THE ROLE OF
INFRASTRUCTURE POLICIES IN ALLEVIATING POVERTY IN INDONESIA
Nuzul Husnah*, Wily Arafah, Budi Santosa, Maria R
Nindita Radyati
Faculty of Economics and
Business, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta, Indonesia
Email:
[email protected]*
|
Article
Information |
|
ABSTRACT |
|
Received:
December 11, 2022 Revised:
January 12, 2023 Approved: January 16, 2023 Online: January 19, 2023 |
|
Poverty is a complex and multidimensional problem. Therefore, all
poverty alleviation efforts must be carried out in a comprehensive manner and
various aspects of people's lives. The purpose of this study was to analyze
the influence of Infrastructure on economy and poverty, and to analyze government
policies to find infrastructure government initiatives for poverty
alleviation in Indonesia towards Sustainable Development. A mixed research method was adopted, by combining quantitative and
qualitative research, with a sequential explanatory design, used a hypothesis
testing method which explains the effect of the independent variable
(Infrastructure), on the dependent variable (Poverty Alleviation), with
Economic performance as a mediating variable, and Government Policy as a
moderating variable, then a qualitative approach by content analysis on
mapping Central Government Policies related to Poverty Alleviation in
Indonesia. We found that infrastructure has a significant effect on the economy,
economy mediates the effect of Infrastructure on poverty alleviation, and
Government Policy does not moderate the effect of Infrastructure on poverty
alleviation. Based on these findings, it is recommended that in efforts to
poverty alleviation, the government should focus on making regulations that
are more effective and efficient, good management and intensive collaboration
across ministries/agencies, increasing the competence of human resources and
the local community, as well as being in sync with improving the community's
economy. The impact of (physical) infrastructure development on poverty
alleviation will be more significantly if it is combined by social and
economic development. ·
|
|
Keywords |
|
|
|
Infrastructure; government policies; poverty
alleviation; sustainable development goals |
|
INTRODUCTION
Currently, poverty is not only being a
problem for developing countries but also developed countries. In term of the
success of developing countries such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South
Africa in reducing poverty, developed countries such as Canada, the United
States and the European Union have experienced an increasing in poverty.
Likewise, 130 developing countries are
still facing poverty problems, including Indonesia. Therefore, poverty alleviation efforts must be carried out
comprehensively, covering various aspects of people's lives, and carried out in
an integrated manner (Nasir, et al 2008). In the world, there are more than 800 million people
living below the poverty line where they live on less than $1.25 a day (UNDP,
2018).
The case of poverty is still a serious problem in Indonesia even
though statistically the number of poor people in Indonesia tends to decrease.
This is because the absolute number of poor people in Indonesia is still very
high. Based on data from the Indonesia Central Bureau of Statistics, a number of poverty in Indonesia tends to decrease in the last 20
years. In 1999 the poverty rate reached 24.43% and continued to fall to only
one digit in 2019 at 9.22% or a total of 24.79 million people. Based on World Bank standards, of the 24.7
million poor people, 9.9 million of them fall into the very poor category
(extreme poverty).
Below
is the poverty profile in Indonesia for 2013-2020, based on the official
statistical news released by the Central Bureau of Statistics on
July 15 2020.
Figure 1. Poverty Profile of Indonesia
Poverty is a very serious issue. It is not surprising that poverty
is a central issue that puts it in the first of 17 Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). Eliminating all forms of poverty is the world's challenge towards
sustainable development. The problem of poverty is a very complex issue and
always relevant to be discussed, especially in relation to the development
process of a country.
Thus, it is very important to conduct studies related to poverty
which are linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As far as the
researchers know, after conducting literature research, so far
no research has been found that links poverty issues in detail with SDGs
indicators. Thus, this research is expected to contribute to the gap in this
field.
Infrastructure has a strong correlation to poverty (Chotia
& Rao, 2017). This research suggests making policies to strengthen
infrastructure and economic growth to reduce poverty levels. There is a
positive and unidirectional relationship from infrastructure development to
poverty alleviation. Deinne & Ajayi, (2021) found that distance to water sources, infrastructure/ roads/
access and household income, community economic conditions, are important
factors affecting poverty reduction.
