Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat ... · pertanian 5-15% akan meningkatkan penawaran output domestik pertanian sebesar 9,7- ... Dalam pembangunan pertanian, perbaikan

LAPORAN AKHIR HASIL

PENELITIAN HIBAH BERSAING INSTITUSI BATCH II TAHUN ANGGARAN 2012

Judul : Dampak Perbaikan Efisiensi Pemasaran Hasil Pertanian Terhadap Ketahanan Pangan dan Kesejahteraan Rumah Tangga di Indonesia

(Analisis Computable General Equilibrium)

Ketua : : Prof. Ir. Ratya Anindita, MS., Ph.D. (19610908 198601 1 001)

Anggota : 1. Prof. Dr. Ir. Budi Setiawan, MS. (19550327 198103 1 003) 2. Nur Baladina, SP. MP. (19820214 200801 2 001)

Dibiayai oleh Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Melalui DIPA Universitas Brawijaya nomor : 0636/023-

04.2.16/15/2012, tanggal 9 Desember 2011, dan berdasarkan SK Rektor Universitas Brawijaya Nomor : 419/SK/2012 tanggal 27 September 2012

Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Universitas Brawijaya

2012

Bidang Unggulan: Ketahanan Pangan

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini dalam jangka panjang bertujuan untuk membangun efisiensi dalam pemasaran hasil pertanian di Indonesia. Adapun tujuan khususnya adalah menganalisis dampak perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian terhadap ketahanan pangan (kinerja ekonomi sektoral) dan kesejahteraan rumah tangga, serta merumuskan konsep kebijakan perbaikan efisensi pemasaran hasil pertanian yang dapat mendukung tercapainya program ketahanan pangan dan kesejahteraan rumah tangga. Analisis dilakukan dengan menggunakan model CGE/MPSGE berdasarkan data SNSE Indonesia dan Tabel Input Output Indonesia 2008.

Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa kebijakan perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian 5-15% akan meningkatkan penawaran output domestik pertanian sebesar 9,7-200%, kecuali kacang-kacangan yang relatif tetap, sementara sektor lainnya naik 1,5-123%, kecuali industri pupuk dan pestisida yang turun 7,9-8,4%. Ekspor sektor pertanian naik 120-1287%, kecuali padi dan pertanian tanaman lainnya yang turun, sementara sektor lainnya naik 5,2-200%, kecuali industri pupuk dan pestisida yang konstan. Namun impor sektor pertanian naik 7-261,5%, kecuali jagung yang konstan dan umbi-umbian yang turun 15-21%, sementara sektor lainnya naik 13,4-100%, kecuali industri pupuk dan pestisida, perikanan, kehutanan dan perburuan. Perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian juga berdampak pada turunnya pengeluaran seluruh rumah tangga sebesar 3,3-6,7%, produsen 41-45% dan pemerintah 3,9-7,3%, sedangkan kesejahteraan rumah tangga naik 0,7-1,1% dan produsen turun 38-40%.

Kebijakan perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian secara umum berdampak positif terhadap peningkatan ketahanan pangan dan kesejahteraan rumah tangga di Indonesia, sehingga konsep kebijakan yang dapat disusun antara lain: (1) kebijakan perbaikan sistem informasi harga dan pasar melalui pengembangan pasar lelang produk pertanian (agribisnis), (2) peningkatan kinerja petani untuk ikut dalam kegiatan pemasaran, penguatan kelembagaan petani, (3) perbaikan sarana dan prasarana transportasi, (4) penerapan mekanisme lindung nilai pada produk pertanian dengan Sistem Resi Gudang (SRG), (5) stabilisasi harga produk pertanian terutama tanaman pangan, dan (6) perlindungan terhadap produk pertanian domestik dari serangan produk-produk pertanian impor dari negara lain.

Kata kunci: efisiensi pemasaran, ketahanan pangan, kesejahteraan rumah tangga,

CGE/MPSGE

ABSTRACT

The goal of this study in the long-term is to build marketing efficiency of agricultural products in Indonesia. The specific objectives are to analyze the impact of agricultural marketing efficiency improvements to food security and household welfare. Analyses were performed by using CGE models / MPSGE based on the NSSE Data and Annual Input Output Table of Indonesia in 2008.

