Mangan ora Mangan.. yang Penting Merkantilis

Selama tiga hari berturut-turut Kompas memuat berita terpuruknya sektor pertanian Indonesia. Setuju, peningkatan produksi dan peningkatan pendapatan petani memang perlu diperjuangkan. Sederet masalah sisi produksi masih menghambat petani kita. Fluktuasi harga menjadi momok petani sementara akses bibit, modal, dan teknologi juga menjadi penghambat daya saing produk pertanian.

Kompas juga tepat mengagkat isu dis-integrasi ekonomi domestik ketika kondisi ekonomi eksternal sedang kacau. Tantangan geografis kita sebagai negara kepulauan menyebabkan segmentasi pasar dan terbatasnya economies of scale sehingga menjadi salah satu kendala pertumbuhan ekonomi. Sulit membayangkan perekonomian Indonesia bisa tumbuh seperti China karena kita punya hambatan infrastruktur. Oleh karena itu, meningkatkan integrasi pasar domestik sebaiknya menjadi salah satu acuan Kabinet ekonomi mendatang.

Tetapi konten sentimen anti-impor yang ditulis Kompas tiga hari berturut-turut membuat saya heran. Apakah pemahanam para penulis teresebut terhadap ilmu ekonomi makin melorot? Mudah-mudahan tidak. Tetapi artikel Kompas tersebut rasanya sudah "terjebak" dalam pemikiran merkantilisme abad ke 18 yang menganggap impor suatu kejahatan dan penumpukan devisa di dalam negeri sebagai barometer prestasi ekonomi.

Artikel tersebut menuliskan bahwa Indonesia telah "terjebak impor pangan" karena impornya yang kira-kira mencapai $5 milyar per tahun. Konten berita juga mengesankan perlunya "kebijakan berani" untuk swasembada produksi.

Saya tidak ingin masuk ke teknis ekonomi pertanian, tetapi saya ingin mempertanyakan beberapa hal yang muncul dalam artikel artikel tersebut.

Pertama mengenai impor dan devisa. Memang kita mengimpor sebagian pangan dan total nilai impor 2008 mencapai $5 milyar. Dari mulai gula, kedelai, dan komoditas pertanian lain yang kita juga produsen seperti ikan tertentu Indonesia pun mengiimpor.

Yang tidak ditulis Kompas adalah total ekspor non-migas Indonesia tahun 2008 mencapai $107 milyar. Ekspor produk perkebunan, pertanian dan perikanan Indonesia di tahun itu saja juga mencapai $29 milyar dan $21 milyar tergolong komoditas pangan (termasuk sawit, teh, kopi, perikanan). Lalu kalau kita impor pangan $5 milyar, apakah ini sesuatu yang mencemaskan bagi negara dengan penduduk lebih dari 250 juta jiwa dan termasuk dalam 20 negara dengan PDB terbesar?

Betul, impor menggunakan devisa dan ekspor mendatangkan devisa. Tetapi apakah perekonomian akan lebih baik dengan hanya mengumpulkan devisa? Penumpukan devisa hanya akan mengakibatkan Rupiah terapresiasi dan akhirnya malah menurunkan daya saing produk ekspor. Memang, salah satu cara menghindari masalah ini adalah dengan meniru China yang menukarkan sebagian penerimaan devisa ekspor kedalam aset asing (seperti US Treasury). Tetapi ini juga yang mengakibatkan ketidakseimbangan global yang pada akhirnya memicu krisis keuangan saat ini.

Kedua, apakah keberhasilan adalah jika apapun dapat disediakan sendiri? Apakah para penulis artikel tersebut belum pernah mendengar istilah intra-industry trade?

Contohnya begini. Mengapa negara produsen keju seperti Belanda masih mengimpor keju dari Perancis? Arab Saudi pun masih mengimpor kurma dari Tunisia atau negara Arab lainnya. Australia sebagai penghasil wool terbesar masih mengimpor kain wool atau jas ketimbang menjahit semuanya sendiri. Mengapa Eropa sebagai penghasil Airbus masih membeli pesawat Boeing, Embraer, atau produk IPTN? Jepang, sebagai produsen mobil dunia masih mengimpor Daihatsu Grand Max dari Indonesia. Lalu mengapa Amerika sebagai penghasil kedelai, gandum, dan produk teknologi tinggi masih mau impor kecap ABC dan Indomie dari kita?

Perdagangan membuka pintu bagi spesialisasi produksi sehingga produsen bisa mengeksploitasi skala ekonomi dan keunggulan komparatif nya. Perdaganan juga memungkinkan terjadinya spesialisasi produksi yang memberikan keuntungan terbesar. Ini kredo dasar teori ekonomi yang saya tidak temukan setelah membaca artikel-artikel tersebut.

