A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium
(DSGE) Model to Assess the Impact of
Structural Reforms on
the Indonesian Economy
Sahminan, Ginanjar Utama, Robbi Nur Rakman, Idham1
Abstract
One of the Government programs to spur economic growth is to improve the availability and quality of infrastructure through increased government spending on infrastructure development. In this paper, we build a DSGE model for a small open economy to predict the impact of government spending on output and welfare in Indonesia. The DSGE model uses parameters in line with the characteristics of Indonesian economy. The simulation results show that in the short run a 1% increase in government spending on consumption and investment could potentially increase economic growth by 0.04% and 0.05%, respectively. Output multiplier of government spending on consumption is estimated at 0.03, much lower than output multiplier of the government spending on investment at 0.20. The simulation results also show that government spending on investment leads to welfare improvement with welfare multiplier at 0.05. On the other hand, an increase in government spending on consumption would lead to a decline in welfare with a multiplier of
Keywords: fiscal policy, DSGE, output multiplier, welfare mulipler
JEL Classification: C5, E1
1The authors would like to thank the head of the Economic and Monetary Policy Department (DKEM), participants of the Research Seminar in DKEM - Bank Indonesia and Aditya Rachmanto for the various inputs provided. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Bank Indonesia. Corresponding author: sahminan@bi.go.id.
150Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
I. INTRODUCTION
One of the most binding constraints facing Indonesiaβs economy is limited infrastructure in terms of quantity and quality. Such dire conditions are evidenced by the low infrastructure rating of Indonesia. Data from the Global Competitive Index for
The main factor behind weak infrastructure in Indonesia has been limited government spending, particularly since the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997/98. Government spending on infrastructure from
The Government of Indonesia is currently pursuing a program of structural reforms to stimulate economic performance.3 Improving infrastructure through increased spending on investment and less spending on subsidies is part of the structural reform process. Pursuant to the
Theoretically, larger government investment in infrastructure drives the economy through two channels (IMF, 2014). In the short term, government investment will boost demand through the fiscal multiplier. The impact of government infrastructure investment depends on a range of factors, including economic slack and monetary accommodation. In the
2
3Structural reforms imply regulatory and institutional improvements to enhance market efficiency (for instance the labor market or goods market), or efforts to stimulate economic growth beyond its potential (Rodrik, 2015). Structural reform policy is very broad and encompasses infrastructure development, tax and subsidy regulations, improving HR quality, wages and employment regulations and bureaucratic reform.
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
151 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
From the developments above and considering the important role of infrastructure in terms of nurturing economic growth, quantitative analysis regarding the impact of larger government investment in infrastructure is needed to predict the impact on output and welfare. With a simple approach, the impact of larger government investment in infrastructure on economic growth can be observed using the output multiplier of government spending. Nonetheless, that approach contains several inherent weaknesses, including limited time series data, particularly relating to structural policies. In addition, the simple approach is also lack of the
This paper aims to quantitatively analyse the impact of structural reforms β specifically an increase in government spending for investment β on output and welfare in Indonesia using a Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model. Using a DSGE model, the behaviour of economic agents and the linkages between economic players are formulated explicitly. In addition, the DSGE model can not only detect the impact on output, but also on welfare. The DSGE model will be developed consisting of five sectors, namely the household sector, corporate sector, monetary sector, fiscal sector and external sector.
This model adds to the existing DSGE models at Bank Indonesia, which, in general, focus more on banking industry and financial sector modelling, to analyze simulations of monetary policy, macroprudential policy and the monetary and macroprudential policy mix. The model will also complement the Growth Diagnostics model used by Bank Indonesia to analyze the most binding constraints to growth and the impact of structural reforms using the Computable General Equilibrium
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a short review on the related literature. Section 3 describes the condition of physical infrastructure in Indonesia. Section 4 explains the structure and specification of the model. Section 5 analyzes the results of the model simulations and Section 6 concludes.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
This paper relates to previous studies found in the literature. On one hand, this paper is related to studies analyzing the impact of structural reforms on the economies of other countries, primarily using DSGE models. On the other hand, in terms of modelling at Bank Indonesia, this paper is related to several Bank Indonesia studies using DSGE models.
152Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
2.1.DSGE Model to Analyze the Impact of Government Spending on the Economy
One of the models used to analyze the impact of structural reforms in the form of government spending is the DSGE model. Ganelli and Tervala (2015) analyzed the impact of infrastructure development (public investment) on output and welfare using a New Keynesian DSGE model with a
Bom and Ligthart (2014) examines the impact of government infrastructure spending on output and welfare in a small open economy OECD member using the Real Business Cycle (RBC) model. Their study sought to answer the question of whether government investment could effectively drive output and ameliorate public welfare if the government is bound by the
In the case of Indonesia, studies regarding the impact of government spending on output have been conducted by Jha et al. (2010) and Tang et al. (2013). Both papers focus on estimating the fiscal multiplier in several Asian countries, including Indonesia.4 Jha et al. (2010) used a SVAR model to estimate the effectiveness of fiscal policy in 10 developing countries in Asia. Jha et al. (2010) found that an increase in government spending had a positive impact on GDP in each respective country. Meanwhile, contractive fiscal policy through higher taxes is found to stimulate economic growth in a few countries, including Singapore and Taiwan. Jha et al. (2010) also found that the cumulative fiscal multiplier of government spending in Indonesia is 0.19, above the fiscal multiplier from lower taxes (0.18).
4The fiscal multiplier is an indicator often used to gauge the impact of fiscal policy on output. The multiplier concept was first introduced by Kahn (1931) and Keynes (1936).
