PERANAN NEGARA PERANTARA EKSPOR BAGI INDONESIA

Azis Muslim

Abstract


Beberapa penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ekspor tidak langsung berperan dalam meningkatkan perdagangan. Terlepas dari fakta tersebut, beberapa pemangku kebijakan berpendapat bahwa proses ekspor tidak langsung perlu didorong menjadi ekspor langsung untuk meningkatkan ekspor Indonesia. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi peranan negara perantara ekspor bagi Indonesia dengan cara mengidentifikasi negara yang menjadi perantara dan produknya; serta mengetahui alasan pelaku bisnis melakukan ekspor tidak langsung. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode estimasi untuk mengidentifikasi ekspor tidak langsung Indonesia dengan mitra dagang dari tahun 2009 hingga 2013 dengan menggunakan data UN-Comtrade. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwa Malaysia, Thailand, dan Vietnam merupakan negara perantara ekspor Indonesia disamping negara perantara perdagangan internasional konvensional (Singapura, Hong Kong, Belanda, dan Jerman). Ekspor tidak langsung adalah optional bagi pelaku ekspor.Negara perantara ekspor memiliki peran positif untuk memfasilitasi ekspor bagi eksportir yang memiliki keterbatasan. Pemerintah perlu mendorong eskpor tidak langsung jika menguntungkan pelaku bisnis, dan perlu meningkatkan efektifitas peranan Atase dan ITPC dalam memberikan informasi pasar ekspor jika ekspor tidak langsung menjadi penghambat.

 

Some researchers found that indirect export could contribute to increase trade. Likewise, Indonesian policy maker believes that changes of indirect export to direct export will contribute to increase Indonesian export. The purpose of this study is to identify the importance of indirect export for Indonesia especially to identify Indonesian indirect export countries and products, and also to find out the reason of exporters in doing indirect export.This study used indirect export identified process method of Indonesian trade data with trading partners from 2009 to 2013 from UN-Comtrade.The result shows that Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam as intermediary country for Indonesia besides the conventional intermediary countries (Singapore, Hong Kong, Netherlands, and Germany) .Indirect export process is optional for exporters. Indirect export countries have a positive role to facilitate exports for exporters with some limitations. The Government need to push the indirect export if it is profitable for business. On the other hand, If indirect export is an obstacle, it can be reduced by increasing the effectiveness of the role of the Attache and ITPC to give import market information.


Keywords


Indirect Export; Intermediary Country; Re-export; Entrepot Trade

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abel‐koch, J (2013). Who Uses Intermediaries in International Trade? Evidence from Firm‐level Survey Data.World Economy.vol. 36.no. 8. pp. 1041-64.

Ahn, J., Khandelwal, A. K., & Wei, S. J. (2011).. The role of intermediaries in facilitating trade.Journal of International Economics.vol. 84.no. 1. pp. 73-85.

Bernard, A. B., Grazzi, M., & Tomasi, C. (2011). Intermediaries in international trade: Direct versus indirect modes of export. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bernard, A. B., Grazzi, M., & Tomasi, C. (2015). Intermediaries in international trade: Products and destinations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(4), 916-920.

Bolatto, S., Grazzi, M., & Tomasi, C. (2017). Export intermediaries and adjustments to exchange rate movements. NBER Working Paper No. 17711.

Crozet, M., Lalanne, G., & Poncet, S. (2013). Wholesalers in international trade. European Economic Review, 58, 1–17.

Ellis, P. (2003). Are international trade intermediaries catalysts in economic development? A new research agenda. Journal of International Marketing, 11(1), 73–96.

Feenstra, R. C., & Hanson, G. H. (2004). Intermediaries in Entrepot Trade: Hong Kong Re-Exports of Chinese Goods. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 13(1), 3–35.

Glode, V., & Opp, C. (2016). Asymmetric information and intermediation chains. The American Economic Review, 106(9), 2699-2721.

Hessels, J., Terjesen, S., & others. (2007). SME Choice of Direct and Indirect Export Modes: Resource Dependency and Institutional Theory Perspectives. Scientific Analysis of Entrepreneurship and SMES, 5–9.

Kumar, S., & Bergstrom, T. (2007). An explorative study of the relationship of export intermediaries and their trading partners. In Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal (Vol. 8, pp. 12–31). KEDGE Business School.

Peng, M. (2013). Global business. Cengage learning.

Puskadaglu (2012). Analisis Diskrepansi Perdagangan Luar Negeri. Pusat Kebijakan Perdagangan Luar Negeri kementerian Perdagangan RI.

Qian, Y. A. N. G. (2016). Comparative Advantages of Shenzhen Hong Kong Modern Cooperation Zone Analysis and Impact on Hong Kong. Canadian Social Science, 12(7), 46-49.

Schröder, P. J., Trabold, H., & Trübswetter, P. (2003). Intermediation in foreign trade: when do exporters rely on intermediaries?. DIW-Diskussionspapiere.

Terjesen, S.A. (2007). SME Choice of Direct and Indirect Export Modes: Resource Dependency and Institutional Theory Perspectives. EIM Business and Policy Research.

Tomasi,C. (2012). Intermediaries in International Trade: Direct Versus Indirect Modes of Export. Centre for Economic Performance. LSE.

Yaşar, M. (2015). Direct and Indirect Exporting and Productivity: Evidence from Firm‐Level Data.Managerial and Decision Economics. vol. 36. no. 2. pp. 109-20.

Yue, C. S. (2016). Globalization and Regionalization: Singapore's Trade and FDI. In Singapore's Economic Development: Retrospection and Reflections (pp. 169-194).




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30908/bilp.v11i2.224

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



Indexed by

  • Google Scholar

 

  • Indonesian Scientific Journal Database (ISJD)

 

  • ResearchBib

 

  • BASE

 

  • OneSearch

 

  • PKP-Index
  • SINTA