Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
To cite this article: Yogi Vidyattama (2013) Regional convergence and the role of the neighbourhood
effect in decentralised Indonesia, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 49:2, 193-211, DOI:
10.1080/00074918.2013.809841
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2013: 193–211
Yogi Vidyattama*
University of Canberra
INTRODUCTION
Regional inequality is a major issue in Indonesia, from the different levels of devel-
opment and resource endowments among its regions to its population’s distribu-
tion and ethnicity (Tadjoeddin, Suharyo and Mishra 2001; Aspinall and Berger
2001). In the past decade, regional convergence, or the decline in dispersion of a
development indicator such as per-capita income across different regions, and its
effect in reducing inequality, has been the subject of many studies in Indonesia.
These studies have applied various techniques, such as statistical disparity meas-
ures (see, for example, Akita and Lukman 1995; Tadjoeddin, Suharyo and Mishra
2001; Akita and Alisjahbana 2002; and Milanovic 2005) and regional growth con-
vergence frameworks (see, for example, Garcia-Garcia and Soelistianingsih 1998;
Resosudarmo and Vidyattama 2006; and Hill, Resosudarmo and Vidyattama
2008). Yet few have focused on disparity at the district level, and fewer again have
looked at the process since 1999, when the Indonesian government announced its
decentralisation reforms.
* The author would like to thank the University of Canberra, for funding this study
through its Vice-Chancellor’s Awards for Early Career Researchers, and NATSEM, for use
of its staff development fund. The author would also like to thank Bana Bodri and Agus-
man Simbolon, from the Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS), Indonesia’s Central Statistics Agency,
for providing the data used in this study, as well as Riyana Miranti, Rebecca Cassells, Hal
Hill and the two anonymous referees, for their valuable comments.
again until 2004, in the wake of Jakarta’s recovery – but it remains uncertain what
the trend has been since decentralisation intensified. Moreover, Tadjoeddin (2013)
argues the inequality among districts could follow a Kuznets curve, where ine-
quality increases when high levels of growth bring an economy to a certain level
of income and then decreases with further increases in income. However, he notes
that this relationship is observed only when cities are integrated within their sur-
rounding regencies.
Studies using a regional growth framework at the district level – such as those
noted above – have prompted examinations of whether including spatial factors
would change the result. This is related to the argument of Sala-I-Martin (1996)
that convergence is more achievable in a sub-national setting, owing to greater
interaction among smaller regions as economic entities. It also means that the
neighbourhood effect is more likely to exist among smaller regions. Another com-
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
mon reason that emerges in regional studies for the existence of the neighbour-
hood effect is that the administrative boundaries used to identify regions do not
necessarily reflect the boundaries of economic activities (LeSage 1999; Rey 2001).
As a result, some economic activities within borders or across borders, such as
trade and commuting, relate the economic performances of the regions involved,
so that a change of conditions in one region’s economy could well affect that of
another.
Egger and Pfaffermayr (2006) point out that the neighbourhood effect can also
produce biased analyses of convergence. They argue that the speed of conver-
gence can vary across regions, and that convergence in major growth centres can
prevent remote regions from catching up. Indonesia’s remote east, for example,
which comprises most of the country’s least developed districts, could be left
behind as inequality levels in the rest of the country converge. Akita, Kurniawan
and Miyata (2011), however, show that the differences in inequality among Indo-
nesia’s largest regions (Java–Bali, Sumatra–Kalimantan–Papua, and other regions
in the country’s east) are small compared with the levels of inequality within those
regions, and that the levels of cross-regional inequality have been relatively con-
stant throughout the years. Instead, Akita, Kurniawan and Miyata (2011) detect
increasing levels of inequality not only within regions but also among districts
within provinces in those regions.
Applying the neighbourhood effect to convergence has brought mixed results
in other countries’ regional growth analyses. Rey and Montouri (1999), pioneers
in this field, find that the neighbourhood effect among US states is not only sta-
tistically significant; it also significantly alters convergence. Niebuhr (2001) finds
that although the neighbourhood effect in West Germany affected growth sig-
nificantly, it slowed convergence only slightly. His findings differ from those of
Kosfeld, Eckey and Dreger (2002), who, concentrating on a unified Germany, note
that the inclusion of the neighbourhood effect slowed convergence significantly.