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
153 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
Tang at el. (2013) estimate the fiscal multiplier for five ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand) using a SVAR model. The results show that fiscal policy in the form of lower taxes could have a favorable impact on the five ASEAN members. In Indonesiaβs case, the fiscal multiplier of lower taxes is 0.43. In contrast, policy to raise government spending is found to have a negative multiplier effect in Indonesia
Different from the previous two studies on the impact of total government spending on output, this paper examines government spending not as an aggregate but from the perspective of each component, namely spending on investment and spending on consumption. Consequently, the impact of government efforts to increase investment spending can be quantified using the DSGE model developed. In addition, considering the DSGE model is a
2.2. DSGE Models at Bank Indonesia
Like many other central banks, Bank Indonesia has developed several DSGE models. This paper adds to the existing range of DSGE models in Bank Indonesia. After the global financial crisis, DSGE modelling at Bank Indonesia focused on the financial sector. Tjahjono and Waluyo (2010) developed a DSGE model to include the financial accelerator (procyclicality effect), aiming to detect the financial accelerator and its impact on the macroeconomy in the case of a shock, capture the linkages between the monetary and macroprudential policies, simulate the impact of rising fuel prices and analyze the policy mix in the face of economic recession and banking crisis. In the event of a monetary shock, the model with a financial accelerator produces a larger macroeconomic impact than the model without a financial accelerator. An increase in the oil price could potentially lower output, raise inflation and depreciate the rupiah. Furthermore, the impact of monetary policy is more pronounced than that of banking policy in the form of
Harmanta et al. (2012) developed a DSGE model equipped with the banking sector and applying financial frictions in the household sector in the form of collateral constraints. Their model could be used to assist policy mix formulation as implemented by Bank Indonesia. The simulations show that a hike in the BI Rate would raise bank retail interest rates, reduce lending as well as increase
154Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
Requirement is shown not to have a significant impact because of excess liquidity in the Indonesian banking sector. An increase in the
Harmanta et al. (2013) developed further the previous model by adding financial frictions on the entrepreneur side in the form of a financial accelerator, in addition to frictions on the household side. The simulations showed that a hike in the BI Rate would raise the retail interest rate in the banking industry, reduce lending and increase
Harmanta et al. (2014) extended the previous model with an interbank market mechanism as financial frictions on the supply side, while frictions are added to the demand side in the form of collateral constraints and the financial accelerator. The simulations showed that a shock on the interbank market would affect general bank dynamics, particularly bank capital, the Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) and
III.INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION IN INDONESIA AND THE GOVERNMENTβS PLAN TO STRENGTHEN INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1. Infrastructure in Indonesia
The condition of infrastructure in Indonesia has improved over the past few years, as reflected by the infrastructure competitiveness index published by the World Economic Forum (WEF). As shown in Figure 1a, the ranking of Indonesiaβs infrastructure improved from 92th in 2012 to 60th in 2016. The most salient improvements affected the quality of railways and roads as well as ports (Figure 1b).
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
155 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
|
Rank |
|
Ranking |
110 |
4,6 |
100 |
4,4 |
90 |
4,2 |
80 |
4,0 |
70 |
3,8 |
60 |
3,6 |
50 |
3,4 |
40 |
3,2 |
30 |
3,0 |
|
|
|
Score |
|
|
Nilai |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall Infrastructure |
Roads |
|
|
|
Railroad |
Port |
|
|
|
Airport |
Electricity Supply |
|
Overall Infrastructure |
|
Roads |
|
Railroad |
|
|
|||
Port |
|
Airport |
|
Electricity Supply |
|
|
|||
Index of Infrastructure |
|
|
|
|
Source: WEF Global Competitiveness Report
Note: A smaller index indicates a higher ranking. A scale of
(a) |
(b) |
Figure 1. Indonesian Infrastructure Index
Despite the recent improvements, several aspects of infrastructure in Indonesia are behind peer countries in the region. Data from The Global Competitiveness Report for
156Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
Indonesia |
|
Malaysia |
Thailand |
|
Vietnam |
|
Philippines |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure Roads |
Railroad |
Port |
Air transport Electricity |
Mobile |
Fixed |
|
|
|
|
telephone |
telehphone |
|
|
|
|
subscriptions |
lines |
Source : WEF Global Competitiveness Report
Figure 2.
Infrastructure Index of ASEAN Countries
The WEF report also states that the lack of infrastructure in Indonesia was the third biggest constraint to business development over the past few years, after corruption and inefficient government bureaucracy (Figure 3).
Most Problematic factors for doing business
Corruption |
11,8 |
Inefficient government bureaucracy |
9,3 |
Inadequate supply of infrastructure |
9,0 |
Access to financing |
8,6 |
Inflation |
7,6 |
Policy instability |
6,5 |
Poor work ethic in national labor force |
6,3 |
Tax rates |
6,1 |
Inadequately educated workforce |
5,6 |
Tax regulations |
4,8 |
Foreign currency regulations |
4,6 |
Government instability |
4,1 |
Poor public health |
4,0 |
Crime and theft |
4,0 |
Insufficient capacity to innovate |
3,7 |
Restrictive labor regulations |
3,7 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
12 |
Source: WEF Global Competitiveness Report
Figure 3.
Most Problematic Factors for Doing Business in Indonesia
One element of national infrastructure that has received government attention is interregional connectivity. Infrastructure constraints linked to connectivity, such as inadequate ports and poor quality roads, have pushed up the cost of logistics, which is a fundamental problem often found throughout Indonesia. The provision of such infrastructure would lower the cost of transportation and logistics, thereby enhancing product competitiveness and
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
157 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
accelerating the pace of the economy. The Logistics Performance Index (LPI), released by the World Bank in 2016, showed that Indonesia placed 63rd out of the 160 countries monitored, with a score of 2.98, down 10 places on the ranking in LPI 2014.
