economists was a major problem in building
up a strong teaching staff for FEUI,
Sumitro was able, through his past association with the Netherlands School
of Economics in Rotterdam, to recruit
Dutch professors and lecturers to fill the
void. Meanwhile the training of a new
generation of economists, who had had
their entire university education in Indonesia, proceeded apace. During the
academic year of 1953/54 the first two
I n d o n e s i a n - ed u c a ted ec o n o m i s ts
graduated from FEUI, followed by
four more graduates during the following two years. A peak output was
reached in 1959–60, when 209 economists graduated.
In 1953 Sumitro founded the Institute
of Economic and Social Research, which
became an integral part of FEUI. This
institute, which became kno wn as
LPEM-FEUI, was established to provide
faculty members and students with the
opportunity to apply and test the economic theories they had taught and
learned in the courses at FEUI. LPEMFEUI also bec ame a ‘kitchen’ for
Sumitro, to help him in formulating economic policies during the periods he
served concurrently as cabinet minister,
because its research capability was superior to that of the research outfits of
government departments.
Two years later Sumitro established
the Association of Indonesian Economists (Ikatan Sarjana Ekonomi Indonesia, ISEI). Under his leadership ISEI
175
quickly grew into the well regarded professional association it remains today.
During the early years, the major
problems facing FEUI were building up
a strong teaching staff, finding adequate
accommodation for lecture rooms, and
establishing a library. But Sumitro soon
realised the need for basic changes in the
economics curriculum, which was based
largely on the curricula of the faculties
of economics in the Netherlands, and
therefore not entirely appropriate to the
specific needs of Indonesia as a developing country. The major changes in the
curriculum of FEUI introduced during
the academic year of 1955/56 included
the elimination of courses in law at the
undergraduate level, a greater emphasis on macroeconomics, in place of the
focus on microeconomics that had been
a feature of the ‘continental’ economics
curriculum, and greater specialisation at
the graduate level. With a stronger emphasis on applied than on pure economics, teaching and research were to be
geared to the problems of economic development facing Indonesia. In line with
the changes in the economics curriculum, the Dutch system of ‘free study’
was replaced by an American-style
‘guided system ’ of study, which
included the regular schedulin g of
obligatory class work, assignments and
examinations, and the direct relationship of examinations to the material
taught in lectures.
In 1955–56, as more and more Dutch
professors and lecturers began to leave
Indonesia, Sumitro embarked on the
search for an appropriate foreign institution of higher learning with which
FEUI could initiate an affiliation project
to provide its teaching faculty with postgraduate training in economics. Initially
he was thinking of inviting the London
School of Economics (LSE) to be its counterpart, to provide lecturers to fill the
void left by the departure of the Dutch
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
176
professors and to provide scholarships
to enable FEUI’s teaching faculty to pursue postgraduate study at LSE. During
his student years in Europe, Sumitro had
taken some courses at LSE and had been
greatly impressed by Harold Laski’s socialist ideas. The plan to establish an affiliation program with LSE could not be
realised, however, because the British
Council was not able to finance the
project.
Sumitro then turned his attention to
the US, even though as a socialist he was
less attracted to America’s capitalist system. By chance, during this time he met
Michael Harris, Representative of the
Ford Foundation in Indonesia, to whom
he confided his plan for an affiliation
project with the department of economics of a good American university. Responding positively, Harris approached
the University of California (UC) at
Berkeley. As Sumitro also happened to
know Professor Andreas Papandreou
well, who at the time was chairman of
the Department of Economics there, an
agreement on the proposed affiliation
project was quickly reached, and duly
signed on 19 July 1956.