Ketiga, apakah "kebijakan berani" itu berarti proteksi, subsidi, atau tata niaga? Kalau maksudnya proteksi, tidak ada gunanya untuk dibahas karena ilmunya sudah jelas. Kalau proteksi tersebut untuk mengurangi ketidakadilan karena subsidi pertanian negara-negara maju, jalankan saja mekanisme safeguard WTO secara transparan dan bukan lewat larangan ad-hoc. Kita tinggal perlu membuktikan kalau subsidi impor produk pertanian tertentu membawa akibat desktruktif oleh karena itu bea masuk perlu dinaikkan.

Kalau subsidi, saya setuju tinggal pertanyaanya mekanisme subsidi bagaimana desain subsidi yang tepat. Apakah meniru subsidi pertanian di Eropa atau Amerika yang terjebak oleh lobi politik? Apakah sebaiknya terarah (targeted) kepada petani atau dalam bentuk irigasi, bibit, dan extension services? Dengan perbaikan infrastruktur fisik, rasanya produk pertanian kita juga bisa kompetitif di dalam negeri. Miris rasanya kalau betul marjin keuntungan mengimpor jeruk China bisa lebih tinggi ketimbang mendatangkan jeruk Medan atau Pontianak.

Bagiamana dengan tata niaga? Kecuali beras yang memang punya bobot besar (22%) dalam konsumsi rumah tangga miskin, sulit menjustifikasi perlunya tata niaga untuk produk pertanian lain. Tata niaga dapat mendistorsi sinyal harga dan meningkatkan resiko petani terjebak dalam produksi komoditas tertentu saja. Katakanlah kita memaksakan adanya tata niaga kedelai. Bisa jadi harga kedelai naik secara artifisial sehingga petani tidak dibiarkan menanam produk dengan harga yang menarik seperti holtikultur (sayuran dan buah-buahan).

Keempat mengenai ketahanan pangan. I'm not an agriculture economist but why the concept of food security seems narrowly focused on the ability to produce rather on securing the ability to access food?

New Order's Rerun, Not

Many observers and pundits warned that the recent maneuvers of political parties and politicians to regroup and form coalition, regardless their stands in the last elections, is the sign for the return of New Order's regime.

They misunderstood the situation while too easy labeled it as the New Order's rerun.

These political observers puts too much attention to political parties and overlooked the people as voters and interest groups. Important as it is, political parties (and their coalition tendency) is not the essence of democracy. You need to look at what happens to the voters, interest groups, and the game itself.

As voter, can you voice your concern without fear of being kidnapped? Can you openly disagree with the current administration? Can you say that President is stupid in a public forum, and next day you are still walking free? Can the voters punish the political parties if they go to unwanted direction? Can the voters generate pressure group?

Lest you forget or wasn't yet aware of those repressive days, it wasn't long ago that you can not do all of these. We are by far not in New Order-like regime --no matters who wins the last election.

Addendum: Even if those pundits insist on just looking at political parties, the very possibility that the parties can easily regroup and form non permanent coalition dismisses the idea of the return of New Order era.

Ben Again

Obama has re-nominated Ben Bernanke for the 2nd term of Fed Chairmanship. A good move. As any student of monetary economics knows, Bernanke is the leading scholar when it comes into monetary policy transmission and business cycle.

His work on agency cost, net worth, and business fluctuation is important. For those who want to force Indonesian banks' lending rate down (by regulation or any non market mechanism), that article should be on the top of their reading list.

Unlikely Opposition

Is it theoretically feasible to expect opposition parties arise in the current Indonesian politics?

I do not think so. It likely does not pay for the parties to become opposition if voters preferences are clustered in the median of most important issues. And, in policy making, cycling is prevalent.

RIP: Rose Director Friedman

I was reading The Great Contraction, 1929-1933, by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz when Kate emailed and asked me to write a short obituary for Rose Director Friedman.

Rose was the half of the Friedmans, with whom Milton Friedman shared and voiced opinion on issues unrelated to price theory and monetary economics (Overtveldt, 2007). The two were the strong supporters for voucher system in education; voluntary army; profit under fair competition as firm's social responsibility; and negative income tax (or direct transfer for the poor). In short, individual freedom.

May she rest in peace.

Rendra and The Students

There is something between Rendra and the university students.

In my undergraduate days, I learnt development economics from Todaro's Economic Development and Rendra's Potret Pembangunan Dalam Puisi. Todaro's provided me with methodology and numbers in analyzing development; but it was from Rendra's that I learnt how poverty, unemployment, inequality, and corrupt institutions really mean to people's life.

And the power of hope. Sajak Joki Tobing Untuk Widuri, for example.

But I had to wait until one cold raining evening of another long day in 1998 in Depok to see before my eyes the most subversive poet that Indonesia has ever had read his poems.