The empirical result showed that the improvement of marketing efficiency by 5-15% will increase the supply of domestic agricultural output by 9.7 to 200%, except nuts which remained constant, while the other sectors rose from 1.5 to 123%, except for fertilizer and pesticides industry which decline by 7.9 to 8.4%. Agricultural exports increase by 120-1287%, with the exception of rice and other crops which decline. The other sectors rose from 5.2 to 200%, except fertilizers and pesticides industry which remained constant. The imports quantities of agricultural sector generally rose by 7 to 261.5%. However, the import quantities of corn are remained constant, tubers are decline by 15-21%. Meanwhile the quantity import of other sectors rose from 13.4 to 100%, except for fertilizer and pesticide industries, fisheries, forestry and hunting. Agricultural marketing efficiency improvements also resulted in a decrease in household’s expenses by 3.3 to 6.7%, 41-45% and government by 3.9 to 7.3%. As a contra, the welfare of households rose from 0.7 to 1,1% and the producer dropped 38-40%.

Marketing efficiency improvement policy in general bring a positive impact on increasing food security and household welfare in Indonesia, therefore the concept of policies that can be set are as follows: (1) improving market information systems through the development of an auction market of agricultural products, (2) improving farmers performance to participate in marketing activities through strengthening farmers institutional, (3) improving transportation facilities, (4) apply of agricultural product hedging mechanism by Sistem Resi Gudang (SRG), (5) price stabilization of agricultural products, especially food crops, and (6) protection toward domestic agriculture production.

Keyword: marketing efficiency; food security; household welfare; CGE/MPSGE

RINGKASAN

Pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia mengalami peningkatan yang signifikan sejak awal tahun 1970-an. Selama periode 1984-2007, rata-rata pertumbuhan ekonomi nasional mencapai 4,9% pertahun. Sedangkan pertumbuhan ekonomi di sektor pertanian juga mengalami peningkatan, namun tidak sebesar peningkatan pertumbuhan ekonomi sektor lainnya. Pada periode 1984 – 2007, rata-rata pertumbuhan ekonomi sektor pertanian hanya mencapai 2,8% pertahun. Oleh sebab itu, peranan sektor pertanian terhadap produk domestik brutto (PDB) semakin menurun dari sebesar 51% pada tahun 1965 menjadi 17% pada tahun 2005 (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2010). Sedangkan berdasarkan harga konstan 1983, diketahui bahwa nilai tukar petani juga mempunyai trend yang menurun. Selama periode 1986 – 2007, nilai tukar petani tertinggi dicapai pada tahun 1988 yaitu sebesar 109,27 dan terendah pada tahun 1993 yaitu sebesar 95,25 (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2010). Menurunnya trend nilai tukar menunjukkan bahwa kesejahteraan petani menurun akibat kenaikan harga produk pertanian yang relatif lambat dibandingkan dengan produk non pertanian.

Harga yang stagnan di sektor pertanian salah satunya disebabkan karena para petani/produsen enggan untuk ikut dalam aktivitas pemasaran dan nilai tambah (pengolahan pasca panen) sehingga pendapatan petani masih sangat tergantung pada harga yang ditentukan oleh pedagang dan/atau processor. Padahal menurut Downey dan Erickson (2002), keuntungan dari usaha tani/ budidaya hanya 30 % saja, sedangkan 70 %-nya berada pada sektor hilir (pengolahan dan pemasaran). Selain itu, pasar hasil pertanian yang dihadapi oleh petani adalah pasar yang bersaing tidak sempurna yang cenderung oligopsoni atau monopsoni. Hal ini berakibat terjadinya eksploitasi yang merupakan hukum alam dalam bisnis karena adanya perbedaan posisi market power yang pada akhirnya menempatkan posisi harga petani yang relatif stagnan.

