Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wendy Chandra
(Indonesia)
Specialisation:
Economics of Development
(ECD)
Inquiries:
Postal address: Institute of Social Studies
P.O. Box 29776
2502 LT The Hague
The Netherlands
Location: Kortenaerkade 12
2518 AX The Hague
The Netherlands
ii
Acknowledgement
This work has been completed successfully with the diligent support of family
and friends. I sincerely thank you to the following:
My family particularly my mother who has been there for me all the time
during my study and great support as she has pull out all her capacity to
successfully make my dream come true to study abroad and keep supporting
me all the year I have been through.
To all my friends in ISS, Cynthia, Sara, Mas Bayu, Riya and Jayadi and many
other friends that has been a great support to me.
To my friends in Indonesia, Andy, Yogie and Tommy Yotes who have been a
great friends and support during my hardest time.
Last but not least to all ISS staffs who have been a great help.
Regards,
Wendy Chandra
1
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Indonesia Exports Composition and Annual GDP Growth...20
Table 2-2 Policy and Plans Summary…………………………………..24
Table 4-1 Exports Composition in 2000 – 2010……………………….30
Table 4-2 Ten Years Average Share of Commodity Imports Value of
Total Merchandise Imports in 1970 – 2010…………………30
Table 4-3 Imports Composition in 1990 to 1997……………………....31
Table 4-4 Imports Composition in 2000 to 2010……………………....31
Table 4-5 Annual GDP Growths and Exports Share………………….36
Table 4-6 Commodity and Manufacture Sectors Share of GDP……….39
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Indonesia Export Share, 1970 to 2010………………………5
Figure 4-1 Global Commodity Prices and Share of Exports (Percentage
Change)……………………………………………………..26
Figure 4.2 Food Commodity Volume Exports and Prices (Percentage
Change)……………………………………………………....26
Figure 4.3 Tropical Beverages Volume Exports and Prices (Percentage
Change)....……………………………………………………27
Figure 4.4 Vegetables Oils and Oilseeds Volume Exports and Prices
(Percentage Change)………………………………………...27
Figure 4.5 Agriculture Raw Materials Volume Exports and Prices
(Percentage Change)…………………………………...……27
Figure 4.6 Minerals, Ores and Metal Exports Volume Exports and Prices
(Percentage Change)………………………………...………28
Figure 4.7 Food commodity import volume (% Change)………………32
Figure 4.8 Agriculture raw materials imports volume (% Change)…...…32
Figure 4.9 Fuel imports volume (% Change)……………………...……32
Figure 4.10 Net Barter TOT Index % Change and Annual GDP Growth
%........................................................................................................34
Figure 4.11 Exports Growth and GDP Growth……………….………..36
Figure 4.12 GDP Annual Growth and Global Commodity Price………..37
Figure 4.13 Sectors % growth contribution to GDP……...……………..38
List of Acronyms
ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations
BPS Badan Pusat Statistics (Statistics Indonesia)
BULOG Badan Urusan Logistik (National Logistic Agency)
EDA Exploratory Data Analysis
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IMF International Monetary Fund
OPEC Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
Repelita Rencana Pembangunan Lima Tahun (Five Years
Development Plans)
TOT Terms of Trade
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
WB World Bank
2
Contents
List of Tables............................................................................................. 2
List of Figures ........................................................................................... 2
List of Acronyms ....................................................................................... 2
Abstract ..................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 1.................................................................................................... 5
Introduction .............................................................................................. 5
1.1. Background .......................................................................................... 5
1.2 Justification ........................................................................................... 6
1.3 Research objectives, questions and arguments ....................................... 6
1.4 Methodology and limitations of the research ......................................... 7
Chapter 2 ................................................................................................... 9
Literature Review and Empirical Evidence .............................................. 9
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 9
2.2 Literature Review................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Structuralist view of commodity dependency .................................. 9
2.2.2 The new institution view of commodity dependence .................... 10
2.2.3 Criticism ....................................................................................... 12
2.3 Empirical findings ............................................................................... 13
2.4 Indonesian Case Study ......................................................................... 16
Chapter 3 ................................................................................................. 19
Indonesia Economy Background ........................................................... 19
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 19
3.2 Structure of economy, changes in structure and economic growth....... 19
3.3 Policy toward Primary Commodity ...................................................... 21
Chapter 4 ................................................................................................. 25
Analysis ................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 25
4.2 Indonesia dependency on primary commodity exports and imports .... 25
4.2.1 Dependence on commodity exports ............................................. 25
4.2.2 Dependence on commodity imports ............................................. 30
4.3 Impact of commodity dependency on economic growth ..................... 33
4.3.1 GDP growth and terms of trade ................................................... 33
4.3.3 GDP growth and exports growth.................................................. 35
4.3.3 GDP growth by Sector ................................................................. 37
Chapter 5 ................................................................................................. 41
Conclusion and Policy Implications ....................................................... 41
References ............................................................................................... 44
3
Abstract
This paper analyze on Indonesia economic growth as one of commodity
dependence countries to see to what extent does Indonesia dependence on
commodity production and what is the significant of the dependency.
The research uses exploratory data analysis method to analyze the data and
extract important information regarding Indonesia dependency on commodity.
In this paper the writer found that the dependency on commodity doesn’t have
strong evidence of resource curse adverse impact presence on Indonesia
economic growth. Dutch disease and terms of trade deterioration does have
correlation on its dependency but it is not causal relationships which hamper
its growth.
Keywords
Indonesia economic growth, Commodity dependency, Resource curse
4
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. Background
Most developing countries were and remain heavily dependent on commodity
export for earnings of foreign exchange that are required to purchase capital
goods, intermediate products, and other imports essential to their economic
development (Maizels 1994). Indonesia in particularly rich of natural resources
has been one of the major producers and exporters in primary commodity,
such as rubber, palm oil, forestry products, shrimps, cocoa, and coffee
(Ministry of Trade of Republic of Indonesia. ).
Figure 1-1
Indonesia Export Share, 1970 to 2010
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Source: Author’s own illustration based on World Bank data (World Development Indicators &
Global Development Finance)
5
1.2 Justification
The rise of global primary commodity prices between 2005 and 2008 in general
had given a positive effect on Indonesian economy growth (Warr and Aldaz-
Carroll 2010). However, as reported by the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (2011) and the World Bank (2010), Indonesia’s GDP in 2009
experienced a contraction due to the global financial crisis that caused the fall
of both commodity prices and demands; thus, the volume of goods exported
by Indonesia and its values fell by 19.1% and 29%, respectively, that year.
However, the contraction in Indonesia’s exports began to unwind in the
following quarters. Compared to Indonesia’s GDP in 1997/1998, which
plunged by 13% due to the Asian financial crisis, the country’s GDP in 2009
remained positive, despite slow economic growth (Purnamasari et al. 2011,
Warr and Aldaz-Carroll 2010).
In view of these objectives, this research will focus on following two questions:
To what extent does Indonesia economic growth depend on primary
commodity production?
What is the significance of this dependency for its growth?
6
The recent rise in Indonesia’s economic growth rate can be attributed
to the rise in the prices of its primary commodity exports which cause
the value of primary commodity exports to rise significantly.
EDA is appropriate for both qualitative and quantitative data that will be used
in bi-variate and multivariate analysis in social sciences and it is mainly useful
for economists to analyze data before testing it with econometric models, and
also helps researchers learn and understand more about the variables before
using them to test the theories of social sciences; hence, it could lead the
subsequent data analysis to be sounder. This methodology emphasizes on the
use of visual displays to reveal vital information about the data examined.
Another advantage of this technique is that it allows readers with little or no
formal preparations in math of statistics to understand the data explained,
while regression is proven to be useful only for those with knowledge of
statistics (Hartwig and Dearing 1979).
Another reason to use EDA instead of econometrics is that EDA is not about
fitting models, parameter estimation, or testing hypothesis, but it is about
finding information in the data and generating ideas (Unwin 2010).
Hence, this paper will use EDA, as the writer believes that the methodology is
suitable to address the research questions and allows us to look at the data in
many different ways in order to gain new insights (Unwin 2010) and extract
important information.
