Rf.GIO"\A! lNCOMF INf.Ql'ALfn', '1 ...-0
rot
F.Dl'CAT10:'1.. AC~-[
RJ ,>.f. l"\FT' ~.-Ft
Of Ud>O"iJ. .. lA
To fulfill a part of ~RU'C!!'.e~ rn nblllin the~~·
dtp~··
Gnu.lwttr Pn>gr-..tmir. lk""''ltmt"llt ~~..,,nom•·o:> Hdd o( !>oc"'1 r rcaecs
prepared und
"•1.·i
Olah l'lr.'pt~ l'~n' 0812711389 't'} f\ 1...r.:~
J•
.\C'lLT\ OF E< '0:'1111\fl{'i
""'DIH .'>11't S.'-
ll:'lllV'ERSITAS6.,ll.illi .,t !l.[)f. VO(;\' o\h: ·\R, .\ :?OlO
(JlRI·~
REGIONAL INCOME INEQUALrlY, TOtJRISM, INFRASI'RUCTURE,
AND EDUCA TJON: A CASI: OF INDONF.slA
To f•lfill • part of reqwi~•e•IS
To obnain tbr muter decree
Gradu•tt Prova- ia Denlopmellt Eco•o•.ictl
Field of SociAI ~aca
prepared aD
FACULTY OF f.CONOMJCS AND BUSINESS UNIVERSITAS GA.OJAH MADA
YOGYAKARTA ltlO
Regional Income Inequality, Tourism, Infrastructure, and Education: A Case of Indonesia
By Dil&h Pn5pita
Rab,.ya
IA90A7
A thesis submitted i• (19rtial rallillmenr or the. req11iremmt for tile dq::ree of
MASl'Ell OF ..\RTS IN JNTF..RJllA TIONAL .DEVELOPMENT
at the INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Of JAPAN 2010
AUTHORIZATION Regional Income Inequality, Tourism, Infrastucture and Education: A Case of Indonesia
prepared and compiled by
Diab Puspita Rahayu 08/278389/PEK/13024
has been defended before the Board of Examiners on May 14, 2010 and has been declared to fulfill all requirements
Director of Graduate Program in Development Economics
SURAT PERNY ATAAN
Dengaa ini saya menyatakan bahwa dalam thesis ini tidak terdapat karya tulis yang pemah diajukan untunk memperoleh geJar kesarjanaan di suatu perguruan tinggi dan sepanjang pengetahuan saya juga tidak terdapat karya atau penclapat yang pemah ditulis atau diterbitkan orang lain kecuali yang tertulis atau diacu dalam naskah ini clan disebutkan clalam claftar pustaka.
Yogyakarta, 24 Agustus 2010
Puspita Rahayu
The thc~13 of D1ah Pusp1ta Rahayu is approved by ;he Thesrs Ux;imin111g Committee:
~-
Hun Myoung Park (examiner)
Jinhwan Oh (supervisor)
INTERNATJO:SAL UNIVERSITY OF JAPAN 2010
Dedicated to My Beloved Mom
iii
ACKNOWLEDGDUNT Firs' of all, fvr the bbsiag aad ~. I give my watitude 10 Allah
swr, forever and ever. I would lib: to express my deqx;s( gratiLude co my ,;upen·isor,
Professor Jinhwan Oh, for all his contil>UO\IS guidance, patience, aJld support; and Profe-9SOT Hun Myoung Park as my examiner for his advices, knowledge 3lld comments.
I would like to say thanlc. you
w
all llJJ Professors especially TOP
Program, facully members 4l1d st.sfrs for their helping dorirlg my ~1L.ldytime, and Indonesia guverruru:nt for providing this scholarship and oppol'lunhy to
study abroad oand all the members of Magisitt of Development Eeonomtcs (MF.P} G:Kljah Mads Uni~nily for hclpill8 aad e~mfOl
to pass my
fi1111 real exami1111tion in the for-st year of my study in lndontiia. I !hank lo all my friends esrecial ly Tndonesi., students for aooompanyi.ng mi: to sbaro lhe haj)pin~~ sadness and au of !be things I.bat we have. Thank you gizys fur U>e
nicest lii~ndship•.. Special lhaalc and Jove J dedicale
10
my beloved husblllld, Rambaag
Nugroho, and my beautiful princess, A~la Aimee Khoinmnisa, for giving me unconditional love, patience and undersUuiding. my mother for always bringing me in her prayers, and my family for I.heir encowagement.
iv
ABSTRACT OF THE TBE.SlS R~oaal llcome lneqa•lity, Towisa, laCnistructure, aed Education: A C-ofbd~acsh by
Diali Paspita RDayu Mlll!ter of Art• ia i.telUtiGoal Development loternational Uotveroity
indlc<11ors of lnd
10
2006 in 26 provinces,
classified into live regions: Sumatra. }art-Bal~KAlimantan.. Sulawesi, and others, Theil's inequality and Theirs decmiposition index are used to examine income iDequalily. f'urlb..r, tlili study employs Least Sqll81'e Dummy Varial>le Test
(LSO\'T). Using tourism, infTil:IWctim:, and educatiOJI as iruli=pendent variables, (his thesis analyzes lllc impacl of socioecunui11ic indicat~ on lndonesia 's
regiooa! inequality. The analysis of Theil's indeK shows that the overall income inequality in Indonesia has decreased during 1he period of 2002- 2006. On the 01hcr hand, the decomposed inequality between the frve 11:gioQs h.s been fluctuating. The
LSD VT results indicate that infrastructure decreases inequality signifiunlly. However, tourism and education do (10( inOuence the inequality.
Keywords: .Regicnal lnclJflle lnequolity, T1ieil Index. Deccmposition.. To'lll'ism. Iefrastructure. Education. Indonesia
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Chapter I.
Introduction
·--··-·····-···-·-.........................................
4
Chapter II.
I .iterature Review -···-·-····--··-·-.......................................
7
Chapter Ill.
l'hci! I ll
ltesia .... .... . .. . . .. . ... . .. ... . . . .. .. .
9
3.1.
Theil Index Measuremenr ....... -............................................
'I
3.2.
Overall Regional lllCOOIC lnequtlity of Indonesia
!I
3.3.
Decomposition ... -
14
... ·--······-···-·······-···· .. ···••·•••·······••·••··
Economeuic Ana1Y3is aoil Discussloo ... .. ...... ... .... .. ........ .. .. .•...
21
4.1.
Data
.
21
4.2.
Analysis o.nd Discussion
.
21
Chapter V,
Conclusion .•-
.
References
..........................
-
27
Aprendixes
.................
-~·
Chapter IV.
-·-·-·····-·-·····•
--·····-·-····
-..-
..-
'
. .
29 32
3
LU."T OF TA 81 :rs
Page Table I.I.
Indonesia Tourism llal.a ·-·· ... -......................................
Table 3.1.
Theil T Decompcsltion between Region and The Portion of
4
This Theil out nfTotal Tileil of Indonesia Table3.2.
The Nwnber
of large and
15
Medium Manufacturing
lrul usteies in Java and OulSide Java (lhOUSllnd) .• .. ..
17
Table 3.3.
The A verage of &nployment per year (tho11Sand)
17
Table 4.1.
Stati:stical Data oflodcpmdent Variables...........................
21
Table 4.1.
LSD VT Regression . . ••. .. .
24
..
.. • ..
..
LIST Ol'J'IGU1ll1.S
Page Figure 1.
lrufonesia Map
Figure 2.
Five Regions in Indonesia·--
Figure 3.
Theil T of Indonesia
Figure 4.
Theil T De.:0111posi1ioo ~Regionand The Portion of
-
--·- ..-
..
12
..
13
..
14
This Theil out ofT(l(aj Theil ofJndon.:sia
iS
Page
App<:ndix ! .
Appendix2.
Five
regions, 26 provinces, and 406 districtslmunicipa!ities in
Indonesia ·······-·-·---·--·---...........................................
32
Provincial Theil Index
44
-
-.......................................
