Mengenai Saya

Foto saya

Seiring sejalan maju bersama DR Francis Wahono, DR Banawiratmo, Drs Guido Suko Purwanto, Ir Salmah Dwi Prapti, Keman, Swasono, Ant. Gatot Wasito,  Windarno.
Dengan mitra-mitra ahli FX Bambang Kuss dan Marsen Sinaga serta relawan Hani Wijaya..

Bekerja di bidang proses-proses sosial yang menghargai martabat dan hak-hak dasar manusia serta adil dan damai, mempertahankan dan memajukan ekologi, mengembangkan ekonomi kerakyatan dan manajemen yang bertanggungjawab dan berkelanjutan dalam pembangunan bangsa dan tanah air menuju kesejahteraan umum.

Jumat, 22 Maret 2013

Selintas Pandang Perkembangan Pengeluaran Bantuan Sosial (Social Assistance)

Dalam Anggaran Program dan Implementasi Pengentasan Kemiskinan

[Narasi gambaran berikut dipetik dari hasil pengamatan SMERU dan Kantor Bank Dunia Jakarta, Indonesia]

Social Assistance (SA) are here defined as noncontributory cash or in-kind transfer programs targeted in some manner to the poor or vulnerable. Indonesia does not have a SA sector per se, but the Government of Indonesia (GOI) articulates its poverty alleviation strategy around three “clusters” (where households, communities, and micro-enterprises are targeted); the first pillar (households) is roughly equivalent to the definition of SA used in this report. No official budget category meets either the SA definition used here or the defi nition of the GOI’s first poverty reduction cluster. Economic classifications in Indonesia’s budget expenditures include a “social assistance“ category which is used broadly and includes a wide array of social spending in areas such as education, health, agriculture, industry and disaster relief. Functional classifications of Indonesia’s budget expenditures include a “social protection” category which is used narrowly and consists mainly of initiatives at Kemensos (Kementerian Sosial, Ministry of Social Affairs).

This report aggregrates identifiable SA expenditures and examines the total as if it were a standalone sector and budget item. At the central government level, eight major SA programs as well as remaining Kemensos and minor social protection expenditures are aggregated to create total SA expenditure. At the subnational level, where budget data is more limited, the functional classification “social protection” expenditures are used as a proxy for aggregate SA expenditures.

Public expenditure on household-based social assistance (SA) in Indonesia has increased significantly since 2005. From a low base in the early 2000s, Indonesia’s aggregate national public expenditures on SA permanently increased from 2005 after the central government allocated a portion of the savings from fuel subsidy reforms to a number of SA initiatives. In 2010, national expenditures on SA are estimated at Rp 29,709 billion (US$ 3.3 billion), equivalent to 2.6 percent of total national expenditures and 0.5 percent of GDP.

Indonesia’s strong fiscal position leaves Indonesia well placed to further increase SA expenditures. Declining debt payments and subsidy reductions have opened up fiscal space over the past decade and supported a general increase in social sector and SA spending. With debt-to-GDP of just 25 percent in 2010, Indonesia could further increase expenditure on both items without raising debt levels.

Nonetheless, current expenditures on SA are dwarfed by spending on regressive energy subsidies which in some years consume over 20 percent of total national expenditures. Subsidies’ high costs and poor targeting are well known and the current Indonesian Administration has more than once signaled its intention to reduce energy subsidy spending, but reform is currently stalled. Progress on subsidy reform would further strengthen Indonesia’s fi scal position and enhance its capacity to increase expenditures on more targeted SA programs.

The increase in spending after 2005 primarily refl ects greater central government investment in programs to protect poor households from fuel and food shocks as well as large health and education expenses. The central government is the dominant player in the SA sector, accounting for almost 90 percent of total expenditures. In years when the government has increased regulated fuel prices (2005-06 and 2008-09), the largest compensatory SA response has been an unconditional cash transfer program (BLT) to vulnerable households to help cushion them from the inflationary shock.