Indonesia economic growth was hampered during the Asian financial crisis in
1997 and 1998, where the annual GDP growth fell to 13% base on the World
Bank data, but it recovered quite well within few years.
Hence, in order to support the presented arguments, this research will analyze
specifically on the recent Indonesia economic growth starting from 1999 after
the Asian financial crisis to 2010 to see to what extent does Indonesia
7
economic recent growth depend on primary commodity production and what
is the significance of this dependency for its growth. The period of Asian crisis
in 1997/8 will not much discussed because during this period both exports and
growth performance was sluggish in all crisis affected countries which was also
propelled by the sluggish adjustment such as massive exchange rate
depreciation which translated into low economic growth and exports growth
(Athukorala, 2006).
Due to the time limited, this research will only generate information from the
data analyses and hypothesis in the hope that they will be valuable for further
research.
Also, this paper will examine only Indonesian commodity exports and terms of
trade starting from the year 1980, as the comprehensive information on such
variables in previous decades is not available from both international and
national data sources. However, such limitation doesn’t hinder this research
because the data trend from 1970 to 1980 tends to be the same.
8
Chapter 2
Literature Review and Empirical Evidence
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter the theoretical perspectives of the dependency on primary
commodity will be divided in two views, structuralist economists and new
institution economists. The structuralist economists oppose the idea that
dependency on commodity could hamper economic growth while the new
institutions economists argue differently.
The first part of the this chapter will discuss the view of the structuralist
economists such as Prebisch (1950), Corden and Neary (1982), Baldwin (1956)
, Sindzingre (2009) and Auty (2001) argue that countries with abundant natural
resources tend to have lower economy growth rather than resources poor
countries. The second part, on the other hand, new institution economists
such as Mehlum (2006), Alexeev and Conrad (2009) and Gylfason (2001) argue
that dependency upon natural resources for growth doesn’t necessarily harmful
but it could be beneficial depending on how the policies and institutions
manage the natural resources. The third part argues about the benefit of
primary commodity dependency to the economic growth. Then in the fourth
part will elaborate the empirical findings that has been done by researchers and
the fourth part will discuss exclusively on Indonesia commodity exports.
The adverse impacts of commodity sector specialization are the long term
declining terms of trade, staple trap and Dutch disease. The Dutch disease
emphasize on the adverse impact of natural resources dependency focus on
the movement of inputs from lagging manufacturing sector to booming
natural resources sector (resource movement effect), where booming sector
tend to have revenue increment and increase the price of non-tradable goods
(spending effect) that cause the real appreciation of domestic currency which
cause the export to become more expensive, government spending and
undermine the manufacture sector hence become less competitive (Acosta et
al. 2009, Corden and Neary 1982, Frankel 2010) . The next arguments
regarding commodity dependency that hinder or have negative impact on
economic growth is the long run deterioration in terms of trade of developing
countries (Prebisch 1950, Singer 1950) as manufactures value tend to rise over
time as they have higher value added than primary commodity (Blattman et al.
2007). Prebisch (1950) focuses on the terms of trade of developing countries
as primary commodity supplier and advanced countries as supplier of
manufacture products as manufacture products has higher value added and
long term declining primary commodity prices cause by the use of synthetic
9
inputs. Another adverse impact is the staple trap where resource abundant
countries tend to rely on commodity exports longer than resource poor
countries hence postpones the industrialization development as consequences
retards urbanization that favorable for the process of human capital
accumulation and postponed labor market turning point hence the number of
rural labor overwhelm and raise income inequality as they keep rely on
producing raw materials (Auty 2001) as a result resource abundant countries
could only specialize in producing raw materials and further as the production
of staples became more capital intensive where it is imported hence labor
become less use in the production and the processing for the raw materials are
done out of the country (Baldwin 1956).
Lane and Tornell (1996, 1999) argue that countries with weak government and
strong rent-seeking groups, natural resources windfall revenue stimulate
voracity effect. Voracity effect is where the competition among rent-seeking
groups caused a condition in which public subsidies and other forms of
transfer overwhelm the windfall revenue hence this higher redistribution lower
the effective rate of return to investment and cause the economy growth to
deteriorates.
Robinson et al (2002) argue that with the presence of institutions that promote
the accountability and competence of the state will tend to benefit the
economy from resource boom and deter the politician incentives. Otherwise,
the resource booms will cause the politician to over-extract the natural
resources more than the efficient extraction to discount the future hence
provide those politicians with resources that give them power to influence the
elections’ outcome. Hence, the impact of resource booms on the economy
depends heavily on the quality of the institutions. In countries without the
accountable and competence institutions may lead to resource curse while in
countries with the presence of institutions that limit the ability of politicians to
use clientelism to control the elections results, the resource booms tend to
enhance the economy growth (Robinson et al. 2002). Collier and Hoeffler
(2004) make an argument that is in line with Robinson et al (2002) where the
absence of the institutions will cause the politicians to stay in power by using
the over-extracted natural resources earnings hence it causes the citizen to have
inequality in political rights and economic inequality which later translates into
conflict and civil war and some opposition politicians use the primary
commodity revenue to finance the conflict and the other argument is rent-
seeking where government tempted to offer tariff protection to domestic
producers which later breed corruption (Gylfason 2001, Krueger 1974).
In sum, the theories brought by both struturalists and new institutions quite
different regarding the benefit and cost of commodity dependency or
dependency on natural resources for economic growth. Structuralists in on one
hand focus on the long run declining global commodity prices, currency real
11
appreciation and resource movement to the booming sector while new
institutions economists partly opposing the dependency on commodity for
economic growth which they argue that the absence of good institutions and
good governance that cause the curse of natural resources but with the
presence of good institutions to manage the use of the windfall revenue and
the extraction of the natural resources, the resource curse could be avoided.
Hence, with the presence of good institutions, natural resources could enhance
economic growth (i.e. Botswana and Norway).
2.2.3 Criticism
The dependency on commodity can’t be generalized to have negative impact
on all economies. This section will criticize on those arguments put forth by
both structuralist and new institutions economist. The structuralist criticism
brought by Fardmanesh (1991), Mickesell (1997), Stevens (2003) on Dutch
disease and Bleaney and Greenaway (1993) on long term deterioration of terms
of trade. While the new institutions criticism brought by Stevens (2003)
The Dutch disease that bring forth by the structuralist hamper the economic
growth channels through resource movement to booming sector that cause
underdevelopment of manufacture sector and real currency appreciation.
Criticism on the Dutch disease brought by Fardmanesh (1991) where the
empirical evidence shows that the oil booms in 1970s expands the manufacture
sector in oil exporting countries such as Algeria, Indonesia, Ecuador, Nigeria
and Venezuela. Another feature of Dutch disease is the relatively permanent
overvaluation of the exchange rate in resource abundant countries (Bresser-
Pereira 2008) while Mickesell (1997) found that resource abundant country
such as Indonesia devalued its currency substantially when there was a windfall
revenue from the oil booms which means there was no strong evidence of
Ducth disease hence he conclude that there is no strong evidence that explain
resource curse cause by mineral exports but it is more about the incorrect
government policies or exogenous conditions and also found. Moreover,
Stevens (2003) says that Dutch disease in economies in transition tend to be
too theoretical with the analysis using econometric models rather than
empirical evidence. While Bleaney and Greenaway (1993) criticize on the long
term deterioration of terms of trade where they argue that different commodity
may have different impact hence it cast a doubt on any conclusions that state
dependency on commodity exports cause long term deterioration terms of
trade because most resource abundant countries does not solely dependent on
single commodity but several hence they advise that the deterioration could
happen on certain commodity instead of generalize on all commodities.
The new institutions propose that without the presence of good institutions
and governance which is essential for resource abundant countries would
hamper economic growth which channels through corruption, rent seeking
behavior and over extraction. This negative impact completely questioned by
Stevens (2003). The argument by new institutions is that government in
resource abundant countries should intervene in the economy while good
governance which to be believed as what the Washington consensus suggest
the otherwise. Hence, the good governance here is not what describes in the
Washington consensus but it is about good decision making by the
government on natural resources windfall revenue management where the
12
macro policy failure could damage the micro policy in the business level (Auty
2003). The corruption and rent seeking that occur might have different impact
on each economies where it depends on where they allocate those rewards
from their actions. It might enhance economic performance if they invest it in
productive sector while it might says differently if they use it for consumption
activity or another corruptive activity (Stevens 2003). Hence, the point of the
criticism is the management of the windfall revenue from the commodity
sector and sound macroeconomic policy that might limit the mismanagement
not merely the presence of good institutions and governance that obliterate the
corruptive activity.
