101664 A PE R C E IVE D DIVID E HOW INDONESIANS PERCEIVE INEQUALITY AND WHAT THEY WANT DONE ABOUT IT November 2015, World Bank 2 NOVEMBER 2015 The World Bank The World Bank Printed in Office Jakarta 1818 H Street NW November 2015 Indonesia Stock Exchange Washington, DC 20433, Building Tower II/12th Floor USA Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. T (202) 458-1876 52-53 F (202) 522-1557/1560 Jakarta 12910 W www.worldbank.org P (6221) 5299-3000 F (6221) 5299-3111 W www.worldbank.org/id A Perceived Divide is a The World Bank does not or the endorsement product of the staff of the guarantee the accuracy of or acceptance of such World Bank. The findings, the data included in this boundaries. interpretations, and work. The boundaries, conclusions expressed colors, denominations, and For any questions herein do not necessarily other information shown regarding this report, reflect the views of the on any map in this work do please contact Vivi Alatas Board of Executive not imply any judgment (valatas@worldbank.org) Directors of the World on the part of the World and Matthew Wai-Poi Bank or the Government Bank concerning the legal (mwaipoi@worldbank.org). they represent. status of any territory   A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 3 NOVEMBER 2015 Acknowledgements A Perceived Divide was prepared by the World Bank’s provided by Rodrigo Chaves (Country Director, EACIF), Poverty Global Practice team in the Jakarta o ce. Ndiame Diop (Lead Economist, GMFDR) and Cristobal The team, led by Vivi Alatas (Lead Economist, GPVDR), Ridao-Cano (Program Leader, EACIF). provides technical and policy advice based on sound empirical research and analysis to the Government of The team is grateful for the outstanding work of the Indonesia in support of its e orts to reduce poverty, Lembaga Survei Indonesia (Indonesian Survey Institute, vulnerability and inequality. or LSI) in conducting the inequality perceptions survey. LSI generously provided the data without which this Financial support for this background paper was provided research project would not have been possible. We thank by the Australian Department of Foreign A airs and LSI for its permission to use the data and include the full Trade (DFAT) through the trust fund for the Partnership survey instrument as a report annex. for Knowledge-based Poverty Reduction. The trust fund is under the strategic oversight of Bambang Excellent comments were provided by many individuals, Widianto, Executive Secretary of the National Team for with special thanks to David Gottlieb (Department of the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction (Tim Nasional Foreign A airs and Trade, Australian Embassy) and Neil Percepatan Penanggulangan Kemiskinan, or TNP2K) McCulloch (Director, Economic Policy Program, Oxford and Rahma Iryanti of the National Development Planning Policy Management). Agency (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional, or Bappenas). This paper was prepared by Taufik Indrakesuma (Consultant, GPVDR) under the guidance of Edgar Janz (Senior Knowledge Management Specialist, GPVDR) and Matthew Wai-Poi (Senior Economist, GPVDR). This background paper was produced under the overall guidance of Ana Revenga (Senior Director, GPVDR), Carlos The paper was edited by Peter Milne. Layout for this Silva-Jaurequi (Lead Economist, GPVDR) and Salman paper was done by Bentuk Team (Andreas Pranoto, Zaidi (Practice Manager, GPVDR). Strategic guidance was Muhammad kamal, Phoebe Wathoel, Randy Kurnia). A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 4 NOVEMBER 2015 Table of Contents 03 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 04 TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S 05 L I S T O F A C R O N Y M S , A B B R E V I AT I O N S , A N D I N D O N E S I A N T E R M S 06 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 08 I . W H Y D O P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N S O F I N E Q U A L I T Y M AT T E R ? 10 I I . D O E S T H E P U B L I C T H I N K T H AT I N D O N E S I A I S U N E Q U A L? 12 I I I . W H AT D O P E O P L E T H I N K I S D R I V I N G R I S I N G I N E Q U A L I T Y ? 14 I V. H O W M U C H I N E Q U A L I T Y A R E P E O P L E W I L L I N G T O T O L E R AT E ? 16 V. W H I C H I N E Q U A L I T Y R E D U C I N G P O L I C I E S A R E M O S T S U P P O R T E D ? 20 V I . W H AT D O E S T H I S M E A N F O R I N D O N E S I A? 21 REFERENCES 22 ANNEX A. FULL SURVEY INSTRUMENT 46 ANNEX B. SURVEY SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS 49 A N N E X C . D E M O G R A P H I C C R O S S TA B U L AT I O N S A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 5 NOVEMBER 2015 List Of Acronyms, Abbreviations, And Indonesian Terms TERM DEFINITION AFC Asian financial crisis BBC British Broadcasting Corporation BLT Bantuan langsung tunai (direct cash assistance) BSM Bantuan siswa miskin (assistance for poor students) CC Consumer Class ECC Emerging Consumer Class Jamkesmas Jaminan kesehatan masyarakat (social health insurance) LSI Lembaga Survei Indonesia (Indonesia Survey Institute) PNPM Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (National Community Empowerment Program) Raskin Beras untuk rumah tangga miskin (Rice for poor households) RPJMN Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (National Medium Term Development Plan) SD Sekolah Dasar (primary school) SMA Sekolah Menengah Atas (senior secondary school) SME small- and medium-sized enterprises SMP Sekolah Menengah Pertama ( junior secondary school) Susenas Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (National Socio-Economic Survey) UU Desa Village law of 2014 A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 6 NOVEMBER 2015 Executive Summary I n e qua l i t y i n I n d on e s i a i s r i s i ng a n d a r e c e n t s u rv e y s ug ge s t s t h at I n d on e s i a n s a r e gr ow i ng i nc r e a s i ngly c onc e r n e d. The Gini coefficient in Indonesia has increased sharply over the past 15 years, increasing from 30 in 2000 to 41 in 2013. In a 2014 survey on public perceptions of inequality, most Indonesians consider income distribution in Indonesia to be “very unequal” or “not equal at all.” In addition, half of all respondents feel that Indonesia has become “more unequal” or “much more unequal” over the past five years. T h e t ru e e x t e n t of h igh i n e qua l i t y, how e v e r , i s wor s e t h a n mo s t pe opl e r e a l i z e . Respondents believe that the ideal income distribution is one where the top 20 percent of the population earn as much as the bottom 40 percent. Not with standing this ideal, respondents estimate that the actual income distribution has the top 20 percent earning as much as the bottom 60 percent. However, the 2014 National Socio-economic Survey (Susenas 2014) suggests that the richest 20 percent actually earn as much as the rest of the population combined. Furthermore, because household surveys typically do not capture the incomes of the richest Indonesians, the real level of inequality in Indonesia is probably even higher. A PERCEIVED DIVIDE Executive Summary 7 NOVEMBER 2015 Pe opl e c or r e c t ly pe r c e i v e i n e qua l i t y i n E r a dic at i ng c or ru p t ion i s a l s o c i t e d a s I n d on e s i a a s a pr obl e m of t h e r ic h ge t t i ng a t op pr ior i t y f or i n e qua l i t y r e duc t ion . r ic h e r , w h i l e t h e p o or a r e be i ng l e f t Respondents feel strongly that there is a need to achieve be h i n d. Over 80 percent of respondents believe that a more meritocratic state where competition for wealth the incomes of the richest quintile have grown “higher” or is fair and income is gained only through hard work. “much higher.” In contrast, only 25 percent of respondents Thus, eradicating corruption is prioritized by 37 percent believe that the incomes of the poorest have grown, while of respondents. the rest think that poor people have either stagnated or become poorer in the past five years. This is consistent P op u l a r p ol ic y r e s p on s e s t o i n e qua l i t y with the actual distribution of consumption growth in r e s on at e c l o s e ly w i t h f i n di ng s f r om Indonesia, where between 2003 and 2010, the richest r e c e n t r e s e a r c h f i n di ng s . A World Bank income deciles experienced seven times the growth of the flagship report on inequality in Indonesia identifies poorest deciles. four main policy response areas.1 First, public service delivery improvements are needed to provide an equal Pe opl e ov e rw h e l m i ngly be l i e v e t h at start in health and education for all children. Second, u r ge n t ac t ion i s n e e de d t o a ddr e s s the poor need access to more and better jobs in order i n e qua l i t y. Nearly 88 percent of respondents to address inequality in the labor market. Third, unequal believe that it is “urgent” or “very urgent” for the accumulation of wealth through financial assets can Government to address the current level of inequality. In be addressed through tax reforms and eradicating addition, 61 percent of respondents are willing to accept corruption. Finally, measures should be put in place to lower economic growth in exchange for lower inequality. help all people, but especially the poor and vulnerable, This suggests that Indonesians would support the mitigate and cope with shocks. Government’s expressed intention of reducing inequality, whereby the current Medium Term Development T h i s s u rv e y de mon s t r at e s t h at t h e r e i s a Plan target aims to reduce the Gini coefficient from 41 c l e a r opp ort u n i t y t o p u r s u e p ol ic i e s t h at to 36 by 2019. a r e b o t h t e c h n ic a l ly s ou n d a n d br oa dly s u pp ort e d. T h e s u r v e y s h o w s t h a t t h e r e i s a T h e r e i s s t r ong p u bl ic s u pp ort f or s o c i a l mandate for action from a majorit y of Indonesians pr o t e c t ion p ol ic i e s t h at pr ov i de di r e c t who feel that inequalit y is too high and is an urgent a s s i s ta nc e t o t h e p o or a n d n e a r-p o or . When problem. There is also broad public support for many asked about the main causes of poverty, 57 percent of p o l i c y a c t i o n s t h a t a r e l i ke l y t o h a v e t h e l a r g e s t respondents cite external reasons that are beyond an positive impac ts on inequalit y reduc tion. individual’s control, such as coming from a poor family (22 percent) or having bad luck (16 percent). So, when the perceptions survey asked respondents to identify top priorities to address inequality, nearly half of all respondents support social protection programs as a key policy measure. I n d on e s i a n s a l s o s t r ongly s u pp ort p ol ic i e s t h at r e duc e i n e qua l i t y b y c r e at i ng be t t e r wor k opp ort u n i t i e s f or pe opl e t o i m pr ov e t h e i r i nc om e s . While 57 percent of respondents believe that external factors play a significant part in poverty, 52 percent of respondents believe that it is easy for people to pull themselves out of poverty if they work hard enough, with another 41 percent saying that while this is difficult it is still doable. Thus, 48 percent of respondents consider job creation policies a top priority, while complementary policies such as credit s for small - sized and medium - sized enterprises and improving the qualit y of education are also suppor ted. 1 See Indonesia’s Rising Divide: Why inequality is rising, why it matters and what can be done (World Bank, 2015a). A PERCEIVED DIVIDE Executive Summary 8 CHAPTER 1 NOVEMBER 2015 1. WHY DO PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF INEQUALITY MATTER? Although inequality has risen in Indonesia over the past decade, public concern towards the issue of inequality has been low historically. But with the current government setting targets to reduce inequality, and the media and politicians paying more attention to the issue, public perceptions may be shifting. This study examines public perceptions towards inequality using recent data to help us understand how the public perceives the issue and if there is general support for a public policy response. I N E QUA L I T Y I N I N D ON E S I A H A S R I S E N S H A R PLY is an inequality of opportunity, which means that not I N R E C E N T Y E A R S . Inequality during the Suharto era everyone develops the skills they need to find well- remained stable even through periods of high economic paying jobs. Second, with an increasing emphasis on growth, only increasing slightly in the mid-1990s. During skills in the modern economy, the rewards for those the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis, inequality fell because who do find good quality jobs are increasing, which the better o were a ected more heavily by the economic is driving up wage inequality. At the same time, those shocks of the crisis and were also the slowest segment of without higher skills are getting trapped in poorly paid the population to recover. After recovering from the crisis, informal and low productivity jobs. Third, there are however, Indonesia’s inequality has risen steadily from a inequalities in the access to income from financial assets Gini coe cient of 30 in 2000 up to 41 in 2013 (Figure 1). 2 that also drive inequality up. Fourth, shocks can a ect inequality at any stage of the framework by eroding a T H I S GR OW I NG G A P BE T W E E N R IC H A N D P O OR household’s ability to earn an income, save, and invest in I S BE I NG DR I V E N B Y F OU R FAC T OR S . First, there health and education. 3 Inequality has steadily risen since Indonesia recovered from SOURCE Susenas, World Bank sta calculations the Asian financial crisis (percent) (fig.1) ASIAN POST CRISIS FINANCIAL RECOVERY CRISIS 45 40 35 30 25 20 1980 1981 1984 1987 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2 The Gini coe cient is a measure of inequality, where 0 is complete equality (i.e., all people have the same income or consumption) and 100 is complete inequality (all the income or consumption is controlled by one person). 