On Trowulan brouhaha

The media has been reporting public disappointment toward the development of Majapahit Information Center right on the cultural site of the historical Trowulan Museum in Mojokerto, East Java (eg Kompas, 4/1/2008). Underneath the site lays a huge set of archeological artifacts that records the glory of the Kingdom of Majapahit.

The local government and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism are under fire. The project was initially a part of a bigger initiative to save cultural heritages in the area. Presumably the future management would need some kind of information center to serve the public. Alas and ironically, the information center is being built with significant damage to the heritage! Hence the angst.

This is another area where economics should have been helpful. Nowhere in the media is a mention of how much the cultural site is really worth. Economic valuation helps to quantify this kind of value, taking into account your and my valuation regarding the site, regardless of whether or not we 'use' the site (if not, we're talking about 'non-use' value). It is true that measuring the value of 'non-market' goods like cultural heritage is damn difficult, if not ridiculous. But economics profession has come to establishing tools for such that. For example, 'contingent valuation' technique has been improved so well after its famous 'test-case' in the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska twenty years ago. This technique is relying on people perception. The other technique, hedonics approach uses the value of something else that can be directly priced in market (eg house) as a 'surrogate mother' of the price of the non-market good (eg cultural heritage). It has been successful in estimating the economic value of clean air, for example.

Of course we can never measure such things in an exact, accurate manner. But the fact that many people are angry about the Trowulan destruction is a clear indication that the thing has a non-zero value. Most importantly, for public good like cultural park, public money (ie tax) is at stake. The rule for any project is 'go when the net benefit is positive'. Net benefit means benefits minus costs. It is easy to measure the costs (labor, tractors, etc). But measuring benefits is no piece of cake. It is in this case the measurement of non-market good: how much people put a value on the historical site. We have now science for that.

One thing needs to be said though. The measurement does not necessarily end up in favor of keeping the heritage. It might be the case that the information center development is justified! It might sound unpopular, but it's not you or me or some random artist and culture lover to decide. It's us, the people with different interests, collectively. If you're not comfortable with that, try think about this: once upon a time the world was full of dinosaurs. We love dinosaurs. But do we really want them to come back alive now? Well, maybe one or two in a cage might be cute. Who decides?

I wish I could do something on this Trowulan thing. I feel a little bad that my valuation works have been applied in another country, while I can't really use them at home. Science itself is expensive, unfortunately. Anyone interested to collaborate?

and the winners are...

As part of its effort to provide stimulus for the economy amidst the global (and hence domestic) crisis, GOI has decided to give privileges to some sectors. 'Fortunately', rather than a direct picking-the-winner strategy, GOI did have a general set of criteria (albeit vaguely) -- or so it claimed. Here are the criteria for those who are exempted from paying the value added taxes:

1. Facilities are given to sectors affected by economic slowdowns, but with the following nature: can absorb large number of employment, produce goods needed by the general public, belong to 'promoted sectors' (sektor unggulan) that contributes highly to the country's export.
2. Facilities are given in order to maintain the stability of basic needs' prices.
3. Facilities are given to protect consumers.
   

And here are the criteria for exemption of import duty:

1. Criteria for industry: a) produce goods or services for general public and/or for protecting consumer's interest (see how vague this is?); b) increase competitiveness; c) increase job creation, and d) increase country's revenue.
2. Criteria for goods and materials: a) not yet produced domestically, b) has been produced domestically but not yet meet the required specification, and c) has been reduced domestically but not sufficient enough.

And the winners are:

1. Free from value added tax: steel material, machine used for the 10,000 MW electricity projects, mini machine to produce ice for fishery, machine for cold storage for fishery, textile for garments, leather and rubber for footwear, materials for ship building, materials for (car?) assembly, silver materials for handicrafts or jewelry, materials for train locomotive, materials for film production, crumb rubber, rattan for furniture, fish/shrimp feed, non-subsidized plant-based oil, cooking oil, and gas and geothermal.
2. Free from import duty: ballpoint, materials and components for heavy weight industry, materials and components for development of small electricity generator, materials for milk production, supporting materials for methyltin mercaptide (?), materials and components for automotive industry, electronics components, fiber optics and components for telecommunication, materials and components for ship building, supporting materials for sorbitol industry, materials and equipments for film, electricity, health equipments, aircrafts.

Sounds like many, with alas, unclear criteria (protecting consumers by protecting producers? How's that?). And yet, the list will grow, apparently.

Core programs of 2009

And here is the GOI's 2009 agenda of what they call "four core programs":

1. Financial sector programs: to submit draft laws of deposit guarantee institution, amendment to Bank Indonesia law, financial sector safety net; to extend the business credit for low income families (KUR); and financial sector assessment program.
2. Fiscal policy programs: to continue the fiscal consolidation; budget expansion for infrastructure, education, and poverty eradication; more tax stimuli; and targeted subsidy for agriculture (fertilizers, seeds) and energy (fuel, liquefied gas, and electricity).
3. Real sector support policy programs: real sector stimuli (taxation, customs), investment climate (licensing, national single window); market support and sector empowerment (export-import monitoring, domestic product promotion, etc); trade financing; micro and SME empowerment; infrastructure development acceleration; improvement on energy and food production.
4. Anti-poverty programs: PNPM expansion, direct cash transfer for 2 months, rice for the poor (18.2 million of target households with an allocation of 15 kgs per each); and PKH expansion.

