By way of resurrecting the blog after nearly 2 years' hibernation, I want to relate a little story. There may be no point in it, as it is not my intention to make one.
Anyhow, weary after work one wintry day I sat on a steel green bench in front a crowded cafe called Sakeena. It was a beautiful day, a little sunny, though nobody seemed to notice. I looked at the the shy sun with eyes closed. If it stared back at me, I never knew how it looked. My temples did feel warm.
This bloke came over and asked me, quite politely: hi howzit going? Can I share the sun?
With an affirmative nod, I replied. Sure.
About a minute later he snapped out a butt from his pocket and began puffing. Now, I didn't quite like this. As a matter of fact, I had wanted to be able to eventually say "I'm finished with smoking", I tried to avoid exposure to the nail's coffin. Quitting smoking as some of you may know, is real easy. No big deal, in my case, I've tried several times ;p)
Finally I threw him another nod. Must go now, mate. It's all yours now.
Excuse me?
I pointed upwards and said" "The sun."
Tempus Fugit & Mea Culpa
It's been quite a while since I last dropped a line in this Blogger blog!
Just 5 minutes ago I clicked on the link, only to learn its css reference no longer worked. O, tempus fugit; and maxima mea culpa!
Since I started this weekly journal in the Indonesian, called Akal & Kehendak, I have grown more inclined to cogitate there. (Hey, why not paying it a visit? Just a click away, anyway.)
I'll update my Once Upon A Weblog every once in a while--it's a promise.
Just 5 minutes ago I clicked on the link, only to learn its css reference no longer worked. O, tempus fugit; and maxima mea culpa!
Since I started this weekly journal in the Indonesian, called Akal & Kehendak, I have grown more inclined to cogitate there. (Hey, why not paying it a visit? Just a click away, anyway.)
I'll update my Once Upon A Weblog every once in a while--it's a promise.
Worse Than Robbery
This news from AFP in the Jakarta Post got my attention. Short enough for a full quote:
Once a friend of mine, a Jap’s working for the MOF, told me about the horrible inheritance tax in his country. No inkling to it anywhere in the news, of course; the reporter's lense might have been geared toward justifying the process of culpritization of the innocent. Or perhaps s/he'd been simply unaware of it.
My sympathies go to the sisters.
Some things our eyes can’t see, but sometimes we are compelled to see them clearly. This is the direction most governments are going to: paternalism, governmentalism or statism (or whatever name attached to it) that rips off citizens of their own property further and further.
Brutally honest writers have likened taxation as robbery--a legalized one. Close enough, but nay: it’s even far worse! Unlike robbery, taxing can turn an evil into an angel, a good man criminal.
Sisters in Japan hide millions in boxes: official
(AFP) — Japanese authorities on Tuesday arrested two sisters for allegedly hiding some 58 million dollars in cardboard boxes to evade tax on their inheritance, an official said. It was the largest sum of inheritance money ever concealed from authorities in Japan, said the official from the National Tax Agency, which arrested the women in cooperation with police in the western city of Osaka.
Hatsue Shimizu, 64, and Yoshiko Ishii, 55, inherited money after their father, who was in the real estate and financial business, died three years ago."They concealed most of the money in cash" in a shed attached to Shimizu's house, the Osaka tax official said. "We have confiscated 50 cardboard boxes" packed with cash, he said.
The sisters, who hold South Korean nationality, allegedly failed to declare 5.9 billion yen (58 million dollars) out of a total of 7.5 billion yen they inherited from their father.
Once a friend of mine, a Jap’s working for the MOF, told me about the horrible inheritance tax in his country. No inkling to it anywhere in the news, of course; the reporter's lense might have been geared toward justifying the process of culpritization of the innocent. Or perhaps s/he'd been simply unaware of it.
My sympathies go to the sisters.
Some things our eyes can’t see, but sometimes we are compelled to see them clearly. This is the direction most governments are going to: paternalism, governmentalism or statism (or whatever name attached to it) that rips off citizens of their own property further and further.
Brutally honest writers have likened taxation as robbery--a legalized one. Close enough, but nay: it’s even far worse! Unlike robbery, taxing can turn an evil into an angel, a good man criminal.
Post-Soeharto Indonesia
Time through the ink of history—and the hands of historians--will testify whether RI’s ex-president Soeharto will escape through his demise as a villain, or be immortalized as a hero, or a bit of both.
This can wait; meanwhile, the timely question seems to gravitate over the post-Soeharto situation at home. Yes, post-Soeharto Indonesia, what is it like?
It's rather easy to answer. The fact is, we have lived it for almost 10 years now! It started one late afternoon on May 21, when he resigned as a president, saying his own words that “I have decided to quit”, back in 1998. Following the statement, he had practically ostracized himself from the political ground. Yet, his resignation did not, by any means, mean a weakening of his strong grips, not even when he is no longer around us, let alone over what went immediately after that fateful day, on to what is happening today and what will unfurl beyond.
The extensive and intensive media coverage around his illness and demise was clearly not his own design. Clearly it suggests that Soeharto still remained very dear to many—most conspicuously among the powers that be, within the media bigwicks, and the most gullible public. Whatever successes our former president has done over his three decades of power, and whatever failures for that matter, cannot have been appropriately attributed solely to his own finesse and flaws.
Speaking strictly, it would be impossible to dissect post-Soeharto situation in the country and classify it under separate rubrics such as political, economic, legal compartments, et cetera. It would in fact involve a grave fallacy, simply because they are closely interlinked. For the sake of convenience, this posting only offers random notes based on his legacies and some unfinished business
Dubious Ascent to Power
Was Soeharto, through the 11 March 1966 instruction, really mandated by President Soekarno to take control of the chaotic situation? The fact speaks for itself. The whereabout of the original document has remained shrouded in mystery. Part of our energy will have to be geared towards solving this seeming perennial problem. One would be tempted to question as to what had kept him from spilling the beans. Had he been truly mandated by Soekarno, and had he had genuine concern over the young nation, he would have given the issue his best thoughts, since it is far more than just about his personal dignity.
Criminal Records
Pending investigation on alleged abuses criminal charges against Soeharto; five major cases here include the arrest of some 10,000 political activists in Buru island between 1969-1979; mysterious shootings of about 5,000 people (aka. Petrus cases in Java, Sumatra and Kalimantan) in 1981-1985, July 27 of 1997 incident involving supporters of PDI-P; the Tanjung Priok case (killing 24 people and injuring hundreds of others in 1984 and the case of Military Operation Areas (DOM) in Aceh and Papua from 1970s-1990s) cases of kidnapping and abuses.
Militaristic Overzeal
The loud message coming out from his stretched two and thirty years in power is that of strong militaristic domination. His personal ‘success’ has been Indonesia’s systemic failure as a nation. Most generals or mayor generals today seem to nurture a false calling that they should run this country. Participation of many military officers in practical politics today is indicative—some are even running governmental offices while still retaining their military positions. This phenomenon will remain a serious challenge to civil citizens.
Possibly inseparable from his military background, Soeharto’s leadership has been one notoriously reliant on authoritarianism, personal charisma, likes and dislikes, violence and fear-instillation. His own downfall is a lesson that there is no such thing as real true friend in politics; only perennial interest exists. Some politicians may learn the lesson the wrong way; they will be tempted to loot the country as long as they wear the red and white badge of power.
Corruption and Legal Impotence
Moreover, countless cases of mega corruption have been charged and alleged against Soeharto, his family members and aides. After ten years the state of the matter has not altered much, and as long as we remain sane, we still have very little reason indeed to believe that they will be . A particular setback in the case of Soeharto against the Time Magazine, where the latter has been made the culprit, is tell-tale enough as to how issues have evolved in this area.
Progress and setback in legal enforcement will reflect itself in the manner the current authorities treat the legal cases implicating him. Supremacy of the law itself is being put under its acid test.
Performance of Post-Soeharto Governments
The fact that four presidents succeeding Soeharto, namely BJ. Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Soekarnoputri, and SBY have displayed mediocrity, if not worse performance than that of Soeharto, could generate its own detriments. The lack of freedom of the distant past could be mistaken as stability; and stability and government favoritism could be misguidedly recalled as a sign of prosperity. Despite the fact that Indonesia’s rice independence only occurred for 2-3 years only throughout the stretched Soeharto regime, some people refuse to believe in the myth; they want to believe that life under Soeharto’s New Order was better.
Passion for Debt
A great passion for debts that started since the early days of the Republic has grown into a critical issue. Indonesia has resorted practically to all kinds of ways imaginable to borrow and inflate its own money. Persistent fiscal deficits and the mounting figures of governmental debts speak for themselves. Deferring repayments and creating new debts are a deadly combination that will strangulate its citizens to death.
Decentralization
Advocates of decentralization must have amazingly believed in the costly assumption that governments are a benevolent factor to the citizens. The naïve assumption has been challenged by the many reports that suggested it to be otherwise, such as those on rampant regional corruptions; local investment barriers; the fact that more than 70% of regional budgets are being spent for governmental expenditures; and the likes. The big bang decentralization will remain a pain in the neck for a long time, particularly regarding fiscal burdens, demarcation of authority problem, setting of minimum service standards, etc.
This can wait; meanwhile, the timely question seems to gravitate over the post-Soeharto situation at home. Yes, post-Soeharto Indonesia, what is it like?
It's rather easy to answer. The fact is, we have lived it for almost 10 years now! It started one late afternoon on May 21, when he resigned as a president, saying his own words that “I have decided to quit”, back in 1998. Following the statement, he had practically ostracized himself from the political ground. Yet, his resignation did not, by any means, mean a weakening of his strong grips, not even when he is no longer around us, let alone over what went immediately after that fateful day, on to what is happening today and what will unfurl beyond.
The extensive and intensive media coverage around his illness and demise was clearly not his own design. Clearly it suggests that Soeharto still remained very dear to many—most conspicuously among the powers that be, within the media bigwicks, and the most gullible public. Whatever successes our former president has done over his three decades of power, and whatever failures for that matter, cannot have been appropriately attributed solely to his own finesse and flaws.
Speaking strictly, it would be impossible to dissect post-Soeharto situation in the country and classify it under separate rubrics such as political, economic, legal compartments, et cetera. It would in fact involve a grave fallacy, simply because they are closely interlinked. For the sake of convenience, this posting only offers random notes based on his legacies and some unfinished business
Dubious Ascent to Power
Was Soeharto, through the 11 March 1966 instruction, really mandated by President Soekarno to take control of the chaotic situation? The fact speaks for itself. The whereabout of the original document has remained shrouded in mystery. Part of our energy will have to be geared towards solving this seeming perennial problem. One would be tempted to question as to what had kept him from spilling the beans. Had he been truly mandated by Soekarno, and had he had genuine concern over the young nation, he would have given the issue his best thoughts, since it is far more than just about his personal dignity.
Criminal Records
Pending investigation on alleged abuses criminal charges against Soeharto; five major cases here include the arrest of some 10,000 political activists in Buru island between 1969-1979; mysterious shootings of about 5,000 people (aka. Petrus cases in Java, Sumatra and Kalimantan) in 1981-1985, July 27 of 1997 incident involving supporters of PDI-P; the Tanjung Priok case (killing 24 people and injuring hundreds of others in 1984 and the case of Military Operation Areas (DOM) in Aceh and Papua from 1970s-1990s) cases of kidnapping and abuses.
Militaristic Overzeal
The loud message coming out from his stretched two and thirty years in power is that of strong militaristic domination. His personal ‘success’ has been Indonesia’s systemic failure as a nation. Most generals or mayor generals today seem to nurture a false calling that they should run this country. Participation of many military officers in practical politics today is indicative—some are even running governmental offices while still retaining their military positions. This phenomenon will remain a serious challenge to civil citizens.
Possibly inseparable from his military background, Soeharto’s leadership has been one notoriously reliant on authoritarianism, personal charisma, likes and dislikes, violence and fear-instillation. His own downfall is a lesson that there is no such thing as real true friend in politics; only perennial interest exists. Some politicians may learn the lesson the wrong way; they will be tempted to loot the country as long as they wear the red and white badge of power.
Corruption and Legal Impotence
Moreover, countless cases of mega corruption have been charged and alleged against Soeharto, his family members and aides. After ten years the state of the matter has not altered much, and as long as we remain sane, we still have very little reason indeed to believe that they will be . A particular setback in the case of Soeharto against the Time Magazine, where the latter has been made the culprit, is tell-tale enough as to how issues have evolved in this area.
Progress and setback in legal enforcement will reflect itself in the manner the current authorities treat the legal cases implicating him. Supremacy of the law itself is being put under its acid test.
Performance of Post-Soeharto Governments
The fact that four presidents succeeding Soeharto, namely BJ. Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Soekarnoputri, and SBY have displayed mediocrity, if not worse performance than that of Soeharto, could generate its own detriments. The lack of freedom of the distant past could be mistaken as stability; and stability and government favoritism could be misguidedly recalled as a sign of prosperity. Despite the fact that Indonesia’s rice independence only occurred for 2-3 years only throughout the stretched Soeharto regime, some people refuse to believe in the myth; they want to believe that life under Soeharto’s New Order was better.