Magalhães, Hewings and Azzoni (2005), in an example of the neighbourhood
effect’s impact in a developing country, find that it did little to alter the speed of
regional convergence in Brazil.
Regional convergence and the role of the neighbourhood effect 197
n P
2
∑ (Yi − Y ) i
i=1 P
CVw = (1)
Y
where:
• CVw = population-weighted Williamson index;
• n = number of regions;
• Yi = income in region i;
• Y = average income;
• Pi = population in region i; and
• P = total population.
Although the Williamson index has been used widely to analyse the changes in
regional inequality and, hence, regional convergence, it cannot indicate the sig-
nificance of convergence itself.
The speed of convergence is introduced in growth analyses. Known as as
β-convergence, it can be used to examine whether the economies of relatively
poorer regions grow significantly faster than richer regions, as an indication of
decreasing levels of regional inequality. Barro and Sala-I-Martin (1991) made the
concept famous, using the following regression assessment:
( ) ( )
g y = α + e− β − 1 ln y0 + u
(2)
where:
• gy = the growth rate of per-capita output;
• y0 = the initial economic output value; and
• u = the error term of this estimation.
Empirically, convergence occurs when the coefficient of (e-β –1) shows a nega-
tive correlation between growth and the initial condition of the economy. Conse-
quently, β should be positive in times of regional convergence. The absolute value
of β represents the speed of the catch-up process, or the speed of convergence.
198 Yogi Vidyattama
( ) ( )
g y = α + e− β − 1 ln y0 + ρWg y + u
(3)
where ρWgy is the spatial lag of the dependent variable and W is the spatial weight
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
matrix.
The SEM examines the indirect existence of the neighbourhood effect. The
development of one region may not be affected directly by that of its neighbours,
but it can still be affected by the undisclosed determinants in the equation. For
example, it is possible that although the growth of one region may have an insig-
nificant effect on that of its neighbours, the increasing human capital in that region
would affect its neighbours significantly. Anselin (1988) formalises the structure
of the error term affected by the neighbourhood effect:
u = λWu + ε (4)
or, considering the spatial multiplier effect and combined with equation (2), the
SEM can be written as:
( ) ( ) (
g y = α + e− β − 1 ln y0 + I − λWu )−1 ε (5)
where u is the error term in the panel estimation and ε is the real random factor.
put from PT Freeport Indonesia’s Grasberg mine has not translated to the people
of the region, where the poverty rate exceeds 40%. Lhokseumawe, in North Aceh,
the location of the Arun liquefied-natural-gas plant, and Sumbawa, the location
of Newmont’s Batu Hijau mine, are other examples of regions with high levels of
GRDP and relatively high poverty rates. This issue centres largely on the output
of the mining industry, which, while allocated to the incomes of central govern-
ment and mining companies, is accrued in regional GDP statistics (Akita and Luk-
man 1995; Milanovic 2005; Hill, Resosudarmo and Vidyattama 2008).
The HDI, another indicator of development, has been used since 1990 to com-
pare worldwide development levels. Based on three equally weighted dimen-
sions – life expectancy; education or literacy; and standard of living, or per-capita
income – it is still the most widely used index of development (Anand and Sen
2000). There are advantages and disadvantages in using a composite index such
as the HDI in convergence analyses: it has the advantage of representing the total
package of living standards in the economy, but it can also hide the importance
of certain variables or be less effective if all variables have a very similar regional
distribution (McGillivray 1991).
There are also advantages and disadvantages in interpreting convergence val-
ues based on the HDI. The advantage comes from the assumption, or the hope,
that the index will move, or converge, to the expected (maximum) value, but this
means that the traditional thinking behind the catch-up process is not really rel-
evant. There is a maximum value of convergence that the most developed region
will be able to achieve, so the speed of convergence would be expected to be
higher in HDI than in GRDP per capita. This article therefore looks at HDI con-
vergence simply from the point of whether, on average, regions with low levels
of HDI have a higher mobility towards the maximum compared with those with
high levels of HDI, as well as the significant level of this mobility and its changes
over time.
