EKONOMIDIGITAL:PELUANGMENGAKSELERASIKANPERTUMBUHAN

Faisal Basri 13September2017

britannica.com

Itron..com

Bagian I Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Melambat:

Wajah Pucat, Lesu Darah, Kurang Energi

Pertumbuhanekonomimelambat

•  Darireratadoubledigitmenjadirerata8%,lalu7%,6%,danakhirnyadalam4tahunterakhirmenjadi5%.

•  Kurangdarah,jantunglemah,dansemakintertutup.

•  Perludarahsegar,sunBkanenergibaruàberharapdaridigitaleconomy.

TheriseanddeclineofIndonesianeconomy:GDPgrowth1961-2017(%)

6.1

-2.3

1.1

12.0

9.8

6.2 6.0

9.2

1.1

8.5

3.5

9.18.4

-13.1

5.7 6.3

4.6

6.45.0

4.9

5.05.0

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017*

The fall of Old Order

Pertamina crisis

Oil price collapse

Economic crisis and the end of New Order/Soeharto era

Global financial

crisis

Trendline-polynomial

*Firstsemester.Source:BPS-StaBsBcsIndonesia.

SeTngofffromapointwhereneighboringcountriesstartedtheirjourneytoo(1)

Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators online, downloaded on August 31, 2017.

8,260 8,840

3,400

27,600

9,850

5,640

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

GrossnaWonalincome(GNI)percapita,Atlasmethod,currentUS$)

China Brazil Indonesia Korea,Rep. Malaysia Thailand

Financialinclusionindex

* Developing only. Source: World Bank, Global Findex Database (http://databank.worldbank.org/Data/Views/reports/tableview.aspx)

FinancialInclusionIndex:Thepercentageofrespondentswhoreporthavinganaccount(bythemselvesortogetherwithsomeoneelse).For2011,thiscanbeanaccountatabankoranothertypeoffinancialinsBtuBon,andfor2014thiscanbeamobileaccountaswell(seeyear-specificdefiniBonsfordetails)(%age15+).[ts:dataareavailableformulBplewaves].

CreditpenetraWoninIndonesiaissWllverylow

Source:WorldBank,WorldDevelopmentIndicators.

46.7

53.9

59.1

59.7

76.7

108.7

121.1

128.3

144.8

173.4

179.0

194.4

Indonesia

Cambodia

Philippines

Bangladesh

India

Brazil

Singapore

Vietnam

Malaysia

Thailand

SouthAfrica

China

DomesWccreditprovidedbyfinancialsector(%ofGDP),2015

39.1

41.8

43.9

52.6

63.1

67.9

111.9

125.2

129.7

149.2

151.3

153.3

Indonesia

Philippines

Bangladesh

India

Cambodia

Brazil

Vietnam

Malaysia

Singapore

SouthAfrica

Thailand

China

DomesWccredittoprivatesector(%ofGDP),2015

*2003Source:WorldBank,WorldDevelopmentIndicators.

Indonesia:domesWccredittoprivatesector

51.8

60.8

19.9

39.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Degreeofopenness:(X+M)*/GDP

*Exportsandimportsofgoodsandservices.**2015***1990Source:WorldBank:forpopulaBondownloadedfromhap://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SP.POP.TOTL&country=onAugust14,2017;forexportsdownloadedfromhap://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS&country=onAugust14,2017;andforimportsdownloadedfromhap://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS&country=onAugust14,2017.

CountryPopulaWon(mil.,2016) 1981 2016 1981 2016 1981 2016

China 1,378.7 7.5 19.6 7.5 17.4 15.0 37.0India 1,324.2 5.8 19.2 8.4 20.6 14.2 39.8UnitedStates 323.1 9.5 **12.6 9.9 **15.4 19.4 **28.0Indonesia 261.1 29.0 19.1 24.0 18.3 53.0 37.4Brazil 207.7 9.4 12.5 9.8 12.1 19.2 24.6Japan 127.0 14.4 **17.6 13.7 **18.0 28.1 **35.6Philippines 103.3 23.8 28.0 27.2 36.9 51.0 64.9Vietnam 92.7 ***36.0 93.6 ***45.3 91.1 ***81.3 ***184.7Germany 82.7 20.2 46.0 24.1 38.4 44.3 84.4Thailand 68.9 23.8 68.9 30.1 54.2 53.9 123.1UnitedKingdom 65.6 25.4 28.1 22.5 30.0 47.9 58.1SouthAfrica 55.9 28.4 30.3 30.4 30.2 58.8 60.5Korea,Rep. 51.2 32.1 42.2 37.2 35.4 69.3 77.6Malaysia 31.2 51.6 67.2 57.7 60.8 109.3 128.0Netherlands 17.0 55.9 80.8 51.2 69.9 107.1 150.7Sweden 9.9 28.7 44.4 28.1 39.8 56.8 84.2HongkongSAR,China 7.3 91.1 187.4 92.6 185.2 183.7 372.6Denmark 5.7 36.1 53.1 34.9 46.2 71.0 99.3Singapore 5.6 198.2 172.1 201.6 146.3 399.8 318.4

Exports(X) Imports(M) X+M

Indonesia:degreeofopenness,1981-2016

Source:WorldBank:forexportsdownloadedfromhap://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS);andforimportsdownloadedfromhap://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS.DownloadedonAugust14,2017.