Passion for Debt
A great passion for debts that started since the early days of the Republic has grown into a critical issue. Indonesia has resorted practically to all kinds of ways imaginable to borrow and inflate its own money. Persistent fiscal deficits and the mounting figures of governmental debts speak for themselves. Deferring repayments and creating new debts are a deadly combination that will strangulate its citizens to death.
Decentralization
Advocates of decentralization must have amazingly believed in the costly assumption that governments are a benevolent factor to the citizens. The naïve assumption has been challenged by the many reports that suggested it to be otherwise, such as those on rampant regional corruptions; local investment barriers; the fact that more than 70% of regional budgets are being spent for governmental expenditures; and the likes. The big bang decentralization will remain a pain in the neck for a long time, particularly regarding fiscal burdens, demarcation of authority problem, setting of minimum service standards, etc.
This security checking must stop
“We are the people (that our parents warn us about).” -- A bumper sticker.
HERE'S ADVICE for companies in need of creating better and more friendly environment. Stop security checking by the gateway. Stop harboring suspicion. Instead, let’s start nurturing trust.
Sound too naïve? To most building managers, it certainly does. But just get anywhere on Jakarta’s main roads—say Jalan Soedirman. Pick any office building and try to enter it. Chances are the security officers will have to halt and check you out, even if you have worked there for years. For you may be one of those bad guys.
The belief that men ought to suspect others has resurfaced after the 9/11; indeed, Bush’s political propaganda warring terrorism has been met with frenzy repercussions. As for Indonesia, national tragedies in Bali and Poso may well have been our unfortunate versions that helped heighten the disquieting atmosphere. No good site-managers exist who do not have robotic security checking implemented. World’s urbanites are teaching children that we are all potential crooks, and we should fear ourselves more.
As implied, such disbelief in humanity is hardly new. Some thinkers of the past did “specialize” themselves in focusing on the dark side of human soul. Never before is every single one pf us being regarded as a fox to our fellowmen than it is in our age.
Is such a philosophical maxim absolutely true? No longer must we believe that each of us being is also capable of being good. Otherwise, why chose and amplified the dark side? Why made suspicion a principle?
It is time to challenge the trend. Crimes committed by individuals do happen once in a while but they are actually petty and few, especially when compared to the devastation caused by, say, wars. Besides, this conspicuous security control is not always suitable for all kinds of businesses, for all kinds of office buildings. Certain businesses may need extra security. Security aspect has been included early on in every recruitment process. Employees are advised to wear tags partly for this reason. Reception desks registering guests are designed partly with such precaution.
Moreover, most security checking only becomes a routine done half-heartedly.
Unnecessarily it steals away our precious minutes. The long queue of vehicles entailing the process is, really, the last thing we need after the grueling traffic jams.
Therefore, this mostly useless practice must stop. Apart from yielding greater efficiency, this means putting more trust in fellowmen and respect to workers, differed as they are according to the role they play within the division of labor.
Convincing building managers on the benefits of this trusting business is no easy matter. They may think this proposal stupid. Yet, we all know that working environment used to be more friendly, more human. We know of the time when human beings were better more appreciated.
In the end, we are all workers. It's time, really, to re-appreciate ourselves.
(12/8)
HERE'S ADVICE for companies in need of creating better and more friendly environment. Stop security checking by the gateway. Stop harboring suspicion. Instead, let’s start nurturing trust.
Sound too naïve? To most building managers, it certainly does. But just get anywhere on Jakarta’s main roads—say Jalan Soedirman. Pick any office building and try to enter it. Chances are the security officers will have to halt and check you out, even if you have worked there for years. For you may be one of those bad guys.
The belief that men ought to suspect others has resurfaced after the 9/11; indeed, Bush’s political propaganda warring terrorism has been met with frenzy repercussions. As for Indonesia, national tragedies in Bali and Poso may well have been our unfortunate versions that helped heighten the disquieting atmosphere. No good site-managers exist who do not have robotic security checking implemented. World’s urbanites are teaching children that we are all potential crooks, and we should fear ourselves more.
As implied, such disbelief in humanity is hardly new. Some thinkers of the past did “specialize” themselves in focusing on the dark side of human soul. Never before is every single one pf us being regarded as a fox to our fellowmen than it is in our age.
Is such a philosophical maxim absolutely true? No longer must we believe that each of us being is also capable of being good. Otherwise, why chose and amplified the dark side? Why made suspicion a principle?
It is time to challenge the trend. Crimes committed by individuals do happen once in a while but they are actually petty and few, especially when compared to the devastation caused by, say, wars. Besides, this conspicuous security control is not always suitable for all kinds of businesses, for all kinds of office buildings. Certain businesses may need extra security. Security aspect has been included early on in every recruitment process. Employees are advised to wear tags partly for this reason. Reception desks registering guests are designed partly with such precaution.
Moreover, most security checking only becomes a routine done half-heartedly.
Unnecessarily it steals away our precious minutes. The long queue of vehicles entailing the process is, really, the last thing we need after the grueling traffic jams.
Therefore, this mostly useless practice must stop. Apart from yielding greater efficiency, this means putting more trust in fellowmen and respect to workers, differed as they are according to the role they play within the division of labor.
Convincing building managers on the benefits of this trusting business is no easy matter. They may think this proposal stupid. Yet, we all know that working environment used to be more friendly, more human. We know of the time when human beings were better more appreciated.
In the end, we are all workers. It's time, really, to re-appreciate ourselves.
(12/8)
The flawed premise of sustainability
Just what exactly is sustainable development?
One of the most popular definitions comes from the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on the Environment and Development (1987 -- named after chairman Gro Harlem Brundtland, then Prime Minister of Norway), where it is defined as: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
This definition does indeed seem virtuous. Could it be one of the noblest ends to strive for?
It must first be recognized that the definition is too vague to be operative. Human needs are a subjective concept which can neither be compared nor aggregated. If we consider different points in time, human beings at different income levels in different cultural contexts or national backgrounds, no sound economics can be used to deal with it.
In A Poverty of Reason (2003) Wilfred Beckerman even argues that the concept of sustainable development is based on two major, yet flawed, propositions: that economic growth will soon come up against environmental constraints -- from climate change, to limits on resource availability; and, that it represents the moral high ground. To the Oxford economist, the first proposition is vastly exaggerated. His major argument says that the fears that we will run out of resources conflict with all empirical evidence from the past.
Furthermore, it is a fact that the deceased and the unborn do not exist. The deceased may still have power to bind the living. For example, a dead person's will can still bequeath a living offspring some right or responsibility enforceable to affect actions of the living. Yet, the case is different with the unborn.
If A says to B, "This 100 hectare block of land belongs to C." B may ask in amazement, "That's cool! And who is this lucky C?" Imagine if to that B replies, "Well, actually, C does not exist". Thus, the unborn cannot possibly possess any right. Nor can they have any basis to confer one to the living. Adds Beckerman, "No moral credit can be earned by redistributing from the poor to the rich."
None of the above paraphrasing from his thesis implies we have no obligations to future generations. Rather it strongly warns us that the environmental striving underpinned by development sustainability is a vain struggle for an invalid end, both economically and morally.
One of the first things any serious environmental forum owes to itself is to address such critical insight openly and satisfactorily, even if there is but one Beckerman out there. The forum can embrace or reject it, but must not neglect it.
Environmentalism has not come without perils, predominantly related to economic retrogress or arrested development that otherwise could improve the lives of the living. Far-fetched attempts to reach out for future generations hit their most ironical nadir when confronted with the fact that a majority of the living today still persist in abject poverty. Such enterprise turns preposterous when most solutions being offered lead nowhere further than to greater bureaucracy, favoritism and protectionism.
There may be little doubt that under the sustainable-development drive, the only thing sustainable will be bureaucracies. Bureaucratic talks about global climate change are on the verge of becoming dear yet empty rhetoric, so long as they fail to deal properly with an important source of our global disquiet.
This brings us to the arrangement of property rights.
A common myth globally shared is that the total or near-disappearances of forests and biodiversity have been dismally attributed to the "capitalists" who, in their shortsighted greed for profit, loot the natural resources. (From this escalates the belief that interference from political institutions is a necessity: They must step in, either to seize ownership or regulate the use of natural resources and development as a whole.)
Yet would we be foolish enough, if we were entrepreneurs ourselves, to slay our own geese that laid the golden eggs? Very unlikely. Given our realities, it follows that something has been grossly amiss with the way we have arranged the ownership of our "geese".
Any private entrepreneur owning a forest would instinctively know the trees in it. Each time a tree is cut down and sold, he would know what it means. It means a decline in the capital value of his asset, hence the need for rebalancing and reinvesting. Every geese farmer would know how many eggs her geese lay each day. Rather than being culprits, private enterprises are the ones we can turn to, to address long and short term environmental views.
To the rest of us non-farmers/entrepreneurs, the perspective can offer totally different solutions. For instance, rather than having to sway the masses to reduce paper use, encouraging them to use more and more of it -- in fact means saving forests.
As long as the "natural" economic incentive remains unhampered, entrepreneurs will produce more paper by growing more trees. The perspective acknowledges that trees "grow" on money as money does on trees.
On the contrary, in a system with fuzzy land titling and property rights, problems over natural abundance such as illegal logging, deforestation, pollution, and other "curses" will certainly occur. As soon as impersonal political entities claim rigid ownership over natural resources, public officials will be incentivized to serve as ad hoc managers. This is also where public-private partnership sets itself in motion, when colluding to extract natural resources is made possible for short-term gain.
If Mother Nature has lain precarious and endangered due to the property-rights system we have, in this sense it is purely man-made. Then the ultimate question for the living is: are we going to pursue the very end by employing the same means? []
Note: Originally titled Sustainability vis a vis Property Rights, this posting is published in the Jakarta Post today (Dec. 17) under the current title. Its earlier version, in Indonesian, is available here. Please see also my prev. post below.
One of the most popular definitions comes from the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on the Environment and Development (1987 -- named after chairman Gro Harlem Brundtland, then Prime Minister of Norway), where it is defined as: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
This definition does indeed seem virtuous. Could it be one of the noblest ends to strive for?
It must first be recognized that the definition is too vague to be operative. Human needs are a subjective concept which can neither be compared nor aggregated. If we consider different points in time, human beings at different income levels in different cultural contexts or national backgrounds, no sound economics can be used to deal with it.
In A Poverty of Reason (2003) Wilfred Beckerman even argues that the concept of sustainable development is based on two major, yet flawed, propositions: that economic growth will soon come up against environmental constraints -- from climate change, to limits on resource availability; and, that it represents the moral high ground. To the Oxford economist, the first proposition is vastly exaggerated. His major argument says that the fears that we will run out of resources conflict with all empirical evidence from the past.
Furthermore, it is a fact that the deceased and the unborn do not exist. The deceased may still have power to bind the living. For example, a dead person's will can still bequeath a living offspring some right or responsibility enforceable to affect actions of the living. Yet, the case is different with the unborn.
If A says to B, "This 100 hectare block of land belongs to C." B may ask in amazement, "That's cool! And who is this lucky C?" Imagine if to that B replies, "Well, actually, C does not exist". Thus, the unborn cannot possibly possess any right. Nor can they have any basis to confer one to the living. Adds Beckerman, "No moral credit can be earned by redistributing from the poor to the rich."
None of the above paraphrasing from his thesis implies we have no obligations to future generations. Rather it strongly warns us that the environmental striving underpinned by development sustainability is a vain struggle for an invalid end, both economically and morally.
One of the first things any serious environmental forum owes to itself is to address such critical insight openly and satisfactorily, even if there is but one Beckerman out there. The forum can embrace or reject it, but must not neglect it.
Environmentalism has not come without perils, predominantly related to economic retrogress or arrested development that otherwise could improve the lives of the living. Far-fetched attempts to reach out for future generations hit their most ironical nadir when confronted with the fact that a majority of the living today still persist in abject poverty. Such enterprise turns preposterous when most solutions being offered lead nowhere further than to greater bureaucracy, favoritism and protectionism.
There may be little doubt that under the sustainable-development drive, the only thing sustainable will be bureaucracies. Bureaucratic talks about global climate change are on the verge of becoming dear yet empty rhetoric, so long as they fail to deal properly with an important source of our global disquiet.
This brings us to the arrangement of property rights.
A common myth globally shared is that the total or near-disappearances of forests and biodiversity have been dismally attributed to the "capitalists" who, in their shortsighted greed for profit, loot the natural resources. (From this escalates the belief that interference from political institutions is a necessity: They must step in, either to seize ownership or regulate the use of natural resources and development as a whole.)