Although these four "core programs" seem to be the squeezed version of the Presidential Decree 5/2008 on the Economic Program Focuses, I would think even more trimmed version is desirable. All above still seems too many to accomplich within one year. If GOI could just complete what has been started on electricity and road infrastructure, and make more effective cash transfer, that would be great. Forget about expanding too much on agri and energy subsidies.

Prospect of 2009

Still from the GOI's presentation yesterday, here is their projection for 2009 (in %, yoy): C 4.8, G 10.4, I 6.5, X 5.9, and M 6.1, which brings the GDP growth to 5%. Sounds quite optimistic.

The 2009 challenges

According to the government, the key economic challenges of 2009 are: 1) The need to increase the quality of human resources, 2) The need to fill the infrastructure gaps, 3) The integration with global economy, 4) The need to increase the quality of bureaucracy, and 5) The need to improve income distribution.

I would add: the possible upward swing of the world crude oil price, massive layoffs, and the rise of protectionism.

Explaining the small deficit

According to Minister of Finance, the very small budget deficit realization of 0.1 (see macro summary below) is due to higher-than-target revenue and lower-than-target expenditure. The revenue realization of 2008 was 9.6% higher than that targeted in the 2008 budget (APBN-P 2008). This came from tax (8.1% higher) and non-tax (13.2% higher). Grant on the other hand was below target (only 78.3%). Meanwhile, state expenditure only met 99.6% of the target in APBN-P 2008. This was due to lower spending for ministries and other central government institutions (99.4%) even though transfer to local governments was higher than target (100.1%).

This suggests the government limited capability to spend effectively -- a necessity for effective fiscal stimulus. Or, a more supply side economics?

Macroeconomic summary of 2008

From GOI's presentation on economic evaluation of 2008 and prospect of 2009 in Jakarta, January 5, 2009. Below is the macroeconomic summary of 2004-2008. The first numbers indicate those of 2007, the second 2008.

• Growth (%) 6.3 - 6.2
• Inflation (%) 6.7 - 11.1
• Bank Indonesia's policy rate (SBI 3 month rate, %) 8 - 9.3
• Exchange rate (Rp/$) 9,130 - 9,691
• Foreign reserves ($ billion) 56.9 - 50
• Current account (% GDP) 2.6 - 0.9
• Budget deficit (% GDP) 1.2 - 0.1
• Foreign debt (% GDP) 32.7 - 30.4
• Debt service ratio (%) 21.5 - 17.5
• Open unemployment (%) 9.1 - 8.3
• Poverty rate (%, BPS method of daily calorie) 16.6 - 15.4
• Poverty rate (million of population, BPS method of daily calorie) 37.2 - 35.0
• Poverty rate (%, WB $1/day, PPP) 6.7 - 5.9
• Poverty rate (million of population, WB $1/day, PPP) 15.5 - 14.2
  
• Poverty rate (%, WB $2/day, PPP) 45.2 - 42.6
• Poverty rate (million of population, WB $2/day, PPP) 105.3 - 100.7
  

Welcome, black market

The media these days have been running headlines about fuel shortages across the country. As Exegesis has constantly argued, that's what you would see when you force price to stay below its market equilibrium, without sufficient resources to back it up. Long lines at gas stations are not surprising.

The natural consequence of all that would be a rise in effective prices. That is, the administered prices will lose its relevance -- you simply need to check with your vendor across the street, or else go to more remote areas. In other words, the rise of black markets.

You have been warned.

Note: For fairness, I should add that the recent shortage also has something to do with Pertamina swicthing to a new operation system. As usual, it takes time to adjust.

Dumbing down on tax strategy

I have commended the Tax Directorate policy to punish individual citizens without NPWP (tax registration number) with an exit tax of Rp 2.5 million per travel, as opposed to zero for those holding NPWP. I thought that was smart.

Apparently, not smart enough. Kompas today (3/1/2009) reported that an official from DG Tax said that on January 1, 2011, everybody including those without NPWP will not need to pay any exit tax.

Hm, funny. My friends who refuse to pay taxes already called me: "See, we're right after all. We don't want to have NPWP. Going abroad? That can wait until Jan 1, 2011, my friend".

And fertilizers should follow suit?

Further to my post below, I should mention about fertilizers, too.

Kompas also had an article on fertilizers in the same day (2/1/2009). It argued that the government should guarantee a sufficient subsidy on fertilizers for each farmer. The MoA's regulation that those eligible for such subsidy are farmers registered in a 'farmers group' and fill out a specific form, was deemed insufficient.

According to Kompas calculation, with the current budget allocation for fertilizer subsidy (ie to provide subsidized fertilizer of 4.3 million tons in 2008, against a demand of 5.8 million tons; for 2009 the numbers are 5.5 million and 5.82 million tons, respectively) is not enough. The newspaper went on to project these numbers on a unfertilized paddy area of as much as 1.2 million hectares (assuming a 250 kg/hectare fertilizer). That would mean 4 million small farmers (those with area less than 0.34 hectare per family) would not get subsidized fertilizers.

And here goes the typical Kompas' provocation: "If those 4 million farmers go on strike in front of the House office, it is more than enough to shake up the capital city".

Ah. So next time you hear the term 'rice self-sufficiency', just be advised that it means sufficiency with all kinds of subsidy, from fertilizers to paddy to rice. In other words: false sufficiency.

SBY's new decree on rice

Reported by The Jakarta Post (2/1/2009), SBY has issued a new decree on rice, effective January 1 (Inpres 8/2008). The decree stipulates the following: GOI will pay rice at Rp 4,600/kg from farmers; ie a 7% increase; unhusked paddy (GKP) at Rp 2,400/kg (a 9% up); and husked paddy (GKG) at Rp 3,000/kg (a 7% increase).



