Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indonesian income per capita has risen rapidly in the past 10 years. The growth in income, combined with an expanding middle class, has corresponded with strong growth in retail sales. Recently, however, this trend has started to change. Consumption growth has been relatively stable, but retail sales are growing more slowly than in the past. In order to develop a clearer picture of consumer spending in Indonesia, we discuss differences in spending behaviour across two income groups—lower-middle income and upper-high income. Consumption varies across income groups, so saving and investment patterns may also vary. We find that the upper-high income group, despite having more income than in the past, is less willing to invest and borrow than previously, and that the lower-middle income group continues to suffer from a lack of purchasing power. Meanwhile, investors are simply postponing investments, preferring to take a ‘wait and see’ approach. Excess saving can be economically problematic. If effective demand is too weak, it can have negative consequences for long-term economic growth. We begin, however, by surveying recent economic developments in Indonesia, focusing on the third quarter of 2017. Indonesia’s current rate of economic growth (5.1% year on year) places it among the world’s fastest-growing large economies, but the lack of acceleration is a concern: growth has not exceeded 6.0% since the second quarter of 2012. Despite this lack of acceleration, Indonesia has achieved macroeconomic and financial stability. The balance of payments has been improving since early 2016, with a narrow current account deficit—well below 3.0% of GDP—and a surplus trade balance. Exports grew by 17.3% in the third quarter of 2017, owing to rising commodity prices (which boosted export growth in both value and volume), while imports grew by 15.1%, although the impact on economic growth has so far been more moderate than in the commodity boom of 2000–2011. The growth in commodity exports has also benefited Kalimantan, Sumatra, and other commodity-rich regions. However, rising commodity prices come with some caveats. They might boost growth for a short period, but they raise the challenge of making this growth sustainable. We have seen this many times in the past. Increasing institutional capacity to better implement policy initiatives, for one, will help to deliver sustainable, high-quality economic growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".