The next empirical evidences pay particular attention from the year of 1970 to
2007 when the second and the third booms happened in 1970s and 2000s.
Cavalcanti et al (2012)used the annual data from 1970 to 2007 on 118
countries and 32 commodities; Bleaney and Greenaway (2001) used the data
from 1980 to 1995 on 14 sub-Saharan Africa countries; and Collier and
Goderis (2007) used the data from 1963 to 2003 on 130 countries and 58
commodities.
Bleaney and Greenaway (2001) used the coefficient correlation to analyze the
impact of terms of trade and real exchange on investment and growth in sub-
Saharan Africa. Their finding is quite different from the others where the
volatility in terms of trade as cause by the primary commodity prices change
doesn’t directly affect growth. It affect growth through real exchange rate
where boom in prices tend to cause the exchange rate to rise and bust of prices
cause the exchange rate to fall. This instability discourages and has negative
impact on investment growth. They suggest that investment could be higher
when terms of trade favor commodity producer and real exchange rate is less
overvalued.
From the findings above, in general they imply that dependency on commodity
would likely to have adverse impact on economy growth. Both Blattman et al
(2007) and Calvacanti et al (2012) used different methods but come with the
same findings where they found that country that specialized in commodity
sector would likely to suffer from the long term deterioration of terms of trade
while Bleaney and Greenaway (2001) imply that the price changes doesn’t
directly affect the growth but it channels through the exchange rate the rise
during the booms and fall during busts hence it cause instability in investment.
Overall, the dependency on commodity tends to cause instability in economic
growth which hampers the economic growth. In sum, those findings imply
that commodity boom does have short-term positive impact on growth but
adverse long-run impact. During the commodity boom, those primary
commodity producer countries accumulate revenue hence their currency
appreciated and they move most of the productive input to booming sector
14
and abandoning lagging sector and non-tradable sectors. While in the long
term, commodity prices tend to have downward trend (Singer 1950, Prebisch
1950) hence those commodity dependent economies economic growth
hampered as they rely on commodity for growth and they suggest that
countries should diversify their economy towards manufacturing to avert
negative long-term impact of global commodity prices trend where it needs the
presence of right institutions and government to avoid the resource curse.
On the other hand, Collier and Goderis (2007) used the panel co integration
methodology to analyze what is the impact of commodity prices change on
economic growth. They found that commodity boom has short run impact on
growth through the improvement of terms of trade as shown in the current
African growth cause by the rise of global commodity prices that begun in
2000 but it has adverse long run impact. However, this short term positive
effect cause the commodity producer countries overvalued exchange rate, high
public and private consumption, low and inefficient investment and in the long
run cause the countries to focus and promote incentives on non productive
activities such as rent seeking behavior, lobbying or public sector employment
which is also in line with the findings of Baland and Francois (2000) and
Torvik (2002) which they found that without the presence of good institutions,
natural resources lead to rent seeking behavior.
In sum, those findings imply that commodity boom does have short-term
positive impact on growth but adverse long-run impact. During the
commodity boom, those primary commodity producer countries accumulate
revenue hence their currency appreciated and they move most of the
productive input to booming sector and abandoning lagging sector and non-
tradable sectors. While in the long term, commodity prices tend to have
downward trend (Singer 1950, Prebisch 1950) hence those commodity
dependent economies economic growth hampered as they rely on commodity
for growth and they suggest that countries should diversify their economy
towards manufacturing to avert negative long-term impact of global
commodity prices trend where it needs the presence of right institutions and
government to avoid the resource curse.
Criticism
Research on commodity dependency impact on growth that used the oldest
data set was Blattman et al. their findings seems to be less plausible because the
years of data used in the research was when many countries were still not yet
independent hence those countries didn’t have the capability to set any
economic development plan and the price of commodity was not yet decided
by the market where the periphery or commodity dependent countries were
only price taker.
Cavalcanti et al (2012) and Bleaney and Greenaway (2001) use both the data
years when all countries already independent which data years started in the
year of 1970. Cavalcanti et al (2012) findings was one of the most complete
because they take into account resource curse literature both from the view of
structuralist and new institution but the categorization of countries groups
have weak reference and argument because they only explain that commodity
dependence country is the one with more than 50% commodity export is
15
commodity dependent and they were trapped in the same method of using
only GDP share as sole measurements of such dependency. They need more
validated measurement and data to support their categorization. In order to
generate comprehensive results in determining a country is commodity
dependence by measuring the share of export earnings of the top single
commodity or top three export commodities in GDP in total merchandise
exports, percentage of total employment in commodity production and share
of government revenue (South Center 2005). While Bleaney and Greenaway
(2001) findings only shows the correlations between specialization in
commodity exports impact on growth and only used two variables that is the
exchange rate and terms of trade volatility without deeply analyzing the
resource curse literature and the political issues.
On the other hand, Collier research was also a comprehensive one where they
investigate the effects of different type of commodity on growth and they also
analyze on the resource curse literature but the conclusions were weak when
they conclude that recent post 2000 commodity booms would likely to have
long term adverse impact on commodity dependent countries by analogous the
historical trend while it is not proven yet.
Moreover, all of the above findings use the econometrics models that only
explain the correlations and they tend to present correlations as causal relations
where more experiments and better data analysis could be used to address
issues in a research (Black 1982). Those methods didn’t really explain the
resource curse impact on growth where the resource curse explains that it’s a
causal relationship between commodity dependency and economic growth.
Both IMF and World Bank analyze on Indonesia recent growth during the
commodity boom that started in 2000s. IMF used both exploratory data
analysis to analyze the data from the year of 1990 to 2009 and VAR to analyze
the data from 1993 to 2008 to estimate the commodity boom effect on
manufacturing sector and explain the growth during this period. IMF found
16
that (i) there was no strong evidence of Dutch Disease during the commodity
boom and the Dutch disease often associated with the currency real
appreciation where the currency did appreciate by about 14% during the
booms in the late 2003 to mid-2008 but there is no evidence of overvaluation ;
(ii) they did find that other sectors was weaken during the boom such as
manufacturing sector in textiles, wood manufactures and paper producers was
poor and stagnant but it wasn’t cause by the booms but due to the
infrastructure bottlenecks and labor market frictions however, the
manufacturing sector in chemical, machinery and apparatus show a positive
growth as the demand for those products from the booming commodity
sector while some other sectors was in sluggish growth as it has been like that
even before the commodity boom; (iii) the reliance of Indonesia on
commodity sector for its growth does increase Indonesia’s vulnerability to
export price volatility but the terms of trade have been quite stable and its
export increase to 120% in 2003 to 2008 and its growth was stronger compare
to the growth in 1990s with the fact that in 1990s its export boom was driven
by manufacture sector while in 2003 to 2008 was driven by commodity exports
(Lipscomb et al. 2010).
World Bank on the other hand narrowed their analysis both short-term impact
on the year 2005 to 2008 on actual data where the global commodity prices rise
at its peak and long-term impact on year of 2005 to 2020 on projected data
using the Wayang 2005 general equilibrium model but the focus is to be the
short-term impact of commodity booms during 2005 to 2008. They found that
in the short run, the impact of global commodity price increases gives positive
impact on Indonesia economy where the evidence shows that there was a
decline in rural poverty of 4.7% and urban poverty of 2.7% also accentuated
by government cash transfer system to compensate the poor consumers from
international petroleum price rise hence the overall rate of poverty decline for
4.1% and increasing terms of trade. To be more specific, World Bank divided
the analysis on each commodity sector notably energy sector, agricultural
sector and mining sector. In the energy sector, the price rise has adverse
impact on government spending, as Indonesia is net importer of petroleum
products. Indonesia government responded to this condition by increase the
subsidy on this product and cash transfer to the poor consumers to decrease
the adverse impact. In general, the rise in agriculture products benefits the
producer but it harms the consumer of rural and urban areas where the price
rise increases their expenditure on food items but the rural poor income
increase and as the demand for unskilled labor rise. While in the price rise in
the mining sector benefits the most on Indonesia economy. It shows that in
the short run mining sector enhance robust economic growth, which induces
investment in this sector (Warr and Aldaz-Carroll 2010).
