Poverty and Minimalist Role of Regions

SUPRIYANTO

.

Even though Statistics Indonesia (BPS) data show that the poverty rate dropped to a single digit in March 2018, progress in reducing it is sluggish from time to time. The main problem is disparity among the provinces and among regencies/cities. The question is whether it is possible to speed up poverty reduction and narrow the disparity?

Reducing poverty is the main indicator of successful development in a country. A reduction in the poverty rate increases people\'s quality of life. Research shows  that the poorer a community, the lower the quality of its human capital and social status.  Commitments, stance, knowledge and policies of regional leadership are varied.  There is a big gap between regencies/cities/provinces in which the socioeconomic reality is understood and those that do not. This has led to the wide disparity.

Poverty disparity

The country\'s overall poverty rate has declined. In September 2017, it was estimated at 10.12 percent of the population and 9.82 percent in March 2018, a decline of 0.30 percentage points. At the provincial level, several regions registered a significantly reduced  poverty rate, exceeding the average national decline rate. Take for example Central Java province, where the poverty rate declined from 12.23 percent (September 2017) to 11.32 percent (March 2018), a reduction of 0.91 percent within six months.

However, in several provinces in the same period, the poverty rate remained relatively stable, and if there was a decline, it was slight. For example, poverty in North Sumatra declined only 0.06 percentage points. In East Nusa Tenggara it declined 0.03 percentage points, and in Papua 0.02 points. Several other regions performed worse. West Sulawesi, North Maluku and other resource-rich provinces, such as Aceh, even experienced an increase in the poverty rate. It means that development programs carried out by those regions during the reference period did not reduce the poverty rate. Instead it remained stagnant or even increased.

Assessing poverty disparity at the level of regencies/cities is startling. National and provincial poverty rates are calculated every March and September. The poverty rate in regencies and cities is calculated every year in  order to make the representation of its samples precise.

Many regencies/cities manage to substantially reduce their poverty rate to a very low level. The city of Sawahlunto in West Sumatra, Sungai Penuh in Jambi, West Bangka regency in Bangka Belitung, Denpasar city and Badung regency in Bali and South Tangerang city in Banten are the regencies/cities with the lowest poverty rates, reaching only about 2 percent of their total population.

On the contrary, several regencies in the provinces that get large allocations from the central government and have an abundance of natural resources even experienced increases in the poverty rate between 2015 and 2017.

Examples of this are the regencies of Pidie and Gayo Lues in Aceh. In 2015, the poverty rate in Pidie regency was 21.18 percent. Within two years of development being carried out, the rate did not fall but instead rose to 21.43 percent, an increase of about 4,100 people previously not classified as poor. Meanwhile in Gayo Lues regency, the poverty rate was 21.95 percent in 2015 and increased slightly to 21.97 percent in 2017.

In Papua province, the poverty rate increased in four regencies. Between 2015 and 2017, in Nabire regency the poverty rate increased from 24.37 percent to 25.38 percent. In Central Mamberamo regency the poverty rate increased from 35.54 percent to 36.38 percent. In Dogiyai regency from 29.10 to 30.36 percent and in Intan Jaya regency from 41.34 to 42.23 percent.

Many regions failed to reduce their poverty rate and disparity in the poverty rate among regencies is very wide. Why? The key word to the disparity lies in the leadership in regions, which tends to be trapped in routine activities and transactional leadership as well as the isolation of several basic problems that affect their communities.

First, development at the regency/city level simply follows polices made by the central government, such as implementing social protection programs, labor intensive programs, the provision of loans to farmers, infrastructure development and handling economic growth through investment. All of them are important, but they are not necessarily effective in reducing poverty. Because each region has its own characteristics, which require different responses and effectiveness in catching the opportunities related to the programs that come from above.  The special characteristics should ideally be recognized by the regency/city administrations, and should not instead be separated from the problems of their own regions.

Second, the leaders of regencies and cities where the poverty rate is high are often trapped in the thought that regional wealth and economic growth automatically improve people\'s welfare. In reality, many examples show that poverty also occurs in regions that have high economic growth and abundant natural resources. The condition lulls regional leaders into a false sense of security. They tend to be kept busy with routine "projects” -- investment, business partners and meetings. And poverty is therefore neglected.

Third, some regents/mayors – even governors – have poor knowledge on who is poor in their respective regions. The wish to know the details is minimal. As a result, the concepts, characteristics and aspects that affect poverty are not fully understood. Actually, data – especially on poverty combined with local knowledge – gives a clear picture of the reality in connection with what needs to be done.

Fourth, regents frequently forget that besides being affected by economic aspects, poverty in rural areas is also caused by dwindling motivation, caused by the experiences of families from generation to generation of living at a subsistence level. Poor people experience disorientation that prevents them from availing of the opportunities  brought about by economic development, infrastructure and other development packages.

Fifth, regents/mayors tend to be less sensitive to the typology of the social structure, social organizations and the cultural roots of their communities. The poor are experiencing a kind of loss of recognition from the community. Therefore, they lose the spirit to improve the quality of their lives. In this context, the duty of a regional leader is not only to skillfully read the sociological phenomenon of the poor people his or her region, but also to conduct various efforts to enable socially marginalized people to become integrated in the local community.

Finally...

Indonesia can reduce the poverty rate much faster than what is being achieved at present. Regional leaders, regents/mayors and governors are simply not committed enough, nor do they have local initiatives based on the specific problems and potential in their regions. Such initiatives need to be implemented in a concrete way and directly address the specific problems faced by poor people.

Poverty cannot be solved simply through the economic approach, vast fund allocations from the central government, village funds, direct material assistance or with the development of human resources (education, health and manpower). The final goals of development may make regions flush with cash, but they do not make poor people more socially effective and bring them recognition from their communities.

Various social activities and regional activities  in the regions should involve poor people in a dignified way to enable them to regain their self-worth and sense of equality. This will give them the opportunity to participate and avail of opportunities in a more productive way.

Without initiatives with a local dimension, any reduction in the poverty rate will be unsubstantial and wealth disparity will remain wide and become increasingly complicated.

Jousairi Hasbullah, Social Development Analyst; Alumnus of Flinders University, Australia