Category Archives: Infrastructure

‘Macet’: How to solve traffic congestion?

One of the most frequently used terms by people living in Jakarta is “kena macet” meaning “(I) get stuck in a traffic jam”.

Jakarta is (unfortunately) notorious for its traffic congestion. Estimates in 2011 suggested that traffic jams cost the city US$ 3 billion each year. Solutions to these problems are obviously not straightforward. They involve complexities about the governance structure (whether the central government or regional government is responsible for this), infrastructure development, etc.

Syarifah Amaliah, Master of Applied Economics at the University of Adelaide shared her thoughts about congestion charges in developing countries that might applicable to Indonesia.

In developing countries, the congestion charges schemes are generally considered as a cost effective policy because the system charges on a per-pass basis and pricing structures are time- and congestion sensitive.

Based on the experience of developed countries, developing countries should consider emulating the congestion charges to solve traffic congestion.

Despite its high startup investment, congestion charges will be feasible when the cordon pricing was defined in the CBD area.

However, it is not recommended to implement the policy in the short run, particularly when mass public transport in the cities is still under provisioned.

Syarifah  Amaliah’s observations highlight that it is imperative for policy makers in developing countries to realise that congestion charges essentially stand as a part of a larger policy portfolios in traffic management.

The effectiveness of the congestion charges will be significantly interrelated in particular to public transport policy for achieving effective modal split changes and other complementary policies.

Other recommended complementary policy measures include providing safe motorized access, setting up the targeted discounts for low income groups and local residents, improvement in institutional capacity, and providing revenue recycling mechanism from the congestion charge to the Road Funds which is expected to generate more public acceptance for this policy.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Indonesia, Infrastructure, Transport and logistics

IRD2014, SA-based Indonesian researchers’ contribution to policy discussions

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

GoLive Indonesia and Indonesian Student Association South Australia chapter (PPIA-SA) co-organised the 2014 Indonesian Research Day on Wednesday, 23 April 2014. The event was attended by more than 50 participants from three universities in South Australia, namely the University of Adelaide, University of South Australia and Flinders University.

Professor Christopher Findlay, Dean of Faculty of Professions at University of Adelaide, in his keynote speech on the Australia-Indonesia bilateral relationships reinforced three principles needed to improve bilateral relationships between the two countries, namely economic integration, ‘no-surprise’ policy and consultations and respect.

The President of PPIA-SA, Mr Dias Satria, also a PhD candidate at University of Adelaide, expressed his confidence that with the support from various organisations in SA this event will be held annually.

For GoLive Indonesia, this is the third event that the project has co-organised following succesful PhD conference in Canberra  partnering with Indonesia Synergy in November 2013 and early career researcher conference at Bogor Agricultural University in March 2014 collaborating with InterCafe.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Australia, Conference, Economic development, Economic Integration, Education, Indonesia, Infrastructure, Investment, PPIA academic discussion, Trade

Challenges and Opportunities for Indonesia and Australia Relationship in the Asian Century

Untitled

On 17 May 2013, Counsellor in Politics and  Senior First Secretary of Economic Affairs of The Republic of Indonesia Embassy in Australia, Mr Widya Rahmanto and Mr Denny Lesmana shared some valuable  insights into  “Challenges and Opportunities for Indonesia and Australia (IA) Relationship in The Asian Century”. This discussion forum was organised by the Indonesian Embassy, South Australian Chapter of The Indonesian Student Association (PPIA), and fully supported by  PPIA at Flinders University, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia and  GoLive Indonesia.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Agriculture, Australia, Culture, Democracy, East Asia, Economic development, Economic Integration, Education, Employment, Food and agriculture, Indonesia, Infrastructure, Investment, PPIA academic discussion, Services, Trade

The Legacy of the Past for Current Agriculture

Panen

Agus Pakpahan,PhD Chairman of the Union of Estate Crops Farmers Associations

Indonesian agricultural sectors have a long history. This article briefly reviews agricultural development from the colonization era to the post-independence period.  Whilst the colonial agricultural development approach to use forced-agenda through VOC monopoly power and Tanam Paksa (enforcement planting) was no longer relevant to current agriculture, the colonial era has passed on the legacy of a ‘grand design’ that has not changed much, that is to focus export-oriented agricultural commodities such as rubber in Sumatera and main food commodities such as rice in Java and to provide necessary infrastructure to achieve agricultural development goals including research institutes and irrigation networks.