Compared to peer countries in the region, Indonesia remains below Malaysia and Thailand in terms of all LPI aspects, namely customs, infrastructure, international shipping, logistics competencies, tracking and recording as well as timeliness. Indonesia recorded a score of 2.69 for customs, compared to 3.17 in Malaysia and 3.11 in Thailand. For infrastructure, Indonesia received a score of 2.65, while Malaysia and Thailand scored at 3.45 and 3.12, respectively. In terms of international shipping, Indonesia again scored lower than Malaysia and Thailand with scores of 2.90, 3.48 and 3.37 respectively. Concerning logistics competencies, Indonesia received a score of 3.00, compared to 3.34 in Malaysia and 3.14 in Thailand (Figure 4).
LPI 2016 (Rank) |
LPI 2016 (Score) |
90 |
Indonesia |
Malaysia |
Thailand |
Vietnam |
Philippines |
4,00 |
Indonesia |
Malaysia |
Thailand |
Vietnam |
Philippines |
|||||||
80 |
3,80 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,00 |
LPI (score) |
Customs |
Infrastructure International |
Logistics |
Tracking and |
Timeliness |
|||
|
LPI (rank) |
Customs |
Infrastructure International |
Logistics |
Tracking and |
Timeliness |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Shipments |
quality and |
|
tracing |
|
|
|
|
|
Shipments |
quality and |
|
tracing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
competence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
competence |
|
|
|
|
Source: World Bank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4.
Comparison of Logistics Performance between ASEAN Countries
3.2. Government Investment in Infrastructure
One of the main reasons for the lack of adequate infrastructure in Indonesia is relatively low government investment. The ratio of government investment to GDP in Indonesia from
158Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
%GDP
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
Indonesia |
Malaysia |
|
Thailand |
|
Philippines |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
Source : World Bank
Figure 5. Comparison of Government
Investment between ASEAN Countries
In order to achieve higher and sustainable economic growth, the government is committed to improving the quality and quantity of infrastructure. Such commitment is evidenced by the infrastructure development targets to be achieved by 2019, pursuant to the
Table 1.
Infrastructure Development Targets in RPJMN
Indicator |
2014 Baseline |
2019 Target |
Basic infrastructure of energy and electricity |
|
|
Electrification ratio (%) |
|
|
84.1 |
96.6 |
|
Electricity consumption per capita (kWh) |
843 |
1200 |
Establishment of Floating Storage Regasification Unit (unit) |
2 |
3 |
Gas pipelines (km) |
11,960 |
17,690 |
Establishment of gas station for transportation (unit) |
40 |
118 |
Use of natural gas (household connection) |
102 Thousand |
1 Million |
Addition of petroleum refineries (unit) |
- |
2 |
Basic Infrastructure of residential areas |
|
|
Clean water access |
|
|
68.5% |
100% |
|
Adequate sanitation access |
60.5% |
100% |
Urban slums neighborhood |
37.407 Ha |
0 Ha |
Housing backlog |
13.5 Million |
6.8 Million |
Connectivity |
|
|
94% |
100% |
|
Logistic cost (%GDP) |
23.5% |
19.2% |
Urban public transport market share |
23% |
32% |
|
|
|
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess 159 the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy
Table 1.
Infrastructure Development Targets in RPJMN
Indicator |
2014 Baseline |
2019 Target |
||
Boardband coverage to regencies/ cities |
72% |
|
100% |
|
Water Durability |
|
|
|
|
Standard water infrastructure capacity |
51.4 |
M3/Sec |
118.6M/Sec |
|
Water storage capacity per capita |
62.3 |
M3/Capita |
78.36 |
M3/Capita |
Dam irrigation coverage |
11% |
|
20% |
|
Surface Irrigation Networks |
7,145 Million Ha |
7,914 |
Million Ha |
|
Flood control capacity |
||||
Source: RPJMN |
|
|
|
|
To achieve those targets, the government has already stipulated the infrastructure to be built during from
The acceleration of national strategic projects is pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 3/2016, which regulates licensing and
To expedite infrastructure development, the government introduced fiscal, institutional and regulatory reforms. The institutional reforms included strengthening The Committee for Acceleration of Priority Infrastructure Delivery (KPPIP) and the Presidential Decree on National Strategic Projects. In addition, the government also reclassified the projects to ensure a greater focus on project completion. Of the 225 existing national strategic projects and one electricity program, pursuant to Coordinating Minister of Economic Affairs Decree No. 12/2015, the government has designated 30 priority projects to receive special attention from KPPIP.
160Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
Infrastructure investment, which has become a government priority, is still constrained by a lack of funding. Data from the National Development Planning Agency, as contained in the MediumTerm National Development Plan (RPJMN) for
Table 2.
