Pak Presiden, pembatalan kunjungan tersebut kurang elok

Saya berbeda pendapat tentang pembatalan kunjungan SBY ke belanda Oktober 2010 ini. Singkatnya, SBY membatalkan kunjungan tersebut karena adanya pengajuan tuntutan dari RMS kepada Pengadilan Den Haag untuk menangkap SBY. Alasan penangkapan? pelanggaran HAM. Alasan Presiden membatalkan kunjungan: "Kalau sampai digelar pengadilan saat saya berkunjung ke sana, itu menyangkut harga diri kita sebagai bangsa. Oleh karenanya, saya memutuskan menunda kunjungan ini"

Berita lebih rinci dapat dibaca disini. Silahkan gugling untuk berita-berita terkait.

Menurut saya, biarkan pengadilan tersebut memproses ini-itu, toh kalaupun hasilnya SBY 'dipanggil' utk memberi kesaksian, atau sbg terdakwa, dll; SBY tetap tidak bisa diapa2in. Belanda tidak sebodoh itu untuk menangkap kepala negara yang sedang berkunjung. Ada unggah-ungguh diplomatik internasional bukan? Bahkan waktu Sutiyoso (waktu masih gubernur) akan 'ditangkap' di Australia krn kasus Timtim kalo gak salah, pihak Australia yang malu krn menyalahi prinsip diplomatik tersebut. Australia yg harus minta maaf atas kelakuan polisi mereka.

Paus Benekditus baru saja berkunjung ke UK. Itu juga ada sekelompok orang yg mengajukan permintaan ke pengadilan UK utk menangkap Paus atas tuduhan melindungi pelecehan seksual para Pastor. Apakah kunjungan dibatalkan? TIDAK. Apakah Paus Benediktus ditangkap? TIDAK. Apakah Paus merasa harga dirinya terlecehkan? TIDAK. Padahal ada sejarah panjang -yang juga tidak nyaman- antara Gereja Katholik Roma dan Gereja Anglikan. Paus merasa rekonsiliasi ini lebih penting dibandingkan "ancaman" remeh dari tuntutan penangkapan tersebut. Kunjungan tersebut dapat dilaksanakan dan banyak hasil positif yang dicapai.

Apakah kita kurang cerdas untuk mengelola isu ini sehingga menguntungkan Indonesia? Kenapa kita tidak terpikir akan cara-cara elegan membungkus 'ancaman' tersebut menjadi suatu peluang menonjolkan Indonesia yang baru. Indonesia yang peduli HAM. Indonesia yang mencintai warganya walaupun mereka sekarang sedang 'nakal', Indonesia yang cinta kesatuan NKRI. Sama seperti saat Republik ini mengulurkan tangan perdamaian kepada GAM, kenapa kita tidak mengulurkan 'jabat tangan' memaafkan kenakalan RMS seraya mengundang mereka 'pulang' untuk membangun RI tercinta? dan lain-lain, dan lain-lain.

Jadi saya sangat menyangsikan alasan pembatalan kunjungan, apalagi demi "harga diri bangsa". No, kita bangsa bermatabat, kita menghargai janji yang kita buat atas negara lain. Kita menghargai sistem hukum di negara tersebut. Kita percaya pada janji/garansi keamanan di negara tersebut.

Dan, btw, menurutku, "harga diri bangsa" kita yang hakiki adalah pemenuhan janji negara terhadap warganya seperti termaktub dalam UUD 1945. Saya lebih merasa terlecehkan harga diri bangsa saya saat membaca kampung-masjid Ahmadiyah dibakar! Q-festival diteror oleh preman berjubah, GKI Yasmin & HKBP Ciketing dirusuh, tawuran antar preman di Ampera depan pengadilan Jakarta (sampai ada yang meninggal), rusuh Tarakan, korban LAPINDO yang diabaikan, kecelakaan kereta 2x dalam sehari!

Jadi, maaf, saya kok melihat ini sebagai bagian dari pencitraan lagi ya. Seolah2 SBY dikuyo-kuyo (ditindas) oleh bangsa asing alias kumpeni. Strategi sentimen 'tertindas' dimainkan lagi? Seperti saat2 menjelang pemilu 2004 dimana SBY 'ditindas' oleh TK/pemerintah.

Pertanyaan saya, apakah kita ingin melupakan hal yang lebih hakiki dan "lupa" untuk kritis terhadap pembatalan kunjungan ini? Bagaimana pendapat anda?

Redenominasi IDR: Jaka Sembung Bawa Golok!

Saya mencoba melihat isu redenominasi IDR ini dalam dua hal yaitu tujuan dan pembiayaannya. Berita tentang redenominasi bisa dilihat disini

1. Tujuan
Sejauh ini, dari baca2 sekilas, ada dua tujuan program:
1.a. Efisiensi
Opini para pendukung mengatakan redenominasi akan mengefisienkan proses pencatatan transaksi & memudahkan transaksi (CMIIW). Menurutku, pencatatan transaksi (pembukuan & akuntansi) tanpa ada ribut-ribut redenominasi sudah terbiasa melakukan penyingkatan beberapa nol seperti "dalam ribuan" atau "dalam jutaan". Nah, apa lagi yang hendak diefisiensikan?

Sedangkan alasan "memudahkan transaksi" dengan contoh kalau orang mau beli barang seharga 10 juta maka dia perlu bawa segepok pecahan 100rb, sedangkan melalui redenominasi (10jt menjadi 10rb) maka akan lebih mudah membawa uang tersebut (sic). Saya agak ngeri dengan logika berpikir ini.

Pertama, tersirat bahwa akan ada mata uang dengan nilai nominal yg lebih besar daripada yg ada sekarang. Gini, kalau sebelum redenominasi, maka pecahan terbesar adalah 100rb yg akan menjadi 100 setelah redenominasi kan? Nah, tanpa ada penambahan jenis pecahan yg bernilai lebih besar, maka pecahan 100 ini akan tetap menjadi pecahan terbesar. Kalau dulu untuk membayar 10 juta, kita harus membawa 100 lembar pecahan 100rb; maka setelah redenominasi, kita tetap harus membawa 100 lembar pecahan 100 (note: harga barang menjadi 10 ribu). Apa bedanya membawa 100 lembar uang sebelum dan sesudah redenominasi? Jelas tidak ada!

Lah tapi kan orang takut membawa pecahan uang yg besar seperti 100 ribu itu. Lah apa bedanya dengan membawa pecahan 100 setelah redenominasi? itu kan sama besarnya. Kalo ada yg nyopet, ya tetep aja kerugian kita senilai "100 ribu".

Yaah tetep aja "100" itu lebih dirasa kecil dibandingkan "100.000" toh? Itu karena kita terbiasa dengan pecahan saat ini. Kalau nanti tidak ada pecahan baru setelah redenominasi, tentu akan berubah. Pada masanya kita akan sama terbiasa melihat "100" sebagai pecahan besar. Sama seperti kalau kita ke eropa, merasa dag-dig-dug memegang pecahan euro sebesar "500" (atau bahkan juga "100"). Kalo kecopetan bisa nangis :D. Atau, kalau kita ke UK, akan sangat berhati-hati menjaga pecahan 50 pound (terbesar) yg ada di dompet karena yang terbiasa dibawa adalah pecahan 10, 5 atau 20.

Jadi, kelihatannya mereka mencoba berargumen tentang masa mendatang (setelah redenominasi) dengan situasi kekinian (sebelum). Jaka sembung pulang kampung (Gak nyambung dong).

Argumen bahwa setelah redenominasi transaksi akan lebih dimudahkan terutama untuk transaksi yang bernilai besar, sebenarnya menyiratkan rencana introduksi pecahan baru yang nilai intrisiknya lebih besar dibandingkan dengan pecahan 100.000 yg beredar saat ini! Bisa saja BI akan mengeluarkan pecahan 200 (200.000), 500 (500.000) atau bahkan 1000 (1jt). Pertanyaannya adalah, kenapa sih tidak mengeluarkan pecahan 200rb (dll) daripada membuat kebijakan redenominasi?

Saya duga, jawaban yang akan disodorkan adalah tentang "gengsi". Ok, kita bahas soal ini dibawah.

1.b. Gengsi
"Saya sering sedih saat ditanya kawan asing tentang berapa nilai tukar rupiah terhadap dollar. (Dan) kawan tersebut lalu menertawakan Rupiah kita karena satu dollar mendapatkan 9000Rp". GENGSI. Itu alasan yang sering saya dengar dalam diskusi tentang sanering. Gengsi.

Masygul hati saya mendengar alasan ini. Seolah-olah bangsa dan negara ini tidak memiliki permasalahan yang jauh lebih krusial dibandingkan mempertahankan "gengsi". Sebegitu mahalkah "gengsi" tersebut? Dan apakah itu bukan hanya "gengsi" perorangan?

Saya tidak akan berpanjang-lebar mencoba menjawab alasan "gengsi" karena "gengsi" adalah hal yang sangat subyektif. Pertanyaan saya adalah, maanfaat apa yang ingin dicapai melalui "gengsi" tersebut? Kedua, apa pembenaran (justifikasi) terhadap pembuatan kebijakan publik atas alasan yang sangat subyektif seperti "gengsi" diatas?

Ok. Sekarang kita masuk pada ranah pembiayaan.


2. Pembiayaan
Jumlah keseluruhan uang kertas dan logam yg beredar adalah 274,463 TRILYUN! Anggap saja tidak ada pertambahan jumlah, maka total setelah redenominasi adalah 274,463 Miliar. Anggap saja tidak ada pecahan dengan nilai intrinsik lebih besar dari 100.000 lama, dan mata uang baru hanya menggunakan pecahan terbesar (ini utk mempermudah perhitungan), maka jumlah lembar uang baru yang dibutuhkan sbb:

Jumlah uang baru = Jumlah uang beredar : pecahan terbesar
Q1 = 274.463.000.000 : 100
Q1 = 2.744.630.000 lembar (alias 2,744 miliar lembar)

Nah, berapa biaya untuk mencetaknya?

Anggap saja biayanya sama seperti saat BI mencetakan uang di Securency International (yg kemudian dibumbui isu suap itu). Saat itu, BI mencetak 500 juta lembar pecahan 100rb plastik dengan nilai kontrak 50 juta US$. Ini sekitar satu US$ untuk setiap 10 lembar atau 10c US$/lembar. Berapa biaya percetakan uang baru dengan menggunakan asumsi ini:

Total Biaya Percetakan = Q1 x Biaya per lembar
Total biaya = 2.744.630.000 x 0,1 US$ (alias 10c US$)
Total biaya = 274.463.000 US$ (alias 274,463 juta US$)
Total biaya = Rp. 2.744.630.000.000 (2,744 Trilyun IDR)

Ini HANYA kontrak percetakan. (Dan) ini mengasumsikan percetakan dengan pecahan setara pecahan terbesar saat ini. Lalu, bagaimana dengan biaya distribusi uang baru? biaya sosialisasi? biaya menarik dan menghancurkan mata uang lama? Dan aktivitas penggantian uang ini tidak hanya dilakukan didalam negeri, melainkan juga di luar negeri (ada biaya lagi bukan?) Realitanya, biaya-biaya ini bisa lebih mahal lagi, bahkan mungkin berkali lipat (i sincerely hope not though).

Mau dibiayai darimanakah ini? Sementara APBN kita selalu defisit dari tahun 2000-2008 (note tidak ada data 'official' dari SEKI utk tahun 2009-2010 di situs bi.go.id; kalau ada yg punya bisa tolong dibagikan?).

Apakah dengan utang baru?

Saya sadar bahwa logika utang baru di negari yang haus utang memang bukan barang aneh :(. Tetapi membenarkan suatu perilaku hanya karena perilaku tersebut sudah menjadi kebiasaan, adalah hal yang sangat deceiving if not (logical) fallacy. Saya tidak akan masuk lebih jauh kedalam diskusi soal utang.

Sekarang apa perbandingan uang 2,744 Trilyun IDR tadi? Menurut RAPBN 2010 sbb (dalam trilyun Rp; prosentase terhadap biaya percetakan):
Menurut FUNGSI (selected):
Penelitian dasar & IPTEK: 1,4985 (54,6%)
Penanggulangan bencana: 0,3484 (12,69%)
Perdagangan, Koperasi & UKM: 1,5755 (57,4%)
Tenaga kerja: 1,3734 (50,04%)
Pertambangan: 1,5127 (55,11%)
Industri dan Konstruksi: 1,6267 (59,27%)
Telekomunikasi: 2,1897 (79,78%)
Manajemen limbah: 0,4772 (17,39%)
Pengembangan Perumahan: 1,3245 (48,26%)
Obat & perbekalan kesehatan: 1,4967 (54,53%)
Pelayanan kesehatan masy.: 3,4689 (126,39%, atau biaya percetakan setara 79,12% belanja PKM)
Kependudukan & kel. berencana: 0,6919 (25,21%)
(seluruh belanja) Pariwisata & budaya: 1,8313 (66,72%)
(seluruh belanja) perlindungan sosial: 3,2574 (118,68%, atau biaya percetakan setara 84,26% belajan perlindungan sosial)
Penyediaan air minum: 3,0177 (109,95%, atau biaya percetakan setara 90,95% belanja penyediaan air minum)
Konservasi SDA: 0,48296 (175,97%, atau atau biaya percetakan setara 56,83% belanja konservasi SDA)

Menurut ORGANISASI (selected):
Dep. Perindustrian: 1,6571 (60,38%)
Depbudpar: 1,3666 (49,79%)
Kemen Ristek: 0,6348 (23,13%)
Kemen LH: 0,4019 (14,64%)
Kemen Kop & UKM: 0,7339 (26,74%)
Kemen PP: 0,1329 (4,84%)
Kemen PAN: 0,1228 (4,47%)
Bappenas: 0,5583 (20,34%)
Perpustakaan Nas: 0,3417 (12,45%)
Badan Narkotika Nas: 0,2469 (9,00%)
Komnas HAM: 0,581 (2,12%)
LIPI: 0,4894 (17,83%)
BPPT: 0,534 (19,46%)
Depdag: 1,2332 (44,93%)
Kemen Pera: 0,9045 (32,96%)
Kemen Pora: 0,9839 (35,85%)
KPK: 0,3921 (14,29%)
Kom. Yudisial: 0,583 (2,12%)
BNP2TKI: 0,2528 (9,21%)

Menurut SUBSIDI:
Benih: 1,5635 (56,97%)
Obat Generik: 0,35 (12,75%; Note: data RAPBN-P 2009; RAPBN 2010 tidak ada alias nol besar)

Ingat, masih banyak lagi belanja RAPBN yang tidak saya cantumkan yang lebih 'murah' dibandingkan dengan biaya percetakan tersebut.

Mari kita tanyakan apakah sedemikian pentingnya program percetakan uang tersebut (yg tujuannya masih sangat sumir) dibandingkan dengan program-program seperti riset IPTEK, penanggulangan bencana, telekomunikasi, pengembangan perumahan rakyat, pariwisata & budaya, dll. Atau lebih pentingkah uang baru dibandingkan dengan departemen, kementerian dan komisi-komisi diatas? Lebih pentingkah dibandingkan subsidi benih dan obat generik?

Dan semua ini atas nama GENGSI? Jaka sembung bawa golok!!!

Bagi rakyat kecil seperti saya, lebih penting KPK atau Perpustakaan nasional atau LIPI atau BPPT atau BNP2TKI daripada program mempertahankan "gengsi" tersebut.
Lebih bergengsi manakah antara pemberantasan korupsi atau uang baru?
antara prestasi olah raga atau uang baru?
antara perumahan rakyat atau uang baru?

Oooh andai ada yang tahu cara berpikir para cerdas pandai yang mencetuskan program ini :(.

Menurut saya, program ini bukan prioritas penting saat ini. Maka, seyogyanya tidak dilakukan baik saat ini maupun in the near future!

And "testing the water" psikologis masyarakat kata kau? Sudah gaharu cendana pulak kau ini :).


Rerensi:
1. data SEKI & RAPBN diunduh dari situs www.bi.go.id
2. Common sense :D.

Pranala Situs Beasiswa

 

Panduan Singkat
Daftar ini berisi informasi beasiswa Inggris (Chevening), Belanda (NFP, Stuned, Huygen), Australia (ADS), Erasmus Mundus, Amerika (Fullbright), IFP-Ford Foundation, Depdiknas, dan Depkominfo. Tentu masih terdapat banyak informasi beasiswa selain tersebut diatas. Untuk informasi tambahan tersebut, silahkan googling.
-------------------------------

A. Beasiswa terkait negara tempat belajar:

1. Inggris: (Chevening, dan varian-variannya)
www.chevening.or.id atau www.chevening.com

Cakupan: S2
Application Deadline 2010/11
Open - 01/10/2009
Closed - 31/12/2009

Kontak:
Ms. Rowena Rompas (rowena[dot]rompas[at]britishcouncil[dot]or[dot]id)
British Council
Indonesia Stock Exchange Tower II, 16th Floor
Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 52-53
Jakarta 12190, Indonesia
Phone number: +62 21 515 5561
Fax number : +62 21 515 5562

2. Belanda: (StuNed, NFP, Huygens)
http://www.nesoindonesia.or.id/indonesian-students/informasi-dalam-bahasa/beasiswa

Cakupan: S2 (NFP juga menyakup jenjang S3)
Deadlines: sekitar Januari-Maret tahun yang bersangkutan (cek situs diatas).

