Dimuat di: The Journal of Accounting, Management, and Economic Research Vol. 4 No.1, February 2004, page 95-110, CAMD, Faculty of Economics, UTY, Yogyakarta.

THE ROLE OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH IN INDONESIA Suryawati K1 The 1998 Economic Crisis in Indonesia has reduced substantially the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows to Indonesia. The reduction of FDI flow has significantly slow down the Indonesian economic growth. However, observation into sectoral level, revealed that the patern of FDI reduction between economics production sectors. From the sectoral point of view, FDI to agriculture sector has relatively free from the influence of the economic crisis. During the economics slow down, FDI flow to this setor was relatively stable. Meanwhile, the economic crisis together with the implementation of new law on “regional autonomy” has strongly influence the distribution of FDI into the provinces in the East and Central part of Indonesia have gained from the shifting FDI resulted from government decentralisation.

Keywords: Economic Crisis, Distribution of FDI, Government decentralization

I. Introduction Investment and expenditures on the new capital both by private and foreign sectors are believed by economists as one of the most important engines in developing economy in Indonesia. The scarcity of economic growth target, has encouraged the government to look for financial resources from abroad. At the same time, the government implemented a policy to reduce its interventions in the economies. In line with that, since 1984 the government started liberalizing the economies by implementing investment policies to drive multinational corporation to invest in Indonesia. The recent development shows that the openness of investment is getting bigger. The foreign investors are permitted to hold 100 percent share in a holding

1 DJP Staff Sulawesi Selatan dan Tenggara

1 company. Beside that, the government also will permit to be a permanent civilian to whom invest more than US$ 1 milion in Indonesia. Economic crisis since 1997 has provided a lot of difficulties. The multidimensional crisis caused social and political instabilities which in turn to decrease economic stability. The economic uncertainty created many obstacles to build the conducive climate for entrepreneurs to do business. This indirectly reduced the investors to invest their fund in Indonesia. This paper aims at delivering the pictures for foreign investment in Indonesia since 1967 to crisis in 1997 and its trend after that to 2002. This paper also tries to identify the shifts and its patterns of the FDI since 1997 to 2002. For this paper, FDI and domestic investment data are taken from the BKPM Republic of Indonesia. Meanwhile, the main source of the data in this paper is taken from the list of foreign and domestic investment project realizations over the period of 1967-2002. II. Factors Influencing The FDI Decision FDI is one of the direct investment forms conducted by either foreign private or state corporations in the overseas. In general, the FDI is conducted by multinational corporations which have a wide network. By investing in the overseas, a multinational corporation may get a various great benefits as follows: 1. Increasing economies of scale of the corporations in relation to the widen trade throughout world. 2. Through investment multinational corporations will be capable to develop new technology based on the home country. 3. Investors will be capable to eliminate the activity of competitors in the other country 4. By FDI, multinational corporations could utilize the cheap resources which are available abundant in the developing countries. 5. By FDI, multinational corporations could utilize many facilities, i.e. fiscal protection, which is design by home country to encourage economic growth in the associate country. 6. By FDI, multinational corporations could utilize the moment of economic growth in the destination country. Generally, a particular country needs more additional domestic capacity to maintain economic growth. This is an opportunity for

2 multinational corporations to invest. There are many other advantages for multinational corporations to be obtained in developing countries including Indonesia. Table I below lists some consideration factors for multinational corporations deciding to invest in the destination countries. It could be concluded that FDI is complex cooperation. Unlike to the international trade, license, and other portofolio investment, the FDI needs a long term commitment of the business environment in the destination countries. The FDI frequently involves a number of assets and other resources which are necessary to be coordinated and managed across country to fulfill the principal investor’s requirement in order to be the success of the investment itself. So, inviting the FDI into business environment in Indonesian is not a straight forward. It needs various things influencing the conduct of investment project. Among other, the main factor is the FDI policy frameworks implemented by the destination country as shown in the first group (see Table I). Table I. Factors Influencing FDI Inflow to a Country Business Climate in the Destination Country I. Policy Frameworks to the FDI -Autonomy: socio-politics,stability -Entry and Operating Regulations -Policy standard for foreign affiliation -Market Function and market structure (competition policy) -International Arrangement FDI -Privatization policy -Trade policy (tariff and non tariff) -FDI and trade policy -Taxation policy II. Economic Factors FDI Classification by the destination Prinsipal determinant in the destination country and TNC motivation country A. Market seeking - Market size and per capita income - Market growth - Local consumer preference - Market structure B. Resource/asset seeking - Raw material - Low-skilled labor cost - Labor skill - Technological and other assets innovation (such as brand creation embodied in individuals, firms, and clusters).