4
CllAPTERJ INTR()DUC'IlON
The recent political, social, and eeoeom ic siluation reveal !hat lourism, infrastructure, and education are three major socioeeooomic indicat<>tS for understanding Lhll inequality in Indonesia. First, tourism sectors were alfccted significantly by the bornbing in Rali (Praselianwno, 2009)1• In 2002., lndonesia experienced 11 significanl decrease in tourism revenue from 5,396.26 in 2001 to 4,305.56 (in million USS). The first
bombing in Bali 1.ba1 occurred in 2002 provoked Australia IO iml)OSe travel warning to lndonesia, al1bough it bard) io1lU1;:tK;eS the number of tourists. This condition continued until 2003, wtin tourism revenue and visitor arrival reduced
down to 1billion US dollars and 4.5 millions, respectively, Table L1. hldft
-
·• Toarlsm Data
Tourism R.e\'alue
Year
VisitorArrival
()fiUion US.S}
.
2001 --·-
2002
2003 2004 ··-· ~ 2005·-· 2006
~
..
5,396.26 '4.305.50 4,031.
4,.447.98
5.153.620
-
S.033,400_ 4,-«i7_,02 ! 5.321,l65
S,002,101 4,&71.351
..._,._
s
In 2005, due to the second bombing in Bali. hole! occupancy in Bali drop~d by 60 percent and unemployruent lllleincrea!led 1.1p to 10 percent. Coosequenlly, the average income fell down by 65 pereeet, This e<>ndition
decreased economic growth in Bali (Kania, 2009)1• According to The World Bani<. 1 • Indonesian road infr-..struc(ure lagged m,1iind compared to Philippi11.es. VietJwn, Brazil, Mong\)lia, and India in 1998
and 2003. Bappenas4 also stated that the road conduion has been deteriorating due to eanhquakes, tsunamis. landslides. Hooding, and lack of maintenance fwids.
Damaged road, which consist of minor and major damage to roads., reached lo 18.6 percent of 34,629 km m1tional roads, 37.l percent of 46,499 km provincial roods. 56.6 pen:ent or240,946 km district~
lil!d4 pm;entof25,$18 km city
roads. By contrast. 1tll highway roads were in good rondition. However,
Indonesian infrastructure wos a litlle better than that of China. OunbOllia. and Thailand. Stltrting 2003. the government carried out RWl)' projc~ts in all ueas in Indonesia. These projects provided employrrumt opportunities, accelerated the flow of goods and services, and facililated a<:cessibility to reach "'mote areas
(Wawa. 2002}. Acoonfing to
UNr-:sco
dala (as cited by Beed.ens, 200?)\ there was a
decrease in the percentage of Indonesia's GDP on education in the early years of this ct'lltury. For example, only o.~fi> ofODI' was allocated for educalion in 2003.
6
Jn Indonesia, childrm in poor families usually work
to
help their pst\:ttts
fina11cially. and thus, they tend to sacrifice: their studies time lo lime. Although the government htunebed the Nine Year Basic Compulsory Education Progams in 1994 and gave relief cost to support this program, such as 8antllall ()penisional
Sekolah (BOS). the poor still lack the ~kill tu compete "'ith the rich, who have greater OJ)p)rtunities to improve lheil' skill and knowledge especially in the undergraduate level. Therefore. it is easier for the rich lo gel better jobs titan lhe
poor. This study analy:tJ:S the impact of tourism, infra~lruclure, and educa!ion on inequitlity by amwering the problems about whether socioecooomic indicatof'S (touriit11, infnlstructure and ~ucalion) affi:ct to Ute illequulily in Indonesia and
how each socioeconomic indicators affect tu lhe inequality. It is strucluted as follows. The second chapter reviews the literature on inequality and related matters. Theil's index and description on 1hc iiwquality of Indonesia are presented in the thin! chapter. N.:xt chap«er explains the source of data and melilod[}fogy, and present and discuss lhe result of ecooometric 1111alysis. The last chapter makes the conclusion of this ~tudy.
7
CRAPT.ERil LITERATURE REVIEW
Akita (2003) re-grouped lndo~
into thtee levels: region, province. and
district and examined decomposed regional income inequality in Tndoru:sia. Using the two-slage nested Theil decom~iliun
method and district-level GDP, he
claimed thllt 500/o uf overatt region11l inequality is explained within-province and policy makers should focus more on lackling this within-group inequality. Alisjahbana et al. (2003) used the Oini illde:<. and found lhat the onl'llll inequality from 1975 to 2000 in flldone~ii. ranged between 0.32-0.34. They also conducred
decomposition and showed thlt the asset owncnhip and edueerion level are Ille most importam fuctors in the country 's income inequality. Addicionally, Alt.ita and Alisjahbana (2-002) evaluated the impact of economie crisis on i.nequulity using district-level GDP. They found that the 011erall regi<Jlllll income inequality ~
from 0.26 in 1993
to
0.29 in 1991.
Based on the two~lage nested Theil decomposition analysis, they 11tgued that
Qverall inequality decreased down to 0.266 in 1998. Pirmansah (2006) repaned that inequality level had been increasing during the economic crisis period. SkDufias et al. (2000} insisted that !his inequality was due to decrea.~ing ltcusellold e~nditures. Brolurum (1996) suggested that tourism could give more adl>'antagcs to the loc11J residents. Lee aml Oumg (2007) also staled that tourism encourages
economic activity aAd increases economic grow1h. By contrast, Seckelmann
s
(2002) argued that tourhm will incrtb: incqUillitic:s between the region:; 00.:..Usc it stimulates only regions that arc better eqvipped with tourism infrasl~lu!l:s.
Tosun et al. (2003) argued tl\8t ~
tourism lnvestment may prompt
economic, envi10nmental, and social pmbJ.:ms. Rivas (2007) Sludied how highway density (i.e., the let!gth of highway divided by the land area) influences regiOllal in.:quality nnd found lh•t b<."Uer
infrastrucJure decreased the 1cgional ioeq11aJity. Zhang and Pun (2002) mentioned that infra.~tnicture
promoted economic development and decreased regional
inequality. Along the 11a111e line, Granato (2(}0i) proposed that infrastructure system facilit.11tes regional txpOrt activity bcca11!'e it improves accessibllily ltlllOng regions. Accordil\& lo Zhang and Fun (2002), better educatil111 ~yStem will increase
work f)t:'l'formance, Mllow peopte to gel more oppMllllily zo develop lhemstlve~ and eveniually reduce l\lgiunal inequality. In the Slll1lC direction, Pinnansah
(200<>) 5taled lhe higbo:r the educaliooal level the smaller the iricorne inequalily in lndonc.~la. Several studi~~ (Pinnansah, 2006; Alisjllhbanact.al.., 2003) examined issues reletcd lo eocioeconomic indicator-s and inequality, especially in Indonesia. However, I il!lc attcntioo has been givca to concern tourism development and
inequality. Therefore. this ~1udy try to use tourism as M indi:pcnJentvariable.For eXJ>tnple, Brobman (1996) suggested !.hal tourism sb1>uld give more advanblges to lhe loca 1 residents in.skad of to be a burden of its
costs, Lee
Mid Chang (2007)
also state
CHAPTKRJJJ TR£D.., INDEX AND INEQUALITY IN INDONESIA
3.1. Theil l&du Meuuemest There ace many methods 1-0 measure inequ&liJy, soch as the Generalized En1rop) class of indices, Atkinson index, Lorenz curve. Gini index, Williamson index, and Tbeil index, However. Tbeil index is commonly used to measure
n:11iowll inequality because, even tllOllgl! individual level data are not available.. aggregate level data will measure the .so-called besween gro11p inequality, which ccn be a proxy for the ~te
Theil Besides, it also meets the criteria of
inequality measurement: meaning depeoOenoe. the principle of popullllion replication and the Pig
Shon'OCks, 1980 as cited by A~ila and Uilman, 1999). Therefore, this study uses Theil index lo measure the trend ufineqoelity in Indonesia. Several studies have used lhe Theil to 11J1alym income inequality in Indonesia. AfJ1a (2003} applied The ~
nested Theil decomposition
method to lnd011esia 's i nequalily and repooed 1ha1 50% overall inequality was dominated by the wlthin-provinee inequalities.. AfUta and Lukman (1999) utilized the data of National Soclo-Economic Survey and hypothesized that urbanizalic>n could increase in"'4ualily. Akila Md AJisjahbana (2002) and Pinnansalt (Z006)
inslst~d th;lt Indooesia's inequality tended IO nmisc: during economic. crisis. According lo Theil as cit.cd by Con.:eica-0, Galbrailh, and Bradford (2000), when household data is availabll; Theil' s T is:
10
r = f.-: where
11
{(~·)• [>'r )• 1nl' Y,.J( µ" P, j R
is the number of indi\'iduals in the population,
.v, indexes the income of
the person (p). and I'> is average income of the population. The minimum value of Theirs Tis zero, perteet equality. 11 means lhal income of each persen is 111.e same. The max.imum value of Theil's T becomes I, utmost inequalil)'. if all income is
owned by only om: pcr.;on. ·nwil's T slltlislic oonsists of Lwo components, t~ between group ele111ent (B) arul the within group elc:mi::ot (II') (T- R + W), where:
where t represents (he groups, p, indexes lhe group fs J)Opulation. P sll!nds for the lollll population. y. is the group ts average Income andµ inde.xes !be pop11/otion~iglrted anrage inoumc ecross I.he entire popula.tioo. When aggregated data is
available instead of individual dala. B can be used as a lower bound for the population'~ value ofTheil's T ~"'tistic.However, Bis getlCf"ically ~rrualler than T, and the portion of B to T fluctuates between 00.4--S 1 % or the a'\'erage J)Ortion is
only L2% (Shorrock w1d Wan, 200S). An interes(ing property of the Theil Index is dult it is relative· total Theil is a between group inequality in t=ns nf individual ciliztns., but it is a tOlol inequality in
11
decornposilion. meaning thlll. decomposed inequalities are now
berween group inequality in tenns ofToCal Theil.