 

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Agriculture, Culture, Economic development, Food and agriculture, Indonesia, Infrastructure, Investment, Trade

Indonesia-Australia: Challenges and Opportunities (Part II)

Untitled

Christopher Findlay and David Parsons

This article is summarised from a speech presented by Professor Christopher Findlay, Executive Dean of Faculty of Professions the University of Adelaide at  AIBC SA Business Luncheon -Celebrating the anniversary of Indonesian Independence at Intercontinental Hotel Adelaide on 23 August 2012 derived from his paper co-authored with David Parsons.

This article extends discussions presented in Part I. Whilst Part I focuses on  Indonesia’s position as the world’s third largest democracy that is becoming bigger and richer, Part II explores how Australia and Indonesia, who face some similar concerns as well as some interconnected challenges, should further explore that there is much to be gained by understanding those better and then working out a better long term strategy.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Australia, Conference, Democracy, East Asia, Economic development, Economic Integration, Food and agriculture, Income inequality, Indonesia, Infrastructure, Investment

Indonesia-Australia: Challenges and Opportunities (Part I)

Untitled

Christopher Findlay and David Parsons

This article is summarised from a speech presented by Professor Christopher Findlay, Executive Dean of Faculty of Professions the University of Adelaide at  AIBC SA Business Luncheon -Celebrating the anniversary of Indonesian Independence at Intercontinental Hotel Adelaide on 23 August 2012 derived from his paper co-authored with David Parsons.

This article focuses on two points. First, Indonesia, the world’s third largest democracy, is becoming bigger and richer, which is an important for Australia.  Second, but Australia and Indonesia face some similar concerns as well as some interconnected challenges and there is much to be gained by understanding those better and then working out a better long term strategy.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Australia, Conference, Democracy, East Asia, Economic development, Economic Integration, Education, Food and agriculture, Income inequality, Indonesia, Infrastructure, Investment, Trade

Natural Resources in Demand Symposium: China and India’s policy options

Dr Shenggen Fan, Director General of the International Food Policy Research (IFPRI), presented his ideas about China and India’s policy options for their global food and nutrition security at Natural Resources in Demand Symposium: Global and Local Perspectives, 10th October 2012 at Waite campus, University of Adelaide.

China and India are facing increasing challenges to achieve food security. Globally, more than 50 countries have serious or alarming even extremely alarming levels of hunger despite impressive growth rates that many Asian countries, in particular India and China, are enjoying. In India, 225 million people or 19 % of total population are undernourished, whilst in China 130 million or 10 % of its population are undernourished. Interestingly, there is an increasing trend in share of population with overweight and obesity problems in both China and India.

Food security will be affected by various factors. First, countries experience positive population growth and shifting demographics. In China more than a half of its population live in urban areas whilst in India about a third living in urban areas. These countries have larger and wealthier population who will demand for more and better food due to growing middle class. Their dietary preference would also change, for example increase in meat consumption although culture matters. Unfortunately there is growing natural resource scarcities. Climate change impacts on agriculture.

China and India play large role in global food security. They have large share in global food consumption, although they also have large share in global food supply. They contribute to global production and stocks. Both countries experience positive growth in export and imports of food and raw agricultural trade. In 2011, China imported nearly 10 % of total imports of food and raw agricultural products. China and India also play an increasing role in global foreign direct investments (FDI). These FDIs help developing countries improve technology and provide cushion during the crisis.

There are various ways to improve China and India’s food security. First, they should expand agricultural productivity by increasing investment in agricultural resources and development and facilitate access to productive assets, inputs and services. Second, they should promote climate-smart agriculture by supporting triple win ie. adaptation, mitigation and productivity potential of agriculture. Third, they should increase market linkages by improving infrastructure, information technologies and vertical coordination. Fourth, they must invest in productive social protection programs by exploring new approaches eg. cross-sectoral to secure basic livelihoods and protect from risk.

China and India should promote mutually beneficial trade. This include policy to eliminate harmful trade restrictions, prevent resource exploitation and Dutch-disease effects on agriculture sector, and develop capacity of developing countries to export more agriculture and value-added products.

China and India should increase pro-poor FDI. This implies increased focus of FDI on agricultural and rural development, diversified and higher value added sectors and linking producers with markets eg. rural infrastructure. China and India should also explore new approaches for (public-private) partnerships. They should also promote corporate social responsibility.

Australia has an active role to play. It has long played an active role in advancing global food and nutrition security. Sir John Crawford served as an architect of the CGIAR and first-ever board chairman of IFPRI. Australia should exploit large knowledge-base and help build capacity, provide financial resources alongside lessons and advice, and overcome constraints of South-South and North-South.

 

This summary is written by Risti Permani

Leave a comment

Filed under Agriculture, Climate change and environment, Conference, East Asia, Economic development, Food and agriculture, Infrastructure, Investment