3 - Physical infrastructures (portland, roads, energy, and telecommunication). C. Efficiency-seeking - Resource and asset costs (as in B), and labor productivity - Other input costs, such as transportation and communication - Economic costs from and to the destination country and intermediate product costs - Membership in regional cooperation (support to regional cooperation inter-firm). III. Business Facilities - Investment promotion (including image creation and investment facilities services). - Investment incentives - Unidentified costs (in relations to corruptions and administration efficiency etc). - Social amenities (bilingual schools, quality of life etc) - Post investment services Source : World investment Report, Trends and Determinants, 1998.

III. Investment in Indonesia in The Beginning of Economic Development To finance development since the first Five Years Development Plan Indonesia’s government has been depending in capital inflow from abroad. In the second Five Year Development Plan (1967-1973), 59 percent of development expenditures was financed by foreign debt and 14 percent of those was financed by private sector. Whereas government and domestic private savings financed only 16 and 11 percent respectively. Those conditions occurred over the economic recovery in the early New Order era. They finally were ended by oil boom in 1972/1973. Since that, the surplus of international trade sharply increased so that it could cover the government budget deficits. Unfortunately, it only occurred over the period of 1973- 1983. In 1983 OPEC suffered crisis. The crude oil price decreased from US$ 30 to US$ 12 per barrel in the world market. This crisis absolutely affected to the Indonesian economy. At the same time, industrialization in Indonesia was relatively stagnant. To address this challenge, the government implemented deregulation in the real sectors to encourage industrialization and induce foreign trade surpluses. The two

4 things are the main factor to stimulate national economy. Since that economic liberalization in Indonesia became intensive to be conducted to encourage FDI. In such a case, the government hoped that the national economy could grow through increasing the role of private economic sector in term of FDI and domestic investment as well. Table II. Development of the Approved Investment 1967 / 1968 - 28 Februari 2003

Domestic Investment Foreign Investment Projec Year Project (Rp. Billion) (US$ Million) t 1967 - - 13 210.6 1968 27 38.6 35 256.0 1969 73 36.6 37 127.5 1970 175 1,296.50 87 170.2 1971 216 218.3 64 310.4 1972 268 184.9 48 171.7 1973 301 492.4 70 338.5 1974 134 214.6 55 565.6 1975 79 160.1 24 1,153.9 1976 77 401.6 22 251.2 1977 157 490.2 21 187.3 1978 188 751.4 23 237.0 1979 167 628.4 13 237.0 1980 165 1,589.90 21 1,081.3 1981 164 2,384.90 24 747.0 1982 209 3,767.10 32 2,456.1 1983 341 6,574.20 46 3,436.8 1984 145 2,283.50 23 1,121.1 1985 245 3,790.10 46 913.1 1986 315 4,706.00 93 1,056,8 1987 571 10,682.90 141 1,918,1 1988 850 14,414.10 147 4,447,7 1989 869 19,639.50 308 4,898,3 1990 1,331 58,856.60 444 9,639,6 1991 808 41,210.80 390 9,030,2 1992 422 29,395.90 304 10,466,1 1993 547 39,715.90 330 8,153,8 1994 825 53,598.30 444 27,046,4 1995 793 69,844.70 782 39,891.6 1996 807 97,401 947 29,941,0 1997 723 119,877.20 781 33,788,8 1998 327 57,973.60 1,034 13,649,8 1999 237 53,540.70 1,177 10,884,5 2000 392 93,897.10 1,541 16,075.9

5 Domestic Investment Foreign Investment Projec Year Project (Rp. Billion) (US$ Million) t 2001 264 58,816.00 1,333 15,055.9 2002 185 25,328.10 1,147 9,795,5 2003 95 8,171.20 497 4,373,1 Source : BKPM, 2003. The opened economic policy for both FDI and domestic investment was started in 1967. At that time, the economic policy was encourage by deficit finance implemented by the New Order government to fill the gap between saving and investment. That policy was followed by the Law No. 1/1967 and law no. 6/1968. Since that the government provided some incentives for investors through some regulations that gave a great number beneficial. However, the policy had not been effectively implemented because of political instability. Table II showed that since 1967 the FDI and domestic investment significantly increased. The decline of the oil and the principal export commodities prices in 1983 worsened Indonesia economy. To handle those problems, the government devaluated the currency and implemented various policies in industry and trade to encourage investment and export as well. The trade and industry policies included decreasing barrier to entry and institutional deregulation to eliminate the high cost economy. In relation to the FDI, the deregulation covered reducing the investment constraints so that investment climate in Indonesia will be better. The realization of the FDI during the period of 1980-1994 on the average increased 11.7 percent a year, whereas that of the domestic investment increased 16.09 percent. The decrease of the FDI in 1984 was associated with the tax reformation in the same year. Meanwhile, the decrease of the domestic investment in 1991 due to the tight money policy 1990 (well known as Gebrakan Sumarlin). Those represent that both fiscal and monetary policies have always a particular impact on the capital flows. The share of the FDI in total investment in Indonesia increased about 15.79 percent during the period of the fifth Five Year Economic Plan (1989-1994). In 1989, for example, the amount of the FDI project was only 308 (US$ 4,898.3 million) and it increased to 444 (US$ 27,046.4 million) in 1994. The highest foreign investment