In general, the affiliation project was
successful in filling the temporary void
caused by the departure of the Dutch
professors, and in building up a strong
teaching staff for FEUI. The American
faculty members who in the late 1950s
replaced the Dutch included Professors
Bruce G la ssburner, Leon M ears,
Leonard Doyle, Donald Blake, and two
postgraduate students, Hans Schmitt
and Ralph Anspach. In the late 1950s and
early 1960s, a number of FEUI’s young
faculty members, including Widjojo
Nitisa stro, M oham ma d S adli, Ali
Wardhana, Emil Salim, Suhadi Mangkusuwondo, J.B. Sumarlin and Saleh Afiff,
were sent to pursue postgraduate study
in economics and business administration at UC Berkeley and other Ameri-
Thee Kian Wie
can universities. During the New Order
period these FEUI economists, led by
Widjojo, occupied senior positions in
government.
Sumitro was concerned not only with
building up FEUI as a strong institution
of economics education and research,
which he liked to call the ‘Jakarta School
of Economics’, but also with spreading
and strengthening economics education
in state universities that were established during this period in other provinces, particularly outside Java. FEUI
itself undertook affiliation projects, like
that between itself and UC Berkeley,
with the fledgling faculties of economics of these new universities, including
Sriwijaya University in Palembang,
Andalas University in Padang, Syah
Kuala University in Banda Aceh, and
Hasanuddin University in Makasar.
The small core of qualified teaching
staff in these new economics faculties
consisted of graduates from FEUI and
the other older faculties of economics,
such as that of Gadjah Mada University,
who had returned to their places of origin upon graduation. As part of the affiliation projects with the new state
universities, Sumitro initiated the ‘flying lecturers’ (dosen terbang) system,
under which selected young faculty
members of FEUI commuted by air to
the faculties of economics in Sumatra
and Sulawesi on a periodic basis, to bolster the core teaching staff there. This
played a significant role in strengthening the younger economics faculties
during their early years.
After he left government in 1978,
Sumitro resumed teaching at FEUI. In
the ensuing years he wrote a large
number of books, several of which were
based on the insights and knowledge he
had gained as a cabinet minister. Three
of these—Persoalan Ekonomi di Indonesia
[Economic Problems in Indonesia];
Ekonomi Pembangunan [Development
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
In Memoriam: Professor Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, 1917–2001
Economics]; and Ekonomi Umum: AsasAsas Teori dan Kebijaksanaan [General
Economics: Principles of Theory and
Policy]—were intended to provide the
economics students with reading material relevant to the economic problems
facing Indonesia, and were used in his
course on Economic Analysis and Public Policy. This course was designed to
bridge the gap between economic analysis and public policy (Djojohadikusumo
1986: 32). While Sumitro recognised the
importance of analytical techniques, he
also thought it important that his students know their country’s economic
and social history, since economic analysis had to be seen in a societal framework. In fact, the link between general
economic theory and development
should be provided by a theory of economic dynamics, that is, the study of
economic phenomena in their historical
perspective and at the same time with a
view towards the future. For this reason,
he saw pioneering studies on economic
growth by great economists such as
Simon Kuznets and Nicholas Kaldor,
which succeeded in establishin g a
bridge between the vantage points of
economists and historians, as relevant to
Indonesia’s current development efforts
as well as to historical studies of the
economy (Djojohadikusumo 1993: 39).
In Sumitro’s view, economic development entailed a continuous effort to rectify structural rigidities and imbalances,
especially with regard to resource endowments, the allocation of productive
resources, the distribution of wealth and
income, and the prevailing institutional
framework. While institutions could be
impediments to modernisation, they
should not be taken as constants. Hence,
according to Sumitro’s structuralist perspective, public policies should aim at
changing the set of conditions imposed
by structural rigidities and imbalances.
As a structuralist and a socialist, Sumitro
177
was much more inclined towards government intervention to tackle structural
rigidities and imbalances, rather than
relying on market forces to solve these
problems. Three types of inter-related
operational policies had to be pursued,
namely those aimed at achieving more
rapid growth in terms of value added
(output), at generating more employment opportunities, and at safeguarding
the balance of pa ym ents (D jo jo hadikusumo 1986: 32). In his later writings, Sumitro continued to emphasise
the importance of these three interrelated operational policy objectives. In
the context of the economic efficiency of
the social system, policies intended to
maximise value added growth by redirecting the allocation of resources to particular industries would have to take
account of their impact on employment
and the balance of payments. The pursuit of value added growth with a disregard for expansion of employment
opportunities was tantamount to inviting social unrest and internal political
instability. Neglect of the balance of payments would also lead Indonesia into
the bondage of international indebtedness (Djojohadikusumo 1985: 3).
