Peran Orientasi Perdagangan dalam Pertumbuhan Ekonomi

Orientasi perdagangan dapat dibedakan menjadi dua jenis, yaitu orientasi ke luar dan orientasi ke dalam. Orientasi ke luar mendorong ekonomi yang terbuka, perdagangan bebas, dan investasi asing, sedangkan orientasi ke dalam mengandalkan proteksionisme dan keterlibatan asing yang terbatas. Bank Dunia mendefinisikan orientasi perdagangan berdasarkan indikator seperti tingkat perlindungan efektif dan insentif ekspor. Negara-negara yang berorientasi ke luar memiliki performa yang lebih baik karena keterbukaan dan pertumbuhan ekspornya, sementara kebijakan yang berorientasi ke dalam menghambat pertumbuhan dan ekspor. Negara-negara berkembang sebaiknya mengurangi perlindungan, menurunkan tarif impor, dan menggunakan subsidi untuk sektor manufaktur. Promosi ekspor dianggap lebih baik daripada substitusi impor, dan perdagangan dipandang sebagai mesin pertumbuhan. Hubungan antara ekspor dan pertumbuhan ekonomi saling tergantung, dan bukti empiris mendukung efek positif ekspor terhadap pertumbuhan, terutama di negara-negara maju. Negara-negara yang berorientasi ke luar mengalami pertumbuhan ekonomi yang lebih tinggi, dan studi menunjukkan pentingnya perdagangan bebas dalam merangsang pertumbuhan. Implikasi teoritis mengenai orientasi perdagangan dan pertumbuhan ekonomi masih belum pasti, namun model-model menunjukkan bahwa keterbukaan memiliki efek positif terhadap pertumbuhan. Perlindungan perdagangan tidak merangsang pertumbuhan dan dapat merugikan pertumbuhan secara global. Pertumbuhan ekonomi awalnya menyebabkan ketimpangan yang meningkat, namun orientasi ke luar dapat mengurangi kesenjangan pendapatan. Ekspansi ekspor berkontribusi pada pengurangan kesenjangan, dan promosi ekspor memiliki efek yang lebih egaliter terhadap distribusi pendapatan. Faktor-faktor seperti distorsi pasar faktor dan nilai tukar lebih berpengaruh terhadap distribusi pendapatan daripada komposisi komoditas. Pendidikan menengah menjadi penentu utama ketimpangan pendapatan, dan distribusi pendapatan yang lebih merata terkait dengan pertumbuhan ekonomi yang lebih tinggi. Perdagangan bebas dan peningkatan pendidikan mendukung kesetaraan dan pertumbuhan ekonomi.

Hubungan Antara Orientasi Perdagangan dan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi

Orientasi perdagangan yang melibatkan keterbukaan ekonomi, perdagangan bebas, dan investasi asing memiliki peran yang penting dalam mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi. Negara-negara yang mengadopsi orientasi ke luar umumnya mengalami pertumbuhan ekonomi yang lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan negara-negara yang lebih cenderung melindungi pasar domestik mereka. Hal ini dapat diamati melalui pertumbuhan ekspor yang kuat dan penerimaan investasi asing yang signifikan.

Perdagangan internasional yang bebas mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi dengan beberapa cara. Pertama, dengan membuka pasar domestik untuk produk dan jasa dari negara lain, negara dapat memanfaatkan keunggulan komparatif mereka dan meningkatkan efisiensi dalam produksi. Ini dapat mengarah pada peningkatan produktivitas dan daya saing sektor industri nasional.

Selanjutnya, orientasi ke luar juga mendorong inovasi dan transfer teknologi. Ketika perusahaan dalam negeri terlibat dalam perdagangan internasional, mereka terhubung dengan jaringan global dan dapat mengakses pengetahuan dan teknologi terkini. Hal ini memungkinkan mereka untuk meningkatkan kualitas produk, memperbaiki proses produksi, dan menciptakan produk baru yang lebih inovatif. Dalam jangka panjang, inovasi dan transfer teknologi ini dapat mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi yang berkelanjutan.

Perdagangan internasional yang lebih terbuka juga memberikan kesempatan bagi negara-negara untuk memperluas pasar mereka. Dengan meningkatnya ekspor, negara dapat meningkatkan pendapatan dan menciptakan lapangan kerja baru. Ini akan membantu mengurangi tingkat pengangguran, meningkatkan kesejahteraan masyarakat, dan mengurangi kemiskinan.

