A growing pain: an experimental approach to discover the most acceptable strategy for lifting fuel subsidy scheme in Indonesia
Fuel subsidy has been the biggest quandaries in Indonesian economy, as it has been creating a huge opportunity costs to the economy. The subsidy is implemented to a consumer good (i.e. fuels) as oppose to targeted recipients, creating distortion in the efficient resource allocation. It was estimated about 70% of the subsidy were received by 40% of top income households (World Bank, 2007). Although the budget plan for the subsidy in 2011 was Rp129.7 trillion or 10% of the GoI annual budget, the actual subsidy was Rp160.7 trillion (13.3% of the GoI annual budget). Indeed, no individual prefers to lose the subsidy that has been received for many years, however the Government of Indonesia (GoI) cannot maintain the subsidy policy on fuel price any longer without creating extra budgetary burden. This study use experimental approach to seek the most acceptable exit strategy of eliminating fuel subsidy scheme in Indonesia based on households’ perspective. 335 subjects participated in the experiment, ranging from those who do not own motor vehicle, those who have motor cycle(s) and those who have car(s). During the experiment, subjects were given several pair-wise choices and chose the most acceptable policy from each pair-wise policy choices. The results show that the combination of gradual elimination and earmarked reallocation scheme were the most desirable. Subject with very low and low-income background tend to be more receptive for sudden elimination of the subsidy in comparison to their counterpart from medium and high-income backgrounds.
|Date of creation:||03 Mar 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Nwachukwu, Maxwell Umunna & Chike, Harold, 2011. "Fuel subsidy in Nigeria: Fact or fallacy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2796-2801.
- Arze del Granado, Francisco Javier & Coady, David & Gillingham, Robert, 2012.
"The Unequal Benefits of Fuel Subsidies: A Review of Evidence for Developing Countries,"
Elsevier, vol. 40(11), pages 2234-2248.
- David Coady & Javier Arze del Granado, 2010. "The Unequal Benefits of Fuel Subsidies: A Review of Evidence for Developing Countries," IMF Working Papers 10/202, International Monetary Fund.
- repec:nbr:nberbk:frie57-1 is not listed on IDEAS
- Jack L. Knetsch & J. A. Sinden, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 507-521.
- 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, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-48, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:37073. 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: (Joachim Winter)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.