Sumitro’s concern about the structural rigidities and imbalances facing
government efforts to develop the
economy were evident in his public polemic in early 1952 with Sjafruddin
Prawiranegara, at that time the first governor of the Java Bank (later renamed
Bank Indonesia), about whether Indonesia should first put emphasis on agricultural development (as advocated by
Sjafruddin) or whether it should begin
to industrialise the country as rapidly as
possible (as advocated by Sumitro). Like
Raul Prebisch, whose structuralist views
had greatly influenced Sumitro’s thinking about the need to switch from a reliance on trade and primary exports to
domestic market-based industrialisation
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
178
(Djojohadikusumo 1986: 36; Kirkpatrick
1989: 67–8), Sumitro held that economic
development in the developing countries was hampered by the monopolistic systems of the industrial countries.
With much agricultural activity in the
developing countries geared to producing raw materials for the industrial
countries, which also controlled the
trade and transport of these raw materials, an emphasis on agricultural development would in Sumitro’s view merely
perpetuate the unbalanced structure of
the economy and the weak economic position of the Indonesian people.
Hence, only by widening the basis of
the economy through industrialisation
could the people’s incomes be raised. In
the first instance, Indonesia’s industrialisation would have to be geared to producing consumption goods for the
domestic market (which in the early
1950s was still characterised by a great
scarcity of these goods). Industrialisation would not mean replacing the
agrarian base of the country by an industrial ba se, however. Instead, it
should be seen as an important complem ent to agriculture , which would
achieve a stronger and more balanced
economic structure (Djojohadikusumo
1952). But efforts would also have to be
made to assist small farmers to move
into non-farm activities, inclu ding
processing and transport, by providing
them with better education, training, vocational guidance, and cooperatives to
strengthen their bargaining power
(Djojohadikusumo 1986: 35).
Sumitro also argued that during the
early stages of industrialisation the state
would have to play a pioneering role,
by making direct investments in various
industries and physical infrastructure in
order to encourage investment by private enterprise. In discussing the role of
foreign direct investment (FDI), Sumitro
took issue with Sjafruddin, who held
Thee Kian Wie
that whatever industrialisation was being undertaken would be better left to
foreign firms, as domestic development
efforts would first have to focus on agricultural development. While Sumitro
did not reject a role for FDI, he nevertheless felt that pursuing a liberal policy
towards it would merely open up the
country to the monopolistic forces of the
advanced countries. For this reason, he
believed that industries of vital and strategic interest to the country should be
established, or at least be controlled, by
the state (Djojohadikusumo 1952).
Two decades later, as Minister for
Research, Sumitro was able to act on his
long felt concern about Indonesia’s longterm development, when in late 1973 he
initiated and directly supervised a national research project entitled the ‘Study
on Indonesia’s Long-Term Growth Perspectives’. This was carried out by the
National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Indonesian Institute of
Sciences, in cooperation with other research institutes, particularly the Institute of Economic and Social Research,
Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia, and the Institute for Regional
Economic Research, Faculty of Economics, Andalas University. Its objective was
to obtain a perspective of the various
feasible patterns of long-term economic
growth, which could be used as a basis
for formulating government policies directed at leading the nation towards the
goal of a just and prosperous society
(Thee et al. 1978: 1).
Sumitro had conceived this study because of his concern that significant factors that would have a bearin g on
Indonesia’s long-term growth—specifically its human and natural resources
and technological progress, and the dynamic interactions between them—were
not taken into sufficient consideration in
the Five-Year Development Plans prepared by the National Planning Board
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
In Memoriam: Professor Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, 1917–2001
(Bappenas). In Sumitro’s view, forward
perspectives to, say, 2000 would be helpful in envisaging future preconditions
for a tolerable human existence. These
would provide a needed additional dimension to the present context, ensuring that current actions would meet
future requirements. Conversely, current
policies and programs would have
longer-term ramifications that might
shape the distant future to an important
degree (Djojohadikusumo 1975: 211).