3 An in-depth analysis of the causes and consequences of rising inequality in Indonesia can be found in the World Bank (2015a) report Indonesia’s Rising Divide: Why inequality is rising, why it matters and what can be done. A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 9 CHAPTER 1 NOVEMBER 2015 Beliefs on income inequality in Indonesia (percent) SOURCE World Values Survey4 (2001); World Values Survey (2006) Previous opinion surveys found that few Indonesians believed incomes should be more equal (fig.2) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1999 - 2004 2005 - 2009 IN C OM E S S H O UL D B E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WE NEED LAR GER INCOME M A D E M O RE E Q UAL DIFFER ENCES AS INCENTIVES T H E P U BL IC S HOW E D L I T T L E C ONC E R N A B OU T root causes of the problem and identifying appropriate R I S I NG I N E QUA L I T Y DU R I NG T H E DE C A DE policy responses. Successful implementation of this F OL L OW I NG T H E A S I A N F I N A NC I A L C R I S I S . Public strategy, however, also depends on how much support pressure to reduce inequality has been low historically. the Government can garner from other stakeholders, When Indonesians were asked about income inequality including parliament, political parties, and the general in the past, a majority reported feeling that current public. Therefore, it matters whether the public thinks inequality was either about right, or they were in favor of that tackling inequality is a national priority and, if so, even higher inequality as an incentive for people to work what policies they would support to reduce inequality. harder (Figure 2). In the past, few people believed that there should be e orts to make income levels in Indonesia T H I S PA PE R E X A M I N E S C U R R E N T PE R C E P T ION S more equal. OF T H E I N D ON E S I A N P U BL IC T OWA R D S I N E QUA L I T Y. Have public perceptions on this topic I N T H E M E A N T I M E , C ONC E R N S A B OU T changed, particularly given the recent rise in inequality? I N E QUA L I T Y, B O T H N AT ION A L LY A N D GL OB A L LY, The aim of this paper is to answer this question using H AV E I NC R E A S E D. Inequality was a key issue in the the most recent data available. In 2014, Lembaga run-up to the July 2014 Indonesian presidential elections, Survei Indonesia (Indonesian Survey Institute, or LSI, an with major national and international media outlets independent and non-partisan public opinion research reporting on rising inequality and both presidential institute) conducted a survey to gauge perceptions candidates making public statements about their towards inequality and inequality-reducing policies. explicit strategies to reduce inequality during televised LSI surveyed 3,080 individuals across 33 provinces presidential debates. For example, an article on in Indonesia, using a questionnaire that included Indonesia’s elections (BBC, June 15, 2014) reported that over 70 questions.6 The survey sample was designed President Joko Widodo’s campaign promise of a “maritime to be nationally representative, with a demographic highway” was justified as a way of reducing Indonesia’s composition—gender, provinces, urban-rural, religions, east-west inequality.5 This recent rise to national and ethnicity—to reflect the adult Indonesian population prominence of inequality as an issue also coincides with (over 17 years of age) based on the 2010 Census.7 increasing global attention towards income inequality, with books such as Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First T H E R IC H N E S S OF T H E PE R C E P T ION S S U RV E Y Century” shaping the international discourse. PR OV I DE S US W I T H A C L E A R E R U N DE R S TA N DI NG OF HOW PE OPL E C U R R E N T LY T H I N K A B OU T W H I L E T H E G OV E R N M E N T I S BE GI N N I NG T O I N E QUA L I T Y. The paper is structured around four TA K E AC T ION T O A DDR E S S I N E QUA L I T Y, T H E main questions about the perceptions of Indonesians S UC C E S S OF I T S S T R AT E G Y W I L L DE PE N D PA RT LY concerning inequality. Section 2 looks at whether ON P U BL IC S U PP ORT. The new administration has, the public thinks that Indonesia is unequal. Section 3 for the first time, included inequality reduction as one examines what people think are the drivers of rising of its national targets in the National Medium-Term inequality. Section 4 asks how much tolerance people Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka have towards inequality. Section 5 considers what types Menengah Nasional, or RPJMN), with a target Gini of inequality-reducing policies have the most public coe cient of 36 by 2019. Designing the right strategy support, while Section 6 concludes. to achieve this depends on correctly diagnosing the 4 The World Values Survey studies “changing values and their impact on social and political life,” conducted since 1981 in almost 100 countries. Indonesia was included in the survey for Waves 4 (in 2001) and 5 (in 2006). 5 This statement was made during the June 15, 2014 presidential debate on economic development and social welfare. 6 The full survey instrument is included in Annex A. 7 A full demographic breakdown of the survey sample is provided in Annex B. A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 10 CHAPTER 2 NOVEMBER 2015 2. DOES THE PUBLIC THINK THAT INDONESIA IS UNEQUAL? Indonesians agree that inequality in Indonesia is both high and increasing, although actual levels of inequality appear to be even higher than those generally perceived. Most agree that the richest half of the population has become richer, while the poorest half of the population has fallen behind. A L A R GE M A JOR I T Y BE L I E V E S T H AT I N D ON E S I A’ S that Indonesia is either “quite unequal” or “not equal at I NC OM E DI S T R I BU T ION I S U N E QUA L . The survey all” (Figure 3). Responses are consistent across all groups asked respondents to choose whether income distribution of people, regardless of gender, income, education, age, in Indonesia is “very equal,” “quite equal,” “quite unequal” or location (e.g., urban or rural domicile).8 or “not equal at all”. About 92 percent of respondents feel How equally is income distributed in SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014 Indonesia ? A vast majority agrees that income distribution is unequal (fig.3) 1 6 51 40.6 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% V ERY Q UIT E Q UITE NOT E Q UAL EQ UA L EQUA L UNE Q UAL AT AL L 8 A full list of demographic cross-tabulations for all responses can be found in Annex C. A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 11 CHAPTER 2 NOVEMBER 2015 T H E AC T UA L L E V E L OF I N E QUA L I T Y, HOW E V E R , I S FA R H IGH E R T H A N MO S T R E S P ON DE N T S BE L I E V E . Share of national income Survey respondents were asked to estimate Indonesia’s Income inequality in Indonesia is higher than people think (fig.4) income distribution.9 Their average estimate had the richest quintile (i.e., the wealthiest 20 percent of people) earning 38 percent of all income, roughly equal to what respondents believe the bottom 60 percent earns (Figure 4). Although this distribution is perceived as 38 being highly unequal, it is equivalent to a Gini coe cient 49 of 30, which is a relatively low Gini compared with other countries in the region. It is also equal to the lowest Gini coe cient Indonesia has had since the Asian financial crisis in 1997-1998. But despite these perceptions, the 25 reality is that Indonesia’s inequality is far higher. As of 2014, Indonesia had a Gini coe cient of 41—as measured 20 by the national socio-economic survey (Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional, or Susenas)—with the richest 20 18 percent accounting for half of Indonesia’s consumption.10 14 H A L F OF T H E R E S P ON DE N T S A L S O F E E L T H AT I N E QUA L I T Y H A S BE E N GE T T I NG WOR S E 12 10 R E C E N T LY. Between 2009 and 2014, the Gini coe cient in Indonesia increased from 37 to 41. A slim majority of respondents (51 percent) agrees that income distribution in Indonesia has become “more unequal” or “much more PERCEIVED DISTRIBUTION SUSENAS DISTRIBUTION unequal” over the past fi ve years (Figure 5). Another 31 percent of respondents believe that there has been no change in the level of inequality and 18 percent believe that income distribution in Indonesia has actually become POOR EST 2 3 4 R I C H EST more equal. QU INTILE QUI N T I LE SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014; Susenas 2014 How has the income distribution in Indonesia SOURCE World Values Survey (2001); World Values Survey (2006)) changed in the last five years ? Previous opinion surveys found that few Indonesians believed incomes should be more equal (fig.5) 50 40.07 40 31.36 30 20 16.1 10.63 10 1.82 0 M UC H M O RE E Q UAL MUCH E Q UAL NO CHANGE MOR E EQUAL MU CH MOR E UN EQUA L 9 The survey asked respondents to create an income distribution by dividing 50 coins among five income quintiles. See Annex A, Questions V_10 and V_11 for the full survey question. 10 Susenas only asks about household consumption, not income. In fact, income inequality is always higher than consumption inequality because richer households do not spend all of their income, but save some instead. Previous estimates put Indonesia’s income Gini 6.4 points higher than its consumption Gini (World Bank, 2015). So, a consumption Gini of 41 implies an income Gini of around 47. Moreover, it is believed that many richer households are not measured by Susenas, suggesting that actual inequality may be even higher. Current World Bank research is using credit data to estimate a more accurate number of wealthier Indonesians (World Bank; forthcoming). A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 12 CHAPTER 3 NOVEMBER 2015 3. WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK IS DRIVING RISING INEQUALITY? Most respondents believe that poverty is caused by one’s circumstances at birth. But the survey also emphasizes the strong belief in hard work: almost half of respondents believe that people become rich through hard work and one third thinks that it is possible for the poor to escape poverty through hard work. R E S P ON DE N T S D O N O T T H I N K T H AT T H E World Bank findings that Indonesia’s rising inequality is P O OR A R E N E C E S S A R I LY GE T T I NG P O OR E R , caused not by a worsening of the conditions of the poor, but BU T BE L I E V E T H AT T H E R IC H A R E QU IC K LY by the rapid accumulation of wealth by the rich. Between P U L L I NG AWAY. When respondents were asked about 2003 and 2010, consumption per person of the richest 10 income changes of individual groups, there is broad percent of Indonesians grew at over 6 percent per year after agreement that the rich have become much richer over adjusting for inflation, but grew at less than 2 percent per the past five years (Figure 6). In contrast, there is a divide year for the poorest 40 percent (World Bank 2015a). about whether the poor have become richer, poorer, or stayed the same. These perceptions are consistent with How have the income levels of each quintile changed in SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014 the last 5 years ? People agree that the rich groups have become richer, but are divided over how the poor are doing (fig.6) RICHEST 2% 5% 12% 25% 56% FOURTH 1% 5% 16% 16% 40% THIRD 1% 8% 48% 35% 7% SECOND 13% 25% 32% 19% 10% POOREST 24% 19% 31% 16% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% M U C H LOW E R LOW E R NO H IG HE R M UCH HIGHER I NC O M E IN C OM E C H ANG E INC O ME INCOME A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 13 CHAPTER 3 NOVEMBER 2015 I N D ON E S I A N S A R E DI V I DE D ON W H E T H E R (Figure 8). Hard work is once again cited as the single W E A LT H I S G A I N E D T H R OUGH H A R D WOR K most important factor that influences wealth and poverty, OR T H R OUGH C I R C U M S TA NC E S AT BI RT H A N D but external factors when considered altogether are seen I N H E R I T E D OPP ORT U N I T I E S . Respondents were as more influential in causing poverty. These perceptions asked to choose the most influential determinant of are consistent with World Bank research findings that wealth from a number of internal factors such as talent inequality of opportunity from birth can explain a and hard work, and external factors such as family substantial amount of income inequality in later life. One upbringing or good fortune. Respondents are nearly third of all consumption inequality in Indonesia is due to equally divided on the role of internal and external a small number of factors that are outside an individual’s factors: 45 percent believe that external factors, such as control, a level that is persistently high.11 family background, connections and luck, play the most important role (Figure 7), while 46 percent perceive hard N ON E T H E L E S S , I T I S PE R C E I V E D T H AT work to be the dominant factor. Only 9 percent believe PE OPL E C A N OV E R C OM E T H E I R N E G AT I V E that wealth acquisition by today’s rich has been primarily C I R C U M S TA NC E S T H R OUGH H A R D WOR K A N D through corruption. P U L L T H E M S E LV E S OU T OF P OV E RT Y. A slim majority (52 percent of respondents) believes that it is MO S T, HOW E V E R , BE L I E V E T H AT P OV E RT Y I S easy for people to improve their economic status through DET E R M I N E D B Y C I R C U M S TA NC E S BE YON D A N hard work. Although a small fraction (7 percent) thinks I N DI V I DUA L’ S C ON T R OL . Respondents were also that it is nearly impossible for people to improve their asked to choose the most influential determinant of situation through hard work, the remaining respondents poverty out of a number of internal and external factors (41 percent) think that while this is di cult it is still doable. What is the most important factor What is the most important factor that that led the current rich to led the current poor to become poor ? become rich ? Most people believe that poverty is determined