Homeless people go about their lives under a bridge in the Penjaringan area of North Jakarta, Thursday (27/7). According to the Central Statistics Agency’s poverty data for the September 2016-March 2017 period, the population of poor people in cities has increased by 188,190 people, from 10.49 million people in September 2016 to 10.67 million people in March 2017.
The unchanged poverty rate amid various government achievements raises criticism that the developments have not really benefited the lower-income group.
We all admit that, so far, many steps have been taken by the government to reduce the poverty rate. Improvement programs through the sharpening and expansion of targets also continue to be carried out. The social spending budget also continues to rise. However, the rates of poverty, unemployment and inequality seems unchanged.
As an illustration, during the 2004-2011 period, the budget for poverty reduction increased by 400 percent, but the poverty rate fell only 3.37 percent or an average of 0.56 percent per year. Since 2010, the poverty rate has also fallen by less than 1 million per year.
This rate is far from being sufficient to achieve the zero percent poverty target by 2030, as outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The target of SDGs requires a decrease in poor people of at least 2.14 million per year from 22.7 million poor people today (Kompas, 1/8).
This fact triggers criticism related to the effectiveness and continuity of the anti-poverty programs themselves. Many programs that have been launched are considered incapable of improving the quality of life of poor people. For example, poor program designs and data weaknesses, unable to capture the reality of poverty, result in programs missing the target. The profiles of poor families, according to the Central Statistics Agency, do not depict the portrait of poverty in the field.
Another criticism is that the programs provide “more fish than hooks.”Efforts to get rid of poverty are also frequently treated as projects, and are highly centralized.
This is how the current government seems to be trying to tackle the issue, by improving the integrated database, sharpening the programs, widening the target range and minimizing abuses/misuses. However, we do not turn a blind eye – not all of these efforts work well in the field.
Aside from sharpening the programs and improving implementation in the field to reduce poverty, maintaining economic growth rates and inflation rates is also important. However, that alone is not enough, especially with the ability of the economy, which continues to weaken in creating jobs and reducing poverty.
What is needed is qualified and inclusive growth that opens the widest access and participation of the lower society. No less important is the sustainability of the programs itself. Changes of regimes or officials guarantee that the sustainability of programs are frequently neglected.
Therefore, we expect much of the presidential regulation to be launched and the Medium/Long Term Development Plan to accommodate the SDGs agenda and oversee the continuity of the existing programs. Achieving the zero percent poverty rate target requires not only harder work, but also focus, innovation and creativity, as well as partnerships with all parties.