25.7

23.4

26.7

36.6

33.7

27.7

23.9

19.123.7

21.8

25.2 31

.1

27.5

24.7

23.7

18.3

49.4

45.2 51

.8

67.8

61.2

52.5

47.6

37.4

1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-2000 2001-05 2006-10 2011-15 2016

PercentofGDP

Exports of goods & services Imports of goods & services Total

Bagian II Indonesia Realtif Tertinggal dalam

Digital Economy

IMDWorldDigitalCompeWWvenessRankinganditscomponents,2017(n=63)

Overall Knowledge TechnologyFuture

Readiness ScoreSingapore 1 1 1 6 100.000Sweden 2 2 5 5 95.938USA 3 5 6 2 95.410Finland 4 9 4 4 95.026Denmark 5 8 10 1 94.524HongKong 7 6 3 17 92.135Taiwan 12 16 7 16 87.566Australia 15 18 15 14 85.006Korea,Rep 19 14 17 24 82.961Malaysia 24 17 18 27 79.944Japan 27 29 23 25 78.094China 31 23 36 34 71.452Thailand 41 44 30 45 63.771Philippines 46 53 51 43 55.887SouthAfrica 47 49 53 42 55.709India 51 37 59 51 54.367Brazil 55 55 55 44 52.290Indonesia 59 58 56 62 44.225Venezuela 63 63 63 63 23.463Source:IMDWorldDigitalCompeBBvenessRanking2017

Indonesia:digitaltrends

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Overall 58 57 60 60 59

Knowledge 58 57 60 60 58

Technology 55 53 57 58 56Futurereadiness 54 53 58 60 62

Knowledge 58Talent 48Training&educaBon 59ScienBficconcentraBon 54

Technology 56Regulatoryframework 61Capital 37Technologicalframework 58

Futurereadiness 62AdapBveaptudes 63Businessagility 35ITintegraBon 61

Overall&factors

Factors&sub-factors,2017

Source:IMDWorldDigitalCompeBBvenessRanking2017

ICTIndonesiatercecer,terendahdiASEAN-6

8.84 8.83

8.74 8.68

8.57 8.46

8.37 8.17

7.95 6.22

5.99 5.33

5.19 5.18

5.03 4.29 4.28

3.86 3.12 3.05

2.69 2.54

2.45 1.07

1.Korea,Rep.2.Iceland

3.Denmark4.Switzerland

5.UnitedKingdom6.HongKong

10.Japan15.UnitedStates

20.Singapore61.Malaysia

63.Brazil77.BruneiDarussalam

81.China82.Thailand

88.SouthAfrica105.Vietnam

107.Philippines115.Indonesia125.Cambodia

128.Timor-Leste138.India

140.Myanmar144.Lao,PDR

175.Niger

ICTDevelopmentIndex2016

•  Tahun2016,Indonesiadiurutanke-19dari34negaraAsiaPasifik.•  Tahun2010,Indonesiadiurutan109dari167negaradenganskor3.11

Source: ITU

ConnecWngcapabiliWes:theAsiandigitaltransformaWonindex(overallscore)

TheAsianDigitalTransforma0onIndex,whichisaquanBtaBverankingof11economiesinthecomprisedof20indicatorsacrossthreethemaBccategories:digitalinfrastructure,humancapitalandindustryconnectedness.Thecategories,andtheindividualcriteriawithinthem,areweightedaccordingtoourassumpBonsoftheirrelaBveimportanceinfosteringdigitaltransformaBonatorganisaBonswithincountries.

Source:TheEconomistIntelligenceUnit,Connec>ngCapabili>es:TheAsianDigitalTransforma>onIndex,2016.hap://connectedfuture.economist.com/arBcle/connecBng-capabiliBes/

Average=45.8

PenggunainternetdiIndonesiaterbanyakke-5

Source:hap://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm

Indonesia:IDIsub-index

ProfilIDIIndonesia

ThreestagesintheevoluWontowardsaninformaWonsociety

Source:International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Measuring the Information Society Report 2016, p. 8. • the digital divide, i.e. differences between

countries in terms of their levels of ICT development; and

• the e e o ment otentia of ICTs and the extent to which countries can make use of them to enhance growth and development in the context of available capabilities and skills.