Oleh karena itu perlu dilakukan perbaikan nilai tukar petani melalui perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran. Dalam pembangunan pertanian, perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian memiliki peran yang sangat penting, yaitu (1) meningkatkan spesialisasi aktivitas dalam comparative advantage sehingga suatu negara lebih mampu melakukan perdagangan; (2) meningkatkan efisiensi dan perdagangan sumberdaya alam; dan (3) kemajuan di bidang pemasaran akan mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi (Smalley dan Ehui, 1995). Menurut Hayami (2001), dalam pasar yang efisien diperlukan adanya intervensi pemerintah dengan cara membangun sistem informasi dan infrastuktur yang efisien melalui sistem pemasaran dari daerah perdesaan sampai ke konsumen sehingga informasi harga dan produk mampu diperoleh oleh produsen dan konsumen, yang pada akhirnya mampu mengurangi marjin pemasaran, meningkatkan harga jual produsen dan mengurangi harga beli konsumen. Dengan meningkatnya nilai tukar petani dan berkurangnya harga beli konsumen, lebih lanjut akan mendorong peningkatan produksi dan konsumsi hasil pertanian. Meningkatnya produksi hasil pertanian menunjukkan semakin meningkatnya ketersediaan pangan, sedangkan meningkatnya konsumsi hasil pertanian menunjukan semakin meningkatnya akses pangan dan penyerapan pangan masyarakat, sehingga masyarakat ekonomi rumah tangga akan dapat lebih sejahtera.

Menurut Weingartner (2004), ketahanan pangan terdiri dari empat sub sistem utama yaitu ketersediaan (food availability), akses pangan (food access), penyerapan pangan (food utilization), dan stabilitas pangan (food stability), sedangkan status gizi (nutritional status) merupakan outcome dari ketahanan pangan. Ketersediaan, akses, penyerapan, dan stabilitas pangan merupakan satu kesatuan sub sistem yang harus dipenuhi secara utuh. Jika salah satu subsistem tersebut tidak dipenuhi, maka suatu negara belum dapat dikatakan mempunyai ketahanan pangan yang baik. Sedangkan Borton dan Shoham (1991) mengemukakan bahwa tersedianya pangan pada tingkat nasional tidak secara otomatis menjamin ketahanan pangan pada tingkat rumah tangga. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dampak perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian terhadap ketahanan pangan (kinerja ekonomi sektoral) dan kesejahteraan rumah tangga, serta merumuskan konsep kebijakan perbaikan efisensi pemasaran hasil pertanian yang dapat mendukung tercapainya program ketahanan pangan dan kesejahteraan rumah tangga.

Untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut digunakan model komparatif statik Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) untuk Indonesia dengan asumsi constant return to scale sesuai yang dianjurkan oleh Soudolet and Janvry (1995) dan Lofgren et al. (2002). Data yang

digunakan untuk analisis CGE adalah data sekunder Statistik Nasional Sosial Ekonomi (SNSE) dan Tabel Input Output Indonesia tahun 2008. Model dibedakan menjadi 23 group industri/komoditi, sedangkan sektor pertanian dalam tulisan ini dibedakan atas pengertian pertanian dalam arti sempit: (1) pertanian tanaman pangan yang didisagregasi menjadi sektor tanaman padi, kacang-kacangan, jagung, umbi-umbian, sayur dan buah, bahan makanan lainnya, (2) pertanian tanaman lainnya. Sementara itu, rumah tangga dalam model ini dibedakan menjadi 8 golongan yaitu: (1) rumah tangga buruh tani, (2) rumah tangga pengusaha pertanian, (3) rumah tangga bukan pertanian berpenghasilan rendah di desa, (4) rumah tangga bukan angkatan kerja di desa, (5) rumah tangga bukan pertanian berpenghasilan tinggi di desa, (6) rumah tangga bukan pertanian berpenghasilan rendah di kota, (7) rumah tangga bukan angkatan kerja di kota, dan (8) rumah tangga bukan pertanian berpenghasilan tinggi di kota. Untuk mempertajam analisis, dilakukan beberapa simulasi kebijakan perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran sebesar 5%, 8%, 10%, dan 15%.

Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa kebijakan perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian 5-15% berdampak positif terhadap peningkatan output domestik hampir di semua sektor, kecuali industri pupuk dan pestisida yang turun 7,9-8,4% serta kacang-kacangan yang konstan tidak mengalami peningkatan. Hasil ini sesuai dengan teori Mellor (1967) serta Smalley dan Ehui (1995), bahwa perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran akan mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi dengan berkurangnya marjin pemasaran yang pada akhirnya mendorong kenaikan harga jual produsen dan lebih lanjut akan meningkatkan produksi output. Untuk tanaman pangan, padi mengalami peningkatan kuantitas output terbesar (113-159%) akibat perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran, sehingga diharapkan dapat mendukung program swasembada beras yang dicanangkan pemerintah Indonesia 2014.