Yet would we be foolish enough, if we were entrepreneurs ourselves, to slay our own geese that laid the golden eggs? Very unlikely. Given our realities, it follows that something has been grossly amiss with the way we have arranged the ownership of our "geese".
Any private entrepreneur owning a forest would instinctively know the trees in it. Each time a tree is cut down and sold, he would know what it means. It means a decline in the capital value of his asset, hence the need for rebalancing and reinvesting. Every geese farmer would know how many eggs her geese lay each day. Rather than being culprits, private enterprises are the ones we can turn to, to address long and short term environmental views.
To the rest of us non-farmers/entrepreneurs, the perspective can offer totally different solutions. For instance, rather than having to sway the masses to reduce paper use, encouraging them to use more and more of it -- in fact means saving forests.
As long as the "natural" economic incentive remains unhampered, entrepreneurs will produce more paper by growing more trees. The perspective acknowledges that trees "grow" on money as money does on trees.
On the contrary, in a system with fuzzy land titling and property rights, problems over natural abundance such as illegal logging, deforestation, pollution, and other "curses" will certainly occur. As soon as impersonal political entities claim rigid ownership over natural resources, public officials will be incentivized to serve as ad hoc managers. This is also where public-private partnership sets itself in motion, when colluding to extract natural resources is made possible for short-term gain.
If Mother Nature has lain precarious and endangered due to the property-rights system we have, in this sense it is purely man-made. Then the ultimate question for the living is: are we going to pursue the very end by employing the same means? []
Note: Originally titled Sustainability vis a vis Property Rights, this posting is published in the Jakarta Post today (Dec. 17) under the current title. Its earlier version, in Indonesian, is available here. Please see also my prev. post below.
Taking the world in entirely the wrong direction
Last weekend I wrote and sent an article to a prominent newspaper where I voiced my skeptical view on the Bali Climate conference. I’m still waiting for a response. If it is published, I’ll link to it here. If it doesn’t, well, I’ll will post it.
Meanwhile, today I found an open letter to Secretary General of the United Nations Ban-Ki Moon, charging that he is leading the world to a wrong direction.
Meanwhile, today I found an open letter to Secretary General of the United Nations Ban-Ki Moon, charging that he is leading the world to a wrong direction.
Could global justice save Indonesians?
The year hasn’t ended yet. If it had, I would nominate Rocky Gerung’s MA and Keadilan Global as the best essay of the year. Its substance I think will ring on in our minds for the longest time.
Before I came across to it last week, I’d been thinking of touching the very issue. But I’m just glad I didn’t, for I wouldn’t have come up with a piece half as good. He really did raise a few issues and scintillating arguments. Which explains my nomination. This, in spite of some misgivings and reservations.
Now, from a completely different angle, this posting wants to extend the matter at hand, and inquire if the energy Rocky called as global justice can save us all.
Global justice as an utopia seeming fine, many must think it an important one. But like every fiction, it has to be asked early on: Is there such a thing? Can there be such a thing as global justice? And what does it take so that we can get any closer to it?
I surmise we can only get some clues to it by returning to square one, and by this I mean we must return to the basic inquiries to the very nature of the state and the true causes of our impoverishment.
The real case at home itself, in fact, has been about man against the state, because MA belongs to the Indonesian state. And the state is run but by to a handful of individuals. And these individuals are backed up with the military and the police. And all this is obvious.
To me, it would be a mistake to isolate the issue as if it purely concerned one particular institution alone, which is the court, plus some people flocking around the institution. Moreover, the solution being approached, I fear, has been conceived without our thinking about the essential nature of the state. It has been conceived, instead, with an certain, firmly fixated notion about the state and its organs. It's the kind of Rosseauan or Hobbessian approach, which only overrules the fact that man can live without the state. Indeed, most of us are alike; for instance, at least, in the belief that no private court should be allowed to operate at all.
Yet, can it for a moment occur to us that, contrary to what we want to believe about it, the state is the greatest enemy to the people? If so, is there an easy way to make everyone realize that the state is the greatest enemy to our freedom?
I hold that only by such awakening would we Indonesians stop craving blindly for protection and care from the constitutional terror manufacturer and legal owner of coercion!
Besides, to quote Garett, didn't once upon a time we citizens take care of the state? Why in the end it's the other way around?
It is imperative to be reminiscent that without tackling our rudimentary problems, neither one state national nor ones global, can render us salvation.
Before I came across to it last week, I’d been thinking of touching the very issue. But I’m just glad I didn’t, for I wouldn’t have come up with a piece half as good. He really did raise a few issues and scintillating arguments. Which explains my nomination. This, in spite of some misgivings and reservations.
Now, from a completely different angle, this posting wants to extend the matter at hand, and inquire if the energy Rocky called as global justice can save us all.
Global justice as an utopia seeming fine, many must think it an important one. But like every fiction, it has to be asked early on: Is there such a thing? Can there be such a thing as global justice? And what does it take so that we can get any closer to it?
I surmise we can only get some clues to it by returning to square one, and by this I mean we must return to the basic inquiries to the very nature of the state and the true causes of our impoverishment.
The real case at home itself, in fact, has been about man against the state, because MA belongs to the Indonesian state. And the state is run but by to a handful of individuals. And these individuals are backed up with the military and the police. And all this is obvious.
To me, it would be a mistake to isolate the issue as if it purely concerned one particular institution alone, which is the court, plus some people flocking around the institution. Moreover, the solution being approached, I fear, has been conceived without our thinking about the essential nature of the state. It has been conceived, instead, with an certain, firmly fixated notion about the state and its organs. It's the kind of Rosseauan or Hobbessian approach, which only overrules the fact that man can live without the state. Indeed, most of us are alike; for instance, at least, in the belief that no private court should be allowed to operate at all.
Yet, can it for a moment occur to us that, contrary to what we want to believe about it, the state is the greatest enemy to the people? If so, is there an easy way to make everyone realize that the state is the greatest enemy to our freedom?
I hold that only by such awakening would we Indonesians stop craving blindly for protection and care from the constitutional terror manufacturer and legal owner of coercion!
Besides, to quote Garett, didn't once upon a time we citizens take care of the state? Why in the end it's the other way around?
It is imperative to be reminiscent that without tackling our rudimentary problems, neither one state national nor ones global, can render us salvation.
On Goods: Rival and Non-Rival, Excludable and Non-Excludable
It was especially interesting to read a noted economist’s article highlighting the essence of globalization being not because the world is flat or that distance is dead et cetera, but rather due to the growing ease of rival goods being altered into non-rival good and vice versa by the midas touch of technology.
It boils down to the importance of knowledge—or simply, business ideas. Though perhaps there’s nothing really new here, I don’t disagree that it helps enrich our knowledge on the creation and appreciation of values.
Among my first impressions: in order to tap the potential, profits need to be contrasted as stuff that can moneyed and that which cannot, i.e. profits reaped by originators/implementers of ideas, and benefits for the society at large.
It boils down to the importance of knowledge—or simply, business ideas. Though perhaps there’s nothing really new here, I don’t disagree that it helps enrich our knowledge on the creation and appreciation of values.
Among my first impressions: in order to tap the potential, profits need to be contrasted as stuff that can moneyed and that which cannot, i.e. profits reaped by originators/implementers of ideas, and benefits for the society at large.
The Demise of Our Social Awareness
By any moral standard, corporate social awareness used to be a noble thing to endorse, until a bunch of politicians messed with it and turned it into a fungible concept labeled as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) through a self-styled process of legislation.
As this newspaper reported (The Jakarta Post, July 25), Indonesia is the only nation in the world to have legislated CSR, through the promulgation of its new law on limited liability companies (UU Perseroan Terbatas, 2007). Article 74 of this law explicitly obligates companies dealing with natural resources to adhere to certain social and environmental responsibilities. What this entails is not yet clear -- the law itself does not bother to define it.
The law has been passed despite all the charges, levies, taxes and other requirements that businesses have had to bear. All registered companies already have to comply with central and regional regulations, ranging from operational permits to safety standards, from taxes to revenue sharing clauses, environmental considerations, et cetera.
The arguments of representatives of the business community have been dismissed by legislators as either inadequate or irrelevant. In the meantime, it is becoming clear that some key state players are on their way to mull over the best ways to exploit it as a financing source for "something bigger than poverty reduction".
One cannot help but wonder why this tragedy happened and where it will lead us. Several parliamentarians believed the business community had paid no heed to existing requirements. Rather than overhaul existing laws or empower relevant agencies, they decided to create this law that obligates charity. Still, in the eyes of many their ultimate end seems good and moral. The law will lead to more disadvantaged people being helped and more social issues being solved. However, as this article will contend, in many ways the opposite seems true.
First of all, it is hard to argue against any ethical proposition in the absence of a positive ethical system. This article tries to evaluate the logical assumptions behind the legislation and analyze some logical consequences from an economic point of view. The writer believes that even an ethical proposition should be based on sound logic.
Now, by altering social charity from being a voluntary act of grace to an act coerced by the state, politicians have paved the way for all of us to live under a regime of compulsory charity. By enforcing charity in a way far from being charitable, they will kill charitable desires completely. If the state already "arranges" it, there will be no point giving more.
Passing legislation for generous projects of justice aimed at poverty reduction means legally exalting the poor or the deserving poor as a privileged class. The poor will thus be equipped with an enforceable claim to the fruits of labor of other classes.
Justice is a difficult word to define, but most of us believe that Indonesia should be a just state. It follows from this that if achieving justice is used to justify favoring a certain group, it should be done in a way that imparts no injustice to others. We cannot establish social justice by resorting to social injustice. Also, helping a poor person by using someone's means against his or her will cannot be called generosity. As an extreme example, it is like affluent people being penalized and enslaved while the poor are put on a pedestal.
From the onset, the whole issue brings to light a dearth of understanding on how the economy works and the nature of business and entrepreneurship within it. As such, it is worth emphasizing here that if we truly want to alleviate poverty, the only sustainable way to do so is through production. If the nation wants to alleviate poverty, the first thing it must do is increase production, not reduce it. This simple law has been discovered through hundreds of years of economic evolution as a science. It is so apodictic a law that no man on this planet can ever alter it.
Moreover, it is precisely businesspeople who personify the real engine for economic growth. They are the only truly economically productive agent within the economic system. No doubt some of them are extremely successful, but that should be seen as their reward and should not spur anyone's envy. Some successful businesspeople are often parodied as the "king" or "queen", such as in "King of Burger", "Ratu Dangdut" and "Raja Voucher".
Laugh as we may at this, we should not let its essence slip. Contrary to popular belief, and unlike real kings of the past who won territories by force and imperialism, the ingredient for success in business is service excellence.
Every business only survives by serving its customers. In a real world that knows no free lunch, businesses must remain profitable if they want to stay in the market. And the market is more than ready to kick out every business entity that is not up to the test.
Thus, when put into application, the law will certainly increase the level of compliance (read: cost) that local businesses have to cope with before they can even start thinking about head-to-head competition. That the law only affects those in the mining sector at the moment will only slightly slow down the process. Eventually, this approach and treatment will only discourage people from producing while draining our savings to subsidize the formation of the favored caste.
Unless something is done to rectify this absurdity, we can envision a country whose citizens have to contend with costly products produced by companies with high overheads. We can only start to imagine the fate of a nation whose entrepreneurs, deprived of competitiveness, lose out on the global stage.
There will be a major and lasting decline, not in terms of poverty, but in terms of our living standard.
(First published under the title of State's firm hand could crush spirit of charity in the Jakarta Post, August 30, 2007.)
As this newspaper reported (The Jakarta Post, July 25), Indonesia is the only nation in the world to have legislated CSR, through the promulgation of its new law on limited liability companies (UU Perseroan Terbatas, 2007). Article 74 of this law explicitly obligates companies dealing with natural resources to adhere to certain social and environmental responsibilities. What this entails is not yet clear -- the law itself does not bother to define it.
The law has been passed despite all the charges, levies, taxes and other requirements that businesses have had to bear. All registered companies already have to comply with central and regional regulations, ranging from operational permits to safety standards, from taxes to revenue sharing clauses, environmental considerations, et cetera.
The arguments of representatives of the business community have been dismissed by legislators as either inadequate or irrelevant. In the meantime, it is becoming clear that some key state players are on their way to mull over the best ways to exploit it as a financing source for "something bigger than poverty reduction".
One cannot help but wonder why this tragedy happened and where it will lead us. Several parliamentarians believed the business community had paid no heed to existing requirements. Rather than overhaul existing laws or empower relevant agencies, they decided to create this law that obligates charity. Still, in the eyes of many their ultimate end seems good and moral. The law will lead to more disadvantaged people being helped and more social issues being solved. However, as this article will contend, in many ways the opposite seems true.
First of all, it is hard to argue against any ethical proposition in the absence of a positive ethical system. This article tries to evaluate the logical assumptions behind the legislation and analyze some logical consequences from an economic point of view. The writer believes that even an ethical proposition should be based on sound logic.
