1.c Kebijakan Perdagangan Dan Investasi

KaitanSektor IndustridenganKebijakanInvestasi dan

PerdaganganInternasionalPerdaganganInternasional

Diklat Ekonomi Industri 2 - Tahun 2009Departemen Perindustrian – LPEM FEUI

M.Shauqie A.LPEM FEUI

RencanaDiskusi

I. Pendahuluan:Pandangan umummengenaiinvestasi, industri,danperdagangan(Sesi 1)

II. PerananInvestasi dalam PembangunanII. PerananInvestasi dalam Pembangunan(Sesi 2)

III. Kebijakan Industridan Perdagangan(Sesi 3)

IV. Masalah-Masalahdalam Investasi,Industri,dan Perdagangan(Sesi 4)

I. Pendahuluan: Pandangan umum mengenaiinvestasi, industri, dan perdagangan

• Globalisasi:Pendorong dan Dampaknya• Pertumbuhanekonomi regional yang

pentingdalam 2 dekadeterakhir• Krisis ekonomiAmerika mempengaruhi• Krisis ekonomiAmerika mempengaruhi

duniadan Indonesia?

World Exports of Merchandise,1950 -2004

5

6

7

8

9

Valu

e(T

rillio

nsof

$US)

10

12

14

16

Shar

eof

Wor

ldG

DP(%

)

ValueShare

0

1

2

3

4

5

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

Valu

e(T

rillio

nsof

$US)

0

2

4

6

8

Shar

eof

Wor

ldG

DP(%

)

Global Inflows of Foreign DirectInvestments, 1990-2003 (in millions of $US)

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Developing countriesDeveloped countries

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

GlobalExports ofMerchandises,1963 -2003

60%

80%

100%

Manufactured productsMineral products

0%

20%

40%

60%

1963 1975 1990 1994 2000 2003

Mineral productsAgricultural products

MerchandiseExports perContinent(in %),1980 -2000

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AsiaMiddle EastAfrica

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

AfricaEastern EuropeWestern EuropeLatin AmericaNorth America

WorldAgricultural Price

Rank City (Airport) Code TotalPassengers

1 ATLANTA (ATL) ATL 83.606.5832 CHICAGO (ORD) ORD 75.533.8223 LONDON(LHR) LHR 67.344.0544 TOKYO (HND) HND 62.291.4055 LOSANGELES (LAX) LAX 60.688.6096 DALLAS/FTWORTHAIRPORT(DFW) DFW 59.412.2177 PARIS (CDG) CDG 51.260.3638 FRANKFURT/MAIN(FRA) FRA 51.098.2719 AMSTERDAM(AMS) AMS 42.541.1809 AMSTERDAM(AMS) AMS 42.541.180

10 DENVER (DEN) DEN 42.393.76611 LAS VEGAS (LAS) LAS 41.441.53112 PHOENIX (PHX) PHX 39.504.89813 MADRID(MAD) MAD 38.704.73114 BANGKOK (BKK) BKK 37.960.16915 NEW YORK (JFK) JFK 37.518.14316 MINNEAPOLIS/STPAUL (MSP) MSP 36.713.17317 HONGKONG (HKG) HKG 36.711.92018 HOUSTON (IAH) IAH 36.506.11619 DETROIT (DTW) DTW 35.187.51720 BEIJING(PEK) PEK 34.883.190

II.Investasi dalamPembangunan• KonsepSaving -InvestmentGAP• SumberUtama PembiayaanSaving -

InvestmentGap• PerananHutang Luar Negeri dan Foreign

Direct Investment(FDI)• NasionalismeVs Hutang Luar Negeri dan

FDI• FDI: Kepentingannasional Vs kepentingan

MNC

ICOR

1.Tabungan (S) merupakan proporsi (s) dari Pendapatan atau Output(Y)S = s.Y

2. Investasi (I) didefinisikan sebagai perubahan stok kapital (dK)I = dKDiketahui pula bahwa ada hubungan langsung antara tingkat K danYYK/Y = k Atau jika terjadi perubahan pada K dan Y, jugadK/dY = k atau dK = kdY. k Ini disebut ICOR