Kebijakan perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian 5-15% juga berpengaruh positif terhadap peningkatan kuantitas ekspor hampir di semua sektor (5-1.287%), kecuali sektor pertanian tanaman pangan pada komoditas padi dan sektor pertanian tanaman lain yang mengalami penurunan, serta sektor industri pupuk dan pestisida yang konstan tidak mengalami perubahan. Komoditas padi dan sektor pertanian lain saat ini tidak diekspor karena masih belum mampu memenuhi kebutuhan domestik. Sedangkan meningkatnya kuantitas ekspor beberapa sektor seperti tanaman pangan komoditas jagung (186-197%) dan umbi-umbian (1.287%), kacang-kacangan (126-143%), sayur dan buah (120-130%), bahan makanan lain (298-399%), peternakan (102,56%), kehutanan dan perburuan (5-6,7%), perikanan (175-200%), serta industri makanan dan minuman (20-24%) diduga karena sebagian dari output domestik bahan pangan ini tidak terjual habis di pasar domestik sehingga harus dijual (diekspor) ke pasar luar negeri.

Kebijakan perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian 5-15% juga berpengaruh terhadap peningkatan kuantitas impor hampir di semua sektor, kecuali sektor pertanian tanaman pangan jagung dan umbi-umbian, kehutanan dan perburuan, perikanan, serta industri pupuk dan pestisida. Kuantitas impor industri pupuk dan pestisida serta jagung domestik konstan tidak berubah karena belum mampu memenuhi kebutuhan dalam negeri. Sedangkan umbi-umbian, sektor kehutanan dan perburuan, serta sektor perikanan mengalami penurunan kuantitas impor sebesar 4,9-21,2% disebabkan karena kuantitas output domestik sektor tersebut telah mampu memenuhi sebagian besar kebutuhan domestik. Selain untuk memenuhi kebutuhan domestik, meningkatnya impor beberapa sektor dapat disebabkan karena daya saing komoditas domestik yang rendah. Hal ini ditandai dengan harga komoditas domestik yang relatif lebih tinggi dibandingkan harga komoditas impor, atau kualitas komoditas domestik yang relatif lebih rendah dibandingkan kualitas komoditas impor. Namun harga komoditas domestik yang lebih tinggi dalam jangka panjang juga dapat mendorong produsen dalam negeri untuk meningkatkan outputnya sehingga kuantitas impor akan turun.

Sementara itu, perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian 5-15% akan berdampak pada turunnya pengeluaran riil semua pelaku ekonomi, yaitu rumah tangga (3,3-6,7%), perusahaan (40,6-44,8%), dan pemerintah (3,9-7,3%). Semakin besar terjadi perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian, semakin turun pengeluaran riil semua rumah tangga. Adanya kebijakan perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran, akan berdampak pada turunnya marjin perdagangan dan pengangkutan

sehingga dapat meningkatkan daya beli dan menekan pengeluaran riil rumah tangga, termasuk konsumen, pemerintah dan perusahaan (produsen). Berdasarkan persentase turunnya pengeluaran riil, produsen merupakan pelaku ekonomi yang mendapatkan keuntungan terbesar dengan adanya kebijakan perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian.

Perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian juga berdampak pada meningkatnya kesejahteraan rumah tangga, tetapi menurunkan kesejahteraan produsen. Jika terjadi perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran 5%, kesejahteraan rumah tangga pertanian meningkat 0,85-0,86%, rumah tangga non-pertanian di desa meningkat 0,69-0,93% dan rumah tangga non-pertanian di kota meningkat 0,70-0,92%, sedangkan kesejahteraan produsen turun 38,15%. Jika terjadi perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran 8-15%, kesejahteraan rumah tangga pertanian meningkat 0,86-1,03%, rumah tangga non-pertanian di desa meningkat 0,86-1,12% dan rumah tangga non-pertanian di kota meningkat 0,88-1,10%, sedangkan kesejahteraan produsen turun 38,15-40,23%. Jadi semakin besar terjadi perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran, semakin meningkat kesejahteraan rumah tangga dan semakin turun kesejahteraan perusahaan (produsen).

