SANTI CHINTIA
SEKOLAH PASCASARJANA INSTITUT PERTANIAN BOGOR
BOGOR 2013
6.2 Implikasi Kebijakan
Rekomendasi kebijakan yang dapat diberikan berdasarkan hasil analisis yang telah dilakukan diantaranya :
1. Berdasarkan hasil analisis pass through, faktor harga lebih besar dalam mempengaruhi harga beras domestik dibanding faktor non harga. Oleh sebab itu, maka pemerintah harus lebih mengutamakan harga sebagai alat untuk mengendalikan harga beras domestik dibanding faktor non harga.
2. Pemerintah dalam mengendalikan harga beras domestik diharapkan terus meningkatkan teknologi di bidang usahatani padi. Peningkatan teknologi yang dimaksud adalah pengelolaan usahatani padi yaitu berupa manajemen pengelolaan. Dengan meningkatnya manajemen pengelolaan diharapkan biaya usahatani padi lebih efisien sehingga harga beras domestik dapat bersaing dengan harga beras internasional.
3. Pemerintah diharapkan terus memberikan dukungan terhadap para petani melalui pelatihan-pelatihan untuk membantu petani dalam adopsi teknologi. Pemerintah juga diharapkan memberikan pelatihan yang merata di seluruh lokasi wilayah panen agar produktivitas padi merata di seluruh wilayah lokasi panen di Indonesia.
6.3 Saran Penelitian Lanjutan
1 Untuk penelitian lanjutan sebaiknya meluaskan cakupan penelitian dengan memasukkan beberapa variabel kebijakan ke dalam model seperti variabel subsidi dan tarif impor.
2 Jika sudah tersedia data produksi padi per musim, untuk penelitian lanjutan lebih disarankan untuk memakai data tersebut karena akan lebih dapat menjelaskan variasi harga yang terjadi.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Achsani NA, Nababan HF. 2008. Dampak perubahan kurs (pass-through effect) terhadap tujuh kelompok indeks harga konsumen di Indonesia. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Pembangunan Indonesia 9(1) : 1-15.
Aji BWP. 2010. Analisis integrasi harga minyak bumi, minyak kedelai, CPO, minyak goreng domestik, dan tandan buah segar kelapa sawit [Tesis]. Bogor : Sekolah Pascasarjana, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Amisano G, Giannini C. 1997. Topics in Structural VAR Econometrics. Ed ke-2. New York : Springer Verlag.
Anwar C. 2005. Prospek karet alam Indonesia di pasar internasional : suatu analisis integrasi pasar dan keragaan ekspor [Disertasi]. Bogor : Sekolah Pascasarjana, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Aryani D. 2009. Integrasi pasar beras dan gula di Thailand, Filipina, dan Indonesia [Tesis]. Bogor : Sekolah Pascasarjana, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
[BPS] Badan Pusat Statistik. 1969-2011. Struktur Ongkos Usahatani Tanaman Pangan 1969. Jakarta : BPS.
_________________. 2009. Indikator Pembangunan Pertanian dan Perdesaan-Karakteristik Sosial Ekonomi Petani Padi [Proposal RPTP TA. 2010]. Jakarta : Pusat Sosial Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian, Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian, Departemen Pertanian.
_________________. 2011. Pendekatan Beberapa Indikator Utama Sosial-Ekonomi Indonesia [Katalog BPS 3101015]. Jakarta : BPS.
_________________. 2011. Tanaman pangan : tabel luas panen, produktivitas, produksi tanaman padi Provinsi Indonesia tahun 1983-2011.
http://www.bps.go.id/tnmn_pgn.php?kat=3[7 Jan 2012].
Baffes J, Bruce G. 2003. The transmission of world commodity prices to domestic markets under policy reforms in developing countries. Journal of Economic Policy Return 6(3) : 159-180.
Barrett CB. 2005. Spatial Market Integration, The New Palgrave Dictionnary of Economics. Ed ke-2. London : Palgrave Macmillan, Forthcoming.
Bernal L, Dawn DT, Maria LL. 2003. An empirical analysis of market integration and efficiency for U.S. fresh tomato markets. Journal of Agricultural Resource of Economics 28(3) : 435-450.