Kontak:
Ms. Siska Aprilanti (siska[dot]aprilianti[at]nesoindonesia[dot]or[dot]id)
Neso Indonesia
Menara Jamsostek 20th floor
Jl. Gatot Subroto no.38
Jakarta 12710, Indonesia
Tel: +62 (21) 5290 2172
Fax: +62 (21) 5290 2173
(di Surabaya juga ada, tapi tolong cari sendiri ya, usaha dikit lah hehehe)

3. Australia: (ADS)
http://www.adsindonesia.or.id/

Cakupan: S2 & S3
Deadline: 4 September 2009

Kontak:
Ms. Dwi Sakti Andriyanti
Wira Usaha Building 2nd floor.
JL. H.R. Rasuna Said kav.C-5 Kuningan,
Jakarta Selatan 12940, Indonesia
Phone number : +62 21 527 7648
Fax number : +62 21 527 7649

4. Eropa & UK: (Erasmus Mundus)
http://indoem.info/
http://ec.europa.eu/education/external-relation-programmes/doc72_en.htm

Cakupan: S2
Deadline: bervariasi tergantung program (cek masing-masing konsorsium)

Kontak: langsung ke konsorsium (atau universitas) masing-masing.

5. Amerika: (Fullbright)
http://www.aminef.or.id/fulbright.php

Deadline: umumnya 31 Mei (cek di situs diatas)

Kontak:
infofulbright_ind[at]aminef[dot]or[dot]id
Gedung Balai Pustaka Lt. 6
Jalan Gunung Sahari Raya No. 4
Jakarta 10720
Phone: (021) 345-2016
Fax: (021) 345-2050

B. Beasiswa tidak terkait negara tempat belajar:

1. The Ford Foundation International Fellowships Program (IFP)
http://www.iief.or.id/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=8

Cakupan: S2 & S3
Deadline: 31 Agustus (Formulir pra-registrasi, alias seleksi awal)

2. Depdiknas (khusus dosen PTN, PTS & DPK)
http://beasiswaunggulan.diknas.go.id/

Cakupan: S1-S3
Deadline: sekitar november (cek situs diatas)

Kontak:
Direktur Ketenagaan
Gedung D Lantai 5 Komplek Depdiknas
Jalan Jenderal Soedirman Pintu I - Senayan, Jakarta 10270
Telp./Faks : (021) 57946052/53

3. Depkominfo (umum)
http://www.depkominfo.go.id/

Cakupan: S2 & S3
Deadline: sekitar Februari (cek situs diatas)

Kontak:
Departemen Komunikasi dan Informatika Replublik Indonesia
Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat No.9 Jakarta
Telp. 021 - 3842526

Berburu beasiswa ke Belanda (1/3)

Artikel ini ditulis dalam tiga bagian (supaya tidak ketiduran) mengisahkan seluk-beluk saya dalam berjuang memperoleh beasiswa ke Belanda. Bagi teman-teman pejuang beasiswa, saya ucapkan selamat berjuang. Jangan patah semangat, betapapun sulitnya proses ini, hasilnya benar-benar layak diperjuangkan. Kami, penerima beasiswa, semua pernah berada di posisi teman-teman. Oleh karena itu, jangan bersedih, terus berusaha. Jika berkenan, silahkan tinggalkan komentar, menambah informasi, maupun berbagi suka-duka dengan rekan-rekan yang lain.

----
Ada beberapa sponsor yang memberikan beasiswa ke belanda misalnya Nuffic (Netherlands Fellowship Programme/NFP), Nuffic via NESO (Studeeren in Netherlands/StuNed), European Commission (Erasmus Mundus), Ford Foundation (International Fellowship Programme/IFP), beasiswa DepKomInfo, depdiknas, dll.

Meskipun saya tahu soal Erasmus mundus, tapi tidak pernah daftar disana; jadi saya tidak kompeten untuk berbicara tentang Erasmus mundus. Sayangnya, justru Erasmus mundus itu yang memberikan beasiswa terbesar (allowance untuk living cost paling besar). Maap banget ya teman-teman hehehe.

Berita baiknya, saya akan fokus soal NFP dan StuNed.

Omong-omong, beasiswa ada dua macam, beasiswa penuh (uang sekolah plus uang belanja bulanan) dan beasiswa parsial. Parsial, artinya hanya sebagian yang dibiayai. Misalnya uang sekolah saja, atau selisih antara uang sekolah penduduk lokal dan orang asing (sekitar lima ribu sampai sepuluh ribu euro pertahun di tahun 2007).

Untuk belanda, beberapa beasiswa parsial misalnya Huygens dan delta. Kalau punya saudara di belanda, beasiswa ini mungkin bisa diandalkan. Tapi kalau tidak punya saudara, walah agak susah hidup dari beasiswa ini. Mencari kerja paruh waktu di belanda itu tidak lagi mudah. Terutama di kota-kota kecil.

Ok, sekarang kita ngobrol tentang beasiswa penuh dari NFP dan StuNed.


Netherlands Fellowship Programme (S2 dan S3)
NFP dan StuNed punya kemiripan yang sangat banyak. Keduanya sama-sama mensyaratkan kamu terdaftar dulu di perguruan tinggi belanda (harus dapat admission/acceptance letter dulu). Formulir merekapun juga hampir sama. Waktu pendaftaran beasiswa keduanya sekitar Januari-Maret (catatan: NFP biasanya tutup lebih awal). Besar beasiswa sama (tahun 2005, 870 euro/bulan diluar uang sekolah). Standar minimal bahasa inggris adalah TOEFL 550 (atau 580, agak lupa) atau IELTS 6.0. Mereka menerima Institutional TOEFL (US$ 25) yang diselenggarakan oleh NESO, tetapi tidak menerima TOEFL prediction yang 'cuma' goban-an itu.

Khusus NFP, kalau tidak salah ingat, syarat pengalaman kerja tidak terlalu ketat. Penting diingat, para juri NFP adalah pihak universitas di belanda. Pihak universitas yang memilih siapa layak menerima beasiswa. Terkadang universitas memilih karena faktor prestasi akademik (IPK > 3.0), meskipun terkadang karena faktor besarnya kesempatan seseorang mendapat beasiswa dari tempat lain (semakin jarang beasiswa selain NFP, semakin besar peluang dapat NFP).

NFP, karena tergantung putusan universitas, seringkali lebih mudah didapatkan kalau anda terdaftar di universitas 'kecil'. Kalau universitasnya 'besar' (alias mahasiswa internasionalnya banyak) seperti Universiteit van Rotterdam, Vrije Universiteit (VU), Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA), Wageningen Universiteit en Onderzooker centrum (WuR), Institute of Social Studies (ISS), Leiden, Utrecht, Groningen, nijmegen, dll; agak susah karena persaingan sangat ketat. Kuota NFP, setahu saya, sekitar 20 orang pertahun.


Studeren in Nederland (S2)
StuNed adalah kompetisi beasiswa khusus buat penduduk Indonesia (terima kasih kepada Gus Dur). Kuota Stuned agak longgar yaitu 200 orang pertahun untuk program masters penuh (mereka membiayai kursus singkat juga lho). Tahun 2005 dulu, persaingan tidak seketat beasiswa Australia (ADS) ataupun inggris (Chevening). Perbandingannya masih sekitar 1:10 di tahun 2005 (yang mendaftar 2000-an yang diterima 200-an).

Tapi jangan dianggap enteng.

StuNed (seperti juga orang-orang belanda) itu sangat strict to the rule. Kalau sudah mensyaratkan 2 tahun kerja, ya memang mesti ada 2 tahun; kurang sebulan aja nggak akan diterima (dasar kumpeni hehehehe).

Juri StuNed ada di NESO Indonesia. Prioritas mereka adalah pegawai negeri (terutama orang-orang Bappenas/Bappeda), pegiat LSM/sosial, dosen (swasta dan negeri), wanita, penduduk di luar pulau jawa, dan guru sekolah. Profesional dari dunia usaha, agak susah mendapatkan beasiswa ini. Oh ya, kecuali anda adalah dosen yang mengajar mata kuliah manajemen bisnis, kelihatannya tidak mungkin mendapatkan beasiswa untuk studi MBA dari stuned.

Lanjut ke posting seri ke-2 ya :).

Berburu beasiswa ke Belanda (2/3)

Lanjut seri ke-2.

Ok, sekarang kurang lebih alur pendaftaran ke NFP/StuNed seperti berikut:

Pertama, download dulu formulir pendaftaran NFP/Stuned.
Baca dan pahami. Catat dokumen apa yang perlu kamu cari/lengkapi. Umumnya kamu memerlukan legalisir ijasah dan transkrip (legalisir kampus diterima kok; TAPI harap konfirmasikan dengan mereka ya, saya gak bertanggungjawab kalo ternyata peraturannya sudah berubah).

Kedua, ambil tes bahasa inggris.
Institutional TOEFL saja, soalnya 'murah' (Cuma US$ 25 dibandingkan TOEFL paper based/PbT, TOELF IbT, maupun IELTS yang US$ 150), sering (dua kali sebulan), dan relatif 'mudah' (cuma ada tiga jenis materi yaitu reading comprehension, listening, dan structure/grammar; tidak ada writing dan speaking). Hasil tes TOEFL maupun IELTS berlaku 2 tahun. Jadi kalau anda berencana untuk mendaftar tahun depan, ikuti tesnya tahun ini; hitung-hitung mencicil kerjaan dan memperbaiki bahasa inggris (bila diperlukan).