The data for HDI are available for Indonesia at both a provincial and a dis-
trict level.1 The calculation of HDI data at the district level relies on Indonesia’s
National Socio-Economic Survey (Susenas). The income proxy in Indonesia’s HDI
1 BPS has published HDI data regularly since 2002, with the index appearing first in the
2001 Indonesia Human Development Report, by the United Nations Development Project’s
UNSFIR (the United Nations Support Facility for Indonesian Recovery).
200 Yogi Vidyattama
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
Source: Author’s calculations based on provincial and district BPS data from various years, in 1993
constant prices.
Figure 2 shows the Williamson index with HDI as an indicator. As in the case
with GRDP per capita, inequality at the district level is considerably higher than
it is at the provincial level. However, the regional inequalities of HDI declined
at both levels – district and provincial – during 1999–2008. This not only shows
that regional convergence may still have occurred in a decentralised Indonesia
but also confirms the absence of significant correlation between regional output
and the development index in Indonesia. Therefore, the increasing inequality of
regional output does not necessarily translate to increasing inequality of other
development indicators.
Table 1 presents the estimate of β-convergence, which reveals that there was no
regional convergence of GRDP per capita during or after the implementation of
decentralisation, especially in 1999–2002 and 2002–05. With the estimated speed
of convergence insignificant at around 0.4%, the period of 1999–2008 had the low-
est speed of convergence since observations began, in 1975. Yet this result still
contradicts the observation from the Williamson index, which indicates a diverg-
ing instead of a converging pattern of GRDP per capita.
Both the β-convergence estimates and the Williamson index indicate that con-
vergence occurred again in Indonesia in 2005–08. Akita, Kurniawan and Miyata
(2011) argue that the increase in inequality after the Asian financial crisis hit
Indonesia, in 1997–98, is mainly due to the recovery of major cities, especially
Jakarta. Therefore, it is possible that convergence reoccurred after 2005 because
the major cities had by then recovered from the crisis, and their growth rates had
fallen below those of districts with relatively lower levels of GRDP per capita.
Nevertheless, this is certainly not the case for Jakarta, which continues to have
relatively high (albeit more modest) growth. This will be discussed further below,
in a comparison between convergence levels in Java, Sumatra and Indonesia as a
202 Yogi Vidyattama
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
Source: Author’s calculations based on provincial and district BPS data from various years, in 1993
constant prices.
whole. The other main driver of this convergence is the recovery in the GRDP of
some districts in Aceh after the 2004 tsunami and the fall in the GRDP of Mimika.
The Williamson index and the estimate of β-convergence also indicate that HDI
convergence is taking place in Indonesia. The β-convergence, however, shows the
speed of convergence declining from 7.4% in 1999–2002 to 3.0% in 2005–08 at the
district level, and from 5.3% to 2.4% in the same periods at the provincial level.
This slowing in regional HDI convergence could be alarming, since HDI relates
mostly to public services that have been delegated to the district level. Brodjon-
egoro (2009) notes that although most districts are starting to cope to the decen-
tralised system, local governments still tend to focus on their budgets rather than
on the delivery of public services in their new authorities.
Province District
(e–β –1) –0.004 –0.012 0.006 –0.015* –0.007 –0.012 –0.002 –0.011***
Std errora 0.009 0.031 0.012 0.008 0.007 0.019 0.005 0.003
β 0.004 0.013 –0.006 0.015 0.007 0.012 0.002 0.011
Spatial lag
LMb 0.299 0.150 0.038 0.106 0.177 0.003 0.086 4.277**
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
Spatial error
Moran’s I –0.039 0.236 1.302 0.639 –0.010 0.359 0.095 3.563***
LM 0.368 0.192 0.053 0.029 0.137 0.002 0.077 7.623***
Robust LM 1.668 1.706 0.557 0.818 0.526 0.067 0.386 8.708***
HDI
Province District
(e–β –1) –0.034*** –0.051*** –0.026* –0.024*** –0.043*** –0.071*** –0.046*** –0.030***
Std error 0.006 0.013 0.013 0.004 0.002 0.008 0.005 0.003
β 0.034 0.053 0.027 0.024 0.044 0.074 0.047 0.030
Spatial lag
LM 0.017 0.479 0.000 0.119 0.433 0.337 0.714 2.785*
Robust LM 0.902 1.084 0.857 0.229 3.479* 11.214*** 0.185 0.716
Spatial error
Moran’s I 2.177** 0.467 1.374 –0.346 4.212*** 2.022** 1.893* 2.079**
LM 0.525 0.095 0.046 0.659 11.037*** 1.977 1.655 2.104
Robust LM 1.409 0.699 0.903 0.770 14.082*** 12.855*** 1.126 0.035
Source: Author’s calculations based on provincial and district BPS data from various years, in 1993
constant prices.