Implikasi Teoritis dan Bukti Empiris

Meskipun implikasi teoritis mengenai orientasi perdagangan dan pertumbuhan ekonomi masih diperdebatkan, banyak bukti empiris yang mendukung hubungan positif antara keterbukaan perdagangan dan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Studi-studi empiris menunjukkan bahwa negara-negara yang mengadopsi kebijakan perdagangan yang lebih terbuka cenderung mengalami pertumbuhan ekonomi yang lebih tinggi dalam jangka panjang. Mereka memiliki tingkat produktivitas yang lebih tinggi, lebih banyak melakukan inovasi, dan memiliki akses yang lebih baik ke teknologi terkini. Negara-negara dengan orientasi ke luar juga cenderung menerima lebih banyak investasi asing langsung yang dapat memberikan tambahan modal dan pengetahuan bagi pengembangan sektor industri nasional.

Perlu diingat bahwa orientasi ke luar tidak secara otomatis menjamin pertumbuhan ekonomi yang berkelanjutan. Faktor-faktor lain seperti stabilitas politik, kebijakan makroekonomi yang mendukung, pengembangan infrastruktur, dan kualitas lembaga juga berperan penting dalam menopang pertumbuhan ekonomi jangka panjang.

Kontribusi Perdagangan terhadap Pengurangan Ketimpangan Pendapatan

Selain dampaknya terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi, perdagangan internasional juga memiliki implikasi bagi ketimpangan pendapatan. Beberapa penelitian menunjukkan bahwa orientasi ke luar dapat berkontribusi pada pengurangan kesenjangan pendapatan.

Ekspansi ekspor dapat menciptakan lapangan kerja baru dan meningkatkan pendapatan masyarakat. Dalam jangka panjang, ini dapat mengurangi kesenjangan pendapatan antara kelompok masyarakat yang lebih tinggi dan yang lebih rendah. Selain itu, promosi ekspor juga berpotensi menciptakan peluang ekonomi yang lebih merata di berbagai wilayah dalam suatu negara.

Pengurangan ketimpangan pendapatan tidak hanya tergantung pada orientasi perdagangan semata. Faktor-faktor lain seperti distorsi pasar faktor, kebijakan pendistribusian pendapatan yang adil, dan akses yang merata terhadap layanan pendidikan dan kesehatan juga berperan penting dalam mencapai kesetaraan pendapatan yang lebih baik.

Kesimpulan

Orientasi perdagangan yang berfokus pada keterbukaan ekonomi, perdagangan bebas, dan investasi asing memiliki peran yang signifikan dalam mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi. Negara-negara yang mengadopsi kebijakan yang mendukung perdagangan internasional yang lebih terbuka cenderung mengalami pertumbuhan ekonomi yang lebih tinggi dalam jangka panjang. Selain itu, perdagangan internasional juga dapat berkontribusi pada pengurangan ketimpangan pendapatan melalui penciptaan lapangan kerja baru dan peningkatan pendapatan masyarakat.

Orientasi perdagangan hanyalah salah satu faktor yang memengaruhi pertumbuhan ekonomi. Faktor-faktor lain seperti stabilitas politik, kebijakan makroekonomi yang tepat dan efektif, pengembangan infrastruktur, dan kualitas lembaga juga perlu diperhatikan. Dalam rangka mencapai pertumbuhan ekonomi yang inklusif dan berkelanjutan, penting bagi negara-negara untuk mengadopsi kebijakan yang komprehensif dan menyeluruh, serta mempertimbangkan berbagai aspek yang saling terkait.

Trade Orientation & Income Distribution: Concluding Remarks

    The type of trade orientation is determined by the degree of openness a country adopts. In strongly outward oriented countries, the degree of openness is the highest. The next highest degree of openness is found in moderately outward oriented countries. Inward oriented countries have a lower degree of openness than outward oriented countries. The lowest degree of openness is found in strongly inward oriented countries. The degree of openness goes up as countries shift from strongly inward to strongly outward oriented strategies.
   The experience of newly industrializing countries show the superiority of more outward oriented strategies over more inward oriented strategies. More outward oriented countries show a better performance in exports, economic growth, and industrial development. This tendency convinced many developing countries that a more outward oriented trade strategy is more beneficial than a more inward oriented trade strategy. It is believed that the superior performance of an outward oriented trade strategy is not limited to economic growth, but also extends to a better income distribution.
   From the perspective of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, when labor abundant countries implement a more outward oriented trade strategy, the share of labor in total income will rise. Also when tariff protection is imposed on imports, the production of importables is expected to increase. In labor abundant countries, the production of importables typically does not use labor intensive production technologies. Therefore, the reward to the abundant factor will decrease, and instead the reward to the scarce factor will increase, as a result of tariff protection. Thus income distribution will change in favor of the scarce factor in response to tariff protection. In other words, freer trade, which is associated with outward orientation, will change income distribution in favor of the abundant factor.
   The Stolper-Samuelson theorem basically explains the effect of trade policy on functional income distribution. This explanation is limited to how changes in trade policy will affect changes in income distribution between capital and labor. In itself, this explanation does not cover how changes in trade policy will affect income distribution between upper and lower classes in the society. The belief that inequality will decrease with more outward oriented trade strategies is mainly based on the experience of newly industrializing countries. These countries are implementing outward oriented trade strategies which are accompanied by an improvement in personal income distribution. While empirical evidence explaining the relationship between trade orientation and personal income distribution is still scarce, the interest of developing countries in shifting their trade strategy from inward orientation to outward orientation is growing.  
   This study has analyzed the relationship between trade orientation and income distribution in a cross-section of 34 developing countries. By using income distribution data for the 1980s from those countries, this study has tested the hypothesis that an increase in outward orientation in the economy will improve income distribution. In addition to trade policy variables, this study has also examined the effect of income per capita, investment rate, and educational variables on income distribution.
   The results of this study show that the relationship between income per capita and inequality tend to resemble the pattern established in Kuznets’ relationship. Income per capita shows a positive effect on inequality at the initial stage of development. The relationship between income per capita and inequality turns negative at later stages of development. Initially, there is a tendency for the income share of the bottom 40 per cent to drop as income per capita increases. This negative relationship continues up to a certain level of income per capita. When this level of income per capita is reached, there is a positive relationship between income share of the bottom 40 per cent and income per capita. However, the relationship is not statistically significant. The use of Gini coefficient as a dependent variable also shows the pattern established by Kuznets which in this case is also not statistically significant.
   This study also found that the investment rate is associated positively with the upper income classes’income share. An increased investment rate is associated with an increased share of the upper income classes. The effect of investment rate on lower income classes is the opposite. An increased investment rate is accompanied by a reduced share of the lower income classes. This negative relationship between investment rate and equality reflects the underlying relationship between saving and income inequality. The upper income classes tends to save more than the lower income classes. Higher income inequality is favorable for higher saving rate. Because the investment rate is influenced by the saving rate, the negative relationship between income distribution and investment rate results from high income inequality leading to high investment.
   The negative relationship between investment rate and equality might also reflect the effect of labor saving technology introduced in the developing economies. An increase in investment due to the introduction of labor saving technology tend to reduce the demand for labor. This will increase the marginal productivity of labor. Increased marginal productivity of labor due to increased investment goes to the owner of capital rather than goes to labor. Saving out of capital income tends to be higher than saving out of labor income. This tendency deteriorates personal income distribution rather than improves it.
   The effects of the educational variables available on income distribution are ambiguous. The secondary education enrollment ratio shows a positive association with the share of lower income classes and a negative association with that of upper income classes. Increased secondary school enrollment ratio tends to reduce inequality. The relationship between secondary school enrollment ratio and inequality is statistically significant. This relationship is consistent with the results reported by other studies (Papanek and Kyn, 1984; Bourguignon and Morrison 1990). In contrast, the mean years of schooling are found to have a positive effect on income inequality in the sample. Increased mean year of schooling raises the share of the upper income classes. At the same time, it also reduces the share of the lower income classes. The negative relationship between income distribution and mean years of schooling may reflect the differential access between the upper income classes and the lower income classes to get benefit from higher levels of education. Generally, the upper income classes respond faster to increased opportunity for higher education than the lower income classes. Usually increased opportunity for higher education occurs at the expense of primary and secondary education.
   This study has attempted to analyze the relationship between trade orientation and income distribution. The results show that outward orientation is positively associated with equality in income distribution. An increase in the degree of outward orientation will reduce income inequality by increasing the share of the lower income classes relative to the share of the higher income classes. It is found that the income share of the bottom 20 per cent and of the bottom 40 per cent of the population increases in response to a reduction in real exchange rate distortion. In other words, an increase in the degree of outward orientation will raise income share of the bottom 20 per cent and of the bottom 40 per cent. To the contrary, the income share of the top 20 per cent of the population decreases as countries become more outward-oriented. Income inequality drops when countries shift their trade strategy from an inward-oriented to an outward-oriented one. This equalizing effect of outward orientation is statistically significant. These findings provide strong support to the existing evidence which showed that income distribution is better at lower levels of trade protection (Bourguignon and Morrison, 1990).
   The equalizing effect of outward orientation is also found when individual dummy variables for trade orientation are introduced into the model. The analysis shows that inequality is the lowest in countries adopting a strongly outward oriented strategy. In countries adopting a strongly inward oriented strategy, inequality is the highest. Inequality in countries adopting a moderately inward oriented strategy is lower than in countries adopting a moderately outward oriented strategy. Inequality in countries adopting a moderate orientation is higher than inequality in countries adopting a strongly outward oriented strategy, but it is lower than inequality in strongly inward oriented countries. However, it is only the effect of strongly outward oriented strategy that is statistically significant.
   The use of two stage regression analysis does not change the conclusion derived from the ordinary regression results. An equalizing effect of outward oriented strategy is maintained. The income share of the bottom 20 per cent of the population increases in response to a decrease in real exchange rate distortion or an increase in the degree of openness. The response is statistically significant at the 10 per cent level. Similarly, the second 20 per cent of the population responds positively to a reduced real exchange rate distortion. The response of the second 20 per cent of the population is statistically significant at the 5 per cent level. The real exchange rate distortion does not show a significant effect on income share of the top 20 per cent of the population. A similar result is also noticed from the effect of real exchange rate distortion on income share of the third 20 per cent and of the fourth 20 per cent of the population. However, these results still suggest that lower distortion in real exchange rates is favorable to equality.
   In the two stage least squares regression analysis, investment rate, INVRATE, is treated as an endogenous variable. It is found that the effect of investment rate on income inequality is slightly reduced. However, the results still show that investment rate is positively related to the share of the upper income classes. Again, the positive relationship between investment rate and income inequality reflects the hypothesis that income inequality affects the investment rate through the saving rate.  
   In addition to the analysis of a cross-section of developing countries, this study has also examined the relationship between trade variables and income distribution in Indonesia. Initially, the country implemented an outward-looking trade strategy  until 1973. The strategy then shifted to an inward-looking one which was in place until 1985. Since 1985 Indonesia has shifted her trade strategy from an inward-looking to an outward-looking one. It is believed that changes in trade strategy have a significant impact on economic growth performance and inequality in income distribution.
   By using data from a cross-section of 26 provinces in Indonesia, this study has examined the effect of outward oriented trade strategy on inequality. Inequality is defined by expenditure distribution and labor income distribution. The assumption is made that the larger the ratio of exports to output, the more outward oriented is an economy. This study has used the log of total exports to output ratio, and the log of non-oil exports to non-oil income ratio. Outward orientation is measured by the ratio of exports to output. The study sample consists of 26 provinces in Indonesia between 1982 and 1990. Income distribution is measured by the share of income of the bottom 40 per cent, middle 40 per cent, and top 20 per cent of the population, the ratio of the top 20 per cent to the bottom 40 per cent, and the Gini coefficient. Outward orientation, income per capita, employment, and secondary education are used to explain variations in inequality.
   The effect of income per capita does not resemble the pattern of Kuznets’inverted-U curve relationship. The share of the lower income classes initially increases in response to an increase in income per capita. The relationship between the share of the lower income classes and income per capita turned from positive to negative when income per capita increased further. This pattern of relationship between income per capita and inequality is found when using the SUSENAS data for 1982 and 1984. When the SUSENAS expenditure data for 1990 are used, a similar pattern of relationship is also found. In contrast, a Kuznets type of relationship is found between income per capita and inequality when the SUSENAS labor income data for 1990 are used. However, none of these results is statistically significant.
   The labor force participation rate shows a tendency to have an equalizing effect. The income share of lower income classes is positively associated with an increase in labor participation rate, while that of the higher income classes is negatively associated with it. The opposite associations between the income classes will result in a reduced level of inequality. This equalizing effect is weak and statistically insignificant before 1985. The effect of labor force participation rate in 1980, LFPR80, on inequality in 1982 and 1984 is not statistically significant. After 1985 the equalizing effect shows a mixed result. The effect of labor force participation rate in 1990, LFPR90, on inequality in expenditure distribution in 1990 is still not significant statistically. However, the relationship between LFPR90 and inequality in labor income distribution in 1990 shows an equalizing effect which is statistically significant. An increase in labor force participation rate leads to a reduction in inequality.