Now, by altering social charity from being a voluntary act of grace to an act coerced by the state, politicians have paved the way for all of us to live under a regime of compulsory charity. By enforcing charity in a way far from being charitable, they will kill charitable desires completely. If the state already "arranges" it, there will be no point giving more.
Passing legislation for generous projects of justice aimed at poverty reduction means legally exalting the poor or the deserving poor as a privileged class. The poor will thus be equipped with an enforceable claim to the fruits of labor of other classes.
Justice is a difficult word to define, but most of us believe that Indonesia should be a just state. It follows from this that if achieving justice is used to justify favoring a certain group, it should be done in a way that imparts no injustice to others. We cannot establish social justice by resorting to social injustice. Also, helping a poor person by using someone's means against his or her will cannot be called generosity. As an extreme example, it is like affluent people being penalized and enslaved while the poor are put on a pedestal.
From the onset, the whole issue brings to light a dearth of understanding on how the economy works and the nature of business and entrepreneurship within it. As such, it is worth emphasizing here that if we truly want to alleviate poverty, the only sustainable way to do so is through production. If the nation wants to alleviate poverty, the first thing it must do is increase production, not reduce it. This simple law has been discovered through hundreds of years of economic evolution as a science. It is so apodictic a law that no man on this planet can ever alter it.
Moreover, it is precisely businesspeople who personify the real engine for economic growth. They are the only truly economically productive agent within the economic system. No doubt some of them are extremely successful, but that should be seen as their reward and should not spur anyone's envy. Some successful businesspeople are often parodied as the "king" or "queen", such as in "King of Burger", "Ratu Dangdut" and "Raja Voucher".
Laugh as we may at this, we should not let its essence slip. Contrary to popular belief, and unlike real kings of the past who won territories by force and imperialism, the ingredient for success in business is service excellence.
Every business only survives by serving its customers. In a real world that knows no free lunch, businesses must remain profitable if they want to stay in the market. And the market is more than ready to kick out every business entity that is not up to the test.
Thus, when put into application, the law will certainly increase the level of compliance (read: cost) that local businesses have to cope with before they can even start thinking about head-to-head competition. That the law only affects those in the mining sector at the moment will only slightly slow down the process. Eventually, this approach and treatment will only discourage people from producing while draining our savings to subsidize the formation of the favored caste.
Unless something is done to rectify this absurdity, we can envision a country whose citizens have to contend with costly products produced by companies with high overheads. We can only start to imagine the fate of a nation whose entrepreneurs, deprived of competitiveness, lose out on the global stage.
There will be a major and lasting decline, not in terms of poverty, but in terms of our living standard.
(First published under the title of State's firm hand could crush spirit of charity in the Jakarta Post, August 30, 2007.)
Pilkada Blues
Many Jakartans viewing voting as a prospective wind of change must be readying themselves for the coming August 8 gubernatorial election, or Pilkada Jakarta.
One can from observation alone have some idea on the financial resources that have been drawn down to stage the extravagance—still counting. The almost sudden displays of banners and posters on major and minor roads, and the media coverage far outliving the legally affixed curfew for the purpose, could not have been more indicative.
And no one will know the total Rupiah spent to garner sympathies, affect popularity, and buy votes. Some commentators remarked, almost as excuses, it should best be seen as a form of wealth distribution that would not have reached the poor otherwise. If this reasoning was sound, then Jakartans should hold elections two or three times a year.
Some people would be intrigued to think the inevitability of such spending; some may question the necessity; candidates and proponents may believe they must put it under their closets as to how they will take back after such capital inlays—for there never is free lunch.
By virtue political parties are not economically productive. They will grow more and more into economic institutions chasing real economic profits. Some of their cadres next join the Government, another agency as economically unproductive.
Each recurring election is a period of pain thrusted upon us, forcing us to reflect on our paralyses. It dawns on us, if for the first time again, how institutions supposedly to serve the nation care only for the economic interests of their own groups; or how most hopeful leaders must rid of their first signs of leadership qualities if they are to succeed.
The combination of the current system and present circumstance allows but one conclusion: whoever wins this Pilkada will make no difference. For the song will be sung—the same old and only one.
And Jakartans, of course, will get the leader they deserve.
One can from observation alone have some idea on the financial resources that have been drawn down to stage the extravagance—still counting. The almost sudden displays of banners and posters on major and minor roads, and the media coverage far outliving the legally affixed curfew for the purpose, could not have been more indicative.
And no one will know the total Rupiah spent to garner sympathies, affect popularity, and buy votes. Some commentators remarked, almost as excuses, it should best be seen as a form of wealth distribution that would not have reached the poor otherwise. If this reasoning was sound, then Jakartans should hold elections two or three times a year.
Some people would be intrigued to think the inevitability of such spending; some may question the necessity; candidates and proponents may believe they must put it under their closets as to how they will take back after such capital inlays—for there never is free lunch.
By virtue political parties are not economically productive. They will grow more and more into economic institutions chasing real economic profits. Some of their cadres next join the Government, another agency as economically unproductive.
Each recurring election is a period of pain thrusted upon us, forcing us to reflect on our paralyses. It dawns on us, if for the first time again, how institutions supposedly to serve the nation care only for the economic interests of their own groups; or how most hopeful leaders must rid of their first signs of leadership qualities if they are to succeed.
The combination of the current system and present circumstance allows but one conclusion: whoever wins this Pilkada will make no difference. For the song will be sung—the same old and only one.
And Jakartans, of course, will get the leader they deserve.
The Unseen Role of the Property Sector
Big cities such as Jakarta tend to have more buildings and space to let than there are prospective business tenants. New buildings are being erected, and yet more will be built.
I remember asking a senior corporate banker, a few years ago now, why new malls, high rise buildings and fancy apartments continued being built despite the bearish economy. This man, now one of the vice-presidents with the country's largest bank, answered: it must have been due to double counting, or miscalculating of some sort.
I believe it is more than just some kind of entrepreneurial error. It is quite the contrary.
Though not immediately perceivable, the answer lies closely related with monetary-policy expansionism. By this I mean that, rather than only serving as one of the consequences, the property sector is also an important part of the mechanism. Why is such the case?
Property is a business sector whose characteristics are apt for that very purpose, an area where state of the art technologies, latest architectural frenzies, and ego-boosting personal expressions can collaborate with as most outrageous extravagance as one can dare imagine.
In terms of resource requirements, the sector is intensive. Building a decent apartment, for instance, is usually time-consuming; no building tall enough can be erected within months.
What’s more, there is no fixed valuation standard for pricing buildings, especially when a few elements hinging upon subjective tastes can shield the originators away from accounting or auditing scrutiny. Not to mention that the eventual products are durables. They are legally certified, liquid, and collateralizable.
If actual sales turn out to be poor, it will only be known in some distant future. And since most high rises are built to fail anyway, who really cares?
I remember asking a senior corporate banker, a few years ago now, why new malls, high rise buildings and fancy apartments continued being built despite the bearish economy. This man, now one of the vice-presidents with the country's largest bank, answered: it must have been due to double counting, or miscalculating of some sort.
I believe it is more than just some kind of entrepreneurial error. It is quite the contrary.
Though not immediately perceivable, the answer lies closely related with monetary-policy expansionism. By this I mean that, rather than only serving as one of the consequences, the property sector is also an important part of the mechanism. Why is such the case?
Property is a business sector whose characteristics are apt for that very purpose, an area where state of the art technologies, latest architectural frenzies, and ego-boosting personal expressions can collaborate with as most outrageous extravagance as one can dare imagine.
In terms of resource requirements, the sector is intensive. Building a decent apartment, for instance, is usually time-consuming; no building tall enough can be erected within months.
What’s more, there is no fixed valuation standard for pricing buildings, especially when a few elements hinging upon subjective tastes can shield the originators away from accounting or auditing scrutiny. Not to mention that the eventual products are durables. They are legally certified, liquid, and collateralizable.
If actual sales turn out to be poor, it will only be known in some distant future. And since most high rises are built to fail anyway, who really cares?
Why Privatization in Indonesia Has Been Resisted
In trying to come up with an answer, many have maintained the view that since state owned enterprises are cash cows to political parties, partisans do tend to prefer status quo to unknown future ownership.
But isn’t it true that the people at large also have the same tendency to reject privatization, out of personal preferences rather than political propaganda. If it is so, this aspect is not addressed by such an answer.
A better view may be that privatization cannot work well in an environment with weak protection of property rights and low regards of legal contracts such as under a corrupt judiciary system. Privatization is no mere simple transfer of property rights from the hands of the state into the private. It cannot be achieved just by changing the composition of ownership of individual economic institutions. There is supposed to be a coherent thinking explaining a country’s economic orientation, stated clearly or otherwise, and the extent to which it relates with the market economy. There must be consistent justification of what the nation wants to achieve. Without consistency, it would be perceived as shifting one precarious circumstance to another situation as risky.
But isn’t it true that the people at large also have the same tendency to reject privatization, out of personal preferences rather than political propaganda. If it is so, this aspect is not addressed by such an answer.
A better view may be that privatization cannot work well in an environment with weak protection of property rights and low regards of legal contracts such as under a corrupt judiciary system. Privatization is no mere simple transfer of property rights from the hands of the state into the private. It cannot be achieved just by changing the composition of ownership of individual economic institutions. There is supposed to be a coherent thinking explaining a country’s economic orientation, stated clearly or otherwise, and the extent to which it relates with the market economy. There must be consistent justification of what the nation wants to achieve. Without consistency, it would be perceived as shifting one precarious circumstance to another situation as risky.
Rothbard in Indonesian
I have, yes, been away from the blogosphere for quite a while, but am back now with this piece of exciting news:
I just finished translating and editing what will be the first book on Austrian economics ‘officially’ published in the country. It is a book in which Murray Rothbard will speak Indonesian, and where I will take the honor of briefly introducing to the Indonesian readership some of the first things about the Austrian school: its history, prominent figures, and important features. This first Rothbard’s book in Indonesian is on monetary issues. It will be made available within 2 months by PT. Granit of Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
The book is titled: Apa yang Dilakukan Pemerintah Terhadap Uang Kita?. Further info will be duely provided.
I just finished translating and editing what will be the first book on Austrian economics ‘officially’ published in the country. It is a book in which Murray Rothbard will speak Indonesian, and where I will take the honor of briefly introducing to the Indonesian readership some of the first things about the Austrian school: its history, prominent figures, and important features. This first Rothbard’s book in Indonesian is on monetary issues. It will be made available within 2 months by PT. Granit of Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
The book is titled: Apa yang Dilakukan Pemerintah Terhadap Uang Kita?. Further info will be duely provided.
Reform Institute & Reform Review
Kalau tidak ada halangan, Dr Yudi Latif dkk akan meluncurkan penerbitan jurnal Reform Review, besok malam, 22 Mei 2007. Tujuannya menggodok gagasan untuk menyegarkan cita-cita moral bernegara dan berbangsa, melalui Reform Institute yang digagasnya.
Dalam fitur di sebuah surat kabar dituliskan pandangan Yudi Latif bahwa Indonesia lahir sebagai sebuah nation-state, bukan state-nation, berkat kekuatan ide dan rasa persatuan sebagai bentuk perlawanan terhadap kolonialisme dan atas dasar civic nationalism. Sayangnya, menurut Yudi, setelah kemerdekaan Indonesia dicapai, bangsa ini kehilangan pijakannya hingga menuju kepada kegagalan negara.
Selamat kepada Reform Institute!
Dalam fitur di sebuah surat kabar dituliskan pandangan Yudi Latif bahwa Indonesia lahir sebagai sebuah nation-state, bukan state-nation, berkat kekuatan ide dan rasa persatuan sebagai bentuk perlawanan terhadap kolonialisme dan atas dasar civic nationalism. Sayangnya, menurut Yudi, setelah kemerdekaan Indonesia dicapai, bangsa ini kehilangan pijakannya hingga menuju kepada kegagalan negara.
“Setelah kepentingan bersama menghadapi kolonial berlalu, kita kehilangan kepentingan moral baru yang mempersatukan masyarakat. Kita tidak menemukan kesamaan tematik, agenda, atau blok historis bersama. Kepemimpinan moral dan intelektual sekarang ini hancur. Para politisi kemudian kembali bermain di level rendah, yaitu politik atau ekonomi. Orang saling rebut ekses atau saling menyudutkan antargolongan atau agama….”
“Itu terjadi akibat tidak ada lagi intelektual organik yang bisa mengartikulasikan kesadaran kolektif. Partai politik (parpol) tidak memunculkan kepemimpinan yang bisa menyuarakan sesuatu yang lebih besar dari kepentingan dirinya sendiri...” Dst.
Selamat kepada Reform Institute!