6 projects were achieved in 1996, that is 947 (US$ 33,788.8 million) including the new and continued projects. The data show that the tight money policy in fact did not really affect the FDI inflow to Indonesia. The FDI inflow basically is rather influenced by interest rate (such as LIBOR and SIBOR) and bussines climate in the destination country. In broadly speaking, the investment decision is determined by structural factors, such as industrial, administrative, and fiscal policies that in general secure the long term investment. It is widely recorgnized that the socio-political climate in Indonesia in the early 1990s was relatively stable and conducive. However, the decrease of the FDI in 1991 and 1992 was affected by external factors, such as world recession and war in the middle east. Other factors were the accelerating competition among Asian countries, China, Pakistan, Vietnam, and India, to attract the FDI. The deregulation in the real sectors which has been implemented by government in 1993 seems quite successful. The value of FDI increased significantly even though it did not hold in the domestic investment. From the domestic investor’s point of view, the deregulation was not interesting even declined their monopoly powers as well as extra profit when it compared with the previous deregulation.

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Dom FDI

Figure 1: Development of The Approved Domestic and Foreign Direct Investment Projects, 1967-2003

7 IV. FDI Over The Crisis Period, 1997-2002 Since the economic crisis in 1997, the investment climate in Indonesia has been drastically decreasing. The political turbulance following the crisis significantly decreased the amount and value of FDI in Indonesia. In 1997, for example, the value of FDI was US$ 33,788.8 million. It decreased up to US$ 13,649.8 million in 1998, US$ 10,884.5 million in 1999, and the least point was in 2002 US$ 9,795 million. In 2000 and 2001, it increased slightly US$ 16,075.9 million and US$ 15,055.9 million respectively. Table III. FDI According to Economic Sector, 1997-2003 (in US$)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

I PRIMARY SECTOR 626.9 1,013,7 654 594 511.7 508.2 1 Planation & Horticulture 449.9 919.5 357 441.6 270.4 424.7 2 Cattle Breeding 2.3 22.8 83.3 38.6 13.5 21.6 3 Forestry - 0.3 0.1 6.5 101.2 8.6 4 Fishing 25.6 27.7 37.2 49.5 6.9 4 5 Mining 149.1 43.4 146.4 58.6 119.7 49.3

II SECONDARY SECTOR 23,021,8 8,529,4 6,907,6 10,760,1 5,148,3 3,258,2

6 Foof Product Manufacturing 676.4 383.7 670.1 759.5 289.1 267.4 7 Textile Product Manufacturing 178.1 193.6 166.9 205.5 329.9 93.3 8 Leather and Leather Product Other Fooywear 142.4 35.6 65.6 206.0 32.6 13.8 9 Plywood Manufacturing and Publishing 40.3 97.9 49.0 124.2 23.4 30.3 10 Paper Product Manufacturing and Publishing 5,337.2 44.8 1,387.40 90.4 742.1 10 11 Chemical and Farmacy Manufacturing 11,944.8 5,972.8 3,193.2 7,288.9 2,309.9 1,872.3 12 Rubber and Plastics Manufacturing 316.9 221.0 95.8 166.4 225.5 283 13 Non-Metal Mineral Manufacturing 1,496.0 224.8 113.9 8.8 108.1 32.7 14 Metal, Machine, and Electrinics Manufacturing 1,325.6 885.9 998 1,524.0 653 349.1 15 Medical instrument, Optical and Jewelry Manufacturing 27.7 8.9 47.3 67.6 31 3.2 16 Vehicles and other tranportation Manufacturing 1,220.8 404.7 44.6 241.2 355.1 266 17 Other manufacturing 342.6 55.7 75.8 77.6 48.6 36.9

