ANALISIS DAMPAK LIBERALISASI PERDAGANGAN BARANG PADA PERUNDINGAN INDONESIA–EU CEPA TERHADAP PEREKONOMIAN INDONESIA

Steven Raja Ingot, Ridho Meyrandoyo Hastjarjo

Abstract


Uni Eropa (EU) merupakan salah satu negara tujuan utama ekspor Indonesia, namun pangsa pasar Indonesia di Uni Eropa masih di bawah beberapa negara ASEAN lainnya. Pada tahun 2015, pangsa pasar Indonesia di Uni Eropa baru mencapai 0,37% masih berada di bawah pangsa pasar Thailand (0,48%), Malaysia (0,49%), dan Vietnam (0,74%) (Trademap 2017). Indonesia membutuhkan akses pasar untuk dapat meningkatkan pangsa pasar di Uni Eropa dan salah satunya adalah dengan melakukan liberalisasi perdagangan barang. Studi ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dampak liberalisasi perdagangan barang terhadap perekonomian Indonesia dengan dua opsi, yaitu Simulasi 1 (SIM1) yaitu penghapusan tarif 100% untuk 4.945 pos tarif HS 6 digit. Simulasi 2 (SIM2) yaitu penghapusan tarif 100% kecuali untuk Uni Eropa sebanyak 260 pos tarif dan  Indonesia sebanyak 235 pos tarif. Simulasi 2 digunakan untuk mempertimbangkan modalitas yang mirip dengan modalitas Vietnam-EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (Vietnam-EU PCA). Metode analisis yang digunakan adalah model Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) yang terdapat pada Global Trade Analytical Project (GTAP). Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa simulasi 1 memberikan dampak yang lebih baik dibandingkan dengan simulasi 2, karena tingkat pertumbuhan ekonomi dan kesejahteraan Indonesia pada simulasi 1 lebih besar daripada simulasi 2. Namun demikian, Indonesia tetap dapat menggunakan modalitas sebagaimana dilakukan oleh kerjasama Vietnam-EU PCA sebagai dasar perundingan Indonesia – European Union Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (I-EU CEPA) karena selisihnya dikategorikan tidak terlalu besar.

 

European Union (EU) is one of the main destinations of Indonesian export; however, the Indonesia’s market share has been left behind compared to some other ASEAN countries. In 2015, Indonesia's market share in the EU has reached only 0.37%, which was still left behind from the market share of Thailand (0.48%), Malaysia (0.49%) and Vietnam (0.74%) (Trademap, 2017). Indonesia requires a market access to increase market share in the EU, for instance by liberalizing trade in goods. This study aims  to analyze the impact of liberalization of trade in goods on the Indonesian economy with two options: Simulation 1(SIM 1) by reducing tariff 100% for 4,945 tariff lines based on HS 6 digits, and Simulation 2 (SIM 2) by reducing 100% tariffs except 260 tariffs lines of EU and 235 tariff lines of Indonesia. Simulation 2 was conducted to consider the similiar modalities undertaken by Vietnam-EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (Vietnam-EU PCA). The analytical methods used Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model in the Global Trade Analytical Project (GTAP). The result shows that simulation 1 gives a better impact compared to simulation 2, as the level of economic growth and the welfare of Indonesia. Simulation 1 is larger than Simulation 2. However, Indonesia can use the modalities similar with Vietnam-EU PCA modalities as the basis of the Indonesia-EU Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (I-EU CEPA) negotiations because the difference is not significant.

 


Keywords


Indonesia – European Union Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (I-EU CEPA); Liberalization; Liberalisasi; Perdagangan Barang; Trade in Goods

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aguiar, A., B. Narayanan, & R. McDougall. (2016). An Overview of the GTAP 9 Data Base. Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Vol 1 (1), pp. 181-208

Armington, P.S. (1969). A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production. IMF Staff Papers, 16, pp. 159-178.

Baldwin, R (2016). The World Trade Organization and The Future of Multilateralism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.30 (1), pp. 95-116.

Ginting, A, M. (2017). Analisis Pengaruh Ekspor Terhadap Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Indonesia. Buletin Ilmiah Litbang Perdagangan, Vol. 11 (1), pp.1-20.

Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Versi 9. (2015). Purdue University.

Gosper, B (2017). Australia, the European Union and the New Trade Agenda. Canberra ANU Press. pp.233-254

Hertel, T.W. (1994). Taking IMPACT Abroad: The Global Trade Analysis Project. Paper presented at the IFAC Workshop on Computing in Economics and Finance, Amsterdam, June 8-10.

Itakura, K. (2014). "Impact of Liberalization and Improved Connectivity and Facilitation in ASEAN. Journal of Asian Economics. Volume 35, pp 1-106.

Krugman, P dan M. Obstfeld. (2003). International Economic; Theory and Policy, 6th Edition, New York: Addison Wesley

Laksani, D.D dan A. R. Salam. (2016). Perkiraan dampak ASEAN dan Hong Kong Free Trade Area (AHKFTA) Terhadap Kinerja Perdagangan Indonesia. Buletin Ilmiah Litbang Perdagangan, Vol. 10 (2), pp.167-186.

Manurung, H. (2016). Improving Free Trade Agreement (FTA): A Study on the European Union (EU) – Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), 2012 – 2016. Working Paper Series School of International Relations President University.

Oktaviani, R, dan E. Puspitawati (2017). Teori, Model dan Aplikasi GTAP (Global Trade Analysis Project) di Indonesia Edisi 2. Jakarta: Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Roy, M, dan S. K. Mathur (2016). Brexit and India-EU Free Trade Agreement. Journal of Economic Integration, Vol.31 (4) pp 740-773.

Safitriani, S. (2014). Perdagangan Internasional dan Foreign Direct Investment di Indonesia. Buletin Ilmiah Litbang Perdagangan, Vol. 8 (1), pp.93-116.

TradeMap. (2017). Diunduh pada 2017 i http://www.trademap.com.

Urata, S. (2008). Competitive Regionalism in East Asia. Presented at the Symposium on “Competitive Regionalism: Strategic Dynamics of FTA negotiations in East Asia and Beyond” at Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan, May 30-31, 2008.

Vanhnalat, B, P. Kyophilavong, A. Phonvisay, D. Sengsourivong. (2015). Assesment the Effect of Free Trade Agreements on Exports of Lao PDR. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol.5 (2) pp 365-376.

Viner, J. (1950). The Custom Union Issue, Oxford: Oxford University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30908/bilp.v11i2.223

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



Indexed by

  • Google Scholar

 

  • Indonesian Scientific Journal Database (ISJD)

 

  • ResearchBib

 

  • BASE

 

  • OneSearch

 

  • PKP-Index
  • SINTA