Batas-Batas Nasehat Ekonomi (Bag. 2 - Tamat)
Mengantarkan pernyataan obyektif menjadi pernyataan normatif, dalam konteks apapun, penuh dengan rintangan filosofis. Posting yang tadinya mau cepat ini tidak bisa mengajak pembaca melalui jalan pintas Nasehat Ekonomi dari yang ”is” menuju yang “ought”. “Peta” mutakhir jalan tersebut dapat ditemukan dalam tulisan Kirzner (2006), Anatomy of Economic Advice (Parts I, II & III). Kirzner memaparkan latar belakang kelahiran ilmu ekonomi sebagai sains; penemuan ”hukum-hukum” ekonomi oleh ekonom klasik; operasi kaidah ekonomi di pasar bebas; “tabiat” pasar bebas; peran kewiraswastaan, dan beberapa kriteria nasehat ekonomi yang baik/buruk.
Penting digarisbawahi, kesimpulan-kesimpulan yang ditarik Kirzner adalah hasil pencarian selama ratusan tahun yang dilakukan para ekonom klasik hingga modern menurut tradisi pemikiran mazhab Austria—mulai dari Carl Menger, Böhm Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, hingga Israel Kirzner sendiri. Bagi masyarakat Indonesia, yang di tahun 1950-an baru memiliki satu ekonom saja, dan di mana tradisi ekonomi harus diadopsi dari luar terutama dari garis Keynesian dan Friedmanite dengan kiblat Anglo-Saxon-nya terutama Inggris dan Amerika, sudah sewajarnya semua ini”dikritisir”. Konsep ”pasar bebas”, misalnya, tidak sepatutnya hilir-mudik dalam kabin pikiran tanpa dilirik sama sekali, sebab kita semua adalah penumpang dalam gerbong besar kereta yang melaju dalam pasar itu sendiri menuju... apapun itu yang dituju, sebagai seorang individu atau sebuah bangsa.
Kaidah dan Fenomena Ekonomi
Sebagai disiplin paling bungsu, ekonomi tumbuh jadi cabang ilmu pengetahuan di abad 18, saat para ekonom klasik mulai sadar akan adanya pertalian hubungan sebab-akibat yang sistematik dalam fenomena ekonomi. Berdasarkan hal tersebutlah disiplin yang dulu bernama ”political economy” berhasil dibangun abad 18 dan awal abad 19.
Diterimanya ilmu ini berimplikasi revolusioner terhadap kebijakan publik. Sejak saat itu, tidak lagi para pengambil keputusan dapat mengobok-obok perekonomian sekehendak hati, demi ”kebaikan” masyarakat dalam definisi mereka. Sejak saat itu, disadari adanya ”hukum-hukum” ekonomi yang harus dihormati dan dipertimbangkan kecuali jika mereka ingin menuai prahara dan petaka di kemudian hari. Setiap kebijakan ekonomi disadari membawa konsekuensi tertentu, apalagi jika ekonom yang membantu perumusan kebijakan pemerintah bahwa pemerintah bukanlah agen ekonomi yang produktif; bahkan pemerintah tidak memiliki sumber penghasilan selain dengan jalan memajaki, tetapi memiliki kekuasaan ”legal” untuk memaksakan segala kebijakannya. Maka, sebelum tarif dikenakan, sebelum monopoli diberikan kepada individu atau kelompok tertentu, sebelum harga dikontrol, pengambil kebijakan publik harus menanyakan apakah semua konsekuensi yang mungkin terjadi sudah dipertimbangkan masak-masak.
Tapi bagaimana “hukum-hukum” tersebut tercipta? Apa landasannya? Melalui intuisi keteraturan sebab-akibat dalam fenomena ekonomi—seperti dalam fenomena ilmu alam--dapat diamati dan diakui. Tapi ”fenomena” ekonomi adalah hasil pilihan/keputusan/tindakan miliaran individu bebas. Bukankah mustahil semua individu ini mematuhi keteraturan hukum-hukum tersebut, sebab bukankah mereka bebas melakukan pilihan masing-masing? Keberatan-keberatan fundamental seperti itu dialami para teoris dan filosofer selama dua abad terakhir.
Landasan epistemologi ilmu tersebut dan ciri-cirinya dipertanyakan dan hampir tidak ada pemikiran ekonomi yang mau atau mampu menjawab hal-hal fundamental tersebut secara memuaskan. Satu, jika bukan satu-satunya, aliran pemikiran ekonomi yang secara konsisten menaruh perhatian dan memberi tilikan mendalam terhadap kerangka filosofis tersebut adalah mazhab pemikiran Austria, terutama lewat pemikiran eksponen abad duapuluh seperti Mises dan Hayek. Tentu, kontribusi-kontribusi mazhab-mazhab sebelumnya dalam konstruk teoritis mereka tidak patut dinafikan.
Epistemologi ilmu ekonomi dalam pemahaman Austrian berangkat dari aksioma dasar tentang manusia sebagai individu yang bertindak untuk suatu tujuan (end) yang dipilihnya, yang untuk itu manusia harus dapat menentukan dan menggunakan cara (means) yang juga harus dipilihnya, sebab cara sebagai sumber daya tidak selalu tersedia secara given, dan waktu yang juga sumber daya manusia terbatas sifatnya. Uraian lengkap tentang hal ini disampaikan Mises dalam adikaryanya, Human Action. Singkatnya, ilmu ini ternyata berawal dan berakhir dari preferensi dan penilaian manusia.
Dalam kerangka ini, fokus perhatian terletak pada cara sistematik manusia dalam memodifikasi ekspektasi dan pengetahuannya sesuai dengan pengalaman ekonomi dan perubahannya. Berubahnya pengalaman ekonomi memengaruhi aturan main dalam menentukan tujuan dan pilihan. Pengalaman ekonomi mengajarkan individu-individu ini melalui ketepatan dan kesalahan dalam penilaian; dan memungkinkan mereka menangkap peluang baru di masa depan atas sesuatu yang belum ada atau belum pernah terpikirkan sebelumnya. Teori ekonomi dalam kerangka analitik ini mampu memberi manusia pemahaman tentang bagaimana perubahan-perubahan eksogen dalam keterbatasan sumber daya, pengetahuan teknis, dan preferensi individu mengubah fenomena pasar secara sistematis, dan juga menentukan jalannya proses produksi dan pola alokasi sumber daya.
“Hukum” Persediaan dan Permintaan
Kirzner memberi ilustrasi tentang salah satu hukum dasar yang membuat “keteraturan” dalam perekonomian pasar: kaidah persedian dan permintaan, dan pengaruhnya terhadap harga. Pemahaman dasar terhadap perilaku harga di pasar mengidentifikasikan sifat dan arah dari kekuatan-kekuatan yang beroperasi di pasar bagi setiap produk dan sumber daya. Dalam pemahaman ini pasar barang/jasa sebagai selalu dimodifikasi secara sistematis oleh pengalaman pasar. Di setiap waktu komoditas barang/jasa yang tersedia di pasar dapat terlalu banyak atau terlalu sedikit, dan ketidakseimbangan ini selalu menuju titik ekuilibrium. Kaidah dasar ini memfokuskan pada keberadaan kekuatan-kekuatan spontan yang cenderung “memperbaiki” ketidakseimbangan pasar.
Pasar bebas, lebih daripada sekadar tempat, adalah proses sosial pertukaran barang dan jasa secara sukarela. Sedangkan ekuilibrium pasar hanyalah konstruksi imajiner ketika persediaan dan permintaan barang/jasa berada dalam kondisi yang “pas”, di mana tidak ada kecenderungan untuk berubah. Dalam pemahaman ini, kaidah supply-demand tidak berarti bahwa setiap pasar selalu berada dalam keseimbangan. Juga hal tersebut tidak berarti pasar dapat mencapai ekuilibrium secepat kilat. Yang boleh diartikan di sini adalah bahwa pasar selalu bergerak menuju ekuilibrium. Tapi, karena variabel-variabel eksogen selalu berubah, maka titik keseimbangan yang dituju pasar juga selalu berubah. Setiap kali terjadi kelebihan ”pasokan” komoditas/jasa, hal ini akan memberi tekanan yang cenderung menurunkan harga barang/jasa tersebut , dan hal ini selanjutnya mencegah produsen untuk terus memproduksi; sebaliknya, “kelangkaan” barang/jasa akan cenderung mengarah pada kenaikan harganya. Salah satu elemen yang tidak terlalu terlihat tetapi sangat kuat di pasar adalah daya-tanggap para pengusaha. Cepat atau lambat seorang pembeli pasti akan tahu apakah barang yang dibelinya terlalu mahal atau tidak. Penjual dapat menemukan pembeli yang bersedia membeli dengan harga yang lebih tinggi. Kekuatan pasokan dan permintaan beroperasi untuk memperbaiki keputusan-keputusan yang “keliru”.
Ciri Kebijakan Ekonomi yang Baik/Buruk
Dari uraian yang cukup panjang dan berliku di atas dapat disimpulkan bahwa nasehat atau kebijakan ekonomi yang baik adalah yang dapat meningkatkan bekerjanya pasar bebas, misalnya dalam proses pencarian agen-agen ekonomi di pasar bebas; dalam mengurangi ”kesalahan-kesalahan”; dalam merangsang tumbuhnya kewiraswastaan; dalam memfasilitasi inovasi produksi; atau dalam memastikan bahwa pertukaran sukarela dapat dilakukan dengan lebih menguntungkan semua pihak.
Kirzner mengutip Mises menambahkan tiga kriteria kebijakan ekonomi yang buruk sebagai berikut: 1) Kebijakan ekonomi yang dari awal telah diketahui akan gagal: Kebijakan yang dapat ditunjukkan oleh disiplin ekonomi akan menghasilkan akibat yang tidak diinginkan oleh pembuat kebijakan itu sendiri. Salah satu contoh klasik Mises adalah kebijakan untuk mengontrol harga jual tempat tinggal. Analisis ekonomi menunjukkan bahwa kebijakan ini justru akan menghasilkan kelangkaan/kekurangan perumahan.
2) Kebijakan yang tidak sustainable: Kebijakan yang secara inheren mustahil dapat dilaksanakan. Bagi Mises, contohnya adalah kebijakan moneter untuk mengatasi inflasi. Dalam perekonomian pasar yang tidak terkendala, tidak ada siklus boom and bust. Boom and bust, yang oleh sebagian besar orang dianggap penyebab inflasi, hanya terjadi dalam sistem perekonomian yang mendistorsi pasar. Inflasi dalam pengertian kenaikan harga barang secara umum hanyalah satu akibat dari kebijakan moneter pemerintah, bukan akibat pasar. Sejauh pemerintah terus mencetak uang baru dan substitusi uang semacam itu, maka selama itu pula inflasi mustahil diatasi.
3) Kebijakan yang mencederai kedaulatan konsumen: Kebijakan yang menstruktur alokasi sumber daya masyarakat adalah bertentangan dengan dinamika preferensi konsumen. Kebijakan pajak yang membuat konsumen kesulitan membeli barang/jasa, dan yang mengarahkan konsumen ke arah barang/jasa menurut keyakinan legislator termasuk nasehat atau kebijakan yang “buruk” karena mencederai kedaulatan konsumen.
Epilog: Fungsi dan Peran Ekonom
Rothbard dalam Power dan Market menyimpulkan, fungsi ekonom di pasar bebas sangat berbeda dari fungsinya di pasar yang terkendala. Di pasar bebas yang tidak terkendala, ekonom dapat menjelaskan tata dan cara kerja perekonomian. Selain itu, sedikit saja yang dapat ia lakukan. Jika argumentasi bahwa pasar yang bebas adalah oksimoron belaka, atau bahwa di dunia ini nyaris tidak ada lagi pasar yang bebas murni, dipercaya sebagai kebenaran, kiranya hal ini tidak mengurangi kesahihan argumen-argumen
Disiplin ekonomi mampu memperlihatkan akibat-akibat kebijakan yang sulit atau mustahil tertangkap oleh benak awam pengambil kebijakan. Menunjukkan ketidaktahuan konsumen, atau masyarakat, tentang apa-apa yang belum diketahuinya tidak melanggar, melainkan justru meningkatkan, kedaulatan konsumen. Sejauh pemisahan argumen filosofis dan moral ilmu ekonomi ini dipahami dengan baik, disiplin ini dapat dipakai secara werfrei, untuk menginformasikan masyarakat tentang apa yang belum diketahuinya (Rothbard, ibid). Terutama jika ketidaktahuan dapat berdampak serius, seorang ekonom dapat menganggapnya suatu kewajiban moral untuk menyampaikan telaah ilmiahnya kepada masyarakat. Posisi semacam ini dapat ditempuh ekonom dengan penuh semangat, tanpa kehilangan konsistensinya dengan obyektifitas temuan-temuan ilmiahnya yang ”dingin”.