Ketiga, cari universitas di belanda.
Syarat utama NFP dan StuNed adalah admission letter dari universitas. Provisonal admission (alias penerimaan bersyarat) dulu juga diterima. Entah sekarang. Admission bisa berlaku 2 tahun. Saranku, daftarlah ke dua atau tiga universitas, terutama kalau waktu pendaftara NFP/Stuned sudah dekat. Jadi ada cadangan kalau universitas pilihan utamamu tidak menerima. Dulu saya terdaftar di ISS, Groningen, dan WuR. Akhirnya saya memilih WuR karena masa studinya paling lama (alias bisa jalan-jalan lebih lama hehehehe). Tidak ada salahnya kamu main ke situs www.studyin.nl untuk mencari universitas yang cucok :).

Keempat, cari surat rekomendasi.
Surat rekomendasi (biasanya dua sampai tiga orang referees) berguna untuk mendaftar beasiswa dan juga mendaftar universitas. Jadi kalau minta surat rekomendasi, jangan cuma satu kopi. Minta paling sedikit lima eksemplar sekaligus. Semuanya harus ditandatangani asli dan kalau bisa dicetak diatas kertas berkop dan dimasukkan dalam amplop berkop. Surat rekomendasi harus dalam bahasa inggris.

Seringkali pemberi rekomendasi minta anda yang membuat rancangan suratnya (ini umum terjadi di indonesia, tapi jangan sampai ketahuan pemberi beasiswa ataupun pihak universitas belanda lho). Kalau kamu yang membuat rancangan surat rekomendasi, kita diskusikan di lain artikel ya (karena agak rumit strateginya).

Surat rekomendasi ada dua jenis (berkaitan beasiswa), yaitu rekomendasi kemampuan akademik (dari pembimbing skripsi) dan kinerja profesional (dari bosmu). Semakin tinggi jabatan (dan keterkenalan di Indonesia) pemberi rekomendasi, biasanya semakin tinggi peluangmu. Jadi, rekomendasi dari Kwik Kian Gie itu pasti jauh lebih manjur dibandingkan dari saya hahahaha.

Kelima, kumpulkan dokumen pendukung.
Dokumen pendukung disini merujuk legalisir ijasah dan transkrip nilai selain surat rekomendasi (dll) diatas. Foto terkini biasanya juga diminta.

Lanjut ke bagian ke-3.

Berburu beasiswa ke Belanda (3/3)

Bagian ke-3, dan bagian terakhir.

Keenam, daftar sekolah.
Pendaftaran universitas biasanya memakan waktu minimal sebulan. Masa-masa 'sibuk' universitas adalah menjelang liburan musim dingin (sehabis natal sampai dengan tahun baru) dan saat pendaftaran beasiswa (Januari-April). Maka, menurut saya, waktu terbaik untuk mendaftar adalah September-november (alias awal semester kuliah). Pertama karena itu
masa-masa universitas tidak terlalu banyak aktivitas pendaftaran (lebih cepat responnya), dan kedua, surat pendaftaran otomatis untuk tahun berikutnya. Plus kalau 'nasib' anda buruk, alias tidak diterima, masih ada waktu untuk mendaftar di sekolah lainnya.

Soal daftar sekolah ini, saya dulu pernah 'nangis bombai' gara-gara ditolak suatu institut di belanda sehingga tidak bisa mendaftar beasiswa di tahun tersebut. Di tahun berikutnya, institut yang sama ternyata menerima saya dengan tangan terbuka. Cuma kali ini, giliran saya yang bilang "nehi-nehi beibeh" hehehehe.

Ketujuh, daftar beasiswa.
Ya pastilah kamu harus daftar beasiswa. Mau sampai nangis nungging, tetep aja gak bakal dapat beasiswa kalau tidak pernah mendaftar kompetisi beasiswa. Jadi, isi semua formulirnya dengan lengkap. Tidak ada pertanyaan yang tidak penting sehingga boleh tidak kamu isi. Formulir yang tidak lengkap, tidak peduli sebaik apapun isianmu, tetap akan didiskualifikasi. Gunakan bahasa inggris yang lugas dan mudah dicerna serta informatif. Kemas dan pasarkan dirimu dengan baik.

Oh ya, soal bahasa inggris. Aduh, tolong jangan 'pamer' bahasa inggris dalam kalimat majemuk bertingkat sepuluh :D. Bikin kalimat pendek, singkat, dan jelas. Lagipula, kalimat pendek, umumnya lebih mudah. Kalimat panjang itu tata bahasanya merepotkan.

Kedelapan, (kalau percaya) berdoalah dan lupakan kamu sudah mendaftar.
Tidak ada habis-habisnya aku memberikan saran ini, selalulah berdoa sejak dari awal proses mencari beasiswa. Mau berdoa ke siapapun ya terserah anda hehehehe. Setelah berdoa, lupakanlah bahwa kamu sudah pernah mendaftar. Peranmu saat itu sudah usai, keputusan berada di tangan para juri dan si pendengar doa-mu. Yang bisa kamu lakukan adalah mengambil sikap berserah, menyiapkan diri untuk jawaban 'terburuk', dan .... daftar beasiswa yang lainnya hehehehe.

Jangan terlalu berharap. Anggap saja tidak mendaftar. Sehingga saat benar-benar tidak dapat beasiswa, anda tidak depresi ataupun frustasi. Percayalah, sekuat apapun dirimu, kalau kamu benar-benar mengingini sesuatu dan kamu tidak mendapatkannya; itu sakitnya luar biasa. Saya sudah beberapa kali seperti itu, tapi, sialnya tetep aja tidak kebal sakit *hiks*. Bagiku, persiapan mental ini sangat penting terutama kalau kamu akhirnya mendapat panggilan wawancara.

Kesembilan, (kalau kamu lolos seleksi awal) mempersiapkan wawancara.
Kalau kamu sampai pada tahap ini, pertama-tama kuucapkan selamat. Untuk mencapai tahap ini, kamu adalah 20% terbaik dari pengaju beasiswa lainnya. Sainganmu tinggal sedikit lagi, tapi justru sangat berat. Jangan khawatir. Wawancara adalah ajang mencari kecocokan bukan untuk menjatuhkan. Jadi, saranku jadilah dirimu sendiri.

Persiapkan diri menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan umum dan spesifik tentang dirimu. Baca lagi formulir yang telah kamu isi, bersiaplah memberikan alasan terhadap isian formulirmu. Simulasikan wawancara tersebut berulang-ulang sampai kamu hapal di luar kepala dan bosan simulasi. Gunakan bahasa inggris yang jelas dan singkat. Tidak perlu terburu-buru. Kita bisa diskusi tentang persiapan wawancara dalam artikel lainnya karena topik tersebut cukup panjang juga (dan banyak saran-saran).

Kesepuluh, (kalau kamu memenangkan beasiswa) persiapkan studi dan keluarga yang ditinggalkan di Indonesia.
Ini tidak pernah mudah. Ada banyak cara. Tapi untuk saat ini, fokuskan diri ke langkah pertama sampai kedelapan. Diskusi tentang langkah kesepuluh bisa dilakukan setelah kamu memenangkan beasiswa.

Btw, selamat, kamu adalah yang terbaik dari pendaftar beasiswa di angkatan tersebut. Kamu sepantasnya bangga akan pencapaianmu. (Dan) pikulah tanggung jawab tersebut dengan sepenuh hati.

Kurang lebih itulah prosesku mencari beasiswa dulunya. Kalau masih ada yang tidak jelas silahkan tanya. Kalau bisa, saya jawab; kalau tidak, ya udah kita cari dukun sama-sama :D.

Golput? Yg bener aja!

-----catatan-----
Ini adalah versi tersunting dari opini yang saya kirimkan ke beberapa milis e.g. PPI-UK, T-Net
--------------------

Sebentar lagi Pemilu lho (i.e. 9 April 2009). Apakah rekans sudah punya calon (baik perorangan maupun partai) yg akan dipilih? Idealnya memang kita mengenali caleg dan partai yg kita contreng/tick. Tapi hal ini agak susah bagi kita, apalagi hingar bingar kampanye hanya terdengar sayup-sayup di LN.

Ini mungkin memperkuat sikap apatis terhadap pelaksanaan pemilu dan pada akhirnya menguatkan pilihan tidak ikut pemilu (alias golput). Tidak salah memang sikap ini. Hanya saja, menurut saya, sikap/pilihan tersebut kurang bermanfaat. Please note, sampai beberapa waktu yg lalu, saya juga memilih untuk tidak ikut pemilu. Namun, pilihan saya sekarang berubah untuk aktif ikut pemilu betapapun buruknya pilihan yang ada.

Alasan saya:
1. Golput tidak menghargai 'uang rakyat'. Dana pemilu 2009, sebagaimana dianggarkan dalam APBN adalah sekitar 7,4T rupiah. Total daftar pemilih tetap (DPT) nasional adalah 171 juta, 1,5 juta diantaranya adalah DPT dapil LN (ya kita-kita ini). Jadi biaya pemilu per kepala kurang lebih 43 ribu rp. Sayang sekali lho kalo biaya tersebut disiasiakan karena kita tidak menggunakan hak suara kita. Mungkin bagi kita, uang 43 ribu rupiah itu kecil artinya; tapi perlu diingat bahwa sekitar 50% penduduk Indonesia memperoleh pendapatan lebih kecil dari US$ 2/hari. Apalagi 43 ribu yg sekitar US$4. Mohon direnungkan.