by circumstances beyond an individual’s control (fig.8) Hard work is the primary determinant of wealth, but external factors also play a role (fig.7) 60 1 ILLNESS 2 PHYSICAL DISABILITY 50 6 50 UNSUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT 2 SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT 5 11 EDUCATED FAMILY U N EDU CAT ED FA MILY 5 40 TALENT 5 40 CONECTIONS 9 N O U S EFU L L TAL EN TS 16 BAD LUC K 30 11 30 GOOD LUCK 20 41 20 HARD WORK 34 N O HAR D WOR K 22 FROM POOR FAMILY 23 10 10 RICH FAMILY 9 CORRUPTION 0 0 INTERNAL EXTERNAL CORRUPTION INTERNAL EXTERNAL SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014 SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014 For a discussion on inequality of opportunities, see Indonesia’s Rising Divide (World Bank, 2015a) and An Unfair 11 Start: How unequal opportunities affect Indonesia’s Children (World Bank, 2015b) A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 14 CHAPTER 4 NOVEMBER 2015 4. HOW MUCH INEQUALITY ARE PEOPLE WILLING TO TOLERATE? Most Indonesians believe that inequality is sometimes acceptable. However, all respondents agree that inequality in Indonesia should be lower than it currently is. Richer and better-educated respondents tend to tolerate more inequality, while women, youth, and rural respondents tend to tolerate less. MO S T I N D ON E S I A N S A R E W I L L I NG T O AC C E P T respond that “inequality is sometimes acceptable.” S OM E DE GR E E OF I N E QUA L I T Y I F PE OPL E There are two major conditions cited for finding some BE C OM E R IC H T H R OUGH H A R D WOR K A N D FA I R inequality acceptable: that wealth acquisition is fair and M E A N S , A N D I F T H E P O OR C ON T I N U E T O BE meritocratic, and that those at the bottom of the pyramid P U L L E D OU T OF P OV E RT Y. When asked whether are benefiting through a ordable food prices and low inequality is ever acceptable, only 26 percent answer poverty rates (Table 1). “inequality is never acceptable,” while 74 percent TA B L E 1 What is the number one factor that would make SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014. Note: Similar responses are grouped by color. Blue represents inequality acceptable? “protection of the poor” and red represents “fairness in wealth acquisition.” Inequality is acceptable if the poor are protected and if wealth acquisition is fair RESPONSE OPTION % Prices of basic needs are a ordable for all 25 The poverty rate drops 19 The nation as a whole experiences progress 18 If people get rich from hard work or poor from laziness 20 Competition for wealth is fair 17 OTHER RESPONSES 1 A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 15 CHAPTER 4 NOVEMBER 2015 T H E “ I DE A L” I NC OM E DI S T R I BU T ION I S MOR E I N D ON E S I A N S PR E F E R S T O H AV E S OM E A MOU N T E QUA L T H A N T H E I NC OM E DI S T R I BU T ION MO S T OF I N E QUA L I T Y R AT H E R T H A N PE R F E C T I N D ON E S I A N S PE R C E I V E T O BE T H E C A S E . E QUA L I T Y. Respondents were asked to choose the Respondents were asked to estimate the income “best income distribution” from fi ve di erent options, distribution that they think is ideal for Indonesia.12 ranging from perfectly unequal to perfectly equal. Almost The resulting average is more equal than the “perceived all choose either complete equality (40 percent) or the distribution” described in a previous section (Figure 9). In most equal distribution that still contains some inequality (58 percent), with very few choosing any of the higher this “ideal distribution,” the richest 20 percent account for inequality distributions (Figure 10).13 The near-zero an equal amount of income as the bottom 40 percent. This response for the three highly unequal options shows a means that although wealth is still not distributed equally clear aversion to high inequality. However, the preference in this ideal distribution, the gap between the richest towards the option with some inequality (labeled in and the poorest is significantly narrower than in the Figure 10 as Option D) is consistent with the majority perceived distribution. The resulting Gini coe cient of this beliefs discussed in the previous section that inequality “ideal distribution” is 15, which is lower than any income is sometimes acceptable, such as when it is due to distribution found anywhere in the real world. di erences in individual talent or e ort. Nonetheless, a significant minority would rather that everyone receives HOW E V E R , W H E N GI V E N MOR E L I M I T E D OP T ION S the same income, regardless of how hard they work, as F OR I NC OM E DI S T R I BU T ION , A M A JOR I T Y OF opposed to inequality being too high. Share of national Income The “ideal distribution” suggests that people support reducing inequality (fig.9) POOR EST 2 3 4 R I C H EST QU INTILE QUI N T I LE Ideal Distribution 14 16 19 23 28 Fourth 7 12 18 25 38 Third 7 10 14 20 49 There is a divide between those who prefer perfect equality SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014 and those who prefer some inequality (fig.10) VERY POOR POOR MIDDLE R ICH VE RY R I C H 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E 0 percent 0.2 percent 1.8 percent 58 percent 40 percent R IC H E R A N D BE T T E R-E DUC AT E D R E S P ON DE N T S The same trend can be seen as income increases: T E N D T O T OL E R AT E H IGH E R I N E QUA L I T Y, W H I L E support for a perfectly equal income distribution (Option WOM E N , YOU T H , A N D RU R A L R E S P ON DE N T S T E N D E) drops as respondents become richer. The data also T O T OL E R AT E I N E QUA L I T Y L E S S . As education indicate that women, people living in rural areas, and completion increases, preferences shift in favor of “Option young people between the ages of 17 and 30 are slightly D” (see Annex C.3 for full demographic breakdown). more likely to support a perfectly equal income distribution. This estimate was done using the distribution of 50 coins among five income quintiles. The full question can be seen in Annex A, 12 Questions V_10 and V_11. 13 See Annex A, Question V_22 for the full survey question and Annex C.3 for the full breakdown of all five options. A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 16 CHAPTER 5 NOVEMBER 2015 5. WHICH INEQUALITY- REDUCING POLICIES ARE MOST SUPPORTED? Overall, Indonesians believe that inequality reduction is an urgent priority. Consistent with beliefs on the drivers of inequality, policy support is strongest for: programs that provide assistance to households that are poor or vulnerable to poverty and protect them from shocks; policies and programs that provide better work opportunities; and e orts to eradicate corruption. MO S T I N D ON E S I A N S A R E C ONC E R N E D W I T H F OR R E DUC E D I N E QUA L I T Y. People often perceive R E DUC I NG I N E QUA L I T Y A N D BE L I E V E I T S HOU L D that there is a trade-o between policies that promote BE A N U R GE N T PR IOR I T Y OF T H E G OV E R N M E N T. growth and those that promote equity. However, recent When asked about whether it is urgent for the Government research by Dabla-Norris, et al. (2015) suggests that to reduce inequality, 88 percent of respondents consider redistributing income to the poorest groups can actually it either “urgent” or “very urgent” (Figure 11). This attitude accelerate economic growth. When confronted with this towards inequality suggests that inequality reduction is hypothetical trade-o and asked to choose between one of the key lenses through which the public assesses “incomes of poor people grow quickly, but inequality government policy. is high” and “incomes of poor people grow slowly, but inequality is low,” 61 percent of respondents choose the I N A DDI T ION , A M A JOR I T Y OF I N D ON E S I A N S I S latter scenario. Thus, although a significant number of A L S O W I L L I NG T O AC C E P T T H E T R A DE - OF F OF people choose to prioritize rapid income growth, the S L OW E R GR OW T H OF I NC OM E S I N E XC H A NGE majority opts for equity. How urgent is it for the goverment to reduce SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014 inequality? The vast majority of Indonesians thinks that inequality reduction is an urgent priority (fig.11) NOT U R GENT NOT VERY QU ITE V ERY AT ALL UR GENT U R GENT UR G EN T 3 10 41 47 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 17 CHAPTER 5 NOVEMBER 2015 TA B L E 2 SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014 What are the three most important policies for reducing inequality? Providing opportunities for hard work, protecting people from shocks, and eradicating corruption are seen as top priorities for reducing inequality POLICY Top 3 priorities? Social protection programs14 49% Creating more jobs 48% Eradicating corruption 37% Free education for all 30% SME credit 27% Free healthcare for all 17% Increasing the minimum wage 17% Infrastructure improvements (roads, power, etc.) 14% More subsidies (e.g., for agriculture, fuel, etc.) 14% Improving schools 10% Grants to village level, e.g. National Program for Community Empowerment 7% (Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat, PNPM)15 Loans for the poor (not business loans) 7% Increasing the tax on the rich 2% Unemployment insurance 2% Equitable asset ownership (e.g., for land, forests, mines, etc.) 2% T H E MO S T P OP U L A R P OL IC I E S T O R E DUC E F I R S T A N D F OR E MO S T, PE OPL E S U PP ORT S O C I A L I N E QUA L I T Y FA L L I N T O T H R E E M A I N GR OU P S : PR O T E C T ION PR O GR A M S A S A WAY OF DI R E C T LY PR OV I DI NG S O C I A L PR O T E C T ION F R OM S HO C K S H E L PI NG T H E P O OR A N D V U L N E R A BL E . “Social A N D C I R C U M S TA NC E ; PR OV I DI NG BE T T E R protection programs”—including both social assistance WOR K OPP ORT U N I T I E S ; A N D E R A DIC AT I NG programs16 such as subsidized rice distribution, financial C OR RU P T ION . The most-supported policies were assistance for poor students, and cash transfer programs, social protection programs, job creation, eradicating as well as social insurance programs—rank as the top corruption, free education, credit for small- and medium- response for most demographic groups. These programs sized enterprises (SMEs), and free health care (Table 2). fulfill a dual function of protecting households from Social protection programs and free health are ways to shocks that can throw them into poverty, and assisting protect people from shocks and negative circumstances. the poor and vulnerable to improve their circumstances. Job creation, credit for SMEs, and free education are all As respondents become richer and better educated, so ways to provide opportunities for people to work hard their support for social protection declines slightly in and earn a higher income. Finally, the high prioritization of favor of eradicating corruption and creating more jobs eradicating corruption is consistent with the demand for (Figure 12).17 However, social protection is still supported fair wealth acquisition. by at least one third of respondents from every category. Although the rich and better educated are less likely to need or benefit from social protection programs, they still provide significant support for such programs. 14 The survey gave examples of subsidized rice (Beras untuk Rumah Tangga Miskin, Raskin), unconditional cash transfers (bantuan langsung tunai, BLT), financial aid for poor students (bantuan siswa miskin, BSM), health insurance ( jaminan kesehatan masyarakat, Jamkesmas). 15 The Rural PNPM program was phased out in 2015 as part of the implementation of the 2014 Village Law (UU Desa). 16 The World Bank publication Protecting Poor and Vulnerable Households in Indonesia (2012) provides more details on Indonesia’s social assistance programs. 17 Methodology for income groups (poor, vulnerable, emerging consumer class, consumer class) is explained in Annex B. A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 18 CHAPTER 5 NOVEMBER 2015 As income and education increase, support shifts from NOTE Poor = below poverty line; Vulnerable = between 1 and 1.5 * poverty line; Emerging Consumer Class = between 1.5 and 3.5 * poverty social protection programs to eradicating corruption and line; Consumer class = 3.5 * poverty line and above. Further explanation can be found in Annex B. creating more jobs (fig.12) SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0 0 Social protection Eradicating More Jobs Social protection Eradicating More Jobs programs (raskin, corruption programs corruption BLT, BSM, health Insurance, etc.) POOR V UL N E RA BLE E ME RG ING CO NS UME R NO JU NIOR PR IMARY SENIOR T ERT I A RY C O NS UME R CL AS S EDU CATION HIGH SCHOOL HIGH C L AS S SCHOOL SCHOOL C ON S I S T E N T W I T H T H E BE L I E F T H AT H A R D WOR K S U PP ORT F OR E R A DIC AT I NG C OR RU P T ION F I T S C A N P U L L PE OPL E OU T OF P OV E RT Y A N D DR I V E W I T H T H E S T R ONG R E J E C T ION OF I N E QUA L I T Y T H E I R S UC C E S S , I N D ON E S I A N S S U PP ORT P OL IC I E S T H R OUGH I L L - G O T T E N G A I N S . About 9 percent T O C R E AT E MOR E A N D BE T T E R JOB S . Nearly half of respondents believe that corruption is currently the of all respondents consider job creation as one of the primary determinant of wealth. Responses about the most important ways of reducing inequality. Support circumstances that make inequality acceptable, however, for job creation consistently ranks in the top two policy show the importance of achieving fair competition for priorities across all demographics, with stronger support wealth (Table 1). Thus, the overall support for eradicating among the wealthier and better educated. However, it is corruption is high, ranking third overall with 37 percent important to note that it is not enough only to create more of respondents. Eradicating corruption also features jobs; in order to reduce inequality the jobs created have more prominently among respondents in the upper to be good quality, formal jobs with decent wages and income and better educated