Blanchard OJ, Jordi G. 2008. The Macroeconimic Effects of Oil Price Shocks : Why are The 2000’s Show Different from The 1970’s? [Economic Working Papers 1045]. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Department of Economics and Business.
Borensztein et al. 1998. How does foreign direct investment accelerate economic growth?. Journal of International Economics 45(1) : 114-135.
Brown SPA, Yucel MK, Balke NS. 2002. Oil Price Shocks and U.S. Economic Activity. An International Perspective [Discussion Paper, July 2010]. Washington, DC. 20036.
[Bulog] Badan Urusan Logistik. 2006. Statistik Perkembangan Harga Beras Medium Domestik dan Dunia. Biro Analisa Harga dan Pasar. Jakarta : Bulog.
Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE. 1982. Multilateral comparisons of output, input and productivity using superlative index numbers. Economics Journal 92(365) : 73-87.
Chambers MJ, Bailey RE. 1996. A theory of commodity price fluctuations. The Journal of Political Economy 104(5) : 924-957.
Christensen LR. 1975. Concept and measurement of agricultural productivity.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(5) : 910-915.
Cody BJ, Mills LO. 1991. The role of commodity prices in formulating monetary policy. The Review of Economics and Statistics 73(2) : 358-365.
Cororaton CB. 2002. Total Factor Productivity in The Philippines [Discussion Paper]. No.2002-1.
Dawe D. 2001. How far down the path to free trade? the importance of rice price stabilization in developing Asia. Food Policy 26(2) : 163-175.
Deaton A, Laroque G. 1992. On the behavior of commodity prices. Review of Economic Studies 59(1) : 1-23.
Diewert WE. 1980. Capital and the theory of productivity measurement.
[Ditjen MIGAS] Direktorat Jenderal Minyak Bumi dan Gas. 2011. Statistik
minyak bumi.
http://prokum.esdm.go.id/Publikasi/Statistik/Statistik%20Minyak%20Bumi.pdf
[15 Des 2012].
Enders W. 2004. Applied Econometric Time Series. J. Wiley.
Engle RF, Granger CWJ. 1987. Co-integration and error correction : representation, estimation, and testing, econometrica 55(2) : 251-276.
Fackler P, B Goodwin. 2002. Spatial price analysis. Di dalam: B Gardner, G Rausser, editor. Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 1B. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Falcon WC, Monke E. 1991. International trade in rice. Food Research Institute Studies 17(3): 271-306.
Favero CA. 2001. Applied macroeconometrics. Di dalam: Banka MP, notulen. Siena SpA 31(3)-2002: 559-563.
Felipe J. 1997. Total Factor Productivity Growth in East Asia : a Critical Survey. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
Firdaus et al. 2008. Swasembada Beras dari Masa ke Masa : Telaah Efektivitas Kebijakan dan Perumusan Strategi Nasional. Bogor: IPB Press.
Furlong F, Ingenito R. 1996. Commodity prices and inflation. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (FRBSF) Economic Review No. 2 : 27-47.
Harianto. 2001. Pendapatan, Harga dan Konsumsi Beras. Jakarta : LPEM, Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia.
Hartati ES. 2004. Analisis dampak pergerakan nilai tukar terhadap inflasi di Indonesia : pendekatan exchange rate pass-through [Tesis]. Bogor : Sekolah Pascasarjana, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
[IEA] International Energy Agency. 2005. IEA Geothermal Energy Annual Report 2005. Implementing Agreement for Cooperation in Geothermal Research and Technology.
Irawan A. 2004. Integrasi Pasar Beras Indonesia. Jakarta : Direktorat Riset Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Moneter, bagian Studi Sektor riil Bank Indonesia. Jantan MD, Sahlan R. Total factor productivity an empirical study of selected
districts in Malaysia [Tesis]. Malaysia : Faculty of Economics, Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Kang PL, Brian. Structure and Conduct of The World Rice Market [Selected Paper Prepared for Presentation at The Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting January 31-February 3, 2009]. Georgia, Atlanta Kogel T. 2003. Youth Dependency and Total Factor Productivity. Rostock,
Germany: Konrad-Zuse-Srasse 1, D-18057.