11
Total Theil = W + B ~co~d Group) Therefore, the rases of Bout of Total Theil indicate what portion of decomposed inequality explains total incqu1lity, .. oggcsru.g an idea or
now imponant
these
decompositions are (Kanbur and 71vmg, 2005).
3 .2. Overall Regional Income luqaality of llldonesia
Indonesia is a large arcbipclagic country which consists of33 provinces and is usually grouped into five regions: Sumatra. Java-Bali, Klllimanlan, S11l4wesi and Others, Sumatra covers Nanggroc Aoeb DaruSSlllam. Norlh Sumatera, Riau. Riau ArcltipcJ,,go, West Swnatc:ra, Iambi, &uglula, Sou!ll Sumatera, Bangka
Belaung, and Lampung, Ja-.a-Bali comprises Benten, Jabrta Capital Territory, W est Java. Central Java, Special Region of Yogyalw1a, East Java and Ba Ii.
l
!2
02. Nmh S....-.a; 03. Riau; 04. Ri8ll Atthlpelllj!lr. OS. 06. Iambi: 01. llea#ol11: os. Soulh s~ O'J. ~ Bclituna; 10. Lamp ... 8: ir. ~:12. 1.i..iu Qopiw T.mt<>ry, ll. w.,. l••a; 14. c......i ava; 1s. Spe<;ial ltegion "' Yogyakam; 16' &or Jaw; 11. Bali; I&. WCSt Nu• Te11ss-a: 19. East Nu• Teaggara; 20. Weort Kallroanlan; 2 l. Cc1'lnl KsllalltllaB; 22. Eas 11\.llillWdaO; 23. Soulll KalilNOlml; 24Nonh Sulawesi; 2S. <1ol'()
Wcs1
s~
I•·~:' . .l:,""
~\J ..,·-.:•.14••,\l:l:.°'l'n , ..~?• .:l~•ll''ll\lf' .._~.'l..Ul.!-•k"\l.l l1\:n•.
In order to mea~u"' incq11ality in Indonesia, thi.s 54lll!y employs regioruil per capita Cl DP for 26 province~ (see Figure 2 and A~b.
I). Seven peovinces are
not induOOd in lhi:s study because of tbe fuigmenbllion and 11Mvailahle data. ln 1999. North Maluku (Law No. 4611999 ieplaced by i....w No. 612000), West lriaa Jaya (I.aw No. 4511999). Banlm (J..aw No. 23/ZOOO}, Bangka Belilllnj: (Law No. 27.12000.J, Gorontalo (Law No. J&flOOO), Riau hrchipelego (Law No. 2Sn.002), and Sulawesl
Barat (Law No. 26w'2004) wen: founded. East Tim1>r was
independent in 1999.
13
Fig•re 2. Five Rcgio11s i• llldoaesla
I
We.I Slaa .... (lu..rl<>i, 7 ruloni
/
l"""i (9 cli'1riot<. I lll•nicip81ify)
I
._I ~
Sollth Sumat.... (I Idisai
-
Ber,gi
y rl '
I
Jav.,..11•11
I
r-
La.<'l"IDS (3 ("litles)
JaJcana<:.P141 l'cmtory(I
• kallmom:•n I I I
I
I
$ muol£4Ho)itios)·1
~
WCS1 llva (17
--J ,,_.., r-l
llool '""" 12'> dlmds,v ~cl!'"lidw)
I
I
I l'DW>l<1PM)lly)
Wtl\ KllllllllJll.lll (II m.tricll!, l mwikip.!!ti.,.) ('Clll'll i::..Jil!1'DlaD
._
ru dl>tri""'-
I
I mmricipa~
I
SOlllbK.oliilllnlln(ll disn'IOU..l mwlicipa)~)
Lf Cast rl
I
Mqi.. •ot'lroSYUa!la(4d""1
Ro.ll(ld.i>lrioi.,
lndOnesia
I
CattralJ""'(iY dl:slrlcts. 6 •nnti
H I
! IC distriw,
Nonll SWDmra(l9 distriol>, 7 municfl)
I
!>um.aim
Ace!,
5 111Wli<:ipeliuco)
~
n-..sa1 ..
N~
-
Kalima111•n (9 di31Jlc-., 4 mw>\cipalitics)
..
N"1b $..i.wc.i (? diolri
I
l
I
Sulil.\Vesi
I
I c.,.u.1 Sulawesi (9 dl"""":..'._m11oi~t)a~
I
H
y I
Olhcn
J
I
(:W distnct,. 3 OClpalitresl
I
Sooth-brn Sula""''(¥ district>;. 2 '°""iclf)O!itieg)
rl '
SOvtb W·-·
West l'uso T. 2 lllWlicir:<1lotJ'") I
I
--f
~- Nwa J_.
(17 dl.lllicipo)U,)
Mal.00.(7~
'""'"•ipali\Y)
-··· '"""" (20 .Ulri
I
I
I I I
)4
I'•
•I I
. ... :·:·
---
' .. '•~'•I• I.''"
I
l 1(1
• ~·
I .'IJ
... ---·
v,
I.I
.
·~
The overall regional income inequality tel!ded to decrease over the period 2002-2006, wilh an exceptioa or a sligb( moease in 2004 (F'igure 3). Next secti(m will discuss the so-called decomposition methods to figureout major contributors of this overall inequality. An ~
ana~s will be also conducled to
examine what causes of a decreasing ioeqlllllily pattern,
3.3. Decumpo!litlon As shown in Figure: 2. JndQtlesia is usually grouped into fi~·e regions: Sumatra, Java-Bali. Kalimaetan, Sulawesi and Ochtts. This seetion examines the income disparity among these five regions,
1'()I
the entire 26 provinces. Unlikr: the
previous resuh, the decomposed inequality shows fluctuation. The portion of Theil T decomposition out of Total Theil inctused from 9 percent ia 2002 to 10 percent in 2004 (FiguTC 4). The sarruo sit\tatioo occured in 2006. However, !he ineq ual ily among regions tended to decrease and the portion has come back 10 9
perceer in 2005.
15
Figure 4. Tbeil T ~poeition betweenRegionaad Tile Portioll orThis Theil oat of Total 'flaeil ofhdo11C$ia
Tabk J. l. Tllal T Deoompositio11 belweH .Rcglo.1t •ad T.be Portioo of This Thell OJ1t f>J Total Theil of Jado•ahl t---·-
Yeor 2002
- --·
2003
T!?tal_l'heit (Tl) 0_2622 0.2.552
2004 2005
- --·-0.2542
2006
0.2503
Source: processed
SUMMARY
Theil T Dtieomnosllion (T2l ··- 1'21Tl -·---
0.2563
..
0.0240 0.0254
0.091S
0.0274
0.1071 0.0989
0.0252 0_0265
0.0993
..