levels, which may indicate benefits.18 On top of this, these jobs need to be accessible that the wealthy and better educated are either more to the poor and vulnerable. To this end, it is notable that likely to see or hear about large-scale corruption, or more public support for the policies that enable the poor to likely to be impeded personally by collusive and corrupt access better jobs, namely free education, credit for SMEs, economic practices. and infrastructure investments, is also high. 18 See World Bank (2015a) Section 2.3 for further discussion on labor market inequality and Section 3.2 for appropriate policy measures. A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 19 CHAPTER 5 NOVEMBER 2015 S OM E G OV E R N M E N T I N I T I AT I V E S M AY T H E PR E V IOUS S T R AT E G Y OF R E DI R E C T I NG R E C E I V E MOR E S U PP ORT I F T H E Y A R E S E E N S U B S I DY S AV I NG S F R OM F U E L PR IC E I NC R E A S E S A S C ON T R I BU T I NG T O T H E R E DUC T ION OF T O S O C I A L PR O T E C T ION PR O GR A M S OR JOB I N E QUA L I T Y. There are a number of policies that the C R E AT ION PR O GR A M S I S L I K E LY T O G A I N current administration is trying to push forward, but that P OP U L A R S U PP ORT. Fuel subsidies have been a major are not prioritized by the responses of this survey. Key point of controversy for many years—and long before the examples include the new Village Law, infrastructure current administration took o ce last year. A substantial development, and increasing tax revenue. The implication increase in fuel prices was announced less than one of these findings is that such policies may receive greater month after the formation of the cabinet in November public support if they are linked to social protection 2014, followed by a change from a fixed price system to programs or funding, and create opportunities for hard a fixed subsidy system shortly afterwards. This caused work. For example, if the Village Law is designed and a wave of protests and a significant amount of media socialized as a policy to improve the performance of coverage. However, findings from this survey suggest spending on health, education, and social protection that overall support for increasing subsidies—which also programs, or as a way to create more and better jobs, this includes agriculture subsidies—is low (Figure 14). may resonate more with the general public. In addition, support for the Village Law will dwindle if it is perceived as an additional opportunity for local leaders to engage in corruption. Communication strategies about infrastructure Minimum wage increases are only projects should focus less on the benefits for growth, and supported by those likely to benefit more on how the projects can improve the quality and quantity of jobs and reduce the prices of food and other from them goods, particularly in less developed regions of Indonesia. Finally, although increasing taxes on the rich receive Public support for raising the minimum wage to lower inequality (fig.13) very little support from all demographic groups, linking additional government revenue to increases in spending on health, education, and social protection may improve 30% support for the policy. 25% 22% F I N A L LY, R E S U LT S R E V E A L T H AT S OM E P OL IC Y 20% I S S U E S , S UC H A S M I N I M U M WAGE S , A R E N O T 15% 17% BR OA DLY S U PP ORT E D A S A M E A N S T O R E DUC E 15% I N E QUA L I T Y. The minimum wage has received much 12% media coverage in recent years, due to vocal labor unions 10% with a high propensity for public protest, as well as high regional disparities in minimum wage levels. In this media 5% coverage, increasing minimum wages is touted as a vital method to help poor workers. However, findings indicate 0% that public demand for increasing the minimum wage is INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE not high (Figure 13). Support for increasing the minimum wage is highly correlated with income class and education levels, showing that the policy is mainly supported by POOR VU LNER ABLE EMER GING C ON SUMER those who stand to benefit most from it, i.e., workers in CONSU MER C LASS the formal sector, rather than poorer and informal workers. CLASS Support for increasing subsidies is low compared with top priorities (fig.14) 30% 26% Social Protection 49 25% 21% Create Jobs 47 20% 16% Eradicate Corruption 37 15% 11% 13% Free Education 30 10% SME Credits 27 5% Free Healthcare 18 0% Increasing Minimum Wage 16 INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE Infra (roads, power, etc.) 15 Subsidies (agriculture, fuel, etc.) 13 NO SD SMP SMA T ERT I A RY EDU CATION SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014 SOURCE LSI Perceptions Survey, 2014 A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 20 CHAPTER 6 NOVEMBER 2015 6. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR INDONESIA? P U BL IC PE R C E P T ION S T OWA R D S I N E QUA L I T Y Rising Divide report identify four main policy responses: I N I N D ON E S I A H AV E GR OW N F R OM R E L AT I V E (i) improving local service delivery to provide a fair start DI S I N T E R E S T T O A L E V E L AT W H IC H T H E I S S U E in life for all; (ii) improving the skills of the workforce and I S N OW OF N AT ION A L I M P ORTA NC E . Perceptions creating more and better jobs; (iii) protecting households towards inequality have changed markedly over time in from shocks; and (iv) aligning taxes and spending to Indonesia. While historically the issue of inequality did not better address inequality. These responses largely register very highly in the minds of most Indonesians, a coincide (although not completely) with the policies that majority of Indonesians now believes that inequality is too have broad public support: the survey shows strong high and should be urgently addressed. support for social protection policies to protect the poor and vulnerable from shocks, the creation of more and T H I S C H A NGE I N AWA R E N E S S M E A N S T H AT T H E better jobs, the provision of accessible public services G OV E R N M E N T C A N N OW C OU N T ON W I DE S PR E A D in the form of free health care and education, and the P U BL IC S U PP ORT T O TAC K L E I N E QUA L I T Y. As a eradication of corruption. The survey also highlights consequence of this change in public perceptions, there that a majority of Indonesians favors policies aimed at is now far broader public support for the Government’s reducing inequality over the prioritization of increasing new focus on reducing inequality. The growing importance incomes, in particular the minimum wage. of the issue of inequality should bolster the Government’s resolve in tackling inequality head on, and make it more T H E G OV E R N M E N T H A S A N OPP ORT U N I T Y T O U S E confident in emphasizing and setting an agenda that P U BL IC S U PP ORT T O P U T F ORWA R D E F F E C T I V E focuses on ways of increasing equity. P OL IC I E S T O TAC K L E T H E I S S U E OF I N E QUA L I T Y. This overlapping of policy responses with clear public T H E R E I S A L S O W I DE S PR E A D P U BL IC S U PP ORT support based on the perceptions survey findings F OR E F F E C T I V E P OL IC I E S T O R E DUC E provides the Government with an opportunity to pursue I N E QUA L I T Y—E V E N AT T H E C O S T OF S L OW E R policies that are both technically sound and likely to be I NC R E A S E S I N I NC OM E S . The diagnostics and policy e ective, and are also publicly supported. recommendations from the World Bank’s Indonesia’s A PERCEIVED DIVIDE 21 NOVEMBER 2015 References Dabla-Norris, Era, Kalpana Kochhar, Nujin Suphaphiphat, Frantisek Ricka, and Evridiki Tsounta. 2015. Causes Sand Consequences of of Income Inequality: a global perspective. IMF Sta Discussion Note SDN/15/13. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Lembaga Survei Indonesia (LSI). 2014. Inequality Perceptions Survey. Jakarta: Lembaga Survei Indonesia. World Bank. 2012. Protecting the Poor and Vulnerable in Indonesia. Jakarta: World Bank. World Bank. 2015a. Indonesia’s Rising Divide: Why inequality is rising, why it matters and what can be done. Jakarta, Indonesia: World Bank. World Bank. 2015b. An Unfair Start: How unequal opportunities a ect Indonesia’s Children. Jakarta, Indonesia: World Bank. World Bank. Forthcoming. Indonesia’s New Climbers: Who are the middle class and what does it mean for the country? Jakarta: World Bank. A PERCEIVED DIVIDE Annex A. Full Survey Instrument N AT I O N A L S U R V E Y INSTRUMENT C O M M U N I T Y S O C I A L I S S U E S May 2014, World Bank LEMBAGA SURVEI INDONESIA (LSI) Jln. Lembang Terusan No. D.57 Menteng, Jakarta Pusat, 10310, Indonesia Telp. (021) 391 95 82, Faks. (021) 391 95 28 23 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 Interviewer Guidelines 1. Understand each question well before asking. 2. If the original respondent cannot be interviewed, please fill in the original respondent’s identity first at the back of the questionnaire, then follow rules for substitution of respondents. 3. Circle (o) answer clearly and focus. 4. Write clearly and legibly for open questions. 5. Do not give options to the respondent to answer ”don’t know” (code ”8” or ”88”) or ”unwilling to answer” (code ”9” or ”99”). This option is only for the interviewer. To be filled in privately if the respondent truly ”do not know” or truly ”will not answer”. 6. Do not need to read out the text in parantheses, unless the respondent does not understand or asks for an example. 7. There should be no no empty column nor answer, except for skipped questions. 8. There should be no o cials of village (desa)/urban village (kelurahan)/neighbourhood association (rt)/commu- nity association (rw)/head of village (kepala kampung)/others sit in or listen to and more over intervene when the interview is conducted. If such situation exists then the interview should be postponed and rescheduled later. 9. Make neccesary e orts that no other persons, including household members, around when the interview is conducted. 1 0. If there is other household member presents during the interview, please ask him/her kindly not to be there. SMS Instructions 1 1. Surveyor must send the sms interview result (for questions marked) to 9699. 12. Short number 9699 can only receive sms from telkomsel numbers. Surveyor therefore should use telkomsel number to send sms. 13. The surveyor’s telkomsel number must be registered first to area coordinator. 1 4. Each surveyor shall have “token”. 15. Token is the last 4 (four) digits of the surveyor’s telkomsel number which have been registered. NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 24 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 A. Questionnaire number : 1. ODD NUMBERS are for male respondents B. Gender (JK) 2. EVEN NUMBERS are for female respondents 1. ODD NUMBERS are for male respondents C. Village-City category 2. EVEN NUMBERS are for female respondents D. Name of Village/Urban Village : E. Name of District : F. Name of Regency/City : BPS CODE G . Number of RT (Neighborhood Association) in the selected Village/Urban Village : RT H. Number of KK (Head of Household) in the selected RT : KK I. Provinces 01. NAD 15. EAST JAVA 02. NORTH SUMATERA 16. BANTEN 03. WEST SUMATERA 17. BALI 04. RIAU 18. NTB 05. JAMBI 19. NTT 06. SOUTH SUMATERA 20. WEST KALIMANTAN 07. BENGKULU 26. SOUTH SULAWESI 08. LAMPUNG 27. SOUTHEAST SULAWESI 09. BABEL 28. GORONTALO 10. KEPRI 29. WEST SULAWESI 11. DKI 30. MALUKU 12. WEST JAVA 31. NORTH MALUKU 13. MID JAVA 32. PAPUA 14. DIY 33. PAPUA BARAT I N T R ODUC T ION: Assalamu’alaikum, good morning/day/afternoon. We are conducting research on social problems in this area. We study the views of INDONESIAN CITIZENS about how this country is managed. Every citizen in Indonesia – who is 17 years old, or older or already married - has the same opportunity to participate in this study. All information will be kept confidential and used for research purposes only. Your participation in the survey is voluntary. Your help is highly appreciated. For interviewer Definition of household and income HOU SE HO LD is a group of people who usually live together under the same roof and eat from the same kitchen. • One household may consist of only one member of the household. • HOUSE HO LD members are all the people who U SUA L LY L I VE A N D E AT I N T H E S A M E H O US E H O L D , whether adults, children, infants, or those who are travelling (less than 6 months) but do not intend to move, or anyone else who may not be members of the family but ordinarily stay in this household, such as house maids or people who temporarily stay or friends. IN CO ME O F A HO USE HO L D is money earned by the household members which increases the total household income. A housemaid who lives in a household, for example, is not considered earning income. For farmers producing crops for their own household needs, the income CAN B E E ST IMAT E D from the agricultural products consumed when assessed with money. NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 25 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 Sort the name of the household members age 17 years or older or married, female OR male (female and male SHOULD NOT BE MIXED IN KISH GRID), from THE OLDEST to the youngest. NO NAME OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS AGE 17 YEARS AGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 OR OLDER, OR MARRIED 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 4 4 1 3 4 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 3 2 2 4 5 4 1 3 5 6 6 4 1 5 4 1 2 6 3 5 2 3 7 5 2 3 1 7 7 3 2 6 4 4 6 8 2 5 4 1 1 3 5 4 8 7 6 3 9 3 4 6 7 5 8 1 9 2 6 7 2 10 7 8 3 2 4 1 6 1 5 9 5 10 11 11 10 9 6 8 5 3 3 7 2 1 4 12 1 3 7 5 6 4 8 10 12 9 11 2 J. No of people registered in Kish Grid : K. Number of adults with voting rights (age 17 years and older or married, both male and female) in the household : L . Number of HO USE HO L D M E M B E RS , i.e. all the people living in this household, whether adults, children, infants, or those who are travelling (less than 6 months) but do not intend to move, or anyone else who may not be members of the family but ordinarily stay in this household, such as house maids or people who temporarily stay or friends : M. Name of selected Respondent : N. Relationship to the head of household : 0. Address : RT RW P. Telephone number/Handphone : R1. No of people registered in Kish Grid : 1. ORIGINAL → GO DIRECTLY TO S 2. SUBSTITUTE R2. If this is a SUB STITU T E RE SP O ND E NT , the respondent comes from : 1. THE SAME HOUSEHOLD WITH THE ORIGINAL RESPONDENT 2. DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLDS WITH THE ORIGINAL RESPONDENT NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 26 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 QUESTIONNAIRE CONTROL NAME DATE INITIAL REMARK S . Interviewer T. Area Coordinator U. Data Entry V. (TO BE FILLED OUT DIRECTLY BY INTERVIEWER) Interview starts, time : ........................................................................................................................................ 