Note: GRDP = gross regional domestic product. HDI = Human Development Index. N = 294.
a Standard error.
b LM = Lagrange multiplier.
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01
204 Yogi Vidyattama
HDI
Source: Author’s calculations based on provincial and district BPS data from various years, in 1993
constant prices.
Note: GRDP = gross regional domestic product. HDI = Human Development Index. N = 294. ρ and λ
are spatial lag and error based on equations (3) and (5), respectively. D(β) is the difference in the speed
of convergence due to the introduction of the spatial model.
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01
(table 2). The significance of the changes in the speed of convergence is deter-
mined by conducting the following t-test:
(e− β − 1) non-spatial = (e− β − 1)spatial (6)
FIGURE 3 Williamson Index of GRDP per Capita in Java and Sumatra, 1999–2008
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
In estimations based on HDI, the spatial lag is not significant in any period,
whereas spatial error is positively significant in the whole period, 1999–2008, and
the specific period 1999–2002. As in estimations based on GDP per capita, how-
ever, there is no significant change (only that of 0.1 percentage point) in the speed
of convergence. Although the distance-based neighbourhood effect is significant
on regional development, especially through the undisclosed variable (that is, the
error term), its impact on district-level convergence is insignificant.
To further examine the neighbourhood effect’s impact on convergence, this
article assesses the speeds of convergence in Indonesia’s two most populated
islands – Java and Sumatra. Table 3 shows large differences in their speeds of
convergence, and, although it is not significant, there is an indication that GRDP
per capita diverges among districts in Java. Conversely, GRDP per capita con-
verges significantly among Sumatra’s districts, with a speed of around 3.6% dur-
ing 1999–2008.
HDI, as an alternative indicator, shows significant convergence in both islands.
The speed of this convergence, after decentralisation, is estimated to be increasing
in Java but decreasing in Sumatra. The increasing speed of convergence in Java is
dominated not only by faster development in districts in East Java with low HDI
numbers (such as Sampang, Bondowoso, Sumenep and Situbondo) but also by
slower development in several parts of Jakarta and in some provincial big cities,
such as Bandung, Yogyakarta, Surakarta and Semarang. The catch-up process of
districts with the lowest HDI numbers in Sumatra, such as Nias and Musi Banyu-
asin, has also been slowing down.
Figure 3 shows the Williamson indexes for the GRDP per capita of districts
in Java and Sumatra. In 1999, the level of inequality in Sumatra was just below
the national level, while the level in Java was just above the national level. The
206 Yogi Vidyattama
Java Sumatra
(e–β –1) island 0.002 0.012 –0.006 0.001 –0.036*** –0.053*** –0.033*** –0.038***
β island –0.002 –0.012 0.006 –0.001 0.036 0.055 0.033 0.039
β Indonesia 0.007 0.012 0.002 0.011 0.007 0.012 0.002 0.011
D(β) –0.010 –0.024 0.004 –0.013 0.029 0.042 0.031 0.028
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
HDI
Java Sumatra
(e–β –1) island –0.032*** –0.013 –0.057*** –0.034*** –0.060*** –0.126*** –0.044*** –0.037***
β island 0.033 0.013 0.059 0.035 0.062 0.134 0.045 0.037
β Indonesia 0.044 0.074 0.047 0.030 0.044 0.074 0.047 0.030
D(β) –0.011 –0.061 0.012 0.005 0.018 0.060 –0.002 0.007
Source: Author’s calculations based on provincial and district BPS data from various years, in 1993
constant prices.