Sumitro held that in the Indonesian
setting population was the single most
important factor among a range of social and economic dynamics. Population
growth would be the given reality for
the rest of the 20th century and beyond,
whatever the results even of vigorously
pursued population policies. In this context two ‘routes of variables’ pertinent
to Indonesia’s future were to be considered. These two routes would be interrelated, each using the same variable,
namely Indonesia’s population growth,
as a point of departure, and the year 2000
as a ‘terminal date’ (Djojohadikusumo
1975: 211–12).
Two sets of questions pertaining to
these two routes emerged. The first set
would relate to the basic requirements
of the population in the year 2000, expressed in quantitative terms of food,
habitation, clothing, health, and educational facilities. Without the future capacity to provide the people with a
minimum quantum of these basic necessities, social stability and political viability would be seriously endangered
(Djojohadikusumo 1975: 212). The second set of questions would stem from a
view of the structural pattern of Indonesia’s economic growth up to the year
2000. This growth would involve a structural shift, with a broadening of the economic base, which would be reflected
in changes over time in the relative sector contributions to GDP. This would
179
have important ramifications for development, opening up greater possibilities
for future growth and for strengthening
the balance of payments, but would also
present problems from the viewpoint of
population and employment (Djojohadikusumo 1975: 222).
Despite its merits, particularly as a
useful input to the Five-Year Development Plans, this perspective study of
Indonesia’s long-term growth was terminated in 1978 when Sumitro was replaced by Dr B.J. Habibie as Minister of
State for Research and Technology.
Under the New Order, Indonesia finally achieved the rapid industrial transformation to which Sumitro had aspired
since the early 1950s. However, by the
early 1980s Sumitro had become increasingly concerned about the pattern of industrial development, which in his view
was being distorted by the ‘featherbedding’ of various domestic industries
owned by special interests. In a hardhitting commencement address to the
Indonesian Institute for Management
Development in Jakarta on the occasion
of the first graduation ceremony of its
MBA Program, which was given wide
publicity in the news media, Sumitro
strongly criticised the government’s perverse application of the ‘infant industry’
argument for protection, which provided the highest effective protection to
the oldest industries and most well established firms. The high protection being enjoyed by various industries had
resulted in excessively high costs in
terms of resource use relative to the net
value added being generated. According to Sumitro, the deficiencies in the
tariff structure, combined with the indiscriminate and injudicious application
of quantitative restrictions, had brought
about serious distortions, as reflected in
the fact that in several cases the highest
effective protection was being enjoyed
by the least efficient industries. If not
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
180
rectified soon, Sumitro warned, this high
protection would only reinforce inefficiency, and the perpetuation of excessively high costs inimical to the interests
of the lower-income groups that constituted the larger part of the population.
In the final analysis it would impede the
development of a strong industrial base
for Indonesia (Djojohadikusumo 1985:
4–5). Hence, in order to raise productivity and promote the efficient use of
scarce resources, and to prevent powerful vested interests from being unduly
influential, commerce and industry
would need to be exposed to competition, whether from domestic or foreign
firms (Djojohadikusumo 1985: 7–8).
As Indo nesia entere d the 1990s,
Sumitro’s worries about the course of
Indonesia’s economic development
and the proliferation of ‘rent-seeking
activities’ steadily increased. When in
1996 the so-called ‘national car ’ program was launched, Sumitro openly
ridiculed it, stating that it was a travesty of industrial policy. By this time
Sumitro had given up hope of being
a bl e to p er s ua d e th e n Pr es id en t
Soeharto, even in a discreet way, to
adhere to sound economic policies.