Outside of these years, a rice program for the poor (Raskin) consumes over half of total SA expenditures, followed by a health insurance program for the poor (Jamkesmas, 18 percent of expenditures), a scholarship program for poor students (BSM, 14 percent), a conditional cash transfer (PKH, 4 percent) and programs for especially vulnerable groups (2 percent). Responsibility for executing these programs is shared by six central institutions, while remaining central SA expenditures are highly fragmented and are distributed across 12 Ministries, 12 programs and 87 activities.

The central government has increased expenditures on many programs with poverty alleviation and social protection goals like community driven development and social insurance for civil servants. The central government has also been increasing its expenditures on Indonesia’s national poverty reduction program (PNPM), which promotes community development and funds rural investment projects and other poverty programs which lie outside of the SA sector. In 2010, the central government also spent at estimated Rp 54,326 billion on social insurance, equivalent to 7.7 percent of total central government expenditures and 0.8 percent of GDP, mainly to cover the pensions and health premiums of civil servants. Overall, the central government now spends 1.3 percent of GDP on social protection, of which around one-third goes to SA and two-thirds to social insurance.

Subnational governments allocate a small amount of SA resources, primarily for staff salaries and general administration in support of centrally-fi nanced and centrally-designed programs. Local governments account for just over 10 percent of national SA expenditures, a majority of which is executed by district governments. While little is known about the composition or impacts of this expenditure, case studies indicate that districts have few discretionary resources and spend most of their SA budgets on administration and salaries to support central government programs.

Responsibility executing SA funds is shared by six key institutions; Kemensos executes only a minor share of total spending. Responsibility for executing the bulk of SA spending is shared by: Bulog (which is responsible for Raskin), the Kementerian Kesehatan or Kemenkes, Ministry of Health (Jamkesmas), the Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan or Kemdikbudor Kemdiknas, Ministry of National Education (BSM for secular school students), the Kementerian Agama or Kemenag, Ministry of Religious Affairs (BSM for religious school students) and Kemensos (PKH, BLT and initiatives for especially vulnerable groups). In 2010, Kemensos executed just 14 percent of total central government SA expenditures.

Outside of the major programs and agencies, remaining SA expenditures are highly fragmented and are shared by 12 Ministries, 12 programs and 87 activities. The bulk of the remaining SA expenditures are executed by Kemensos and consist of 37 very small (in terms of both expenditure and coverage in the population) social protection activities, grouped under 8 programs, together with requisite salary and administrative costs. After that, SA expenditures are divided between 50 additional very small social protection activities, grouped under 14 programs and spread across 11 Ministries. The average budget allocation for these remaining 87 activities is just Rp 20 billion (US$ 2 million) and most of the activities outside of Kemensos are significantly smaller.

Sub-national governments have offi cial responsibilities for social welfare; nonetheless it is estimated they execute just 12 percent of national expenditures on SA, though information and data on programs and expenditure is extremely limited. Law 32/2004 on local government gives to provinces and districts responsibility for social welfare of all residents and local authorities are expected to have more comprehensive knowledge regarding the local nature of poverty and impoverished households. Local governments also have some fl exibility to adjust implementation of SA programs to reflect local preferences. However, very little is known about local SA program expenditure while detailed sub-national expenditure data remains difficult to access, making analysis challenging especially for relatively small sectors like SA. This section makes some progress in understanding provincial- and district level SA expenditure through analysis of aggregate data and select case studies.

Sub-national social protection expenditures have been rising steadily from a low base; district governments account for a slight majority of spending. At the subnational level, the functional budget category “social protection” (SP) is used to approximate aggregate SA expenditures. From a relatively low base, these expenditures have been steadily rising in real terms but still represent a small share of total sub-national expenditures and a small share of GDP. In 2007, the last year for which actual realized expenditure data is currently available, sub-national expenditures amounted to Rp 2,200 billion, equivalent to 0.8 percent of total sub-national expenditures and 0.1 percent of GDP. District governments execute just over 60 percent of this expenditure, with the rest executed by provincial governments.

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar