Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects (original) (raw)
Related papers
Challenges Of Social Safety Nets In Indonesia
2018
Social safety nets (SSNt) is a form of government involvement in providing assistance to need a life of the poor and vulnerable for increasing the quality of life people. This study is an introduction that discusses the concept and program of SSNt among fishermen in South Sulawesi Province. How SSNt interests and challenges in improving people's quality of life.
Indonesia?s Single Registry for Social Protection Programmes
2015
Indonesia began to implement targeted social assistance programmes for both households and individuals in the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The crisis had halted Indonesias economic growth and caused a sharp rise in domestic prices?particularly for food items, which led to a rapid and significant increase in poverty. The massive economic and social impacts of the crisis required a rapid roll-out of large-scale social assistance programmes, collectively termed the Social Safety Net (JPS), to protect households and communities that were most affected and to prevent the further spread of poverty. Such programmes relied on locally validated data from the National Family Planning Coordination Board and were largely pro-poor, although several targeting issues emerged. (?)
Jurnal Studi Pemerintahan, 2020
Since its first announcement in March 2020, the number of positive confirmed patients as well as patients under surveillance has increased exponentially. Recognizing the impact of Covid-19 on the poor, the government reallocated expenditure budget by increasing the amount of aid to the community. This paper focuses on social safety net policies, mainly in Sembako Program as noncash social aid. This aid is actually not any new programs, as it have been around since 2017, but the Covid-19 pandemic is adding to the economic burden of the household so the aid is increased in amount. This paper puts the emphasis on how the actual social safety net policy must be implemented, not only look at how policies are carried out, but also look at how policies should be carried out, as well as predict their impact when they are done. It is undeniable that the problem of bureaucratization always comes up in every policy, with no exception for social aid policy. By mapping out obstacles, this paper provide a number of key solutions for resolving the problem
Analysis of Welfare in Indonesia
International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 2018
The purpose of this study is to analyze the factors of natural resources, income per capita, infrastructure, education, institutions and population against inequality between regions and welfare in Indonesia. The study uses panel data regression analysis analyzing secondary data consisting of 33 provincial cross section data and 10 years time series data (2008-2017). The results of the study found inequality between regions in Indonesia with different intensities. Factors of natural resources, income per capita, infrastructure, education, wealth and population have a positive and significant effect on inequality between regions. Furthermore, 2% of the inequality variables between regions affect the level of welfare and the rest are influenced by natural resources, per capita income, infrastructure, education, institutions and population.
Analvsis of Welfare in Indonesia
2019
The purpose of this study is to analyze the Jbctors of naural resources, income per capita, infrastructure, education, institutions and population against ineqwli|, betw'een regions and welftre in Indonesia. The studlt uses panel data regression analysis analyzing secondary data consisting of 33 provincial cross section data and l0 years time series data (2008-2017). The rarults of the study found inequality betv,een repgions in Indonesia with dffirent intensities. Factors of natural resources, income per capita, infrastructure, education, wealth and population hcue a positive and significant effect on inequality behveen regions. Fufthermore, 2% af the inequality vaiables between regions q/fect the level of welfarc and the rest are influenced by natwal resources, per capita income, infrastructure, education, institutions and pop ulation. Kqruords: Econonic development, inequalitlt, welfare, multi-regressian.
Analysis of Welfare in Indonesia: Case Study in 2008-2017
2019
The purpose of the study was to analyze the factors of natural resources, income per capita, infrastructure, education, institutions and population against inequality between regions and welfare in Indonesia. This study uses panel data regression analysis. This study analyzes secondary data consisting of 33 provincial cross section data and 10 years time series data (2008-2017).The results of the study found inequality between regions in Indonesia with different intensities. Factors of natural resources, income per capita, infrastructure, education, wealth and population have a positive and significant effect on inequality between Factors of natural resources, income per capita, infrastructure, education, wealth and population have a positive and significant effect on inequality between regions. Furthermore, 2% of the inequality variables between regions affect the level of welfare and the rest are influenced by natural resources, per capita income, infrastructure, education, instit...
Coverage and Targetting in the Indonesian Social Safety Net Programmes
Asean Economic Bulletin, 2001
The social safety net programs, which were created by the government of Indonesia in early 1998, were intended to help protect the newly poor due to the crisis as well as the traditionally poor. The programs include ensuring the availability of food at affordable prices, supplementing purchasing power through employment creation, and preserving access to critical social services, particularly health and education. The findings of this study, unfortunately, point out that in many cases the target groups have been largely missed by the programs due to low coverage and being only loosely targeted in practice. It should be emphasized, however, that effectiveness of the programs varies across programs and regions. This raises an interesting avenue for future studies on what accounts for these targeting outcomes. The general conclusion from this study points to the need for a large improvement in the program implementations, in particular in targeting the beneficiaries of a particular program and raising coverage within the target groups.
Social Protection Programs for Poverty Reduction in Indonesia (1999 - 2005)
2009
After several golden years of development that significantly reduced poverty in Indonesia, the 1997/1998 crisis had made poverty a major issue again in Indonesia's national development agenda. Some studies indicated that a significant number of people lived just around the poverty line so that any shock to their livelihood might slip them into poverty or deepen their poverty status (Suryahadi and Sumarto: 2003; Pritchett at al., 2000). In order to solve the problem, the government of Indonesia makes poverty reduction as one of its main targets, with one of its pillars relies on the provision of social protection especially for the poor. Unlike programs the previous era, in which the poor were never specifically targeted except in that of IDT (Inpres Desa Tertinggal-Presidential Aid for Disadvantageous Areas) program introduced by Soeharto administration in 1994/1995, many post-crisis programs were created to directly target the poor. Started with the introduction of social safety nets (SSNs) during the crisis period, the government of Indonesia (GoI) continues to maintain and improve its poverty reduction programs as also required by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In terms of budget, for instance, national spending for poverty related programs increased significantly from around Rp 15 trillion in 2001 to more than Rp 50 trillion in 2007. Nevertheless, it is important to look more deeply at how these programs have been implemented so far. How effective had the programs been so far at reaching the targeted poor and helping them move out of poverty? Thus, lessons can be learned for better preparation of social protection programs to respond to the current crisis. 2005 No Activities Target (num. of students) Unit Cost Total Cost 1 BKM (January-June