Based on the explanation in this background, this research
examined in depth the problem of poverty, the influencing factors that focus on
the infrastructure sector, and link it to the perspective of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) in Indonesia. Then this study analyzed government
policies to find government initiatives in Infrastructure in an effort to
reduce poverty in Indonesia, towards sustainable development. The aims of this
research are: (1) to analyze the effect of infrastructure on the economy, (2)
to analyze the effect of infrastructure on poverty, (3) to analyze the role of
the economy in mediating the influence of infrastructure on poverty, and (4) to
analyze the role of government policies in moderating the effect of
infrastructure on poverty.
Hypothesis
Development
(1) Effect of Infrastructure on the Economy
Improvements in physical
infrastructure can certainly lead to higher productivity, employment and income
opportunities, as well as increased availability of wage goods, thereby
reducing poverty by increasing average incomes and consumption. If higher productivity
improvements in infrastructure and increased employment directly benefit the
poor more than the non-poor, these investments can reduce poverty more quickly
by improving the distribution of income as well (Ali & Pernia,
2003).
Thus, referring to the theory and
previous research, the research hypothesis includes:
Hypothesis 1:
There is an Effect of Infrastructure on the Economy
(2)
Effect of Infrastructure on Poverty Alleviation
The results of research by Chotia
& Rao, (2017), there is a long-term relationship between infrastructure
development, poverty and urban-rural inequality. Infrastructure development and
economic growth lead to poverty reduction in BRISC. This research suggests
making policies aimed at strengthening infrastructure and achieving economic
growth to reduce poverty. The research results show that poverty is caused by
unbalanced infrastructure conditions. This has bad consequences especially when
it is associated with transportation in poverty-prone areas (Jiang,
Yu, Xue, Chen, & Mi, 2020).
Thus, based on previous theory and research, the research hypothesis is as
follows:
Hypothesis 2: There is an Effect
of Infrastructure on Poverty Alleviation
(3) The Role of the
Economy Mediating the effect of Infrastructure on Economic Alleviation
Deinne
& Ajayi (2021) found that distance to water sources, infrastructure/ roads/
access and household income, community economic conditions, are important
factors affecting poverty reduction. Furthermore, Majid, et al, (2019) also found that there is a long-term relationship between the
financial sector, economic growth and poverty in Indonesia, while in the short
term there is a two-way relationship between the financial sector and poverty.
Thus, based on previous theory and research, the research hypothesis is as
follows:
Hypothesis 3: The Role of the
Economy mediates the effect of Infrastructure on Poverty Alleviation
(4)
The Role of Infrastructure on Poverty Alleviation with Government
Policy as a Moderating Variable
Poverty alleviation policies
planned by the Government must be encouraged to touch on the fundamental
aspects of reducing the poverty rate permanently. The literature study in this
research shows that community empowerment as a long-term solution is expected
to be carried out in a sustainable manner. To ensure its sustainability, a
collaborative governance system for stakeholders is needed (Riyanta
& Kurniati, 2018). The efforts made by the government to reduce or eliminate
homeless and beggars are preventive, repressive and rehabilitative
rehabilitation (Barlinti,
2007).
Thus, based on previous theory and research, the research hypothesis is as
follows:
Hypothesis 4: The Role of
Government Policy in Moderating the Effect of Infrastructure on Poverty
Alleviation
METHODS
A. Research Design
This type of
research is mixed method by combining qualitative and quantitative research. Sugiyono
(2017) said that mixed research method is a method that combines
quantitative and qualitative methods together in a research activity, in order
to obtain more comprehensive, valid, reliable and objective data. The research design in this study is presented in the following
figure:
Figure 1. Research Design
The design of this study used a hypothesis testing method which
explains the effect of the independent variable (Infrastructure) on the
dependent variable (Poverty), with Economic Performance as a mediating
variable, and Government Policy as a moderating variable. A qualitative
approach in this research is by mapping government policies at the national
level (laws, presidential regulations, ministerial regulations, etc.)