Economists Bustanul Arifin and M Maksum said the increases in government buying prices were now merely for administrative purposes, not for protecting the farmers (Kompas, 2/1/2009). That means the prices are set only to help ease the management in Bulog, the state logistics agency with a monopoly on controlling the national rice stockpile. Bustanul Arifin argued that the government should provide compensation when the market prices fall below the administered price. Maksum on the other hand calculated that the it needed 1.54 kgs of GKG paddy to produce 1 kg rice, suggesting a conversion ratio of 54%. The set prices could only hold if the ratio were 65.5%, argued Maksum. In short, the two economists are for higher administered prices and an effective compensation should the price fall below them. In other word, headache. That's what you should deal with when playing around with prices against the market forces.



The Jakarta Post also reported that the rice output might jump to 40 million tons in 2009 (from 38.6 million tons in 2008, which was said to exceed the domestic consumption of 37 million tons; hence the much proud 'self-sufficiency'). What is the implication of supply exceeding demand? Yes, a drop in price (and hence compensation as asked by Bustanul), unless you can effectively export the difference (and yes, another headache, as other countries are just like Indonesia: import hater).



All in all, expect more 'good news' and wishful thinking regarding rice in the coming months. Rice is all the more important as we're entering general election.

Pertamina as an oligopoly leader?

Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Purnomo Yusgiantoro said that starting 2010 an oligopoly for distribution of subsidized fuel will be implemented (Kompas, 26/12/2008). For that, he went on, Pertamina will still be the "market-setter", because the government does not want a market that is "too competitive". Oh crap. What about the policy lowering the price to "follow the market"? Want to create now a mini OPEC in the country?

In the meantime, Pertamina, tapping the opportunity, is asking an adjustment for its "magic alpha", from 9 percent now to 12.5 percent on the assumptions of 50 dollar per barrel oil price and Rp 11,000 per dollar exchange rate. That would translate to an accounting price (or here falsely named "harga keekonomian") of Rp 5,400; if we keep the 10 percent value added tax and 5 percent vehicle fuel tax.

BHP

People have been protesting about the new education bill, UU Badan Hukum Pendidikan (BHP Law). They argue that the Law is a form of liberalization of education. As effects, tuition pay will increase and foreign investment will pour into Indonesian schools.

I agree with the BHP. I think universities should not be subsidized. The money could be used to fully subsidize basic education, instead. As for competition issue, I think it's time to have freer exhanges of educators and professors as well as foreign-affiliated schools and universities. That would force a good competition to the locals. And/so in the longer run, university tuition will not rise (at least not significantly).

Fadjroel's argumentum ad nauseatum

An op-ed by Fadjroel Rachman ("Merayakan Capres Independen", Kompas, 26/12/2008) really gives me nausea. He keeps saying his words on behalf of "171 voters". As if all the 171 voters care about the election, be it for party candidates or independent candidates like Fadjroel.

So long, exit tax

Another smart policy from MOF. Beginning next year, registered taxpayers can go abroad without having to pay an exit tax ("fiskal"). But those without NPWP (tax number) will have to pay Rp 2.5 million if go by air or Rp 1 million by sea. Until Dec 31 the amounts are Rp 1 mllion and Rp 0.5 million, respectively.

I've had my NPWP since 2004. Those who don't have one now have a good incentive to register.

NSW Phase 3 implemeted

Kudos for the government for the implementation of the third phase of National Single Window (The Jakarta Post, 24/12/2008). This covers Surabaya's Tanjung Perak Port, Medan's Belawan Port, and Tangerang's Soekarno-Hatta International Airport. The first phase in Dec 2007 was for Jakarta's Tanjung Priok Port and the second in mid 2008 for Semarang's Tanjung Emas.

Hopefully these NSW programs can help facilitate trade more efficiently. Indonesia has been notorious in its import and export procedure complexity. It has been estimated that there are 36 different government agencies involved in such procedure, with 48 different export documents, 106 different import documents, and 23 supporting documents (Frontier, Dec 2008).

Horray, we're exporting. Hopefully someone out there is generous enough to import from us

That's now the tone of rice business ("Ekspor Beras Mulai Juli 2009", Kompas, 24/12/2008). As reported, the country would export rice by July 2009. Rice import has been a sin in Indonesia (albeit 100 years of doing it). But now the country is hoping that other countries commit that very sin, ie importing from us.

And not only that, the farmers association HKTI also wants the importing countries to be stupid: Siswono Yudohusodo said exported rice should be of the lower quality, or the leftover stock from the previous years, as the "newly harvested, good quality" ones are for domestic consumption. Good luck with that.

Depression economics vs non-depression economics

Fine economists have been discussing depression economics at the TPMCafe. Brad DeLong defines "non-depression economics" as that following these rules:

• Short-run economic policy should be left to the central bank--the legislature and the executive should focus on the long run and keep their noses out of year-to-year fluctuations in employment and prices.
• The highest priority for central banks should be to maintain their credibility as guardians of price stability.
• Once that highest goal has been achieved, central banks can turn their attention to trying to keep the economy near full employment.
• They should try to keep the economy near full employment by influencing asset prices--pushing asset prices up when unemployment threatens to rise, and pushing them down when an inflationary spiral appears on the horizon.
• Central banks should influence asset prices through normal open-market operations--by buying and selling short-term government securities for cash, thus changing the safe interest rate and the price of longer-duration assets.
• Central banks should stand ready to intervene to prevent bank runs. Otherwise, central banks should let the financial sector run itself with a light regulatory hand--financiers can take care of themselves, and the central bank should view itself not as chaperone or duenna but rather as the designated driver in the case of financial speculative excess.