Kebijakan perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian secara umum berdampak positif terhadap ketahanan pangan dan kesejahteraan rumah tangga dilihat dari indikator kuantitas output domestik, ekspor, impor, pengeluaran dan kesejahteraan rumah tangga. Oleh karena itu, pemerintah perlu segera menyusun rencana aksi (regulasi) untuk mengefektifkan strategi kebijakan perbaikan efisiensi pemasaran hasil pertanian agar dapat diaplikasikan untuk memperkuat ketahanan pangan nasional dan meningkatkan kesejahteraan rumah tangga di Indonesia, antara lain: 1. Perbaikan sistem informasi harga dan pasar melalui pembangunan pasar induk dan pasar

lelang produk pertanian, 2. Peningkatan kinerja petani untuk ikut dalam kegiatan pemasaran melalui penguatan

kelembagaan petani, 3. Perbaikan sarana dan prasarana transportasi 4. Penerapan mekanisme lindung nilai pada produk pertanian dengan Sistem Resi Gudang

(SRG), 5. Stabilisasi harga produk pertanian terutama tanaman pangan di tingkat produsen (petani)

melalui implementasi kebijakan Harga Pokok Pembelian (HPP), serta kebijakan stabilisasi harga di tingkat konsumen melalui penetapan regulasi Harga Eceran Tertinggi (HET), serta

6. Perlindungan terhadap produk pertanian domestik dari serangan produk-produk pertanian impor dari negara lain, melalui penetapan kebijakan tarif impor dan pembatasan kuota impor, misal untuk komoditi beras.

SUMMARY

Indonesia's economic growth has increased significantly since 1970's. In averaged

the national economic growth from 1984 to 2007 is 4.9% per year. Meanwhile, the economic growth in the agricultural sector also increased smoothly. In the period 1984 - 2007, the average economic growth of the agricultural sector was only 2.8% per year, compare with other sector which increase in the higher magnitude. Therefore, the role of the agricultural sector to the gross domestic product (GDP) has declined from 51% in 1965 to 17% in 2005 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2010).

According to the 1983 constant prices, the farmer’s exchange rate shows declining trend. During 1986 – 2007 period, the highest farmer’s exchange rate is 109.27 in 1988 uand the lowest is 95.25 in 1993 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2010). The decline in the exchange rate trend shows that the farmer’s welfare declined due to the slow rising in price compared to the non-agricultural products.

The stagnancy in prices is also caused by the unchanged in markets growth, which turn poverty in rural areas worst (Janvry, 1975). Stagnant conditions in the agricultural sector are also exacerbated by the import substitution policy and overvalued exchange rate which creates a low agricultural prices. Furthermore, farmers/producers are reluctant to participate in marketing activities and value-added process (post-harvest processing), which caused the income of farmers is still highly depend on the price specified by the trader and / or processor. According to Downey and Erickson (2002), in the agricultural sector, the advantage of farming/cultivation is only 30%, while 70% of them are in the downstream (processing and marketing). In addition, an agricultural market faced by farmers is imperfect competition market which tend to oligopsony and monopsony market. This condition results in the exploitation by the monopsonist affect by the existence of market power gap in the market, which puts the position of farmer’s price relatively stagnant. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the farmer’s exchange rate through marketing efficiency improvement.

In the agriculture development, marketing efficiency improvement of agriculture product has an important roles, such as (1) increasing the activity specialization in the comparative advantage in order to support the national trade activity; (2) increasing the efficiency and the national resource commerce; and (3) the advancement in the marketing sector will stimulate the economic growth (Smalley and Ehui, 1995). Hayami (2001) also state that efficient market and marketing efficiency have an important implication toward economic development policy, especially in the agriculture sector. In the efficient market, government intervention are needed through the development of information system and an efficient infrastructure to support the marketing system from the rural area to the final consumer. With a reliable information system, the information of price and product will be easier to access by the producer and consumer. At the end, the perfect information will enable to decrease marketing margin, increase the selling price in the level of producer, and decrease the purchasing price in the level of consumer.

According to Weingartner (2004), food security consists of four main subsystems, namely availability (food availability), access to food (food access), absorption of food (food utilization), and the stability of food (food stability), while the nutritional status (nutritional status) an outcome of food security. Availability, access, absorption, and stability of food is an integral sub-systems that must be met in full. If one of the subsystems are not met, then a country can not be said to have a good food security. While Borton and Shoham (1991) suggested that the availability of food at the national level does not automatically ensure food security at the household level. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the impact of agricultural marketing efficiency improvements to food security (economic performance of the sector) and household welfare, as well as formulating the concept for the improvement of efficiency of agricultural marketing program to support the achievement of food security and household welfare.