Funding Requirement for Infrastructure in RPJMN
|
State |
Regional |
|
|
|
Sector |
Budget |
Budget |
SoE (BUMN)2 |
Private3 |
Total |
|
(APBN)1 |
(APBD) |
|
|
|
Road |
340.0 |
200.0 |
65.0 |
200.0 |
805.0 |
Railway |
150.0 |
- |
11.0 |
122.0 |
283.0 |
Sea transportation4 |
498.0 |
- |
238.2 |
163.8 |
900.0 |
Air transportation |
85.0 |
5.0 |
50.0 |
25.0 |
165.0 |
Land transportation |
50.0 |
- |
10.0 |
- |
60.0 |
City transportation 5 |
90.0 |
15.0 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
115.0 |
Electricity 6 |
100.0 |
- |
445.0 |
435.0 |
980.0 |
Energy (oil and gas) |
3.6 |
- |
151.5 |
351.5 |
506.6 |
Information and communication |
12.5 |
15.3 |
27.0 |
223.0 |
277.8 |
technology |
|
|
|
|
|
Water resources |
275.5 |
68.0 |
7.0 |
50.0 |
400.5 |
Drinking water and sanitation |
227.0 |
198.0 |
44.0 |
30.0 |
499.0 |
Housing |
384.0 |
44.0 |
12.5 |
87.0 |
527.5 |
Total Infrastructure |
2,215.6 |
545.3 |
1,066.2 |
1,692.3 |
5,519.4 |
Percentage |
40.14% |
9.88% |
19.32% |
30.66% |
100.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Ministry of National Development Planning Notes:
1)Expected state budget support
2)Expected
3)Maximum capacity of private finance through
4)Increase due to the addition of sea toll component and routine cost
5)Allocated for rail and
6)PT PLN has the capability to finance Rp 250 T, the remaining cost requires state investment
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
161 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
In line with government efforts to improve the quality and quantity of infrastructure, the national budget allocation to infrastructure has increased significantly. Based on data from the Ministry of Finance, government spending on infrastructure in 2015 reached Rp290.3 trillion (3.23% of GDP), up 40.5% from the previous year. A further increase was observed in 2016, with the budget allocation went up to Rp313.5 trillion. In 2017, Rp346.6 trillion has been earmarked for infrastructure. With the growing infrastructure budget through to 2019, government spending on infrastructure is expected to reach 4.21% of GDP (Figure 6). As an aggregate for
|
Rp Trillion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% GDP |
|
|
500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,21% |
4,50% |
|
|
Infrastructure Spending (Rp level) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,67% |
4,00% |
||||
|
Infrastructure Spending (% GDP) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,33% |
3,50% |
3,50% |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,23% |
|
|||
350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,00% |
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,41% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,50% |
|
250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,90% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,93% |
1,81% |
1,87% |
1,89% |
1,79% |
1,66% |
1,70% |
|
|
|
|
2,00% |
||
200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,50% |
|
150 |
1,18% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,50% |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,00% |
|
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016* |
2017** 2018** 2019** |
|
Source: Ministry of National Development Planning, Ministry of Finance, BI
Figure 6.
Goverment Spending on Infrastructure
IV. DSGE MODEL
The model developed in this paper is based on Ganelli and Tervala (2015), where government consumption and investment are inputted separately into a New Keynesian DSGE Model. The main modification to the model is to assume a small open economy in order to enrich the impact assessment of structural reforms in Indonesia. In general, the model also contains the features of the standard DSGE model based on the model of Gali and Monacelli (2005). The structure of the model is presented in Figure 7.
162Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paying taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing goods for |
|
government |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Providing public consumption |
|
|
Providing infrastructure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplying labor and consuming goods |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Household |
|
|
|
Firms |
|
|
|
|
Export |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Producing consumption goods |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Import |
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Bank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
World |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conducting monetary policy
Figure 7.
Structure of the Model
4.1. Households
4.1.1. Household Utility Maximization
All households are assumed to have the same preferences. Households maximize their utility function based on their choice of consumption level, πΆπ‘, and time spent resting (outside working hours, ππ‘), given the public goods , πΊπ‘πΆ, provided by the government.
1
where Ξ² is discount factor, Ο is intertemporal elasticity of substitution of household, Ο is labor supply elasticity, and Ξ½ is weight of public consumption.
Households receive an income from wages for providing labor to a firm, ππ‘ππ‘, income from term deposits, (1 + ππ‘)π·π‘, and dividends from their own businesses, Ξ π‘. The income is used to pay taxes, ππ‘, and spend on consumption. Therefore, the budget constraints faced by households is the following:
ππ‘πΆπ‘ + ππ‘+1π·π‘+1 = π·π‘ + ππ‘ππ‘ + Ξ π‘ β ππ‘ππ‘ |
2 |
where is a stochastic discount factor. In the budget constraints, spending on consumption and taxes are multiplied by prices to form the nominal value.
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
163 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
Optimizing the objective function (1) with the budget constraint (2) produces the optimal solution (First Order Condition) for consumption, πΆπ‘, and working time, ππ‘, as follows:
3
4
Households determine their level of consumption at time t, πΆπ‘, by considering the expected spending on consumption in future periods, , price changes, , and the discount factor.
Meanwhile, households choose to work, ππ‘π , in line with the wages received, ππ‘, to meet the consumption requirement.
4.1.2 Optimum Consumption Allocation of Households
Household consumption, πΆπ‘, is a composite index of domestic goods, πΆπ»,π‘, and imported goods πΆπΉ,π‘.
where πΌ is the consumption home bias parameter and π is elasticity of substitution between domestic and imported goods. The respective consumption of domestic goods, πΆπ»,π‘, and imported goods, πΆπΉ,π‘, constitute aggregate consumption of various types of goods π, namely:
where π and πΎ are the elasticity of substitution between varieties of domestic and foreign goods respectively.
Households maximize total consumption by determining the consumption allocation for various types of goods, π, for each level of spending, ππ‘.
164Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
π₯ = π», πΉ, and π = π, πΎ. The optimal solution (FOC) for this problem is for households to allocate the consumption of goods, π, according to relative prices of other goods and the substitution elasticity between goods, which can be expressed as follows:
Furthermore, households will also maximize their consumption allocation between domestic and international goods. With the same settlement measures as before, the optimal solution in terms of consuming domestic and international goods will be obtained as follows:
where
5
is the consumption price index.
4.1.3.Relationship between Domestic and International Prices and Consumption
A price comparison between domestic and international goods (terms of trade) can be expressed
as, or in
price index equation (5) in a steady state condition produced ππ‘ = (1 β πΌ)ππ»,π‘ + πΌππΉ,π‘, therefore ππ‘ = ππ»,π‘ + πΌπ π‘. Thus, a change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is determined by a change of domestic prices and a change in the terms of trade (ToT).
ππ‘ = ππ»,π‘ β πΌ(π π‘ β π π‘β 1)
International commodity prices in the domestic currency (ππΉ,π‘) are the same as global prices in a foreign currency (pt*) multiplied by the nominal exchange rate pF,t = et + pt*. Therefore, the terms of trade can also be formulated as follows:
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
165 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
Meanwhile, the real exchange rate can be defined as a change in international prices in the domestic currency divided by domestic prices (Consumer Price Index):
ππ‘ = ππ‘ + ππ‘β β ππ‘
Thus, the relationship between the real exchange rate and the terms of trade can be defined as follows:
ππ‘ = (1 β πΌ)π π‘
Furthermore, assuming linearity, changes in the real exchange rate and global growth to meet domestic demand will determine the magnitude of change in domestic consumption:
4.1.4. Market Clearing between Consumption and Production
In equilibrium, companies produce goods at the same amount with government spending and household consumption such that:
Using the terms of trade and exchange rate equations, the equation above can be expressed as:
4.2. Firms
4.2.1. Minimizing Production Costs
Firms are assumed to have factors of production consisting of labor and public infrastructure provided by the Government. A production function is also assumed to be linear with respect to technological progress. Each firm produces various different products π:
ππ‘(π) |
π΄π‘(πΎπ‘πΊ)Ξ¦ππ‘(π) |
6 |
where Ξ¦ is output elasticity to public infrastructure. Parameter Ξ¦ is assumed to have a positive value, implying that the production function has an increasing returns with respect to public infrastructure. The problem faced by firms in finding the real marginal cost is to minimize the real total cost given certain level of production. Firms choose number of labors to minimize the real total cost as follows:
166Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
7
Optimization of the objective function (7) with the constraint (6) produces the optimum function of the marginal cost ππΆπ‘ as follows:
8
Therefore, the marginal cost is found to be equivalent to spending on real wages divided by the marginal product of labor π΄π‘(πΎπ‘πΊ)Ξ¦.
4.2.2. Maximizing Profit and Price Setting
In this model, each firm is assumed to produce various different products π, thus giving the company bargaining power to change the prices of its products ππ‘(π). A portion of firms are assumed to set prices flexibly with a price index ππ‘, and some firms strive to seek optimal prices Pt*. With the presence of price rigidity, the process of setting optimal prices follows the framework introduced by Calvo (1983).
9
10
The optimal solution of the objective function (9) with the constraint of equation (10) produces the following equation:
11
The value of is called the price
between domestic products π.
Each company can optimize or adjust prices with a probability of 1 β π (independent) in each period, thus π < 1 can be interpreted as the price rigidity index. Therefore, the aggregate price ππ‘ is as follows:
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
167 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
By denoting that inflation, then equation (11) can be expressed in the final
12
Equation (12) shows that a change in the optimal price at time π‘ (ππ‘) is the weighted average of the marginal cost in the current period and future price changes. In addition, equation (8) also shows that an increase in the stock of public infrastructure would lower the optimal price.
4.3.Fiscal and Monetary Policy
4.3.1.Fiscal Policy
The government receives revenue from taxes, which is then used for consumption and investment.
ππ‘ππ‘ |
πΊπ‘πΌ + πΊπ‘πΆ |
For simplicity, taxes, ππ‘, are
Government spending on consumption and investment is modelled using the AR(1) dynamics:
πΜπ‘πΆ ππΆπΜπ‘πΆ+ ππ‘πΆ πΜπ‘πΌ ππΌπΜπ‘πΌ+ ππ‘πΌ
Parameters ππΆ and ππΌ represent the persistence of government consumption and investment shocks. Meanwhile, ππ‘πΆ and ππ‘πΌ represent i.i.d shocks on government spending with a normal distribution and standard deviation ππ.
Like Ganelli and Tervala (2015), private capital is omitted from the model, thus providing greater focus on the impact of government investment spending. The stock of public infrastructure is modelled using the following equation:
The stock of public infrastructure depreciates at π and expands in line with government investment spending.
168Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
4.3.2.Monetary Policy
Setting the policy rate (ππ‘) by the central bank is modelled in the form of a
13
Parameter ππ is interest rate smoothing, while ππ and ππ¦ are the weights of inflation and output stabilization. ππ is the i.i.d shock on monetary policy.
4.4. Trade Balance
The trade balance, represented by ππ₯π‘, illustrates net exports from domestic production as a ratio of the steady state output πΜ . Thus,
14
The
15
Equation (15) shows that an increase in government spending on consumption or investment would directly affect the trade balance, which must be offset by the difference between the increase in domestic output and government spending.
4.5.Measuring the Output Multiplier and Welfare Multiplier of Government Spending
Following Ganelli and Tervala (2015), we look at the output multiplier of government spending by using the cumulative multiplier (CM), which is calculated using the cumulative change in output divided by the cumulative change in government spending for a given period as follows:
οΏ½ οΏ½ |
οΏ½,οΏ½οΏ½ οΏ½. |
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
169 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
In addition, the output multiplier can also be measured based on the net present value of fiscal multiplier (NPVFM), which is calculated as a ratio of the net present value of the change in output to the net present value of the change in government spending for a given period.
where π₯ = πΆ, πΌ. In this paper, we set number of periods at 2,000 quarters, following Ganelli and Tervala (2015).
To measure the impact of government spending on welfare, the net present value of the impact of fiscal expansion (ππ‘) on welfare is measured as the part of consumption households are willing to release due to fiscal expansion. The value of ππ‘ is calculated as follows. Based on the household utility function, the net present value of household welfare without fiscal expansion is as follows:
16
The net present value of household welfare without fiscal expansion is as follows:
17
From equations (3.16) and (3.17), the net present value of the impact of fiscal expansion on welfare can be solved as follows:
Therefore, the welfare multiplier impact is obtained based on the cumulative change in utility (multiplied by the discount factor) and divided by the cumulative government spending.
170Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
4.6.Optimal Solution of the Model
Optimal solution to the model, based on household, corporate, central bank, government and external conditions, as described above, can be summarised in Table 3:
|
Table 3. |
|
|
Optimal Solution and |
|
No |
Optimal Solution (First Order Condition) |
1 Euler Equation:
2 Philips Curve:
3 |
Marginal cost: |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Consumption: |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Inflation: |
ππ‘ = ππ»,π‘ + πΌ(π π‘ β π π‘β 1) |
||
|
ππ‘ = ππ»,π‘ + πΌ(π π‘ β |
π π‘β 1) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
Terms of trade: |
|
||
|
π π‘ = π π‘β1 + (ππ‘ β |
ππ‘β 1) + ππ‘β + ππ»,π‘ |
||
7 |
Taylor rule: |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
Market Clearing: |
|
9 |
Capital Law of Motion: |
|
|
||
|
πΎπ‘πΊ+1 |
= (1 β |
π)πΎπ‘πΊ + πΊπ‘πΌ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
Employment: |
|
π¦Μπ‘= πΜπ‘+ |
Ξ¦πΜπ‘π+ πΜπ‘ |
|
|
ππ‘(π) |
π΄π‘(πΎπ‘πΊ)Ξ¦ππ‘(π) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
11 |
Trade Balance: |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
Inflation: |
|
ππ‘ = ππ‘ β |
ππ‘β1 |
|
|
ππ‘ = ππ‘ β ππ‘β |
1 |
ππ»,π‘ ππ»,π‘ β ππ»,π‘β1 ππ‘β 0 |
||
|
ππ»,π‘ |
ππ»,π‘ β |
ππ»,π‘β1 ππ‘β |
0 |
|
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess 171 the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy
|
|
Table 3. |
|
|
Optimal Solution and |
||
No |
Optimal Solution (First Order Condition) |
|
|
13 |
Technology Shock: |
|
ππ‘ = ππππ‘β1 + ππ‘π |
|
ππ‘ = ππππ‘β1 + ππ‘π |
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
Government Investment Shock: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
Government Investment Shock: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.7. Steady State Value
In this paper, the steady state of working hours πΜ
is assumed at 1/3, meaning that the labor force spends
clearing equation, the steady state of consumption is . Based on the capital depreciation equation, the steady state value of government intervention is the same as the rate of depreciation Μ πΊΜ π‘Μ πΌ= π.
4.8. Parameterization
The parameter values used in the model are determined through a calibration and estimation process. The discount factor π½ is set at 0.99. The model is interpreted as a quarterly model, and therefore the assumption of π½ = 0.99 is equivalent to an annualized interest rate of 4%. The elasticity of substitution between domestic and international goods (π) is assumed at 3.5, which is consistent with the findings of Obstfeld and Rogoff (1998). Meanwhile, the elasticity of substitution between international goods πΎ is assumed equals to 1, in line with Gali and Monacelli (2005). The elasticity of substitution of labor supply as π is assumed at 1.97, the same as Sin (2016) and not far different from Ganelli and Tervala (2015). The wealth effect of labor supply π is assumed equals to 2.
The value of the Calvo parameter π = 0.5 is assumed at 0.5, which is the value often used in numerous New Keynesian models and the same as Tjahjono et al. (2009) for the Bank Indonesia Structural Macromodel (BISMA). This assumption leads to a lag of the prices adjustment in two periods (six months). The value of the home bias parameter (1 β πΌ) is obtained using the average ratio of imports to GDP from
=1.9 and ππ¦ = 0.25. The Taylor rule parameters are the same as that estimated by Harmanta et al. (2012).
172Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
Fiscal policy is assumed to have an investment and consumption shock persistence of ππΌ = ππΆ = 0.75, respectively, mirroring the findings of Iwata (2013). Meanwhile, the share of government consumption relative to domestic consumption π is assumed at 0.15, in line with the average value for Indonesia during the period from
|
|
Table 4. |
|
|
Calibrated Value of Parameters |
Parameter |
Baseline value |
Description |
π½ |
0.99 |
Discount factor |
π |
3.5 |
Elasticity of substitution between domestic and imported goods |
πΎ |
1 |
Elasticity of substitution between varieties of foreign goods |
π |
1.97 |
Frisch elasticity of labor supply |
π |
2 |
Intertemporal elasticity of substitution of household |
π |
0.5 |
Calvo Parameter |
πΌ |
0.2 |
Home bias parameter |
ππ |
0.75 |
Interest rate smoothing |
ππ |
1.9 |
Taylor rule coefficient for inflation |
ππ¦ |
0.25 |
Taylor rule coefficient for output |
ππΌ |
0.75 |
Persistency of public investment shock |
ππ |
0.75 |
Persistency of public consumption shock |
π |
0.15 |
Weight of public consumption |
π |
0.025 |
Depreciation rate of public infrastructure |
ππ |
0.24 |
Output elasticity of public infrastructure |
The results of parameter calibration are used as the priors for the estimations using Bayesian approach, as explained in Quintana (2012). In this paper, the estimated parameters are π, π, πΎ, π and π. More details, the prior distribution, distribution type and posterior distribution of the parameter estimations are presented in Table 5.
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess 173 the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy
Table 5.
