WILL CONTINUED ECONOMIC GROWTH BRING EVER GREATER HARM TO THE EARTH’S ENVIRONMENT?: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Pertumbuhan ekonomi telah lama menjadi orientasi dominan dalam pelaksanaan pembangunan di hampir seluruh negara di bumi raya ini. Namun demikian, orang tidak dapat mengingkari bahwa kian hari, kian lama, udara yang mereka hirup semakin tak segar, suhu bumi makin tak menentu, dan makin berkurang kekayaan sumber daya alam sebagai sarana produksi. Kesadaran ini akhirnya melahirkan kepedulian akan pembangunan yang memperhatikan lingkungan hidup sekitar. Seiring dengan peningkatan kepedulian orang akan kualitas lingkungan hidup, para ekonom mulai merancang dan merumuskan konsep, teori maupun model, yang menjelaskan hubungan antara kualitas lingkungan hidup dan pembangunan ekonomi.  Tulisan ini menjelaskan dampak pembangunan ekonomi terhadap kualitas lingkungan hidup. Hipotesis Kuznets mengatakan bahwa pada pada awal upaya pertumbuhan ekonomi, kualitas lingkungan hidup akan menurun tetapi lambat laun akan meningkat seiring dengan peningkatan aktivitas ekonomi. Persoalannya adakah dukungan empiris atas hipotesis tersebut? Selain memaparkan tentang perdebatan teori di kalangan ekonom mengenai keterkaitan antara pertumbuhan ekonomi dan kualitas lingkungan hidup, tulisan ini menampilkan pula studi-studi empiris di beberapa negara yang menguji hipotesis Kuznet tersebut

Marxist vs Liberal: Who Is the True Guardian of Freedom?

Liberalisme dan marxisme adalah dua paham yang mewarnai perialanan pemikiran-pemikiran dunia. Seiring dengan dinamika p emikiran dunia, dua paham ini berkembang menjadi suatu ideologi yang menjadi dasar keyakinan umat manusia dalam menggariskan segala sikap, kebijakan, dan pemikiran. Kerap kali diskursus tentang arah kebijakan dan strategi suatu negara akhirnya rdilarikan\u27 pada perdebatan dua teori besar ini (grand narratives discourse). Dalam mengatur, merumuskan, dan menganalisis konsep kepenmilikan, posisi negara, pilihan kebijakan ekottonti, dan hak kewajiban warga negara, konsep kebebasan menjadi dasar tolakan dua pahant dunia ini. Segala rumusan, aturan, dan analisis dua paham besar tersebut dapat kita kembalikan pada bagaimana paham-paham tersebut menggariskan kebebasan seorang manusia. Kemudian, yang berkembang sekarang adalah, seiring dengan dominasi liberalisme dalam kehidupan manusia, liberalisme dipahami dan diyakini sebagai paham maupun ideologi yang sangat mengagungkan terciptanya kebebasan dalant kehidupan an tar manusia. Menjadi keyakinan umum bahwa liberalisme merupakan ideologi yang membebaskan manusia. Konsep pasar bebas dan kep emilikan pribadi merupakan simbol pemikiran dari liberalisme sebagai "the true guardian of freedom". Sebaliknya, marxisme, lebih populer dengan teorinya tentang perluasan clan "penzusatan kekuasaan negara". Teori yang kerapkali dijadikan dasar argumentasi bahwa marxisme membuang jauh syarat perlunya rasa dan kehidupan yang bebas seorang manusia. Hal inilah yang menjadi salah satu alasan pokok yang dapat menjelaskan mengapa marxisme tidak menjadi ideologi pilihan dunia. Pertanyaannya kemudian, benarkah persyaratan kebebasan dalant kehidupan manusia luput dari rumusan, aturan, dan pandangan dalant marxisme? Apakah marxisme memang menempatkan manusia dalam posisi yang terkurung? Apakah konsep kebebasan yang digariskan marxisme malahan membatasii kebebasan manusia itu sendiri? Tulisan ini tidak dimaksudkan menjadi pledoi bagi marxisme meskipun tulisan ini berangkat dari kritik terhadap pemikiran yang skeptis tentang konsep kebebasan tersebut. Dengan membandingkan konsep kebebasan dalam marxisme dan liberalisme, tulisan ini mencoba menjawab kesangsian yang selama ini berkembang tentang keberpihakan marxisme dalam kebebasan manusia. Analisis akan berkembang ke dalam paparan teori-teori tentang negara, pasar, dan kepemilikan, semata-mata untuk menunjukkan bagaimana konsep kebebasan melambari setiap aturan, rumusan, dan pilihan kebijakan dua paham tersebut. Keywords: capitalismcommunismdoctrinehuman freedomliberalismstalinismmaois

What FactorsConstitute Structuresof Clustering Creative Industries? Incorporating New Institutional Economics and New Economic Sociology into A Conceptual Framework

Abstract: Creative industries tend to cluster in specific places and the reasons for this phenomenon can be a multiplicity of elements linked mainly to culture, creativity, innovation and local development. In the international literature, it is pretty well recognized that creativity is frequently characterized by the agglomeration of firms so that creative industries are not homogeneously distributed across the territory but they are concentrated in the space. Three theories are becoming the dominant theoretical perspectives in agglomeration economies theory and they are increasingly being applied in industrial clusters analysis to study the effect of clustering industries. The theories are Marshall\u27s theoretical principles of localization economies, Schmitz\u27s collective efficiency and Porter\u27s five-diamond approach. However, those have adequately theorized neither the institutionalization process through which change takes place nor the socio-economic context of the institutional formations of clustering creative industries. This text begins by reviewing three main theories to more fully articulate institutionalization processes of an economic institution. Specifically, this paper incorporates new institutional economics (NIE) and new economic sociology (NES) to explain the processes associated with creating institutional practices within clustering creative industries. Both streams of institutional theory constitute that economic organizations are socially constructed. Next, this text proposes the framework that depicts the socio-economic cOl1textbetter and more directly addresses the dynamics of enacting, embedding and changing organizational features and processes within clustering creative industries. Some pertinent definitions are offered to be used in a conceptual framework of research about how economic institutions like clustering creative industries constitute their structures

The Implementation of The Property Right System On The Water Resource Management debate and Ptractical Choice

A discussion about natural resource management and property right has long been carried out among scholars. Thousand years ago, resources were accessible for all. Under these circumstances, the establishment of property right for using the resources was not necessary as there was no dispute among humans on claiming a right to use resources. However, nowadays, the way of life of hunting and gathering could not be maintained anymore. Otherwise, natural environment would degrade much more under which human being could no longer sustain his life. Given to that context, the paper attempts to discuss, firstly, whether the property right system is a solution for sustaining the ecosystem end, secondly. how to make the system effective for managing nattily\u27 resources. Since the complexity of the mailer cannot be fully assessed in all these respects at once, the study will focus on water resources. The study concludes that the common property right system is a right choice to overcome the dispute among people regarding the use offresh water. The main reasons are the externality that happens when the people\u27s activity has an external effect to the increased-pollution offresh water, and non-divisibility and non-tradability of water. Nevertheless, the establishment of common property right system alone is insufficient since the problems of the provision offresh water include controlling the discharge of industrial pollution in waterways that involves many parties. in dealing with the problems, a restricted COI11111011 property right regime is needed. In other words, the role of the state in regrikition-making is required

What Factors Constitute Structures of Clustering Creative Industries? Incorporating New Institutional Economics and New Economic Sociology into A Conceptual Framework

Creative industries tend to cluster in specific places and the reasons for this phenomenon can be a multiplicity of elements linked mainly to culture, creativity, innovation and local development. In the international literature, it is pretty well recognized that creativity is frequently characterized by the agglomeration of firms so that creative industries are not homogeneously distributed across the territory but they are concentrated in the space. Three theories are becoming the dominant theoretical perspectives in agglomeration economies theory and they are increasingly being applied in industrial clusters analysis to study the effect of clustering industries. The theories are Marshall’s theoretical principles of localization economies, Schmitz’s collective efficiency and Porter’s five-diamond approach. However, those have adequately theorized neither the institutionalization process through which change takes place nor the socio-economic context of the institutional formations of clustering creative industries. This text begins by reviewing three main theories to more fully articulate institutionalization processes of an economic institution. Specifically, this paper incorporates new institutional economics (NIE) and new economic sociology (NES) to explain the processes associated with creating institutional practices within clustering creative industries. Both streams of institutional theory constitute that economic organizations are socially constructed. Next, this text proposes the framework that depicts the socio-economic context better and more directly addresses the dynamics of enacting, embedding and changing organizational features and processes within clustering creative industries. Some pertinent definitions are offered to be used in a conceptual framework of research about how economic institutions like clustering creative industries constitute their structures.   

An integrated analysis of socioeconomic structures and actors in Indonesian industrial clusters

This thesis involves three main issues: (1) socioeconomic structures of the clusters, (2) the role of actors in local business associations, and (3) the interplay between the two. The research consisted of fieldwork conducted from July 2007 to July 2008. This included in-depth interviews with participating local people (retailers, manufacturers, subcontractors, workers, and suppliers) and local government, a survey of 210 firms (local retailers, manufacturers, and retailers who have their own workshops) using a questionnaire, and participation and observation of meetings of local business associations and rotating saving groups. Ismalina found the main conclusion about the dynamics of the studied Indonesian clusters: The simultaneity of market relations and social embeddedness among participating firms emerges in the three studied clusters and constitutes socioeconomic structures of the clusters. Socioeconomic structures of the clusters not only are supported by individual cooperation but also originate from collective actions that occur in local business associations. Collective action is not simply a mode of harmonizing interests but rather is employed to mitigate conflicts among local people. Some local actors in local business associations have a significant role in creating a peaceful, fair, and healthy business environment. This is part of the way they facilitate socioeconomic structures of a cluster and how they support the advancement of the dynamic process. Thus, the actors use local business associations to facilitate the collective learning of the members.

ANALISIS PERBANDINGAN VALUASI NILAI EKONOMI HUTAN DAN PERKEBUNAN KELAPA SAWIT DI KABUPATEN KAPUAS PROVINSI KALIMANTAN TENGAH MENGGUNAKAN PENDEKATAN HARGA PASAR, BENEFIT TRANSFER DAN CONTINGENT VALUATION

The purpose of this study is to identify and compare the economic value of forest and oil palm plantation at Kapuas Regency , Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. The values of forest that measured by researcher in this study are timber, job availability, biodiversity and the cultures of the local society. Meanwhile, oil palm plantation assessed based on value of crude palm oil (CPO) and palm kernel oil (PKO) and income from employment provided by palm oil plantations. This research used three methods of economic valuation. The methods are market value approach, benefit transfer and contingent valuation. Based on the research, total economic value of forest is Rp11.000.128,71 per ha/year whereas total economic value of oil palm plantations is Rp7.458.015,60 per ha/year. Because of comparison necessity, researcher used the area of oil palm plantations (20,600 hectares). So, economic value of forest for 20,600 hectares is Rp226.602.651.396,96 per year while the economic value of oil palm plantations in this study is Rp153.635.121.286,829 per year. Furthermore, Net Present Value cost benefit analysis of oil palm plantation (For 25 Years, discount rate 10 percent) is minus -Rp662,311,677,304,- and Benefit Cost Ratio is 0,677. It's mean, the value of forest more expensive than oil plam plantation projects. If forest change into oil plam plantation , the project will not provide great benefit. Contrary, if the project implemented by the company, Economically, the people will lose the forest (opportunity cost) around Rp662,311,677,304,-