Economic Pressure and the Myth of Digital Platform Dominance
Bank Indonesia’s decision to raise the benchmark interest rate twice in quick succession, by 50 basis points and then 25 basis points in June 2026, signals that economic pressures cannot be taken lightly. The rate now stands at 5.50 percent, its highest level in two years. This move clearly indicates that exchange rate stability, capital flows, and market expectations have become serious concerns amid rising global economic uncertainty.
The Indonesian economy is indeed facing serious challenges. Public purchasing power is weakening, labour-intensive sectors are grappling with efficiency issues and layoffs, and the government’s fiscal space is constrained by the need to finance various popular programmes and a growing debt interest burden. Indonesia is not in crisis, but it has clearly entered a period demanding caution and the search for new sources of economic growth.
This is why the digital economy is becoming increasingly important. Moreover, telecommunications infrastructure development over the past decade has progressed well. A May 2026 survey by the Indonesian Internet Service Providers Association (APJII) shows that the number of internet users in Indonesia has surpassed 235 million, or 81.72 percent of the population.
Statistics Indonesia (BPS) also recorded that e-commerce transaction growth reached 6.2 percent in the first quarter of 2026, with the digital economy contributing around 7.1 percent to GDP. The e-Conomy SEA 2025 report even estimates that Indonesia’s e-commerce value could reach US$140 billion by 2030. The digital economy is evidently still showing expansive momentum.
Ironically, while the digital economy persists as a new engine of growth, a discourse still emerges positioning platforms as symbols of dominance and exploitation. It is as if platform companies enjoy excessive profits and are the sole beneficiaries of the ongoing digital transformation. On the other hand, small business actors and platform workers are portrayed as victims of continuous exploitation.
This portrayal encourages demands for intervention in the digital ecosystem. It is no surprise that the Minister of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises is now preparing new regulations concerning marketplaces and considering intervention in transactions involving MSMEs. The Minister of Trade has issued Regulation No. 19 of 2026 on the Organisation of Trade Through Electronic Systems (PMSE) to strengthen digital trade governance while enhancing protection for MSMEs and consumers.
Indeed, the intention to improve governance is important. The state has an obligation to ensure healthy competition, protect consumers, and provide fair opportunities for business actors. However, in many cases, platforms are actually part of the solution to various economic limitations faced by the public.
Research by Graham et al. (2017) and Ghazwani and Alzahrani (2023) shows that MSME integration into platforms has boosted sales and innovation. Kay Loo et al. (2024) confirm that e-commerce adoption can reduce operational costs for MSMEs. Heeks et al. (2021) even demonstrated that platforms can open markets for previously marginalised groups. Therefore, the government must be extremely cautious in drafting regulations. Overregulation must be avoided so as not to weaken the digital ecosystem itself.
Many Platforms Have Already Collapsed
Indonesia has a long history of digital platforms and marketplaces collapsing. They failed due to high operational costs, discount wars, weak monetisation, and intensely competitive market pressures. Trillions of rupiah were burned to pioneer the digital ecosystem that has now developed. Investors were arguably the biggest casualties of this process.
Several platforms considered unicorns five years ago, and even sources of national pride, have since fallen. Thus, the platform business is not as robust as imagined. Their margins are thin and highly sensitive to regulatory pressure. The impression of dominance surrounding these companies is often merely a myth.
Consequently, the risk of overregulation must be a serious concern. How many more platforms must collapse in this country? Overly burdensome regulations have the potential to increase compliance costs, add to operational burdens, reduce technology investment, and encourage platforms to pass costs onto business actors and consumers. This means promotional subsidies shrink, service fees rise, and visibility for MSMEs becomes more competitive.
This impact does not stop at technology companies. The effects can spread to millions of small businesses, logistics workers, couriers, digital creators, as well as the electronic payment and financial technology sectors that are now part of the national digital economy value chain. When the national economy is under pressure, the risk to this ecosystem must be calculated carefully. The digital economy ecosystem must not be allowed to collapse as a result.
Of course, criticism of the gig economy operated by platforms remains relevant. Standing (2011) warned of the emergence of a new vulnerable class of workers in the digital economy. Wood et al. (2019) highlighted the presence of algorithmic control in platform operations. However, more recent research also shows that platform workers are not entirely passive. Cameron (2024) found that many ride-hailing drivers still view platform work as a choice offering time flexibility and income opportunities. Meijerink and Bondarouk (2021) also demonstrated that platform workers can develop various adaptation strategies to maintain their flexibility and earnings. Therefore, relations within the digital economy cannot be simplified.