   The relationship between secondary school education and income distribution mostly shows an equalizing effect. The share of lower income classes will increase, while the share of higher income classes falls, in response to an increase in secondary school education. The equalizing effect of secondary school education in 1971, SSENROL71, is found when the relationship is observed from with labor income distribution in 1982. The effect of secondary school education is anti-equalizing between secondary school education and inequality in the 1984 expenditure distribution. However, none of these results is statistically significant.
   In contrast, analysis relating secondary school education in 1980, SSENROL80, to labor income distribution in 1990 shows that secondary education has a strong equalizing effect. An increase in SSENROL80 will increase the income share of the bottom 40 per cent of the population. A similar effect is also found on the income share of the middle 40 per cent of the population. On the other hand, an increase in SSENROL80 will reduce the income share of the top 20 per cent of the population. Therefore, an increase in secondary school education will lead to a reduction in inequality. This equalizing effect is statistically significant. The equalizing effect of SSENROL80 is stronger when total exports, LNXYTOT87, is used rather than non-oil exports, LNXYNOIL87, in the regression equations. This result is consistent with the significant role of government expenditure in secondary education which is influenced by the growth in oil revenue. Since oil sectors are owned by the government, oil revenue affects inequality through budget allocations from the central to the provincial governments.
   Export expansion shows an equalizing effect. An increase in the ratio of exports to regional gross domestic products is positively associated with the income share of the bottom 40 per cent, and the income share of the middle 40 per cent. In contrast, an increase in the ratio of exports to regional domestic products is negatively associated with the income share of the top 20 per cent. A negative relationship is also found between the ratio of exports to regional gross domestic products and the ratio of the top 20 per cent to the bottom 40 per cent. The equalizing effect of export expansion is also supported by a negative relationship between the ratio of exports to regional gross domestic products and Gini coefficients.
   In addition, the equalizing effect of export expansion is found to be larger and stronger in labor income distribution than in expenditure distribution. There is also a tendency for the equalizing effect of export expansion to increase through time. The equalizing effect of export expansion is found to be larger and stronger for 1990 than for 1982 and 1984. Non-oil export expansion also tends to show a larger and stronger equalizing effect than total export expansion.
   Developing countries adopt an inward-oriented trade strategy   at the lower stage of development. At this stage, an increase in income per capita is associated with higher inequality. When the process of economic development enters a higher stage, developing countries shift from an inward-oriented trade strategy to an outward-oriented trade strategy. An increase in income per capita is associated with lower inequality in countries which adopt an outward-oriented trade strategy. Since lower inequality leads to political stability which is necessary for investment, lower inequality is favorable for economic growth (Perotti, 1992; Alesina and Perotti, 1993; Persson and Tabellini, 1994). Outward orientation is also favorable for economic growth (Leamer, 1988, 1992; Greenway and Nam, 1988; Colombatto, 1992; Edwards, 1992; Dollar, 1992). This study found that outward orientation is positively associated with lower inequality. An outward oriented strategy leads to a positive relationship between income per capita and equality at the lower stage of development, and  it strengthens the relationship at the higher stage of development. These results sugggest that a more outward oriented trade strategy seems to be appropriate for developing countries which are attempting to achieve higher economic growth with equity. An outward oriented strategy develops the economy on the basis of comparative advantage. Equity aspects of education policy should be consistent with outward oriented trade strategy. Because more equalized educational advantage will help improve the quality of labor which is the source of comparative advantage in developing countries. The equalizing effect of secondary school enrollment ratio strengthens the necessity to emphasize the equity aspects of the human resource development programs in developing countries.
   The empirical results of the Indonesian case study also led support to outward oriented strategy and equity in educational programs. Expansion of export, particularly non-oil export expansion, in Indonesia since 1985 is considered as the consequence of outward oriented strategy. The increase in the level of secondary school enrollment ratio since 1980 is certainly the product of education equity in the Indonesia’s human resource development programs. The improved level of education has also contributed to improve Indonesia’s comparative advantage in non-oil exports, particularly manufactured exports.
   This study is based on cross-section data of income distribution in developing countries. The quality of income distribution data varies across countries.  Some data are based on expenditure distribution, and some others are based on income distribution. The time reference of the available data is also diverse. It is almost impossible to pick up sufficient number of sample countries for one time reference, particularly in the period after 1980. In addition, the sample selection of income distribution data is also constrained by the measures for trade orientation which are available only for periods before 1985. Moreover, these measures are not available for every country for years which can match the available data on income distribution.
   In the case study of Indonesia, the income distribution data is relatively better than the cross countries data. Despite the limited coverage of data for income distribution, the inequality data is available for homogenous time reference and sampling sources. However, like the cross countries data, the Indonesian income distribution data is also available only for particular years across provinces. Although the ratio of exports to output represents the degree of comparative advantage rather than trade orientation, it is the best available device to measure the degree of outward orientation across provinces in Indonesia.  A work on the calculation of trade orientation index based on time series data of exchange rate distortion should be started in Indonesia. Further research should focus on the effect of trade orientation on income distribution of individual developing countries through time. This type of study should also cover the impact of trade orientation on functional income distribution, particularly labor with which developing countries abundantly endowed.
                                                                                                                                