3. ICOR 1990-1993= (PMTDB 89+90+91+92)/(PDB 93-89)4. Kita juga mengetahui bahwa total tabungan (S) sama dengan total

investasi (I)S = I atau I = dK = k.dY atau S = s.Y = k.dY = dK = I

5. Secara singkat s.Y = k.Y atau dY/Y = s/k atau g=s/k

MenghitungKebutuhan InvestasiSecaraSederhana

• ICOR=4• Growthneeded=7%• Investment?• If domesticsav ing/investment=20%;• If domesticsav ing/investment=20%;

investmentgap berapa?

DiskusiSingkat

1. Jika ICOR=4, menjadi3,5 apa artinya?2. Jika ICOR=4, ditargetkanpertumbuhan

7%, berapainvestasi yang dibutuhkan.3. Jika kemampuaninvestasi domestik3. Jika kemampuaninvestasi domestik

hanya20%, berapainvestment gapnyadan apa pemecahannya?

III.Kebijakan Industridan Perdagangan

• Import-SubstitutingIndustrialization: InfantIndustryArgument

• Export-OrientedIndustrialization: The East• Export-OrientedIndustrialization: The EastAsian Miracle

KasusAutomotives dan Textiles(Basri, 2001)

Automobiles• ERP/NRP: 1971(525.7%/110%), 1987 (600%/75%), 1995 (600%/94%)• 1969. Early 1969, in order to develop motor vehicle assembler industry, Ministry

of trade and Ministry of Industry allowed to import of motorcars in both CBU andCKD condition by only sole agents and trademarks holders. In the mid 1969, toprotect domestic motor vehicle products, Minister of trade prohibit import ofmotor vehicle in CBU.

• 1976. To promote commercial cars and encouraging development of automotiveindustry, Ministry of Finance set 0% duty for commercial cars and 100% forpassenger cars; in addition, Ministry of Industry use target schedule forpassenger cars; in addition, Ministry of Industry use target schedule forproduced components.

• 1979,1983,1986, and 1987. Ministry of Industry in order to have a fullautomotive industry in 1986, reschedule the target.

• 1993. Government regulation package on the automotive industry, openingimports in CBU.

• 1995. Government regulation package on the automotive industry releasing newtariff line for preparation for free trade to AFTA and WTO.

• 1996. Inpres 2/1996. Issuing a new National car Program for domestic fullmanufacturing car.

Textiles• ERP: 1975(297.6%), 1989(84.9%)• 1970. Import ban was imposed for batik, sarong, and unbleached cotton• 1974. All cotton yarns could be privately imported.• 1975. Import of all textiles with devisa kredit prohibited.• 1977. Import of most woven&knitted fabrics, wearing apparel,

discountinue polyester, and made-up textiles goods required 200% ofimport prepayment.

• 1978. Export certificates were introduced.• 1978. Export certificates were introduced.• 1987. Export credits for textiles was abolished as a consequence of

1985 on code of CDs• 1986. Import cotton, polyester fibers, dyes, and some other materials

for textiles production were liberalized.• 1987. Export quota allocation published through media, Also

deregulation package that liberalized 227 category of basic,intermediate materials, including finished garments

ImplikasiMultilateral AgreementuntukIndonesia(Uruguay Round)

• IndonesiaAverage tariff&surcharge:1994( 19.7%)to 1996( 14.2%)

• IndonesiaNTB at the time GATT offer(1994):Agricultural(81), Industrial(101),(1994):Agricultural(81), Industrial(101),ExcludedIndustrial (109), Total (291)

• IndonesiaNTB for Uruguayc ommitment(1996):Agricultural (57), Industrial(21),ExcludedIndustrial (63), Total (141)

PerbandinganApplied Tariff

• ContingentProtections– Safeguards/Escape clause– AD– CVDs

AntiDumping

Indonesia’s Bilateral/Regional Arrangements

• Multilateral agreement is being slow downcaused by disagreements among members,such as shown in Doha Round.