2. Golput tidak akan merubah hasil pemilu. Ada pendapat bahwa angka golput yg tinggi akan menjadi basis rendahnya legitimasi parpol/caleg terpilih. Mungkin pendapat tersebut benar. Tetapi, meskipun legitimasinya rendah, aspek legal hasil pemilu itu tetap kuat. Hasil pemilu (terlepas 'bersih'/tidaknya) tidak dapat digugat hanya karena angka golput (sangat) tinggi (CMIIW/BYKS). Mahkamah Konstitusi mungkin akan memerintahkan pemilu ulang HANYA JIKA terjadi pelanggaran pemilu yg parah (seperti di Jatim misalnya atau daerah lain), bukan berdasarkan golput yg tinggi. Lalu apa gunanya golput? Tidak akan ada yg berubah :(.

3. Golput memperkuat perolehan suara parpol/caleg. Kalau rekans belum menyadari, penentuan perolehan kursi itu berdasarkan jumlah suara sah yang ada di masing-masing TPS (UU 10/2008: 202(1)). Bahkan bila 199 suara dari 200 suara dinyatakan rusak (alias golput 'terencana'), satu suara tersebut akan menjadi dasar pembagian kursi di TPS yg terkait. Parpol yang mendapat suara banyak di TPS tersebut tentu akan gembira karena 'harga kursi' menjadi semakin murah dengan semakin banyaknya suara 'tidak sah' (atau golput). 'Harga kursi' yg seharusnya 100 suara mungkin dirabat (discounted) menjadi hanya 50 suara karena adanya 50% suara golput. Lah kalau begini, maksud 'baik' rekan-rekan pendukung golput ternyata malah dinikmati oleh parpol (bayangkan kalau itu parpol yg rekan-rekan tidak sukai).

4. Golput merugikan caleg 'pemula'. Caleg pemula cum idealis biasanya mengandalkan swing voters dan pemilih suara yg 'sadar'. Mereka mengandalkan 'jualan program/visi-misi' daripada monyet eh money politic. Lah kemana mereka mau 'jualan', kalo 'pembeli'nya (i.e. mereka yg menyebut dirinya 'memilih berdasar nurani/akal') ternyata tidak datang ke 'pasar' (alias pemilu)? Ya bankrut mereka kan. Dagangan 'berkualitas' mereka amat mungkin dikalahkan oleh 'obral hadiah' (utk tidak mengatakan pemberian uang, barang, dll) oleh caleg 'bergizi' karena pemilih 'tradisional' umumnya memilih 'hadiah'. Golput anda membuat pangsa pasar caleg 'pemula' menjadi menyusut.

5. Golput menghambat perubahan. Menyambung alasan (3) dan (4) diatas, suara golput tidak dapat dirubah menjadi suatu kekuatan nyata di dewan perwakilan maupun pihak eksekutif (dan akhirnya juga pihak yudikatif; note: hakim tipikor, MA, KY, MK, dll itu dipilih dan disahkan di DPR --CMIIW; kalo DPR-nya banyak diisi orang brengsek, bagaimana kita bisa berharap perubahan disektor hukum???). Tidak ada dalam DPR kita yang namanya fraksi golput. Apakah suara golput dapat menyalurkan aspirasi kita? Apakah perubahan dapat terjadi bila yang ada di dewan adalah wajah-wajah lama (baik perorangan maupun parpol)? Lebih lanjut, pasangan Capres-Cawapres itu hanya bisa diajukan oleh (koalisi) parpol yang memperoleh suara 20% kursi DPR atau 25% suara sah. Golput hanya akan mempermudah partai 'raksasa' untuk dagang sapi dan mempersulit partai 'gurem' untuk mendorong perubahan-perbaikan.

Menimbang lima alasan diatas, saya melihat cita-cita luhur golput (i.e. perubahan dan perbaikan) hanya akan menjadi angin kosong yang tidak pernah berubah menjadi badai perubahan dan perbaikan. Di negara kita tercinta ini, dengan sistem politik saat ini, 'perubahan dan perbaikan' (albeit besar kecilnya) hanya dapat terjadi bila kita menyalurkan suara kita melalui institusi resmi (/legal). Bayangkan dasyatnya institusi legal tersebut dalam melakukan perubahan cum perbaikan jika mendapat dukungan kita (alias legitimasi 'rakyat').

Bukankah sinyal ini yang muncul pada pemilu 2004 dimana -tanpa diduga- partai demokrat (dan SBY-JK) 'mengagetkan' parpol lainnya dengan perolehan suara mereka. Bukankah dengan munculnya partai demokrat (yg dianggap menampung swing voters dari parpol lainnya e.g. PDI-P, dll), ada parpol yg mulai 'insyaf' dan 'berbenah diri' saat ini. Fenomena "demokrat 2004" (dan SBY-JK 2004) ini seharusnya membuat kita sadar bahwa perubahan dan perbaikan masih bisa terjadi asalkan kita menyalurkan suara kita dengan bijak (apapun kriteria 'bijak' rekan-rekan sekalian).

Jika rekan-rekan merasa muak terhadap sistem politik dan perangkatnya (parpol, caleg, dll) saat ini; mari salurkan suara anda pada pilihan yg 'sedikit buruk' diantara pilihan 'sangat buruk' lainnya. Mari kita kirimkan sinyal dukungan terhadap 'perubahan dan perbaikan' sebagaimana yg (mungkin) pernah dilakukan pada 2004.

Saya paham bahwa pilihan yang ada saat ini rasanya sangat menyesakkan dada dan menyakitkan hati (dan membodohi 'kita'?). Sayangnya, perubahan dan perbaikan yang kita cita-citakan itu kecil kemungkinannya untuk datang atas nama 'dukungan golput'.

Perubahan dan perbaikan melalui saluran ekstra parlemen dan tidak konstitusional itu hanya bisa tercapai bila terjadi anomali sebagaimana kita lihat pada 1998. Masalahnya (atau resikonya), anomali sangat susah 'dikendalikan' dan hasilnya seringkali tidak seideal yang dicitacitakan pada awalnya. Apakah cita-cita reformasi yang mendorong terjadinya anomali '98 sudah tercapai hingga saat ini? (note: ini bila kita masih percaya bahwa Pres Soeharto mengundurkan diri karena tuntutan demonstran bukan karena hal yg lain)

Akhir kata, jika rekan-rekan merindukan perubahan dan perbaikan di negara kita tercinta ini; ayo gunakan hak suara anda sebaik-baiknya dalam pemilu :)

* gambar diunduh dari www.kpu.go.id

When Lives are Discounted: Climate Change and Discounting Principle

The essay aim is to observe the influence of discounting principle in climate change initiatives. In observing the influence, I assume climate change initiatives as simplified investment projects where cost-benefit analysis acts as a primary tool to analyze those investments. My fundamental arguments in against of discounting principle are based on precautionary principles, irreversibility principles, ethical considerations, and its transboundary nature. However, denying the usage and usefulness of discounting practice in climate change initiative will lead to further damage and social-economical-environmental loss. The essay does not propose any novel approach in analyzing projects due to its technical limitation (i.e. space and time). The essay yet, advocates an integrated project analysis which deals with social-economical-environmental interests.

Climate change (or to some extent is known by global warming) is a phenomenon caused by accumulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in earth’s atmosphere and thus altering the climate. It will increase the earth’s temperature between 1.4 – 5.8 Celsius (Houghton et. al, 2001). Moreover, the temperature rise will then caused extreme weather events, increase sea levels, floods, droughts, and changed agricultural and land-use patterns. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was then founded in 1988 –by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)– to develop consensus on climate science and economics. Its first Assessment Report was influential in the forming of UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change) (IPCC, 2007). In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was adopted to the UNFCCC as a platform to mitigate climate change.

The Kyoto Protocol offers three platforms to mitigate the climate change problems i.e. emission trading (ET), joint implementation (JI), and clean development mechanism (CDM). The protocol is a cap-and-trade system where every ratifying country is given emission limit (the “cap”) and then each country can trade their emission rights. ET is a market mechanism (similar to stock exchange market) to host emission trading, while the JI is a mechanism for industrialized countries to get emission credits by investing in emission reducing projects in another industrialized countries. The CDM is similar to JI only that CDM participants come from industrialized and developing countries.

The protocol implies that countries (and ultimately, firms) have to invest in cleaner production method either in the countries itself or in another countries and to invest in emission reducing projects such as forestation. Firms, under neoclassical approach (and to some extent, other non-neoclassical approach) are profit seeker and therefore firms see climate change initiatives as investment projects.

Investment analysis involves concept of Time Value of Money (TVM). In brief, the TVM implies that money value is changing over time where present money value is greater than future money value (unless deflation happens continuously over time, which is very unlikely to happen). The future benefits and costs are discounted to the present in order to get its net present value (NPV).

In a simplified mathematical form:

Where: t = time; B = benefit; C = cost; r = discount rate.