In sum, both World Bank and IMF analysis in line with the other research on
other commodity dependent economy show that in the short run, commodity
booms does benefit Indonesia in a way of boosting economic growth,
enhancing exports and increase investment in commodity sector as it is one of
the largest commodity exporter. From the IMF (2010) they found that there is
no resource curse occur in Indonesia as commodity dependence country
instead the commodity prices booms enhance its economic growth so does the
findings of the World Bank (2010) where they argue that the rise in prices of
17
commodity in commodity sector such as Energy does have adverse impact on
its economy and agriculture sector does have adverse impact too but not
significantly hamper its economic growth, on the other hand, the mining sector
gives significant positive impact.
Criticism
The findings of World Bank (2010) didn’t go deeper to the literature debate
regarding the adverse impact of commodity dependency during the booms and
busts. It only shows the magnitude of the impact of commodity booms on
Indonesia economy without related it to the resource curse literature and didn’t
explain what kind of adverse impact that causes by the dependency on
commodity. Moreover, the length of the current data they used was too short
and they try to explain long term impact using projected data until 2020 which
the data accuracy are still to be questioned. Also it doesn’t make any sense
where they didn’t use historical data to explain the trend and make their
arguments on the findings strong enough.
On the other hand, IMF (2010) research methods could be accounted as the
most complete one where they use both exploratory data analysis and VAR.
However, the data used in their research started from 1990 which they didn’t
use any historical data as comparison to the current one and there was no
strong arguments why they start from the year of 1990. Moreover, the resource
curse literature they use to analyze the dependency on commodity only limited
to the Dutch disease and terms of trade issues while there are more than those
two impacts on economic growth. The other weakness of this research is that
they didn’t take into account the government macroeconomic policy which is
also crucial in determining the impact of dependency on commodity on
economic growth.
18
Chapter 3
Indonesia Economy Background
3.1 Introduction
Indonesian economy for the past three decades since 1970 to 1996 has been a
rapid growth economy where as one of the resource abundant countries and
colonized compare to the other same features countries shouldn’t be able to
reach such a tremendous achievement. In 1970 to 1996 Indonesia was one of
the fastest economic growth country in the world that recorded 7.2% annual
growth and the real annual income per capita in 1996 reach nearly four times
than it was in 1970 followed by the high poverty reduction from more than
60% in 1970 to 11% in 1996(Radelet 1999, Temple 2001). While the literatures
in chapter 2 suggest that resource abundant countries tend to have slow
economic growth rather than those with less resources and natural resources
could only bring blessing to those countries with the presence of good
institutions.
This chapter gives brief overview of Indonesia economy. This chapter will be
organize as follow; the 2nd section gives the overview of the structure of the
Indonesia economy and the changed over time to lesser the magnitude of the
resource curse and the 3rd section gives overview of the policy reform during
the booms and bust of primary commodity prices; and the last part draws
conclusions on Indonesia economy background.
19
After four years Soeharto assuming presidency in 1970 Indonesia economy
performance was very impressive where the annual GDP annual growth rate
was 7.4% until 1981 (Kuncoro and Resosudarmo 2003). Indonesia moved
from net rice importer as rice is the staple food to self-sufficiency in 1985(Hill
2000, Kuncoro and Resosudarmo 2003). However, the opportunity cost was
high in subsidized for the inputs such as fertilizers and the strategy wasn’t
homogeneously successful in all regions worsened by the policy failure in
promoting other cash crops such as palm oil and natural rubber (Muller 1998).
Table 3-1
Indonesia Exports Composition and Annual GDP Growth
Agricultural Ores and
raw materials Food exports Fuel exports metals exports Manufactures
exports (% of (% of (% of (% of exports (% of
merchandise merchandise merchandise merchandise merchandise Annual GDP
Year exports) exports) exports) exports) exports) Growth %
1970 35% 20% 33% 11% 1% 7%
1980 14% 8% 72% 4% 2% 9%
1990 5% 11% 44% 4% 35% 9%
2000 4% 9% 25% 5% 57% 5%
2010 7% 16% 30% 10% 37% 6%
Source: World Bank data (World Development Indicators & Global Development Finance)
The development plans chartered in the four stage five years plans which was
also included the policy needed was outlined in the name of Repelita (Rencana
Pembangunan Lima Tahun) started from 1969 to 1989. In the early stage of
development in 1970 Indonesia manufacture sector was still underdeveloped
hence as a country that rich of natural resources but late industrialized
Indonesia used its factor endowments to achieve better economic growth by
using the commodity windfall revenue to develop its manufacture sector. In
the government development plans stated that one of the objectives of long-
term development was to achieve balanced economic structure in which a
resilient manufacturing sector that would be supported by strong agriculture
sectors (Wie 1987). Agriculture is one of the most important sector for
Indonesia where it is one of the sector that absorb most of the unskilled labor
and sector that earns most of the foreign exchange by raising country’s
earnings from exports and agriculture import substitutions (Daryanto 1999).
Rice supply and price for example is Indonesia national staple food needed to
be secured hence Indonesia built an institution named BULOG to maintain
the price and reserves (Scherr 1989).
22
for commodity sector after the global commodity prices declined (Warr 1986,
Gelb 1986).
When the oil price fall in the mid-1980 some oil exporting countries abandon
the attempt to open its economy, Indonesia in contrast kept opening its
economy but raise its trade barriers by imposing exchange controls and
tightening import licensing, it also cut public spending and devaluate its
currency to protect the non-oil exports sector (Fane and Warr 2008). During
this period the fiscal revenue was declining hence the irrigation development
expenditure was reduced together with the subsidies for fertilizers and in May
1986 the government introduced the duty drawbacks and exemption on
imports for exports products with the intention to boost the manufacture
sector (Bautista 1990, Wie 2006).
Table 3-2
Policy and Plans Summary
Years Policy and Plans
1969 – 1979 First and second development plans (Repelita)
Focus on agriculture sector and manufacturing sector
that produce input for agriculture sector
Attain food self-sufficiency
Protect domestic market by taxed or banned some
commodity exports
1979 – 1989 Third and fourth development plans
Development of manufacture sector to reduce the
dependency on commodity sector
Raising trade barriers by imposing exchange controls and
tightening import licensing
Duty drawback for imports of manufacturing capital
goods
1989 – 1999 Focus on palm oil exports
Imposed tax on palm oil exports
Tax on other agriculture exports to protect domestic
market and earnings to fund other productive sector
2000 – 2010 Tax on agriculture raw materials to protect domestic
market and ensure adequate supply to meet domestic
demand
24
Chapter 4
Analysis
4.1 Introduction
This chapter analyzes the data of global primary commodity prices, Indonesia
GDP growth and GDP by sector, export and import structure and principal
primary commodity export by categories. The first section analyzes to what
extent does Indonesia economy growth depend on primary commodity
production and the second section analyzes on what is the impact of this
dependency for its growth. The last section is the conclusion of the two
findings. The data analyzed in this paper are the data from 1980 to 2010 which
specifically discuss Indonesia economy growth in details from 1990 to 1996
before the Asian crisis and 2000 after the Asian crisis to 2010 to 2010 to look
at impact of commodity dependency on the recent growth after the Asian
crisis that severely damaged its growth during the crisis. When the crisis in
1997/8 that hit Indonesia economy was a sudden collapse in their economy
which it hurts the economy domestically where it raised the issues of political
instability regarding Soeharto regime, evident of corruption and repression of
all political opposition and internationally where the trade facility such as short
and medium term capital and loan was rejected and fled away from many trade
partners (Sadli 1998). Hence, the period during the crisis will be excluded as it
takes more than this research to specifically focus on the impact of the crisis
on its economy.