Depression economics is therefore the negation of all above. In situation of crisis like this, it is the latter that applies, not the normal rules.

Tourism crisis-proof? Oh, wake up

A director general at the Culture and Touris Ministry said that our tourism is a crisis-proof industry (The Jakarta Post, 19/12/2008).

He is in denial. Tourism is just like other export commodities: it is a function of exchange rates and foreign income. The situation now is that the positive effect from Rp depreciation is smaller than the negative effect from falling income of our trading partners.

In addition, in the case of tourism, the other key determinant is of course the attractiveness of the destination place itself. And we've been very lousy in this.

Again, DPR has no sense of crisis

So the financial system safety net bill was turned down by the DPR. Among those said to be of concerns are immunity for BI and the government, power overconcentration, central bank independence undermining, and shrinking role for the DPR members (The Jakarta Post, 19/12/2008).

I would think their main concern is actually on the shrinking role. But can you imagine if for every decision in this financial fiasco the government should consult first with the DPR? Bank rush is faster than those guys in Senayan to reach an agreement!

Revise the labor code!

Chris Manning and Sudarno Sumarto say it clearly and rightly ("Monetary crises, jobs and poverty in 1998 and 2008", The Jakarta Post, 18/12/2008).

"From the point of view of saving jobs, one alternative is to revise the labor code, in the direction of encouraging greater collective bargaining of wages and working conditions. Unfortunately, any move in that direction is off the political agenda until at least after the 2009 elections".

I don't see any better alternative.

No money left on the street

I recall I also rant much about smuggling in this blog. Why do people smuggle? Because they can. Or more precisely, because they would be a fool not to grab the opportunity in front of their nose. Let's continue our story. (I'm not gonna talk directly about smuggling, but hopefully you get the idea -- and yes, I'm going to greatly simplify again).

Suppose that there are many Yous and Brothers. What would happen? The Brothers would learn that they can be better off if they switch from selling newspapers to selling oranges. Say a fraction of this group migrate to the orange market. What would happen to the retail price of an orange? Very likely, it will decrease due to increasing number . As a consequence, the (accounting) profit also goes down. What would it be in the newspaper market? It is the opposite: as people leave the business, the remaining incumbents will be able to increase the retail price of the newspaper; and hence bigger accounting profits.

It is easy to imagine that the "migration" will stop when the profits in the two different places converge. Let's say, this happens when the "accounting profit" in the orange market and in the newspaper market is Rp 50,000. Don't forget, that is accounting profit. What is the economic profit? Right, it's zero! In the equilibrium, when the market is not distorted, the economic profit is zero everywhere. In other words, every potentials have been exploited (and that equilibrium is called optimum). Or, put it differently, no money left on the street.

Accounting vs Economic Profit

I've been ranting about people confusing accounting and economic concept. The following is my attempt to make it clear. (Beware of the crude simplification; but the idea remains).

You have an identical twin -- call him Brother. Both of you have the same skill, education level, and other qualifications. But your jobs are different. You work as an orange seller, while Brother is a newspaper seller. Every morning you go to marketplace, buy 100 oranges at the price of Rp 750 each and sell them for Rp 1,000 an orange. On the other hand, Brother goes to newspaper agent, buys 100 pieces of newspapers at Rp 500 a piece and sell them for Rp 625 each. Assuming you both sell everything, what is your profit? What's Brother's profit?

An accountant will tell you that your profit is (1,000 - 750) x 100 = Rp 25,000 per day. Likewise, Brother profits (625 - 500) x 100 = Rp 12,500 per day.

But the economist will see this a bit differently. He will tell you that Bother is actually losing. Why? Because, given the same potential, he could as well be selling oranges, instead of newspaper. That is, by making the (accounting) profit of Rp 12,500 in newspaper business, he sacrifices getting Rp 25,000 like you in orange business. In net, he makes an economic loss of 12,500 - 25,000 = Rp 12,500 (or in different words: he makes an economic profit of minus Rp 12,500). Using the same logic, you can say that you make an economic profit of Rp 12,500; since by profiting Rp 25,000 in orange business, you (rightly) sacrifice your chance to get Rp 12,500 in newspaper.

Race to the bottom, for the sake of votes

Who benefits from the gasoline price cut? The incumbent politicians. SBY and JK, that is; because their popularity improves, a necessity for the election. What would be the logical reaction from their competitors? Denounce the incumbent's "achievement" and beat it down. So the headline of Kompas today (16/12/2008) is no surprise.

Partai Amanat Nasional (PAN) says the price should be Rp 4,675 per liter. Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDIP) believes it should be Rp 4,800. Another guy at DPR says Rp 4,500. Don't be surprised if someone else will come up with even more bombastic numbers. It's all political motives: election is around the corner and many people are willing to be fooled.

And don't we forget. They all talk about accounting costs, while calling them "economic price"!

Import restriction postponement unpostponed

Trade Minister Pangestu finally cracked under protectinists' pressure. She changed the schedule from Feb 15 to Jan 1 (The Jakarta Post, 16/12/2008). (Guess what? No one says she is being inconsistent now. Businessmen, I thought you hated change of schedules? What say you now?).

