- 學位論文
「誰是發展的寵兒？」 ─印尼國家發展計畫與普羅大眾的生活品質
“Who has benefited from Development?”- Indonesian Development Plan and the Ordinary People's Quality of Life
摘要
本文先簡介印尼蘇哈托時期以來的國家發展政策，再以所蒐集到的當地統計資料做描述性統計分析，呈現各省及城鄉居民的生活品質等發展結果，並以Jakarta為個案，描繪區域發展風貌與當地居民的生活品質等發展的面向，回應過去研究中指出的經濟增長與生活品質關聯性的相關論述，回答Wallerstein(1999)的叩問。 依著上個世紀末金融危機前的蘇哈托時期國家發展政策下的經濟表現，印尼不斷被視為深具發展潛力的國家。如此「出色」的總體經濟成果與預期，卻不意味著擁有上萬個島嶼的印尼每個區域都能隨之享有同等的生活水平。高人均GDP的地區，未必同時擁有高水準的人類發展指數(Human Development Index, HDI)， 且各省內不均衡發展的情形也有增加的趨勢。 普羅大眾日常生活之家戶衛生改善情形、家戶使用電力照明的情形以及飲用水是否過濾情形是印尼統計局當局自1990年代至今各省皆有統計的指標。若將各省的這三個指標加以綜合、排序，補充根據壽命、教育與收入計算出的HDI，做為印尼家戶生活品質指標。則可以發現1996-2012年印尼各省生活質量排序變化比較大的很多都是在1999-2004年間變成兩個省的區域。不過即便這些生活質量排序在這近20年間變化極大的省分，仍無法動搖最佳/差省分的排序。 而發展計畫下有其特殊性的Jakarta，從統計數據來看，它在許多方面的發展成果確實高乎其他省分，然而在Jakarta內的各區域，其各項指標發展程度，也存在著區域的差異。 總言之，Wallerstein所提的「是誰或什麼實際得到發展」的問題，對印尼及其各省普羅階級的大眾而言，在發展政策下，縱然去中心化政策已討論、施行十餘年，其成效似乎仍待商榷。當今僅可見印尼國內與各省內之收入不均情形持續地逐漸擴大，教育、醫療健康以及家戶日常的各項表現也具有區域發展不均衡的態樣。
並列摘要
At first, this article brief introduces national development policies since Suharto period. After that, by employing descriptive statistics, presenting and analyzing the statistical data, collected from local statistics bureau, including quality of life and other development outcomes by urban/ rural and by provinces. Meanwhile, take Jakarta as case study, depicting the regional development situation and quality of life of local residents and other development aspect. In order to response to past discussion on economic growth and quality of life, and answer Wallerstein’s inquiries (1999). Under the national development policies during Suharto period, Indonesia has been regarding as a country with great development potential, since its economic performance before the financial crisis at last century. Such "outstanding" economic results and expectations, does not mean in the tens of thousands of islands of Indonesia have the same standard of living in each region. The region with high per capita GDP (Gross domestic product), did not necessarily has high HDI (Human Development Index) at the same time and uneven development within provinces also increase. Since 1990s, Indonesian Bureau of Statistics have had percentage of households by province and improved sanitation, percentage of households by province and lighting sources of electricity, as well as percentage of households by province and source of improved drinking water. If ranking and sum up the rank of these three indicators and adding the rank of HDI (composition of life expectancy, education level, and income indices) by provinces, as the Indonesian household quality of life indicators. The result shows that during the period from 1996 to 2012, the provinces that been split into two provinces within 1999-2004, their ordering of quality of life changes a lot. But even if these provinces' sort of life quality changed in the past 20 years, it still unable to shake the sort of the best-worst provinces. Jakarta, has its particularity under development plans, got high development result among others provinces in many aspects, according to the statistical data. However, between districts of Jakarta, their level of development also exist regional differences. To sum it up, the inquiry that Wallerstein mentioned, "Who or what is actually developed", to Indonesian ordinary people, under development policies, even though the decentralized policy had been discussed and implemented more than ten years, its effectiveness seems debatable. Currently, only visible that within the provinces of Indonesia, income inequality and uneven situation continues to gradually expand; education, health and household daily life also has regional development inequality situation.