Sebab, berbeda dari dugaan banyak orang, ekonom tidak dapat memprediksi masa depan. Manfaat jasa ekonom bagi pengusaha hanya sedikit saja. Pengusaha justru biasanya memiliki kemampuan forecasting yang lebih superior daripada ekonom. Seandainya ekonom bisa memprediksi, tentu ia akan memilih menjadi pengusaha saja atau bekerja di pasar saham, di mana akurasi akan mendapat ”pahala” berupa keuntungan materil yang besar. Dalam masyarakat bebas, peran murni yang dapat dijalankan seorang ekonom adalah sebagai soko guru masyarakat.
Ketika pasar secara sengaja dikendala oleh unsur-unsur non-pasar atas dasar pemahaman keliru bahwa nilai dan preferensi dapat diobjektifkan dan dapat diagregatkan (mis. secara nasional), maka ”kontribusi” ilmu ekonomi merajalela dan nasehat-nasehat ekonomi pun melimpah ruah, hingga ke titik kontradiktif yang saling meniadakan. Nasehat ekonomi tidak dapat mengklaim diri sebagai kebaikan hanya karena hal tersebut diyakini akan meningkatkan kekayaan agregat, menaikkan kesejahteraan ekonomi secara agregat, atau mengefisienkan alokasi sumber-sumber daya.
(***)
Penting digarisbawahi, kesimpulan-kesimpulan yang ditarik Kirzner adalah hasil pencarian selama ratusan tahun yang dilakukan para ekonom klasik hingga modern menurut tradisi pemikiran mazhab Austria—mulai dari Carl Menger, Böhm Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, hingga Israel Kirzner sendiri. Bagi masyarakat Indonesia, yang di tahun 1950-an baru memiliki satu ekonom saja, dan di mana tradisi ekonomi harus diadopsi dari luar terutama dari garis Keynesian dan Friedmanite dengan kiblat Anglo-Saxon-nya terutama Inggris dan Amerika, sudah sewajarnya semua ini”dikritisir”. Konsep ”pasar bebas”, misalnya, tidak sepatutnya hilir-mudik dalam kabin pikiran tanpa dilirik sama sekali, sebab kita semua adalah penumpang dalam gerbong besar kereta yang melaju dalam pasar itu sendiri menuju... apapun itu yang dituju, sebagai seorang individu atau sebuah bangsa.
Kaidah dan Fenomena Ekonomi
Sebagai disiplin paling bungsu, ekonomi tumbuh jadi cabang ilmu pengetahuan di abad 18, saat para ekonom klasik mulai sadar akan adanya pertalian hubungan sebab-akibat yang sistematik dalam fenomena ekonomi. Berdasarkan hal tersebutlah disiplin yang dulu bernama ”political economy” berhasil dibangun abad 18 dan awal abad 19.
Diterimanya ilmu ini berimplikasi revolusioner terhadap kebijakan publik. Sejak saat itu, tidak lagi para pengambil keputusan dapat mengobok-obok perekonomian sekehendak hati, demi ”kebaikan” masyarakat dalam definisi mereka. Sejak saat itu, disadari adanya ”hukum-hukum” ekonomi yang harus dihormati dan dipertimbangkan kecuali jika mereka ingin menuai prahara dan petaka di kemudian hari. Setiap kebijakan ekonomi disadari membawa konsekuensi tertentu, apalagi jika ekonom yang membantu perumusan kebijakan pemerintah bahwa pemerintah bukanlah agen ekonomi yang produktif; bahkan pemerintah tidak memiliki sumber penghasilan selain dengan jalan memajaki, tetapi memiliki kekuasaan ”legal” untuk memaksakan segala kebijakannya. Maka, sebelum tarif dikenakan, sebelum monopoli diberikan kepada individu atau kelompok tertentu, sebelum harga dikontrol, pengambil kebijakan publik harus menanyakan apakah semua konsekuensi yang mungkin terjadi sudah dipertimbangkan masak-masak.
Tapi bagaimana “hukum-hukum” tersebut tercipta? Apa landasannya? Melalui intuisi keteraturan sebab-akibat dalam fenomena ekonomi—seperti dalam fenomena ilmu alam--dapat diamati dan diakui. Tapi ”fenomena” ekonomi adalah hasil pilihan/keputusan/tindakan miliaran individu bebas. Bukankah mustahil semua individu ini mematuhi keteraturan hukum-hukum tersebut, sebab bukankah mereka bebas melakukan pilihan masing-masing? Keberatan-keberatan fundamental seperti itu dialami para teoris dan filosofer selama dua abad terakhir.
Landasan epistemologi ilmu tersebut dan ciri-cirinya dipertanyakan dan hampir tidak ada pemikiran ekonomi yang mau atau mampu menjawab hal-hal fundamental tersebut secara memuaskan. Satu, jika bukan satu-satunya, aliran pemikiran ekonomi yang secara konsisten menaruh perhatian dan memberi tilikan mendalam terhadap kerangka filosofis tersebut adalah mazhab pemikiran Austria, terutama lewat pemikiran eksponen abad duapuluh seperti Mises dan Hayek. Tentu, kontribusi-kontribusi mazhab-mazhab sebelumnya dalam konstruk teoritis mereka tidak patut dinafikan.
Epistemologi ilmu ekonomi dalam pemahaman Austrian berangkat dari aksioma dasar tentang manusia sebagai individu yang bertindak untuk suatu tujuan (end) yang dipilihnya, yang untuk itu manusia harus dapat menentukan dan menggunakan cara (means) yang juga harus dipilihnya, sebab cara sebagai sumber daya tidak selalu tersedia secara given, dan waktu yang juga sumber daya manusia terbatas sifatnya. Uraian lengkap tentang hal ini disampaikan Mises dalam adikaryanya, Human Action. Singkatnya, ilmu ini ternyata berawal dan berakhir dari preferensi dan penilaian manusia.
Dalam kerangka ini, fokus perhatian terletak pada cara sistematik manusia dalam memodifikasi ekspektasi dan pengetahuannya sesuai dengan pengalaman ekonomi dan perubahannya. Berubahnya pengalaman ekonomi memengaruhi aturan main dalam menentukan tujuan dan pilihan. Pengalaman ekonomi mengajarkan individu-individu ini melalui ketepatan dan kesalahan dalam penilaian; dan memungkinkan mereka menangkap peluang baru di masa depan atas sesuatu yang belum ada atau belum pernah terpikirkan sebelumnya. Teori ekonomi dalam kerangka analitik ini mampu memberi manusia pemahaman tentang bagaimana perubahan-perubahan eksogen dalam keterbatasan sumber daya, pengetahuan teknis, dan preferensi individu mengubah fenomena pasar secara sistematis, dan juga menentukan jalannya proses produksi dan pola alokasi sumber daya.
“Hukum” Persediaan dan Permintaan
Kirzner memberi ilustrasi tentang salah satu hukum dasar yang membuat “keteraturan” dalam perekonomian pasar: kaidah persedian dan permintaan, dan pengaruhnya terhadap harga. Pemahaman dasar terhadap perilaku harga di pasar mengidentifikasikan sifat dan arah dari kekuatan-kekuatan yang beroperasi di pasar bagi setiap produk dan sumber daya. Dalam pemahaman ini pasar barang/jasa sebagai selalu dimodifikasi secara sistematis oleh pengalaman pasar. Di setiap waktu komoditas barang/jasa yang tersedia di pasar dapat terlalu banyak atau terlalu sedikit, dan ketidakseimbangan ini selalu menuju titik ekuilibrium. Kaidah dasar ini memfokuskan pada keberadaan kekuatan-kekuatan spontan yang cenderung “memperbaiki” ketidakseimbangan pasar.
Pasar bebas, lebih daripada sekadar tempat, adalah proses sosial pertukaran barang dan jasa secara sukarela. Sedangkan ekuilibrium pasar hanyalah konstruksi imajiner ketika persediaan dan permintaan barang/jasa berada dalam kondisi yang “pas”, di mana tidak ada kecenderungan untuk berubah. Dalam pemahaman ini, kaidah supply-demand tidak berarti bahwa setiap pasar selalu berada dalam keseimbangan. Juga hal tersebut tidak berarti pasar dapat mencapai ekuilibrium secepat kilat. Yang boleh diartikan di sini adalah bahwa pasar selalu bergerak menuju ekuilibrium. Tapi, karena variabel-variabel eksogen selalu berubah, maka titik keseimbangan yang dituju pasar juga selalu berubah. Setiap kali terjadi kelebihan ”pasokan” komoditas/jasa, hal ini akan memberi tekanan yang cenderung menurunkan harga barang/jasa tersebut , dan hal ini selanjutnya mencegah produsen untuk terus memproduksi; sebaliknya, “kelangkaan” barang/jasa akan cenderung mengarah pada kenaikan harganya. Salah satu elemen yang tidak terlalu terlihat tetapi sangat kuat di pasar adalah daya-tanggap para pengusaha. Cepat atau lambat seorang pembeli pasti akan tahu apakah barang yang dibelinya terlalu mahal atau tidak. Penjual dapat menemukan pembeli yang bersedia membeli dengan harga yang lebih tinggi. Kekuatan pasokan dan permintaan beroperasi untuk memperbaiki keputusan-keputusan yang “keliru”.
Ciri Kebijakan Ekonomi yang Baik/Buruk
Dari uraian yang cukup panjang dan berliku di atas dapat disimpulkan bahwa nasehat atau kebijakan ekonomi yang baik adalah yang dapat meningkatkan bekerjanya pasar bebas, misalnya dalam proses pencarian agen-agen ekonomi di pasar bebas; dalam mengurangi ”kesalahan-kesalahan”; dalam merangsang tumbuhnya kewiraswastaan; dalam memfasilitasi inovasi produksi; atau dalam memastikan bahwa pertukaran sukarela dapat dilakukan dengan lebih menguntungkan semua pihak.
Kirzner mengutip Mises menambahkan tiga kriteria kebijakan ekonomi yang buruk sebagai berikut: 1) Kebijakan ekonomi yang dari awal telah diketahui akan gagal: Kebijakan yang dapat ditunjukkan oleh disiplin ekonomi akan menghasilkan akibat yang tidak diinginkan oleh pembuat kebijakan itu sendiri. Salah satu contoh klasik Mises adalah kebijakan untuk mengontrol harga jual tempat tinggal. Analisis ekonomi menunjukkan bahwa kebijakan ini justru akan menghasilkan kelangkaan/kekurangan perumahan.
2) Kebijakan yang tidak sustainable: Kebijakan yang secara inheren mustahil dapat dilaksanakan. Bagi Mises, contohnya adalah kebijakan moneter untuk mengatasi inflasi. Dalam perekonomian pasar yang tidak terkendala, tidak ada siklus boom and bust. Boom and bust, yang oleh sebagian besar orang dianggap penyebab inflasi, hanya terjadi dalam sistem perekonomian yang mendistorsi pasar. Inflasi dalam pengertian kenaikan harga barang secara umum hanyalah satu akibat dari kebijakan moneter pemerintah, bukan akibat pasar. Sejauh pemerintah terus mencetak uang baru dan substitusi uang semacam itu, maka selama itu pula inflasi mustahil diatasi.
3) Kebijakan yang mencederai kedaulatan konsumen: Kebijakan yang menstruktur alokasi sumber daya masyarakat adalah bertentangan dengan dinamika preferensi konsumen. Kebijakan pajak yang membuat konsumen kesulitan membeli barang/jasa, dan yang mengarahkan konsumen ke arah barang/jasa menurut keyakinan legislator termasuk nasehat atau kebijakan yang “buruk” karena mencederai kedaulatan konsumen.
Epilog: Fungsi dan Peran Ekonom
Rothbard dalam Power dan Market menyimpulkan, fungsi ekonom di pasar bebas sangat berbeda dari fungsinya di pasar yang terkendala. Di pasar bebas yang tidak terkendala, ekonom dapat menjelaskan tata dan cara kerja perekonomian. Selain itu, sedikit saja yang dapat ia lakukan. Jika argumentasi bahwa pasar yang bebas adalah oksimoron belaka, atau bahwa di dunia ini nyaris tidak ada lagi pasar yang bebas murni, dipercaya sebagai kebenaran, kiranya hal ini tidak mengurangi kesahihan argumen-argumen
Disiplin ekonomi mampu memperlihatkan akibat-akibat kebijakan yang sulit atau mustahil tertangkap oleh benak awam pengambil kebijakan. Menunjukkan ketidaktahuan konsumen, atau masyarakat, tentang apa-apa yang belum diketahuinya tidak melanggar, melainkan justru meningkatkan, kedaulatan konsumen. Sejauh pemisahan argumen filosofis dan moral ilmu ekonomi ini dipahami dengan baik, disiplin ini dapat dipakai secara werfrei, untuk menginformasikan masyarakat tentang apa yang belum diketahuinya (Rothbard, ibid). Terutama jika ketidaktahuan dapat berdampak serius, seorang ekonom dapat menganggapnya suatu kewajiban moral untuk menyampaikan telaah ilmiahnya kepada masyarakat. Posisi semacam ini dapat ditempuh ekonom dengan penuh semangat, tanpa kehilangan konsistensinya dengan obyektifitas temuan-temuan ilmiahnya yang ”dingin”.
Sebab, berbeda dari dugaan banyak orang, ekonom tidak dapat memprediksi masa depan. Manfaat jasa ekonom bagi pengusaha hanya sedikit saja. Pengusaha justru biasanya memiliki kemampuan forecasting yang lebih superior daripada ekonom. Seandainya ekonom bisa memprediksi, tentu ia akan memilih menjadi pengusaha saja atau bekerja di pasar saham, di mana akurasi akan mendapat ”pahala” berupa keuntungan materil yang besar. Dalam masyarakat bebas, peran murni yang dapat dijalankan seorang ekonom adalah sebagai soko guru masyarakat.
Ketika pasar secara sengaja dikendala oleh unsur-unsur non-pasar atas dasar pemahaman keliru bahwa nilai dan preferensi dapat diobjektifkan dan dapat diagregatkan (mis. secara nasional), maka ”kontribusi” ilmu ekonomi merajalela dan nasehat-nasehat ekonomi pun melimpah ruah, hingga ke titik kontradiktif yang saling meniadakan. Nasehat ekonomi tidak dapat mengklaim diri sebagai kebaikan hanya karena hal tersebut diyakini akan meningkatkan kekayaan agregat, menaikkan kesejahteraan ekonomi secara agregat, atau mengefisienkan alokasi sumber-sumber daya.
Batas-Batas Nasehat Ekonomi
Beberapa waktu lalu warga di kampung kami mengadakan rapat. Tujuannya, mencari solusi terbaik agar anak-anak bisa bermain (mis. main sepeda) dengan lebih leluasa dan aman. Soalnya, rumah kami terletak di jalan buntu dan mulut jalan buntu kami berhadapan langsung dengan jalan raya yang ramai. Beberapa tetangga usul, agar jalan kami diaspal; biayanya akan ditanggung secara urunan. Ada juga gagasan untuk memasang polisi tidur, persisnya di sebelah kanan jalan raya, kurang-lebih 5 meter dari mulut jalan ke rumah kami.
Tentang aspal, kebanyakan dari kami yang hadir setuju—termasuk saya. Tapi ada juga yang tidak. Setelah ditanyakan kepada satu keluarga yang tidak setuju, kami kemudian paham bahwa sebenarnya mereka tidak keberatan. Mereka cuma tidak dapat berjanji bisa ikut urunan minggu depan, ketika rencana warga ini akan diwujudkan.
Tentang polisi tidur, nah ini cukup menarik. Ternyata konstelasi :p) warga terbagi menjadi dua kubu antara mereka yang setuju dan yang tidak. Saya termasuk kelompok kedua; tapi perlu saya tambahkan, posisi ini tidak berarti saya tidak memahami warga yang menginginkan polisi tidur.
Seminggu kemudian, jalan buntu di depan rumah kami pun beraspal. Tanpa bantuan pemerintah (!), walau saya yakin hampir semua orang di lingkungan kami belum pernah baca The Cartel of Good Intention-nya Easterly. Tapi polisi tidur tidak dipasang. Selain karena tidak ada kesepakatan, ternyata bikin jalanan beraspal tidak murah, bo.
*
Walau sederhana, kasus nyata di atas rasanya mengandung banyak isu multidisipliner; di dalamnya ada dimensi politik, hukum, psikologi, etika, matematika, ekonomi, dll. Yang mau saya angkat sebagai fokus tulisan ini adalah yang terakhir: isu ekonomi, terutama yang ada hubungannya dengan penilaian individu. Posting ini masih menyerempet fokus dalam dua posting saya terdahulu, yaitu tentang preferensi dan sifat bebas-nilai ilmu ekonomi. Keterserempetan ini adalah modal yang cukup memotivasi:p)
Dalam posting tentang preferensi, kesimpulan yang saya tarik adalah: sebelum orang dapat menjatuhkan pilihan tertentu, perlu ada preferensi terlebih dahulu. Jika ditelusuri terus ke belakang, dapat dikatakan bahwa preferensi mengharuskan adanya ”pengetahuan”, setidak-tidaknya terhadap dua aspek yang berbeda dari sebuah objek atau lebih. Lalu, pengetahuan itu sendiri kita peroleh dari pengalaman, pendidikan, pemikiran deduktif/induktif, indoktrinasi, dll.
Sayangnya--dan juga untungnya, ”pengetahuan” yang dibutuhkan tidak selalu tersedia. Kenyataan ini gampang diterima, sebab tidak ada manusia yang tahu segala hal. Dalam kondisi demikian, preferensi dipastikan tidak dapat terbentuk. Tambahan pula, karena ”pengetahuan” dapat berubah bersama waktu, maka demikian pula preferensi. Jadi dapat disimpulkan bahwa prefensi, dalam pemikiran ekonomi, sifatnya spesifik; dia mengacu pada pilihan-pilihan pada suatu titik waktu tertentu.
Saat orang tidak punya preferensi atau tidak berhasil ”mengerahkannya”, maka di saat itu ia tidak bisa mengambil satu pilihan tertentu. Ia akan netral, indifferent, atau semata-mata bingung. Pilihan yang mana yang akhirnya diambil, jika diambil, akan menghasilkan tingkat kepuasan—atau tingkat kekecewaan--yang sama. Jika orang tersebut lempar koin atau minta nasehat orang lain untuk menetapkan pilihannya, itu sah-sah saja. Tapi mengapa dan bagaimana orang menentukan kandungan pilihannya atau mengatasi dilemanya bukan urusan ekonom. Yang menjadi ”data” bagi ekonom adalah pilihan yang diambil orang tersebut, sebagaimana didemonstrasikan melalui pilihan yang akhirnya diambil olehnya.
Tingkat kepuasan (kekecewaan) ini subyektif dan tergantung pada skedul nilai seseorang. Skedul nilai tidak lain adalah skedul preferensi itu sendiri, fitur kompleks manusiawi yang menyatu dengan pusat semesta keberadaan seseorang, apapun itu namanya. Dalam contoh di RT kami, dalam skedul nilai saya pribadi, jalan beraspal saya tempatkan dalam urutan yang lebih tinggi daripada polisi tidur, tetapi saya tidak bisa menguantifikasi seberapa kali lebih besar nilai aspal dibandingkan dengan nilai polisi tidur. Saya juga tidak punya dasar untuk melakukan aproksimasi berapa nilai moneter kompensasi yang pas agar saya nrimo jalanan tanpa aspal (kalaupun ada yang mau membayar). Dari sini dapat disimpulkan satu ciri skedul nilai, tingkat kepuasan dalam sistem skedul nilai seseorang tidak bisa dikalkulasikan secara kardinal, dan tidak selalu bersifat numerikal, ataupun diubah secara obyektif menjadi numerikal, mis. dalam satuan moneter.
Pada titik ini, dalam perkembangan pemikiran ekonomi terdapat perbedaan mendasar seputar teori nilai/utilitas. Pandangan populer menerima subyektivitas tetapi menolak ketidak-bisaan-dalam-mengkuantifikasikannya. Dalam pandangan ini, semuanya (harus) dapat diukur; paling tidak diagregatkan. Milton Friedman, misalnya, pernah bilang bahwa salah satu tugas sains adalah untuk mengukur. Beberapa buku teks memperkenalkan istilah util untuk mengukur utilitas atau manfaat sebuah benda/jasa. Tapi gerangan apakah benda ini, hingga sekarang masih dicari.
Jika pemahaman saya terhadap ekonomi ini tepat, maka teori utilitas dan nilai yang subyektif ini sungguh amat penting sekali; mungkin yang terpenting setelah ilmu ini berhasil menyarikan hukum ekonomi terhadap suplai dan demand.
Anyways, sementara si-util hingga kini masih harus ditemukan, aplikasi ekonomi terus merambah ke mana-mana. Hampir tidak ada aspek kehidupan yang luput. Ilmu ekonomi sudah terlanjur dianggap, secara sembrono dan keliru saya kira, sebagai Ratu atau Dewa (atau Kerispatih atau Gigi) ilmu sosial. Dugaan saya, ini akibat tameng identitas atau pemodelan matematis, yang jika semakin rumit, akan dianggap semakin canggih. Tapi yang saya percaya, perambahan ekonomi ke semua bidang adalah hal wajar, sebab ekonomi pada hakikatnya adalah ilmu kajian tentang pilihan-pilihan manusia, yang berangkat dari satu aksioma universal bahwa manusia adalah makhluk yang bertindak secara sadar atas suatu pilihan tujuan.
Tapi, sebetulnya sejauh apa ilmu ini bisa memberi tilikan ataupun masukan yang memengaruhi pilihan atau preferensi manusia? Teori ekonomi apa yang bisa dipakai untuk mengobyektifkan keadaan bahwa warga di RT kami sebaiknya (tidak) memasang polisi tidur di dekat kompleks kami? Argumen ekonomis-ilmiah apa yang dapat disampaikan ekonom kepada seorang anak tetangga yang tidak suka makan mangga untuk mengubah preferensinya?
Jawabannya, cukup mengejutkan: hampir tidak ada. Sebab serupa dengan semua ilmu pengetahuan lain yang obyektif, pengetahuan ekonomi paling banter bertugas untuk mendeskripsikan hal-hal obyektif dan hubungan-hubungan serta konsekuensi-konsekuensi logis, terutama yang ”tidak terlihat” secara seketika atau dalam jangka pendek, dari atau terhadap satu dan lain hal. Ketika seorang ekonom mencoba menarik kesimpulan obyektif untuk sesuatu yang subyektif melalui argumen ekonomi, baik dengan bantuan ”modeling” ataupun metode ”saintistik”, maka hampir dapat dipastikan ia akan melakukannya secara tidak sah. Jika nalar ekonominya membuat sang ekonom bersikap pro terhadap polisi tidur dan menurutnya orang lain seharusnya juga demikian, ia tidak dapat mengubah yang ”is” menjadi ”ought”.
Subyektivitas nilai dan obyektivitas disiplin ekonomi adalah dua perkara berbeda. Barangkali, dengan keterbatasan disiplin ekonomi, hal pertama yang harus disampaikan seorang ekonom ketika terjadi benturan dua hal berbeda tersebut adalah menyampaikan apa yang tidak dapat dilakukannya. Jika ia melakukannya, ia berpeluang tergelincir ke dalam upaya moralizing secara implisit; maksudnya, ia mungkin tanpa disadarinya akan lebih menggunakan argumen moral daripada argumen ekonomi.
Pada titik ini, jika anda merasakan apa yang saya rasakan, ilmu ekonomi terasa ”dingin” sekali. Tidak dapatkah ilmu ekonomi memberi kita dasar pemikiran untuk menyampaikan suatu nasehat tentang hal-hal baik yang berterima secara umum dan obyektif? Bukankah pengetahuan dan pemahaman ekonomi menjadi bernilai tidak bagi ilmu itu sendiri, melainkan atas manfaatnya dalam membantu manusia menjawab kebutuhan-kebutuhan praktis?
Ekonomi tidak harus sedingin itu? OK. Di bagian selanjutnya saya akan coba bahas hal ini.
(Bersambung)
Tentang aspal, kebanyakan dari kami yang hadir setuju—termasuk saya. Tapi ada juga yang tidak. Setelah ditanyakan kepada satu keluarga yang tidak setuju, kami kemudian paham bahwa sebenarnya mereka tidak keberatan. Mereka cuma tidak dapat berjanji bisa ikut urunan minggu depan, ketika rencana warga ini akan diwujudkan.
Tentang polisi tidur, nah ini cukup menarik. Ternyata konstelasi :p) warga terbagi menjadi dua kubu antara mereka yang setuju dan yang tidak. Saya termasuk kelompok kedua; tapi perlu saya tambahkan, posisi ini tidak berarti saya tidak memahami warga yang menginginkan polisi tidur.
Seminggu kemudian, jalan buntu di depan rumah kami pun beraspal. Tanpa bantuan pemerintah (!), walau saya yakin hampir semua orang di lingkungan kami belum pernah baca The Cartel of Good Intention-nya Easterly. Tapi polisi tidur tidak dipasang. Selain karena tidak ada kesepakatan, ternyata bikin jalanan beraspal tidak murah, bo.