1 . (SMS A) How O LD are you now ? Write ............................................................................................................................................................................................years 2 . Are you mar r ied ? 1. Married 3. Single - GO DIRECTLY TO NO. 4 2. Separated/divorced 3 . How many ch ildre n do you have ? ................................................................................................................................................... i f n o c h i l d ren, w rite 0 4 . (SMS B) SHOW DR OP CA RD A . Aside from being a citizen of Indonesia, which ethnic group do you belong to? For example Javanese, Sundanese, Malay, Madurese, Bugis, Minang, Batak, etc ? 1. Javanese 7. Batak 2. Sundanese 8. Minang 3. Malay 9. Banten 4. Madurese 10. Balinese 5. Bugis 11. Cirebon 6. Betawi 12. Chinese 5 . (SMS C) What is your r e l i g i on ? 1. Islam 5. Buddhism 2.Protestantism 6. Confucianism 3. Catholicism 7. Others : ............................................................. 4. Hinduism 6 . (SMS D) SHOW DR OP CA RD B. What is your latest e d u c a t i o n ? 1. Never went to schooL 6. Not completed high school equivalent 2. Not completed elementary school/ 7. High school/equivalent equivalent 8. Not completed college or university/ 3. Elementary school/equivalent still a student 4. Not completed junior high school/ 9. College equivalent 10. University or higher 5. Junior high school/equivalent 7. S HOW DR O P CAR D C. Do you wor k ? 1. Yes 2. No, still a student 3. No, at home as a housewife 4. No, not yet 8. What is your current m ai n occu pa ti on ? (Please write the type of job in detail) ........................................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 27 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 9. (TO BE FILLED OUT DIRECTLY BY INTERVIEWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSWER NO. 8) Is the main occupation of the person included in one of the groups below ? 1. Farmer/breeder/fisherman 9. Businessman 2. Laborer/helper 10. Village/urban village o cial 3. Workshop/service 11. Employee/private sector employee 4. Driver/motorcycle taxi driver 12. Civil servant (PNS) 5. Security guard/civil defense 13. Teacher/lecturer 6. No permanent job 14. Pro esional (lawyer/doctor/etc.) 7. Stall merchant/street vendor 15. Retired 8. Large trader/wholesaler 88. None of the above 1 0. SHOW STAIRCASE IMAGE DROP CARD. Interviewer Guidelines • Understand each question well before asking • Make sure respondents understand questions properly. Now I will ask about the people of Indonesia. Suppose the Indonesian population is divided into fi ve c o m m un i ty g ro up s. Each group has the sa me number of popu l ati on , i . e . , e ach has e q u a l l y o n e - fi f t h o f t h e t ot a l p o p ul a t i o n . I f t h e I n d o n e si a n p o p ulation is now 250 million people, then each group equally consists of 50 million people. However, the group has five di erent incomes. The five community groups are depicted with staircases like this (SHOW STAIRCASE IMAGE): 1 . The top of the stairs is one fifth of the population whose income is the highest, or t h e ri c h e st group 2 . The second step from the top is one fifth of the population whose income is much, or t h e ri c h group 3 . The third stair from the top is one fifth of the population whose income is moderate, or the m i d d l e group 4 . The fourth stair from the top is one fifth of the population whose income is less, or t h e p o o r group 5 . The bottom of the stairs is one fifth of the population whose income is very little, or t h e p o o re st group. Interviewer Guidelines • Ask if respondent has understood the explanation of the staircase image. If not, please explain once again from the beginning. • If respondent has understood, then please show 50 pieces of coins in 500 (five hundred) rupiah denomina- tions. No need to mention the number of coins shown, unless respondent asks. Here are some coins. Suppose the whole coins are the entire income of Indonesia. In your opinion, how much income of each community group in Indonesia IN FACT today? To answer this question, try to divide the coins into the five steps. You do not need to worry that you have a wrong answer. It is your e st i m a t i o n only. Please just be reminded, that the number of coins for the lower step should not be more than the higher step, because the higher step is the richer group. For example only, if you consider the whole income NOW I N FA CT belongs to the highest income or the richest group only, put all coins on the top step. If you assume that NOW I N FA CT all groups have the same income, put all the coins equally on each of the steps. NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 28 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 Interviewer Guidelines • Remind respondent, that the number of coins placed on a lower step should not be more than the higher step, but the amount could be equal. • Interviewer needs to assure respondent’s answer. For example, by asking, is it true that you give this much coins to the poorest group? Is it true that you give this much coins to the richest group? • If respondent is confident with the answer, note the number of coins placed on each step of the stairs in the table below. • Ensure that all coins placed are 50 pieces in total. GROUP / STEP NO OF COINS A. (SMS E) The highest (the richest) B. (SMS F) The second (the rich) C. (SMS G) The third (the middle) D. (SMS H) The fourth (the poor) E. (SMS I) The bottom (the poorest) TOTAL 50 (Attention to Interviewer: Check again the number of coins in the table; the total should be 50) 1 1. SHOW ONCE AGAIN THE STAIRCASE IMAGE DROP CARD, AND COINS. Interviewer Guidelines • Interviewer should remove all coins from the staircase image drop card before start asking questions. • Read out questions clearly and do not speak too fast. • Make sure respondent understands questions properly. Now let’s look back the Staircase Image. And suppose that the whole of the coins is the entire income of Indonesia. In your opinion, what SHOULD BE the income of each community group in Indonesia? To answer this question, try to divide back the coins in to the five steps. You do not need to worry that you have a wrong answer. It is according to your consi derati on only. Please just be reminded, that the number of coins for the lower step should not be more than the higher step, because the higher step is the richer group. For example only, if in your opinion the whole income S HO ULD belong to the highest income group or the richest group only, then put all the coins on the top step. Or if you consider that all groups S HO UL D have the same income, put all the coins equally on each of the steps. NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 29 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 Interviewer Guidelines • Remind respondent, that the number of coins placed on a lower step should not be more than the higher step, but the amount could be equal. • Interviewer needs to assure respondent’s answer. For example, by asking, is it true that you give this much coins to the poorest group? Is it true that you give this much coins to the richest group? • If respondent is confident with the answer, note the number of coins placed on each step of the stairs in the table below. • Ensure that all coins placed are 50 pieces in total. GROUP / STEP NO OF COINS A. (SMS J) The highest (the richest) B . (SMS K) The second (the rich) C. (SMS L) The third (the middle) D. (SMS M) The fourth (the poor) E. (SMS N) The bottom (the poorest) TOTAL 50 (Attention to Interviewer: Check again the number of coins in the table; the total should be 50) 1 2 . S HOW DR O P CAR D D . In your opinion, how evenly or unevenly income of Indonesian people distributed IN FACT now ? 1. Very evenly 4. Uneven at all 2. Fairly evenly 8. Don’t know (TT)/unwilling to answer (TJ) 3. Uneven 1 3 . S HOW THE FIVE - ST E P S IM A GE D R O P CA RD . Go back to the five community groups, where the top step is the group whose income is very much and the bottom step is the group whose income is very little. Which step do you approximately place your own household income c urrently ? 1. The top step 4. The fourth step 2. The second step 5. The bottom step 3. The third step 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 1 4. S HOW THE FIVE - ST E P S IM A GE D R O P CA RD . How about l a st ye a r, which step do you approximately place your own household income ? 1. The top step 4. The fourth step 2. The second step 5. The bottom step 3. The third step 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 1 5 . S HOW THE FIVE - ST E P S IM A GE D R O P CA RD . How about fi ve ye a rs a g o, which step do you approximately place your own household income ? 1. The top step 4. The fourth step 2. The second step 5. The bottom step 3. The third step 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 1 6 . S HOW THE FIVE - ST E P S IM A GE D R O P CA RD . In your opinion, which step was your p a re n t s approximately on when they were at your age ? 1. The top step 4. The fourth step 2. The second step 5. The bottom step 3. The third step 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 30 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 Interviewer Guidelines E X P L A I N T O RE SP O ND E N T: Q UE STI O N S N O 17- 2 0 inquire estimates or predictions of respondent, not hope or desire of respondent. 1 7. S HOW THE FIVE - ST E P S IM A GE D R O P CA RD . How about next year, on which step will your own household income approximately be ? 1. The top step 4. The fourth step 2. The second step 5. The bottom step 3. The third step 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 1 8 . S HOW THE FIVE - ST E P S IM A GE D R O P CA RD . How about n ext fi ve ye a rs, on which step will your own household income be ? 1. The top step 4. The fourth step 2. The second step 5. The bottom step 3. The third step 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 1 9. S HOW THE FIVE - ST E P S IM A GE D R O P CA RD . In your opinion, on which step will your c h i l d re n approximately be when they are at your age ? 1. The top step 4. The fourth step 2. The second step 5. The bottom step 3. The third step 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 2 0. S HOW THE FIVE - ST E P S IM A GE D R O P CA RD . In your opinion, on which step will your g ra n d c h i l d re n approximately be when they are at your age ? 1. The top step 4. The fourth step 2. The second step 5. The bottom step 3. The third step 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer Interviewer Guidelines Show the five drop cards showing images or income portion graphics. Sort the cards from left to right, start from the image a card on the most left, until the image e card on the most right. 2 1. (SMS O) Here are five images. Each image shows di erent incomes between the five groups as described previously (the richest, the rich, the middle, the poor, and the poorest groups). Imag e A means the entire income in Indonesia is only owned by the richest group, and Imag e E means income in Indonesia is divided evenly among all community groups. Meanwhile I m a g e s B , C , D show other income di erences. In your opinion, which image is a closer picture of income di erences between groups in Indonesia I N FACT today ? Whether such image A, B, C, D, or E 1. Image A 4. Image D 2. Image B 5. Image E 3. Image C 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 2 2 . (SMS P) Now if you have power and are asked to divide the incomes into the above five groups in Indonesia. In your opinion, how is THE BEST division like ? Whether such image A, B, C, D, or E ? 1. Image A 4. Image D 2. Image B 5. Image E 3. Image C 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 31 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 2 3 . (SMS Q) SHOW DR O P CA RD E . Here are two images. Each image shows the di erence between income of the five community groups in a country. If you are asked to choose, whether you prefer to live in a country with such income disparity shown in image A or B ? 1. Image A 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 2. Image B 2 4. (SMS R) SHOW DR O P CA RD F . How about this pair of images? If you are asked to choose, whether you prefer to live in a country with such income disparity shown in image A or B ? 1. Image A 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 2. Image B 2 5 . (SMS S) SHOW DR O P CA RD G . How about this pair of images? If you are asked to choose, whether you prefer to live in a country with such income disparity shown in image A or B ? 