And Industry Minister Idris was quick to seize the moment. He wanted extension to more commodities: cosmetics, ceramics, steel, energy-saving lamps, cell phones, auto parks (spark plugs and filters) and bicycles.

Why not protecting everything then? For that matter, why not a complete isolation?

And the time bomb has been activated

Rather than telling the people that we would let the fuel price follow the world crude price, down or up, the government made a terrible mistake: capping the prices.

President SBY and Minister Mulyani just announced that the price of premium gasoline got a further cut to Rp 5,000 and diesel oil to Rp 4,800. As if that's not enough, they also put caps on the two fuels, i.e. Rp 6,000 and Rp 5,500. That is a guarantee that whatever happens next year, the prices can not exceed the set caps. Who says this is inline with market dynamics?

Studies in time series econometrics (e.g those by prominent econometrician Jim Hamilton) have found that the world crude price behave as a random walk. The standard deviations are extremely high you can only say that the price in two years from now can go down to $30/barrel OR up to $300/barrel! See the risk there? Clearly the government does not.

The capping is really, really bad. This is why I hate election time. All the bad economics are showing.

Two new papers published

We have our papers just published as a twin articles in the Journal of Great Lakes Research 34(4), December 2008. The authors are John B. Braden, Laura O. Taylor, DooHwan Won, Nicole Mays, Allegra Cangelosi, and Arianto A. Patunru.

This first paper (p. 631-48) measures the economic benefits of remediating the Buffalo River, New York. It finds values equivalent to between 6-14 percent of property values, depending on the methods and areas. In other words, the pollution in Buffalo River has reduced the value of houses in the surrounding area up to 14 percent their values without pollution. (As a note, the idea of hedonics approach is to measure the value of a non-market good using a market good -- house or property in this case-- as a surrogate price revealer). Full remediation will potentially increase the value of the area as high as 14 percent of the current level. Finally you can read this as saying that the community members' willingness to pay for cleaner river there is as high as 14 percent of what they pay for their houses.

The second paper (p. 649-60) applies similar techniques to the Sheboygan River in Wisconsin. The numbers found are equivalent to 8-10 percent of property values.

Note: JGLR is a cross-disciplinary journal devoted to researches related to issues and problems of the Great Lakes (lakes spanned across Canada and America). Other papers talk about things like epidemiological aspects, engineering, etc.

Import restriction postponed

Kompas today (13/12/2008) reports that the government has decided to postpone import restrictions on garment, footwear, electronics, toys, food and beverages. Kudos to government. The same newspaper has information on the shrinking capacity in those sectors. What is not written is that means the ability of domestic industries to supply such commodities has decreased quite significantly. As the supply can not match the demand (again, the commodities are basic), the prices will shoot up. Unless you allow for importation. (In fact even if you do not allow it, they will come illegally. So why not just let them in and get some reasonable duties?) What the government does is commendable.

Of course local businesses condemn it. They say the government is inconsistent, as the regulation for import restriction was issued October 31 and to be effective Dec 15. But they postpone it. I can easily imagine that their complaint would be totally different had the government never issued such restriction. After all, what they want is protection from competition.

Layoff, expectation, and wages

One article in this month's Esquire takes the plummetting immigration to US as a real indicator of how bad the current (and arguably the foreseeable future) is. The logic is clear. Low wage workers come to US with great expectation. As the economy shrinks, that expectation falls.

Two days ago I chatted with an official from Blitar local government. That is a district in East Java. He told me that they were so worried with the massive homecoming of Blitar people who otherwise work in Surabaya and other business centers in East Java. The number keeps increasing from day to day. Thus far in East Java about 10,000 workers have been laid off. Almost 15 percent of it come from Blitar. And now they have no choice but to come home. Majority of them become dependents of their families who used to be the beneficiaries of their remittances.

I was thinking about the minimum wage regulation. Of course we can't blame all this on it. But inability to cut wages surely affect employers' decision to fire workers.

Expect more layoffs. But that might slow a bit if wages and compensation are made more flexible.

Here's my money, please save it for me

I overheard this talk between two government officials as we were headed together to the airport.

Both officials were complaining about the small salary and compensation they received each month. Official One thought they should get a raise of 50 percent at least. Official Two said he would be fine with 25 percent raise as long as the government withheld another 25 percent for his pension.

If you were to choose, which one would you pick? I would go with Official One. I want all my money and let me decide whether I would save and how much. Official Two is the type of person who thinks government would take care of him forever.

Econ101: Green Jobs

Worth reading, from Env-Econ blog.

De-blaming it on deregulation

Ever heard the tragedy of the commons, regulation edition? Here's one.

"We're so, so, so not deregulated. The institutions that are falling are some of the most heavily regulated in the world. Investment banks are regulated by the SEC, the Federal Trade Commission, state attorney generals, and state banking commissions. But too many regulators are as bad as no regulators -- none of them feels responsible since a failure can be blamed on all the others..."

That's Ken Kurson, writing in Esquire, this month issue.

Fuel subsidy and the fallacy of "harga keekonomian"

The government finally says that the current (subsidized) gasoline ("premium") price is at its "harga keekonomian". This term supposedly means economic price, though they might be thinking of economic cost. And in other occasions it is made parallel to market price. All associations are false, for reasons below. The government also says that as the consequence, it is time now to scrap the fuel from the subsidy list.