Table 1
Description of Research
Variables
|
|
Variable |
Description |
Indicator |
Data used |
Source |
|
1 |
Poverty |
Population living below the national poverty line, by sex and
age group. |
The
number of people living below the poverty line at a certain time divided by
the total population at the same time period is expressed in percent (%). |
SDGs 1. Indicator 1.2.1 Percentage of population living below
the national poverty line, by sex and age group in 34 provinces, 2017-2020 |
National Development Planning Agency, 2017 |
|
2 |
Infrastructure Performance |
The
steady condition of national roads is obtained from the length of national
roads that meet the category of good and moderate conditions divided by the
total length of national roads and multiplied by 100 percent. |
The
length proportion of national roads that meet the categories of good and
moderate conditions to the total length of national roads. Good and moderate
condition categories, namely road conditions that have adequate surface
flatness for vehicles to be passed by vehicles quickly, safely and comfortably,
where the International Roughness Index (IRI) is below 4 for good conditions
and below 8 for bad conditions. currently. The measurement of road conditions
uses a roughometer with the
International Roughness Index (IRI) unit which states the accumulation of ups
and downs of the road surface along 1 kilometer of the road (m/km). |
SDGs 9. Indicators 9.1.1. Steady condition of national roads |
National Development Planning Agency, 2021 |
|
3 |
Economy |
Male/female
who work informally with self-employed employment status, try to be assisted
by temporary workers/family workers, casual workers. |
It can be obtained by dividing the number of
people working in the informal sector by the number of people working
multiplied by 100 percent. |
SDGs 8. Indicators 8.3.1. Proportion of informal employment, by
sector and gender, in 34 provinces, 2017-2020 |
National Development Planning Agency, 2021 |
|
4 |
Government policy |
Government spending in each province for the Education, Health,
Infrastructure and Energy sectors. |
Provincial Government Budget in the Infrastructure sectors in 34
provinces, 2017-2020 |
Total in rupiah Provincial Government Budgets in the
Infrastructure sectors in 34 provinces, 2017-2020 |
Ministry of Finance, 2022 |
RESULTS
A.
Proportion of Steady Conditions of National Roads
The ninth SDGs
point is Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure. It is an effort to build a
resilient infrastructure, by promote inclusive and sustainable
industrialization, and foster innovation. Target: Develop quality, reliable,
sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and cross-border
infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a
focus on affordable and equitable access for all (National Development Planning Agency, 2017). The percentage of steady condition of national roads for
2017-2020, in 34 provinces in Indonesia, can be explained in the following
figure.
Figure 3.
Infrastructure Performance Trends (SDGs 9) 2018 – 2020 in 34 Provinces
In this context, the development of proper access roads is a means of
community mobility, especially in remote, frontier and disadvantaged areas to
access their needs. Road access also facilitates logistics facilities to reach
their areas. Over a three-year period, Indonesia's infrastructure trends
fluctuated. In 2017 the infrastructure performance trend was 91.02%, in 2018 it
was 92.27%, then it increased to 93.34% in 2019, then in 2020 it decreased to
92.14%.
Infrastructure is an important element in the development of a country.
Fan in Qin, Wu, & Shan (2022) explained that infrastructure in rural
or remote areas affects poverty. Investment in rural areas can increase
household income, reduce poverty, with road infrastructure as the main pillar.
B.
Results of Direct Relationship Analysis between Variables
Table
2
Results
of the Direct Relationship Test between Variables
|
Relationship |
Path Coefficient |
t-statistic |
p-Values |
Results |
|
Infrastructure
-> Economy |
0.177 |
2,164 |
0.031 |
Significant
Influence |
|
Infrastructure
-> Poverty |
-0.068 |
0.840 |
0.401 |
No
significant Influence |
Source:
Data Processing Results, 2021
To obtain
t-statistical values or p-values in hypothesis testing, if the results of
the t-statistical value are above 1.96 (minimum limit) or the p-values are
below 5%, then the research hypothesis has a significant effect (Hair,
Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014). Based on table 2, it is known that the relationship between
Infrastructure and the Economy has a t-statistic value above 1.96 (minimum
limit) or a p-value below 5%, so the research hypothesis has a significant
effect. Meanwhile, the relationship between infrastructure and poverty has a
t-statistic value below 1.96 and a p-value above 0.05, so that the relationship
between infrastructure and poverty is not significant.
C. Results of Mediation Relationship
Analysis between Variables
Table
3
Results of the Inter-Variable
Mediation Relationship Test
|
Mediation
Relationship |
Path Coefficient |
t-statistics |
P Values |
Results |
|
Infrastructure -> Economic Performance -> Poverty |
0.063 |
1,989 |
0.047 |
Significant Influence |
Source: Data Processing Results,
2021
Based on table 3,
it is known that the two relationships have t-statistics above 1.96 and
p-values below 0.05, which means that the relationship has a significant
influence, so the economic mediating relationship between infrastructure and
poverty, with a positive coefficient value (0.063). Which means that the
Economy mediates the influence of Infrastructure in poverty alleviation.