1. Image A 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 2. Image B 2 6 . S HOW DR O P CARD H . In your opinion, how changes in income of each group IN FACT over the last five years ? Is the income of each group much reduced, slightly reduced, the same, slightly increased, or much increased ? GROUP INCOME OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS MUCH SLIGHTLY THE SAME SLIGHTLY MUCH DON’T KNOW REDUCED REDUCED INCREASED INCREASED /UNWILLING TO ANSWER A. The top one fifth (the richest) 1 2 3 4 5 8 B. The second one fifth (the rich) 1 2 3 4 5 8 C. The third one fifth (the middle) 1 2 3 4 5 8 D. The fourth one fifth (the poor) 1 2 3 4 5 8 E. The bottom one fifth (the poorest) 1 2 3 4 5 8 2 7. S HOW DR O P CARD H . If you have the power to determine changes in income of the five groups five years to come, how changes in income that SHOULD happen? Is the income of each group should be much reduced, slightly reduced, the same, slightly increased or much increased ? GROUP INCOME OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS MUCH SLIGHTLY THE SAME SLIGHTLY MUCH DON’T KNOW REDUCED REDUCED INCREASED INCREASED /UNWILLING TO ANSWER A. The top one fifth (the richest) 1 2 3 4 5 8 B. The second one fifth (the rich) 1 2 3 4 5 8 C. The third one fifth (the middle) 1 2 3 4 5 8 D. The fourth one fifth (the poor) 1 2 3 4 5 8 E. The bottom one fifth (the poorest) 1 2 3 4 5 8 NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 32 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 2 8 . S H OW DR O P CA RD I . In your opinion, in general how was the income distribution among community groups in Indonesia over the past five years. Was the income much more evenly distributed, more even, no change, more uneven, or far more uneven ? 1. Much more even 4. More uneven 2. More even 5. far more uneven 3. No change 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 2 9. S HOW DR O P CA RD J . Let’s talk about the top group or whose income is the most. Of course there are many reasons why they can have very much income. In your opinion, which of the following causes the most influential reason ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) ? 1. Talent 7. Supportive environment 2. Hard work 8. Corruption 3. Lucky/fortunate 9. Others, please specify ......................................... 4. Come from a wealthy family ......................................................................................... 5. Come from an educated family 88. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 6. Have a lot of connections (friend, colleagues, relatives, etc.) 3 0. S HOW DR O P CA RD J . Moreover, what else is the most significant cause ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) ? 1. Talent 7. Supportive environment 2. Hard work 8. Corruption 3. Lucky/fortunate 9. Others, please specify ......................................... 4. Come from a wealthy family ......................................................................................... 5. Come from an educated family 88. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 6. Have a lot of connections (friend, colleagues, relatives, etc.) 3 1. S HOW DR O P CARD K . Now let’s talk about the bottom group or whose income is the least. Of course there is also a variety of reasons why they could have just very little income. In your opinion, which of the following causes the most influential reason ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) ? 1. Talent 7. Supportive environment 2. Hard work 8. Unsupportive environment 3. Lucky/fortunate 9. Others, please specify ......................................... 4. Come from a wealthy family ......................................................................................... 5. Come from an educated family 88. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 6. Have a lot of connections (friend, colleagues, relatives, etc.) 3 2 . S HOW DR O P CARD K . Moreover, what else is the most significant cause ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) ? 1. Talent 7. Supportive environment 2. Hard work 8. Unsupportive environment 3. Lucky/fortunate 9. Others, please specify ......................................... 4. Come from a wealthy family ......................................................................................... 5. Come from an educated family 88. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 6. Have a lot of connections (friend, colleagues, relatives, etc.) 3 3 . S H OW DR O P CA RD L . IIn your opinion, which of the following three statements best describes the current reality in Indonesia ? 1. People easily improve their economic 3. It is almost impossible to improve people’s condition if they are willing to work hard economic condition despite working hard 2. It is di cult to improve people’s 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer economic condition despite working hard NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 33 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 3 4. SH OW D R O P CAR D M . In your opinion, which of the following two statements you agree more ? 1. In certain circumstances, the income 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer inequality can be accepted → go directly to No. 36 2. Whatever the reason, the inequality in income cannot be accepted → go directly to No. 36 3 5 . SHOW D R O P CAR D N . If answered “1”, under which circumstances that inequality in income can be accepted most ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) 1. Country/nation as a whole is progressing 5. Prices of basic necessities are a ordable by everyone 2. Poverty rate is reduced 6. Others, please specify ........................................ 3. Fair competition to obtain wealth ........................................................................................ 4. People get rich because they work hard 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer or people become poor because they are lazy 3 6 . SHOW D R O P CAR D O . If you are asked to choose, which of the following two circumstances that you favor more ? 1. Incomes of the poor rise rapidly, but 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer the disparity in income between the rich and the poor is getting bigger 2. Incomes of the poor rise slowly, but the disparity in income between the rich and the poor is getting smaller 3 7. SHOW D R O P CAR D P . In your opinion, how urgent or not urgent the income inequality in Indonesia to be resolved by the Indonesian government ? 1. Very urgent 4. Not urgent at all 2. Quite urgent 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answered 3. Less urgent 3 8 . In your knowledge, what government policy or government program that has been done to reduce the income disparity between the rich and the poor in Indonesia ? (CAN BE MORE THAN ONE ANSWER) PLEASE WRITE CLEARLY, DO NOT JUST ABBREVIATIONS : 1. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2. ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3. ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 9. (TO BE FILLED OUT DIRECTLY BY INTERVIEWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSWER NO. 38) 1. Subsidized rice (Raskin) 11. PNPM for Lagged and Specific Area (P2DTK) 2. Conditional Cash Transfer (PKH) 12.Regional Infrastructure Social Economic Development Program (PISEW) 3. Educational Support Fund for poor students (BSM) 13. Social Health Insurance (JAMKESMAS) / 4. School Operational Support Fund (BOS) Regional Health Insurance (JAMKESDA) 5. National Program for Community 14. Fuel subsidy Empowerment (PNPM) 15. Others, please specify ...................................... 6. Temporary Community Direct Assistance (BLSM) ........................................................................................ 7. Unconditional Cash Transfer (BLT) 88. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 8. Credit for the People (KUR) 9. Sub-District Development Program (PPK) 10. Urban Poverty Reduction Program (P2KP) 4 0. In your opinion, what should be done by the new President of Indonesia to reduce income inequality in Indonesia ? (CAN BE MORE THAN ONE ANSWER) WRITE CLEARLY : 1. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2. ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3. ......................................................................................................................................................................................... NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 34 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 4 1. (TO BE FILLED OUT DIRECTLY BY INTERVIEWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSWER NO. 40) 1. Subsidized rice (Raskin) 11. PNPM for Lagged and Specific Area (P2DTK) 2. Conditional Cash Transfer (PKH) 12.Regional Infrastructure Social Economic Development Program (PISEW) 3. Educational Support Fund for poor students (BSM) 13. Social Health Insurance (JAMKESMAS) / 4. School Operational Support Fund (BOS) Regional Health Insurance (JAMKESDA) 5. National Program for Community 14. Fuel subsidy Empowerment (PNPM) 15. Others, please specify ...................................... 6. Temporary Community Direct Assistance (BLSM) ........................................................................................ 7. Unconditional Cash Transfer (BLT) 88. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 8. Credit for the People (KUR) 9. Sub-District Development Program (PPK) 10. Urban Poverty Reduction Program (P2KP) 4 2 . S HOW DR O P CARD Q . In your opinion, which of the following is the most important matter to be done by the new President of Indonesia to reduce income inequality in Indonesia ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) 1. Provide social protection for the poor 10. Provide better schools and vulnerable households (for example, 11. Provide more subsidies (for example, for subsidised rice, direct cash assistance, agricultural needs, food, fuel) scholarship, social health insurance, employee social security, etc.) 12. Provide jobs 2. Add grants/aids for Village/Urban Village 13. Social insurance for people who lose (for example, National Program for their jobs Community Empowerment PNPM) 14. Capital assistance for small businesses 3. Provide free education for all people 15. Loans for poor people 4. Provide free medical care for all people (not for business purposes) 5. Build better infrastructures (roads, electricity, 16. Others, please specify ...................................... bridges, etc) ........................................................................................ 6. Raise taxes on the richer 88. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 7. Fight corruption 8. Raise the minimum wage 9. Fair ownership of assets (for example land, forests, mines, etc.) for public 4 3 . S HOW DR O P CARD Q . Besides, what else is the second most important matter to be done by the new President of Indonesia to reduce income inequality in Indonesia ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) 1. Provide social protection for the poor 10. Provide better schools and vulnerable households (for example, 11. Provide more subsidies (for example, for subsidised rice, direct cash assistance, agricultural needs, food, fuel) scholarship, social health insurance, employee social security, etc.) 12. Provide jobs 2. Add grants/aids for Village/Urban Village 13. Social insurance for people who lose (for example, National Program for their jobs Community Empowerment PNPM) 14. Capital assistance for small businesses 3. Provide free education for all people 15. Loans for poor people 4. Provide free medical care for all people (not for business purposes) 5. Build better infrastructures (roads, electricity, 16. Others, please specify ...................................... bridges, etc) ........................................................................................ 6. Raise taxes on the richer 88. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 7. Fight corruption 8. Raise the minimum wage 9. Fair ownership of assets (for example land, forests, mines, etc.) for public NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 35 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 4 4. S HOW DR O P CARD Q . Besides, what else is the third most important matter to be done by the new President of Indonesia to reduce income inequality in Indonesia ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) 1. Provide social protection for the poor 10. Provide better schools and vulnerable households (for example, 11. Provide more subsidies (for example, for subsidised rice, direct cash assistance, agricultural needs, food, fuel) scholarship, social health insurance, employee social security, etc.) 12. Provide jobs 2. Add grants/aids for Village/Urban Village 13. Social insurance for people who lose (for example, National Program for their jobs Community Empowerment PNPM) 14. Capital assistance for small businesses 3. Provide free education for all people 15. Loans for poor people 4. Provide free medical care for all people (not for business purposes) 5. Build better infrastructures (roads, electricity, 16. Others, please specify ...................................... bridges, etc) ........................................................................................ 6. Raise taxes on the richer 88. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 7. Fight corruption 8. Raise the minimum wage 9. Fair ownership of assets (for example land, forests, mines, etc.) for public 4 5 . (SMS T)The presidential election in 2014 will take place sometime later. But if the presidential election took place today, who would you choose as our president ? ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 6 . (SMS U) SHOW DROP CARD R-1 . If the presidential election held today, who would you elect as the president among the following names ? 1. Joko Widodo ( jokowi) 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 2. Prabowo Subianto 4 7. (SMS V) SHOW DROP CARD R-1 . If the presidential election held today, who would you elect as the president and vice president among the following names ? 1. Joko Widodo ( jokowi) and M. Jusuf Kalla 8. Don’t know/unwilling to answer 2. Prabowo Subianto and Hatta Rajasa 4 8 . (SMS W) When discussing the election with others, we find many people who are unable to vote because they are far from home, being ill, do not have the time or other reasons. How about yourself? Did you vote in the general election of members of House of Representatives / Legislative Council in 2014 that just took place sometime ago ? 