Hilma Sundusiyah, Dini Rahmayanti

Analisis Kemiskinan di Indonesia

Introduction

Analisis kemiskinan di indonesia. Menjelaskan analisis faktor kemiskinan di Indonesia (2019-2022) dari 34 provinsi. Mengkaji dampak pengangguran terbuka & peran HDI pada tingkat kemiskinan.

Abstract

The aim of this research is to analyze poverty factors in Indonesia. The data used is panel data with data from 34 provinces from 38 provinces in Indonesia. The type of data used is in the form of panel data, namely a combination of cross sections and time series over a period of 4 years 2019-2022. The method used is quantitative data consisting of the open unemployment rate, poverty rate and human development index. The research results showed that open unemployment rate had an insignificant positive effect on poverty levels and HDI could not moderate the effect of open unemployment levels on poverty in Indonesia.

Review

This paper addresses a highly relevant and critical topic: the analysis of poverty in Indonesia, a dynamic and complex issue with significant policy implications. The stated aim to analyze poverty factors provides a clear focus, and the use of panel data, combining cross-sectional and time-series dimensions, is an appropriate methodological choice for capturing regional heterogeneity and temporal trends across Indonesian provinces. The research timeframe of 2019-2022 covers a recent and impactful period, offering insights into contemporary poverty dynamics. However, the methodological description in the abstract lacks critical detail. While panel data for 34 provinces (from an unspecified total of 38) over four years is mentioned, the specific econometric technique employed (e.g., Fixed Effects, Random Effects, Pooled OLS) is not. This omission makes it difficult to assess the robustness and appropriateness of the analytical approach. The variables chosen – open unemployment rate, poverty rate, and human development index (HDI) – are standard and relevant, and the attempt to examine HDI's moderating effect is commendable. Nonetheless, clarification is needed regarding the specific model specification and the rationale behind including 34 out of 38 provinces. The presented results are concise: an insignificant positive effect of the open unemployment rate on poverty levels, and HDI's inability to moderate this effect. These findings, particularly the insignificance of open unemployment as a direct driver of poverty, are rather striking and potentially counter-intuitive, warranting extensive discussion and interpretation in the full paper. It would be crucial to elaborate on the implications of an "insignificant positive effect" and explore potential reasons behind this result, such as the prevalence of underemployment, the informal sector, or other dominant poverty drivers not captured. The full paper should also delve into the policy implications of these findings and suggest future research avenues, perhaps exploring alternative measures of labor market distress or a broader range of socioeconomic indicators influencing poverty in Indonesia.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.