 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Selasa, 9 Nopember 2004 10:53
Antara Teori dan Realita
Antara Harapan dan Kenyataan!
Di dalam ilmu ekonomi antara teori dan kenyataan adalah dua hal yang berbeda. Tidaklah mengherankan jika sebuah fenomena dapat memunculkan beberapa teori.
Salah satunya adalah fenomena tentang upah dimana jika upah minimum diterapkan maka upah akan meningkat yang akan disertai oleh pengangguran.
Tapi penelitian di negara berkembang termasuk di Indonesia justru terjadi tidak sesuai dengan teori dimana upah meningkat dan tidak terjadi pengangguran yang signifikan.
Jadi lucu juga jika SBY percaya seratus persen kepada formulasi ekonomi yang dibuat oleh Kadin yang dasar teorinya adalah Neo Klasik.
Pertentangan antara teori dan empiris juga terjadi di teori moneter.
Di mana sebetulnya “No single theoretical model of international monetary relationships should be dominant”.
Thomas D. Willett, Horton Professor of Economics at The Claremont Colleges, menulis akhir minggu lalu di harian Financial Times :
“Ronald McKinnon's analysis (America's savings shortfall hurting its workers, Oct 21), which focused on the need to reduce the huge U.S. budget deficits, and the sharp response by Michael Woolfolk (US job losses and budget deficit are caused by exchange rate inflexibility of Asian countries, Oct 25) nicely illuminate the dangers of putting exclusive weight on any one particular theoretical model of international monetary relationships. In truth, to avoid a dollar crisis in the coming decade we need both to bring the US's finances under control - and induce other countries, especially in Asia, to allow their exchange rates to adjust more flexibly. Though Prof McKinnon and Mr Woolfolk favor very different remedies, the adjustments they propose would actually complement each other. It has been well established by economic research that no standard model is very good at predicting the short-run behavior of flexible exchange rates. This is because of the key role played by the expectations of market participants and the wide range of ways events can be interpreted.”
Lebih lanjut Willet mengatakan:
“For example, the standard monetarist model assumes that an increase in interest rates will lead to a depreciating currency, while Keynesian models predict appreciation. The empirical evidence shows that sometimes it goes one way and sometimes the other. Each model captures an important channel of influence. Thus both the monetarist and Keynesian (Mundell-Fleming) models fail as complete explanations but succeed as partial ones. In the same way, we can provide theoretical models to support Prof McKinnon's conclusion that we only need to worry about the budget deficit; and other models to support Mr Woolfolk's conclusion that we only need to worry about exchange rate flexibility. In the present situation, I am convinced we need both.”
Begitu juga dengan yang terjadi dalam hubungan antara negara maju dan berkembang termasuk kasus hutang. Helle Dale, deputy director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies di the Heritage Foundation, memberikan komentarnya kemarin di The Washington Times:
“Rewarding good behavior is all the rage these days when it comes to dealing with developing countries. But good behavior can be in the eye of the beholder. The Bush administration has backed the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account(…) Key to success overall is less government interference in the economy, except in areas like education and health care. Last week brought the news that the EU has produced its own conditionality to lower trade barriers on developing nations. The offer (…) had everything to do with making them accept a European agenda that emphasizes government intervention in labor markets and environmental regulation, and a political agenda that includes obedience to international treaties.”
Lebih lanjut Dale mengatakan:
“Ironically, the very same policies that have promoted growth in the U.S. and hampered it in Europe are now playing themselves out again in the field of development policy. These policies encapsulate the principles of the free market vs. government intervention(…) The authors [of "The Road to Prosperity: The 21st Approach to Economic Development"] argue precisely that there are no separate sets of economic laws that govern rich and poor countries. Now, this flies in the face of much traditional thinking on how to improve the lot of developing countries. Foreign aid, just like domestic welfare, has for half a century been considered simply a transfer of funds from richer to poorer, either bilaterally or through the IMF and the World Bank(…) The 21st century approach to economic development is fundamentally different. It eliminates the distinction between ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ countries. Rather than poverty itself being the criterion for assistance, the right policies to escape from poverty become the test. In ‘The Road to Serfdom,’ Frederick von Hayek argues against placing too much power and too many resources in the hands of government, as it would stifle economic progress and individual freedom. In ‘The Road to Prosperity,’ a distinguished group of authors (…) argue that returning economic power and rights to individuals is the way to economic development. Some of the stations on the roadmap to prosperity include open markets and free trade; property rights; price stability; lower and equitable taxes; and liberalization of capital flows(…) Regulatory burdens and confiscatory taxation will drag any economy down. Therein lies a lesson for us all.”
Perhatikan paragrap di atas ….. lower and equitable taxes…… pemerintahan SBY justru mencanangkan kenaikan pajak dan bukan mempermasalahkan keadilan dalam perpajakan yang belum adil dan mendukung tingkat pajak yang rendah. Padahal dengan tingkat pajak yang rendah dan berkeadilan yang disertai dengan seperangkat kebijakan lainnya seperti property right dan sebagainya juga memberikan peluang bagi pembangunan ekonomi yang mensejahterakan rakyat.
Jadi kita dapat menduga bahwa kabinet SBY akan bermain dalam tataran mashab yang mengeksploitasi kekayaan rakyat dengan cara menaikkan tariff pajak sementara liberalisasi pasar besar juga dijalankan seperti liberalisasi perdagangan, arus modal dan lainnya.
Tampaknya kondisi ini dapat dianalogikan dengan membuat rakyat Indonesia terikat tangannya sementara harus bertinju dengan lawan yang tangannya bebas memukul. Untuk menjamin keadilan maka pemerintah yang akan menjadi wasit, untuk itu pemerintah harus memiliki kekuatan yang dapat diperoleh dengan menyedot kekuatan rakyat melalui pajak.
Bagaimana mungkin rakyat Indonesia dapat memperoleh manfaat dari pemerintahan yang kuat jika aturan mainnya memungkinkan pemerintah tidak dapat membantu rakyatnya yang terus dipukuli. Dan peraturan itu dibuat sendiri oleh pemerintah. Seharusnya pemerintah sadar bahwa kekuatan ekonomi Indonesia sesungguhnya berada pada rakyat Indonesia sendiri dan bukan pada pemerintah Indonesia. Untuk itu maka pemerintah harus ikhlas untuk tidak membebani rakyat dengan berbagai beban termasuk pajak. Apalagi kondisi ekonomi Indonesia masih dalam keadaan krisis.
Cetak biru pembangunan ekonomi yang berbasis kepada pendayaan ekonomi rakyat Indonesia yang harus diutamakan dan jangan terjebak kepada teori-teori ekonomi yang bisa memberikan kebijakan ekonomi yang beragam. Gunakan logika dan hati nurani, bahwa untuk menolong rakyat janganlah dengan menambah beban bagi rakyat. Jika pemerintah ingin menjadi pahlawan silahkan membebani pemerintah dengan bebannya sendiri dan tidak menggesernya menjadi beban rakyat yang apalagi dilakukan secara tidak adil. (-/-)
|
 |
 |
Tentang Kami
Teras
Indeks Kajian Ekonomi