By analyzing the mathematical formula, we know that the NPV is depended on three factors, i.e. the amount of benefits and costs, the time, and the discount rate. While costs are in present time (sometime it is simplified as ‘initial investment’), net benefits are in future time. Therefore, the effect of discounting mostly affects the net benefits. The effect of discounting is composed by t and r. The longer the time period (t), the bigger is the discount factor. The bigger the discount rate (r), the greater is the discount factor.

Although the TVM is perfectly acceptable in evaluating pure economic investments however, its usage in evaluating environmental investments should be questioned. The first reason is that the property of environmental investments is not only of economic value but also non-economic value such as quality of life and human life itself. The fundamental debate in using discounting for environmental projects is how we measure non-economic value (e.g. a human life) to an economic value (e.g. is life for sale?).

To put it simple, suppose we know that a forestation project will prevent a land-slide to small village with no economical benefits to a logging firm[1] whilst without the forestation, the land-slide will kill some of villagers.[2] The firm seeing the project as not profitable (only as cost) may then reject the project implementation. Having arrived in this point, we conclude that according to the firm the value of some villagers’ life is much less than the forestation costs. The debate then shifted into whether this behaviour is acceptable.[3] Anther simplified example is that under discounting principle, the present value of 100 lives in 10 years time and 1% discount rate is only 90 lives. Ten lives are discounted and ignored. Is this behaviour ethical?

The discounting principle is a delicate matter to apply in climate change initiatives also due to initiatives’ transboundary nature of benefits and costs. The main question is what is the proper discount rate in evaluating climate change initiatives that applies globally? Up to the moment there is no commonly agreed discount rate for this matter. Different countries and companies have their own discount rate.[4] It is logical that an emission reducing project is rejected in a country while it would have been accepted in another country.

The second reason is that the property of environmental problems is the irreversibility. It means that some environmental damages cannot be undone e.g. species extinction. Meanwhile, most of damages or benefits happen in the future (hence the temporality of the problems) and its possibility to occur is uncertain (hence the uncertainty of the problem risks). Therefore we should treat the discounting principle with care especially when compared to precautionary principle of Agenda 21 (Principle 15).[5]

Therefore, any environmental project evaluation should involve an integrated analysis of social-environmental-economical benefits and costs. The analysis must seek a balance of those three aspects. Failure to do so may lead to a further damage in longer period. For example a pure forest conservation (thus putting attention only on environmental benefit) may marginalise villagers (as they cannot access to the forest products, and thus worsening social aspect) and may ignore economic value of forest products.

Although the essay does not advocate a novel approach to deal with the problem of discounting in climate change however, it encourages the usage of an integrated analysis to give a more comprehensive picture of the climate change initiative’s value. Furthermore the essay argues that a pure discounting practice may become unethical in assessing environmental projects.

----------

REFERENCES:

Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y. , Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M. , van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A. (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Cambridge University Press.

---

[1] The example is an extreme simplification of real conditions.

[2] We can also say that the land-slide is as the effect of high precipitation caused by global warming.

[3] This kind of debate is prominent in the scope of Corporate Social Responsibility.

[4] Usually firms’ discount rate (or required return) is generated from its financing structure, debt interest rate, risk and expected market return. Meanwhile governments use Social Time Preference by comparing utility over time and generations to generate the discount rate.

[5] The precautionary principle demands that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”.

Market Failure and Policy Instruments: Climate Change

This paper aims at discussing CO₂ emissions as the result of market failure and some alternatives to deal with it. In details, I firstly demonstrate why climate change is caused by market failure through greenhouse gasses emissions (GHG) and CO₂ emissions. Secondly I outline and briefly mention several policy instruments available to deal with such problems. Thirdly and lastly, I discussed each instrument’s advantages and disadvantages.

The market usually does not function very well when it comes to public good as the public good has no price in it. Price can be assigned when there is property rights attached to the goods. That is exactly what is happening with public good, it lacks of property rights or is having ill-defined property rights. Imposing property rights means that we give the right to utilize the goods to some one/entities/clubs. Meanwhile, the characteristics of public good are non-excludability and non-rivalry. Non excludability means that it is impossible to exclude some one from utilizing the good. Non-rivalry means that the consumption of the good by an individual does not reduce the available amount for others to consume.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other GHG are emitted to the earth atmosphere. Meanwhile, the atmosphere itself is a public good. It is non-excludable as everyone in the earth can emit anything to it or breathe the air from the atmosphere. It is non-rivalry since my emission does not reduce others’ rights to emit. It does not have price and thus no available market mechanism. In the end, when everyone emits GHG and CO₂ to the atmosphere, then there will be excessive stock pollutions in the atmosphere. Moreover, it is subsequently causing climate change.

However, as the awareness of the danger of climate change arise, countries started to seek out solutions to this problem. The climate change is a complex problem since it is a transboundary problem –i.e. climate change happens in everywhere and is caused in every place- and the existence of spill over –i.e the abatement of one country is enjoyed by other countries, so does the pollution of one country is affecting other countries too-.

There are several policy instruments available that can be used to mitigate the climate change problem. The policy instruments are grouped into three categories that are institutional approaches such as voluntary bargaining, command and control such as emission regulation, and economic incentive instruments such as taxes, subsidies, and tradable emission permits. The underline idea in economic incentive instrument is to give price to the emission so that profit-maximizing firm will also taking into account the opportunity cost of emission into their production plan.[1]

A profit-maximizing firm produces goods at optimal output level of maximal profit. Profit is maximal when marginal costs of firm equals to marginal benefits of firm (MC = MB). However when firm pollutes and the pollution is not priced, it creates social costs/damages to the society. The damages are called externality and are often not calculated in product price. By giving price to the damages –either through subsidies, taxes, or emission trades- the pollution then influences the cost function of the firm. Thus the firm internalizes the externalities.

Environmental taxes or known as Pigouvian Taxes is a practice of assigning taxes to pollution emitted by firms. Taxes are assigned to pollution as it will be less efficient if assigned to inputs or final products.[2] Pollutions are to some extent allowed as in an economic point of view, it is never about achieving zero pollution, and instead it is about balancing the benefits and costs. There are three steps to find the balance between benefits and costs –i.e. the optimal pollution level- that is identifying firm/industry profit function, the social damages function –that is the externality effects-, and the optimal pollution level.

The optimal pollution level is the point where the shadow price of social benefit is equal to the shadow price of cost. The shadow price of social benefit is the reduction in social damages due to a reduction in product produced, while the shadow price of cost is the loss of firm profits due to a reduction of a unit produced. In order to find the shadow price, we should calculate the marginal function –i.e. the first derivative- of firm’s profit function and social damages function. The next step is to equalize the marginal social benefit and marginal abatement costs. Environmental taxes then are applied to this level.

Subsidies work similarly to environmental taxes as at the optimal pollution level both mechanism –the environmental taxes and subsidies- are levied or paid at the same rate.[3] However, as Perman (2003) noted “the two instruments are different in their effects on income distribution”. Taxes caused firms to lose income while subsidies caused firms to gain income. In the short-run and at the optimal pollution level both mechanisms are similar; nevertheless, as subsidies are given in form of lump-sum payment, subsidies may give different long-term effects.[4]

Another mechanism of economic incentive mechanism is marketable emission permit. The idea is that government set an overall industry emission level and let the firms distribute the emission level independent of government intervention. In general, the mechanism works as follow: first, the government set a targeted industry emission level; second, an initial emission permit is distributed to each firm; third, firms sell/buy permit to another firms. This mechanism is also known as the cap-and-trade mechanism. Firms are able to sell or buy permit as they are different in their profit function. A firm may find it more profitable to emit more while other firms may find it more profitable to emit less and sell the excess allowances. Thus, an increase in one firm is compensated by decrease in other firm/s. Tradability is an important characteristic of marketable emission permit that grouped it into economic incentive instruments, otherwise it will be categorized as a command and control instruments.

There are several indicators to compare between above mentioned mechanism that is cost-efficiency and monitoring-administering-and-enforcing-compliance costs, long run effects, double dividend, and equity/distribution. It is obvious that command and control instruments are least cost-efficient compare to economic incentive instruments as compliance costs are usually high. European union emission trading for example estimates that the cost of emission trading is between 2.9 billion euros and 3.7 billion euros compare to 6.8 billion euros compliance costs annually.[5] Among economic incentive instruments, emission trading is the most cost-efficient compare to other instruments.[6] However, command and control may create greater long-run effects in term of technology advancement compare to other instruments as it provides incentive and guidance for technology research. I think that emission trading will give the biggest “double dividend” as it creates a lot of job opportunity. As of distribution issue, taxes may cause bigger effect for consumer –i.e. consumers bear the cost- regardless of polluter pays principle especially when market is of monopoly or oligopoly market.

Furthermore, in the presence of corruption, I think the emission trading will give best results compare to other instruments. The reason is that emission trading will minimize the involvement of civil servant in its operation and thus minimize the possibility of corruption.

Based on above comparisons, I think the best instrument is the emission trading.

