Economists' dispute over wording 'should be cleared'<\/p>\n
Should the basic principles of the economy be changed to allow
\na larger role for the state in improving people's welfare? This
\nhas been one of the issues being discussed in connection with a
\nproposal to change the economic principles set out in Chapter 33
\nof the 1945 Constitution. The Jakarta Post talked to Pande Raja
\nSilalahi, a senior economics researcher at the Centre for
\nStrategic and International Studies in Jakarta.<\/p>\n
Question: Senior economists Mubyarto and Dawam Rahardjo have
\nquit the Team of Experts appointed by the People's Consultative
\nAssembly (MPR)'s Ad Hoc Committee because they could not accept a
\nproposal by their colleagues to amend the basis of economic
\ndevelopment from being \"familial\" to one based on \"humanity and
\njustice\". Why did the other economists, including Sjahrir, Sri
\nMulyani Indarwati, Didik J. Rachbini and Sri Adiningsih, prefer
\nthe latter formulation as the basis for economic development?<\/p>\n
Pande: It would seem that the interpretation of the word
\n\"familial\" under Chapter 33, article 1 of the Constitution (\"The
\neconomy is composed of mutually complimentary enterprises on a
\nfamilial basis (asas kekeluargaan)\") has never been clarified up
\nto now.<\/p>\n
Because we, Indonesians, consist of various ethnic groups with
\ndifferent cultural backgrounds, we may interpret the word
\ndifferently. The other economists, therefore, apparently wanted
\nthe article to use the words \"humanity and justice\", which would
\nbe easier to understand and to implement.<\/p>\n
Q: Is the amendment necessary?<\/p>\n
P: We should not be too rigid with the wording. The most
\nimportant thing is to formulate the article using clearer wording
\nthat is easy to interpret and to implement. Furthermore,
\nthe meaning of the word \"familial\" may also be accommodated in
\nthe words \"humanity and justice\", which are not mutually
\nexclusive. The meaning of \"justice\", even though its
\nimplementation can be dynamic, is clearer than \"familial\".<\/p>\n
Q: But the senior economists must have felt there was a big
\ndifference...<\/p>\n
P: I do not know exactly what took place in their discussions ...<\/p>\n
Reading their books and articles, and listening to their
\nspeeches in various forums, we can conclude that both the senior
\nand junior economists were sensitive to the interests of low-
\nincome people but they may have had different ideas about how to
\nhelp them.<\/p>\n
Q: Some economists think that the use of the words \"humanity and
\njustice\" in the Constitution could lead the country to adopt
\nneoliberalism in its economic development. Do you agree?<\/p>\n
P: I do not see that as being the case. Anyway, if there is any
\ndoubt, we could add the clause \"in accordance with Indonesia's
\nnational interests\" after the word \"humanity\".<\/p>\n
Q: Isn't neoliberalism suitable for Indonesia?<\/p>\n
P: First ... the term neoliberalism is never unanimously defined
\nby economists. We, therefore, would be better off saying \"liberal
\neconomy without any control\" rather than using the term
\nneoliberalism.<\/p>\n
Practically speaking, there is no single country in the world
\nthat leaves its economy completely free of government control.<\/p>\n
In the case of Indonesia, we should not necessarily be afraid
\nof globalization as long as we prioritize our national interests.<\/p>\n
Q: Will amending the clause to include the words \"humanity and
\njustice\" lead to a setback for cooperatives which have so far
\nbeen promoted by the government based on the disputed chapter of
\nthe Constitution?<\/p>\n
P: No. The word \"familial\" in Article 33 has so far been applied
\nliterally to cooperatives but their development is not supported
\nby any system. The operations of the cooperatives have done more
\nharm than good.<\/p>\n
Various parties pretending to promote cooperatives want the
\nprovision of loans for cooperatives to support low-income
\nearners, but this has been abused. We have therefore spent a lot
\nof money and energy on cooperatives but we do not see any
\nsignificant improvement in the added value produced by their
\nmembers. Their contribution to gross domestic product is also
\nvery small.<\/p>\n
Instead, we should translate the wording (of the article) into
\nthe spirit of cooperation. Given such a spirit, producers, for
\ninstance, could cooperate with each other to jointly improve
\ntheir economic positions.<\/p>\n
Q: How about equality in wealth distribution?<\/p>\n
P: Equality can only be promoted at a certain point of
\nachievement. Companies, for example, should give bonuses to their
\nemployees and provide social security benefits for them if they
\nare profitable. So far, many companies have not done this because
\nthey regard their employees merely as one of the factors of
\nproduction, not as resources that need to be developed
\nproductively.<\/p>\n
Q: What's your suggestion for resolving the dispute in question?<\/p>\n
P: They should look for a compromise by formulating a wording
\nthat can accommodate all their ideas. The use of the word
\n\"familial\", for example, should not make it difficult for us to
\nformulate policies, while the use of the words \"humanity and
\njustice\" should not lead to so-called neoliberalism.<\/p>\n
Q: What form of economic development is suitable for Indonesia?<\/p>\n
P: In line with globalization, we need to adopt a market-oriented
\neconomy but we must prioritize our national interests.<\/p>\n
It is true that in all countries developing a market-oriented
\neconomy, there is, at the initial stage, economic growth
\nwithout equality in the distribution of its results. That is why
\nthere is usually social turbulence at that stage.<\/p>\n
But as soon as their per capita income reaches US$1,000 a
\nyear, they can start using their fiscal policies to redistribute
\nwealth by, for example, instituting more progressive taxation and
\nputting a social security system in place. It is difficult to
\nintroduce such policies at the early stage of market-oriented
\neconomic development.<\/p>\n
Indonesia's per capita income actually went slightly above
\n$1,000 per annum in 1996 but, unfortunately, the country started
\nto experience a serious economic crisis in 1997. (Rikza Abdullah)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/economists-dispute-over-wording-should-be-cleared-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}