0.10$9
front the Oala oi Cenmil Board of Slalisric
The reason !Or soaring iilequalily dul'ing the period 2002·2006 is dee to
rapid growth uf Java·Bali region, one of the richest regions in till: CQUR1J'y. Its GRDP constitutes 60.37 percmi. while its population contributes 60 percent of the respective n.tt;uoaJ totals. Swn.atera had
iuu11ru.l
co11>1ituted I0.39 percent and 6 petccbl, Sulawesi
22 pereem,
Kalimanlall
g1.1ve eo111ribu1ioo llS mll(:h as
4.5 percent and 7.13 percent, and Others ho&s 3.16 percent og ORDP a!ld 6 percent of population.
16
fav&-.IWi region is supported by Ja.k.arta thitl generaled around 31.14 percent of GROP, followed by East Java {25.Srh), West Java (25.04%), Centml Java (14.:?"7°/o), Bali (2.16%), and Yogyakatta (I.Ill%}. Due to e
reforms manufacturing industrie~ ha\le developed rapidly since 1980 especially in lhe Java-Bali regiun (Hill ct al, 2003). Table 3.2 shows thal Java island domiiwed the manufacturi11g industries in Indonesia. accounting for 82 percenl of the: wild. This (l()nditioo 110! only 111ay attRct people to live and find job.s in the Javi1-B11li isllllld but also can provide ernployment opp1>.r1Unities. It from lhc average e1nploymenl in which
Call
be seen
this region controlled more than 61
percent during the period 2002-2006 (Table 3.3). Therefcre, Java-Bali regioo's populatiun and GROP are high. Since Java usually receives more developmCJ1l funds from <><:nllal govemmem, the develop1m;11t of all sectors in Java-Bali n:gion can grow faster I.ban that of other regions. The increasing trend of per ~ita income growth fmm 4.44 percent in 2003 to S.44 percent in 2006 suggest that bombing and earthquake in Java-Bali island between 2002-2006 did not give a significant imp11ct on regiunal economy oftltis region.
J7
Table 3.2. The N••ber of Larwe and Medi- Manllfacturiog l:ndutries ia Jav• and OalSide Java (tbo111a11d) Location Java Outside Java
Total
lOOl
200l
17,413
17,118
(8!.38%)
(80.95%)
3,983 (18.62%) 21,396
4,028 (19.05%} 21,146
(100%)
(100%)
:2003
16,607 (81.71%) 3,717 (18.29%) 20,324 (JOO%)
lOIM
2005
16,901
16,995
(81.71%)
(Rl.99%)
3,784 (18.29%} 20,6gs
3,734 (18.01%)
(I OO"At}
20,729 (100%)
Table 3.3. Tlle Avenge u(Employmcnt per yeu (tbou•nd)
Rteio•
2001
1003
1G04
2005
_j!um•ter•
18,109.97
13,282.86
18,300.06
18,116.32
18.016.51
.Java-Ball
53.270.14
52.567.63 S4,SS6..33
54,994.81
55,668.03
Kalimutan
5, 193.12
S,015.97
5,207.10
5,315.98
S,533.07
-~~.!:!!'....
4,675.03
4,440.11
4,885.86
4,7~J.38
4,402.50
01h~n
S,236.62
5.260.6-4
S,390.61 __ 1279.06
200'
·---·-
~~
Kalimantan not only has a &irl) high GRDP but also has a small population compared to otkr regions. F.3!11. Kalimantan, wilh its large timber, oil and gas resources, has incredible revenue and generates almost 64 percent of the Kalimantan • s GR DP. This reason also contributes to the highest per capila income
mr ~..•~"·:
6 ,., ...... ~-, .. ~·~~·· b!t_-,:Ji-.':~..!!: lll...J.11= .... -=-t4.hL ~z-\"1-.~
Ill
among the regions. There
31\<
several mining C0111pany which support economic
.acti\ity in this provinces. Compared with other provinces, the population in West Kiilimant.an ranked fm;t, followed by Soulh Kali.tnari111n. East l<JiJirnantan, and Central Kalimantan. Sumatera region's GRDP is dominated by Riau provinces that account for 23.76 percent of the total. Ria11 has a large population and is the lhinf richest provim:e i11 natiooal per capira income, after Jdana and l:ast Kalimanlan. People ere iulen:•lc:d in working in Riau, where the industries are suppo.rred by oil enclave, manufl$cluring ind-ustrics, and services in I.he islaads nei1.t to Singapore (Hill et al., 2008). Tswiami did not give signilicimt impaci on the decmlSC in GRDP jn this region because the GRDP lllld per capitct iooon1e iru..-rw>ed in all the provinces in 200S except fur Nuggroe Acch Darussalam (NAO) province. GRDP growth in this region inert:~ by 2. 74% ~nd ils per capita
incOfl>t
growth rose by
8.63% due to tsunami in tire end of 2004. All lhe provinces in Solitwesi have equal per capita income. Province which bas lhe lowest per capita income was South f.ast Sulawesi, in which the mo$1 important cause of its coodition is social contlict. Soulh Sulawesi prod~
vet}
high GRDP and forms the J2111est rcgiruial CC0110my in this region with il!< lar8e population, while the rest of provinces almost have the same amount of GR OP. Others region include> three pro11lnces (l.e, West Nusa Tenggara, East Nusa Tenggara and Maluku) and has the luwcS'I per caspita income nationally during Ille period 20!>2-2006. Dy contmrt, Papua w11s the only province in lllis region which had hi~r per c~ita incomecomparedto other provinces in Indonesia. Mliuika,
19
mcome. The revenue is supported by Freeport Mining Compaqy that contributes ~igni lie31ll income to the local government. The popubtion of this region 11re
almost equal to K.alimantan. However, religion and social conflicts, especially in Maluku and Papua, lack of physical infi:asltucture (~'ibility), and uoskilled human resources may hamper its economic powth. Tc sum, the increasing regional income i11eq1Ja!ity is due to a skewed
development of Java-Ball. An increa.qing nurnber of industries in Java-Bali region
produce high GRDP lllld per capiu income. The similar case is also COU11d in Sumatera supporled by Riau provinces and K~limantan by Eut Kalimantan
provinces. This is consiaeet with Vibiz Economic Research C'.enter(2008), who found th.Ill Income inequality in Eastero Indonesia • is !nwer r'han Western Jndooe~ia·. The decl'Cllsing decomposed inequality In 200.5 was ca11sed by the change of population wid ORDP which affected Ille intq1141ity. SignilicauLly all the regions experienced the dccn:asing tre•d of pop111alion except Java-Bali. Sumatera dt%:n:o.~t.l by 5.4J percaic folluwt:\J by S1dawesl (S.Z9%), K.alim11111lu1 (3.ltl%). and Others (().96%), while JJiva-BaJJ inc-.s
by 0.118 percent. Howevc:r, GJU>I'
of all regioes inereased and Others region had the highest increasing rate of 15.3 percent, Sulawesi came next, with 63'4 percent. Java·6..Si ted 5.27 percent, Kalimaaian increased 4.79 percent and Sumi.lcta was around 2.74 percent. Then: fore, 0th= regioo could in<.'TetiC
pet'
capita income up to I 6.92 percent
' Eastan lndon,.ia includc:i Klllimwwwi. Stawesl, Ind ()Ul(n cqioo
• Wesiern Indooesia includes S11naua llnd J-.
9ali ~
20
foll()w(d by Sulawesi (12.28%), J<.al1-man (8.9"%), Surnatera (8.63%), and
Java-Bali ( 4.35%).
21
CHAPl'ERIV ECONOMETRIC
ANALYSIS AND .lll.SCUSSION
4.1. Data The data were collected ITotD Central Board of Statilllics and Minisby of Finance. The data are populatioo, GRDP, tourism, inlillslructure. and edecanon from 2002 to 2006. Population and GRDP were used for deriving the Theil Index. Tourism is measured by the number of rooms in hotel. l111iastructure is m~ured by the highway density (the length of highway divided by the land area),
Education is measun;d by the rate of die number uf university students {u11dergraduate and graduate) out of the total number of students (elcmenlllry
school, junior high school, senior high school, llltd univenity). Table 4.1. Stati&tlcalData ofhdcpellde»t Vari•l>b
.....
