Dampak Program Raskin terhadap Konsumsi Gizi Rumah Tangga di Pulau Jawa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21082/akp.v18n1.2020.75-88Keywords:
distribution of subsidized, Propensity Score Matching, Endogenous Switching Regression, poor household, energy and protein consumption, penyaluran beras subsidi, rumah tangga miskin, konsumsi energi dan proteinAbstract
Distribution of subsidized rice for a low-income household has been one of the government policies to improve food insecurity and eradicate poverty. From 1998 to 2015, this policy was implemented to distribute subsidized rice for the poor (Raskin) program. Impact evaluation of this program on household nutrition consumption is very important because the level of nutrition consumption is one of the instruments for welfare assessment in Indonesia. One of the problems in this program implementation was the inaccuracy of the target recipient, that was some small part of the poor and near-poor did not receive subsidized rice, and vice versa. Based on these findings, this study aimed to analyze Raskin's impact on household nutrition consumption for both target recipients and nonrecipient. In this study, the data used was Susenas 2015 from Statistics Indonesia, with the scope of analysis covering Java Island. Data were analyzed using the treatment effect method, with the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) and Endogenous Switching Regression approaches (ESR). Statistically and significantly, estimation results using PSM and ESR stated that the distribution of Raskin increased energy and protein consumption in each household recipient group, meaning that this program could reduce malnutrition and food insecurity of the poor. To increase the benefit of this subsidized food distribution, it is suggested that the target recipient's data should be improved, and the inaccuracy of household recipients should be minimized.
Abstrak
Penyaluran subsidi beras untuk rumah tangga berpendapatan rendah menjadi salah satu kebijakan pemerintah dalam mengatasi kerawanan pangan dan pengentasan kemiskinan. Pada priode 1998 sampai 2015 kebijakan ini dilaksanakan melalui program penyaluran beras subsidi untuk rumah tangga miskin (Raskin). Evaluasi dampak Raskin terhadap tingkat konsumsi gizi rumah tangga sangat penting, karena kecukupan tingkat konsumsi gizi menjadi salah satu instrumen penilaian kesejahteraan di Indonesia. Salah satu permasalahan yang dihadapi dalam implementasi program ini adalah adanya ketidaktepatan penerima sasaran program, yaitu ada sebagian kecil rumah tangga miskin dan rentan miskin yang tidak menerima Raskin, dan sebaliknya. Dengan latar belakang hasil penelitian tersebut, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dampak Raskin terhadap konsumsi gizi rumah tangga penerima dan bukan penerima. Data yang digunakan adalah data Susenas 2015 dari Badan Pusat Statistik, dengan cakupan analisis meliputi Pulau Jawa. Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan metode efek perlakuan (treatment effect), dengan pendekatan Propensity Score Matching (PSM) dan Endogenous Switching Regression (ESR). Secara statistik dan signifikan, hasil estimasi menggunakan PSM dan ESR menyatakan penyaluran Raskin dapat meningkatkan konsumsi energi dan protein pada setiap kelompok rumah tangga penerima Raskin, berarti program ini dapat mengurangi malnutrisi dan kerawanan pangan rumah tangga miskin. Untuk meningkatkan manfaat dari program penyaluran subsidi pangan, disarankan dilakukan perbaikan data rumah tangga penerima dan kesalahan target rumah tangga penerima ditekan sekecil mungkin.
Downloads
References
Ahmed A, Quiumbing AR, Nasreen M, Hoddinott JF, Bryan E. 2010. Comparing food and cash transfers to the ultra poor in Bangladesh. Washington DC (US): International Food Policy Research Institute.
Amrullah ER, Ishida A, Pullaila A, Rusyiana A. 2019. "Who suffers from food insecurity in Indonesia?". Int J of Social Economics. 46(10): 1186-1197. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-03-2019-0196.
Ariani M, Suryana A, Suhartini SH, Saliem HP. 2018. Keragaan konsumsi pangan hewani berdasarkan wilayah dan pendapatan di tingkat rumah tangga. Anal Kebijak Pertan. 16(2): 147-163. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21082/akp.v16n2.2018.147-163.
Bulog. 2010. Sekilas raskin [Internet]. Tersedia dari : http://www.bulog.co.id/sekilas_raskin.php.
de la O Campos AP, Villani C, Davis B, Takagi M. 2018. Ending extreme poverty in rural areas-Sustaining livelihoods to leave no one behind. 84 pp. Rome (IT): FAO.
Di Falco S, Veronesi M, Yesuf M. 2011. Does adaptation to climate change provide food security? a micro-perspective from Ethiopia. American J of Agricultural Economics. 93(3): 829–846. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar006.
Gundersen C, Kreider B, Pepper J. 2011. The economics of food insecurity in the United States. Apl Econ Persp Pol. 33(3): 281–303. doi:10.1093/aepp/ppr022.
Hastuti, Mawardi H, Sulaksono B, Akhmadi, Devina S, Artha PA. 2008. Efektivitas pelaksanaan Raskin. Jakarta (ID): SMERU Research Institute. Tersedia dari https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/ 51026-ID-efektivitas-pelaksanaan-raskin.pdf
Haughton J, Khandker SR. 2009. Handbook on poverty and inequality. Washington DC (US): The World Bank.