*
Walau sederhana, kasus nyata di atas rasanya mengandung banyak isu multidisipliner; di dalamnya ada dimensi politik, hukum, psikologi, etika, matematika, ekonomi, dll. Yang mau saya angkat sebagai fokus tulisan ini adalah yang terakhir: isu ekonomi, terutama yang ada hubungannya dengan penilaian individu. Posting ini masih menyerempet fokus dalam dua posting saya terdahulu, yaitu tentang preferensi dan sifat bebas-nilai ilmu ekonomi. Keterserempetan ini adalah modal yang cukup memotivasi:p)
Dalam posting tentang preferensi, kesimpulan yang saya tarik adalah: sebelum orang dapat menjatuhkan pilihan tertentu, perlu ada preferensi terlebih dahulu. Jika ditelusuri terus ke belakang, dapat dikatakan bahwa preferensi mengharuskan adanya ”pengetahuan”, setidak-tidaknya terhadap dua aspek yang berbeda dari sebuah objek atau lebih. Lalu, pengetahuan itu sendiri kita peroleh dari pengalaman, pendidikan, pemikiran deduktif/induktif, indoktrinasi, dll.
Sayangnya--dan juga untungnya, ”pengetahuan” yang dibutuhkan tidak selalu tersedia. Kenyataan ini gampang diterima, sebab tidak ada manusia yang tahu segala hal. Dalam kondisi demikian, preferensi dipastikan tidak dapat terbentuk. Tambahan pula, karena ”pengetahuan” dapat berubah bersama waktu, maka demikian pula preferensi. Jadi dapat disimpulkan bahwa prefensi, dalam pemikiran ekonomi, sifatnya spesifik; dia mengacu pada pilihan-pilihan pada suatu titik waktu tertentu.
Saat orang tidak punya preferensi atau tidak berhasil ”mengerahkannya”, maka di saat itu ia tidak bisa mengambil satu pilihan tertentu. Ia akan netral, indifferent, atau semata-mata bingung. Pilihan yang mana yang akhirnya diambil, jika diambil, akan menghasilkan tingkat kepuasan—atau tingkat kekecewaan--yang sama. Jika orang tersebut lempar koin atau minta nasehat orang lain untuk menetapkan pilihannya, itu sah-sah saja. Tapi mengapa dan bagaimana orang menentukan kandungan pilihannya atau mengatasi dilemanya bukan urusan ekonom. Yang menjadi ”data” bagi ekonom adalah pilihan yang diambil orang tersebut, sebagaimana didemonstrasikan melalui pilihan yang akhirnya diambil olehnya.
Tingkat kepuasan (kekecewaan) ini subyektif dan tergantung pada skedul nilai seseorang. Skedul nilai tidak lain adalah skedul preferensi itu sendiri, fitur kompleks manusiawi yang menyatu dengan pusat semesta keberadaan seseorang, apapun itu namanya. Dalam contoh di RT kami, dalam skedul nilai saya pribadi, jalan beraspal saya tempatkan dalam urutan yang lebih tinggi daripada polisi tidur, tetapi saya tidak bisa menguantifikasi seberapa kali lebih besar nilai aspal dibandingkan dengan nilai polisi tidur. Saya juga tidak punya dasar untuk melakukan aproksimasi berapa nilai moneter kompensasi yang pas agar saya nrimo jalanan tanpa aspal (kalaupun ada yang mau membayar). Dari sini dapat disimpulkan satu ciri skedul nilai, tingkat kepuasan dalam sistem skedul nilai seseorang tidak bisa dikalkulasikan secara kardinal, dan tidak selalu bersifat numerikal, ataupun diubah secara obyektif menjadi numerikal, mis. dalam satuan moneter.
Pada titik ini, dalam perkembangan pemikiran ekonomi terdapat perbedaan mendasar seputar teori nilai/utilitas. Pandangan populer menerima subyektivitas tetapi menolak ketidak-bisaan-dalam-mengkuantifikasikannya. Dalam pandangan ini, semuanya (harus) dapat diukur; paling tidak diagregatkan. Milton Friedman, misalnya, pernah bilang bahwa salah satu tugas sains adalah untuk mengukur. Beberapa buku teks memperkenalkan istilah util untuk mengukur utilitas atau manfaat sebuah benda/jasa. Tapi gerangan apakah benda ini, hingga sekarang masih dicari.
Jika pemahaman saya terhadap ekonomi ini tepat, maka teori utilitas dan nilai yang subyektif ini sungguh amat penting sekali; mungkin yang terpenting setelah ilmu ini berhasil menyarikan hukum ekonomi terhadap suplai dan demand.
Anyways, sementara si-util hingga kini masih harus ditemukan, aplikasi ekonomi terus merambah ke mana-mana. Hampir tidak ada aspek kehidupan yang luput. Ilmu ekonomi sudah terlanjur dianggap, secara sembrono dan keliru saya kira, sebagai Ratu atau Dewa (atau Kerispatih atau Gigi) ilmu sosial. Dugaan saya, ini akibat tameng identitas atau pemodelan matematis, yang jika semakin rumit, akan dianggap semakin canggih. Tapi yang saya percaya, perambahan ekonomi ke semua bidang adalah hal wajar, sebab ekonomi pada hakikatnya adalah ilmu kajian tentang pilihan-pilihan manusia, yang berangkat dari satu aksioma universal bahwa manusia adalah makhluk yang bertindak secara sadar atas suatu pilihan tujuan.
Tapi, sebetulnya sejauh apa ilmu ini bisa memberi tilikan ataupun masukan yang memengaruhi pilihan atau preferensi manusia? Teori ekonomi apa yang bisa dipakai untuk mengobyektifkan keadaan bahwa warga di RT kami sebaiknya (tidak) memasang polisi tidur di dekat kompleks kami? Argumen ekonomis-ilmiah apa yang dapat disampaikan ekonom kepada seorang anak tetangga yang tidak suka makan mangga untuk mengubah preferensinya?
Jawabannya, cukup mengejutkan: hampir tidak ada. Sebab serupa dengan semua ilmu pengetahuan lain yang obyektif, pengetahuan ekonomi paling banter bertugas untuk mendeskripsikan hal-hal obyektif dan hubungan-hubungan serta konsekuensi-konsekuensi logis, terutama yang ”tidak terlihat” secara seketika atau dalam jangka pendek, dari atau terhadap satu dan lain hal. Ketika seorang ekonom mencoba menarik kesimpulan obyektif untuk sesuatu yang subyektif melalui argumen ekonomi, baik dengan bantuan ”modeling” ataupun metode ”saintistik”, maka hampir dapat dipastikan ia akan melakukannya secara tidak sah. Jika nalar ekonominya membuat sang ekonom bersikap pro terhadap polisi tidur dan menurutnya orang lain seharusnya juga demikian, ia tidak dapat mengubah yang ”is” menjadi ”ought”.
Subyektivitas nilai dan obyektivitas disiplin ekonomi adalah dua perkara berbeda. Barangkali, dengan keterbatasan disiplin ekonomi, hal pertama yang harus disampaikan seorang ekonom ketika terjadi benturan dua hal berbeda tersebut adalah menyampaikan apa yang tidak dapat dilakukannya. Jika ia melakukannya, ia berpeluang tergelincir ke dalam upaya moralizing secara implisit; maksudnya, ia mungkin tanpa disadarinya akan lebih menggunakan argumen moral daripada argumen ekonomi.
Pada titik ini, jika anda merasakan apa yang saya rasakan, ilmu ekonomi terasa ”dingin” sekali. Tidak dapatkah ilmu ekonomi memberi kita dasar pemikiran untuk menyampaikan suatu nasehat tentang hal-hal baik yang berterima secara umum dan obyektif? Bukankah pengetahuan dan pemahaman ekonomi menjadi bernilai tidak bagi ilmu itu sendiri, melainkan atas manfaatnya dalam membantu manusia menjawab kebutuhan-kebutuhan praktis?
Ekonomi tidak harus sedingin itu? OK. Di bagian selanjutnya saya akan coba bahas hal ini.
(Bersambung)
Krisis Ekonom
Artikel di Business News (ed. 7497) yang berjudul Krisis Ilmu Ekonomi dan Munculnya Paradigma Baru Ekonomi memuat agak terlalu banyak kesalahan fundamental untuk dikoreksi.
Di paragraf pertama, artikel ini mengidentikkan teori neo-klasik dengan liberalisme atau bahkan ultra-liberalisme. Dikatakan bahwa konsep ekonom neo-klasik adalah bahwa masyarakat harus membiarkan kebebasan sebesar-besarnya bagi manusia untuk melakukan kegiatan ekonomi atau dalam istilah umum disebut laissez-faire.
Bagaimana mungkin ekonom neo-klasik disebut sebagai pendukung atau advocate dari laissez faire yang pada hakekatnya tidak menemukan legitimasi bagi institusi non-pasar untuk ikut campur tangan di pasar, apalagi untuk mengendalikan perekonomian?
Untuk memahami perbedaan yang subtil ini orang perlu melongok lebih jauh ke lembaran sejarah abad ke-19 di Eropa, untuk mengetahui bagaimana terjadinya pembajakan istilah liberalisme di abad tersebut, sehingga konsep tersebut di jaman itu kini diasosiasikan penuh dengan konotasi negatif seperti yang dipahami oleh sebagian besar dari kita dewasa ini. Posting saya sebelumnya (Cek Kosong Demokrasi; khususnya di sub-bagian Milton Friedman) menyinggung hal ini.
Sebagai simpulan bagi yang mau instan, anggap saja ada Liberalisme 1 dan Liberalisme 2. Yang satu sangat positif; senafas dengan semangat perekonomian pasar yang laissez faire; yang kedua sangat negatif, yang sarat dengan intervensionisme dan statisme.
Liberalisme 1 kini harus disebut sebagai Liberalisme klasik. Sementara Liberalisme 2 adalah sebagaimana umumnya dipahami sekarang; Liberalisme. Di sini terlihat, para eksponen laissez faire dan perekonomian pasar bahkan harus kehilangan definisi kuncinya, karena sudah terbajak lewat propaganda.
Selain itu, paragraf terakhir dalam artikel di atas menyimpulkan bahwa ekonomi itu tidak bebas nilai.
Perlu ditandaskan bahwa ekonomi adalah disiplin yang wertfrei, bebas-nilai. Bukan berarti disiplin ini akan membawa ke nihilisme, melainkan bahwa ilmu ekonomi adalah disiplin positif (bukan normatif) yang mencoba menemukan hubungan sebab akibat yang sebenar-benarnya di dunia.
Seperti juga ilmu kedokteran yang bersifat bebas-nilai, orang perlu mempelajari virus AIDS atau kloning secara netral untuk memahaminya. Tetapi aplikasi ilmu ekonomi atau ilmu kedokteranlah yang memang sering melibatkan semacam penghakiman nilai.
Di paragraf pertama, artikel ini mengidentikkan teori neo-klasik dengan liberalisme atau bahkan ultra-liberalisme. Dikatakan bahwa konsep ekonom neo-klasik adalah bahwa masyarakat harus membiarkan kebebasan sebesar-besarnya bagi manusia untuk melakukan kegiatan ekonomi atau dalam istilah umum disebut laissez-faire.
Bagaimana mungkin ekonom neo-klasik disebut sebagai pendukung atau advocate dari laissez faire yang pada hakekatnya tidak menemukan legitimasi bagi institusi non-pasar untuk ikut campur tangan di pasar, apalagi untuk mengendalikan perekonomian?
Untuk memahami perbedaan yang subtil ini orang perlu melongok lebih jauh ke lembaran sejarah abad ke-19 di Eropa, untuk mengetahui bagaimana terjadinya pembajakan istilah liberalisme di abad tersebut, sehingga konsep tersebut di jaman itu kini diasosiasikan penuh dengan konotasi negatif seperti yang dipahami oleh sebagian besar dari kita dewasa ini. Posting saya sebelumnya (Cek Kosong Demokrasi; khususnya di sub-bagian Milton Friedman) menyinggung hal ini.
Sebagai simpulan bagi yang mau instan, anggap saja ada Liberalisme 1 dan Liberalisme 2. Yang satu sangat positif; senafas dengan semangat perekonomian pasar yang laissez faire; yang kedua sangat negatif, yang sarat dengan intervensionisme dan statisme.
Liberalisme 1 kini harus disebut sebagai Liberalisme klasik. Sementara Liberalisme 2 adalah sebagaimana umumnya dipahami sekarang; Liberalisme. Di sini terlihat, para eksponen laissez faire dan perekonomian pasar bahkan harus kehilangan definisi kuncinya, karena sudah terbajak lewat propaganda.
Selain itu, paragraf terakhir dalam artikel di atas menyimpulkan bahwa ekonomi itu tidak bebas nilai.
Perlu ditandaskan bahwa ekonomi adalah disiplin yang wertfrei, bebas-nilai. Bukan berarti disiplin ini akan membawa ke nihilisme, melainkan bahwa ilmu ekonomi adalah disiplin positif (bukan normatif) yang mencoba menemukan hubungan sebab akibat yang sebenar-benarnya di dunia.
Seperti juga ilmu kedokteran yang bersifat bebas-nilai, orang perlu mempelajari virus AIDS atau kloning secara netral untuk memahaminya. Tetapi aplikasi ilmu ekonomi atau ilmu kedokteranlah yang memang sering melibatkan semacam penghakiman nilai.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)