Statistical Data
AVM<>~C
Median Std. Deviasi
Variaos --··--· Max Min Measure1111:nt
--·-·
_Tourism
Tnfrastnic!Ufe 10247.392 0.770 4222 .... 0.326' I 1149.156 1.766 124~03678.364 3.117 40840 9.890_ 616 0.030 unit kmlm2 . ··-·· .__
Education
·-----student)
This study conducts Least Squme Dununy Variable Test (LSDVT) amiJyses to test how tourism, infmstruclwe, and education affect inequality. It means that thi~ study also used dtimmy variables which
lUC
I
0.010 0.048' 0.072 0.005 o.395 0.013
decomposed into five regions
22
{Sumatera, Java-Bali, Kaliro3lltan, Sulawesi, and Others). As a dependent variable, Theil ind ices for 26 rrovinces are used. ft is very important to keep in mind that these lheils are different from the tolal Theil discussed in the previous chapter. There ace only fi ve dependent variables fut Iive years if we use lhc tola.l Theil
from the previous chapter, wbicb makes panel analysis impossible. Fonunately, however, d.it.a for district (Kal>upaten)/ municipality {Kota) level, which is the sub-regional lc•el of a province, arc llYallabh:. This enables us to have each provincial inequality as a summation of disUid/municipality-level components (Appendix 2). Thanks to Theit's inlcreoting property of relativity, provincial-level Theils are 'between group'
component when measuring Indonesia's
inequality, b111 they lkemseh~
loral
arc inletpreled as !o14l incqualicii:s when
dlslricthnllllwipality-tevd dau are ~
as ~
grotip componeoi wilh in the
specific proviflce. As for independent variables. IOl1rism. in&aslructure, education and Dummy
are used. The11. the n:gressi-On cquatioa lix l.SOVT regression is as follows: Inequality =
Pa - /J1 tourism+ P1infrllstructwe + p, educatioe + ,8401 P6 03
+
+,BJ D2 +
p,04 +p,05 ~ e
when: D i.s dum rny variable. tliat can be decomposed into five equations. Based on tftc n.-gressioo, the e<jt181.ion would be: a.
Tnequolily =
0.427 + 433e-06
!DtJrism - 0.033 inli'astniciun.
+
0.696 education - 0.312, for Suinatera region.
If lhere is an increase in tourism up to 4.38e-06. a ilecrease in infrastructure by 0.0:33. and an increase in edueatioo up lO 0.696, inequality in Sumalenl
23
region will dc:<:1':8$C 0311, ~
03'15, and incn:ase 0.384 rcspcctivel:y.
By contrast, in other regions inequality will increase 4.38e-06, deceesse 0.033, and increase 0.696 respectively. b,
Inequality
0.427 + 4 .3Ke-06
=
tourism - 0 .033 infrastructure +
0.6~ education - 0.3CJ8. for Java-B&li rtgjoo_ Ir there is an increase in tourism llJI to 438e-06, a decrease in infni.~lnicture
by 0.033, and an increase in edtqtion up I<> 0.696, inequality in Java·Ba!i region wil! Jccrettse 0.397. decrease 0.431, and increase: 0.29B respeclively. By contrast, in other .reg~
ioc:quali(y well increase 4.38e--06. deccusie 0.033,
and increase 0.696 reo')le>Ctivdy. c. Inequality
=
0.427
+
43~
tourism
- 0.033 infrasrrucwre
+
0.696 edw.'lltion - 0.3{)3, for f
lf t.kre is an increase in tourism up lo 4.33c--06, a decreesc in i1>fzastrui;fan, by 0.033, and an increast in educaPon up to 0.696, inequoli1y in Kalimai>tan region will decrease 0.302, decrease 0.336, and increase 0.393 respectively. By
contrast, in other regions i11equality will increase 4.38e-06, decrease 0.033, and
increase 0_696 respccli.-ely. d. Inequality ~
0.427 + 4.38e-06
tow-ism • 0.033 infrastructure
..
0.696 edueadon - 0.335. for Sul.a.wcsi region. If there is an. increase in lourism up to 4.lio-06, a decrease in infrastruclUre by 0.033. and
Hn
irlc~
in education up
kl
0.696, ioeqwilicy in Sulawesi region
will decrease 0.335, dectca$C G.363, and in.crease 0361 respectively, By
24
oonlr.lst, in othel- regions inequality will increase 1.38e-06, decrease 0.033, anJ
increase 0.6% ~pectively. e. lneq11ality ~
0.427
f
4.J8e..()6
tourism - 0.033 inrras1nro1ure +
0.696 edLICatioo, for Others region. If there is an illc~t 0.033,
in tollrism up Co 4.3&-06, a decrease in i11fra.~ucture by
wt an increase
in education up to 0.6%, inequality in Sulawesi and
other regions will increase 4.3Se.o6, decrease 0.033, and increase 0.696 respectively. Overull, tourism and education
11n:
out signiticalll and give positive effect on
inequality. It seems thftl only infAStucture contribute to reducing regional in~wtlity sip.ificantly.
Constitnt
0.427
Towism
(0.054) 4.Jlk>-06
lnlhs.struc~
(4.0le--06) -0.033
Educatioo
(ll.QJ8)• 0.696
DI D2
03 L>4 N
(0.48) -0.312
(0.06)•••
-0.398 (0.127)•0 -0303 (0.068) ...
-0.335 (0.068) ... 130
.'lore: AU lht: vllliablcs an> asing l"""incial dm. •. u. and ••• indicati> "'3liSlioal •i1P>itlcanoe a1 10".4., .So/-. and 1%. respc
nbservaliuns.
2)
In sum, the positive relaliooship boiween tourism and ineq ....!ity is
e-0nsistent with Seckelmann (2002) who said that tourigm could result in a bettereconomic condition in a certain region only, widening iocoruc disparity between
regions. Indonesia's investmem on tomi91n is biased to several well-knownptn.les, like Ball. Based on this study, h
w reducing
of infra~1c1Wc indicate diat infrastructure
rcgiuoal income inequality. This is COll~iSlart with
Kumiawan (2007), Zllang and Fun (2002). and Granato (2008) who coeeluded th-at infrastructure could incre8lle ecoeonnc growth 1111d decrease
region~!
iJ•""!Wllily. As mcn1iuned io ch.apter I, Indonesian g<>YCmment has initiated a oumbcr of infrasuuc1ure-bulldillg projecu in all areas in Indonesia since 2003.
This mish.1 have worked in lowering regional inequalityof the country. An intcn:s\ing case arises when we lake a look cducatiOll; all of three signs are positive, meaning tba.1 c:du\!11lioo contn'bu1e 10 incrtaSiflKregional ioqu.ality.
As menti0J1ed in literature review of 1bls study, Akilll ct.al. (I 999) and Pima.nsah (2006) s.oid that d=~g
inequality ..oultl be caused by the i11Crc111'ing
educationa! level, 111is result is quite unexpected. It ~ms thllt lligher level of educatioo facility is accessibie only to higher income people, This n:su.11 is consistent with Todaro ( 1992) who said that poor people are not able to puy the tuiliun fee ~ncJ thus decide to drop out from thej, school especially in !he early years of schooling. In this regard, Sardjwuni (2005) s1.1ggcstcd that it is iroporta111 to give easier acces~ibility in ed~
fur poor people. disabled people, and
26
people in isolated or conflict areas. Agaiust this backdrop, the government has imposed Nine Year Basic Compulsory f.ducation Programs to provide better education f0< the poor. However, the analysis su~sts lhat the progn&m$ did not
worl very well.
27
CHAfTER V CONCLUSION
This study exam ines regioml
income
inequality using socioeconomic
indicators (tourism, infrastructure, and education) during the pcrk>d &om 2002 to 2006 in 26 provinces in Indonesia. This ~udy first derived the Theil index (overall
Theil for 26 provinces. decomposed five regions: Sumatra, Java-Bali, Kalim1111tan. Sulawesi, and others). and then conduc!Cd the OUi and J)llnel dallt econometric analyses. The Theil index shows tnat the i~uality in Indonesia is decn:a;ing.