------------------------------------

REFERENCES

European Commision. (2005) EU Action Against Climate Change: EU Emission Trading - an Open Scheme Promoting Global Innovation, Belgium.
Perman, R., Common, M., Mcqilvray, J., Ma, Yue. (2003) Natural Resources and Environmental Economics, 3^rd edition.

---

[1] Perman, R., Common, M., Mcqilvray, J., Ma, Yue. (2003) Natural Resources and Environmental Economics, 3^rd edition.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] European Commision. (2005) EU Action Against Climate Change: EU Emission Trading - an Open Scheme Promoting Global Innovation, Belgium.
[6] Perman, et. Al. Ibid.

The Drawbacks of Environmental Taxes

One way to internalize externalities is by introducing environmentally related taxes. It is also effective and efficient instruments for environmental policy.[1] However, I think that this idea is not suitable –or have to be prepared more carefully– in the developing countries and less developed countries –in this paper, I use Indonesia as an example- where corruption is innate. I firstly discussed briefly the problems of tax collection and of tax-generated revenue usage in the context of third world countries. Secondly, I argue that tax may further increase environmental damage through increase in natural resources extraction. Thirdly, the problem of marginalized people dependency on cheap-yet-environmental-harmful products and services is brought into the paper. Fourthly, I discussed the effect of environmental taxes to the national competitiveness. Lastly, considering those four reasons, I argue that social responsible approach is better than environmental taxes in the third world countries.

Taxes contribute 66.59% of Indonesian’s National Budget income in 2006.[2] Whilst, the not-taxes incomes are earned from natural resources-related income and state-owned enterprises profit. However, despite of tax administration reform started in 2000, the taxes mentioned above are only collected from 1.71% of Indonesian population.[3] It shows how big the scale of tax evasion in Indonesia is. In my opinion, there are two important issues regarding this matter, which is social trust towards tax collectors and the perceived benefit of paying taxes.

First issue, the public trust regarding tax collectors –and to other civil servants- are low. Taxation department is seen as the dent of corruption. Corruption is initiated in two ways that is of tax collectors and of taxpayers. The first way, it is believed by public that tax collectors always calculate higher tax than of taxpayers’ calculation. The main reason of doing so is so that taxpayers choose to bribe tax collectors, instead of going through the time-consuming court settlement of tax dispute. The second way, taxpayers deliberately offer tax collectors some amount of money in exchange for lower tax calculation and thus saving some money. Another “advantage” for taxpayers of doing so is time-saving. Second issue, in Indonesia, paying taxes has long been perceived as not giving direct benefits such as social securities to the taxpayers. To some extent, this perception discouraging taxpayers from paying taxes.

From the point of view of welfare analysis, there is a dead weight loss created from three effects of environmental taxes which are budget gained from additional tax revenue, consumer’s loss as price increased and quantity consumed is decreased, producer’s loss as quantity decreased and the taxes burden (i.e reduced firm’s profit). Yet, there is environmental benefit gained from less environmental damage as quantity is decreased. The net welfare is positive as long as environmental benefit is bigger than dead weight loss, vice versa.

However, taking the corruption into account, I think that a positive net welfare is harder to achieve. My reasoning is that the environmental taxes revenue will not fully receive by state, as it is distorted by corruption, and thus lowering the budget gain. Meanwhile, the producer’s loss and consumer’s loss remain same and thus the dead weight loss is bigger. Therefore, introducing environmental taxes in heavy corruption countries may further harm the net welfare. Furthermore, environmental taxes, in these circumstances, will give incentive to corrupt more and hence increase the rate of corruption.

One of the environmental taxes goals is to conserve environment through reducing consumption and reducing natural resources extraction. The consumption reduction is achieved due to price increase. As consumption is reduced, logically speaking, the production is also reduced and thus the need of raw material is decreased. However, Chichilnisky (1994: 855) argues that “taxes can lead to more extraction of resources, defeating their original purpose”.[4] The logic behind it, first, is as the demand for raw material decreased, the resource’s price is decreased, and thus the extractors’ income is declined too. Second, the extractors –many of them are subsistence workers- will extract more in order to arrive in the same income level. Why is this not happening in developed countries? The reason is that natural resources are capital-intensive goods while they are labour-intensive goods in third world countries.[5] Thus, the environmental taxes can be a backfire to environmental conservation. This is another drawback of tax.

Additional tax means additional cost to consumers. In the marginalized community where income is low, a cost increase is harmful. If the community is dependent on those products and services –signalled by relatively inelastic demand and high consumption rate-, then the harmful effect will be magnified. The government often tries to keep the cheap price as the products and services are of basic needs such as fuel (gasoline, kerosene, and gas), water, electricity, and food. To some extent, price increase can cause social distress and political instability and then it increases social costs. Again, there is possibility that environmental taxes are harmful to the net welfare. Of course, the effect of price increase can be compensated by returning taxes to the community through subsidies. However, we have to bear in mind that different goods have different utility functions. Thus the compensation may not always be able to replace the cost.

Imposing environmental taxes can lowered the national competitiveness especially in the region where there is not standardized environmental policies among countries. Environmental taxes are hurting both the country and the company. It hurts the country as tax decrease the country’s investment attractiveness compare to other countries that are not imposing that tax. It can even –to some extent- induce company relocation. Instead of giving “double dividend”, environmental taxes can lower employment in that country. Environmental taxes hurt the company as it increase product price and make it less competitive in international or regional markets. In my opinion, when this kind of taxes is going to be imposed, then it should be imposed and standardized in the closely related geographical region and trade partners such as in EU and NAFTA agreement.

In summary, I argue that imposing environmental taxes in third world countries such as Indonesia may have drawback that can exceed the benefit of environmental taxes. I give four reasons that is corruption, intensifying natural resources extraction rate, increasing social distress and political instability, and weakening national competitiveness. Considering these drawbacks, I prefer more to the social responsibility approach. First, it minimizes interventions from state and thus reducing the corruption opportunity. Instead of having “double dividend” from increasing employment, the “double dividend” of social responsibility is the decreasing corruption rate. Second, the approach tries to ensure ethical business practices. One of the ethical principles is to pay adequate salary to the workers and to buy accountably extracted raw materials with equitable price. Third, the approach usually caused less cost to the company compare to the cost from complying regulation. It implies that product cost may not increase higher than if it is taxed and thus it does not hurt company’s product competitiveness. In addition, it may open new markets for the social responsible products. Moreover, the approach does not influence national competitiveness as it is usually a voluntary involvement. However, social responsibility approach needs public control and facilitating bargaining from the country.

---

[1] OECD. (2006), The Political Economy of Environmentally Related Taxes.

[2] Anggaran Penerimaan dan Belanja Negara & Neraca Keuangan Republik Indonesia 2005-2006 (translation: Indonesian’s National Budget & Fiscal Balance 2005-2006).

[3] Harian Bisnis Indonesia, 10 juta NPWP dikaji Ulang (translation: The number of 10 million taxpayers will be checked again), 16 May 2006.

[4] Chichilnisky, Graciela. (1994), North-South Trade and the Global Environment, The American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 4., pp. 851-874.

[5] Chichilnisky, Ibid, p. 854

Water: Public or Private Goods?

Water has long been treated as public goods and has been managed solely by state or state-owned enterprise. At the other hand, nowadays, there is a growing demand to treat water as private goods. Although, according to van der Veeren – and many other eminent figures such as Vandana Shiva – water should remind as public goods[1], in this paper one tries to elaborate the idea of water as private goods. Firstly, one discusses briefly the lack of state-management of public goods. Secondly, one explores the promise – at least at the theory level – of privatization. Thirdly, by bringing the promise to the empirical world, one analyzes the drawbacks of privatization. Lastly, one indicates improvement alternatives of water management policy.

State management through government body or through state-owned enterprise is well-known – at least in the developing and less-developed countries – for its low service quality, inefficiency, corruption, vested political interests, and mismanagement. It is – to some extent – caused by monopoly of service and goods, and public control. As a monopoly, state-owned enterprise does not have to improve its production efficiency in order to survive as in the competitive market. Customer has no choice but to accept the condition of goods and the level of service offered. Customer service is then not a factor to retain customer and thus generating low service quality. Water service – in term of degree of access and product price – is often used in political agenda such as election campaign. Setting product price based on political agenda without considering production cost will further deepened the net loss of water state-owned enterprise. In the end, all of these negative aspects create high transaction cost and therefore burdening the economy and the society.

The idea behind water as private goods is that by privatizing water, it creates a non-monopoly market. Non-monopoly market, theoretically speaking, implies that everyone can get into the market and offer his/her products to buyers. Buyer reacts rationally by selecting the optimal offer, which is the offer that gives him/her the maximal utility. In order to make his/her products competitive, producers will keep on innovating and improving its service and efficiency. By doing so, market’s efficiency is improving and so thus the buyer utility (as they now able to consume higher product quality, higher amount, or even cheaper product price). To some point, the market will reach its Pareto efficiency which is not achievable in the case of state management. It looks like a win-win situation.