1. Yes voting 8. Refused to answer → go directly to No. 50 2. Not voting → go directly to No. 51 8. Unable to vote → go directly to No. 51 4 9. (SMS X) SHOW THE LIST OF 12 POLITICAL PARTIES . If “YES VOTING ”, which political party did you vote in the election ? 1. National Democratic Party (Nasdem) 9. United Development Party (PPP) 2. National Awakening Party (PKB) 10. People’s conscience Party (Hanura) 3. Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) 11. Crescent Star Party (PBB) 4. Indonesian Democratic Party - Struggle (PDI-P) 14. Indonesian Justice and Unity Party (PKPI) → Go directly to No 52 5. Party of The Functional Groups (Golkar) 15. Indonesian Justice and Unity Party (PKPI) 6. Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra) 88. Secret/unwilling to answer 7. Democratic Party (PD) 8. National Mandate Party (PAN) NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 36 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 50. (SMS Y) SHOW THE LIST OF 12 POLITICAL PARTIES . If “YES VOTING ”, but “Secret ”, which political party do you think best represents your wishes ? 1. National Democratic Party (Nasdem) 8. National Mandate Party (PAN) 2. National Awakening Party (PKB) 9. United Development Party (PPP) 3. Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) 10. People’s conscience Party (Hanura) 4. Indonesian Democratic Party - Struggle (PDI-P) 14. Crescent Star Party (PBB) 5. Party of The Functional Groups (Golkar) 15. Indonesian Justice and Unity Party (PKPI) 6. Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra) 88. Secret/unwilling to answer 7. Democratic Party (PD) 5 1 . SHOW DROP CARD S. If “NOT VOTING ” please explain why ? 1. Election does not do any good 5. Not registered as a voter to improve condition 6. Registered but cannot vote because did 2. Elections only benefit others not prepare A5 form 3. Don’t know which party or member of 7. Others reason, please write ............................... the House of Representatives to choose ........................................................................................ 4. No party or member of the House of 8. Cannot vote Representatives who could fulfill hopes 9. Refused to answer SHOW DROP CARD T. In the past month, how often did you follow the news related to social issues or politics at the national or regional level through the following mass media? MASS MEDIA EVERY DAY 3-4 DAYS 1-2 DAYS RARELY NEVER DON’T KNOW/ OR ALMOST A WEEK A WEEK (NOT EVERY UNWILLING TO EVERY DAY WEEK) ANSWER 5 2 . Newspaper 1 2 3 4 5 8 5 3 . News Magazine 1 2 3 4 5 8 5 4 . TV 1 2 3 4 5 8 5 5 . Radio 1 2 3 4 5 8 5 6 . Internet 1 2 3 4 5 8 NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 37 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 5 7. Please state the names of your household members age 15 years and over, both male and female, including yourself. CODE NAMES OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS HM AGE 15 YEARS AND OVER, BOTH MALE AND FEMALE, INCLUDING RESPONDENT HM 1 HM 2 HM 3 HM 4 HM 5 HM 6 HM 7 HM 8 HM 9 HM 10 HM 11 HM 12 HM 13 HM 14 HM 15 5 8. (TO BE FILLED OUT DIRECTLY BY INTERVIEWER) Among the household members age 15 years and over stated above, which one is the respondent ? (CIRCLE HOUSEHOLD MEMBER CODE ACCORDING TO THE TABLE IN QUESTION NO.57) 1. HM 1 9. HM 9 2. HM 2 10. HM 10 3. HM 3 11. HM 11 4. HM 4 12. HM 12 5. HM 5 13. HM 13 6. HM 6 14. HM 14 7. HM 7 15. HM 15 8. HM 8 59. Among the above household members age 15 years and over, who earns the highest income ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) 1. HM 1 9. HM 9 2. HM 2 10. HM 10 3. HM 3 11. HM 11 4. HM 4 12. HM 12 5. HM 5 13. HM 13 6. HM 6 14. HM 14 7. HM 7 15. HM 15 8. HM 8 6 0. (INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT IS THE HIGHEST INCOME EARNER, GO DIRECTLY TO NO.62. IF NOT, CONTINUE) What is the main occupation of this person whose income is the greatest ? PLEASE WRITE IN DETAILS .................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 38 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 6 1 . (TO BE FILLED OUT DIRECTLY BY INTERVIEWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSWER NO. 60) Does the highest income fall under one of the following groups ? 1. Farmer/breeder/fisherman 9. Businessman 2. Laborer/helper 10. Village/urban village o cial 3. Workshop/service 11. Employee/private sector employee 4. Driver/motorcycle taxi driver 12. Civil servant (PNS) 5. Security guard/civil defense (hansip) 13. Teacher/lecturer 6. Kerja tidak tetap 14. Pro esional (lawyer/doctor/etc.) 7. Stall merchant/street vendor 15. Retired 8. Large trader/wholesaler 88. None of the above 6 2 . (SMS Z) SHOW DROP CARD U. What is the approximate amount in rupiah, average in a month, of income earned by the highest income generator above ? (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW AT ALL, ASK OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WHO HAS THE KNOWLEDGE) ? 1. Below 200 thousand 7. 1.2-1.399 million 2. 200-399 thousand 8. 1.4-1.599 million 3. 400-599 thousand 9. 1.6-1.799 million 4. 600-799 thousand 10. 1.8-1.999 million 5. 800-999 thousand 11. 2 million – 4 million 6. 1 million -1.199 million 12. Above 4 million 6 3 . In addition to the person earning the highest income above, who else in the household works or earns a living? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) 1. HM 1 10. HM 10 2. HM 2 11. HM 11 3. HM 3 12. HM 12 4. HM 4 13. HM 13 5. HM 5 14. HM 14 6. HM 6 15. HM 7. HM 7 88. No one else → go directly to No. 71 8. HM 8 9. HM 9 6 4. (SMS Z) SHOW DROP CARD U . What is the approximate amount in rupiah, average in a month, of income earned by the person above ? (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW AT ALL, ASK OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WHO HAS THE KNOWLEDGE) 1. Below 200 thousand 7. 1.2-1.399 million 2. 200-399 thousand 8. 1.4-1.599 million 3. 400-599 thousand 9. 1.6-1.799 million 4. 600-799 thousand 10. 1.8-1.999 million 5. 800-999 thousand 11. 2 million – 4 million 6. 1 million -1.199 million 12. Above 4 million NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 39 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 6 5 . (TO BE FILLED OUT DIRECTLY BY INTERVIEWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSWER NO. 60) Does the highest income fall under one of the following groups ? 1. HM 1 10. HM 10 2. HM 2 11. HM 11 3. HM 3 12. HM 12 4. HM 4 13. HM 13 5. HM 5 14. HM 14 6. HM 6 15. HM 7. HM 7 88. No one else → go directly to No. 71 8. HM 8 9. HM 9 6 6 . SHOW DROP CARD U. What is the approximate amount in rupiah, average in a month, of income earned by the person above ? (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW AT ALL, ASK OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WHO HAS THE KNOWLEDGE) 1. Below 200 thousand 7. 1.2-1.399 million 2. 200-399 thousand 8. 1.4-1.599 million 3. 400-599 thousand 9. 1.6-1.799 million 4. 600-799 thousand 10. 1.8-1.999 million 5. 800-999 thousand 11. 2 million – 4 million 6. 1 million -1.199 million 12. Above 4 million 6 7. Who else in the household works or earns a living ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) 1. HM 1 10. HM 10 2. HM 2 11. HM 11 3. HM 3 12. HM 12 4. HM 4 13. HM 13 5. HM 5 14. HM 14 6. HM 6 15. HM 15 7. HM 7 88. No one else → go directly to No. 71 8. HM 8 9. HM 9 6 8. SHOW DROP CARD U. What is the approximate amount in rupiah, average in a month, of income earned by the person above ? (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW AT ALL, ASK OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WHO HAS THE KNOWLEDGE) 1. Below 200 thousand 7. 1.2-1.399 million 2. 200-399 thousand 8. 1.4-1.599 million 3. 400-599 thousand 9. 1.6-1.799 million 4. 600-799 thousand 10. 1.8-1.999 million 5. 800-999 thousand 11. 2 million – 4 million 6. 1 million -1.199 million 12. Above 4 million 69. Who else in the household works or earns a living ? (ONLY ONE ANSWER) ? 1. HM 1 10. HM 10 2. HM 2 11. HM 11 3. HM 3 12. HM 12 4. HM 4 13. HM 13 5. HM 5 14. HM 14 6. HM 6 15. HM 15 7. HM 7 88. No one else → go directly to No. 71 8. HM 8 9. HM 9 NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 40 ANNEX A OCTOBER 2015 7 0. SHOW DROP CARD U. What is the approximate amount in rupiah, average in a month, of income earned by the person above ? (IF THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW AT ALL, ASK THE OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WHO HAS THE KNOWLEDGE). 1. Below 200 thousand 7. 1.2-1.399 million 2. 200-399 thousand 8. 1.4-1.599 million 3. 400-599 thousand 9. 1.6-1.799 million 4. 600-799 thousand 10. 1.8-1.999 million 5. 800-999 thousand 11. 2 million – 4 million 6. 1 million -1.199 million 12. Above 4 million 71 . In the last three months, did your household get remittances from people living outside the household, for example, remittances from children or relatives who work in the city, overseas, etc. ? 1. Yes 2. No → go directly to No. 73 72 . SHOW DROP CARD U. If Yes, what was the approximate amount in rupiah of remittances received in a month ? (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW AT ALL, ASK OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WHO HAS THE KNOWLEDGE). 1. Below 200 thousand 7. 1.2-1.399 million 2. 200-399 thousand 8. 1.4-1.599 million 3. 400-599 thousand 9. 1.6-1.799 million 4. 600-799 thousand 10. 1.8-1.999 million 5. 800-999 thousand 11. 2 million – 4 million 6. 1 million -1.199 million 12. Above 4 million 73 . In the last three months, did your household remit money to other parties outside this household ? 1. Yes 2. No → go directly to No. 73 74 . SHOW DROP CARD U. If Yes, what was the approximate amount in rupiah of the remittances sent in a month ? (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW AT ALL, ASK OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WHO HAS THE KNOWLEDGE). 1. Below 200 thousand 7. 1.2-1.399 million 2. 200-399 thousand 8. 1.4-1.599 million 3. 400-599 thousand 9. 1.6-1.799 million 4. 600-799 thousand 10. 1.8-1.999 million 5. 800-999 thousand 11. 2 million – 4 million 6. 1 million -1.199 million 12. Above 4 million THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 41 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 Interviewer Evaluation W1. Interviews completed at : ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... W2 . Is respondent literate ? 1. Yes 2. No X. Was respondent checked/monitored via telephone by Area Coordinator/assistant ? 1. Yes 2. No Y. Is there any cellular phone signal around the area of respondent’s house ? (CHECK YOUR HANDPHONE, AND FIND OUT INFORMATION ON OTHER CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATION PROVIDERS TO RESPONDENT OR PEOPLE AROUND THE AREA). 1. There is Telkomsel signal 88. No signal at all 2. There is Indosat signal 9. Others cellular phone signal, please specify .................................................. Y 1. Was interview conducted in Bahasa Indonesia or other language ? 1. Bahasa Indonesia 3. Mixed (Bahasa Indonesia & other language) 2. Other language Y 2 . Was there anyone else present in the interview ? 1. Yes 2. No → go directly to Y5 Y 3 . Who was the other person ? (ANSWER CAN BE MORE THAN ONE) 1. Husband/wife/parents/other household 4. Others, .................................................................... member in the same household ........................................................................................ 2. Neighbor 3. Village o cials (Head of Village or Urban Village Head/Secretary of the village/Neighborhood Association/ Community Association) Y 4. Was the other person intervened the interview process ? 1. No 3. Yes, alot 2. Yes, but a little Y 5 . Was the respondent willing to cooperate in this interview ? 1. Very less 3. Yes, quite 2. Less willing 4. Yes, very much Y 6 . Was the respondent willing to cooperate in this interview ? 1. Yes, almost all questions 5. Yes, about 10% 2. Yes, most of them 6. Yes, but less than 10% 3. Yes, about half of them 7. Almost all of them can be understood well 4. Yes, about one quarter of them NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 42 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 Y 7. What was the most difficult question understood by respondent ? ............................................................................................................................................. Y 8 . According to your assessment, how trustworthy respondent in answering the questions ? 1. Very less 3. Yes, quite 2. Less willing 4. Yes, very much Z 1 . House of the respondent : 1. Housing complex 2. Not housing complex Z 2 . Area of respondent’s house (BASED ON INTERVIEWER’S ESTIMATION) : 1. <= 10 m2 14. 131-140 m2 2. 11-20 m2 15. 141-150 m2 3. 21-30 m2 16. 151-160 m2 4. 31- 40 m2 17. 161-170 m2 5. 41-50 m2 18. 171-180 m2 6. 51-60 m2 19. 181-190 m2 7. 61-70 m2 20. 191-200 m2 8. 71-80 m2 21. 201-250 m2 9. 81-90 m2 22. 251-300 m2 10. 91-100 m2 23. 301-400 m2 11. 101-110 m2 24. 401-500 m2 12. 111-120 m2 25. 500-700 m2 13. 121-130 m2 Z 3 . According to interviewer’s assessment, how was the condition of the respondent’s house ? 1. Luxurious 4. Quite simple 2. Quite luxurious 5. Simple 3. Moderate Z 4 . Does respondent own a car ? 1. Yes 2. No Identity of The Original Respondent Who Cannot Be Interviewed Z 6 . Sources of information of original respondent who could not be interviewed : 1. Family member 3. Neighbor 2. There is Indosat signal 9. Others : .................................................................... Z 7. House of the respondent : ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 43 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 Z 8. Telephone of information source : .