Hidayat NK. 2012. Dampak perubahan harga beras dunia terhadap kesejahteraan masyarakat Indonesia pada berbagai kondisi transmisi harga dan kebijakan domestik [Tesis]. Bogor : Sekolah Pascasarjana, Institut Pertanian Bogor. Majardi F. 2000. Dampak Pergerakan Nilai Tukar Rupiah terhadap Laju Inflasi
di Indonesia[Makalah Bank Indonesia]. Jakarta: Bank Indonesia.
McCallum. 1989. Real Business Cycle Models in Modern Business Cycle Theory.
RJ Barro, editor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
Meyer J, Taubadel. 2004. Asymmetric price transmission: a survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics 55(3): 581-611.
Mondi A, Chung MK, Won JK. 2010. Oil shocks and the world rice market. puzzle : a structural VAR analysis. Korea and The World Economy. 12(2) : 281-325.
Muwanga GS, DL Snyder. 1997. Market intergration and the law of one price: case study of selected feeder cattle markets. Economic Research Institute Study Paper 97-11. Utah: Utah State University.
Nicholson W. 2000. Mikroekonomi Intermediate dan Aplikasinya. Ed ke-8. Jakarta : Penerbit Erlangga.
Ravallion M. 1986. Testing Market Integration. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 68(1):102-109.
Rifin A. 2005. The export tax and Indonesia‟s crude palm oil export [Tesis]. Japan: International University of Japan.
Simatupang P. 1996. Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi produktivitas total faktor produksi usahatani padi sawah di Indonesia. Makalah Seminar Nasional Peningkatan Produktivitas Pertanian 1996, Kerjasama Departemen pertanian dengan Dewan Produktivitas Nasional. Jakarta: Departemen Pertanian.
Simatupang P. 2000. Pandangan skeptis terhadap kebijakan harga dasar gabah. Makalah disampaikan pada Diskusi Round Table “Kebijakan Harga Gabah di Era Perdagangan Bebas”. Jakarta: Badan Urusan Ketahanan Pangan, Departemen Pertanian.
Sims C. 1972. "Money, income and causality". American Economic Review 62(4): 540-552.
Siregar H. 2002. Empirical evaluation of rival theories of the business cycle aplicaton of structural VAR models to New Zealand economy. Ph.D. [Tesis]. Canterbury: Lincoln University.
Sitepu RK. 2002. Dampak kebijakan ekonomi dan liberalisasi perdagangan terhadap penawaran dan permintaan beras di Indonesia [Tesis]. Bogor: Sekolah Pascasarjana, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Supriyanto H. 2002. Dekomposisi dan Dinamika Sumber-Sumber Pertumbuhan
Industri Kecil dan Rumah Tangga di Indonesia : Analisis “Total Factor Productivity”.
Svensson LEO. 2000. Open economy inflation targetting. Journal of Internasional Economics 50(1) : 155-3.
Syahputra HD. 2009. Prediksi harga minyak mentah dunia untuk lima tahun mendatang dan dampaknya terhadap anggaran pendapatan dan belanja negara Indonesia [Tesis]. Bandung: Departemen Administrasi Bisnis, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Tomek WG. 2000. Commodity prices revisited. Staff Paper 2000-05. New York: Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University.
[USDA] The U.S. Departments of Agriculture. 2011. Regional Rice Imports, Production, Consumption, and Stocks. United States: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service.
Verbeek M. 2000. A Guide to Modern Econometrics. John Wiley and Sons.
[WTRG Economics]. 2011. Oil Price History and Analysis.