Let's start with the second one, the good one. That is, the plan to remove gasoline from subsidy list. This means -- and I think the government should really make it explicit -- that the price would follow directly from the market dynamics. Meaning, when it (the crude oil price) is down like now, the domestic gasoline also becomes cheaper. But, when it is up (and there is reason to be prepared that it might swing up again), the domestic price should also follow suit . Now, many people are of course happy with the reduced price. But I bet they won't accept a rise even when the market price is up (a parliamentarian's remarks in Kompas today is a case in point). That's the real challenge the government should tackle. Say it out loud: taking the fuel out from the list means exposing the people to the two sides of market price: up and down, not just the latter.

Why did I say this subsidy removal was good? For one, it would lessen the burden on the budget so there would be more resources to spend on more sensible posts, e.g. basic education, etc. Second, in the long run it will be good for the environment. If you just care about the environment, aiming for taxing fossil fuel consumption makes sense. Of course it's hard enough already to go that direction all the way from a subsidy regime. Scrapping the subsidy now opens the door to start, at least gradually, thinking about taxing the fossil fuel consumption for environment purposes (I say this as if we don't have a tax on fuel consumption; well we do, but in effect what we have been having thus far is a net subsidy). That way, you discourage pollution and encourage fuel efficiency and hopefully create incentives for the development of energy alternatives.

Now, why the notion "harga keekonomian", or more precisely the statement like "the current price has hit the harga keekonomian (as in economic price/economic cost)" is a fallacy?

First, what do they really mean by that term? An article in Kompas today (06/12/2008) spells that out quite helpfully. Assume the crude oil price is $46. The crude price would translate to Singaporean MOPS price of $56. This Mean of Platts Singapore (MOPS) is the assumed relevant price for fuel in the region, which is traditionally $10 higher than the "world" crude price quoted in, say, London. Presumably the $10 addition is to take care of production and transportation costs. Then Pertamina has its "magic alpha". This is an item that is supposed to cover procurement costs, operational costs, etc. It might also have some profit margin in it, and that is why I call it magic: it's never really clear how they got to decide the alpha -- now set at 9%. So now the MOPS plus alpha is $61.04 (never mind the small miscalculation by Kompas there, the idea remains). That translates into the fuel price of $0.38 per liter. Assuming you need Rp 12,000 for every dollar, that becomes Rp 4,607 per liter. Now, add the 10% value added tax and 5% vehicle fuel tax (this is the tax I was referring above). Finally you end up with Rp 5,321 per liter. Compared that to the current administered price of Rp 5,500. That is why many people demand more cut: after all, why fix a price above the "harga keekonomian"? (By the way, they seem to completely forget that they want just exactly the opposite for rice). What's wrong with this? The calculation above seems pretty straightforward and sensible, yes?

Except that it is not about economic price (or economic cost for that matter). It is accounting price. Everything under the term accounting price or costs can (and should) appear on the bookkeeping. But there is an implicit cost that one has to consider when referring to "market price", the price that matters. This implicit cost is the opportunity cost. It does not appear in the accounting report, but it should register in the head of every sane decision maker. What is it, really? Opportunity cost is the value of the next best alternative. Which is forgone for you have decided to do something else. Again, what is it, really? For simplicity, think about selling fuel at home or at neigbour across the street. By selling it at home, you forego selling it to the neighbour. This is good if the price at home is actually higher than the price there. But otherwise, you're making a loss -- well let me be precise: economic loss (even though you might !score an accounting profit!).

But why in the world do we care about economic costs? Because if you don't, the market will punish you: smuggling, black market, etc. We have news from Kalimantan already. Yes, economic price and hence market price is more difficult to measure, especially when the market itself is rather distorted. But if you insist that the current price is already at (or even above) the economic price, would you put your money where your mouth is? Because if it were true, you need not be worried at all. Just leave it, the price, free to float and see what you would actually pay at the gas station. After all what happens in Kalimantan (as well as the still ongoing smuggling in many places) is a litmus test to see whether or not we have really hit the market price. Maybe tomorrow, or next week, or never. But today, I am afraid we have not.

Vindicating news from Kalimantan

The Jakarta Post today (4/12/2008) reported:

The price of subsidized gasoline in the Kalimantan hinterlands hit a record Rp 20,000 (US$1.61) per liter as of Wednesday -- just three dyas after the central government dropped the official price to Rp 5,500 per liter from Rp 6,000.

Furthermore, the newspaper quoted a street gasoline seller:

It's very hard to get fuel out here these days...

And yet another one:

I don't know when this situation will end... So if you want to buy gasoline, that's the price, no less...

As I said, this all shouldn't be surprising.

And you say it's not enough.

Sorry, we're out

When the price of stuff you're selling is down by a commando not by demand shortage nor by excess supply, what do you do?

Depends. If you're a good citizen you sell dearly. If you're a tycoon, you don't really care. And if you're smart, you hide that stuff, sell it somewhere else, or sell something else.

Don't be surprised if following the government populist cut on the subsidized fuel, you find a long queue in the gas station. If you're not patient enough, turn to the the small vendors across the street. For a more expensive price.

And you say it's not even enough.

Madman, economist and growth

"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist"

That is Ken Boulding, as quoted by Barro in his growth econ textbook.

Better than Pirates of Caribbean

First, they overtook Arab Saudi. Then they were beaten by India. The world is getting more and more interesting.

Which one, really?

Magawati Soekarnoputri, the ex president (who was a lame duck but never let go) is running again. Today she has an advertisement in Kompas. It says the Megawati's 100 day program should she be elected would be focusing on providing cheap basic staples. Then there is a note in the bottom of the ad defining what it means by "cheap", namely: any increase in the staple food prices should not exceed the increase of people's income. That's easy: open up import. But then the ad also says: to control the prices so as not to burden farmers and fishermen.

