Re: wawancara stiglitz tentang Indonesia Re: hanya renungan weekend
Artikel posting Carlos sangat bagus, dan banyak memberikan informasi dan
pengetahuan ekonomi/finans. Tentu tetap saja ada dua pandangan seperti yang
pernah juga saya postingkan terutama dalam melihat globalisasi dan ekonomi
global. Salah satu seperti yang dipertahankan oleh Joseph Stiglitz. Pemerintah
Indonesia dan juga beberapa negara Asia atau beberapa republik pisang telah
kelanjur tertipu oleh algojo ekonomi global ini.
Joseph Stiglitz tulis:
"The concession period given by the Indonesian government to exploit natural
resources is very long." . . . "They should be kept relatively short".
Pemerintah Indonesia terutama Orde baru telah bikin kontrak panjang dengan
banyak perusahaan asing.
Orang-orang sering berkelakar soal kata-kata Keynes ketika dia menentang
pandangan "jangka panjang" soal pinjaman atau hasil yang bisa dicapai dalam
jangka pendek, dia jawab: "in the long run we’re all dead". Yang bikin kontrak
"jangka panjang" umumnya sudah mati semua seperti 'bapak pembangunan' Suharto
dll, dan yang ditinggalkannya (rakyat) juga bakal mati bukan hanya 'in the long
run' tetapi bahkan in the short run barangkali sudah pada mati kelaparan, salah
satu dan yang terpenting ialah karena tidak ada dasar 'food sovereignty'
prinsip La Via Campesina dalam bidang pertanian maupun dalam bidang
ekonomi/finans.
"It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong", kata-kata Keynes juga,
bisa juga jadi renungan pikirku.
bujur ras mejuah-juah kita kerina
MUG
--- In [email protected], "cpatriawgmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- In [email protected], MU Ginting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Renungan weekend
> "Strategi" kai kin adah maksudna, nina Edi Tarigan. Kudarami ka
"strategi"na, erbahan UU? La kin enggo melalasa uu? Epe labo
kuakap. Sipenting mihak ise uu enda kari, eme kuakap. Melala kang uu (regulasi)
ibahan kalak penguasa ekonomi global, la mihak petaninta.
Misalna subsidi negeri maju man perjumana (perjuma mbelin) piah lanai lako atau
lanai perlu pertanian kitik atau pertanian Karo.
>>>>>
AsiaViews, Edition: 30/IV/August/2007
By Akmal Nasery Basral, Budi Riza, Philipus Parera, M
Tempo, No. 51/VII/21-27 August 2007
THE voice of Joseph Stiglitz sounds sonorous, and quite different from
those in the West. While the Washington 10 Consensus formula conceived
by John Williamson in 1987-88 has been adopted by financial
institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and
the US Treasury as a recipe to rehabilitate a country's economic
paralysis, Stiglitz stands on the side of neo-Keynesian economists,
who say that countries that follow that recipe will, in fact, find it
difficult to rise from their economic depression. For his criticism of
mistakes committed by the World Bank-where he once worked-he has been
called a 'traitor.'
Last Tuesday, Stiglitz, recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize for
Economics was the main speaker at a seminar called "Indonesia in the
Face of Globalization" organized by this magazine in Jakarta. Late in
the evening after the event, Stiglitz spoke to Tempo's Akmal Nasery
Basral, Budi Riza, Philipus Parera, Maria Hasugian and photographer
Yosep Arkian, for a special interview. Excerpts:
What do you think about the government's investment regulations in
Indonesia?
There are some problems. The concession period given by the Indonesian
government to exploit natural resources is very long. This becomes a
problem because it does not take into account changes that can happen
in the evolution of the market, like the concession given to oil
concessions when the price of oil was US$15 per barrel. You lose money
because now the price is US$75. So, you should be careful with
long-term contracts, unless there are specific contingencies and
provisions in the contract protecting you from unexpected changes.
This is not being done by many countries.
What should be the ideal concession period?
They should be kept relatively short, depending on the classification
of minerals. In some cases, it is best to do some due diligence work
when the agreements don't work but parties must live up to the
agreements.
Another issue about investment regulations is international
arbitration in solving business conflicts. This is very problematic in
Indonesia. Take the case of Karaha Bodas. There is an investment of
US$40 million, but you only got US$300. That's one example, but it's
happening all over the world. You deal with really bad legal
framework. In Indonesia, you claim to have transparency, but
international arbitration is very closed.
In Indonesia, Freeport McMoran got a 20-year contract extension. The
government claims not be able to do anything about it.
I'll give another example, Russia. They cancelled the environmental
license of Shell because they violated the environmental conditions. I
think the new reality is that companies know there are changes,
natural resources are getting more scarce, and there are new demands.
Indonesia must use this to its best advantage. You no longer need to
depend on Exxon, because you can do it yourself and get bigger
benefits from the natural wealth, rather than from production-sharing
contracts with multinational companies. The US government should also
not become an agent of Exxon or Enron. That is corruption. There is
one interesting example. One American ambassador [in Indonesia] after
the Suharto era got a senior position in a giant mining company in the
US because he urged the Indonesian government to honor its contract.
While he was lecturing Indonesia on corruption, he was actually
practicing it.
But renegotiation seems to give investors a bad impression?
