When Global Uncertainty Becomes the New Normal
Every year, the Government and the House of Representatives (DPR RI) formulate the State Budget (APBN) based on several macro-economic assumptions. These include targets for economic growth, inflation, the Rupiah exchange rate, interest rates, Indonesian crude oil prices, and oil and gas lifting. These indicators serve as the foundation for estimating the state’s ability to finance development while maintaining fiscal stability.
Public attention has traditionally focused on the most easily understood indicator: the economic growth target. It is unsurprising that the success of the APBN is almost always judged by the achievement of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth. When targets are met, policies are deemed successful. Conversely, when realisation falls below expectations, the causes are almost always attributed to external volatility, such as the global economic slowdown, geopolitical conflicts, supply chain disruptions, commodity price fluctuations, or international financial market pressures.
While this explanation is not incorrect, if the same reasons emerge year after year, attention should be directed not only at external factors but also at how we build our framework for formulating fiscal policy. The question to be asked is no longer simply why the world is becoming more uncertain, but whether the paradigm of APBN formulation has sufficiently adapted to these changes.
During a Focus Group Discussion at the DPR RI on Tuesday, 21 July 2026, discussing the 2027 Global Economic and Geopolitical Outlook and its impact on the Indonesian economy, various projections regarding next year’s global economic conditions were presented. All speakers agreed that global uncertainty will continue to characterise the international economic journey. However, it is from this very point that a more fundamental reflection arises: if uncertainty persists and is no longer temporary, is it still appropriate to treat it as a risk outside of normal conditions?
In the last decade, the world has not truly enjoyed a prolonged period of stability. The COVID-19 pandemic was followed by geopolitical conflicts, economic rivalries between nations, accelerated technological transformation, energy transitions, climate change, and increasing global trade fragmentation, which have alternately shaped a new economic landscape. Uncertainty is no longer an exception; it has become a permanent characteristic of the global economy.
If this is the reality, then the paradigm for preparing the APBN must also change. To date, the APBN has largely been designed to manage the economy in situations assumed to be ‘normal’, while external disruptions are treated as variables that appear sporadically. In reality, in the current climate, uncertainty itself is the normal state.
The consequences are significant. The success of development can no longer be measured solely by the ability to achieve economic growth targets. What is far more important is the ability to maintain economic activity when pressure comes from various directions.
Imagine two countries with different growth rates. The first country manages to record high growth but quickly experiences a slowdown when international trade shocks occur. Conversely, the second country grows at a slightly lower rate but remains able to maintain investment, preserve jobs, control inflation, and ensure public services function well during a crisis. In such a situation, it is difficult to claim that the first country has a better quality economy simply because its growth figure is higher.
This comparison shows that growth and resilience are two different dimensions. Growth describes the ability to generate economic value, whereas resilience demonstrates the ability to maintain economic functions when facing pressure. Both are complementary, not substitutes.
Therefore, future APBN discussions should not only revolve around growth targets but also begin to consider indicators that reflect national economic resilience. For instance, how quickly fiscal policy can adapt to global changes, how strong the logistics system is in maintaining distribution during disruptions, how diverse economic growth sources are so that a decline in one sector does not immediately shake the entire economy, and how quickly economic activity recovers after experiencing pressure.
In the Indonesian context, the dimension of resilience has a broader meaning. As an archipelagic nation with dispersed growth centres, the strength of the national economy actually lies in the ability of each region to support one another. Disruptions occurring in one area should not immediately weaken the entire economic system.
On the contrary, other growth nodes must be able to take over the role so that national economic activity continues to run. In other words, economic resilience is not just a matter of the size of the GDP, but also the quality of inter-regional connectivity and the ability of the national economic system to adapt to change.
The experience of various countries shows that modern economic development increasingly places economic resilience as a vital part of development strategy. Growth remains the primary target, but it is no longer separated from the ability to face crises. This is the approach that should be considered in the preparation of Indonesia’s APBN.
There is no need to replace all the macro-economic basic assumptions currently used. Targets for growth, inflation, exchange rates, interest rates, oil prices, and oil and gas lifting remain essential instruments in calculating revenue and expenditure.