  

Kemiskinan

Apa pemicu turunya jumlah orang miskin?

Jumlah penduduk miskin di Indonesia hingga Maret 2017 mencapai 27,77juta orang. Orang miskin di perdesaan mencapai 17,1 juta, sedangkan di perkotaan mencapai 10,67juta.  Garis kemiskinan yang dipakai untuk menetapkan jumlah orang miskin adalah Rp 385.621 diperkotaan dan Rp 361.496 di perdesaan.  Apakah jumlah penduduk miskin bertambah atau berkurang? Tergantung dari mana kita mulai melihat angkanya sebagai perbandingan. Kalau kita lihat mulai dari bulan Maret 2011, maka kesimpulannya jumlah orang miskin menurun dari angka 30,02juta orang. Kemiskinan penduduk perkotaan telah turun dari angka 11,05juta orang, sedang kemiskinan penduduk perdesaan telah turun dari angka 18,97juta orang. Garis kemiskinan pada bulan Maret 2011 hanya Rp253.016 untuk daerah perkotaan dan Rp213.395 untuk daerah perdesaan.

Kalau kita pakai garis kemiskinan bulan Maret 2017 untuk mengukur jumlah penduduk miskinan pada bulan Maret 2011, kita akan menemukan jumlah penduduk miskin yang akan jauh melampaui angka 30juta orang. Dengan angka ini berarti jumlah penduduk miskin hingga Maret 2017 sudah mengalami penuruan pesat sekali.  Hal yang sama bisa pula kita dapatkan dengan memakai garis kemiskinan bulan Maret 2011 untuk mengukur jumlah orang miskin hingga bulan Maret 2017. Dengan garis kemiskinan yang jauh lebih rendah, kita akan mendapatkan angka jumlah orang miskinan yang jauh lebih rendah dari 27juta orang.

Apakah orang miskin bertambah atau berkurang dalam periode Maret 2011-Maret 2017? Faktanya berkurang. Ini gambaran makro angka kemiskinan yang bisa saja berlawanan dengan fakta kehidupan ekonomi rumah tangga yang kita terus amati.  Mungkin yang perlu kita cari tahu adalah apa kebijakan pemerintah yang telah menurunkan angka kemiskinan itu? Apakah karena kesempatan kerja bertambah pesat dengan upah riil yang meningkat? Apakah akibat kesempatan berusaha yang makin baik sehingga menghasilkan bisnis yang makin menguntungkan, terutama pada lapisan bisnis mikro dan para petani, peternak, dan nelayan yang miskin modal? Apa yang telah menyebabkan kemiskinan turun secara absolut yang sangat pesat itu? Siapa bisa menjelaskan?

