Regional Analysis

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 

From the offi cial poverty statistics in Table 3.1, we can see that both the

number of the poor and the headcount poverty rate have always been higher

in rural areas than in urban areas. But if we consider the relative changes

to poverty before and after the Crisis, it is apparent that urban poverty

rose faster than rural poverty. A comparison of the SUSENAS data in

February 1996 and 1999 shows that the numbers of poor households in

Table 3.1 The offi cial poverty line, poverty numbers and poverty incidence,

1996–2001

Poverty line Headcount poverty rate Poor population

(Rp per month) (%) (million)

Year Urban Rural Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total

1996a 38 246 27 413 9.7 12.3 11.3 7.2 15.3 22.5

1996b 42 032 31 366 13.6 19.9 17.7 9.6 24.9 34.5

1998c 96 959 72 780 21.9 25.7 24.2 17.6 31.9 49.5

1999d 92 409 74 272 19.5 26.1 23.5 15.7 32.7 48.4

(19.4)h (26.0) (23.4) (15.6) (32.3) (48.0)

1999e 89 845 69 420 15.1 20.2 18.2 12.4 25.1 37.5

(15.0) (20.0) (18.0) (12.3) (24.8) (37.1)

2000f 91 632 73 648 14.6 22.1 18.9 12.1 25.2 37.3

2001g 100 011 80 832 9.8 24.9 18.4 8.5 28.6 37.1

Notes:

a Based on the 1996 SUSENAS database and standard.

b Based on the 1996 SUSENAS database, applying new (1998) standard.

c Based on the December 1998 Mini-SUSENAS.

d Based on the February 1999 SUSENAS.

e Based on the August 1999 Mini-SUSENAS.

f Estimated result based on the 2000 SUSENAS Core data, excluding Maluku and Aceh.

g Estimated result based on the 2001 SUSENAS Core data, excluding Maluku and Aceh.

h The numbers in parentheses are fi gures without East Timor.

Source: Badan Pusat Statistik, Statistics Indonesia (2000, 2001).

Source: Suryahadi et al. (2003a).

Figure 3.1 SMERU poverty headcount estimates

urban areas rose by 60 per cent, twice the rate of increase in rural areas.

This reveals the nature of the Crisis as more of an urban phenomenon,

and is consistent with the fi ndings from the sectoral analysis of poverty.

The sectoral analysis, presented in the following section, shows that the

relative increase in poverty was higher in the modern sectors, which are

mostly located in urban areas.

From a regional perspective, Table 3.2 illustrates that the increase in

poverty during the Crisis was greatest in Java and Bali, and throughout

western Indonesia in general. While the western part of Indonesia has a

lower poverty rate compared with the eastern regions of the country, the

increase in poverty was much greater in western Indonesia since most of the

hard-hit modern sectors are located there. However, the fi gures in Table 3.2

only illustrate relative comparisons. In absolute terms, poverty rates remain

larger in rural areas of Indonesia, and throughout eastern Indonesia.