2013年-世界发展银行全球_Indonesia___Urban_Poverty_and_Program_Review_40页_2mb

Summary of Indonesia: Urban Poverty and Program Review

Core Content

This policy note provides an analysis of urban poverty in Indonesia and a review of existing social assistance programs aimed at reducing it. It highlights the challenges and opportunities associated with urbanization and proposes policy priorities for an effective urban poverty reduction strategy.

Main Findings

• Poverty Trends: Indonesia has seen steady declines in urban poverty, from 15% in 2002 to just under 10% in 2010, at a rate of about 0.63% per year. However, urban poverty is expected to surpass rural poverty by 2020 due to rapid urbanization.
• Population Affected: Approximately 18% of the population, or 20 million people, live in poverty or near poverty in urban areas.
• Regional Disparities: Java accounts for over two-thirds of the urban poor, but the poverty rate is significantly higher in NT (24%) and other Eastern regions.
• Characteristics of the Urban Poor:
  • Lower education levels (about one-third have less than primary education).
  • Higher likelihood of informal employment with low wages.
  • Larger household sizes (about 5 people vs. 4 for non-poor).
  • Poor access to basic services and housing.
  • Vulnerable subgroups include recent urban migrants, child laborers, street children, and those in informal settlements.
• Vulnerability: Even during economic growth, many urban poor remain vulnerable to idiosyncratic shocks like unemployment or illness.
• Social Assistance Programs: Key programs include Raskin (rice subsidy), Jamkesmas (health insurance), BSM (scholarships for poor students), and PKH (conditional cash transfer). However, these programs face issues with targeting efficiency, leakage, and undercoverage, especially for those in informal settlements.
• PNPM-Urban Program: This community-driven development program has been effective in improving local governance and infrastructure, but requires improvements in program design, targeting, and alignment with local budgeting.

Key Programs and Their Objectives

Policy Priorities

I) Economic and Urbanization Policies

• Leverage Urbanization: Improve economic returns from urbanization through better spatial planning, investment in agglomerating cities, and institutional reforms to enhance the business climate.
• Basic Infrastructure: Ensure basic infrastructure and services for the urban poor, particularly in informal settlements, to prevent the growth of hazardous slums and reduce vulnerability.
• Credit Access: Improve access to credit for urban poor, especially for small businesses, by designing better financial instruments and increasing understanding of program objectives.

II) Social Policies

• Extend Education and Health Access: Expand education and health programs for the urban poor, particularly post-secondary education, to improve human capital and reduce intergenerational poverty.
• Improve Targeting Efficiency: Implement a National Targeting System (NTS) to enhance the efficiency of social assistance programs and reduce leakage.
• Enhance Social Safety Nets: Introduce or expand social assistance programs that provide support during temporary income shortfalls, such as unemployment or illness.
• Program Redesign: Redesign existing programs like BSM and Jamkesmas to better align with the needs of the urban poor and improve service delivery.

Challenges and Recommendations

• Targeting and Leakages: Current targeting systems are inefficient, leading to leakages to non-poor households. A more accurate and transparent system is needed.
• Informal Settlements: These areas are often underserved, leading to undercoverage of assistance programs. Policies should address the specific needs of these communities.
• Program Coordination: Better coordination between PNPM-Urban and local government planning is essential for sustainable growth and service delivery.
• Facilitator Capacity: Strengthen the capacity of program facilitators to ensure effective outreach and support for the urban poor.
• Data Accuracy: Use more up-to-date data sources to accurately represent the urban poor, especially as urbanization accelerates.

Methodology

• Quantitative Analysis: Utilized data from the National Socio-Economic Survey (SUSENAS) and the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS) to analyze poverty trends and program participation.
• Qualitative Study: Conducted in 16 communities across Indonesia to understand the lived experiences and needs of the urban poor. Focus groups and in-depth interviews were used to gather insights on poverty, barriers, and program perceptions.

Conclusion

Indonesia has made significant progress in reducing urban poverty, but challenges remain. A proactive and integrated approach combining economic development and social protection is essential to ensure sustainable poverty reduction as the country continues to urbanize. Improving program efficiency, targeting, and service delivery will be crucial in addressing the needs of the urban poor and enhancing their long-term prospects.