Lampiran 1 Unit root test tingkat level
Null Hypothesis: HBDOM has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -2.134524 0.2327 Test critical values: 1% level -3.596616
5% level -2.933158 10% level -2.604867
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Null Hypothesis: PB has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -1.618171 0.4646 Test critical values: 1% level -3.596616
5% level -2.933158 10% level -2.604867
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Null Hypothesis: HMMD has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -2.091376 0.2490 Test critical values: 1% level -3.596616
5% level -2.933158 10% level -2.604867
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Null Hypothesis: HBD has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -10.01369 0.0000 Test critical values: 1% level -3.596616
5% level -2.933158 10% level -2.604867
Null Hypothesis: HBI has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -1.514812 0.5165 Test critical values: 1% level -3.596616
5% level -2.933158 10% level -2.604867
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Null Hypothesis: NT has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -0.354653 0.9076 Test critical values: 1% level -3.596616
5% level -2.933158 10% level -2.604867
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Null Hypothesis: TFP has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -7.795568 0.0000 Test critical values: 1% level -3.600987
5% level -2.935001 10% level -2.605836
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Lampiran 2 Unit root test first difference
Null Hypothesis: D(HBDOM) has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -5.673936 0.0000 Test critical values: 1% level -3.600987
5% level -2.935001 10% level -2.605836
Null Hypothesis: D(PB) has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -6.552085 0.0000 Test critical values: 1% level -3.600987
5% level -2.935001 10% level -2.605836
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Null Hypothesis: D(HMMD) has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -5.698329 0.0000 Test critical values: 1% level -3.600987
5% level -2.935001 10% level -2.605836
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Null Hypothesis: D(HBD) has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -7.951440 0.0000 Test critical values: 1% level -3.600987
5% level -2.935001 10% level -2.605836
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Null Hypothesis: D(HBI) has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -6.121479 0.0000 Test critical values: 1% level -3.600987
5% level -2.935001 10% level -2.605836
Null Hypothesis: D(NT) has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -5.738095 0.0000 Test critical values: 1% level -3.600987
5% level -2.935001 10% level -2.605836
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Null Hypothesis: D(TFP) has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: 1 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=9)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -8.564531 0.0000 Test critical values: 1% level -3.610453
5% level -2.938987 10% level -2.607932
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Lampiran 3 Uji selang optimal
VAR Lag Order Selection Criteria
Endogenous variables: D(HBDOM) D(HBD) D(HBI) D(PB) D(TFP) D(HMMD) D(NT) D(M) Exogenous variables: C
Date: 01/12/13 Time: 20:17 Sample: 1970 2011
Included observations: 38
Lag LogL LR FPE AIC SC HQ
0 -1233.548 NA 3.30e+18 65.34463 65.68938* 65.46729 1 -1177.646 85.32465 5.44e+18 65.77082 68.87362 66.87477 2 -1071.515 117.3021* 9.50e+17 63.55343 69.41426 65.63867 3 -953.5382 80.72109 2.62e+17* 60.71253* 69.33141 63.77906*
* indicates lag order selected by the criterion
LR: sequential modified LR test statistic (each test at 5% level) FPE: Final prediction error
AIC: Akaike information criterion SC: Schwarz information criterion HQ: Hannan-Quinn information criterion
Lampiran 4 Uji stabilitas
Roots of Characteristic Polynomial
Endogenous variables: D(HBDOM) D(HBD) D(HBI) D(PB) D(TFP) D(HMMD) D(NT) D(M) Exogenous variables: C Lag specification: 1 2 Date: 01/12/13 Time: 20:17 Root Modulus -0.127725 - 0.829495i 0.839271 -0.127725 + 0.829495i 0.839271 -0.625920 - 0.544767i 0.829787 -0.625920 + 0.544767i 0.829787 0.773969 0.773969 -0.363359 - 0.651937i 0.746359 -0.363359 + 0.651937i 0.746359 0.353820 - 0.654374i 0.743905 0.353820 + 0.654374i 0.743905 -0.037720 - 0.710147i 0.711149 -0.037720 + 0.710147i 0.711149 -0.679049 0.679049 -0.617783 0.617783 0.510652 0.510652 0.045290 - 0.263132i 0.267001 0.045290 + 0.263132i 0.267001
No root lies outside the unit circle. VAR satisfies the stability condition.