The data used in this paper was collected from both national and international
sources. National source is the Indonesia statistic center institution
(BadanPusatStatistik) and international sources are the World Bank database,
UNCTAD statistics and UNComtrade.
Figure 4-1 Global Commodity Prices and Share of Exports (Percentage Change)
120% 80%
100% 60%
80% 40%
60% 20%
40% 0%
20% -20%
0% -40%
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Source: Author’s own illustration base on World Bank data (World Development Indicators &
Global Development Finance) and UNCTAD Statistics
Figure 4-2 Food Commodity Volume Exports and Prices (Percentage Change)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
-20%
-40%
Food Commodity Exports Food Commodity Prices (in terms of current USD)
Source: Author’s own illustration base on World Bank data (World Development Indicators &
Global Development Finance) and UNCTAD Statistics
26
Figure 4-3 Tropical Beverages Volume Exports and Prices (Percentage Change)
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
-20%
-40%
Source: Author’s own illustration base on World Bank data (World Development Indicators & Global
Development Finance) and UNCTAD Statistics
Figure 4-4 Vegetables Oils and Oilseeds Volume Exports and Prices (Percentage
Change)
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
-50%
-100%
Source: Author’s own illustration base on World Bank data (World Development Indicators & Global
Development Finance) and UNCTAD Statistics
Figure 4-5 Agriculture Raw Materials Volume Exports and Prices (Percentage Change)
60%
40%
20%
0%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
-20%
-40%
-60%
Source: Author’s own illustration base on World Bank data (World Development Indicators & Global
Development Finance) and UNCTAD Statistics
27
Figure 4-6 Minerals, Ores and Metal Exports Volume Exports and Prices (Percentage
Change)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
-20%
-40%
-60%
Source: Author’s own illustration base on World Bank data (World Development Indicators & Global
Development Finance) and UNCTAD Statistics
Prior to 1999
In the early 1970s Indonesia exports were entirely dominated by the primary
commodity as shown in figure 4-1 that Indonesia exports were mainly
commodity exports and explained in table 1 that its exports mostly was the
agriculture raw materials and fuel where fuel exports accounted for two-third
of total exports earnings in 1982 when the manufactures sector was still
underdeveloped and it was only accounted for 1% of total merchandise
exports. As oil price fall rapidly in the late 1982, Indonesia government
responded to the price fall by introducing stabilization program to reduce
vulnerability to the external shocks but even before the adjustment program.
Indonesia has gone through a series of structural change where the share of
agriculture in GDP declined from 40.7% in the early 1970s to 29.8% in the
early 1980s as also the mining sector fell from 11.4% to 8% while the
manufacturing sector increased from 9.6% to 15.4% (Thorbecke 1991).
28
positive impact was reducing the dependency of Indonesia economy growth in
primary commodity sector notably oil and gas taxes revenue (Kuncoro and
Resosudarmo 2003).
Therefore, in the late 1980s until the onset of Asian crisis in mid 1997 the
boom in Indonesia economic growth was mainly caused by the rapid growth
of its export from crude oil exports to non-oil primary commodity exports and
particularly manufacturing that was the most influential factor that boosts its
growth (Athukorala 2006).
From the figure 4-2 to 4-6 we see that Indonesia principal commodity exports
volume started to rise in the mid-1985 to 1990. The exports were also
supported by the rise of the prices except for the tropical beverages
commodity. Started in 1990 until 1997 most of those commodity exports
volume were declining as they focus more on the manufacturing sector exports
which also confirmed by figure 2 that the share of total merchandise exports
value was dominated by the manufacturing sector exports. Manufacture sectors
started to soar in the share of exports started in the 1990 where it had more
than 50% of total merchandise exports in the mid-1990s. Base on the data we
see that Indonesia reliance on commodity exports decrease over years which it
was due to the development plan (Repelita) that it objective was to develop its
manufacture sectors.
After 1999
In the aftermath of Asian crisis, Indonesia exports recovery was still sluggish
for the next 5 years. The average annual growth of non-oil commodity exports
from 2000 to 2004 was only 8.7% compared to the pre-crisis period in 1990 to
1996 while the manufacture exports average growth rate decline from 19.6% in
pre-crisis period to 7.5% in the aftermath of the crisis(Athukorala 2006). As
confirm in table 5 data shows that total merchandise exports value didn’t rise
significantly and fall in 2001. In figure 4-2 to 4-6 they show that in the early
2000 the commodity prices has small contraction so even Indonesia
commodity exports did increase but the value didn’t support by the rise of
prices hence Indonesia exports during the early 2000s was disappointing.
Moreover, when prices started to rise again in the late 2002 Indonesia failed to
boost its commodity exports to earn the windfall revenue from the price rise.
Started in 2005 onwards, the data in figure 4-1 shows that the share of
merchandise exports value of commodity rise gradually until 2010 but the data
in figure 4-2 to 4-6 on the other hand shows that the growth of volume of
commodity exports didn’t rise significantly as much as the value growth except
in the Minerals, Ores and Metal Exports which rise in 2006 but fall after
several years. This suggests that the share of commodity exports value that
exceed the manufacture sector wasn’t due to the rise in volume exports but the
incident of price rises.
The data from the figures and tables shows that there was no strong evidence
of Dutch disease that channels through resource movement from lagging
manufacture sector to booming commodity sector that argues commodity
dependency tend cause a country to undermine manufacture sectors and the
staple trap concept that argues commodity dependent countries would likely to
29
keep producing raw materials and hinder industrialization process. From figure
4-1 we see how the share of manufacture exports started to rise gradually
started in 1985. Supported also by the data in table 4-1 that shows the share of
manufacture exports were high in the early 2000s but the contraction of the
share in the late 2000s was due to the rise in commodity prices that raise the
percentage value of commodity exports while figure 4-2 to 4-6 shows that the
volume exports of commodity declining.
Table 4-1
Exports Composition in 2000 – 2010
Fuel Ores and
Agricultural Food exports metals Merchan Commodi Manufactu
raw materials exports (% (% of exports (% Manufactures dise ty res
exports (% of of merchan of exports (% of exports Exports Exports
merchandise merchandi dise merchandis merchandise (current Value (% Value (%
Year exports) se exports) exports) e exports) exports) US$) Change) Change)
1999 4% 12% 23% 5% 54% 51,243 15% 2%
2000 4% 9% 25% 5% 57% 65,403 25% 28%
2001 4% 9% 26% 5% 56% 57,361 -10% -12%
2002 4% 12% 24% 5% 54% 59,166 5% 3%
2003 5% 11% 26% 6% 52% 64,108 16% 8%
2004 5% 12% 26% 6% 50% 70,767 13% 10%
2005 5% 12% 28% 8% 47% 86,996 33% 23%
2006 6% 12% 27% 10% 45% 103,527 23% 19%
2007 6% 15% 25% 11% 43% 118,013 18% 14%
2008 6% 18% 29% 8% 39% 139,606 27% 18%
2009 5% 17% 28% 9% 41% 119,646 -17% -14%
2010 7% 16% 30% 10% 37% 158,074 41% 32%
Source: World Bank data (World Development Indicators & Global Development Finance)
Table 4-2
Ten Years Average Share of Commodity Imports Value of Total Merchandise Imports
in 1970 - 2010
Total Merchandise Commodity Imports % of Commodity
Imports Value (in Millions Value (in Current Millions Imports of Total
Year US$) US$) Merchandise Imports
30
Table 4-3
Imports Composition in 1990 to 1997
Agricultural Ores and
raw materials Food imports Fuel imports metals Manufactures
imports (% of (% of (% of imports (% of imports (% of
merchandise merchandise merchandise merchandise merchandise
Year imports) imports) imports) imports) imports)
1970 - 1979 2% 14% 6% 2% 76%
1980 - 1989 4% 8% 14% 3% 70%
1990 4.7% 5% 9% 4% 77%
1991 4.7% 6% 9% 4% 76%
1992 5.6% 6% 8% 4% 76%
1993 5.2% 7% 8% 4% 76%
1994 5.6% 8% 8% 4% 75%
1995 6.2% 9% 8% 4% 73%
1996 5.5% 11% 9% 4% 71%
1997 4.7% 9% 10% 3% 73%
Source: World Bank data (World Development Indicators & Global Development Finance)
In table 4-2 and 4-3, it shows that Indonesia only imports small amounts of
commodity in the early 1970s until the late 1990s. Indonesia imports mostly
in food and Fuel where in the 1970s the government import quite large
amount of rice before they achieve food self sufficiency to meet the demand of
domestic market as rice is Indonesia staple food and the import keep continue
until 2004 but later the rice import banned by the government (Warr, 2005).