To achieve the research goal, the static CGE model was used with the constant return to scale asumption, as a reference by Soudolet and Janvry (1995) dan Lofgren et al. (2002). The data used in this study is a secondary data derived from the National Statistics Socio-Economic (SAM) Indonesia and Indonesia Annual Input Output Table (IO) in 2008. The model is divided into 23 industry groups / commodity and 3 primary factors, namely capital and labor (skilled and unskilled) which have mobile characteristic. Intermediate inputs used in the production process in each group classified into two categories according to the input source such as domestic and imported intermediate inputs. While the agricultural sector in this paper is distinguished for understanding agriculture in a narrow sense: (1) food crops that divide into sub-sectors of rice, beans, corn, root crops, vegetables and fruits, and other food crop commodity, (2) the other agricultural commodity.

The households term in this model is divided into 8 groups, namely: (1) domestic farm workers, (2) agricultural household employers, (3) non-agricultural household in the village, (4) non-labor force household in the village, (5) non-agricultural households in high-income country, (6) non-agricultural household in the city, (7) non-labor force household in the city, and (8) non-agricultural household with high income in the city. To sharpen the analysis, several simulations policies applied include: (a) improving marketing efficiency by 5%, (b) improving marketing efficiency by 8%, (c) improving marketing efficiency by 10%, and (d) improving marketing efficiency by 15%.

Policy of agricultural marketing efficiency improvements by 5-15% have a positive impact on increasing domestic output in almost all sectors except fertilizers and pesticides industrial which fell from 7.9 to 8.4% and the nuts commodity which remained constant.

These results are consistent with the theory of Mellor (1967) and Smalley and Ehui (1995), whose state that the improvement of marketing efficiency will stimulate the economic growth by reduced marketing margins, which in turn leading to higher selling prices and furthermore will encourage producers to increase the production output. For food crops, the quantity output of rice increase from 113 to 159% due to the improvement of marketing efficiency, which is expected to support the rice self-sufficiency program launched by the Government of Indonesia in 2014.

Marketing efficiency improvement by 5-15% increase the the export quantity in almost all sectors, except paddy and other crops which decreased. Beside the decreasing in paddy subsector, the export quantity of fertilizers and pesticides industry remain constant. Paddy and other crops sectors currently not exported because it still has not been able to meet the domestic needs. The decreasing of export quantity during marketing efficiency improvement was expected, since the domestic demand couldn’t satisfy yet. Further, the increase in the quantity of exports of some sectors are corn (186-197%), tubers (1,287%), pulses (126-143%), vegetables and fruits (120-130%), other food ( 298-399%), livestock (102.56%), forestry and hunting (5 to 6.7%), fisheries (175-200%), and food and beverage industry (20-24%).

Improving the marketing efficiency of agricultural product by 5-15% enable to increase the import quantity in almost all sectors, except corn, root crops, forestry and hunting, fishery, and the fertilizer and pesticides industry. The constant quantity of corn, fertilizer and pesticide industry indicate that those sub sector still couldn’t satisfy the domestic needs. Therefore, the import quantity remains constant. The tubers crops, forestry and hunting, and fishery sector suffer a declining in imports quantities by 4.9 to 21.2% due to the increasing in the domestic production and has been able to satisfy most of the domestic demand.

The increasing in import quantity not only due to fulfill the domestic demand but also caused by the low quality and competitiveness of the domestic product. It is characterized by the different price between domestic and import commodity, where the domestic commodity prices are relatively higher than the imported commodities, whereas the quality of the domestic product is relatively lower than the imported commodities. However, higher price of the domestic commodity for long term will encourage domestic producers to increase output so that the quantity of imports will fall.

The finding shows that marketing efficiency improvement by 5-15% affect the declining in real expenditure of all economic agents, including households (3.3 to 6.7%), firms (from 40.6 to 44.8%), and governments (3.9 to 7.3%). The greater the efficiency improvement occurred, the lowered real producers and government expenditure. The impact of marketing efficiency improvement toward household expenditure also experience by producer and government, where the improvement policy will decline the marketing margin, which resulted in decreasing retailer price and increasing in purchasing power. According to the declining percentage, producer/manufacturers are the economic actors with the greatest benefit regarding to the improvement of the marketing efficiency of agricultural product.