Lampiran 5 Uji kointegrasi
Date: 01/12/13 Time: 20:20 Sample: 1970 2011
Included observations: 39
Series: HBDOM HBD HBI PB HMMD NT TFP M Lags interval: 1 to 2 Selected (0.05 level*) Number of Cointegrating Relations by Model
Data Trend: None None Linear Linear Quadratic Test Type No Intercept Intercept Intercept Intercept Intercept
No Trend No Trend No Trend Trend Trend
Trace 8 7 8 6 5
Max-Eig 8 7 8 6 4
*Critical values based on MacKinnon-Haug-Michelis (1999)
Information Criteria by
Rank and Model
Data Trend: None None Linear Linear Quadratic Rank or No Intercept Intercept Intercept Intercept Intercept No. of CEs No Trend No Trend No Trend Trend Trend
Log Likelihood by Rank (rows) and Model (columns) 0 -1127.319 -1127.319 -1117.624 -1117.624 -1101.416 1 -1069.132 -1063.149 -1054.602 -1051.582 -1036.258 2 -1030.128 -1015.842 -1008.553 -1005.504 -990.2221 3 -1006.102 -985.7222 -978.8057 -967.5569 -952.5052 4 -985.4609 -962.9680 -956.2232 -938.2496 -927.1541 5 -969.0210 -946.0303 -940.1286 -920.7228 -911.9969 6 -957.5273 -931.2420 -926.9975 -906.8288 -902.1901 7 -951.8659 -919.7810 -919.7641 -898.1420 -894.5993 8 -949.0549 -916.3774 -916.3774 -894.5871 -894.5871 Akaike Information Criteria by Rank (rows) and Model (columns) 0 64.37533 64.37533 64.28841 64.28841 63.86748 1 62.21192 61.95635 61.87703 61.77344 61.34657 2 61.03221 60.40217 60.33606 60.28223 59.80626 3 60.62062 59.72934 59.63106 59.20805 58.69258 4 60.38261 59.43425 59.29350 58.57690 58.21303* 5 60.36005 59.43745 59.28865 58.54989 58.25625 6 60.59114 59.55087 59.43577 58.70917 58.57385 7 61.12133 59.83492 59.88534 59.13549 59.00509 8 61.79769 60.53218 60.53218 59.82498 59.82498 Schwarz Criteria by Rank (rows) and Model (columns) 0 69.83522 69.83522 70.08955 70.08955 70.00986 1 68.35430 68.14139 68.36066 68.29972 68.17144 2 67.85707 67.31234 67.50218 67.53365 67.31361 3 68.12798 67.36466 67.47966 67.18461 66.88242* 4 68.57245 67.79472 67.82458 67.27861 67.08536 5 69.23238 68.52306 68.50222 67.97674 67.81107 6 70.14596 69.36162 69.33183 68.86116 68.81115 7 71.35863 70.37081 70.46388 70.01262 69.92488 8 72.71747 71.79321 71.79321 71.42725 71.42725 Date: 01/12/13 Time: 20:22 Sample (adjusted): 1973 2011
Included observations: 39 after adjustments Trend assumption: Quadratic deterministic trend Series: HBDOM HBD HBI PB HMMD NT TFP M Lags interval (in first differences): 1 to 2
Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Trace)
No. of CE(s) Eigenvalue Statistic Critical Value Prob.** None * 0.964613 413.6576 175.1715 0.0000 At most 1 * 0.905657 283.3421 139.2753 0.0000 At most 2 * 0.855460 191.2700 107.3466 0.0000 At most 3 * 0.727484 115.8363 79.34145 0.0000 At most 4 * 0.540351 65.13412 55.24578 0.0053 At most 5 0.395235 34.81970 35.01090 0.0524 At most 6 0.322448 15.20600 18.39771 0.1323 At most 7 0.000629 0.024528 3.841466 0.8755
Trace test indicates 5 cointegrating eqn(s) at the 0.05 level * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level **MacKinnon-Haug-Michelis (1999) p-values
Lampiran 6 Uji granger causality Pairwise Granger Causality Tests Date: 01/12/13 Time: 20:29 Sample: 1970 2011
Lags: 2
Null Hypothesis: Obs F-Statistic Prob.