The Index is designed to be global and to reflect changes taking place in countries at different levels of ICT development. It therefore relies on a limited data set which can be established with reasonable confidence in countries at all levels of development.

Conceptual framework

The recognition that ICTs can be development enablers, if applied and used appropriately, is critical to countries that are moving towards information- or knowledge-based societies, and is central to the IDI’s conceptual framework. The ICT development process, and a country’s transformation to becoming an information society, can be depicted using the three-stage model illustrated in Figure 2.1:

• Stage 1: ICT readiness – reflecting the level of networked infrastructure and access to ICTs;

• Stage 2: ICT intensity – reflecting the level of use of ICTs in the society; and

• Stage 3: ICT impact – reflecting the results/outcomes of more efficient and effective ICT use.

Advancing through these stages depends on a combination of three factors: the availability of ICT infrastructure and access, a high level of ICT usage, and the capability to use ICTs effectively, derived from relevant skills. These three dimensions – ICT access, ICT use and ICT skills – therefore form the framework for the IDI.

• The first two stages correspond to two major components of the IDI: ICT access and ICT use.

• Reaching the final stage, and maximizing the impact of ICTs, crucially depends on ICT skills. ICT – and other – skills determine the effective use that is made of ICTs, and are critical to leveraging their full potential for social and economic development. Economic growth and development will remain below potential if economies are not capable of exploiting new technologies and reaping their benefits. The IDI therefore also includes indicators concerned with capabilities within countries which affect people’s ability to use ICTs effectively.

A single indicator cannot track progress in all three of these components of ICT development. It is therefore necessary to construct a composite index, which aims to capture the evolution of the information society as it goes through its different

8 Measuring the Information Society Report 2016

Figure 1.1: Three stages in the evolution towards an information society

Thethree-stagemodel

•  Stage1:ICTreadiness–reflecBngthelevelofnetworkedinfrastructureandaccesstoICTs;

•  Stage2:ICTintensity–reflecBngthelevelofuseofICTsinthesociety;and

•  Stage3:ICTimpact–reflecBngtheresults/outcomesofmoreefficientandeffecBveICTuse.

Bagian III Potensi Besar untuk Berkembang dan

Menggerakkan Perekonomian yang Inklusif

GDPgrowthbysector

Source:BPS-StaBsBcsIndonesia.

Sectors 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2016Share2016

Agriculture,forestry&fishery 3.53 3.96 4.59 4.20 4.24 3.77 3.25 13.45MiningandQuarrying 4.10 4.29 3.02 2.53 0.43 -3.42 1.06 7.20Manufacturingindustry 3.79 6.26 5.62 4.37 4.64 4.33 4.29 20.51Electricityandgas 8.09 5.69 10.06 5.23 5.90 0.90 5.39 1.15Water,wastemanagement,cesspitandrecycling 6.74 4.73 3.34 3.32 5.24 7.07 3.60 0.07ConstrucBon 6.84 9.02 6.56 6.11 6.97 6.36 5.22 10.38Wholesale&retailtrade,cars&motorcyclesreparaBons 9.08 9.66 5.40 4.81 5.18 2.59 3.93 13.19TransportaBonandwarehousing 7.14 8.31 7.11 6.97 7.36 6.68 7.74 5.22AccommodaBon,foodandbeverages 6.31 6.86 6.64 6.80 5.77 4.31 4.94 2.92InformaWonandcommunicaWon 14.86 10.02 12.28 10.39 10.12 9.69 8.87 3.62Financeandinsurance 5.68 6.97 9.54 8.76 4.68 8.59 8.90 4.20Realestate 8.72 7.68 7.41 6.54 5.00 4.11 4.30 2.81Businessservices 8.37 9.24 7.44 7.91 9.81 7.69 7.36 1.70Publicadm.,defense,andcompulsorysocialsecurity 7.89 6.43 2.13 2.56 2.38 4.63 3.19 3.86EducaBon 11.79 6.68 8.22 7.44 5.47 7.33 3.84 3.37HealthandsocialacBviBes 5.90 9.00 7.97 7.96 7.96 6.68 5.00 1.07Otherservices 7.94 8.22 5.76 6.40 8.93 8.08 7.80 1.71GrossdomesWcproduct 6.38 6.17 6.03 5.56 5.01 4.88 5.02 100.00

Ecommercetumbuhpesattetapidaribasisrendah

TheproducWvityparadoxofthenewdigitaleconomy

NUM BE R 31 , F A L L 2 016

Harberger diagram picturing the cumulativecontributions of 30 industries to aggregatelabour productivity growth ranked on the basisof the highest to the lowest contributions,weighted by the nominal GDP share of each sec-tor (Harberger, 1998).

Chart 2 shows that aggregate labour produc-tivity in the United States increased at an annualaverage rate of 2.1 per cent during 2002-2007and only 0.2 per cent per year during 2011-2014. During the first period, industries accountfor 89.5 per cent of industry value added madepositive contributions to productivity growth.