The steep rupiah depreciation that
began in 1997, and Indonesia’s subsequent economic meltdown, must not
have come as too great a surprise to
Sumitro. In a public warning published
in The Jakarta Post daily of 12 January
1998, Sumitro attributed the loss of public confidence to a series of what he
called ‘institutional diseases’, such as ex-
Thee Kian Wie
tensive corruption, collusion between
government officials and businessmen,
government-sanctioned monopolies, legal uncertainty, and a weak judicial system. He warned that getting out of the
crisis would require immediate and firm
action, specifically by attacking these institutional diseases in a more focused
manner, despite the strong resistance
that could be expected from vested interests (Djojohadikusumo 1998: 1).
Besides his concern about Indonesia’s
protracted economic crisis, Sumitro was
also distressed about the violent religious and ethnic conflicts in various regions in Indonesia, which had caused a
human tragedy of unimaginable scale as
hundreds of thousands of innocent people were forced to flee their homes. As a
person free of any religious, ethnic or
racial bigotry (as reflected by the diverse
religious, ethnic and racial composition
of his own close-knit family), he was
deeply worried about the unravelling
cohesion of Indonesian society.
It must have given Sumitro no satisfaction at all that his prophetic warning in early 1998 about the need to
deal decisively with the institutional
diseases was not heeded, and that Indonesia fell into an abyss from which
it has not yet been able to extricate itself, despite the massive foreign aid it
has received since being hit by the
Asian crisis of 1997/98. Sadly, Professor Sumitro did not live long enough
to witness the economic and political
recovery of Indonesia, the country he
loved so much.
nloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 21:58 19 January 2
In Memoriam: Professor Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, 1917–2001
181
REFERENCES
The discussion of Sumitro’s role as the
founder of modern economic studies in
Indonesia is based largely on material contained in the following two publications:
Katoppo, Aristides, et al. (2000), Sumitro
Djojohadikusumo: Jejak Perlawanan Begawan
Pejuang [Sumitro Djojohadikusumo: The
Trail of Resistance of a Champion Fighter],
Pustaka Sinar Harapan, Jakarta; and
Thee K ian Wie (1979), ‘Economics’, in
Koentjaraningrat (ed.), The Social Sciences
in Indonesia, Vol. II, Indonesian Institute
of Sciences, Jakarta: 225–86.
The discussion of Sumitro’s economic thinking is based on his own writings, including:
Djojoha dikusum o, Sumitro
(195 2),
‘Indone sie’s E conomische O pbouw:
Aantekeningen op de Beschouwing van
Mr Sjafruddin Prawiranegara [Indonesia’s Economic Development: Some Notes
on Mr Sjafruddin Prawiranegara’s Views],
in Nieuwsgier daily, 17–22 March.
______
(1975), ‘Indonesia towards the Year
2000’, Economics and Finance in Indonesia
XXIII (3): 211–60.
______
(1985), Added Value, Productive Employment, Balance of Payments: A Reminder of Ground Rules, Commencement
Address to the Indonesian Institute for
Management Development at the first
graduation ceremony of its MBA Program, Jakarta, 22 August.
______
(1986), ‘Recollections of My Career’,
Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 22
(3): 27–39.
______
(1993), ‘An Economist’s Approach to
Historical Perspectives: Some Random
Thoughts’, Keynote address delivered at
the First Conference on Indonesia’s Modern Economic History (1815–1990), Jak arta, and publis hed in J. Thom as
Lindblad (ed.), New Challenges in the Modern Economic History of Indonesia, Programme of Indonesian Studies (PRIS),
Leiden: 37–46.
______
(1998), ‘Backsliding on Reforms Can
Cause Depression’, The Jakarta Post, 12
January: 1.
Other references in the text are to:
Kirkpatrick, Colin (1989), ‘Trade Policy and
Industrialisation in LDCs’, in Norman
Gemmell (ed.), Surveys in Development
Economics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford: 56–89.
Thee Kian Wie, M. Arsyad Anwar and J.L.
Tamba (1978), The Study on Indonesia’s
Long-Term Growth Perspectives, Report
presented at the PREPF (Population, Resources, Environment, and the Philippine
Future) Conference, Tagaytay City, 10–11
January.