However, the decomposition Index re>Qb that the inequality between regions i~ 11ut COflsi~i.cnt: it increased during th<: period of 2002-2004 and in 2006. bUI
decreased io 2005. The rca30ll for the suddeo decrease is not clear. but the iac~
is du.: to the good perfonnana: in lncom" regions (i.e. Java-S.ll
Sumat~n. and J(Jllimantan) aud the puor pcrfonnancc of low income Jqtions (i.e. Sulawesi 1md others), On the basis of Least sq11an: Dummy Variable Test (LSOVT) regression, infrastructure reduce$ inequality sig11iria.nt1y,while tourism and education do not effect to inequality.
In sum, infrastrwtu"' hod a ~iplificanlinnucoce "" mluc.iog inequality in lndone~ia during the period of 2002-2006. On the basis of tbe dccompositil>n method, we lcnow that inequality is slilJ unsatillfuctory 1t1nong the regions; however. lhe government's efforts lo encoungc the development and mainl.enancc of infrastructure i11 Eastern Indonesia are sfisbtly successful in reducing overall
28
income inequality. Infrastructure, as an economic locomotive in Indonesia, also generates economic activities and increases economic growth in the region. Kurniawan (20-07), Zh8ng and Fun (2002), and Granato (2008) have similar opinions that infrastructure could raise economic growth and lower regional int!qualily. Jnfrastructure development not only moves die economy of Indonesia but also facilitlltes the improvement of other socioeconomic indicators, such
119
tourism and educaricn, Unfortunately, the increase in tourism and the quality of education in Indonesia
1:1re
not quite able to reduce overall income inequality.
There are ~1111 many potenual areas whi~h do not have the opportunity to promote lhc:ir tour~
;;i:i;tor. The main reason is the lack uf RCcesslblllly 11nd budget.
l:'ulthermvre, the qualky of human resources in Indonesia is still low due lu the high tuition fee. Therefore, It can be understood that many poor people cannot accomplish their studies allhou!lh lite govemmem has applied lhe Nine Year Basic C'.ompulsory Education Prognans and given ~lief cost tv support tllis program. Therefore, in urder to reduce •'C!!ivnnl income inequality, policy makers should boosc infru;;tJucture, Ol>'J)t:CiaOy in the Eastern region. This developmenl supports not only economic activity but also tourism 8lld educlllion in the region, Furthermore, educaliunal policies should encourage citiz.eus lu improve their skills and knowledge by pruviding opportunities to study at a higher le•d uf education, especially for the poor.
29
REFERENCES Alisjidtbmit, Annid11 S., A.A. Yusuf, Chodb, M. Yasin, lllld T.B. Soeprobo. 2003. Understanding 1/w De~mlinaHts and Conkquem-esof Income lfl
lofra.structu~ in I nwnesia). Rclrlovl:U March 24, ~·.'Jlf.'~J'•' '·>'• ....5. l '111~11n.'1nl'•lt1 I ·\Ii,,. :nJi~\\ 111~ l:1~..Jiui
~~ "' '~..:.!!"
20 l 0
II-om
Beerkens, F.ric. 2007. l~ity iri J11do111Zslil Higher Education o Reul Threat. Retrieved at December 14, 2009, from J~IJ) i~)." ~~~~ t(tfu:!lk,iE!.~qbcn' ln~lllWlill~!!'.n°;i!oJ.!.:J"nc,i~n~ .. ~~111' Tl tt•'' u~C
~\J~
ii) l~IJ
\l~ll.'~ll~I_: ':.Q.z:.:nO!.J1J r
Biro Pusat Statistit. Jumlah IndustriPengo/(JhcDIBesar dan SeJong, Jawadan L11ar Jawa. 211111-2005 (Ilic Number of Large and Medium Manufacturing Jndustries, Java and Outside Jova, 2001-2005). Retrieved at April 15, 20!0, ftom )''\\\.J!l;>.~.~0}d'tab ~u~.1,ic\\.p.;H)'?tuh~l... ;
I &cufmr:J&,id 5~1\i,d,-09&.ruolub
Brohman, J. l 99(). :-lew directions in tourism for third world development. A1111als of Tourism Research. 23 (I), 48· 70. Conceicao, P., Jomes K. Galbraith. and Peter Bradford. 2000. The Thei! Inde« in Seqmmc.-11 of Nested and Hierarchk: OrolJ{JiflJ: Structures: Impltcations for the Measuromuu of J11equali1y through Time with Data Aggrega/Qd ut Diff"-N:lll Level» vfl11d1<3triul Cl1u8ificoliun. Wurk.ing Paper,
30
Granato, Maria F. 200lt ~gional F.:r.port Peif<mnanct: First NUii/re, AgglomeroJion ... and De:r1my? The R.ole of lef!'asrrucmre. Research Projects,
Hill, H., Budy P.R., and Yogi Vidyattama. 2003. Indonesia's Changing Economic Geography. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies.44 (3), 407-435. Indonesian lnfrastructW"C: Conditiun,J>rohlem end Policy. Retrieved at F'ebrumy 12, 2010, from ··111 n ·.: /d it.. --~1~ai.1l11t.-. u b.QJg.nf .:TII .F.Yf:tL"Uh.tco\. "'ru ;~U{)'>.-m .111u "ILli jl:l l):{~2c:)nl.l'nl ['
Indonesia t·
1u1
Map. Retrieved Jamwy 26, 2010 ;..,,t: \.!.!!.1!...r!~..:.•r>~n1,•r'- l1r io.J::?>~L.... i:a l1(11tl
from
"'"" . i ndonc-Ja-
Kanbur, K. and X. Zhang. 2005. Fifty Years of Regional Inequality in China: A Journey Through Revolution, Refonn, and Openness. Review of
Development Economics, 9.87-106.
Kania, Nurhifen. 2009. Bombing to F.conomy: Leaming by F.xperience.Relrieved November 24, 2009, from '~ \V\~· \\ilr1il\;~Untlmi.cn id:1nrA~~.11n t.J>fUenl&\·1e~~ -11t1h:Jc&rd " ' " ·~ "' ~\•·.,.~' I I '-~-\'4.vnt•t~~- I t.!~~rn•o!!:J.l~' ' ~"--"·' :::_\.Lh.:1 11.:111..:_1.:&\.· Jti.1.f · i..'~.,('.~ .\al!rnunl& ...hut\qll I
Puji Agus, 2007. RegioMI bwonre lftequa/ity and Growth Convergence- A Case of Indcnesia. Unpul>lished Master's thesis, Jntcmational Development Program. International University of Japan, 1'I i igata, Japan.
Kurniawen,
Lee, C.C. and Chun P.Chang. 2007. Tourism development and economic growth: A closer look at panels. Tourism~menl, 19, 181M92. Pirrnanseh, A lit 2006. Diatl'ibUJi<ma/Impoas of Indvnesia'.s .&w10mic Crists on lnequaliry: A Decomposition and Reexamination. Unpublished Master's thesis, International Development Program, lntemationa) University of Japan, Niigata. Jaµm. Prasctianrono, A Tony. 2009. Dampak Ebmomi "Paradise Lost" (Economics Impact "Paradise Lost"). Retrieved Nopember 27, 2009, from y. ,,,, i·•.11:q: i' 1..ll~!1'1.•'111r"t'--\.\:'la~ ..:<~:;ln:: I \:"'·"''"·~~i lJ:uupi :~ l1tnt
Rivas, Marcela Gonzalez, 2007. The Effect of Trade Openness on Regional Inequality in Mexico.AnnaJsofR.egiolla/Seience.41, 545-561.
31
Sardjunani, 1'ina. 2005. Nine Year Ccmp.lsory Basic Education Service far Childnm 7-IS Ye
Seckelmann. A. 2002. Domestic tourism: a chance for regional development in Turkey?. Tourism Management. 23. 85-92. Shorrocks, A. and Wan, U. (2005). Spatial Decomposition oflnequality.Journal of Economi« Geography,5, 59-81. Skoufias, E., Asep Suryahadi 8Dd Sudamo Sumarto. 2000. Changes in Household Welfare, Poverty and Jneqaality during The Crisis. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies. Vo. 36 (2),97-114. Todaro, Michael J>. 1992. Ecoromicr/Ma DevelopingWorld:An Jn1~ti<JT1 to Prtnciples.Problems and Policies for Developmem; 3rd ed. London and New York Longman Publishing. Dallen J.T. and Yaksel 0. 2003. Tourism Growth, National Development and Regional Inequality in Turkey. Journal of SMSlainuble Tourism, If (2 s. 3), 13J-J61.
