Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

On The Complexity of Eliminating Fuel Subsidy in Indonesia; A Behavioral Approach

Contents:

Author Info

  • Pradiptyo, Rimawan
  • Sahadewo, Gumilang Aryo

Abstract

People’s attachment to a subsidy creates difficulties for the government to phase out, and eventually eliminate, the subsidy. Elimination of fuel subsidy scheme in Indonesia is a perfect example of such occurrence. The subsidy has been implementing to commodity as opposed to households, thus individuals may not necessarily realized that they have been enjoying the subsidy when they buy fuel. In this case people may feel as if they are endowed by the values from the provision of the policy. The elimination of the subsidy consequently may be perceived as a loss - as opposed to a foregone gain. This study aims to obtain the most acceptable exit strategy to eliminate the subsidy from the perspective of households by conducting a laboratory-based survey. The alternative exit strategies include methods of elimination of the subsidy and of reallocation of resources saved from eliminating the subsidy. The policy options have been derived using insight from behavioral economics ranging from endowment effect, status quo bias, to present biasness. The survey includes 335 subjects, who come from four different backgrounds: 1) households with no motor vehicle; 2) households with only motorcycle(s); (3) households with one car and; 4) households with one luxurious car or more than one car. Each subject faces 55 paired-wise policy alternatives and the method proposed by Dunn-Rankin (1983) has been used to derive the ordering of preferences. The result shows that gradual elimination of fuel subsidy and reallocation to earmarked programs were the most acceptable policy elements of the exit strategy. The survey, indirectly, showed that subjects’ valuation of losses is greater for direct elimination strategies than that of the equivalent gradual elimination strategies. The results also show that respondents chose “to pay” later at a smaller amount than “to pay” immediately of the equivalent total value. The reallocation of resources saved to earmarked programs is more acceptable than the reallocation to non-earmarked programs. In particular, respondents opted for a more immediate compensation from the elimination or reduction of the subsidy.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40045/
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 40045.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 13 Jul 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:40045

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Fuel subsidy; experimental economics; laboratory-based survey; paired comparison; preference relation; reallocation of resources;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Ted O'Donoghue and Matthew Rabin ., 1997. "Doing It Now or Later," Economics Working Papers, University of California at Berkeley 97-253, University of California at Berkeley.
  2. Ratana Chuenpagdee & Jack L. Knetsch & Thomas C. Brown, 2001. "Environmental Damage Schedules: Community Judgments of Importance and Assessments of Losses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 1-11.
  3. Richard Thaler, 1985. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 199-214.
  4. John Hey, . "Do People (Want to) Plan?," Discussion Papers, Department of Economics, University of York 99/22, Department of Economics, University of York.
  5. Milton Friedman, 1957. "A Theory of the Consumption Function," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number frie57-1.
  6. Loewenstein, George, 1987. "Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(387), pages 666-84, September.
  7. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard Thaler, 2007. "Heuristics and Biases in Retirement Savings Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 81-104, Summer.
  8. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
  9. George L. Peterson & Thomas C. Brown, 1998. "Economic Valuation by the Method of Paired Comparison, with Emphasis on Evaluation of the Transitivity Axiom," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 240-261.
  10. Jerry A. Hausman, 1979. "Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Using Durables," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 33-54, Spring.
  11. O'Donoghue, Ted & Rabin, Matthew, 2000. "Choice and Procrastination," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley qt5r26k54p, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  12. John Hey & Julia Knoll, 2006. "How Far Ahead Do People Plan?," Discussion Papers, Department of Economics, University of York 06/17, Department of Economics, University of York.
  13. Thaler, Richard, 1981. "Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 201-207.
  14. Milton Friedman, 1957. "Introduction to "A Theory of the Consumption Function"," NBER Chapters, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, in: A Theory of the Consumption Function, pages 1-6 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. John Bone & John Hey & John Suckling, 2004. "A Simple Risk-Sharing Experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 23-38, January.
  16. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. " Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
  17. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-48, December.
  18. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2004. "Save More Tomorrow (TM): Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages S164-S187, February.
  19. David Coady & Javier Arze del Granado, 2010. "The Unequal Benefits of Fuel Subsidies," IMF Working Papers, International Monetary Fund 10/202, International Monetary Fund.
  20. Thaler, Richard H & Shefrin, H M, 1981. "An Economic Theory of Self-Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(2), pages 392-406, April.
  21. Laibson, David, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 443-77, May.
  22. Ratana Chuenpagdee, 1998. "Damage Schedules for Thai Coastal Areas: An Alternative Approach to Assessing Environmental Values," EEPSEA Research Report, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) rr1998081, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Aug 1998.
  23. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
  24. Richard Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2004. "Save more tomorrow: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving," Natural Field Experiments, The Field Experiments Website 00337, The Field Experiments Website.
  25. Pradiptyo, Rimawan & Sahadewo, Gumilang Aryo, 2012. "A growing pain: an experimental approach to discover the most acceptable strategy for lifting fuel subsidy scheme in Indonesia," MPRA Paper, University Library of Munich, Germany 37073, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  26. Caplin, Andrew & Leahy, John, 1997. "Psychological Expected Utility Theory and Anticipatory Feelings," Working Papers, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University 97-37, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
  27. Knetsch, Jack L & Sinden, J A, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 507-21, August.
  28. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. " Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
  29. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-35, December.
  30. Kahneman, Daniel & Schkade, David & Sunstein, Cass R, 1998. "Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 49-86, April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:40045. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.