Table 4-4
Imports Composition in 2000 to 2010
31
Figure 4-7 Food commodity import volume (% Change)
1200% 60%
1000%
40%
800%
600% 20%
400% 0%
200%
-20%
0%
-200% 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 -40%
Source: Author’s own illustration base on UN commodity trade data and UNCTAD Statistics
-20%
-30%
Source: Author’s own illustration base on UN commodity trade data and UNCTAD Statistics
Source: Author’s own illustration base on UN commodity trade data and UNCTAD Statistics
From the data above in table 4-7 and 4-8, it shows that Indonesia imports in
agriculture raw materials and ores and metals relatively stable over the years on
average below 6% share of total merchandise imports except in the 2000 and
2001 where both the value and volume of imports in agriculture raw materials
increase quite high but later in 2002 to 2004 the value of the imports was still
high due to the rise of the prices but then in 2005 it gradually decrease.
32
Imports of food also relatively stable on average below 10% in 1990s.
However, there was increment in food imports in 2000s even in 2004
Indonesia stipulated rice imports ban it didn’t significantly reduce the share of
food imports value where in figure 8 we see that food imports was declining
but the prices was high.
On the other hand, imports of fuel keep increasing from average on 1990s
below 10% to above 20% in 2000s. Increasing imports of fuel is due to the
increasing domestic demand of fuel which also propelled by the subsidy on
fuel that cause the domestic price of fuel to be low. Indonesia imports of fuel
was due to the increasing amount of motor vehicles hence the demand for fuel
keep increasing and also cause by the subsidy that kept the fuel price low
(Beals 1987). The increment of the share of fuel imports value was also due to
the price rises in the early 2000s.
Indonesia imports over the decades have been dominated by the manufactures
imports. Even though Indonesia has developed its manufactures sector,
Indonesia still dependent on imports of technological product particularly
advanced technology and Indonesia also recognized as net importer of
technology (Madanmohan et al. 2004).
In sum, the increment in import value of commodity both oil and non oil was
due to the rise of global commodity prices instead of the rise in volume per se.
The volume of commodity imports only raises in several years such as in the
early 2000s but later it decline but this volume increase propelled by the rise of
the prices hence causes the value imports to rise.
33
Figure 4-10
Net Barter TOT Index % Change and Annual GDP Growth %
60.0% 15%
50.0%
10%
40.0%
30.0%
5%
20.0%
10.0% 0%
0.0%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 -5%
-10.0%
-20.0%
-10%
-30.0%
-40.0% -15%
Source: Author’s own illustration base on World Bank data (World Development Indicators &
Global Development Finance) and UNCTAD Statistics
Indonesia in the early development stage in the early 1980s still heavily
dependent on primary commodity exports hence in figure 4-10 we see that
there was deterioration of net barter TOT from 1980 to the mid-1980s and
caused the economic growth to be volatile and propelled by the import pattern
where Indonesia has been importing more than 50% of manufacture products
for a long period.
The data used in figure 4-10 started from 1980 due to the availability of
UNCTAD statistics data. In figure 5 we see that the TOT fell dramatically
during the end of oil booms in the mid-1980 when the economy still depend
so much on oil exports and its GDP growth also fell in 1982 and the mid-
1980s where high dependency on oil cause the terms of trade to be highly
volatile (Backus and Crucini 2000). After the oil boom era in 1982, the growth
in manufacturing sector that boosted by the manufacture exports has played an
important role as the source of export revenue and also as the major engine of
Indonesia economic growth in the late 1980s (Wie 2010). Since then, as shown
in table 9 that in 1990s the manufacture exports share of total merchandise
exports was on average 47% and figure 5 shows that the TOT started to rise in
the late 1980s and Indonesia economic growth became more stable in 1990
onwards until 2010 as the TOT improve.
In sum, Indonesia economy growth was volatile during the early 1980s as they
were still heavily dependent on primary commodity exports revenue. However,
in the late 1980s until 2010 as its exports was dominated by the manufacture
sector, the net barter TOT index percentage change show upward trend and
the annual GDP growth rate became less volatile and more stable as Indonesia
became less dependent on commodity exports and the growth in
manufacturing sector. Hence, from the figure 4-10 above we see that there is
34
no evidence of long term deterioration of terms of trade in Indonesia as
commodity dependence country instead the trend was upward sloping.
As shown in figure 4-11 that its exports in the 1970s keep rising particularly
when the first oil price boom in 1973 and 1974, its total exports value rose
significantly where it was contributed mostly by the fuel exports. Later when
oil price fall started in 1982 and dramatic fell in mid-1980s its exports growth
performance was disappointing where it kept falling during this period. Hence,
Indonesia GDP growth during this period was vulnerable following the
commodity prices change particularly oil prices that cause the exports
performance to be volatile.
35
Table 4-5
Annual GDP Growth and Exports Share
Annual
Agricultural Ores and GDP
raw materials Food Fuel exports metals Manufactures Growth %
exports (% of exports (% of (% of exports (% of exports (% of (constant
merchandise merchandise merchandise merchandise merchandise 2000 US$)
Year exports) exports) exports) exports) exports) in Million
1970 - 1979 22% 13% 59% 5% 2% 8%
1980 - 1989 8% 9% 63% 5% 15% 6%
1990 - 1997 5% 11% 29% 5% 47% 8%
2000 - 2005 5% 11% 26% 6% 53% 5%
2006 - 2010 6% 16% 28% 10% 41% 6%
Source: World Bank data (World Development Indicators & Global Development Finance)
Source: Author’s own illustration base on World Bank data (World Development Indicators &
Global Development Finance)
In the late 1980s until prior to the Asian crisis in 1997/8 Indonesia export
growth performance was relatively stable compare to the prior period as the
manufacture exports value accounted for more than 40% of total merchandise
exports as also its GDP growth performed better with less volatility and better
growth. Indonesia commodity exports value started to fell during this period
due to the unfavorable global commodity prices hence reduce Indonesia
exports revenue from commodity sector but its growth was high during this
period due to the manufacture exports that boost its exports earnings. Hence
its shows that Indonesia growth has been less dependent on the commodity
sector as the manufacture sector has been well developed and dominated the
total share of merchandise exports.
In the year of 2000 to 2005 we see that Indonesia growth was 5% on average
and the share of manufacture exports was more than 50%. Even though the
share of manufacture exports dominates the total merchandise exports, the
36
slow growth was due to the recovery of the aftermath of the Asian crisis. Then
in 2006 to 2010 we see an improvement of Indonesia growth which on average
6%. In this period the share of manufacture exports value decline from the
previous period which was due to the rise in commodity prices.
Indonesia growth pattern has been following the exports growth pattern.
However, in the recent years of 2000s Indonesia growth pattern stopped
following the exports. Indonesia GDP growth in the recent years has been
consistently due to the strong domestic demand growth where over the past 10
years Indonesia domestic demand exceed exports demand hence even during
the global financial crisis in 2008 where the global economic downturn cause
Indonesia exports volume to fell by 20% (Elias and Noone 2011), it didn’t
significantly impact its growth performance as shown in figure 6.