Note: GRDP = gross regional domestic product. HDI = Human Development Index. N (Java) = 108, N
(Sumatra) = 73. D(β) is the difference between the speed of convergence in Java or Sumatra and the
speed of convergence in Indonesia.
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01
increasing inequality of GRDP per capita among districts in Java at the same time
as a decreasing trend in Sumatra has seen inequality increase and decrease in Java
and Sumatra, respectively, compared with the national average. Akita, Kurniawan
and Miyata (2011) have offered an explanation for this trend: the decreasing levels
of inequality in Sumatra are likely to be influenced by the continuing decline of
its mining sector and the increasing spread of its manufacturing industry. This
can be illustrated by the relatively lower levels of growth in Dumai, an oil-mining
district that was part of Bengkalis in 1999, and Batam, where Sumatra’s manu-
facturing industry had previously been concentrated. The growth of Aceh has
also clearly contributed to convergence in Sumatra. At the same time, Java is fac-
ing increasing inequality of GRDP per capita, which is likely to be dominated by
Jakarta’s continuous economic growth and leave less developed regions behind.
Given Jakarta’s potentially important role in influencing inequality in Java, fig-
ure 3 includes an inequality index for Java without Jakarta. Inequality in Java is
much lower once Jakarta has been removed. Inequality in Java decreased during
the 1998 financial crisis, owing to the fall in the output of the region’s financial,
construction and manufacturing sectors, which are located mainly in its relatively
Regional convergence and the role of the neighbourhood effect 207
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
Source: Author’s calculations based on provincial and district BPS data from various years, in 1993
constant prices.
among districts outside the two islands (or considerable differences in the HDI
number between districts in Java and Sumatra and those in other islands). More
work needs to be done to look at the inequality among districts outside Java and
Sumatra and those in Java and Sumatra.
CONCLUSION
More than a decade has passed since the Indonesian government implemented
its decentralisation policy. This article has attempted to examine regional conver-
gence following the central delegation of most authorities in the areas of educa-
tion, agriculture, industry, trade, investment and infrastructure to an increasing
number of local governments at a district level. It has also examined whether the
neighbourhood effect played a role in the process, by introducing a spatial model
into β-convergence estimates and by looking at whether there is a difference in
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
regional convergence in the two most populous islands in Indonesia – Java and
Sumatra.
The initial result of this assessment is rather inconclusive. The Williamson
indexes for GRDP per capita, for example, show slight increases in regional ine-
quality at both the district and the provincial levels, and, although insignificant,
the β-convergence estimates suggest that convergence occurred at both admin-
istrative levels during 1999–2008. The specific period 2005–08 saw significant
convergence occur at the district level, owing partly to the impact of the neigh-
bourhood effect. Although this may seem to promise lower levels of inequality,
the rise of Aceh after the conflict at the end of the 1990s and the early 2000s, in
addition to the fall in the number of mining areas in Papua, has also contributed
considerably to convergence. Moreover, the overall trend of convergence is still
very weak, calling for a longer period of observation.
The increasing and decreasing trends of economic growth in Aceh and Papua,
respectively, has increased the impact of the neighbourhood effect on GRDP con-
vergence. This is an early indication that these districts’ economies are connecting
to those of their neighbours – once an unlikely scenario, given the prevalence of
mining in these areas. The neighbourhood effect could be crucial in indicating the
socio-economic connectivity and the relationship between Aceh and other prov-
inces in Indonesia – especially North Sumatra – as parts of the economy inter-
act with each other, but it could also be a sign that socio-economic events such
as conflict and economic downturns could spread more easily. Furthermore, the
question of whether GRDP per capita could really represent the condition of the
people has yet to be answered. Aceh, for example, may have risen in terms of
GRDP per capita because of the flow of aid and aid workers after the 2004 tsu-
nami, rather than because of the refunctioning of its economy.