• The other way in dealing with trade liberalizationis bilateral and regional arrangements. Thisis bilateral and regional arrangements. Thisarrangements provide a faster liberalization.However, this arrangements will deal with tradediversion.

• The economic integration through both bilateraland regional could be explained by the nextpicture

Levelsof EconomicIntegration

Common currency, harmonized taxrates, common monetary and fiscalpolicy: EU (partial)

EconomicUnion

Common governmentPoliticalUnion

Free trade between members: NAFTA,ASEAN (partial)

FreeTrade

Common external tariffsCustomsUnion

Factors of production move freelybetween members

CommonMarket

ComplexitySource: Paul Rodrigue(2005)

Pattern of Birth and Death in Indonesian Manufacturing

15.0

20.0

Per

cen

tag

e(%

)

% birth

Deindustrialization?

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

1995-1996 1997-2000 2001-2002 2002-2003

Per

cen

tag

e(%

)

% birth

%death%net entry

Source: LPEM (2007) from Kuncoro & Isfandiarni

Evolutionof Indonesiatrade policy1945-1965 1966-1973 1974-1982 1983-1997 1998-2007

Mainfeatures

Period ofindependence andnationalization

Politicalconsolidation andeconomic recovery

Steady growth,boosted by oil boom,high concentration ofpolitical control afterMALARI

Falling of oil prices,strong deregulation,presidential authorityhighly personalized

Economic crisesfollowed byreformation,decentralization, anddemocratization

The role ofinterestgroups

•Nationalization andstate enterprisesformation

•Private businessgroups still weak•The role interest

•Technocrat'sinfluences was high•State and Private

•Large conglomeratesincreasingly influential•State enterprises

•Both state andprivate enterpriseshave been weakenedgroups formation

•Inward lookingpolicy•Army dominant

•The role interestgroups was weak•The beginning ofoutward lookingpolicy

•State and Privateenterprises grewrapidly in boomcondition•Rent seekersdispersed aroundmilitary, Suharto,and bureaucracy, butthe role of interestgroups relativelyweak•There is a tendencyof import substitutionpolicy to protectbasic manufacturingindustry

•State enterprisesunder attacked byunpredictability•Rent seekersconcentrate aroundpresident•The role of interestgroups began toincrease•The battle betweenthe deregulation andthe protection demand

have been weakenedby the crises•Outward lookingpolicy is dominant•Influential ofInternationalOrganization is high•A high demand ofprotection as theconsequences of thepro-liberalizationpolicy

Source: Adapted from Basri (2001)

The politicalgroups and trade policyPeriod Technocrat's stance &

roleEconomic nationaliststance &role

Rent seekersstance & role

Foreign institutionstance & role

Trade policyoutcome

1945-1965 Irrelevant Protectionist(strong)

Protectionist Irrelevant Protectionist

1966-1972 Pro market(moderate)

Protectionist(moderate)

Protectionist(strong)

Pro market(moderate)

Liberal

1973-1982 Adopted ISI, butrelatively pro-market(declining)



Pro market(declining)

Protectionist

1982-1985 Support economicliberalization(increasing)

Protectionist(declining)


Pro market(moderate)

Ambivalence

1985-1990 Pro market&tradereform(strong)

Protectionist(declining)


Pro market(increasing)

RelativelyLiberal

1990-1997 Pro market&tradereform(declining)

Protectionist(increasing)


Pro market(relatively strong)

RelativelyLiberal

1998-2007 Irrelevant Protectionist(declining)


Pro market(strong)

Liberal

Source: Adapted from Basri (2001)

Periode Keb ijak an Ind ustri dan Perdag ang an1945-1967 Nas iona lisasi peru sahaan bekas mil ik Bela nda . Kebi jaka n yang

diam bil tent unya inw ard looking poli cy.1967-1974 Keb ijakan yang san gat ber tolak belakan g dengan sebelumnya:

outwar d looking . Terj adi usaha yang cukup besar dalammel iberalisasi perd agangan dgn men ghapus lisensi imp or,men gurang i kon trol harg a, dsb .