Rotten tomato is not a fresh tomato

You wanted to get rid of your tomato. In fact you had to, given you were short of money. You met with a potential buyer. He agreed that he would buy your tomato. Then today you find out your tomato is rotten. You are now busy seeking help to make your tomato look fresh. So that the potential buyer would not back off.

That's what comes to my mind when I read this whole Bumi debacle.

Ideas and Warnings for G20 Leaders

I have read the VoxEU.org book for G20 leaders. It has important ideas as well as warnings for the upcoming meeting.

Many authors agree that the IMF should be reformed and its lending capacity should be boosted (Rodrik, Buiter, Rajan, Eichengreen, Ito, Dobson, Berglöf & Zettelmeyer). Some propose new global institutions like World Financial Organization in the image of WTO (Eichengreen; note: this is, however, is not a substitute for IMF), or International Bank Charter for the world's largest banks (Claessens). Park suggests to apply the East Asia's model of reserve pooling (SRPA, self-managed reserve pooling arrangement) to broader areas.

While coordination across countries is important, some authors warn against wasting time on trying to establish a grandiose global super-regulator (most notably Dobson and Gürkaynak, but also Buiter). But Buiter proposes a uniform global regulatory framework for rating agencies. Many of them are also worried about the rising protectionism (Rodrik, Zedillo -- the latter uses the opportunity to remind the importance of Doha). However, Calvo thinks capital control might be allowed, at least as the second best proposition (Rodrik is surprised).

They seem to agree with the need for well-targeted fiscal expansion (most notably Alesina & Tabellini, Spence, Buiter, Rodrik), but do not approve too much government intervention (most notably Dobson). Explicitly, Alesina & Tabellini do not want bailout for unproductive industries like autoindustry (i.e. GM in USA) or failing airlines in Italy.

Other proposals that directly reflect on the current financial meltdown include cutting interest rates (Alesina & Tabellini)*, removing mortgages from damaged balance sheets, resetting terms, limiting foreclosures, and evaluating collateralized and structured assets (Spence, to some extent Buiter), returning to narrow banking, i.e. choosing between commercial banking or investment banking (De Grauwe), improving surveillance mechanism and reinforcing liquidity support to small nations (Ito).

*) It is worth considering also that economists who are not in the book like Jim Hamilton and Krugman are skeptical about lowering interest rates.

So long, Glenn

Glenn was an ordinary, 40-something man. What made him special was his strong determination to study. About 3 years ago I interviewed him to become a student in our econ postgraduate program. I was very impressed by his eagerness to continue formal study, despite his age. Eventually the other two interviewers also liked him. He was admitted.

Since then he had taken some of my courses. He flunked some, but quickly enrolled again. He missed some classes but when he came he was always quiet and serious. He took notes diligently. I knew later that he had to miss those some classes because he was sick.

And yesterday I was shocked. Glenn Rasad, the student, passed away the night before. According to his fellow students, he had a heart attack. The class was mourning. We were all sad. Then a student showed me one of Glenn's text messages before he died:

"Walaupun nilai gua nggak bagus-bagus amat. Apa kata Tuhan dech. Gua tetap belajar sampai Dia nggak menghendaki lagi"

Let me translate:

"Even though my grades are not that great, I don't care. I'd leave them to God. What I want is to keep studying until He wants me to stop"

Glenn, I'm sure God decided to take you back so you could study more peacefully up there.

So long my friend.

Addendum: Mirna from the program updated me. Glenn Rasad was born  June 16, 1963 (so he was 45 when he died). Glenn went to Universitas Indonesia and got an undergraduate degree in electro-engineering in 1989, got an MBA from the same university in 2003, and until the day he died he was still registered as an active student in economic doctorate program (since 2004). This semester he was taking my advanced microeconomics course.

Book for the G20

VoxEU.org has just published an e-book containing essays from world leading economists as a food for thought for G20 leaders in their upcoming summit. The introduction by editors Barry Eichengreen and Richard Baldwin is here. This is the book.

HT: Hadi Soesatro.

Global currency? I don't think so

Berly Martawardaya offers a solution to the global economic crisis: global currency (The Jakarta Post, 11/11/2008). He calls it radical. I don't think it's radical; it's impossible, at least in our lifetime. He rightly says the road to get there is "long and arduous" but he goes on to argue that "the benefit is too great to ignore". I don't think so. If the benefit is great and exceeds its cost, we should have been there already. Now, even the most established currency union like that of euro has coordination problems. Every year since World War II one economy on average exits currency union (Rose, 2007). Most importantly, if you want a global currency, you need a global central bank. And that to be effective, you would need a global government (Rogoff, 2001). Which is silly. I think Berly knows this. He says "an intermediate step of regional currencies would be a wise path to take". But even that, I have big doubt. Friends at campus may have known by now that I'm always skeptical with the idea of Asian single currency. Not because it is a bad idea, but I don't think it would work. Wait, I think it's a bad idea, too.

On the 2 billion blanket guarantee

Initially I was skeptical with the government's increasing its blanket guarantee from Rp 100 million to just Rp 2 billion (instead of full guarantee). The reason is, the neighboring countries like Malaysia and Singapore do not impose a cap on their guarantee. So it is very likely that big businesses from Indonesia will fly their capital to Malaysia and Singapore. It is true that the government will not be able to bail out all banks once they go bankrupt (which means the government will have to return all money to each deposits). So a cap is justified. But then, it seems increasingly unlikely that people would rush banks at the same time. Similarly, I don't think banks will go bankrupt at the same time. So, even if the government removes the cap and hence provides 100% guarantee, they will not be drained out instantly.