However, this is not happening in reality. Instead of providing wider water access and cheaper price, privatization resulting in a higher price and stagnant water access. So why is it happening? Among other reasons, one highlights two subjects which are profit seeking and market entry. Profit seeking means that a firm’s prime goal is to produce profit. Firm’s business continuation is dependent to profit. In previous condition, state-owned enterprise may sell water below its production cost. Thus, when privatization is taken place, product price is corrected (i.e. increased) to its production cost and profit margin. Furthermore, firm may not provide water access to some people as there is not sufficient potential customer in some remote/small area. It seems difficult to enter the market as water processing industry needs high investment and working capital. This, by itself, is limiting the number of firm in the market. The market is now having oligopoly instead of having full-competition market. Although oligopoly is better than monopoly, but it is still not as good as the full-competition market.

Now, how are we going to deal with those problems? One divides it based on actors such as state, society, and company/market. State can play a role as a facilitator through issuing rules and regulations regarding water market. It can require companies to provide a minimum service level in term of water quality, access, water distribution, etc. It also can induce a price ceiling (i.e. maximum product price allowed) for water. In brief, it is state responsibility to ensure a conducive market for improving water services. Subsidies can also serve as one of government tools in providing water access and improving water distribution to the marginalized people. In the other hand, government can give subsidies in different sectors for example education and health (while maintaining high water price). The arrangement then is to ensure that the net benefit of subsidies – in education or health or etc – is greater than the net loss from increasing water price. Thus, it improves the net welfare.

Society plays important role in controlling firm’s practices through public participation. Public participation can varies from submitting service complaint until boycott. The crucial factor here is that society is information-literate (i.e. having enough information). Public can also participate in form of capital/equity (i.e. buying stocks) so that public gains some control over company’s business practice. Another form of public participation is through legalizing the cultural/traditional water management. This traditional arrangement – such as Subak in Bali-Indonesia – has proven to be effective and efficient.[2]

Company should balance its prime goal with other goals. Company practices should be in-line with those of sustainable development. Corporate social responsibility – as one kind of sustainable development approach – deals with balancing company’s economic goal (profit), environment goal, and social goal. This notion seems to be a win-win solution for companies as it still takes profit into account without excluding environment and social problems. There is wariness that once water becomes private goods, it will exclude more negative externalities from its production function (i.e. firm does not internalizing externalities). However, externalities are also been dealt with in corporate social responsibility scheme through increasing/improving environment indicators and social indicators.

In summary, one tries to demonstrate the possibility of transforming water from public goods into private goods. Although empirically water privatization does not meet its promise, yet by making a better preparation (i.e. making a conducive market) the promise may be fulfilled. The preparation can be done by state, society, and company. As long as the company is internalizing externalities – that is correcting the property rights – and state is able to cut the effect of price increase by giving subsidies – that is improving net welfare –, then water privatization would not be of any problem.

---

[1] van der Veeren, Rob, lecture in class of Environmental Economics in Practice, 08 November 2006, Wageningen University and Research Centre.

[2] Suarja, I.G. and Thijssen, Rik, Traditional Water Management in Bali, LEISA Magazine, September 2003. Accessed at 13 November 2006, available on-line at:
http://www.leisa.info/index.php?url=show-blob-html.tpl&p%5Bo_id%5D=12689&p%5B

Criticizing the Cost-Benefit Analysis: Strength, Weakness, and Political Interest

The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in my opinion is a powerful tool in assisting a decision making process. However, it may not be the best tool available in assessing several environmental protection programmes. In this paper, I discussed about the strength and weakness of CBA. There are two strength points of CBA that is it increases efficiency and it provides an objective and transparent decision making process. The weaknesses are the problems of quantification, overstating costs, broadening inequality, and discounting practice. In the end of the paper, I include my reflection on empirical decision making practices in my country –Indonesia- where political interest often neglects the CBA results, and thus I think that in the country such as Indonesia, it is not the question of what is the best strategy for public welfare but which strategy is yielding greatest benefit for power holder (i.e. political party, president, ethnic group, etc).

The cost-benefit analysis follows economic principles that resources are scarce and they should be utilised wisely to increase net welfare. The cost-benefit analysis increases efficiency –at least theoretically- through better allocation of scarce resources –that is mostly concerning public funds- into projects that yield greater benefit among other various project opportunities. How is it happening? The basic idea is to value all projects by the same measurement that is in monetary term. In each project, the CBA quantify and monetize costs and benefits of the project and calculated the net worth / (loss) of the project. The CBA compares every project afterwards. The project that gives greatest net worth is usually selected and financed. By bringing the project’s effects into one measurement, the CBA makes it possible to compare projects social costs and social benefits.

It also provides a theoretically objective comparison among projects as it use the same standards. The CBA also requires analyst to reveal all the assumptions used in the analysis and thus making it a transparent process. As it makes decision making process more objective and transparent, then the CBA improves the accountability of decision making process.

The quantification of costs and benefits besides being CBA’s strength, it also in the same time becomes its’ weakness. In my opinion, there are two issues regarding the quantification problems that are the assumptions used in quantification and the unquantifiable of several benefits and costs.

In quantifying social aspects –no matter as costs or benefits- assumption is used in two ways, which are when we weighted the aspects and when we valued the aspects. The weighing is judged on preferences and these preferences can differ among groups in society, analysts, regions, and time frames. Thus, I think that judging something based on preference is not fully trustable. In valuing the social aspects, analysts may use several ways such as “willingness to pay” (WTP) or “willingness to accept” (WTA). However, I think not every social aspect can be valued correctly for example the life. This brings me to the second issue in quantification that is the unquantifiable of several benefits and costs. It is unquantifiable due to its natures (i.e. uncertainty and lack of information) and ethical considerations.

The second weakness is costs overstatement. It can come from the way the costs are estimated, the size of the projects or action needed, and the cost factors (i.e to include costs that are irrelevant to the project). Empirically, the costs and benefits can be overstated [1]. As it can be overstated, it means that inaccuracies happened and thus CBA’s result should be treated with caution.

Like the neoclassical concern that is optimization, the CBA deals only with optimal allocation of scarce resources, yet it does not taking into account the distribution problems. For example consider two projects that are to provide drinking water to poor people and to clean a park in rich people dwellings; both projects give the same net worth. If government makes decision based only on CBA, then it may select the cleaning project instead of drinking water project. CBA calculates the benefits and costs aggregately, so that it does not matter who bear the costs and who enjoy the benefit. Another example, suppose government has a plan to build a new railway passing through poor neighbourhood where the beneficiaries of the new railway are rich people. It can be that the project creates benefits for the rich at the costs of the poor neighbourhood –such as moving out their house or noise pollution-. Thus, CBA, in this case, is broadening the existing inequality. Meanwhile, any public policy should ideally take equality as an important aspect. The problem also occurs in calculating WTP or WTA as the rich may have higher WTP –they have more money- than of the poor to get rid disadvantaging projects from them.

The last CBA’s weakness that I discussed here is regarding the discounting practice. The idea is developed from an economic perspective that money value changed as time changed taking into consideration the inflation, economic growth, and opportunity costs. I agree that we should use discounting to evaluate investment opportunities. However, I think that environment projects should not be treated as investment projects in term of profit seeking motive. Environmental problems are delicate as they are mostly irreversible and need a long-term recovery process. Furthermore, by discounting future benefits and costs, it is as if we regard future generation as less important than of present generation. For example, the value of providing health services is 100 babies –I do not use monetary value for the sake of intensifying my reason- in the next year, with “r” is 10% the present value of health services is 91 babies only. It means that we value 100 babies in the next year equal to 91 babies in this year and thus 9 babies are discarded. Then the ethical and rhetorical question is “are future beings less valuable compare to present beings?”

For the last argument, I want to relate CBA and real life conditions such as in Indonesia. Indonesia in brief has ill-defined property rights and corruption is eminent. Although CBA try to internalise externalities (i.e. pricing the “non-marketable goods”), it usually collides with corruption practices such as bribery and favouritism. Projects had usually been agreed / selected without even having run any CBA. Furthermore, CBA result is often neglected in decision making process especially when the CBA’s suggestion is in contrary to political/power-holder interest. For example, a project to build a bridge may be selected because the area where the bridge is build is the region that supports him/her to be in power, not because the bridge provides net worth to the greater society. In Indonesia, the common practice of “repaying support” is by building infrastructure such as asphalting the roads and erecting a mosque/church/temple. It is hoped that by doing so, the inhabitant will be loyal to him/her and choose him/her again in the next election. In my personal reflection, CBA is defeated by political/individual interests in my country. The CBA itself is not trustable as the analyst can be “bought” (i.e. ordered to write in favour of the client instead of society) by anyone.

The cost-benefit analysis is indeed a powerful tool, yet it is not a panacea or one-solution-fit-all for environmental problems. It has to be treated with caution. Especially in developing country, CBA is only a formality and thus CBA’s result is not trustable.

---

[1] Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette K. Skamris Holm, and Søren L. Buhl, "Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?" Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 68, no. 3, Summer 2002, pp. 279-295. And: Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette K. Skamris Holm, and Søren L. Buhl, "How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects? The Case of Transportation." Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 71, no. 2, Spring 2005, pp. 131-146. Both were taken from Wikipedia. Cost-Benefit Analysis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-benefit_analysis.