DHBD does not Granger Cause DHBDOM 39 0.33800 0.7156 DHBDOM does not Granger Cause DHBD 1.73265 0.1921
DHBI does not Granger Cause DHBDOM 39 3.28754 0.0495 DHBDOM does not Granger Cause DHBI 7.93050 0.0015
DPB does not Granger Cause DHBDOM 39 0.13525 0.8740 DHBDOM does not Granger Cause DPB 4.68122 0.0160
DHMMD does not Granger Cause DHBDOM 39 0.84891 0.4367 DHBDOM does not Granger Cause DHMMD 6.78054 0.0033
DNT does not Granger Cause DHBDOM 39 0.01251 0.9876 DHBDOM does not Granger Cause DNT 0.15763 0.8548
DTFP does not Granger Cause DHBDOM 39 0.46759 0.6305 DHBDOM does not Granger Cause DTFP 0.49689 0.6128
DHBI does not Granger Cause DHBD 39 2.61659 0.0877 DHBD does not Granger Cause DHBI 4.51505 0.0182
DPB does not Granger Cause DHBD 39 3.34584 0.0472 DHBD does not Granger Cause DPB 1.03417 0.3664
DHMMD does not Granger Cause DHBD 39 5.74368 0.0071 DHBD does not Granger Cause DHMMD 1.25379 0.2983
DNT does not Granger Cause DHBD 39 0.01102 0.9890 DHBD does not Granger Cause DNT 0.01174 0.9883
DTFP does not Granger Cause DHBD 39 0.80665 0.4547 DHBD does not Granger Cause DTFP 0.22339 0.8010
DPB does not Granger Cause DHBI 39 0.65509 0.5258 DHBI does not Granger Cause DPB 1.83156 0.1756
DHMMD does not Granger Cause DHBI 39 0.38517 0.6833 DHBI does not Granger Cause DHMMD 3.09544 0.0582
DNT does not Granger Cause DHBI 39 0.23430 0.7924 DHBI does not Granger Cause DNT 1.08608 0.3490
DTFP does not Granger Cause DHBI 39 0.42408 0.6578 DHBI does not Granger Cause DTFP 0.24163 0.7867
DHMMD does not Granger Cause DPB 39 0.09636 0.9084 DPB does not Granger Cause DHMMD 0.60807 0.5502
DNT does not Granger Cause DPB 39 0.46685 0.6309 DPB does not Granger Cause DNT 0.18522 0.8318
DTFP does not Granger Cause DPB 39 3.91307 0.0295 DPB does not Granger Cause DTFP 0.29733 0.7447
DNT does not Granger Cause DHMMD 39 0.26778 0.7667 DHMMD does not Granger Cause DNT 0.10296 0.9024
DTFP does not Granger Cause DHMMD 39 0.61780 0.5451 DHMMD does not Granger Cause DTFP 0.00198 0.9980
DTFP does not Granger Cause DNT 39 0.35338 0.7049 DNT does not Granger Cause DTFP 0.20359 0.8168
Lampiran 7 Hasil estimasi VECM
Vector Error Correction Estimates Date: 01/12/13 Time: 20:31 Sample (adjusted): 1973 2011
Included observations: 39 after adjustments Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]
Cointegrating Eq: CointEq1
HBDOM(-1) 1.000000 HBD(-1) 1.126585 (0.40740) [ 2.76532] HBI(-1) -6.458455 (0.30263) [-21.3412] PB(-1) 7.26E-05 (3.4E-05) [ 2.10426] HMMD(-1) -0.001303 (0.00106) [-1.22905] NT(-1) -1.99E-05
(2.1E-05) [-0.93801] TFP(-1) -0.013564 (0.01885) [-0.71951] C 0.435840
Error Correction: D(HBDOM) D(HBD) D(HBI) D(PB) D(HMMD) D(NT) D(TFP)