Given the complexities of using GRDP per capita in growth analyses of Indo-
nesia, this article has used HDI as a comparative indicator of development. The
result shows significant regional convergence in HDI numbers during 1999–2008,
despite the absence of significant convergence in regional GRDP per capita. The
speed of HDI convergence seems to have slowed, however, and the impact of
the neighbourhood effect lessened. This could be alarming in the future, because
HDI indicators are closely related to the authorities delegated during decentrali-
sation – especially education and health. The ability to lift the HDI numbers of
Regional convergence and the role of the neighbourhood effect 209
Indonesia’s less developed regions to the level of its more developed regions will
therefore measure the success of this delegation process. Furthermore, the slowing
of regional convergence has been followed by fewer instances of the neighbour-
hood effect, which, in turn, could indicate fewer spillovers from one area to its
neighbours. The data are not clear on whether this is the case, but there are many
reasons for spillovers to reduce in number. For example, a local authority’s lim-
ited budget could force it to provide some services only to certain residents, based
on their identity card (kartu tanda penduduk, KTP). More work needs to be done in
this area, as well as on the use of HDI numbers to examine regional convergence
and its implications – especially since HDI is a composite index. Furthermore, the
results of distance-based spatial models show that although the neighbourhood
effect could have an impact on convergence in certain periods, it does not alter the
speed of convergence significantly.
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
A more interesting finding comes from this article’s analysis of Java and Suma-
tra. The convergence of GRDP per capita is estimated to be significant in Sumatra,
while Java’s GRDP per capita is estimated to diverge. In contrast, the regional
convergence in HDI numbers is strong in both islands, although the speed of con-
vergence is increasing in Java and decreasing in Sumatra. The pattern of inequal-
ity of GRDP per capita in Java shows that despite the recovery of Java’s big cities
after the Asian financial crisis of 1997–98 contributing to increased inequality on
the island, Jakarta was the main source of this increase, especially during 2002–08.
Jakarta’s hampering of convergence in GRDP per capita during decentralisation
does not reduce the importance of regional inequality. In contrast, it could com-
plicate the issue. Jakarta is often seen as representing central government, and
Jakarta’s absorbing the financial resources of other regions was one of the main
arguments for decentralisation.
The pattern of HDI convergence is less dominated by the development of
Jakarta’s districts. Although the HDI numbers for Jakarta’s districts increased
more modestly than they did for other districts, the rise of the less developed dis-
tricts in Java and Sumatra have played a greater role in convergence. The catch-up
process seems to have slowed during 2005–08, however, and the pattern suggests
that more attention needs to be paid to inequality and convergence among those
districts outside Java and Sumatra, because it is less evident that they are catching
up. While there are some districts in Nusa Tenggara, in the east of Java, show-
ing some evidence of doing so, some districts in Papua, such as Jayawijaya and
Merauke, saw their already relatively low HDI numbers improve the least during
1999–2008.
This assessment of regional convergence during and after the start of Indone-
sia’s decentralisation process shows some promising trends in GRDP per capita
but challenging conditions for HDI convergence. It has not, however, examined
what effect, if any, decentralisation itself has had on the speed of convergence.
There were some indications that the new districts formed during decentralisa-
tion initially had high levels of growth, owing to new investment in building new
governments, but this trend seems to have faded away fairly quickly.
210 Yogi Vidyattama
REFERENCES
Akita, T. and Alisjahbana, A.S. (2002) ‘Regional income inequality in Indonesia and the ini-
tial impact of the economic crisis’, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 38 (2): 201–22.
Akita, T., Kurniawan, P.A. and Miyata, S. (2011) ‘Structural changes and regional income
inequality in Indonesia: a bidimensional decomposition analysis’, Asian Economic Jour-
nal 25 (1): 55–77.
Akita, T. and Lukman, R.A. (1995) ‘Interregional inequalities in Indonesia: a sectoral
decomposition analysis for 1975–92’, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 31(2): 61–81.
Alm, J., Aten, R.H. and Bahl, R. (2001) ‘Can Indonesia decentralise successfully? Plans,
problems and prospects’, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 37 (1): 83–102.
Anand, S. and Sen, A. (2000) ‘The income component of the Human Development Index’,
Journal of Human Development 1 (1): 83–106.
Anselin, L. (1988) Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Arndt, H.W. (1973) ‘Regional income estimates’, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 9
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013
(3): 87–102.