Estimated Value of Parameters
Parameter |
Description |
Distribution |
Prior distribution |
|
Posterior |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
distribution |
|
|
|
Mean |
|
Std. Dev. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
π |
Calvo parameter |
Beta |
|
0.67 |
|
0.1 |
0.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
π |
Intertemporal elasticity of |
Gamma |
|
2.00 |
|
0.1 |
2.70 |
|
substitution of household |
|
|
|
|
|
|
π |
Frisch elasticity of labor supply |
Gamma |
|
1.97 |
|
0.1 |
2.67 |
πΎ |
Elasticity of substitution between |
Gamma |
|
1.00 |
|
0.2 |
2.24 |
|
varieties of foreign goods |
|
|
|
|
|
|
π |
Elasticity of substitution between |
Gamma |
|
3.50 |
|
0.8 |
1.75 |
|
domestic and imported goods |
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Simulation Results
This section describes the dynamics of the impulse functions. The discussion focuses on the simulations of fiscal policy, that is, government consumption and government investment shocks. In line with the design of the model, in addition to the impact of fiscal policy on macroeconomic aggregates, the impact on household welfare is also measured. Figure 8 shows the simulation results of fiscal expansion, where the solid line indicates the impact of the government consumption shock and the dashed line illustrates the impact of the government investment shock. In general, the shock produces deviation from the steady state of each respective variable, excluding the trade balance, which is represented by deviation from the steady state of output, and inflation is in percentage change from the previous year.
5.1. Government Consumption
In the short run, a 1% increase in government consumption would potentially results in a 0.04% higher economic growth above the baseline without policy (Figure 9), driven by an increase in aggregate demand, the wealth effect and working hours. The government would raise taxes to offset the increase in consumption, while the labor force would be offset by an increase in working hours to earn higher wages. Although households reduce their consumption, the aggregate impact of an increase in government consumption remained positive. A cumulative increase in government consumption would raise economic growth by 0.03% (Table 6).
The trade surplus would initially declines, prompted by an increase in imports to meet government consumption. Thereafter, however, the decrease in household consumption due to raised taxes and an improvement in the terms of trade in the
174Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
|
Output |
0,05 |
|
|
Government Consumption shock |
0,04 |
Government Investment shock |
|
0,03
0,02
0,01
0,00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Trade Balance
0,004
0,002
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Consumption shock |
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Investment shock |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
24 |
26 |
28 |
30 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terms of Trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
0,03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Consumption shock |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Investment shock |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Working Time
0,06 |
|
|
|
|
0,05 |
|
|
|
Government Consumption shock |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Government Investment shock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,04 |
|
|
|
|
0,03 |
|
|
|
|
0,02 |
|
|
|
|
0,01 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Private Consumption
0,008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Consumption shock |
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Investment shock |
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
24 |
26 |
28 |
30 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
0,035 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,030 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Consumption shock |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Investment shock |
|
|||||||
0,025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Welfare
0,008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Consumption shock |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Investment shock |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
24 |
26 |
28 |
30 |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
0,09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Consumption shock |
|||||||||
0,01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Investment shock |
|
|
||||||||
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
24 |
26 |
28 |
30 |
Figure 8. Impact of Fiscal Expansion
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
175 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
The simulations show that there are two opposing impacts of the increased government consumption. On one hand, higher taxes would cause lower householdsβ consumption and then utility, while working hours would have to be increased to offset the added expense. On the other hand, however, government consumption itself as part of the utility directly increases in welfare.
Table 6.
Output and Welfare Multiplier
|
CM |
|
CM |
|
CM |
CM |
CM |
NPV Output |
Welfare |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multiplier |
Multiplier |
|
4 |
|
8 |
|
12 |
16 |
20 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Consumption |
|
0.03 |
|
0.03 |
0.03 |
0.03 |
0.03 |
0.03 |
|
Investment |
|
0.04 |
|
0.06 |
0.07 |
0.09 |
0.11 |
0.20 |
0.045 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The simulations also show that the welfare multiplier of increased government consumption had a value of
5.2. Government Investment
The simulations show that, in the short run, a 1% increase in government investment could drive a 0.05% increase in economic growth above the baseline, representing a larger impact than a corresponding increase in government consumption. In fact, the effect of increased government investment increases in the
According to this paper, output multiplier is relatively small compared to the study performed by Ganelli and Tervala (2015), but exceeds the values produced in Jhaβs et al. (2010) paper with a multiplier of 0.19 and Tang et al. (2013) with a multiplier of
176Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
As shown in Figure 8, consumption would decline in the short run, suppressed by a tax hike to offset the governmentβs investment spending. Furthermore, greater investment spending would improve the terms of trade (ToT), thus bolstering purchasing power and increasing consumption, albeit still negative as an aggregate due to the dominant effect of higher taxes. Similar conditions are observed in the trade balance. Although consumption would experience a decline,
The simulations also show that the impact of government investment on welfare is 0.05, implying that households receive a net benefit of Rp0.05 for each additional Rp1 of government investment. The net benefit is an increase in consumption due to greater productivity without having to increase the working hours. In other words, household welfare would improve.
Figure 9 shows the impacts of increased government investment on macroeconomic dynamics. A higher investment value would lead to a more significant increase in output in the short run as well as the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Output |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private Consumption |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
0,5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1% Shock |
|
0,06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5% Shock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
0,4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% Shock |
0,04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1% Shock |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5% Shock |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% Shock |
|||
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
24 |
26 |
28 |
30 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
24 |
26 |
28 |
30 |
Figure 9.
Impact of Government Investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
177 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inflation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
0,04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1% Shock |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
0,02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5% Shock |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% Shock |
|
|
||||
0,01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1% Shock |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5% Shock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% Shock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
24 |
26 |
28 |
30 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
24 |
26 |
28 |
30 |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Working Time |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welfare |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
0,5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1% Shock |
|
0,06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
0,4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5% Shock |
|
0,04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% Shock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
0,3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1% Shock |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5% Shock |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% Shock |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
|
24 |
26 |
28 |
30 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
24 |
26 |
28 |
30 |
Figure 9.
Impact of Government Investment
Bom and Ligthart (2014) show that the impact of welfare is sensitive to changes in the output elasticity of public capital. Using the same analysis, however, this study shows that as the new public infrastructure became more productive, the potential increase in economic growth and impact on welfare would also increase (Table 7). Such dynamics indicate that priority infrastructure development should focus on improving productivity in order to provide the most optimal benefits to the economy.