The improving in marketing efficiency of the agriculture product resulted in increasing of household welfare, but decreasing in producer welfare (Table 5). When marketing efficiency improved by 5%, the farmer household welfare increase by 0.85 to 0.86%, non-farmer household welfare increase by 0.70 - 0.92%, and producer welfare decrease by 38.15%. When marketing efficiency improved by 8-15%, non-farmer household welfare in the village increase by 0.86 to 1.12%, non-farmer household welfare in the city increase by 0.88 to 1.10%, and producer welfare decrease by 38.15 - 4023%. Based on the finding that, the greater marketing efficiency improvements, the greater household welfare. However, as a contra the increasing in marketing efficiency will impact in declining producer welfare.

According to the empirical result, we can see that, generally, marketing efficiency improvement bring a positive impact on quantity of domestic output, exports, imports, household expenditure and welfare. Therefore, government needs to develop a strategic action (regulation) to implement the marketing efficiency improvement strategies to strengthen the national food security and increase household welfare. The recommended policy that can be set, including: 1. Improving market information systems through the development of an auction market of

agricultural products, 2. Improving farmers performance to participate in marketing activities through strengthening

farmers institutional, 3. Improving transportation facilities, 4. Apply of agricultural product hedging mechanism by Sistem Resi Gudang (SRG), 5. Price stabilization policies at the level of company/ manufacturer through the implementation of

main cost of production policies as well as price stabilization policies at the consumer level through the establishment of highest retail price policy, and

6. Protection toward domestic agriculture production, by setting the import tariff of rice and import quotas.

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Anindita, Ratya. 2010. Dampak Efisiensi Pemasaran Hasil Pertanian Terhadap Perekonomian Indonesia. Pidato Pengukuhan Jabatan Guru Besar dalam Bidang Ilmu Pemasaran Hasil Pertanian pada Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Brawijaya. BAPSI UB.

Anindita, Ratya dan Michael R. Reed. 2009. Perdagangan Internasional. Penerbit Andi Offset.

Applebaum, Eli. 1979. The Estimate of the Degree of Oligopoly Power. Journal Econometrics 19:287-299 .

Arndt, Channing; Henning Tarp Jensen; Sherman Robinson and Finn Tarp. 1999. Marketing Margins and Agricultural Technology in Mozambique. Trade and Macroeconomics Division. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington D.C, USA

Arrow, K.J. and Debreu, G. 1954. "Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy," Econometrica. Vol. 22: 265-290.

Badan Pusat Statistik. 2010. Tabel Sistem Neraca Sosial Ekonomi Indonesia tahun 2008. Jakarta: BPS.

----------------------------. 2009. Tabel Input Output Indonesia Updating 2008. Jakarta: BPS.

Boehlje, M; Stephen L.H; R S Shroeder. 1999. Farming in the 21st Century. Department of Agricultural Economics. Purdue University.

Borton, J. And J. Shoham, 1991. Mapping Vulnerability to Food Insecurity: Tentative Guidelines for WFP Offices, Mimeo. Study Commisioned by the World Food Programme. London: Relief and Development Institute.

Breisinger, C., Marcelle Thomas, dan James Thurlow. 2009. Social Accounting Matrices and Multiplier Analysis: An Introduction with Exercises. Food Security in Practice Series. Washington D.C.: The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Bressler, R.G., and R.A. King.1970. Markets, Prices, and Interregional Trade. New York NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Buehrer, T. dan F.D. Mauro. 1995. Computable General Equilibrium Model as Tools for Policy Analysis in Developing Countries: Some Basic Principles and an Empirical Application. Rome: Banca D’talia.

Devarajan, S., Lewis, J.D., dan Robinson, S. 1990. Policy Lessons from Trade-Focused, Two-Sector Models. Journal of Policy Modeling 12(4): 625-657.

Dowling, J Malcolm dan Valenzuela, Ma Rebecca. 2004. Economic Development in Asia. Thomson Learning. Singapore.

Fama. EF, (1970). “Efficient Capital Markets: a Review of Theory and Empirical Work”. Journal of Finance. 25:383–417.

Hakim, B.D., 2009. Bunga Rampai Agribisnis Seri Pemasaran. IPB Press. Bogor

Hanemann, M. dan Edward Morey. 1992. Separability, Partial Demand System and Consumer’s Surplus Measures. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 241-258.

Hayami, Yujiro. 2001. Development Economics: From the Poverty to the Wealth of Nations. Oxford University Press. Second Edition.