D. Results of Moderation Relationship
Analysis between Variables
Table
4
Results
of the Moderation Relationship Test between Variables
|
Moderation Relations (Government Policy) |
Path Coefficient |
t-statistic |
P Values |
Results |
|
M-InfrastructureàPoverty |
0.087 |
0.922 |
0.357 |
No Significant Influence |
Source:
Data Processing Results, 2021
Based on table 4,
it is known that the t-statistic values of the four Government Policy
relationships moderate the effect of infrastructure on poverty, having
t-statistic values below 1.96 and p-values above 0.05. So that the four
relationships have no significant effect, which means that government policies
have no significant effect in moderating the effect of infrastructure on
poverty alleviation.
E.
Discussion
1. Effect of Infrastructure on the Economy
The results of
this study support the first hypothesis which states that infrastructure has an
influence on the economy. This is indicated by a t-statistic value of 2.164
(above 1.96) and a p-value of 0.031 (below 0.05). Therefore, it can be
concluded that infrastructure has a significant effect on the economy, so the
first hypothesis of this study is accepted.
This is supported
by Nugraha, et al., (2020) which specifically look at the role of infrastructure in economic
growth in Indonesia. According to him, infrastructure has a positive influence
on economic growth and can reduce income inequality. Specifically, this
research focuses on the performance of basic infrastructure including
transportation so as to improve economic performance in a sustainable manner.
The results of
research by Ma’ruf
(2014), shows that public works infrastructure, including road
infrastructure makes a positive contribution to regional economic growth. From
this research it is also known that road infrastructure contributes positively
to eight kinds of indicators of economic growth, i.e: (a) Services, (b)
Transportation and Communication, (c) Processing Industry, (d) Mining and
Quarrying, (e) Construction/ Building, (f) Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry and
Fisheries, (g) Electricity, Gas and Clean Water, and (h) Trade, Hotels and
Restaurants. Even so, the contribution of road infrastructure to economic
growth is inseparable from the presence of other public works infrastructure.
Research from Ismail
& Mahyideen (2015) also saw that infrastructure development, especially in the field
of transportation such as water transportation, roads, and containers
supporting agriculture and manufacturing, had a positive effect on economic
performance. The quantity of infrastructure, especially in the information and
communication technology sector, is essential to support economic growth.
2. The Effect of Infrastructure on Poverty Alleviation
In the results of
this hypothesis test, it was found that the relationship between the
Infrastructure variable and Poverty Alleviation had a t-statistic value of
0.840 (below 1.96) and a p-value of 0.401 (above 0.05). From these results it
can be concluded that Hypothesis 2 has no significant effect. Which means that
Infrastructure has no effect on Poverty Alleviation.
This is in line
with Purnomo and Istiqomah (2019) which found that infrastructure has no significant effect on
poverty levels. Infrastructure can encourage poverty alleviation if it is
equipped with a supportive environment such as assets that can be facilitated
by improving the quality of human resources.
Infrastructure development is
considered not to have a direct impact on the poor because infrastructure
development requires a different time or period to have an impact on poverty
alleviation. In addition, development is only concentrated in areas that have
good infrastructure, namely in urban areas, districts or places that are
considered strategic. Meanwhile, the focus of development has not touched
remote villages (Sari,
2018).
The same thing
was conveyed by (Sari,
2018)
where infrastructure development did not have a
significant impact on poverty. This is due to the fact that infrastructure
alone does not necessarily reduce poverty. The long asphalt road is expected to
facilitate the mobility of people and goods thereby opening access to work or
doing business, but still requires support such as ownership of assets and
quality human resources. Mardiana, et., al (2017) stated that the impact of reducing the poverty rate was still low
because there were still imbalances in infrastructure development in East Kalimantan.
3. The role of economic variables mediates the effect of
Infrastructure Performance on Poverty Alleviation
In hypothesis 3
testing, the results show that economic relations mediate the effect of
infrastructure performance on poverty alleviation. has a t-statistic value
below 1.96 and a p-value above 0.05. From these results it can be concluded
that Hypothesis 3 has a Significant Influence, then the Economy can be said to
be complete mediation. Which means that the economic variable mediating the influence
of infrastructure performance on poverty significantly.
The
infrastructure performance coefficient value in this study is a positive
influence of 0.063. This means that the economy mediates positively and
significantly in poverty, where the involvement of the economy in
infrastructure performance will actually increase poverty.
The impact of the
construction of toll roads is easier access to inter-regional transportation,
so that business activities run smoothly. The impact of side effects is the
opening of employment opportunities and increasing people's economic activity.
