Muh Farhan Arfandy, Asfara Rachmad Rinata

Economic Crisis Recovery with Legal Policies by Governments (A Comparative Study between Indonesian, French, and Argentinian Law)

Introduction

economic crisis recovery with legal policies by governments (a comparative study between indonesian, french, and argentinian law) . Comparative study of legal policies by Indonesia, France, & Argentina for economic crisis recovery, examining labor reform, constitutional frameworks, and emergency responses.

Abstract

This article compares the legal policies implemented by France, Argentina, and Indonesia in addressing economic crises. The research method used in this study is doctrinal legal research, combined with a prescriptive-analytical approach, aims to provide recommendations for addressing specific issues and generate arguments, theories, or new concepts as solutions. The findings of this research indicate that France, through the Macron Law, seeks to overcome the economic crisis by reforming the labor market and implementing social policies. Meanwhile, Argentina addresses economic crises by referring to its Constitution, particularly Article 76 and Article 99(3), which provide the legal framework for the government to handle public emergencies and regulate the executive-legislative relationship in crisis policymaking. This is evident in Law 25.156 and Decree 1.019 of 1999, which govern competition protection. In Indonesia, the economic crisis triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic was addressed through the National Economic Recovery (PEN) policy, which relies on statutory authorization. Additionally, Indonesia has adopted a legislative model in responding to emergencies, a concept introduced by Tom Ginsburg and Mila Versteeg.

Review

This article undertakes a timely and ambitious comparative study of legal policies adopted by France, Argentina, and Indonesia in response to economic crises. The topic is highly relevant given the global prevalence and varied impact of economic downturns. Employing a doctrinal legal research method combined with a prescriptive-analytical approach, the authors aim not only to describe these policies but also to offer concrete recommendations and potentially generate new theoretical insights or concepts for future crisis management. This methodological approach signals a desire to move beyond mere description towards a more impactful and applicable contribution to the field of comparative law and economic governance. The abstract presents distinct approaches taken by each nation. France is highlighted for its reliance on the Macron Law, focusing on labor market reforms and social policies to stimulate recovery. Argentina's strategy is framed within its constitutional provisions (Articles 76 and 99(3)) and specific legislation like Law 25.156 and Decree 1.019 of 1999, which govern competition protection and executive-legislative relations during emergencies. In Indonesia, the response to the Covid-19-triggered crisis involved the National Economic Recovery (PEN) policy, based on statutory authorization, and is noted for adopting a legislative emergency model akin to that described by Ginsburg and Versteeg. While these findings offer a valuable snapshot of diverse legal instruments, the abstract primarily details *what* was done in each country rather than explicitly drawing comparative threads or assessing the *effectiveness* of these distinct legal frameworks in achieving economic recovery. Furthermore, the connection between competition protection in Argentina and direct crisis recovery could be more clearly articulated. To fully leverage its comparative potential and fulfill its stated methodological aims, the article would benefit from a more explicit comparative analysis that transcends country-specific descriptions. The promised "recommendations" and "new concepts" from the prescriptive-analytical approach are not clearly discernible in the findings section of the abstract. Future iterations or the full manuscript should endeavor to systematically compare the *principles*, *mechanisms*, and *outcomes* of these diverse legal responses, perhaps by categorizing the types of crises addressed or the specific policy objectives pursued (e.g., stimulating demand, protecting vulnerable groups, financial stability). Clearly defining the metrics of "recovery" and evaluating how each country's policies contributed to these metrics would significantly strengthen the research. Despite these observations, the study's broad scope and focus on different legal traditions offer a promising foundation for a significant contribution to understanding economic crisis management through law.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.