III TERTIER SECTOR 10,140,1 4,106,7 3,322,9 4,721,0 9,395,9 6,028,9

18 Electrical, Gas, and Water 1,840.0 1,796.6 2,310.00 1.2 37.3 90.2 19 Construction 1,222.9 106.4 24.6 194.9 47.6 282.1 20 Trade & Reparation 12.3 261.3 286.6 1,975.4 340.8 876.1 21 Hotel and Restaurant 378.5 449.0 229.3 283.2 6,891.8 254.6 22 Transportation, Warehouse & Communication 5,574.7 44.2 97 1,163.4 376.4 3,713.3

8 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 23 Housing, Industrial & Office District 673.9 1,318.0 222.3 174.7 177.5 7.3 24 Other Services 437.8 131.2 153.1 928.2 1,524.5 805.1

Total FDI 33,788,8 13,649.8 10,884,5 16,075,9 15,055,9 9,795,3 Source : BKPM, 2003

The domination of the secondary economic sectors, i.e. manufacturing industries, on the total FDI in 1997 was not different from that the previous period, that is 64.24 percent (US$ 23,127.3 million). That is followed by the tertiary sectors (30 percent or US$ 10,140.1 million). In the later the FDI in transportation was US$ 5,5740.7 million or 16.49 percent and then in electricity, gas and water was 1,840.0 million or 5.44 percent in 1997. In the later years all of them drastically decreased. In the secondary sectors, for example, the FDI in 2002 was only US$ 3,258.2 million nor declined more than 85 percent compared with them in 1997. Those indicated how great the real sectors decreased. The decreased in the FDI also continually affected to the labor absorption in the corresponding sectors. The unemployment itself is one of the great obstacles in this country since economic crisis. The secondary sectors domination, i.e. manufacturing sectors, on total FDI in 1997 was not quite different from the previous, that is 64.24 percent (US$ 230,017.3 million). This followed by tertiary sectors, that is US$ 10,410.1 million (or 30 percent). In the tertiary sectors the FDI in electricity, gas and water supplies was US$ 1,840 million or 5.44 percent, meanwhile the FDI in transportation was US$ 5,574.7 million or 16.49 percent of the total FDI in Indonesia. In the following years all of the FDI value decreased drastically. In the secondary economic sectors the value of FDI was US$3,258.2 million or decreased more than 85 persent compared with the FDI in 1997. It implied how contrastive the real sector was. This decrease in FDI obviously affected the labor absorption in the corresponding sectors. Indeed, the open unemployment is one of the great obstacles for any economy since the economic crisis. In the tertiary sectors, i.e. electricity, gas and water supplies, were the greatest drastic decline of the FDI. If in 1997 the FDI in these sectors was US$ 1,840 million, in 2000 it dropped to US$ 1.2 million or decreased more than 100 percent even in

9 2002. This condition had serious implictaion to the economic recovery in the coming years. If the investment in the associated sector does not recover, there must be an electricity supply scarcity. Furthermore, it raised significantly the energy prices and the cost of manufacturing goods (cost-push inflation). In short, the economic recovery will be heavier. Those figures, fortunately did not happen in the primary sectors. In that sectors, the FDI increased proportionally. In 1998 the FDI in that sector was US$ 626.9 million and increased to 1,013.7 million in 2002, sky rocketing more than 61.7 percent. In general, agricultural sectors have labor intensive techniques and close to the labor pool. Those factors caused that the agricultural sectors can defend from the negative impacts of the economic crisis. It implied thet economic crisis did not occur parallel in the whole economic sectors.

V. Regional Concentration Shift of FDI in Indonesia Since Economic Crisis

In the location perspective, over the fifth Five Year Development Plan, the main investment target was in Java. This was because the infrastructures and the availability of labor were generally better. Other locations that were chosen by investors were due to natural resources abundant. Over the fifth Five Year Development Plan, 80.89 percent of the total FDI were taken in Java, 11 percent in Sumatera, 1.34 in Kalimantan, 1.51 percent in Sulawesi, and 5.05 in other islands. As comparison, in the pre-crisis period, the domestic investment were concentrated in Java (60.67 percent), Sumatera (33.02 percent), Kalimantan (3.11), Sulawesi (1.26 percent), and 1.94 percent in the rest islands. These figures seems to be correlated to the regional economic disparities in the New Order era. It is also notable that the FDI concentration towards economic crisis was changed to western, Sumatera, that is close to the neighboring ASEAN countries. Economic crisis since 1997 had significantly decreased the number of FDI in Indonesia. The nominal value of the FDI in the period of 1997 to 2002 had dropped more than 20 percent, from US$ 33,788.8 million to US$ 9,795.3 million. In the same year, the proportion of FDI in Java was about 60.67 percent of the total FDI or US$