A study conducted by the Institute for Economic and Social Research, Faculty of
Economics, University of Indonesia (LPEM FE-UI) regarding; The Impact of
Infrastructure Development on Economic Growth shows interesting results. The
results of this study state that in addition to the positive side, the negative
impact that has become a source of debate in the construction of toll roads is
the use of very large land areas and will directly impact the overall spatial
layout of agricultural land in Java. The long road that divides the island of
Java will not only reduce the area of agricultural land, but also cut river
channels, irrigation canals, and change the distribution channel for agricultural
needs as well as the marketing of agricultural products. Then the construction
of toll roads will also open up new residential and industrial areas which will
also directly reduce the area of agricultural land.
Infrastructure
development is evenly distributed, it is expected that it can be synergized
with all agribusiness systems along the road. Thus, also the importance of
rural infrastructure development which is expected to be able to lift the
potential of the agricultural sector in rural areas along the new road.
Infrastructure development, for example, toll roads, should not use too much
agricultural land because the agricultural sector is the backbone of our
economy, as well as our overall concern for the economy of the surrounding community.
Good management and intensive cooperation/synergy will make this sector have a
very important role as an alternative for expanding employment opportunities in
Indonesia, and playing a role in improving the economy and alleviating poverty
in Indonesia.
4. The role of Government Policy variables moderates the effect of
Educational Performance on Poverty Alleviation
In testing this
hypothesis, it was found that the relationship between Government Policy
variables moderated the effect of infrastructure on poverty, producing
t-statistic values above 1.96 and p-values below 0.05. From these results
it can be concluded that the hypothesis has no significant effect. Which means
that the Government Policy variable does not moderate the effect of
Infrastructure Performance on poverty alleviation.
This is in line
with Dode
(2018), where the results of the research found that the village
government has not been optimal or has not been successful in carrying out road
infrastructure development activities to advance the local community's economy
to alleviate poverty. This is because the development carried out is still from
the top down which in turn gives rise to government domination in the process
of implementing development, so that other activities such as community
empowerment are neglected which indirectly has an impact on the lack of
community participation in the process of implementing development in the
village.
Furthermore Dode
(2018), found the importance of community-based infrastructure
development, which includes: (1). Participation in decision making, (2)
Participation in the implementation of activities, (3). Participation in
development monitoring and evaluation, (4). Participation in the utilization of
development results.
The results of
research conducted by Putra
& Yasa (2021), found that an increase in government spending in the
infrastructure sector was not able to improve people's welfare. To increase
this, it must be done by building quality and equitable facilities in the
infrastructure sector that support the economy such as markets, access to the
distribution of goods and services in the form of roads, bridges, loading and
unloading ports, airports and others. Khairunnisa,
Imansyah, & Rahayu (2021) reveal government policies in the
infrastructure sector have no effect on poverty alleviation because these
policies require a different time or period to have an impact on alleviating
poverty so there is a possibility that government spending will not directly
have an impact on poverty alleviation.
5. Policy
Mapping of Indonesia Poverty Alleviation
The seriousness of the
Indonesian government in poverty alleviation efforts is shown by the issuance
of government policies related to poverty alleviation in Indonesia. Table 5
describes national level government regulations consisting of laws,
presidential instructions, presidential decrees, ministerial regulations
related to poverty alleviation in Indonesia, and calculations for the economic and
infrastructure sectors in these regulations.