He was still officially banned from the University, a state university as it is, because he was considered enemy of the state --so much for the power of poetry and the irony of dictatorship guarded by thousands of soldiers and terror. But somehow friends at KMUI were able to smuggle him in to stage before hundreds of students on one of Suharto last days.

There, Rendra read his own Sajak Kenalan Lamamu. It was astounding beyond words. Magical. And on those days, bloody relevant --as if it confirmed that what we did those days were indeed worth doing.

I thank Rendra for that. Hat off.

Taxing the Wrong Stuff

I am amused by the idea of taxing junk food as reported by The Economist. Here is the logic of its supporters: junk food causes obesity. Obesity causes diseases. In state-sponsored health care system, the cost of curing these diseases has also to be shared by non-obese taxpayers. Thus, as the existing junk food consumption doesn't reflect true social cost, tax on junk-food shall be imposed.

This is nonsense. The Economist itself says that:

More important, junk food is not itself the source of the externality—the medical costs that arise from obesity. Unlike smoking, or excessive gambling and drinking, eating junk food does not directly impair the well-being of anyone else. And because obesity is determined by lack of exercise as well as calorie intake, its ultimate relationship with health costs is more tenuous than that of, say, smoking. It is possible to eat a lot of fatty food, exercise frequently and not generate any externalities. A more direct, though controversial, approach would simply be to tax people on the basis of their weight.

Double Whopper, anyone?

What To Do Against Big Boys

OK, I haven't had time to have coffee at the legendary murkycoffee at Clarendon and now they had closed the cafe down and moved to near Chinatown. But this op-ed by its former owner Nick Cho, is worth to ponder.

But if Starbucks brings one of these new concepts to Washington, I'll be among the first in line. To me, Starbucks is only a problem if the quality of their coffee gets worse, and this new spinoff might help it get better. (If they want to compete with the likes of Victrola and other great third-wave coffee bars, it's going to have to get a lot better.)

I hope the coffee wars help nudge the caliber of all coffee upward. Just because you're not a corporate behemoth doesn't mean you serve delicious brew. The dirty little secret of most independent coffee shops is that they don't know how or don't care to serve high-quality coffee. They believe that furnishing their shops with comfy chairs and knowing the names of their customers' dogs is all that matters.

Bottom line: competition is good. And if you have the right taste of (real) espresso, burger as good as Ray's Hell Burger, or rigorous research methodology; you shouldn't worry about Starbucks, McD, or any "imperialist" field of science.

Interpreting Election (and Democracy)

To political pundits in the newspaper and politically literates commenting on general election, this quote might be useful:

Thus, even if the emergence of states is better explained as cooperative efforts undertaken to benefit all members of the community rather than as a power move by one group in society to exploit the rest, it is now clear that the use of the majority rule to make collective decisions must transform the state at least in part into redistributive state.

--Mueller, 2003, after discussing the positive properties on majority rule and redistribution (see Riker, 1962 and Tullock, 1959)

In other words, stop using the term (and believing in) national interest in explaining the political parties and politician behavior in general election. It is unavoidable that election is the game on who gets the larger cake out of public policy (and taxpayer's money)

Waiting for a Keynes-like Macroeconomist

The Economist published an interesting article on the crisis of macroeconomics. If you happen taking, have had taken, or are about to take the subject, you may want to read that article too.

My personal take on that piece is this: one of the reasons on why I find macroeconomics fascinating is precisely the fact that the subject is still very much evolving. This is the branch of economics where the fight between schools of thought is still kicking, alive, and relevant, particularly after the recent crisis. And it's is a good sign, unless you just want things that already well-settled a.k.a boring.

True, as The Economist states, that for many economists the Great Moderation period from mid 80s to just before current crisis means the end of debates in macroeconomics as the business cycle was then tamed. But I was, and am, not convinced. Ten years ago, the Asia Crisis in 1998 got me thinking that there should be a new way to see the macro economy where economic activities and markets are now much more internationally linked at much speedier pace. I was expecting a new approach out of then the debates between market fundamentalists and panic approach on Asia crisis. Alas it never was.

Up to now, when it comes into macro, I can not really make up my mind and pick between (new) Keynesian or neoclassical school. Both are equally theoretically plausible and empirically defendable. I also am not fully convinced whether micro-foundation of macroeconomics is really the only way to progress, or more pragmatic positive methodology a-la Friedman and Keynes might be more useful.

But make no mistake, I very much enjoy every bit of this my state of not-knowing. It keeps me thinking and rethinking my position. It is good that the crisis of the subject forces macroeconomists back to the drawing board. Hopefully a Keynes-like figure would emerge and come up with a macroeconomics we never knew before.

And to those aspiring macroeconomists, I do not think the current state of macroeconomics should discourage you. If anything, this is the best time to study macroeconomics and join the game. Perhaps you are the Keynes-like we are waiting for.