Hosoe, N., Kenji Gasawa dan Hideo Hashimoto. 2010. Textbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modelling: Programming and Simulations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Janvry, Alan de. 1975. The Political Economy of Rural Development in Latin America: An Interpretation. American Jurnal of Agricultural Economics. Vol.57. No. 3 (Agustus 1975), pp. 490 - 499

Landes dan Burfisher, 2009. Growth and Equity Effects of Agricultural Marketing Efficiency in India. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Report No.88.

Lofgren,H., Rebecca Lee Harris, Sherman Robinson. 2002. A Standard Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model in GAMS. Microcomputers in Policy Research International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC.

Markusen, J R. 2005. Introduction to GAMS for Economic Euilibriums Problems. University of Colorado, Boulder, version July 4, 2005.

Maxwell S. And T. Frankenberger. 1992. Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, Measurements: A Technical Review. IFAD/UNICEF, Rome.

Mellor, JW. 1967. Toward a Theory of Agricultural Development in Agriculture Development and Economic Growth. Edited by HS Southworth dan BF Johnston. Cornell University Press.

Oktaviani, R. 2001. Dampak Perubahan Kebijakan Fiskal terhadap Kinerja Ekonomi Makro dan Sektoral. Bisnis dan Ekonomi Politik 4(4):33-45.

Pabuayon, Isabelita M. 2008. Alleviating Poverty in Philippine Coconut-Based Communities through Value-Addition and Improved Marketing Possibilities. Paper presented during the 6th Asian Society of Agricultural Economists (ASAE) Conference on “The Asian Economic Renaissance: What’s in it for Agriculture” held on 28-30 August 2008 at the AIM Conference Center, Makati City, Philippines

Ratnawati, A. 1996. Dampak Kebijakan Tarif Impor dan pajak Ekspor Terhadap Kinerja Perekonomian, Sektor Pertanian dan Distribusi Pendapatan di Indonesia: Suatu Pendekatan Model Keseimbangan Umum. Disertasi. Institut Pertanian Bogor. Tidak dipublikasikan.

Ranis, Gustav. 2004 . Arthur Lewis’ Contribution to the Economics Development. Economic Growth Center. Yale University. Center Discussion Paper No. 891.

Resosudarmo, B.P.; Arief A.Yusuf; Djoni Hartanto dan Ditya A. Nurdianto. 2009. Implementation of the IR-CGE Model for Planning: IRSA-INDONESIA 5 (Inter-Regional System of Analysis in 5 Region). CSIRO. Australia.

Schultz, T. W. 1964. Transforming Traditional Agriculture, p. 5. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sexton, RJ. 1990. Imperfect Competition in Agricultural Market and the Role of Cooperatives : A spatial Analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 72 (3) : 779-720.

Shroeter, RJ. 1990. Imperfect Competition in Agricultural Market and the Role of Cooperatives: A Spatial Analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 72(3):779 – 720.

Siregar, H dan Dwi Wahyuniarti.2007. Dampak Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Terhadap Penurunan Jumlah Penduduk Miskin. Makalah Seminar Nasional "Meningkatkan Peran Sektor Pertanian dalam Penanggulangan Kemiskinan" yang diselenggarakan di Pusat Analisis Sosial Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian Jl. Ahmad Yani. No. 70 Bogor 16161 Gd. A Lt. IV, tanggal 21 Agustus 2007.

Smalley, EM dan Ehui,S . 1995. Livestock Policy Analysis. International Livestock Research Institute. Training Manual 2. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 264.

Soudolet, Elizabeth and Alan de Janvry. 1995. Quantitave Development Policy Analysis. The Jhon Hopkins University Press

Timmer, P. 1997. Policy Arena: Building Efficiency in Agricultural Marketing: The Long Run Role of BULOG in the Indonesian Food Economy. Journal of International Development Vol. 9. No.1, pp (133 -145).

Varian, Hal R. 1992, Microeconomic Analysis, Third Edition, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.

Weingartner, L. 2004. The Concept of Food and Nutrition Security in Klaus Klennert (ed). Achieving Food and Nutrition Security: Actions to Meet the Global Challenge. Bonn, Germany.

Yeah, K.L., J.F. Yanogida dan H. Yamauchi. 1994. Evaluation of External Market Effects and Government Intervention in Malaysia’s Agricultural Sector: A Computable General Equilibrium Framework. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 11(2): 237-256.