Table 5
Central
Government Policy Mapping related to Poverty Alleviation in Indonesia
|
No |
Government
Policy related to Poverty Alleviation |
Ministries/Agencies |
Substance |
Sector |
|
|
E |
I |
||||
|
1 |
Law No: 13 of
2011, concerning Handling of the Poor |
President of
the Republic of Indonesia |
The state's
obligation to relieve poverty from poverty is carried out through efforts to
respect, protect and fulfill the rights to basic needs. |
3 |
0 |
|
2 |
Instruction
of the President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 1 of 2009, concerning the
Implementation of Assistance Programs for Target Households in the Context of
Poverty Alleviation |
President of
the Republic of Indonesia |
Good
implementation of the direct cash assistance program to target households in
the context of compensating for the reduction of fuel subsidies (BBM) |
3 |
0 |
|
3 |
Decree of the
President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 10 of 2006, concerning the
National Team for the Development of Biofuels to Accelerate Poverty and Unemployment
Reduction |
President of
the Republic of Indonesia |
Formation of
the National Team for the Development of Biofuels to Accelerate Poverty and
Unemployment Reduction in the context of accelerating poverty and
unemployment reduction through the development of biofuels |
3 |
0 |
|
4 |
Decree of the
President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 8 of 2002, concerning Amendments
to Presidential Decree No. 124 of 2001 concerning the Poverty Alleviation
Committee |
President of
the Republic of Indonesia |
Amend Presidential
Decree No. 124 of 2001 concerning the Poverty Alleviation Committee to
support and expedite the implementation of the Poverty Alleviation
Committee's duties |
1 |
0 |
|
5 |
Decree of the
President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 34 of 2002, concerning Amendments
to Presidential Decree No. 124 of 2001 concerning the Poverty Alleviation
Committee as Amended by Presidential Decree No. 8 of 2002 |
President of
the Republic of Indonesia |
Amend
Presidential Decree No. 124 of 2001 which was amended in Presidential Decree
No.8 of 2002 to further facilitate the implementation of the duties of the
Poverty Alleviation Committee |
1 |
0 |
|
6 |
Decree of the
President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 124 of 2001, concerning the
Poverty Alleviation Committee |
President of
the Republic of Indonesia |
Establishment
of the Poverty Alleviation Committee, which is a cross-actor forum at the
central and regional levels that functions as a forum for coordination and
sharpening of policies and programs for poverty reduction |
1 |
2 |
|
7 |
Regulation of
the Minister of Home Affairs No.42 of 2010, concerning Provincial and
District/City Poverty Reduction Coordinating Teams |
Minister of
Home Affairs |
Guidelines
relating to the implementation of programs and policies in poverty
alleviation in Provinces and Regencies/Cities, according to the duties and
responsibilities of each agency |
15 |
0 |
|
8 |
Regulation of
the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia No. 53 of 2020,
concerning Work Procedures and Work Alignment as well as Institutional and
Human Resource Development Provincial Poverty Reduction Coordinating Teams
and District/City Poverty Reduction Coordinating Teams |
Minister of
Home Affairs |
Guidelines
for work procedures and work alignment as well as institutional and human
resource development for provincial poverty reduction coordinating teams and
district/city poverty reduction coordinating teams |
6 |
0 |
|
9 |
Regulation of
the Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia No.
20/PERMENTAN/RC.120/5/2018 concerning Guidelines for Agriculture-Based
Poverty Surgical Program for the 2018 Fiscal Year |
Minister of Agriculture |
Guidelines
for implementing the Working Program with the aim of empowering/increasing
the capacity of the poor in carrying out agricultural businesses in order to increase
income and welfare through integrated agricultural activities |
4 |
0 |
|
10 |
Regulation of
the Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia No.
43/PERMENTAN/RC.110/11/2018 concerning Guidelines for Agriculture-Based
Poverty Surgical Program for the 2019 Fiscal Year |
Minister of Agriculture |
Guidelines
for implementing the Working Program with the aim of increasing the
productivity of agricultural commodities through increasing the capacity of
the poor in carrying out integrated agricultural businesses |
4 |
0 |
|
11 |
Regulation of
the President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 54 of 2005, concerning the
Poverty Reduction Coordinating Team |
President of the Republic of Indonesia |
Formation of
a Coordinating Team for Poverty Reduction which has the task of taking
concrete steps to accelerate the reduction of the number of poor people
throughout the territory of the Republic of Indonesia through coordination
and synchronization of the preparation and implementation of sharpening
poverty reduction policies |
1 |
0 |
|
12 |
Regulation of
the President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 13 of 2009, concerning Poverty
Reduction Coordination |
President of the Republic of Indonesia |
Improving
Presidential Regulation No. 54 of 2005 concerning the Poverty Reduction
Coordination Team to improve coordination which includes synchronization,
harmonization and integrity of various poverty reduction programs and
activities |
5 |
0 |
|
13 |
Regulation of
the President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 15 of 2010, concerning the
Acceleration of Poverty Reduction |
President of the Republic of Indonesia |
Institutional
strengthening at the national level that handles poverty reduction to
accelerate poverty reduction which includes target setting, program design
and integration, monitoring and evaluation, and budget effectiveness |