Figure 4-12
GDP Annual Growth and Global Commodity Price
15% 40%
10% 30%
20%
5%
10%
0%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0%
-5%
-10%
-10% -20%
-15% -30%
Source: World Bank data (World Development Indicators & Global Development Finance)
Indonesia growth rate in the early 1970 to 1985 was vulnerable to the changes
of global commodity prices as the manufacture exports still under 20% as
shown in table 4-5 and figure 4-12. However, in 1986 onwards base on World
Bank Data the manufacture exports was above 25% and keep increasing until
1996 where the exports of manufacture reach above 50% of total merchandise
exports hence Indonesia GDP annual growth rate was steady in 1990s without
any significant fluctuations even though the price of global commodity prices
fall drastically that used to have significant impact on the growth rate in 1970
until the late 1980s. The stable growth in the 1990s was due to its exports that
37
dominated by the manufacture sector. The most interesting part is in the end
of 1980s when global commodity prices fell dramatically, the GDP growth rate
on the other hand rose hence it shows that Indonesia strong economy
structure that caused by the rapid development in the manufacturing sector
reduce Indonesia economy growth vulnerability on global commodity prices
change. However, during the Asian Crisis in 1997/98 the manufacturing sector
in particular the non-oil and gas manufacturing sub sectors declined
dramatically (Wie 2010) hence Indonesia recovered from the crisis by
depending on its primary commodity exports which like most developing
country in the early stage of development that relied upon primary products
(Margono and Sharma 2006). In the aftermath of Asian crisis in 2000
Indonesia economy started to recover even though many manufacture firms
collapsed during the crisis, the economy achieve remarkable growth within 3
years. In the early 2000s Indonesia manufacture exports recorded more than
50% of total merchandise exports value but this value declined over years
where in 2010 the share of manufactures value of total merchandise exports
products only 37% due to the rise in commodity prices. Its economic growth
didn’t show any significant growth achievement but slightly upward trend
constant growth for a decade.
This section focus on the GDP growth by sector in two decades from 1990 to
1996 before the Asian Crisis when the manufacturing sector developed rapidly
hence Indonesia growth became less dependent on commodity sectors and
from 2000 when Indonesia just recently recover from the crisis and achieve
quite stable growth within the years to 2000s. The data used in this section are
from Indonesia statistic center using the constant 2000 price. Due to the
availability of both international and national data, Indonesia GDP growth by
sector data only available from 1990 to 2010. Which also what this paper
would like to focus is on the recent growth.
The period of 1990 to 1996 clearly shows that there was no evidence of
negative impact from the commodity price rise in 1994 and Indonesia earn
much from the boom as it contribute a quarter of Indonesia GDP from its
commodity sectors without undermined the manufacturing sector. Lipscomb
et al (2010) points out that Indonesia commodity exports grew faster than the
manufacture in the late 1990s which was due to the Asian crisis where many
manufacture industries collapsed but in the early of 1990s its exports was
dominated by the manufacture sectors. However, if we confirm with the data
shown in figure 4-13 above, we see that in the early to the mid-1990s
manufacture sectors contribute a constant value to GDP while the commodity
sectors value keep declining in years.
There was indeed increased in the value of commodity exports due to the price
rise but the volume was narrow where it caused by the low supply response
cause by the low level investment in commodity sector particularly in the
mineral sector where Indonesia is one the countries with high mining potential
(Warr and Aldaz-Carroll 2010). Hence, the contribution of commodity sector
towards GDP was decrease in years where Indonesia should have been able to
39
take the advantage of this external shock to achieve better growth like it was in
the late 1980s than it was recently.
40
Chapter 5
Conclusion and Policy Implications
The objectives of this paper is to analyze to what extent does Indonesia
economy growth depend on primary commodity production and what is the
significant of this dependency for its growth. In the early development stage
during 1970, its economy was heavily dependent on the commodity exports
hence its growth tend to follow the trend of the global commodity prices.
However, as the four stage of development plans took place which the
objective of this plan was to achieve the food self-sufficiency by boosting
development of manufacture sectors to produce capital goods that support the
agriculture sector and later diversify its exports from primary commodity
exports to manufacture exports with its advantage of abundant cheap labor
compare to those developed countries.
Indonesia economic growth has different source led growth. In 1970s to 1980s
its growth was driven by commodity sectors, in 1990s until 1996 its growth
was mainly driven by the manufacture sectors while in 2000 onwards its
growth was driven by both commodity and manufacture sectors.
In the early 1970 the export was mostly primary products notably agriculture
and fuel products. However, started in 1974 when the oil price boom,
Indonesia merchandise exports was dominated by the fuel exports while the
agriculture and ores and metals exports decreasing as the price of the latter two
didn’t rise as much as the oil prices. The price rise caused windfall revenue for
oil-exporting countries which expected to favor economic development in
these countries (Usui 1997) and Indonesia was one of it. In line with its
development plan where Indonesia use it oil windfall revenue to run the
development plans that focus on the development of manufacture sector.
During the period of 1970s, Indonesia economic growth on average was 8%.
The pattern of Indonesia export kept continuing as the price of oil keep rising,
without any significant changes yet in the manufacture sector. In this period of
time, Indonesia economy was vulnerable and very likely to follow the
fluctuations of commodity price changes relative to its growth. Later, in the
early 1980s, when the oil price boom ends, Indonesia economic growth
contracted for several years but later in the late 1980s its exports started to be
dominated by the manufacture sectors hence its economy grow rapidly and
became less vulnerable to the changes in global commodity prices.
41
The oil price booms during the period of 1970s to 1980s didn’t show any
significant Dutch disease impact on its economy. Dutch disease channels
through resource movement to booming sector which undermines the
manufacture sectors and currency overvaluation. There was currency real
appreciation during the period of oil booms but there was no evidence of
overvaluation where the government sterilized substantial amount of the
windfall revenue to avoid currency overvaluation (Mikesell 1997) while as
shown in the data in chapter 4 the manufacture sectors gradually dominate the
exports several years after the fall in oil prices.
This period proved that the dependency of commodity sectors in the long
term didn’t have significant adverse impact on its economic growth. The long
term deterioration in terms of trade didn’t occur in its economy. On contrary,
the terms of trade became less volatile in this period and Indonesia economic
growth was on average 8%.
During this period, Indonesia economic growth was less prone to the changes
in terms of trade. The terms of trade contracted during the global crisis where
there was a fall in global demand of exports but Indonesia growth rate
contracted only for a small amount which was due to its strong domestic
economy that made Indonesia economy rely less on exports market (Elias and
Noone 2011).
In sum, the findings from this research is in line with the arguments where the
changes in global commodity prices continue to have an impact on Indonesia’s
economic growth, but this has declined over time because the industry-
oriented exports have increased and substituted the decline in commodity
exports particularly in the year of 1990s when commodity prices was not
favorable but its growth was high and the recent rise in Indonesia’s economic
growth rate in 2000s can be attributed to the rise in the prices of its primary
commodity exports which cause the value of primary commodity exports to
rise significantly even though the volume didn’t increase much during the
booms but it benefits Indonesia economy without undermine its manufacture
sector.
42
Indonesia dependency on commodity sectors for a long period didn’t show
any significant Resource curse adverse impact that hampers its growth on the
other hand it enhance its growth by boosting the growth of its manufacturing
sector. In the early stage development in 1970s until 1980s Indonesia reliance
on commodity sector was due to the late industrialization and lack of resource
to boost manufacture sector hence Indonesia used its commodity sector
exports revenue to run its development plan that focus on manufacture sectors
development. The remarkable development evidence was in 1990s when the
growth was boosted by the manufacture sectors. Indonesia recent economic
growth has been relying less on commodity sectors where its volume exports
keep declining.
Indonesia success in avoiding resource curse adverse impact was due to the
good management in commodity windfall revenue by using the revenue on
development plans notably the four stages five years development plan
(Repelita). Which is in line with what Collier et al (2010) suggest that when
commodity booms end, windfall revenue should be converted to high return
domestic investment and enable the revenue to foster growth by using it on
public investment spending that rise productivity of private capital.
43
References
Acosta, P.A., E.K.K. Lartey and F.S. Mandelman (2009) 'Remittances and the
Dutch Disease', Journal of International Economics 79(1): 102-116.
Alexeev, M. and R. Conrad (2009) 'The Elusive Curse of Oil', The review of
economics and statistics 91(3): 586-598.
Backus, D.K. and M.J. Crucini (2000) 'Oil Prices and the Terms of Trade', Journal
of International Economics 50(1): 185-213.