CointEq1 0.762663 0.071987 0.129605 -23.56802 -14.68627 -82.92917 -1.800337 (0.13112) (0.03356) (0.03513) (310.849) (7.19368) (367.456) (2.58370) [ 5.81667] [ 2.14521] [ 3.68949] [-0.07582] [-2.04155] [-0.22568] [-0.69681] D(HBDOM(-1)) -0.898211 -0.103426 -0.017534 139.2733 17.36398 41.14925 0.665113 (0.19281) (0.04935) (0.05166) (457.115) (10.5786) (540.358) (3.79943) [-4.65847] [-2.09589] [-0.33942] [ 0.30468] [ 1.64143] [ 0.07615] [ 0.17506] D(HBDOM(-2)) -0.784347 -0.051800 -0.005653 -1154.596 -24.06003 125.6475 3.136219 (0.16238) (0.04156) (0.04350) (384.967) (8.90891) (455.071) (3.19975) [-4.83032] [-1.24645] [-0.12994] [-2.99921] [-2.70067] [ 0.27611] [ 0.98015] D(HBD(-1)) -0.547494 -0.148941 -0.035033 -4402.534 26.51228 -131.6899 8.218586 (0.75350) (0.19284) (0.20187) (1786.38) (41.3404) (2111.68) (14.8479) [-0.72660] [-0.77233] [-0.17354] [-2.46451] [ 0.64132] [-0.06236] [ 0.55352] D(HBD(-2)) 0.189235 -0.080433 0.248078 -1150.666 49.49117 -534.9760 0.780942 (0.39411) (0.10087) (0.10559) (934.349) (21.6227) (1104.50) (7.76608) [ 0.48016] [-0.79743] [ 2.34949] [-1.23152] [ 2.28885] [-0.48436] [ 0.10056] D(HBI(-1)) 2.935679 -0.112306 0.180502 2458.988 -19.54508 924.2168 -7.070810 (0.69895) (0.17888) (0.18726) (1657.05) (38.3474) (1958.80) (13.7730) [ 4.20015] [-0.62782] [ 0.96392] [ 1.48396] [-0.50968] [ 0.47183] [-0.51338] D(HBI(-2)) 2.455006 0.037935 0.211486 -4402.872 -71.17165 -1365.805 -1.627206 (0.54202) (0.13872) (0.14521) (1285.00) (29.7375) (1519.00) (10.6806) [ 4.52941] [ 0.27346] [ 1.45638] [-3.42637] [-2.39333] [-0.89915] [-0.15235] D(PB(-1)) -0.000110 -3.92E-05 -1.61E-05 0.011334 -0.003293 -0.061848 -0.000617 (7.3E-05) (1.9E-05) (1.9E-05) (0.17204) (0.00398) (0.20338) (0.00143) [-1.51737] [-2.11199] [-0.83010] [ 0.06588] [-0.82710] [-0.30411] [-0.43153]
D(PB(-2)) -0.000156 -4.10E-05 -6.66E-07 -0.508254 -0.002679 -0.029184 0.001548 (8.0E-05) (2.0E-05) (2.1E-05) (0.18906) (0.00438) (0.22348) (0.00157) [-1.95201] [-2.01085] [-0.03116] [-2.68837] [-0.61242] [-0.13059] [ 0.98480] D(HMMD(-1)) 0.010460 0.002049 0.001314 -1.088284 -0.017186 1.456307 0.003201 (0.00307) (0.00079) (0.00082) (7.28965) (0.16870) (8.61713) (0.06059) [ 3.40191] [ 2.60342] [ 1.59530] [-0.14929] [-0.10188] [ 0.16900] [ 0.05282] D(HMMD(-2)) 0.006856 -0.000758 -0.000975 15.57057 -0.171787 -0.634308 -0.041771 (0.00329) (0.00084) (0.00088) (7.80959) (0.18073) (9.23175) (0.06491) [ 2.08127] [-0.89963] [-1.10494] [ 1.99378] [-0.95052] [-0.06871] [-0.64350]
D(NT(-1)) -6.60E-05 -2.06E-06 -5.49E-06 0.063327 -0.001151 0.085767 0.000428 (8.1E-05) (2.1E-05) (2.2E-05) (0.19207) (0.00444) (0.22705) (0.00160) [-0.81438] [-0.09918] [-0.25283] [ 0.32971] [-0.25898] [ 0.37775] [ 0.26813]