7 |
0 |
|
14 |
Regulation of
the President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 96 of 2015, concerning
Amendments to Presidential Regulation No. 15 of 2010 concerning the
Acceleration of Poverty Reduction |
President of the Republic of Indonesia |
Adjustment of
the membership of the National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction
to support and further expedite the implementation of the tasks of the
National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction and a change in
cabinet for the 2014-2019 period |
2 |
0 |
|
15 |
Regulation of
the President of the Republic of Indonesia No 166 of 2014, concerning the
Poverty Reduction Acceleration Program |
President of the Republic of Indonesia |
Sharpening
social protection programs in an effort to increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of programs to accelerate poverty reduction |
2 |
0 |
|
16 |
Instruction
of the President of the Republic of Indonesia No: 4 of 2022 |
|
|
9 |
1 |
|
Total |
67 |
1 |
|||
Information:
E : Economy
Ed : Infrastructure
Table 6
Analysis of
the Results of Hypothesis Testing and Mapping of Poverty Alleviation Government
Regulations
|
Variable |
Poverty
Alleviation |
Government
Regulation Mapping |
Analysis |
|
Infrastructure |
No Influence |
1 |
-
In poverty
alleviation of central government regulations, there is only 1 (one) mention
of Infrastructure. So here it is necessary to more synchronize infrastructure
development with policies/programs for poverty alleviation in Indonesia, and
set it into regulations that will be implemented across Ministries/Agencies
(K/L); -
The
importance of cross-sector program integration between ministries/agencies
because there was no roadmap or action plan for extreme poverty reduction in
the locus of handling areas; -
In its
implementation, the infrastructure built must be directly utilized by the
poor; -
The qualifications
for infrastructure development workers are not easily accessible to the poor; -
Infrastructure
development has not yet accessed some remote areas; -
Infrastructure
that has touched remote areas is not economical; -
It is necessary to
map the needs and conditions of infrastructure in each region, and in line
with the potential and competitiveness of each region. |
Poverty
alleviation cannot be separated from community development, so that the vicious
circle of poverty can be eliminated. Collaboration between the government
(Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing/ PUPR and other
ministries/agencies) is the main key to the success of poverty alleviation. The
importance of making effective and efficient regulations, implementing
infrastructure development based on Urban Planning/ Urban Land use Plan/ RTRW,
and efforts to increase the role of regional heads to be more innovative,
increase competence of Human Resources and the local community, as well as in
sync with the improvement of the community's economy. Economic development,
requires a special evaluation of the meaning of welfare economically, morally
and intellectually.
CONCLUSION
Infrastructure has an influence on the economy. This is indicated
by a t-statistic value of 2.164 (above 1.96) and a p-value of 0.031 (below
0.05). Therefore, it can be concluded that infrastructure has a significant
effect on the economy. Infrastructure development creates a multiplier effect
on regional economic development, and a significant multi-dimensional impact on
the economy. In order for infrastructure to have more effect on improving the
economy of the poor, our findings suggest that it should be increasing
infrastructure that can be utilized directly by the community, so it will
enable the direct movement of the poor people's economy.
The relationship between the infrastructure variable and Poverty
Alleviation has a t-statistic value of 0.840 (below 1.96) and a p-value of
0.401 (above 0.05). From these results it can be concluded that Hypothesis 2
has no significant effect. Which means that Infrastructure has no effect on
Poverty Alleviation. Our finding suggest that infrastructure development should
be directly address the needs of the poor community. The importance of making
effective and efficient regulations, implementing infrastructure development
based on the Urban Planning/ Urban Land
use Plan/ RTRW, and efforts to increase the role of
regional heads to be more innovative, and also increasing the competence of
Human Resources and the local community.
Economic
mediating the effect of infrastructure performance on poverty alleviation,
having a t-statistic value below 1.96 and a p-value above 0.05. From these
results it can be concluded that Hypothesis 3 has a Significant Influence, then
the Economy can be a complete mediation. Which means that the economic variable
mediates the influence of infrastructure performance on poverty significantly.
The impact of (physical) infrastructure development on poverty alleviation will
be felt more significantly if it is combined with social and economic
development in the same area. For example, increasing the accessibility of a
benefit area to poverty alleviation will be more optimal if local residents are
also supported by sustainable livelihood development programs such as improving
product quality and access to business capital. This roadmap or action plan
will integrate programs so that they can run in a controlled manner in
achieving development goals.
The relationship
between government policy variables in moderating the effect of infrastructure
on poverty alleviation produces t-statistic values above 1.96 and p-values
below 0.05. From these results it can be concluded that Government Policy
does not significantly moderate the effect of Infrastructure Performance on
poverty alleviation. Our finding suggests that government should also carry out
a clear mapping of the needs and conditions of infrastructure in each region.