Barbier, E.B. (1989) 'Cash Crops, Food Crops, and Sustainability: The Case of
Indonesia', World Development 17(6): 879-895.
Barro, R.J. and X. Sala i Martin (1995) Economic Growth: Robert J. Barro, Xavier
Sala-i-Martin. New York [etc.]: McGraw-Hill.
Beals, R. (1987) 'Trade Patterns and Trends of Indonesia', in C.I. Bradford jr and
W.H. Branson (eds) Trade and Structural Change in Pacific Asia, pp. 515-546.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Blattman, C., J. Hwang and J.G. Williamson (2007) 'Winners and Losers in the
Commodity Lottery: The Impact of Terms of Trade Growth and Volatility in the
Periphery 1870–1939', Journal of Development Economics 82(1): 156-179.
Blattman, C., J. Hwang and J.G. Williamson (2003) 'The Terms of Trade and
Economic Growth in the Periphery 1870-1938'National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Bleaney, M. and D. Greenaway (2001) 'The Impact of Terms of Trade and Real
Exchange Rate Volatility on Investment and Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa',
Journal of Development Economics 65(2): 491-500.
Chalmers, I. (1997) 'Introduction', in I. Chalmers and V.R. Hadiz (eds) The Politics
of Economic Development in Indonesia: Contending Perspectives, Vol. 9. pp. 1-32.
London: Routledge.
Collier, P. and B. Goderis (2007) Commodity Prices, Growth, and the Natural
Resource Curse. Vol. 276. Oxford: University of Oxford, Centre for the Study of
African Economies.
Collier, P. and A. Hoeffler (2004) 'Greed and Grievance in Civil War', Oxford
Economic Papers 56(4): 563-595.
COLLIER, P., R. VAN DER PLOEG, M. SPENCE and A.J. VENABLES (2010)
'Managing Resource Revenues in Developing Economies', IMF Staff Papers 57(1):
84-118. Accessed 12/10/2012 11:59:55 PM .
45
COLLIER, P., R. VAN DER PLOEG, M. SPENCE and A.J. VENABLES (2010)
'Managing Resource Revenues in Developing Economies', IMF Staff Papers 57(1):
84-118. Accessed 12/11/2012 1:05:34 AM .
Common Fund for Commodities, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2003)
'Commodity Yearbook ...: Prepared by UNCTAD in Collaboration with the
Common Fund for Commodities and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations = Annuaire Des Produits De Base ... / préparé Par La CNUCED En
Collaboration Avec Le Fonds Commun Pour Les Produits De Base Et
l'Organisation Des Nations Unies Pour l'Alimentation Et l'Agriculture', Commodity
yearbook ... Accessed 11/30/2012 4:54:02 AM .
Corden, W.M. and J.P. Neary (1982) 'Booming Sector and De-Industrialisation in a
Small Open Economy', The Economic Journal 92(368): 825-848.
Daryanto, A. (1999) 'Indonesia’s Crisis and the Agricultural Sector: The Relevance
of Agricultural Demand-Led Industrialisation', UNEAC Asia Papers No.2 : 61-72.
Dong, B. and L. Yan (2009) 'A Paradox of the Theory of Comparative Advantage',
Department of Economics, University of International Business and Economics,
Beijing, China : 1-25.
Elias, S. and C. Noone (2011) 'The Growth and Development of the Indonesian
Economy', Reserve Bank of Australia : 33-43.
46
Fischer, S. (1993) 'The Role of Macroeconomic Factors in Growth', Journal of
Monetary Economics 32(3): 485-512.
Fletcher, I. (2010) 'FREE TRADE DOESN'T WORK: What should Replace it and
Why'. Austin: Kirkus Media LLC.
Frankel, J.A. (2010) The Natural Resource Curse: Jeffrey A. Frankel. Vol. 15836.
Cambridge, Mass: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hasan, M.F., M.R. Reed and M.A. Marchant (2001) 'Effects of an Export Tax on
Competitiveness: The Case of the Indonesian Palm Oil Industry', Journal of
Economic Development 26(2): 77-90.
Hausmann, R., J. Hwang and D. Rodrik (2007) 'What You Export Matters',
Journal of Economic Growth 12(1): 1-25.
Hill, H.C. (2000) The Indonesian Economy: Hal Hill. Cambridge [etc.]: Cambridge
University Press.
Krueger, A.O. (1974) 'The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society', The
American Economic Review 64(3): 291-303.
Lane, P.R. and A. Tornell (1996) 'Power, Growth, and the Voracity Effect', Journal
of Economic Growth 1(2): 213-241.
Leamer, E.E. (1983) 'Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics', The American
Economic Review 73(1): 31-43.
47
Lipscomb, L., U. Ramakrishnan, G. Adler, N. Budina and X. Li (2010)
'Indonesia’s Commodity Boom: Dutch Disease in the Making?', Indonesia:
Selected Issues, No. 10/285, pp. 2-14. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary
Fund.
Marks, S.V., D.F. Larson and J. Pomeroy (1998) 'Economic Effects of Taxes on
Exports of Palm Oil Products', Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 34(3): 37-
58.
Mehlum, H., K. Moene and R. Torvik (2006) 'Institutions and the Resource Curse',
The Economic Journal 116(508): 1-20.
Mikesell, R.F. (1997) 'Explaining the Resource Curse, with Special Reference to
Mineral-Exporting Countries', Resources Policy 23(4): 191-199.
Muller, A.L. (1998) 'The Indonesian Economy since 1966. Review Article', The
South African Journal of Economics 66(1): 64-72.
Prebisch, R. (1950) The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal
Problems: By Raul Prebisch; Transl. from the Spanish. Vol. 1950, II, G, 2. Lake
Success, N.Y: United Nations Department of Economic Affairs.
48
Radelet, S. (1999) 'Indonesia: Long Road to Recovery', Unpublished Working
Paper, Harvard Institute for International Development, Cambridge, MA .
Sachs, J.D. and A.M. Warner (2001) 'The Curse of Natural Resources', European
Economic Review 45(4): 827-838.
Sadli, M. (1998) 'The Indonesian Crisis', ASEAN Economic Bulletin 15(3): 272-
280.
Singer, H.W. (1950) 'The Distribution of Gains between Investing and Borrowing
Countries', The American Economic Review 40(2): 473-485.
49
GOVERNANCE ERA TO THE POST-CRISIS PERIOD', Kadin Indonesia-
JETRO : 1-55.
Temple, J. (2001) Growing into Trouble: Indonesia After 1966: Jonathan Temple.
Vol. no. 2932. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
The Economist Intelligence Unit (Last updated 2012) 'Indonesia Trade: Trade
Patterns and Regulations' (a webpage of The Economist Intelligence Unit).
Accessed November/30 2012
<http://www.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=ib3PrintArticle&article_id=888785673&pr
inter=printer>.
Thorbecke, W. (1998) 'The Indonesian Economic Crisis: Social Costs and Policy
Implications ', Office of Development Studies Working Paper No. 7 (New York:
United Nations Development Programme) .
Tornell, A. and P.R. Lane (1999) 'The Voracity Effect', The American Economic
Review 89(1): 22-46.
Usui, N. (1997) 'Dutch Disease and Policy Adjustments to the Oil Boom: A
Comparative Study of Indonesia and Mexico', Resources Policy 23(4): 151-162.
Usui, N. (1996) 'Policy Adjustments to the Oil Boom and their Evaluation: The
Dutch Disease in Indonesia', World Development 24(5): 887-900.
Warr, P.G. (1986) 'Indonesia's Other Dutch Disease: Economic Effects of the
Petroleum Boom', 'Indonesia's Other Dutch Disease: Economic Effects of the
Petroleum Boom', Natural Resources and the Macroeconomy (J. Peter Neary and
Sweder van Wijnbergen edn). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
50
Wie, T.K. (2010) 'Indonesia's Economic Crises and the Prospects for Rapid and
Sustained Growth', Review of Indonesian Economic and Business Studies 1(1): 43-
56.
Wie, T.K. (1987) 'Industrial and Foreign Investment Policy in Indonesia since
1967 (東南アジア経済・社会の変容)', 東南アジア研究 25(3): 383-396.
51