Redenominasi Rupiah

 

Apakah Relevan Buat Penguatan Ekonomi Bangsa?

 

Oleh

 

Syafruddin Karimi

Universitas Andalas

Redenominasi rupiah yang sedang digagas adalah menjadikan mata uang dengan denominasi Rp 1.000 menjadi mata uang dengan denominasi Rp 1. Dengan lebih sederhana redenominasi rupiah bermakna bahwa nilai mata uang lama Rp 1.000 akan memiliki nilai sebanyak Rp 1 mata uang baru. Harga barang akan mengalami perubahan yang proporsional. Pada rupiah lama sebuah barang berharga Rp 1.000, maka pads rupiah baru barang yang sama akan berharga Rp 1 baru. Intinya mata uang rupiah yang sekarang hilang 3 digit nol, balk yang tertulis di mata uang maupun yang tertulis pada label harga barang. Mana yang lebih baik dan lebih menguntungkan? Jawabnya adalah mana yang lebih baik 1 ton atau 1.000 kg? Jawabnya sama: 1 ton sama dengan 1.000kg. Kira kira begitu makna sederhanya redenominasi rupiah yang sedang digagas pemerintah bersama DPR .

Dengan redenominasi, secara teoritis semua nilai nilai nominal barang dan jasa akan turun secara proporsional akan turun sebesar seribu persen. Upah dan harga faktor produksi mesti turun pulai secara proporsional sebesar seribu persen. Jadi nilai riil tidak akan berubah dan harga relatif tidak akan berubah. Jadi tidak akan ada pengaruh terhadap alokasi sumber daya dan terhadap distribusi pendapatan. Bila tidak terjadi perubahan alokasi sumber daya, perubahan produktivitas marginal dan total produktivitas juga tidak akan berubah. Artinya redenominasi tidak akan berpengaruh terhadap pendapatan riil dan distribusi pendapatan. Apakah benar akan seperti itu? Belum ada kajian akademik dilakukan? Jadi kita belum bisa mengantisipasi, siapa yang untung dan siapa yang rugi akibat redenominasi rupiah.

Pada tahun 1965 Indonesia pernah melakukan redenominasi mata uang rupiah sebesar 1.000% sehingga setiap mata uang Rp 1.000 lama berubah nilainya menjadi Rp 1 baru. Harga juga diturunkan dari nilai nominal Rp 1.000 menjadi nilai nominal Rp 1. Harga pasar yang terjadi tergantung pada mekanisme pasar, permintaan dan penawaran, dan struktur pasar. Barang barang di pasar pada umumunya tidak mempunyai label harga. Perilaku konsumen cenderung melihat harga lebih murah karena melihat angka yang lebih kecil. Konsumen mengalami money illusion.

Dengan perjalanan waktu harga terus mengalami kenaikan dan nilai tukar rupiah terus pula mengalami penurunan. Denominasi rupiah terus pula mengalami kenaikan, dari 1 sen yang paling rendah hingga 100 rupiah yang paling rendah. Kini mata uang kita memiliki denominasi 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000, dan 100000. Dengan mata uang kita yang sekarang menghitung makin mudah karena nilai desimal di belakang koma sudah habis. Menghitungnya bukan makin sulit, tetapi makin mudah. Menghitung uang dengan ratusan jauh lebih mudah dibanding menghitung dengan banyak sen. Menghitung uang dengan kertas juga lebih mudah dibanding menghitung uang koin. Membawa uang kertas juga lebih mudah dibanding uang koin.

Kini kita tidak perlu lagi bawa uang banyak. Cukup sekadar isi dompet. Satu juta paling banyak. Sebanyak 20 lembar uang 50000 masih cukup di dompet apalagi hanya 10 lembar mata uang 100000. Namun jumlah uang tunai yang dibawa dalam dompet sudah makin berkurang. Kartu debit, kartu kredit, sms banking telah menggantikan kebutuhan pemegangan uang tunai secara signifikan.

Sebagai pelaku ekonomi, kita tidak mengalami kesulitan dan tidak menghadapi hambatan dalam melakukan kegiatan ekonomi baik produksi maupun konsumsi, baik barang maupun jasa dengan keberadaan mata uang rupiah dengan denominasi yang ada dan berlaku saat ini. Tidak ada keluhan pelaku ekonomi dengan denominasi mata uang rupiah. Bahkan denominasi mata uang rupiah yang sekarang berperan menghambat korupsi dan gratifikasi. Rupiah sulit digunakan sebagai alat gratifikasi karena sangat bulky sehingga dalam kasus gratifikasi banyak ditemukan matau uang dollar.