1974-1986 Selain kenaikan harg a min yak, peris tiwa Malar i mem berikanarah keb ijak an yang ber tolak belakan g: usaha mel indu ngiindustr i dom estik dilakuk an seir ing den gan naiknya hargamin yak. Ter jadi usah a import substitu tion policy , teru tamauntuk indu stri dasar

1986-1992 Per iode ini dita ndai dengan turu nnya harga min yak dun iayang men yeba bkan pem erin tah berupa ya mem icu ekspor nonmig as den gan serangkaian upa ya deregulasi , deb irok ratis asi,dan libe rali sasi Pada mas a ini juga lahi r beb erap a pak etkeb ijakan, term asuk pak to 88 yang menyebabkan perb ank anberkem ban g pesat.Periode ini ditanda i oleh tarik men arikanta ra keb ijakan yang bers ifat protekt if yang berhadapandengan berb aga i usaha deregulasi dan libe ralisasi . Per iode inidengan berb aga i usaha deregulasi dan libe ralisasi . Per iode inijuga merupakan golden age dim ana per tum buhan yang ting gidan infl asi terkend ali dap at dilakukan.

1992-1998 Periode ini ditandai dengan beber apa kebijakan amb iv alenkarena tarikan kepentingan. Tam paknya s ecara fundam enta lekonom i baik [bahkan men dapat puj ian dala m lapo ran Ban kDun ia sebagai bagian dari Eas t Asia Miracle tahu n 1993]nam un rapu h, keti ka ada contagion effect dari Tha iland dalamhal nila i tuka r, Indo nes ia juga terkena dan mem ilik i dam pakyang sangat luar mulai kris is nila i tukar, perbankan , ekonom i,dan sosial hingga saat ini. Per iode ini rela tif terbuka danoutwar d orie nted

1998-Sekaran g Per iode ini adal ah mulai kris is nila i tukar, perbankan ,ekonom i, dan sos ial hingga saa t ini. Per iode ini bers ifatoutwar d orie nted . Sala h satu yang cukup berperan adalah IMFdan berb agai organisasi inte rnas iona l lain . Berbagai refo rmasidilakukan dian taran ya desentralis asi pol itik dan fisk al kedaerah, rest rukturisasi perb ankan, dan refo rmasi berb agaimac am inst itus i.

ProporsiKomoditi TerhadapTotal Ekspor

• Commentson Some Arrangements:– AFTA– APEC– ACFTA– ASEAN-EU FTA– Indonesia-Jepang– Indonesia-Jepang– Indonesia-USA

IV.Masalah dalamInvestasi/Industri, danPerdaganganInternasional Indonesia

• Hambatanekspor• Hambatanekspansi usaha (investasi)• HambatanFDI• Hambatanindustri menurutRPJ M• Hambatanindustri menurutRPJ M

Hambatan Eksportir Dalam Meningkatkan Ekspor

Pembiayaan

Perijinan

Pemasaran

Perpajakan

Kebijakan perdagangan

Persaingan dengan negara lain

0 10 20 30 40 50

Telekomunikasi

Kebijakan investasi

Listrik

Transportasi

Permintaan pasar

Ketenagakerjaan

Teknologi

Frekuensi Rata-rata penilaian

Hambatan Eksportir dalam Ekspansi Usaha (Investasi)

Perpajakan

Teknologi

Ketenagakerjaan

Perijinan

Kebijakan investasi

Permintaan pasar

Pembiayaan

0 10 20 30 40

Telekomunikasi

Transportasi

Pemasaran

Persaingan dengan negara lain


Listrik

Perpajakan


PendorongFDI MenurutEksportir

Keamanan

Permintaan pasar

Perpajakan

Perijinan


Ketenagakerjaan

Kebijakan investasi

0 10 20 30 40

Teknologi

Listrik

Pembiayaan

Telekomunikasi

Transportasi

Pemasaran

Keamanan


1.c Kebijakan Perdagangan Dan Investasi

Documents

Transcript of 1.c Kebijakan Perdagangan Dan Investasi