When we talk about mining and oil companies, they will go where there
are natural resources. Few of them are ideal companies. The Middle
East is not stable, neither is Nigeria and Latin America. Bolivia
renegotiated and got a contract that gave it 18 percent. Now that they
have renegotiated further, maybe they'll get 82 percent. The companies
stayed there. They will stay there because they know that in the past
they have been robbing the developing countries. But now they have to
give better deals, because they're facing more democratic governments
and they can no longer be bribed, they know they have to be more fair.
Not all countries dare to impose restrictions through renegotiation,
including Indonesia, because they can be described as unfriendly
towards investors.
China and India imposed limitations on capital flows. They said, you
cannot come into the country for short-term speculation. And they have
been the most direct investments from most countries around the world.
They made it very clear that "we need those which create employment,
actual investment," and no speculative purposes. Because short-term
speculators will use all arguments they can find to maintain the
market so it remains open to speculation.
Didn't Thailand try to do that but failed?
That is true. There are two lessons here. First, countries should act
together. If Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia were to act jointly, maybe
like start an 'Asian Initiative,' it would be difficult for
speculators to come in. Then, how you do it will make a difference.
Some countries impose it through banking regulations, called
prudential regulation. You limit bank loans to speculative investors,
and take away the money supply from them. That would be a prudent and
market-friendly regulation. You can also do it by controlling the
capital market, and the result wouldn't be that much different.
The World Bank and the IMF asked developing countries to open their
markets, but this does not seem to be beneficial.
There are two things here. First, there is the World Trade
Organization agreement which you have to abide by. But the next
question is how? The other is you often do more than is necessary. You
must have a box of instruments that you are still not using.
Globalization does not benefit developing countries and poor people,
because it doesn't work fairly. I have a proposal to change the
secretiveness of banks. President Bush is one who most often
criticizes corruption, but at the same time he supports policies which
potentially create more corruption. One of them is support towards the
secret bank accounts all over the world.
Your critics say you favor allowing governments to be involved in
influencing the market.
I must stress that information asymmetries (the theory which along
with George A. Ackerlof and A. Michael Spence earned Stiglitz his
Nobel Prize in 2001-Ed.) was never criticized. One implication of that
theory-which has been totally accepted-is that markets often cannot
create efficient allocation. No one believes any longer in the
invisible hand of Adam Smith. And I always say, that is an invisible
hand because it is invisible. One debate is whether governments must
correct the mistakes of the market, but that is the theory on
government, not on economics.
What kind of government can implement such correction?
It depends on each country. In many cases, it's been proven that the
governments succeed in solving problems, even though in other cases,
the government is the disaster. So, the question is whether in
specific situations, governments can use this policy? It should be a
policy that has been implemented 30 years ago, but a policy that is
appropriate for today, a policy that can bring improvement, although
it is imperfect.
Do you think the privatization program implemented by the Indonesian
government is one of the imperfect policies that can bring
improvement?
That depends on the kind of company and how privatization is being
run. Clearly, privatization has to be implemented openly, offered to
the public. If companies are sold to specific people, that would tend
to go corrupt.
The subprime mortgage crisis in the US seems to be getting worse. What
is the impact on the world?
There are three possibilities. First and most important is how it hits
the prime markets and how it will cause the value of Indonesian loans
to go down and affect the stock market here. Second is the global
slowdown, all countries in the world will experience the global
repercussions. Third, something which would not be as important to
Indonesia, is that housing mortgages in the US are owned by the entire
world. That used to be only owned by American banks, so if in the past
those banks made bad mortgages, only they would feel the impact. But
today, if an American lending bank makes a bad mortgage, Australia and
Europe will suffer too. (In the discussion "Indonesia in the Face of
Globalization," Stiglitz said that 1.78 million Americans will lose
their homes because of their inability to pay their mortgages.
"Perhaps this should be more appropriately called a social disaster,
rather than a financial disaster."-Ed.).
If you were made the Indonesian government's economic advisor, what
would you advise them to do?
The growth of the Indonesian economy has not been bad. Six percent
growth historically speaking is good, even compared to other
countries. For 25 years, India stood at 6 percent before growing to 8
percent. At the same time, however, Indonesia needs a new agenda, like
land reform and more investment tied to education. The results may not
show up in five years' time, but in the long term, for example in 25
years' time, that will bring good productivity. You have to make
long-term investment. There's a lot you can do, be transparent about
the rules of the game. You need a 10-15 year vision, to capture all
opportunities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
Place & Date of Birth
Indiana, USA, February 9, 1943
Education
PhD-MIT (1967)
Career
Chairman, Economic Advisory Council to President Clinton (1995-1997)
Vice-President and Chief Economist, World Bank (1997-2000)
Founder, Initiative for Policy Dialog (IPD), a think tank at Columbia
University established with the support of the Ford, Rockefeller,
MacArthur and Mott foundations, and the governments of Canada and
Sweden
Books
Wither Socialism (1996)
The Rebel Within (2001)
Globalization and Its Discontents (2002)
The Roaring Nineties (2003)
Making Globalization Work (2006)
Awards
John Bates Clark Medal (1979)
Nobel Prize for Economics (2001)
__________________________________________________________
Går det långsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling.
Sök och jämför hos Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.se/c-100015813-bredband.html?partnerId=96914325
