Prabowonomics?

Have been reading some opinion article on Prabowonomics.

Among them are Teguh Dartanto in Koran Tempo, Bersihar Lubis in Medan Bisnis, Heri in his blog dan Vivanews feature.

Does it really deserve a school of thought by itself?

The strands of policy seems to have emphasis on role of the state and primary sector, with a healthy dose of scepticism to globalisation. Dartanto put forward a thoughful critics of some of its target.

Name-nomics is a good cacthphrase in the time of frenzy campaign. So I am looking forward to read more of SBY-nomics and Megawati-nomics as well as JK-nomics.

It would be interesting to have more debate on economic platform of each party though and less musical campaign.

Even though also quite likely that Indonesian campaign promises are, in Ron Ziegler's immortal argot, "inoperative" on the day after the election.

The Economics of Money Politics

Money is the root of all evil. But money also make the world goes round. So I guess the trick is not to let evil bloom but keep it to stirs the world.

That is the same tricky balancing act to be done in campaign financing. The political party needs money but country as a whole loose when the party need more money than the money need the party.

A regulation is especially needed in Indonesia where income inequality is very wide. f allowed, some rich people could capture government policy and use it to their advantage with little regard for the rest of population.

My to cents worth (not sure can buy how many politician) in this article at Jakarta Post (click here).

Econ matter in Obama Inauguration Speech

State of US economy:

"Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. "

Remaining potential:

"Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions"

What to be done:

"The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."

Role of government and market:

"Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."

The Economics of Poltical conflicts

Very recently, the media was bombarded by the clash within the Nation awakening party, the political party is divided into two different sides. I would like to see how the economics rational explaining it. It should be clear that I am not a supporter of both parties, it is interesting for me however, all that had happened are turn out to be logically rational.
A conflict by every means is costly, therefore they (both parties) are operating in a high cost, and below its optimum full production level. In economic term, we call it below the production possibilities frontier. This is represented by the graph on the left. any where inside the cone are feasible to enough to attained. In our case the two axis represent the two parties (M for vertical and GD for horizontal), the cone (PPF) is the number of potential voters, as internal split will cost them some voters, hence both are operating inside the cone, instead of operating in the blue line of PPF where the number of voters is much greater.

ISLAH on the way?
if that's the case, then why is so hard for them to do islah? it's not very surprising, because the islah is in fact not a sustainable point. This means that there are problem in dynamic inconsistencies in doing islah, preferences of both parties will change overtime. You see, say M is willing to accept islah, they might move from every point inside the cone to one point at the blue line, M groups are signaling, they are ready for peace treaty, calling disarmaments in their side. the problem with this, is that in the other side GD will now have a stronger incentive to wipe out all the M group, and therefore they will opt for a corner solution, choosing the 100 percent voters on the rightest point of the blue line. This happens for vice versa, with the benefit of the second mover. This explains why both parties decided to wait. As long as both parties don't have credible expected peace commitment there will no be islah. Both parties seem to send signals of continues fighting.

why are they fighting anyway?
I am not a politician, I honestly don't know. However,in economics literature conflicts might happen depends on the feasibility of such conflicts, internal splits or whatever we call it.
feasibility depends in two term, benefit and cost, according to Collier (2005,2006) , conflicts will happen wherever it is feasible to do.The benefit is high, since the general election is coming, more pie will be available in the near future, and if they are lucky, less mouth to feed. The cost is not enormous, some says in PKB, GD is irreplaceable, so preference toward GD is almost inelastic to external shocks. the last but not least is the probability to lose and to win, if we say the non-activating of M is a coup d'etat process then it's a rational thing to do, because historically, the other group tend to win anyway.

what about in the future?
the problem of conflicts is, it works in economies of scale framework, it gets better when it escalates even more. the losers will ask for friends and allies for help, and so do the winners, both parties accumulating their power in the expense of others which tend to be persistent Collier(2002) call this a conflict trap. I don't really understand politically, but fragmenting a political party in many small pieces is not very healthy for them, just look at PPP, or others. one thing for sure, if GD wins once more time, the more likely this things happen in the future, in an increasing scale of splits. this might happen in the future either because the probability of winning is getting higher, or whereas the cost turned to be insignificant. However no matter how significant that might be, it seems that the counter reaction is getting tougher everyday.

well, just see what will happen shall we?, time will tell.

by Rajawali muda

Barack Obama and Behavioural Economics

This blog is not in the business of endorsing US presidential candidates. Nor we harbor illusion that our position can move votes there.

