For some reason of doing a project in helping my lecturer to prepare his material for a seminar and also in helping myself to improve my "next economist" brain, i have to read some economics reports and analyze them.
Last night i started with making a graph about the poverty rate in Indonesia in period 1996-2009 based on BPS' report. actually it's not a new knowledge for me since i also got A for economics of poverty class. but i still surprised with the number served there. it always makes me curios about its problem(poverty)here(Indonesia).
there is a different measurement for poverty rate between BPS in Indonesia an world bank as international organization.
BPS measures poverty,based on the ability of the people to fulfill their basic needs for food and non-food in economic term from expenditure side. so, based on BPS measurement, poor are people who live with average expenditure per capita per month below the poverty line for food and non-food. Poverty line for food is 2.100 kilos calories per person per day, and poverty line non-food is measured by minimum needs for education, health, clothes, and housing.
The other hand, world bank measures poverty with 2 different poverty lines,both of them measured by counting the consumption of people which is converted to US$ PPP(purchasing power parity) US$ 1 per day of income and US$ 2 per day income.
Different poverty line effects different poverty rates. for example, in 2008 when we use BPS's measurements (converted into US$ PPP equal to US$ 1,5) poverty rate in Indonesia is 15,42%. but when we use world bank measurements for the poverty line US$ 1 PPP, the data shows 5,9% of poverty rate, and when we use the poverty line US$ 2 PPP it becomes 42,60%.
it's surprising me! there is so little gap between US$1, US$ 1,5 and US$ 2. but the number of the poor different significantly for each type of measurement.
lecturer of my economics of poverty class said that the problem also occurs here is lot of "near poor" people. for a particular measurement, they are not categorized as poor, but in fact they live very close to the poverty line. they also couldn't enjoy the minimum standard of living for humanity, bad housing, bad nutrition, couldn't afford school, health services, etc.
when using US$ 1 PPP as poverty line we get 5,9% of poverty rate and when we just up for 1 dollar again to US$ 2, the rate up much much higher to 42,60%. see, how many people who live on the line or not too far from the line?
i think, our government is run by so many great and smart people. they must be realized about this fact, and know how to overcome this problem. but why, it seemed to be not so effective?
in my shallow opinion in just about, the government doesn't really understand about the characteristics of the poor and the wrong policies-receipt. just ask them, what they really need, do research, try to learn about their point of view.
different area, different characteristics of the poor. poor in rural for example, needs assistance for their work field, the direct ones. subsidizing them with infrastructure, working capital and assist them to use it effectively. don't just give them the fishhook then go, stay for a while and teach them how to use it in right way. And the main problem also, we face the systemic poorness, that is, when the parents are poor then they can't give their children good quality of life, as a result the children become "poor children" with "poor quality as human" and on their time, they turn into the next 'poor parents", and so on..
the poor , really need to be protected for their purchasing power of food for the most important, their access for health, and school. those are the most important things. open the access! not just give them the small amount and short period money subsidy.
by opening those accesses, we also help them to empower themselves. we lift up their dignity also, as a human. and it will give long-term effects for their future life, at least the better life for their children. if the parents are poor, and we can't fix that problem at the "parents" time, at least we've started the right policies for the "children", and we can end that systemic poorness.