Tidak ada masalah dengan efisiensi pemakaian mata uang rupiah untuk keperluan bisnis yang legal. Justru mata uang rupiah dengan denominasi yang besar menyulitkan penyuapan dan gratifikasi yang menggunakan uang. Mata uang rupiah dengan denominasi yang sekarang sangat potensial anti korupsi.

Lalu untuk apa redenominasi rupiah? Hanya untuk gagah-gagahan atau ‘rancak di labuah’ saja. Gunanya tidak ada yang substantif, tetapi biayanya besar. Semua biaya dibebankan kepada negara, mulai dari persiapan, kajian akademik, studi banding, RUU, UU, sosialisasi, sampai ke implementasi, mengawasi dan memberi sanksi. Semua ini menambah distrorsi ekonomi yang harus ditanggung oleh bangsa kita. Karena itu melakukan redenominasi mata uang rupiah adalah tidak ada kerja cari kerja. Tidak ada manfaatnya selain dari gagah-gagahan. Sedangkan biayanya sangat besar. Tidak hanya biaya langsung, tapi juga tidak langsung. Bayangkan semua label harga harus diperbaharui dan harus dibuat dengan Rupiah lama dan rupiah baru.

Belum lagi dokumen dokumen kontrak yang harus dirubah dengan denominasi rupiah baru. Apapun yang bernilai uang harus dilakukan perubahan. Apa lagi perubahan perubahan dan penyesuaian itu diperkirakan memakan waktu sampai 3 tahun. Semua itu pasti memakan biaya, pasti ada opportunity cost, pasti ada yang menanggung. Biaya ekonomi pasti naik, tetapi ouput ekonomi dipastikan tidak naik dengan biaya yang dikeluarkan itu. Lalu daya saing bangsa kita berhadapan dengan bangsa lain apa justru akan naik dengan redenominasi? Saya sangat percaya justru akan turun dengan redenominasi rupiah. Ingat kita mau terlibat dalam Komunitas Ekonomi ASEAN tahun 2015. Pelaku ekonomi kita masih luas yang mengeluh belum siap, lalu apakah kita tidak membebani mereka lebih berat lagi dengan menyiapkan UU Redenominasi dengan segala konsekwensi biaya yang akan terpaksa ditanggung oleh setiap lapisan bisnis.

Kita setuju bahwa nilai tukar rupiah dan harga harga mesti makin stabil. Tapi melakukan stabilitas mata uang rupiah bukan dengan main-mainkan nol di mata uang. Rupiah pasti akan semakin kuat bila harga makin stabil, inflasi makin stabil. Bila inflasi kita makin rendah dibanding inflasi negara lain, nilai tukar rupiah kita tentu akan makin kuat. Bila inflasi kita makin rendah dibanding negara lain, barang yang kita hasilkan akan makin bersaing, ekspor semakin besar, dan impor semakin kecil. Tentu hal ini tidak terlepas pula dari persoalan perbaikan produktivitas ekonomi kita. Kualitas faktor produksi harus mengalami perbaikan untuk meningkatkan produktivitas. Kita perlu perbaikan infrastruktur jalan, air. Listrik, waduk dan irigasi dan lain lain. Kita tidak memerlukan redenominasi mata uang, tetapi reformasi perilaku dan kelembagaan ekonomi. Saya harap presiden yang akan datang tidak melakukan redenominasi rupiah. Itu akan merugikan agenda perbaikan laju pertumbuhan ekonomi di atas 7% yang kita butuhkan menuju tahun 2025 agar kita ke luar dari perangkap negara berpendapatan  rendah. Redenominasi rupiah tidak akan menaikkan laju pertumbuhan ekonomi. Sebaiknya masa kerja DPR ditutup dengan memastikan laju pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia tahun 2014 ini di atas 7% agar target RPJMN 2010-2014 bisa tercapai.

** Disampaikan dalam memberikan respon terhadap Tim DPR RI dan BI yang menyampaikan sosialisasi RUU tentang Redenominasi di Universitas Andalas pada tahun 2014.