D(NT(-2)) 0.000166 -2.22E-05 -4.40E-06 -0.122619 -0.004224 -0.047829 0.000934 (8.8E-05) (2.2E-05) (2.3E-05) (0.20773) (0.00481) (0.24556) (0.00173) [ 1.89260] [-0.99123] [-0.18735] [-0.59028] [-0.87861] [-0.19477] [ 0.54109] D(TFP(-1)) 0.019590 -0.003250 0.002092 -51.02504 -0.887540 14.61118 -1.157670 (0.01070) (0.00274) (0.00287) (25.3613) (0.58691) (29.9797) (0.21080) [ 1.83130] [-1.18705] [ 0.73001] [-2.01192] [-1.51222] [ 0.48737] [-5.49187] D(TFP(-2)) 0.012270 -0.001124 0.000860 -71.55049 -0.836290 12.74710 -0.607739 (0.01271) (0.00325) (0.00340) (30.1280) (0.69722) (35.6144) (0.25042) [ 0.96550] [-0.34544] [ 0.25263] [-2.37489] [-1.19946] [ 0.35792] [-2.42692] C -0.182073 0.002061 0.009942 568.4130 5.922589 261.0652 -0.187079 (0.09754) (0.02496) (0.02613) (231.250) (5.35160) (273.362) (1.92209) [-1.86661] [ 0.08255] [ 0.38045] [ 2.45800] [ 1.10669] [ 0.95502] [-0.09733] R-squared 0.748962 0.683431 0.719620 0.657749 0.658885 0.111418 0.654941 Adj. R-squared 0.585242 0.476972 0.536763 0.434542 0.436419 -0.468093 0.429902 Sum sq. resids 3.130962 0.205083 0.224734 17597838 9424.597 24590737 1215.752 S.E. equation 0.368956 0.094428 0.098849 874.7133 20.24265 1034.003 7.270403 F-statistic 4.574640 3.310261 3.935434 2.946808 2.961728 0.192262 2.910347 Log likelihood -6.155290 46.99553 45.21116 -309.2232 -162.3452 -315.7478 -122.4099 Akaike AIC 1.136169 -1.589514 -1.498008 16.67811 9.145906 17.01271 7.097946 Schwarz SC 1.818656 -0.907027 -0.815522 17.36060 9.828393 17.69520 7.780433 Mean dependent -0.113333 -0.018479 -0.013921 597.8718 1.317978 214.2628 -0.056357 S.D. dependent 0.572898 0.130568 0.145234 1163.230 26.96430 853.3852 9.629056
Determinant resid covariance
(dof adj.) 1.46E+10 Determinant resid covariance 3.62E+08 Log likelihood -771.6510 Akaike information criterion 45.67441 Schwarz criterion 50.75040
Lampiran 8 Analisis IRF
Period HBDOM HBD HBI PB HMMD NT TFP
1 0.368956 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 2 0.375126 0.075942 -0.051704 -0.018205 0.069119 -0.058298 0.048750 3 0.296116 0.171262 -0.063587 -0.096399 0.122375 0.062142 -0.039861 4 0.250496 0.216341 -0.340114 -0.095048 0.099353 0.032215 -0.034648 5 0.173233 0.185900 -0.410414 -0.115950 0.040324 -0.015975 0.023887 Choles ky Orderin g: HBDO M HBD HBI PB HMMD NT TFP
Lampiran 9 Analisis FEVD
Period S.E. HBDOM HBD HBI PB HMMD NT TFP
1 0.368956 100.0000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 2 0.544218 93.47521 1.947260 0.902612 0.111905 1.613058 1.147535 0.802423 3 0.668544 81.56006 7.852726 1.502757 2.153288 4.419528 1.624407 0.887230 4 0.832660 61.62802 11.81284 17.65327 2.691139 4.272778 1.196858 0.745098 5 0.970684 48.53299 12.36006 30.86663 3.407099 3.316626 0.907775 0.608824 Choles ky Orderin g: HBDO M HBD HBI PB HMMD NT TFP -.6 -.4 -.2 .0 .2 .4 1 2 3 4 5
Response of HBDOM to HBDOM
-.6 -.4 -.2 .0 .2 .4 1 2 3 4 5 Response of HBDOM to HBD -.6 -.4 -.2 .0 .2 .4 1 2 3 4 5
Response of HBDOM to HBI
-.6 -.4 -.2 .0 .2 .4 1 2 3 4 5 Response of HBDOM to PB -.6 -.4 -.2 .0 .2 .4 1 2 3 4 5 Response of HBDOM to HMMD -.6 -.4 -.2 .0 .2 .4 1 2 3 4 5 Response of HBDOM to NT -.6 -.4 -.2 .0 .2 .4 1 2 3 4 5 Response of HBDOM to TFP
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 TFP NT HMMD PB HBI HBD HBDOM