Nevertheless, as economist wanna-be I could not help but excited over an article (click here) that point how Richard Thaler, one of the early economist that point out behaviour anomalies could not be explain by standard model, is in close contact with the candidates. Behavioral Economics is currently getting stronger hearing in the mainstream after recognition from Nobel Prize committe in 2002 & 2005.

One of Obama policy attributed to his influence cited in the article is:

“For example, one key behavioral finding is that people often fail to set aside money for retirement even when their employers offer generous 401(k) plans. If, on the other hand, you automatically enroll workers in 401(k)s but allow them to opt out, most stick with it. Obama's savings plan exploits this so-called status quo bias.”

Good to know that Obama that despite his soaring rhetoric (watch here and here), base his policy on solid and strong economic ideas. They say that economics has turned cynical and can do nothing but become empty shell of materialism. They say that economics can not bring insight about real human behavior into useful policy recommendation. To those charges, let us answer in three words. Yes, we can!

Addendum (01/03/08) from an article in The Economist:

"His chief economic adviser, a respected young academic called Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, is sensible and pragmatic. His plan to save millions of people from struggling to fill out their tax returns is a gem. Anyone who earns only a salary and bank interest, both of which are automatically reported to the taxman, will be sent a tax return that has already been filled in, which they can accept or reject. At a stroke, countless headaches would be averted."

Just an Added Thought on Institutions

Firstly, I owed Berly for this brief essay, because while trying to answer his question, I end up with this too-long-comment-reply, of which was a good-productive thing though. And so here we are.

A complete institutional structure consists of three parts: Formal rules, Informal rules and Characteristics of rule enforcement. In my humble opinion, the main problem now is within the first one (Although I also believe there are several significant problems with the two other parts, but let me just emphasize in the first in this case) .

The general function of the formal rules is to enhance transactions on political and economic markets. In democracy (such as Indonesia right now), the exchange on political markets determine the economic rules. So then inefficiency in political markets will bring inefficiency in property rights, and inefficiency in the latter will eventually lead to socially inefficient organizations, increasing costs in transactions and then reducing the probability of mutually beneficial exchange through specialization within the economic markets. I think this is the updated problem in a newly-democratized Indonesia.

There is a very high transaction costs on political markets, because of little transparency of the political processes, little competitions among them, and the last important thing, is that we do not have the constitutions that brings the self-interested politicians in line with the creation of this efficient formal-economic institutions. A quite similar conditions also hold for Thailand and the Philippines, where military-feudal-based political interventions are still used up till now.

Let's then have an example for the latter point:
Right now the Assembly is busy drafting a bill on political parties, which includes one of the controversial articles regarding the possibility of Party Owned Enterprises. (What is this crap???!!)* Personally (again) I think this is an outrage.

Politicians are also always being self-interested and utility-maximizing agents. If constitutions do not align with the people sovereignty, politicians will not promote their economic interest in the course of pursuing their private goals. So it’s a necessity to restrict politicians constitutionally (Hayek). And that's what we’re lacking off. And as a now-democratic-state, it's remarkable that up till this point there are no efforts to propose such draft of constitutions. Well, this emphasized one of my points before of why institutions in Indonesia are still very weak, and hopefully this also can answer the question from Berly’s comment. Or maybe I shall make some essays discussing more about these institutional-constitutional frameworks later on. Happy Christi Himmelfahrt** holiday, and let me finish this essay with a quotation from Boediono, of which I quoted from one of Prof. Hal Hill paper: “‘Beware of possible disharmony between politics and economics.. Never take economic stability for granted... Institutions and governance should receive the highest priority in the overall strategy” (Boediono, 2005, p. 323, on lessons learnt)

* Please kindly ignore this author’s self-comment
** The ascension day of Jesus Christ in German words