Hutagaol MP, Asmara A. 2008. Analisis efektivitas kebijakan publik memihak masyarakat miskin: studi kasus pelaksanaan Program Raskin di Provinsi Jawa Barat pada Tahun 2007. J Agro Ekon. 26(2): 145-165. doi: 10.21082/jae.v26n2.2008.145-165.
Huynh KP, Jacho-Chávez DT, Self JK. 2010. The efficacy of collaborative learning recitation sessions on student outcomes. American Economic Review. 100(2): 287-91. doi: 10.1257/aer.100.2.287.
Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM. 2009. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J of Economic Literature. 47(1): 5-86. doi: 10.1257/jel.47.1.5.
Jamhari. 2012. Efektivitas distribusi raskin di pedesaan dan perkotaan Indonesia, J Ekon Pembangunan. 13(1): 132-145. doi: 10.23917/ jep.v13i1.187.
Jensen RT, Miller NH. 2011. Do consumer price subsidies really improve nutrition?. Rev Econ Stat. 93 (4): 1205-1223. doi: doi.org/10.1162/ REST_a_00118.
Khausal N, Muchomba FM. 2015. How consumer price subsidies affect nutrition. World Dev. xx: 25–42. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev. 2015.04.006.
Khalid U, Shahnaz L, Bibi H. 2005. Determinants of poverty in Pakistan: a multinomial logit approach. The Lahore J of Econ. 10(1): 65-81. doi: 10.35536/lje.2005.v10.i1.a5.
Krishnamurthy P, Pathania VS, Tandon S. 2017. Food price subsidies and nutrition: evidence from state reforms to India's public distribution system. Econ Dev Cult Chng. 66(1): 55-90. doi: doi.org/10.1086/694033.
Kustianingrum W, Terawaki T. 2018. The impacts of rice price subsidy on nutrition consumption of the poor a case of Raskin Program in Indonesia. In: Hartono D, Yudhistira MH, Dartanto T, editors. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Indonesian Economy and Development (ICIED 2017). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 126. doi: dx.doi.org/10.2991/icied-17.2018.39.
Fei-Lee L. 1982. Some Approaches to the Correction of Selectivity Bias. The Review of Econ Studies. 49(3): 355–372. doi: doi.org/10.2307/2297361.
Lentz EC, Barrett CB. 2013. The economics and nutritional impacts of food assistance policies and programs. Food Pol. 42: 151–163. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.06.011.
Lokshin M, Sajaia Z. 2004. Maximum likelihood estimation of endogenous switching regression models. Stata J. 4: 282-289.
Maddala GS. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Economics. New York (US): Cambridge University Press. pp. 257-291.
Meng X, Gregory R, Wan G. 2005. Urban poverty in China and its contributing factors, 1986-2000. Review of Income and Wealth. 53(1): 167-189. doi: doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2007.00222.x.
Pangaribowo EH. 2012. The Impact of ‘Rice for the Poor’ on Household Consumption. AARES annual conference, Fremantle, Western Australia, February 7-10. Tersedia dari https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/124358/2/2012AC%20Pangaribowo%20CP.pdf.
Rahman A. 2016. Universal food security program and nutritional consumption: evidence from the hunger prone KBK districts in Odisha. Food Pol. 63: 73–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016. 07.003.
Rubin DB. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Edu Psych. 66(5): 688–701. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0037350.
Satriawan E, Shrestha R. 2018. Mistargeting and regressive take up of the Indonesian Rice Subsidy Program. Asian Econ J. 32(4): 387–415. doi:10.1111/asej.12164.
Shimokawa S. 2010. Nutrient consumption of the poor and its implications for the nutritional effect of cereal price subsidies: evidence from China. World Dev. 38(7): 1001–1011. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.11.023.
Timmer PC, Hastuti, Sumarto S. 2017. Evolution and implementation of the Rastra Program in Indonesia. The SMERU Research Institute. Paper. No. 81018. Tersedia dari: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/81018/MPRA.
TNP2K. 2015. Raskin: The challenge of improving programme effectiveness. Jakarta (ID): National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction. Tersedia dari http://www.tnp2k.go.id/ images/uploads/downloads/TNP2K%20Report%20Raskin%20the%20challenge%20of%20improving%20programme%20effectiveness.pdf.
TNP2K. 2019. Pedoman umum program sembako 2020. Jakarta (ID). Tersedia dari http://tnp2k.go.id/download/31991Pedoman%20Umum%20Program%20Sembako%202020.pdf.
Wight V, Kaushal N, Waldfogel J, Garfinkel I. 2014. Understanding the link between poverty and food insecurity among children: Does the definition of poverty matter?. J of Children and Poverty, 20(1):1–20. doi:10.1080/10796126.2014.891973.
World Bank. 2012. The targeting poor and vulnerable households in Indonesia. Jakarta (ID). Tersedia dari http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/ 972001468038678922/pdf/672180WP00PUBL0T00English000PUBLIC0.pdf.
Wooldridge J. M. 2002. Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. Mason OH (US): Thomson South-Western.
Wossen T, Abdoulaye T, Alene A, Haile MG, Feleke S, Olanrewaju A, Manyong V. 2017. Impacts of extension access and cooperative membership on technology adoption and household welfare. J of Rural Stud. 54: 223–233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.022.