Tosun, C.,
Vibiz
Economic Research Center. 2003. Efektifilas Fakwr Input clan KetimpangcmPendapaton DaeTClh di Indonesia setefah desen1mlisasi Fiskal (Effectiveness of Input !'actor and Rfgiooal Income Inequality in Indonesia after Fiscal Decentralization),
Wawa, J.F.. 2002. Berbarap Jrrfrastrubra' Jodi LbJromotif Ekcnomi (Hopefully Ju frastructure Could Become Eronomk: Loeornotive). Retrieved at
November 24, 2009, from
h!~r ·:...:I~ l'd!lf~\:1~;~~ i•J :up(1.tJti: .. .tli.:r·1 d'lllf1.U!~ "'~Ol\~Jti,-<' tt:;.' .. ~nt ~·n•tu1i.J.tl~u 0
11~[) r(!;l~I}
1~·(.:af~
itl·.1
Zhang, Xiaobo and Shenggen l'an. 2002. /nfrastructwre, Openness. and Regional Inequality in India: Research P-.iper.
.U
ApfleadiI 1. Five Rqpoos, 2' PJ'OYiaas, ud 406 DBlrie1slln1udeipa)iltes h1 lordo11esla
REGION PROVINCT. ..·--1-. SVMATE.RA Nanwnc Aceh 0arussi1iim
I
-H~ab.
DJSTRICT
Aeeh a~,
·-·
Kah. Aeeh Barot Daya
.. -. .. -
· Kah. Aceb Besar Kah. Aceh Jayn
--
Kah. Aceh Setm°';. Kab, A<:eh Singl.:H JC.ab. Aceb-Tam~s ....__ Kah. ·Aeei. Teni;ah
--
Kao. Acch Tengia'ra
Kab. Aceh limur JCa b. Aceh utan. l(.ib. B~ Meriah ·- ··I J(ab. Rireun ' 'K ab. Oft.yo Lues Kab. Nagari Raya Kab. Pidic '---· Kab. Pidie Jaya Kab. Simeulue Keea Banda Aceh J
.•
-
---...
-----
.'
{
KOIJI Lhoksemawe
. -··
·-
-
·---
Kota Saba.rig
North Swnatra
Koia Subulussalam I. Humbang Hasundutan Kab.
LatiUiianllatU- ---
Kab. Langkat Kab, Mandatling Natal --·-.
- --
-
&W. Nias ···--·-
--1
I
33
-
Kab. Nias Se!movi Kab. Palcpak Bharat .ICab. Samosir -Kab. Serdang Begadai
·-
Kab. Simalurtgw)
K.tb. Tanah Karo Kab. i&Panuli Selatan Kah. Tapanuli Tenga~ Kab. Tapanuli Ullin
·-
~
'
IW>--:-To&.Samosir Koia Binjai
w~
I
I I
SUJTlll[tra
-···
···-
Kota Medan Kota J>;idang Side.;pW.i."" '-··Kota Pematang Siantar ·KCll.a Siholga Kota Tattjung Ralai KoiBTebing Tinggi Kab. Agarn Kab. Olwmasraya Kab. Kepulauan Mentawai Kab. Lima l'llluh Kota 1-. .. Kab. Padang Psrieman
-·
-
..
·-
Kab, l'asaman
Kab. Pasaman l:!arat Kab. Pesisir Sellllan Kab. SawahLumo ~ijwijung
I
Kai>. Solok Kab. Solok Selatan ·-Kab. Tanah Datar Kola eu.klttltlggi
·-
Kora Padang Kola Padang Panjang .,
-·
Kom Pariaman Kota Payaiumbuh
I .... ,._
34
·-· ·-.
----T7:-..,,.----;-;---:--------,
Kota Sawahlunt<> Kota Sol~k --------~
Riau
KAb. Bengkalis Kah. Indragiri Hilir
....,..,-----
K ab. lndragiri Hulu Kab. Kamp&r
Kab. f
fKab.R.olam--H-il-ir-------1 I Kab. Rolr.an Hulu ICab. Siak -· 1(.()(11 Dumai
jaliil)i
.
Pekiint>M. Kah. aaiang Hori 1((1111
Kah.Bun8D
-·· -·-
··-
Kab. Kerincl
Kah. Merall8in ·Kab, Muaro Jambi
Kab. Sarnl~ngun
-
-·-··-
·- .
Kah. Tftlljung Jahung Timur Kab. Tartjung Jahur Barat .. - .. Kab. Tebo Suuth Sumatera
~
···-
I
~·· Kab,
··-
Lal\at
K.ab. MU3ra J::nim Kab, Musi Banyua.sin Kab. Musi Rawiis-·
---
K.ab. Ogao Ilir Kub. Ogan Komering llit Kab. Ogan Komering IJlu Kab. OKU Selatan l
·-
I
35
Kota Lubuk Llnggau Kotll Pagar A lam Kota Paleinbang K
Bengkutu
'
.___ ..
Lampung
Kah.Bengt(~~~ K¥b. Bengkulu Utam 'Kab. Kaur • Kab. Kepahiang ~····· K.ab. Lebong r-·· ... Kab. Mukomuko ... Kai>. Rejang Lebong . ·Kah. Seluma K(>Ill Be7iglnilu • · K.a1:i. 1.ami>ung Barat Kah. Lampung Selatan- ·· Kah. tampu11g Tengah 'i
Kota Bandar Cai-rivwig
··-.. ....
·-·
Kola Metro
JAVA-BALI
Jaluutii Capiral Territory
I
Kep.Seribu Jakarta Selatan Jalalna Timur Jakarta Pusat ~---Jakarta Barat
Jakartii Utara West Java
L J
·····---··.
""•-
·-·
Kab. Bandung Kab. Bandung Bllllll Kab. Bekasi Kab. Boger ·--· Kab. Clamis
.. .,..
..
36
Kah. Cianjur
···-
I Kab. Cire~~· Kab.Garut Kab. Indramayu Kab. Karawang ;----.. Kab. KUJ1ingan .Kab. Majaletigka
tr-
''
...
Kah. Subans
Kah. Sukabumi Kab. SW'Qedang Kah. Tasikmalaya
Band~ng
~Knta BanjAr I( Ola
.......
Kl\tll Bekasi
Kota Bogor Koia Cimahi Kota Cirebon K.ota Depok
·---.......
·.
Kota Sukahu.mi
.. ·Central Java
'
Kota Taslkrnalaya K:ib. Bal\iamegara. Kab. Banyumas Kah. Batang Kab. IJlora Kah. Boyola 1 i ; Kab. Brebes Kab. Cila.cap Kab. Demak Kab. Orobog1tP
..
- -
___
Kab. Jcpara ,___
I
L__
Kab. Kll/'llQg Anyar Kab, Kcburncn
Kiib. Kenda.f--
_
--
37
.Kab. Klaren Kab. Kudu.~. -
. ··-·
Kab. Magelang Kab. Psti Kab. Pekalongan
l
--·.-. ...
Kab.Pemalang IWWorejo
-
Kab·. Rembrutg
Kah.Semarang I<sb.Sragen Kab. Sirlcolwj o !(ab. Tega\ ... I
·-
Kab. Wonoi;oho
Kota Maielang Kota Pekalongan Kota Sa.lati ga Kola Semarang Kota Slnlwta 1(018 T~l Special Region of Yogyakarta
,
··-
.... ,
)(ab. Bantu!
K.&b. C'J1ll!UD[IKidul
I
Kah. Kulon l'rogo ·-··· Kati. Sleman KOia Yogyalw13 Kah. Bangkalan .,_,, Kah. Banyuwangi Kab. BJitar Kab. Bojonegoro
__
East Java i
l
-
Kab. Bondowoso Kab. Gresik
..
Kab. Jember
- ..
'•
...
38
Kah.
Jombans
Kab. Kediri Kab. Lamongan Kab. Lwnajang Kah. Madiun
··-·· . .... ·-
Kah. Magetan Kab. Malans K'1h. Mojolccrlo Kab. Nganjuk Kab.Ngawi Kab. Pacitan Kab. Pame.lcasan Kab. Pasuruan Kab. f'onorogo Kab, Probolinggo Ka!J. Slllllpang
f
:
-
,,,
Kab. Sidoarjo
··-
________
Kab. Situbondo " Kab. Sumenep Kab. Tit:nggalek Kah. Tuban --· Kai>. Tulungagung Kota Batu Kola Blitir Kota Kediri ~KoraMaditun
Bali
------··-
Kora Malang Kota Mojokerto ~Kota Pa.~uruan Kota Probolinggo Kot.a Surabaya
···-
. ..