But I'm changing my mind.

Reading the interviews of Kadin chief, MS Hidayat by The Jakarta Post today (10/11/2008) made me very uncomfortable. The business chamber is urging the government to give full guarantee, among other requests. And it sounds like a threat: that they will move their money away from the country if the government doesn't grant their wishes. Now, come to think of it, it has been awhile that Malaysian and Singapore announced their full guarantee while Indonesia keeps its Rp 2 billion cap. Yes, there maybe some capital flight already. But if Kadin's threat is all credible, they -- the businesses or depositors with money more than Rp 2 billion in banks, have surely all gone. Why haven't they?

The tone given in the interview is very familiar. This is what I'm afraid about the current financial fiasco: the rise of protectionism. Remember, Pak Hidayat is not just talking about blanket guarantee. The interview reveals all the usual suspects: import restriction, etc. And with threats. It is one thing to quietly respond to incentives. Threatening is quite another thing, especially when it is not credible.

I think the government should not listen to those threats. If big money is to fly away, so be it.

Addendum: The Jakarta Post's editorial today (11/11/2008) comes with the same tone, albeit more politely: "If, with all these safeguards [vigorous enforcement of good governance practices for banks, etc], the big depositors, estimated to be about 60,000, still intend to withdraw and invest their money overseas with much smaller returns -- only because of the absence of a blanket deposit scheme -- let them go".

Addendum 2: In the same issue of The Jakarta Post (11/11/2--8), Hartadi Sarwono, Bank Indonesia's deputy governor says that the full guarantee is not a bad idea. He says "A full guarantee does not mean that the guarantee will be executed..." Yes we know that, as I said above. But it strikes me that this statement comes from a ... top BI official! I wish they didn't give too many statements, especially if they are the ones who are supposed to be quiet.

So why the 10% threshold

It might or might not be true that there is no friction in the Cabinet, although it's hard to believe that a sane Minister of Finance bows down to a business interest of another minister. It might or might not be true that the suspension of the trading of particular stock is a common practice. But Vice President Kalla's arguments just don't add up. The 10% threshold for automatic suspension has already been installed. Any stock traded on the floor should be subject to it, without exception. So why do you still apply discretion on top of it? What is then the use of the 10% threshold?

Let's just hope things don't get uglier as Sri Mulyani is leaving for the G-20 meeting and Sofyan Djalil is taking over her position, ad interim.

Equality? What equality?

Kompas editorial today admits that the price of subsidized fuel is still below its economic price. But it quickly says that the pricing of domestic fuel should consider "fairness, equality, and responsibilty". Well that is exactly what you can achieve when the price is at its 'economic level'. The editorial accuses the government as being ambiguous. The same impression is exactly found in the editorial's tone.

As for the headline, Kompas reports that the government will also cut the price of subsidized diesel oil. It makes it even more obvious that the current administration is desperately seeking for popular votes using the oil politics.

A more rational way, albeit unpopular would be to announce that the government will let the domestic price follow the world market price. In fact this time is very apt to do it, as the price trend is on the decreasing path. However the public should be made fully aware that when the price increases, the domestic price will follow suit. In other words, no more subsidy. And headache.

Lower fuel price?

According to the news, the government will cut the price of subsidized fuel in response to the lower world oil price, effective December. As I wrote before, there is no economic justification to this populist policy since even with the current world price the subsidized fuel is still cheaper. The main objective of cutting the subsidy was to move domestic price closer to the international price so as to discourage smuggling and illegal mixing of gasoline and kerosene. So lower world price is good when you can't increase the domestic price. In addition, the subsidy thus far has been benefitting the wrong target, i.e the richer. So again, the rationale of the policy to reduce the price seems to lie completely on politcs. The election is coming, that is.

Random Crosschecking: Obama to Indonesia

In Kompas today.

Aviliani says if Obama cuts on military agression, the US budget deficit will improve. That in turns might reduce its import on oil and therefore oil price will be more stable. I think the opposite. If Obama withdraws his soldiers, yes budget improves. But it will not reduce the US demand for imported oil. It might even increase it.

A. Tony Prasetiantono says Indonesia might benefit from Obama being the US President if the US treats us like what they did to Mexico to help the latter cope up with the 1994-95 crisis. Somebody needs to tell Tony the real meaning of incentives. And yes he should read that Rubin book about what really happened in the White House at that time. The administration would not have helped Mexico if the US stake there were not that high.

Finally, A. Prasetyantoko thinks the economists who formulated Obama's econ plan are Volcker, Summers, and Rubin. I don't know if Pras confuses Clinton and Obama. But Obama's economists are Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman.

UMKM Info

New definitons according to the Law 20/2008 on Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (UMKM). "Micro": non-land assets up to Rp 50 million and sales up to Rp 300 million per year. "Small": assets from Rp 50-500 million and sales Rp 300-2,500 million. "Medium": assets Rp 500-10,000 million and sales Rp 2,500-50,000 million

TKI/TKW Facts

Total remittance from Indonesian migrant workers now reaches Rp 60 trillions (USD 6 billion) per year. Everyday 2,000 workers leave Indonesia for work abroad. Average salary of Indonesian helpers in Hongkong is Rp 10 million per month with insurance up to Rp 135 million.