Aspinall, E. and Berger, M.T. (2001) ‘The break-up of Indonesia? Nationalisms after decolo-
nisation and the limits of the nation-state in post-cold war Southeast Asia’, Third World
Quarterly 22 (6): 1003–24.
Barro, R.J. and Sala-I-Martin, X. (1991) ‘Convergence across states and regions’, Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity 1: 107–82.
Brodjonegoro, B. (2009) ‘Fiscal decentralization and its impact on regional economic devel-
opment and fiscal sustainability’, in Decentralization and regional autonomy in Indone-
sia: Implementation and challenges, eds C.J.G. Holtzappel and M. Ramstedt, Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore: 196–221.
Brodjonegoro, B. and Martinez-Vazquez, J. (2002) ‘An analysis of Indonesia’s transfer sys-
tem: recent performance and future prospects,’ Paper presented at ‘Can decentraliza-
tion help rebuild Indonesia?’, Georgia State University, Atlanta GA, 1–3 May.
Cliff, A.D. and Ord, J.K. (1973) Spatial Autocorrelation, Pion Ltd., London.
Egger, P. and Pfaffermayr, M. (2006) ‘Spatial convergence’, Papers in Regional Science 85 (2):
199–215.
Fingleton, B. and Lopez-Bazo, E. (2006) ‘Empirical growth models with spatial effects’,
Papers in Regional Science 85 (2): 177–98.
Garcia-Garcia, J. and Soelistianingsih, L. (1998) ‘Why do differences in provincial incomes
persist in Indonesia?’, Bulletin of Indonesia Economic Studies 34 (1): 95–120.
Hill, H., Resosudarmo, B. and Vidyattama, Y. (2008) ‘Indonesia’s changing economic geog-
raphy’, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 44 (3): 407–35.
Kosfeld, R., Eckey, H.F. and Dreger, C. (2002) ‘Regional convergence in unified Germany:
a spatial econometric perspective’, Economic Discussion Paper No. 39/02, University
of Kassel, Germany.
Leigh, A. and Van der Eng, P. (2009) ‘Inequality in Indonesia: what can we learn from top
incomes?’, Journal of Public Economics 9 3(1–2): 209–12.
LeSage, J.P. (1999) Spatial Econometrics, The Web Book of Regional Science, Regional
Research Institute, West Virginia University, Morgantown WV.
Magalhães, A., Hewings, G.J.D. and Azzoni, C.R. (2005) ‘Spatial dependence and regional
convergence in Brazil’, Investigaciones Regionales 6: 5–20.
McCulloch, N. and Sjahrir, B.S. (2008) ‘Endowments, location or luck? Evaluating the deter-
minants of sub-national growth in decentralized Indonesia’, Policy Research Working
Paper No. 4769, World Bank, Washington DC.
McGillivray, M. (1991) ‘The Human Development Index: yet another redundant composite
development indicator?’, World Development 19 (10): 1461–8.
Regional convergence and the role of the neighbourhood effect 211
Milanovic, B. (2005) ‘Half a world: regional inequality in five great federations’, Policy
Research Working Paper No. 3699, World Bank, Washington DC.
Niebuhr, A., (2001) ‘Convergence and the effects of spatial interaction’, Jahrbuch für Region-
alwissenschaft 21: 113–33.
Resosudarmo, B.P. and Vidyattama, Y. (2006) ‘Regional income disparity in Indonesia: a
panel data analysis’, ASEAN Economic Bulletin 23 (1): 31–44.
Rey, S.J. (2001) ‘Spatial empirics for economic growth and convergence’, Geographical Anal-
ysis 33: 195–214.
Rey, S.J. and Montouri, B. (1999) ‘US regional income convergence: a spatial econometric
perspective’, Regional Studies 33: 143–56.
Rodriguez-Pose, A. and Ezcurra, R. (2010) ‘Does decentralization matter for regional dis-
parities? A cross-country analysis’, Journal of Economic Geography 10 (5): 619–44.
Sala-I-Martin, X. (1996) ‘Regional cohesion: evidence and theories of regional growth and
convergence’, European Economic Review 40: 1325–52.
Shankar, R. and Shah, A. (2003) ‘Bridging the economic divide within countries: a score-
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 20:52 05 August 2013