Kab.Badung
!
..
. ...
:111
.....
t
Kah. Gianyar ....._ ..
Kab. Jombrana Kab. Karang Asem Kab. Klungkung Kab, Tabanan Kot.a Denpasar Kab. BengkayMg J
West Kalima111lUI
'
Central Kallmantan
Kab. Sangga11 Kah. Sekadau Kab. Sintang Kota Pontianak Kota Singkawang Kab. Barito Selallln Kab. Barito Timur
...
Kab. .BV!10 Uw.a
-
_,,
--·
··...
.. -
"
·-·· ··-
Kab. Uunung Mas Kab. Kapuas Kab. Katingan · Kab. Kolllwaringin.Banrt ...
:
I
L
·-··-
1---·······
South Kalimantan
····-·
Kab. Kotawaringin Timur Kab. Lamandau I----·· -··---·· Kab. MUIUllg ~aya Kab, Pulang Pisau Kab. Seruyan Kab. Sukamara Kota Palangka ltaya Kab.
8a1aiii!M
·--·
...
-
40
Kai>. Banjar Kab. Barito Kuala Kab, Hutu Sungai Sela1a11 Kah. Hulu Suugai Tcngah ! i. Tabalong Kab. Tanah Bwnbu
I I
Kiiii:·'iapin -
Kota Bal!iar Baru
·-· ...
Kota Banjarmasin Kab.Berau '----·--· ···!cab. Bulwigan
East Kalimatltan
Kab, Kutai Barat Kab, Kutai
North Sulawesi
I I -.
__ ,,_
Kartancgara . Kab. Kutai Timur kab. Malinau L- .. Kab. Nunukan " Kilb. Pasir Kab. Penajam Paser Ulara ,_,, ,,_ Kota Balikpapan Kola Bonting Kota Samarinda . ICota Tarakan .. · Kah. Rolaang Mongondow Kab. Bolaang Mongondow Utara Kab. Kep, Sangihe --· ~ Kah. Kep. Siau Tagulandang Biaro Kab, Kep, Talsnd Kab. Minahasa Kab. Minahasa Selatan Kab. Minahasa Timggara ·-Kah. Minahasa Utara '---·--
-·
-
Kab. Tanah Laut
f
SULAWESI
,,,,_
..
..
41
~
Kolll Bitung Kota Koiamobagti ···- ·-·-Kota Manado ~ Kota Tomohon ... Kab. Banggai ,___ K.ab. Bangga] Kepelauan
...··-
'---·
Central Sulawesi
L~b. Buol.
I Kab. Donggala Knb. Morowali - . ..... --., .... Kab. Parigi Moutong .. Kah. Poso Kab. TojoUna-Una Kah. Toli-Toli Kota Pal11 -··--··· .. Kab. BltntneQg Kab.Bamt '---··--- .. Kab. Bone Kab. Bulu.kwnba 1----
South S11lawesl
Kab. t:.nrekang Kab.Uowa
Kab. Jeneponto .. Kab. l..uwu
_
-·
___
,,,
Kab. Luwu Timur Kab. Luwu Utara Kab. Maros ~ Kati. PaRgkajene Md "Kepulauan Kab. Pinrang Kab. Selayar ···Kah. Sidenreng Rappang Kah. Sinjai Kab. SvPIJ"llg -~Kab. Tu.kal111 Kab. Tana To~ju .. Kab. Wajll 1 ··---.
i
Kota MAl=sar Kota Palopo ········--·-·· Kota Pare-Pare Kali. Bombana --Kab. Buton Kab. Kolaka Kah. Kobb Utara KAb. Konawe Kab. Konawe Selatan
South r.ast Sulawesi
..
--
Kab.Muna KAb.
OTHERS
Wesi. Nu.sa Tenggara
-
wab°iob;
..
KotaBaubau Kota K.cndari . Kab. Rima-
· ..
K.ab. nOmpu Kab. fnmholc: Barat J.omh11iC'Terig8h Kab. lombok Timur Kab. Sumhaw~ Kab. Sumbawa Baral
..
··-
Kab.
Kota Sima .K.Ola MaWam F.a:st Nusa Tt:nJ!8iira
·
Kab. Alor Kab. Belu Kab. Ende Kab. Flores Timur Kab. KuJ)llJlg
I Ka.b.
Lernbata
Kab. Manggarai Kab, Manggarai Barst Kilb. Ngada
Kab, Rote Ndao ~.
Kab, Sikka Kilb. Sumba 881'111
-
···-· ··-
-
--
-··
-
·---
I
4J
-
Maluku
Papua
.Kab. Sumba Bamt Daya ... Kab. Sumba Tengiih Kab. Sumba Timur J IUb. Timer Tengah Utara KotaKupang Kah. liuru Kab. Kep.Aru Kab. Mai~TCtlgah Kab. Malulcu TenW,.a Kab. Maluku Tenggara Barnt Kah. Seram Bagiari' Baiat " Kah. Seram Bagian Timur t-··--· Kota Ambon " Kah. Asmat Kab. Diak Numfur
Kab. siiVei101goe1 Kab. Jayapw11 Kai>. Jayawijaya Kab. K.eerom Kab, Mll(>J)I
Kab. Merauke Kab. Mimik.a Kab. Nabire
I
'
L
...
-
..
.
Kab. l'aniai kab. Pegunwtgao Hintang Kab. Puncok Jays . Kab. Santti ' ;-,..,--, ·---Kab. Supiori Kab. Tolikara Kab. Waropeo l
,_
Appe!ldh 2. Provincial Theil hdex '
Jam bi ..... South Sumatra Bengkulu Lampung
2002 0.69260 0.10560 0.14068 0.30107 0.06060 0.1772.S 0.149R9 0.01653
Jakarta Capital Terrilory
0.12~23 0.12812
We&tJava
0.18944 0.18390 0.18353 0.20308 0.21326 0.21912 -·- .... ·--· 0.07320 0.07744 0.07737
ProTID.ce
' Nanggroe
Aceh Darussalam Nonh Sumatni West Sumatra
-
.......
Riau
Central Java Special Region of'Yogyakarta
--· East Java -·--. Bali West K.alimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantari North Sul11wesi Central Sulawesi South Sulawesi South East Sulawesi West Nusa Tenggara -- .. ··--······P.ast Nusa Tenggara Maluku
Papua
.
··-···
·-··--· ...
2003 0.67147 0.09687 0.13853 0.27833 0.061l4 0.22139 0.07746 0.01944
.. ·····-·--- -
0.35889 0.36651 0.06032 0.06288 0.12708 0.!0609 0.09314 0.02803 0.08169 0.08140 0.54410 0.48673 0.22969 0.21778 0.03274 0.06313 0.16224 0.Hi773 0.16260 0.16125 0.01540 0.02416 .... ~ 0.12799 , -·. U.13284 0.2%64 0.28033 1.3835.5 1.30254
-
:2004 0.52160 0.09782 0.12392 0.25230 0_116080 0.25710 0.0711RI 0.02026
200S ....... >-· -1086 . ......_ .. 0.32581 0.28765 0.08296 0.08738 0.06525 0.06127 0.24046 0.23200 0.06031 0.116542 0.17323 0.16687 0.08106 0.011143 0.02012 0.02.459 0.12827 0.12803 0.12971 0.18164 0.17678 0.22444 0.21952 ---····-- -· 0.07174 0.06797
0.37051 ...0.36541 0.36843 0.06139 0.05886 0.05842 0.11052 0.08191 0.08220 0.02798 0.02816 0.03095 0.08016 0.09444 0.09970 -··· 0.44828 0.423SI 0.40335 0.21045 0.11383 0.11076 0.04198 0.02971 0.03017 0.17945 0.16943 0.16839 0.13961 0.10836 0.13622 0.55311 0.50366 0.44182 "·---CJ.13643 0.13315 0.14329 0.24120 ........ 0.14934 025286 0.96501 1.23334 0.89463
---
--