Table 7.
Public Infrastructure Productivity and Multiplier Impact
Ouput elasticity of public capital |
CM |
|
CM |
NPV Output |
Welfare Multiplier |
|
|
|
|
Multiplier |
|
|
16 |
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
ππ = 0.08 |
|
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.08 |
0.00 |
ππ = 0.15 |
|
0.07 |
0.08 |
0.13 |
0.02 |
ππ = 0.20 |
|
0.09 |
0.11 |
0.20 |
0.04 |
ππ = 0.35 |
|
0.12 |
0.15 |
0.28 |
0.07 |
178Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
VI. Conclusions
One of the most binding constraints facing the Indonesian economy is limited infrastructure in terms of quality and quantity, which has impeded domestic growth and undermined national economic competitiveness. Seeking to overcome the challenges, the Government is currently trying to speed up infrastructure development as part of the ongoing economic structural reforms. The impact of government investment in infrastructure on the economy and public welfare needed to be analyzed quantitatively to provide a more accurate picture of the impact of government investment.
A DSGE model is developed in this paper to estimate the impact of government spending for investment and consumption on output and welfare in Indonesia. In general, the model consists of households, corporations, the government and central bank. Households maximize their utility which is a function of household consumption itself, leisure and government consumption. The corporate sector maximizes profits, where output is a function of technology, the labor force and government capital, while the government is assumed to fully offset consumption and investment spending through higher taxes.
The model is calibrated using parameters consistent with the Indonesian economy. The impulse response functions show that, in the short run, a 1% increase of government consumption could potentially raise economic growth by 0.04% above the baseline, primarily driven by increases in terms of aggregate demand, the wealth effect and working hours. Cumulatively, the output multiplier of government consumption is 0.03. On the other hand, increased government consumption would lead to lower welfare, with a welfare multiplier of
In the short run, a 1% increase of government investment could potentially raise economic growth by 0.05% above the baseline. In the medium to long term, however, the impact becomes larger and the output multiplier of government investment is 0.20. The increase stems from higher temporary demand and the
The simulations of the DSGE model built in this paper shows that government policy to stimulate the economy would be greatly more effective through investment rather than consumption. Based on the figures produced by the simulations, the recent structural reforms implemented by the government, one of which is through increased government investment and less government consumption, including subsidies, are expected to have a significant and positive impact on the national economy.
A Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) Model to Assess |
179 |
the Impact of Structural Reforms on the Indonesian Economy |
|
REFERENCES
Anugrah, D. F., Rakhman, R. N., Anglingkusumo, R., Fawaqa, L., & Oseva, J. (2015). Growth Diagnostic Banten.
Aschauer, D. A. (2000). Aschauer 2000. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(2),
Bom, P. R. D., & Ligthart, J. E. (2014). Public infrastructure investment, output dynamics, and balanced budget fiscal rules. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 40,
Calvo, G. A. (1983). Staggered prices in a utility maximizing framework. Journal of Monetary Economics, 12,
Cooley, E. (1995). Frontiers of Business Cycle Research. Princeton University Press.
Gali, J., & Monacelli, T. (2005). Monetary Policy and Exchange Rate Volatility In A Small Open Economy. Review of Economic Studies, 72(252),
Ganelli, G., & Tervala, J. (2015). The Welfare Multiplier of Public Infrastructure Investment (No. 16/40).
Harmanta, Purwanto, N. M. A., & Oktiyanto, F. (2012). Sektor Perbankan dalam Model DSGE.
Harmanta, Purwanto, N. M. A., Rachmanto, A., & Oktiyanto, F. (2013). Penyempurnaan Pemodelan Financial Frictions pada Model
Harmanta, Rachmanto, A., Oktiyanto, F., & Idham. (2014). Interbank Market with DSGE Model.
IMF. (2014). World Economic Outlook: Legacies, Clouds and Uncertainties. Washington, DC.: IMF.
Iwata, Y. (2013). Two fiscal policy puzzles revisited: New evidence and an explanation. Journal of International Money and Finance, 33,
Jha, S., Mallick, S., Park, D., & Quising, P. (2010). Effectiveness of countercyclical fiscal policy: Timeseries evidence from developing Asia (No. 211).
Kahn, R. F. (1931). The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment. The Economic Journal, 41(162),
Kementerian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional. (2014). Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional
180Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Volume 20, Nomor 2, Oktober 2017
Keynes, J. M. (1936). Keynes 1936 The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Moneyβ. Book III Chapter 10. London: Macmillan & Co.
Leduc, S., & Wilson, D. (2013). Roads to Prosperity or Bridge to Nowhere? Theory and Evidence on the Impact of Public Infrastructure Investment. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 27,
Obstfeld, M., & K., R. (1998). Risk and exchange rates (No. 6694).
Quintana, P. G., & M.N., J. (2012). Bayesian Estimation of DSGE (No.
Rodrik, D. (2015). Structural Reform and Greece: Lessons from Other Lands. Retrieved from
Sin, J. (2016). The Fiscal Multiplier in a Small Open Economy: The Role of Liquidity Frictions.
Tabor, S. R. (2015). Constraints to Indonesiaβs Economic Growth (No. 10).
Tang, H. C., Liu, P., & Cheung, E. C. (2013). Changing Impact of Fiscal Policy on Selected ASEAN Countries. Journal of Asian Economics, 24,
Tjahjono, E. D., Harmanta, & Waluyo, J. (2009). Bank Indonesia Structural Macromodel (BISMA).
Tjahjono, E. D., & Waluyo, J. (2010). Pemodelan Banking dan Financial Accelerator pada Model DSGE.
World Economic Forum. (2016). Global Competitiveness Index