Income Inequality in a Democratic and Social Perspective in Indonesia
(1) Universitas Jambi
(2) Universitas jambi
(3) Universitas jambi
(4) Universitas Jambi
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine and analyze the influence of the democracy index, aspects of civil liberties, aspects of political rights, and aspects of democratic institutions, crime rates, access to information from the internet, on inequality in income distribution. The research method used in this study is descriptive quantitative using panel data multiple regression analysis. This study uses panel data with objects from 34 provinces in Indonesia with a research period from 2014 to 2020. Based on the results of panel data regression with a random effects model, it shows that aspects of democracy both in general through the democracy index variable and specifically through the variable aspects of civil liberties, aspects of political rights and aspects of democratic institutions both have a positive and significant effect on income distribution inequality, as well as the variable number of criminal acts has a significant positive effect on income distribution inequality. Meanwhile, access to information has a significant negative effect on income distribution inequality.
quality.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Adeleye, B. N., Gershon, O., Ogundipe, A., Owolabi, O., Ogunrinola, I., & Adediran, O. (2020). Comparative investigation of the growth-poverty-inequality trilemma in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin American and Caribbean Countries. Heliyon, 6(12
Ananda, C. F., & Pulungan, A. M. (2019). Determinant of Income Inequality in Indonesia: Case Study 33 Provinces in 2011-2016. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 21(September 2018), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.20472/iac.2018.044.004
Asra, A. (2000). Poverty and inequality in Indonesia: Estimates, decomposition and key issues. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 5(1–2), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/135478660008540785
Aubron, C., Lehoux, H., & Lucas, C. (2015). Poverty and inequality in rural India: Reflections based on two agrarian system analyzes in the state of Gujarat. EchoGéo, 32(17). https://doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.14300
BPS. (2020). Development of Several Main Socio-Economic Indicators of Indonesia. Central Bureau of Statistics.
BPS. (2021). Development of Several Main Socio-Economic Indicators of Indonesia. Central Bureau of Statistics.
Burke. E. (1997). Reflections on the Revolution in France, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. October 1997: ISBN 0-87220-020-5
Chukwu, J. O. (2019). Poverty Impact of Variations in Within-group and Between-group Inequality in Nigeria: New Estimates Using Two Household Survey Data. Social Indicators Research, 141(2), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1844-0
Deutsch, J., Silber, J., Wan, G., & Zhao, M. (2020). Asset indexes and the measurement of poverty, inequality and welfare in Southeast Asia. Journal of Asian Economics, 70. https://e-resources.perpusnas.go.id:2111/10.1016/j.asieco.2020.101220
FISIP Brawijaya University. (2019). The Decline of Democracy in Jokowi's Administration: Turn on the Danger Signshttps://fisip.ub.ac.id/?p=9085〈=id.
Firmansyah. (2012). Democracy, Poverty, and "Inequality". Accessed via: https://amp.kompas.com/nasional/read/2012/10/30/11200060/~Nasional?page=all#page2
Guiga, H., & Rejeb, J. Ben. (2012). Poverty, growth and inequality in developing countries. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 2 (4), 470–479.
Hariani, E. (2019). Analysis of Factors Affecting Income Inequality in 38 Regencies/Cities of East Java in 2012-2015. The International Journal of Applied Business (TIJAB), 3(1), 13–23. https://ejournal.unai.ac.id/index.php/TIJAB
Heywood, A. (2017). Political ideologies: An introduction. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Hidayat, K. (2010). Demokrasi Model China. https://internasional.kompas.com/read/2010/02/13/05120239/Democracy.Model.China ?page=all
Mahardiki, D., & Santoso, R. P. (2013). Analysis of Changes in Income Inequality and Economic Growth Between Provinces in Indonesia 2006-2011. TRACK: Journal of Economics And Policy, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.15294/jejak.v6i2.3888
Mouffe, C. (2000). The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso
Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking The Word Politically. London: Verso
Mouffe, C. (2018). Demonising populism won't work-Europe needs a progressive populist alternative. LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog.
Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what?. The Tanner lecture on human values, 1, 197-220.
Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation (clarendon, oxford).
Sen, A. (1985). The moral standing of the market. Social philosophy and policy, 2(2), 1-19.
Sen, A. (1995). A Sociological Approach to The Meaurement of Poverty: A Reply to Professor Peter Townsend. Oxford Economic Papers, 37, 669–676.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and capabilities. OUP Catalog.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom (New York: Anchor). South Indian ICT Clusters, 227.
Serrano, P. J. G., Simarro, R. M-., & Buendía, L. (2016). The Impact of the 2008/9 Crisis on Inequality and Poverty in Southern Europe: The Case of Spain. Journal of Australian Political Economy, December.
Winarno, B. (2011). Contemporary Global Issues. CAPS.
Zaman, K., & Shamsuddin, S. (2018). Linear and Non-linear Relationships Between Growth, Inequality, and Poverty in a Panel of Latin America and the Caribbean Countries: A New Evidence of Pro-poor Growth. Social Indicators Research, 136(2), 595–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1581-9
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.