The results of this mapping can be used as a basis for deciding what type of
infrastructure to provide as a priority in each region. In addition,
infrastructure development should be in line with the potential and
competitiveness of each region, and the direct involvement of the community in
its development, as well as the synergy between infrastructure development
carried out by the government and infrastructure development carried out by
regional governments.
REFERENCES
Ali, I., & Pernia, E. M. (2003). Infrastructure and poverty
reduction-What is the connection? Google Scholar
Barlinti, Y. S. (2007).
Kebijakan-Kebijakan Pemerintah dalam Penanggulangan Kemiskinan. Lex
Jurnalica, 4(3), 17983. Google Scholar
Chotia, V., & Rao, N. V. M. (2017).
Investigating the interlinkages between infrastructure development, poverty and
rural–urban income inequality: Evidence from BRICS nations. Studies in
Economics and Finance. Google Scholar
Deinne, C. E., & Ajayi, D. D. (2021).
Dynamics of inequality, poverty and sustainable development of Delta State,
Nigeria. GeoJournal, 86(1), 431–443. Google Scholar
Dode, R. (2018). Pembangunan
Infrastruktur Berbasis Pemberdayaan Masyarakat. Jurnal Politico, 7(4). Google Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J.,
& Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson
Education Limited. Google Scholar
Ismail, N. W., & Mahyideen, J. M.
(2015). The Impact of infrastructure on trade and economic growth in
selected economies in Asia. Google Scholar
Jiang, L., Yu, L., Xue, B., Chen, X.,
& Mi, Z. (2020). Who is energy poor? Evidence from the least developed
regions in China. Energy Policy, 137, 111122. Elsevier
Khairunnisa, R., Imansyah, M. H., &
Rahayu, D. (2021). Dampak Pengeluaran Pemerintah Sektor Pendidikan, Kesehatan,
Dan Infrastruktur. Syntax Idea, 3(12), 2748–2757. Google Scholar
Ma’ruf, Y. P. (2014). Pengaruh investasi
infrastruktur jalan terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi wilayah di kabupaten pesisir
selatan provinsi sumatera barat. Jurnal Teknik Sipil USU, 2(3). Google Scholar
Mardiana, Theresia, M., Anis.
R.U., 2017. Analisis Pengaruh Pengeluaran Pemerintah Daerah Sektor Pendidikan
dan Kesehatan serta infrastruktur terhadap tingkat pengangguran serta tingkat
kemiskinan. Journal FEB Unmul. Inovasi. Volume 13 (1), 2017, 50-60 Google Scholar
Nasir, M. M. Saichudin & Maulizar. (2008). Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi
Kemiskinan Rumah Tangga di Kabupaten Purworejo. Jurnal Eksekutif. Vol. 5 No. 4,
Agustus 2008. Lipi: Jakarta. Google Scholar
Nugraha, A. T., Prayitno, G.,
Situmorang, M.E. and Nasution, 2020. The Role of Infrastructure in Economic and
Incoe Inequaliiy in Indonesia. Economic and Spciology, 13 (1), 102-115. Google Scholar
Purnomo, S.D., Istiqomah,
2019, The Effect of Human Capital and Human Capital Spillover on Economic Growth, International Conference on Rural
Development and Entrepreneurship 2019: Enhancing Small and Rural Development
Toward Industrial Revolutin 4.0. Vol.5 No. 1 Google Scholar
Putra, K., & Yasa, G. W. M. (2021).
Pengaruh Infrastruktur dan Pendidikan tehadap Kemiskinan dan Kesejahteraan
Masyarakat di Kabupaten/Kota Provinsi Bali. E-Jurnal EP, 10(3),
1041–1070. Google Scholar
Qin, X., Wu, H., & Shan, T. (2022).
Rural infrastructure and poverty in China. PloS One, 17(6),
e0266528. Google Scholar
Riyanta, S., & Kurniati, P. N.
(2018). Strategi Tata Kelola Kolaboratif antara Aktor Pemerintah dan Non
Pemerintah Dalam Pengentasan Kemiskinan. Jurnal Analis Kebijakan, 2(2). Google Scholar
Sari, N. I. (2018). Determinan Tingkat
Kemiskinan di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Tahun 2007 - 2014. Economics
Development Analysis Journal, 7(2), 128–136. Google Scholar
Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian
Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta. Google Scholar
UNDP. (2018). Planning the
Opportunities for a Youthful Population.