Indonesia’s growth outlook – solving the Rubik’s cube of Indonesian growth

Crawford School of Public Policy | Arndt-Corden Department of Economics | Indonesia Project
David McKelvey on flickr

Event details

Indonesia Study Group

Date & time

Thursday 11 April 2019
12.30pm–2.00pm

Venue

Lt 1.04, Coombs Extension Building#8, ANU

Speaker

David Nellor and Della Temenggung (PROSPERA)

Contacts

ANU Indonesia Project
+61 2 6125 5954

Bappenas is currently preparing the technocratic background study for the Indonesian medium term development plan (RPJM), which will be incorporated with the elected president’s priorities to form the RPJM 2020-24. In collaboration with Bappenas, our study contributes to four areas: (i) Setting the macroeconomic framework and projections; (ii) Undertaking the growth diagnostics to determine the binding constraints on growth; (iii) Determining the scale and areas of focus for infrastructure consistent with the macroeconomic outlook; and (iv) Defining a strategy for the financing of investment over the medium term.

As Indonesia’s potential growth is falling, productivity needs to be stronger than any time over the past decade. The study finds that increasing the amount of investment is not an option, therefore it argues that boosting productivity requires better investment, which includes: (i)) Getting more effective financing; (ii) Relaxing binding constraints in the enabling environment; and (iii) Solving the infrastructure conundrum. Improving the efficiency of investment is the key to driving Indonesia’s development agenda. This includes aligning investment incentives and allocating investment to more productive sectors, including through the financial system. This is especially the case for infrastructure investment. The study finds that regulations and institutions are the most binding constraints to growth in Indonesia, particularly the conflicting and harmful regulations in trade and investment. The institutional shortcomings include insufficient strategic oversight and a lack of alignment between responsibility and accountability, resulting in overlapping institutional responsibility in critical crosscutting areas.

Updated:  25 February 2016/Responsible Officer:  Crawford Engagement/Page Contact:  CAP Web Team