Only four industries (other services, manage-ment services, construction, and mining) shownegative productivity growth contributions, ofwhich three were ICT intensive industries. Dur-ing the period from 2011 to 2014 period only 55per cent of industry value added was produced inindustries with positive contributions to pro-ductivity growth. Among industries with nega-tive productivity contributions, were ICT-intensive industries such as machinery, electricalequipment and several service industries. Itseems the results are distributed randomly interms of the positive and negative contributions

Source:BartvanArk,“TheProducBvityParadoxoftheNewDigitalEconomy,”Interna>onalProduc>vityMonitor,No.31,Fall2016.

ImprovementindigitalizaWonresultsinincreasedlaborproducWvity

6

Despite Indonesia's progress in each of the four disruptive technologies, the country still has a long way to go. To benchmark Indonesia’s digital standing, McKinsey conducted research and analysis on 20 select countries in the world (see sidebar, “About the research”).

Overall, McKinsey finds that Indonesia lags behind other select markets in capturing its digital potential. The country's performance across the various metrics is uneven.

Digitization is an important driver of productivity. Deployment of digital technologies such as remote sensors, intelligent machines, big data, and real time communication enhances process efficiencies, improves quality of products and services, and enables optimal resource allocation, resulting in faster

processing times, leaner operations, and better customer satisfaction. As such, there is a strong correlation between the level of digitization and labor productivity—but Indonesia is behind the curve when compared with the selected group (Exhibit 2).

Amid all the challenges, three mega-trends come to the fore that will enable Indonesia to capture its digital potential: infrastructure, consumers, and businesses.

Massive infrastructure opportunity Mobile data in Indonesia is very affordable, costing just 50 percent4 of what consumers in some ASEAN neighboring countries pay. However, quality—defined as the average connection speed and Internet bandwidth—can be very low (Exhibit 3).

EXHIBIT 2

Improvement in digitization results in increased labor productivity.

1 S-curve is based on polynomial regression. Source: McKinsey analysis, IHS WIS 2015

110,000

United States

Hong Kong

Australia

Singapore

FranceCanada

ItalySpain

Germany

Korea

Japan

MalaysiaRussia

China

IndonesiaIndia

ThailandPhilippines

Brazil

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

Labor productivity,1PPP, USD per worker

Asia and rest of world pioneers

Asia and rest of world peers

Relative score, rank

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.90 1.0

Asian peers Asian pioneers Rest of world peers Rest of world pioneers

United Kingdom

Source:McKinsey&Company,IndonesiaOffice,“UnlockingIndonesia’sDigitalOpportunity,”October2016.

Indonesiaisthe16thlargesteconomyintermsofGDP

932

407 305

2,264

1,796

1,411

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000 19

67

1968

19

69

1970

19

71

1972

19

73

1974

19

75

1976

19

77

1978

19

79

1980

19

81

1982

19

83

1984

19

85

1986

19

87

1988

19

89

1990

19

91

1992

19

93

1994

19

95

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

2002

20

03

2004

20

05

2006

20

07

2008

20

09

2010

20

11

2012

20

13

2014

20

15

2016

Bill

ion

s U

S$

GDP,currentUS$

Indonesia Thailand Philippines India Brazil Korea, Rep.

Source:WorldBank

3,141

8,703

3,032

1,832

863 1,165

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Bill

ion

s U

S$

GDP,PPP,currentinternaWonal$

Brazil India Indonesia Korea, Rep. Malaysia Thailand

Indonesiais8thlargesteconomyintermsofGDPbasedPPP

Source:WorldBank

Potensilainnya

•  MayoritaspendudukIndonesiaberusiamuda.

•  Pertumbuhanstratamenengahsangatpesat.

•  Penduduksemakinbergeserkekota.SekaranglebihbanyakpendudukdiperkotaankeBmbangdiperdesaan.

•  DependencyraBoterusturunàdemographicbonus.

•  Basisnyamasihsangatrendah

PopulaWonsharebyclass,2002-2014,percent

Aneconomicallysecure“consumer”classhasgrownstronglyat10percentperyearsince2002,andnowincludesnearlyoneinfiveIndonesians.However,reducBonsinpovertyandvulnerabilityhavebeenverysmall.

Sources: World Bank, Indonesia’s Rising Divide, March 2016.

TopfiveemergingmarketswiththebestmiddleclasspotenWal2015-2030

Source:EuromonitorInterna>onalfromna>onalsta>s>cs(hNp://blog.euromonitor.com/2015/09/top-5-emerging-markets-with-the-best-middle-class-poten>al.html)

Terima Kasih

Email:faisal.basri@gmail.comTwiler:@faisalbasriBlog:faisalbasri.com

Blog:kompasiana.com/faisalbasri