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. Z 9. Name of the head of household (KK ) of original respondent : .......................................................................................................................................................... Z 1 0. Name of original respondent who should have been interviewed : ............................................................................................................................................... Z 1 1. Gender of original respondent : 1. Male 2. Female Z 1 2 . Age of original respondent : ............................................................................................................................................................................................................Years Z 1 3 . Ethnic group of original respondent : 1. Javanese 8. Minang 2. Sundanese 9. Banten 3. Malay 10. Balinese 4. Madurese 11. Cirebon 5. Bugis 12. Chinese 6. Betawi 13. Others : ................................................................. 7. Batak Z 1 4. Religion of original respondent : 1. Islam 5. Buddhism 2. Protestantism 6. Confucianism 3. Catholicism 7. Others : .................................................................... 4. Hinduism Z 1 5 . Education of original respondent : 1. Never went to school 6. Not completed high school/equivalent 2. Not completed elementary school/ 7. High school/equivalent equivalent 8. Not completed college or university/still a student 3. Elementary school/equivalent 9. College 4. Not completed junior high school/equivalent 10. University or higher 5. Junior high school/equivalent NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 44 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 Z 1 6 . Occupation of original respondent : 1. Farmer 12. Business/large contractor 2. Breeder 13. Village/urban village o cial 3. Fisherman 14. Employee/private sector employee 4. Laborer/helper 15. Civil servant (PNS) 5. Workshop/service 16. Teacher/lecturer 6. Driver/motorcycle taxi driver 17. Pro esional (lawyer/doctor/etc.) 7. Security guard/civil defense (hansip) 18. Retired 8. No permanent job 19. Student/still in college 9. Stall merchant/street vendor 20. Housewife 10. Large trader/wholesaler 21. Unable to find work 11. Small entrepeneur 22. Others, please specify : .................................. Z 1 7. Reasons original respondent could not be interviewed : 1. Refused to be interviewed 5. Away for work outside survey area 2. Too old 6. Others : ................................................................... 3. Illness 4. Away for school outside survey area Z 1 8 . House of respondent : 1. Housing complex 2. Not housing complex Z 1 9. Area of respondent’s house (BASED ON INTERVIEWER’S ESTIMATION) : 1. < 10 m2 15. 141-150 m2 2. 11-20 m 2 16. 151-160 m2 3. 21-30 m2 17. 161-170 m2 4. 31- 40 m 2 18. 171-180 m2 5. 41-50 m2 19. 181-190 m2 6. 51-60 m 2 20. 191-200 m2 7. 61-70 m 2 21. 201-250 m2 8. 71-80 m2 22. 251-300 m2 9. 81-90 m 2 23. 301-400 m2 10. 91-100 m 2 24. 401-500 m2 11. 101-110 m2 25. 500-700 m2 12. 111-120 m 2 26. 701-1000 m2 13. 121-130 m2 27. > 1000 m2 14. 131-140 m 2 Z 2 0. According to interviewer’s assessment, how is the condition of respondent’s house ? 1. Luxurious 4. Quite simple 2. Quite luxurious 5. Simple 3. Moderate Z 2 1. Does the respondent seem to have a car ? 1. Yes 2. No NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 45 ANNEX A NOVEMBER 2015 Profile of Original Repondent Who Could Not Be Interviewed As a Reference For Respondent Substitution SURVEYOR GUIDELINES : Copy the answers of questions Z11-Z19 to the multiple choice questions AA1-AA8 below AA1 . Gender of original respondent : 1. Male 2. Female AA2 . Age of original respondent : 1. Below 25 years 3. 41-55 years 2. 25-40 years 4. Above 55 years AA3 . Ethnic group of original respondent : 1. Javanese 3. Others 2. Sundanese AA4 . Religion of original respondent : 1. Islam 2. Others AA5 . Education of original respondent : 1. Elementary school or below (for answer 3. College (for answer codes 8-10 on question Z15) codes 1-3 on question Z15) 2. Junior high school or High school (for answer codes 4-7 on question Z15) AA6 . Occupation of original respondent : 1. Elementary school or below (for answer 3. College (for answer codes 8-10 on question Z15) codes 1-3 on question Z15) 2. Junior high school or High school (for answer codes 4-7 on question Z15) AA7. House of original respondent : 1. Housing complex 2. Not housing complex AA8. Area of original respondent’s house : 1. < 50 m2 2. > 50 m2 (for answer codes 1-5 on question Z19) (for answer codes 6-27 on question Z19) NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 46 ANNEX B NOVEMBER 2015 Annex B. Survey Sample Demographics CATEGORIES % IN SAMPLE % NAT’L ADULT POPULATION G ENDER Male 50.0 50.1 Female 50.0 49.9 DO MI CILE Rural 51.0 50.2 Urban 49.0 49.8 RELIGION Islam 89.9 87.3 Catholic/Protestant 8.1 9.8 Other 2.0 3.0 PROVINCE NAD 1.9 1.9 North Sumatra 5.2 5.5 West Sumatra 1.9 2.0 Riau 2.3 2.3 Jambi 1.3 1.3 South Sumatra 2.9 3.1 Bengkulu 0.6 0.7 Lampung 3.2 3.2 Bangka Belitung 0.6 0.5 Riau Islands 0.6 0.7 DKI Jakarta 3.9 4.0 West Java 17.5 18.1 Central Java 14.6 13.6 Yogyakarta 1.3 1.5 East Java 15.9 15.8 Banten 4.3 4.5 Bali 1.6 1.6 NTB 1.9 1.9 NTT 1.9 2.0 West Kalimantan 1.9 1.8 Central Kalimantan 1.0 0.9 South Kalimantan 1.6 1.5 East Kalimantan 1.6 1.5 North Sulawesi 1.0 1.0 Central Sulawesi 1.0 1.1 South Sulawesi 3.6 3.4 Southeast Sulawesi 1.0 0.9 Gorontalo 0.3 0.4 West Sulawesi 0.3 0.5 Maluku 0.6 0.6 North Maluku 0.3 0.4 Papua 1.6 1.2 West Papua 0.3 0.3 NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 47 ANNEX B NOVEMBER 2015 Age Distribution “What is your current age ?” 150 100 50 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Age Grouping In Analysis The age groups below were chosen for two reasons: 1. No a priori assumptions about particular age thresholds that a ect perceptions about inequality; 2. Maintaining roughly equal group sizes. Age groups 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 17 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51+ NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 48 ANNEX B NOVEMBER 2015 Education Groups Education groups were constructed based on the response to survey question V_6.Due to the small sizes of “in-between” groups, i.e. respondents that started the next level of education but did not complete them, the analysis groups those groups downwards, e.g. “did not complete SMP” is included in “Completed SD”, etc. The final five groups used are: 1. No education completed 4. Completed SMA (senior high school) 2. Completed SD (primary school) 5. Completed tertiary education 3. Completed SMP ( junior high school) Responses to survey question : Clustered responses : Complete S1 or over Completed tertiary Completed Diploma Did not complete tertiary Completed SMA Completed SMA Did not complete SMA Completed SMP Completed SMP Did not complete SMP Complete SD Complete SD Did not complete SD No school None completed 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Income groups Household income approximations were constructed based on responses to questions V_62 to V_70 (see Annex A), which capture up to five main income sources for the household. The questions were structured as follows: 1. Below 200 thousand 7. 1.2-1.399 million 2. 200-399 thousand 8. 1.4-1.599 million 3. 400-599 thousand 9. 1.6-1.799 million 4. 600-799 thousand 10. 1.8-1.999 million 5. 800-999 thousand 11. 2 million – 4 million 6. 1 million -1.199 million 12. Above 4 million The total household monthly income is obtained by using the maximum of the answer range (199 thousand, 399 thousand, 599 thousand, etc.) and summing up all five income sources. This number is then divided by the reported number of household members, resulting in a per capita household monthly income. The per capita household monthly income is then compared to the three di erent dividers: the poverty line, 1.5 times the poverty line, and 3.5 times the poverty line. This results in four income class groups: the Poor (below the poverty line), the Vulnerable (between the poverty line and 1.5 times the poverty line), the Emerging Consumer Class (between 1.5 and 3.5 times the poverty line), and the Consumer Class (above 3.5 times the poverty line). This methodology is discussed further in The World Bank’s Report on the Indonesian Middle Class. The poverty lines used are based on the September 2013 National Socio-Economic Survey (Survei Sosio-Ekonomi National, Susenas), and are di erent for urban and rural respondents in each province. NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 49 ANNEX C NOVEMBER 2015 Annex C. Demographic Cross-Tabulations 1. “How equally is income distributed in Indonesia ?” NOTE Category definitions can be found in Annex B (Question V_12 in Annex A) VERY EQUAL QU ITE EQUAL QU ITE U NEQUAL NOT EQ UA L AT A LL All 0.41 6.44 51.61 51.61 poor 0.42 7.44 50.7 50.7 vulnerable 0.62 6.58 53.09 53.09 ECC 0.24 6.1 51.56 51.56 0.45 5.68 51.57 51.57 CC 17-30 0.48 6.6 53.62 53.62 31-40 0.13 6.17 51.39 51.39 41-50 0.15 5.55 50.69 50.69 51+ 0.95 7.57 50.95 50.95 No educ 0 9.77 48.62 48.62 SD 0.63 6.68 52.46 52.46 SMP 0.19 6.06 51.89 51.89 SMA 0.53 4.91 52.25 52.25 Tertiary 0.44 5.68 51.09 51.09 Male 0.58 6.65 51.21 51.21 Female 0.22 6.22 52.02 52.02 Rural 0.37 7.33 51.36 51.36 Urban 0.45 5.53 51.87 51.87 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2. “How should income be distributed in Indonesia ?” (Question V_11 in Annex A) IDE AL _Q 1 IDEAL_ Q2 IDEAL_ Q3 IDEAL_ Q4 IDE A L_ Q5 All 13.6 16.2 19.5 22.9 27.9 poor 14.2 16.4 19.4 22.5 27.5 vulnerable 13.6 16.1 19.4 22.9 28.1 ECC 13.5 16.2 19.6 22.9 27.8 CC 13.0 15.9 19.4 23.2 28.6 17-30 14.0 16.5 19.4 23.2 27.6 31-40 13.5 16.1 19.4 22.9 28.1 41-50 13.2 15.9 19.6 23.1 28.1 51+ 13.6 16.1 19.6 22.9 27.9 No educ 13.9 16.3 19.5 22.6 27.7 SD 13.9 16.4 19.6 22.8 27.3 SMP 13.7 16.3 19.4 22.9 27.7 SMA 13.2 15.9 19.4 23.0 28.6 Tertiary 12.8 15.6 19.4 23.4 28.8 Male 13.3 16.0 19.4 23.0 28.2 Female 13.8 16.3 19.5 22.7 27.6 Rural 13.4 16.1 19.5 23.0 28.0 Urban 13.7 16.2 19.4 22.8 27.9 NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 50 ANNEX C NOVEMBER 2015 3. If you had the ability to divide national income among five groups, A which of the images below is the best one ? (Question V_12 in Annex A) Richest 4 Group 3 2 Poorest 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Share of income B Richest 4 Group 3 2 Poorest 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Share of income C Richest 4 Group 3 2 Poorest 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Share of income D Richest 4 Group 3 2 Poorest 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Share of income E Richest 4 Group 3 2 Poorest 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Share of income NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 51 ANNEX C NOVEMBER 2015 B C D E 1.8 All 2 57.7 40.4 2.5 poor 1 50.1 47.2 1.7 vulnerable 0 55.7 42.6 1.4 ECC 0 61.4 37.3 1.8 CC 1 62.4 35.6 2.5 17-30 0 53.9 43.6 1.8 31-40 1 58.6 39.4 1.3 41-50 0 59.3 39.4 1.9 51+ 1 58.5 39.4 2.2 No educ 0 53.5 44.3 1.9 SD 0 52.3 45.8 1.7 SMP 0 57.2 41.0 1.5 SMA 1 63.3 35.1 2.7 Tertiary 1 64.6 32.3 1.9 Male 2 60.1 37.9 1.8 Female 0 55.1 43.1 2.2 Rural 0 54.5 43.3 1.5 Urban 2 60.9 37.5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 4. “How urgent is it for government to reduce inequality ?” (Question V_37 in Annex A) VERY U R GENT QU ITE U R GENT NOT VERY U R GENT NOT U R G EN T AT A LL 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 All Poor vulnerab ECC CC 17-30 31-40 41-50 51+ No educ SD SMP SMA Tertiary Male Female Rural Urban NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 52 ANNEX C NOVEMBER 2015 5. “Which of these scenarios do you favor more ?” (Question V_36 in Annex A) HIGH GR OWTH, LOW G R OWT H , HIGH INEQUALITY LOW I N EQUA LI T Y All poor vulnerab ECC CC 17-30 31-40 41-50 51+ No educ SD SMP SMA Tertiary Male Female Rural Urban 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6. Is “this policy” one of the three most important for reducing inequality ? (V_42, V_43, V_44) 60 50 Social protection 40 program 30 20 10 0 All Poor vulnerab ECC CC 17-30 31-40 41-50 51+ No educ SD SMP SMA Tertiary Male Female Rural Urban 12 10 Village grants 8 6 4 2 0 All Poor vulnerab ECC CC 17-30 31-40 41-50 51+ No educ SD SMP SMA Tertiary Male Female Rural Urban NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 53 Raise text on Beter Free Free the reach Infrastructure healthcare educational for all for all 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 ANNEX C All All All All Poor Poor Poor Poor vulnerab vulnerab vulnerab vulnerab ECC ECC ECC ECC CC CC CC CC NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 17-30 17-30 17-30 17-30 31-40 31-40 31-40 31-40 41-50 41-50 41-50 41-50 51+ 51+ 51+ 51+ No educ No educ No educ No educ SD SD SD SD NOVEMBER 2015 SMP SMP SMP SMP SMA SMA SMA SMA Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban 54 Increase subsidies Improve quality Fair Raise Eradicate of schools ownership of the minimum corruption public assets wage 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 ANNEX C All All All All All Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor vulnerab vulnerab vulnerab vulnerab vulnerab ECC ECC ECC ECC ECC CC CC CC CC CC NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 17-30 17-30 17-30 17-30 17-30 31-40 31-40 31-40 31-40 31-40 41-50 41-50 41-50 41-50 41-50 51+ 51+ 51+ 51+ 51+ No educ No educ No educ No educ No educ SD SD SD SD SD NOVEMBER 2015 SMP SMP SMP SMP SMP SMA SMA SMA SMA SMA Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban 55 Non business loans Credit for small Unemployment Create for the poor businesses insurance more jobs 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ANNEX C All All All All Poor Poor Poor Poor vulnerab vulnerab vulnerab vulnerab ECC ECC ECC ECC CC CC CC CC NATIONAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMMUNITY SOCIAL ISSUES 17-30 17-30 17-30 17-30 31-40 31-40 31-40 31-40 41-50 41-50 41-50 41-50 51+ 51+ 51+ 51+ No educ No educ No educ No educ SD SD SD SD NOVEMBER 2015 SMP SMP SMP SMP SMA SMA SMA SMA Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban