Romo Wibowo, pengertian saya tulisan Jeffrey Sachs ini menekankan bahwa negara-negara miskin perlu lebih banyak mengeluarkan uang (baik dari APBN sendiri maupun lewat utang) untuk pembangunan infrastruktur dan peningkatan produktivitas dan kesejahteraan petani sebagai landasan bagi berkembangnya ekonomi swasta.
Seingat saya, hal ini adalah juga mantra pembangunan Orde Baru selama 32 tahun. Biarpun uang negara banyak dikorupsi, tapi secara kasat mata Pemerintah Orde Baru lewat pembangunannya memang berhasil meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyat dan pada gilirannya mendorong lahirnya ekonomi dari sektor swasta. Dari segi itulah keadaan kita tidak bisa disamakan dengan keadaan ekonomi negara-negara Afrika. Ekonomi negara-negara Afrika itu mungkin masih terbelakang, artinya infrastrukturnya tidak memadai untuk mendorong LAHIRNYA sektor swasta yang besar. Makanya Sachs setuju dengan pendekatan Cina yang mendorong pemerintah negara- negara Afrika untuk membangun infrastruktur. Ekonomi Indonesia sebaliknya, dari hasil pembangunan Orde Baru, kita sudah memiliki sektor swasta yang besar. Sayangnya akibat semi- bangkrutnya pemerintah akibat krisis ekonomi kemarin, peningkatan sektor swasta ini ternyata tidak diimbangi dengan pembangunan infrastrukur dengan kecepatan yang sama. Jadi kesamaan kita dengan negara Afrika itu cuma di kulitnya. Memang sama-sama butuh infrastruktur; cuma mereka butuhnya dari 0 mau naik ke 10, kita dari 70 mau naik ke 80. Solusinya bisa berbeda. Kalau mereka pemerintahnya perlu ngutang ke Cina untuk membangun (agar lahir sektor swasta), kalau kita ngomongnya sudah di level investasi swasta. Tapi saya setuju dengan alinea terakhir. Sudah waktunya kita merapat ke Cina. Investor mereka berani-berani. Tidak bolak-balik mengeluh soal birokrasi-lah, infrastruktur-lah, upah buruh-lah. Andi --- In [email protected], "I. Wibowo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pak Sidqy dan FPK wan > > Ini kisah yang sangat-sangat relevan untuk kita, orang Indonesia. Coba deh, > ganti semua kata "Africa" atau "African" dengan Indonesia. Anda pasti heran > betapa kita bernasib seperti Afrika. Betapa World Bank telah "berjasa" > memiskinkan kita dengan SAP yang terkenal itu! Sudah waktunya juga bahwa > Indonesia juga merapat ke Cina. > > Salam > iww > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "sidqy suyitno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:05 PM > Subject: [Forum-Pembaca-KOMPAS] China�s Lessons for the World Bank (Jeffrey > D. Sachs) > > > > > China's > Lessons for the World Bank > > > Jeffrey D. Sachs > > > > > > The China Daily recently ran a front-page story recounting > how Paul Wolfowitz used threats and vulgarities to pressure senior World > Bank > staff. The newspaper noted that Wolfowitz sounded like a character out of > the > mafia television show The Sopranos . At the same time, while the Wolfowitz > scandal unfolded, China > was playing host to the Africa Development Bank (ADB), which held its Board > meeting in Shanghai. This is a > vivid metaphor for today's world: while the World Bank is caught up in > corruption and controversy, China > skillfully raises its geopolitical profile in the developing world. > > > China's > rising power is, of course, based heavily on its remarkable economic > success. > The ADB meeting took place in the Pudong District, Shanghai's > most remarkable development site. From largely unused land a generation ago, > Pudong has become a booming center of skyscrapers, luxury hotels, parks, > industry, and vast stretches of apartment buildings. Shanghai's > overall economy is currently growing at around 13% per year, thus doubling > in > size every five or six years. Everywhere there are startups, innovations, > and > young entrepreneurs hungry for profits. > > > I had the chance to participate in high-level meetings > between Chinese and African officials at the ADB meetings. The advice that > the > African leaders received from their Chinese counterparts was sound, and much > more practical than they typically get from the World Bank. > > > Chinese officials stressed the crucial role of public investments, > especially in agriculture and infrastructure, to lay the basis for > private-sector-led growth. In a hungry and poor rural economy, as China was > in > the 1970's and as most of Africa is today, a key starting point is to raise > farm productivity. Peasant farmers need the benefits of fertilizer, > irrigation, > and high-yield seeds, all of which were a core part of China's > economic takeoff. > > > Two other critical investments are also needed: roads and > electricity, without which there cannot be a modern economy. Farmers might > be > able to increase their output, but it won't be able to reach the cities, and > the cities won't be able to provide the countryside with inputs. The > officials > stressed how the government has taken pains to ensure that the power grid > and > transportation network reaches every village in China. > > > > Of course, the African leaders were most appreciative of > the next message: China > is prepared to help Africa in substantial ways in > agriculture, roads, power, health, and education. And the African leaders > already know that this is not an empty boast. All over Africa, > China is > financing and constructing basic infrastructure. During the meeting, the > Chinese leaders emphasized their readiness to support agricultural research > as > well. They described new high-yield rice varieties, which they are prepared > to > share with their African counterparts. > > > All of this illustrates what is wrong with the World Bank, > even aside from Wolfowitz's failed leadership. Unlike the Chinese, the Bank > has > too often forgotten the most basic lessons of development, preferring to > lecture the poor and force them to privatize basic infrastructure, rather > than > to help the poor to invest in infrastructure and other crucial sectors. > > > The Bank's failures began in the early 1980's, when, under > the ideological sway of President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret > Thatcher, it tried to get Africa and other poor regions to cut back or close > down government investments and services. For 25 years, the Bank tried to > get > governments out of agriculture, leaving impoverished peasants to fend for > themselves. The result has been a disaster in Africa, > with farm productivity stagnant for decades. The Bank also pushed for > privatization of national health systems, water utilities, and road and > power > networks, and grossly underfinanced these critical sectors. > > > This extreme free-market ideology, also called "structural > adjustment," went against the practical lessons of development successes in > China > and the rest of Asia. Practical development strategy > recognizes that public investments - in agriculture, health, education, and > infrastructure - are necessary complements to private investments. The World > Bank has instead wrongly seen such vital public investments as an enemy of > private-sector development. > > > Whenever the Bank's extreme free-market ideology failed, > it has blamed the poor for corruption, mismanagement, or lack of initiative. > This was Wolfowitz's approach, too. Instead of focusing the Bank's attention > on > helping the poorest countries to improve their infrastructure, he launched a > crusade against corruption. Ironically, of course, his stance became > untenable > when his own misdeeds came to light. The Bank can regain its relevance only > if > it becomes practical once again, by returning its focus to financing public > investments in priority sectors, just as the Chinese leadership is prepared > to > do. > > > The good news is that African governments are getting the > message on how to spur economic growth, and are also getting crucial help > from China > and other partners that are less wedded to extreme free-market ideology than > the World Bank. Many African governments at the Shanghai > meeting declared their intention to act boldly, by investing in > infrastructure, > agricultural modernization, public health, and education. > > > The Wolfowitz debacle should be a wake-up call to the > World Bank: it must no longer be controlled by ideology. If that happens, > the > Bank can still do justice to the bold vision of a world of shared prosperity > that prompted its creation after World War II. > > > ** Jeffrey Sachs is Professor of Economics and > Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. > > > Copyright: Project > Syndicate, 2007. http://www.project- syndicate.org/commentary/sachs129 >