10 20,500.9 million. However, in 2002 the share was declined only into US$ 4,799.4 million or 48.99 percent. In Sumatera island the value of the FDI was US$ 11,159.3 million or 33.02 percent in 1997. It was declined to US$ 2,070.3 million in 2002. In term of proportion, it was also decreased 11.89 percent to 21.13 percent. The slight difference occured in Sulawesi. In 1997, the value of the FDI in Sulawesi was US$ 426 million (1.26 percent). After crisis, it slightly declined to US$ 420.2 million. However, its share increased up to 4.28 percent. The big different condition experienced in Kalimantan. The FDI in 1997 was only US$ 1,051.1 million. In contrast, in 2002 it remarkably doubled up to US$ 2,237 million or increased more than 112 percent. Looking at the FDI proportion in Indonesia in the end of 1997, that in Kalimantan was only 3.11 percent, meanwhile the same thing in 2002 was 22.83 percent. In Papua, the increase in the FDI only occurred in 2001. In that year, the FDI increased up to US$ 6,069.1 million and highly contributed 40.3 percent. Overall, it seems that since economic crisis the FDI in Indonesia has decreased drastically. However the decrease in the FDI did not hold equally across region. When Sumatera and Java islands suffered the decrease, Kalimantan on the contrary experienced the increase in the FDI significantly, that is from US$ 1,051.1 million in 1997 to US$ 2,237 million in 2002. Proportionally, the contribution of Kalimantan to total FDI in Indonesia also increased more than 19 persent. That also occured in Sulawesi. In other words, the regional concentration of FDI in Indonesia shifted from western to eastern. This is because the bottle-neck of infrastructure in western as well as the implementation of the law No. 22/1999 that decentralized local authorities to mobilize economic resources within the regions without any command from central government. The one impact of the implementation of the law was widening economic activities toward central and eastern including the FDI. This is of course will encourage economic development equalization throughout Indonesia. Looking at the sectoral shift of the FDI composition, there had been an interesting trends since both the economic crisis and the law No. 22/1999. The

11 resistance economic sector since the two phenomena is the primary sector, i.e. agriculture. The biggest shift in mining sector was in Papua in 2001 when there was a new additional FDI about US$ 6,069.1 million. In the previous year the value of the FDI in that province was US$ 52.5 million. Meanwhile, the FDI in manufacturing sectors decreased drastically. This is a contrast when we compare with it in 2000. In 2000 the FDI in the seconday sectors was about US$ 10,760.1 million. After the regional autonomy era the value of the FDI in the related sectors decreased significantly up to about US$ 3,258.1 million. Among others, this is because of uncoordinated investment regulations between center and local governments. The significant increases in the FDI since the regional autonomy in 2000 were transportation and communication. The value of the FDI in those sectors increased from US$ 97 to US$ 3,713.3 million in the period of 2000-2002. This implies that the two sectors are basic needs for business interregions. They are also important infrastructure for economic development, not only for private but also public sectors. They are indeed “spaceless” so that they cannot be arranged by government since the law of regional autonomy. VI. Conclusions FDI is one of the important factors to recover economy in Indonesia. However, the FDI is an investment activity involving many institutions from both host and home countries, so that in practice it requires a complex administration and cooperation between them. Moreover, the FDI needs a long term commitment of business environment in the destination countries. Also, the FDI frequently involves a number of assets and other resources which are necessary to be coordinated and managed across country to fulfill the principal investor’s requirement in order to be the success of the investment itself. Regarding to the number of the requirement, the most important factor is the policy framework in the destination country to facilitate the FDI. The conducive government policy is the main requirement in facilitating the FDI in a particular country. Another problem which might be delivered in this paper is that the current economic crisis in Indonesia, in fact, did not rise a parallel effect in the overall

12 economic sectors. The economic stagnation did not hold in the primary sectors especially in the agriculture which generally has labor intensive nature and close to the labor pool in the rural areas. At least, the FDI in the manufacturing industries in 2000 decreased dramatically compared to that in 1997 whereas in the agricultural sector was relatively stagnant as the pre economic crisis. The economic crisis had a little effect in the agriculture which was far from the government subsidy. The decline in the FDI value in Indonesia in the post-crisis indicated that there was disequilibrium across region. The decrease of the FDI drastically occurred in the west regions, in contrast to the increase of the FDI held in the center and east regions. This is probably because the public services quality decreased and the implementation of the law No. 22/1999 about regional autonomy. The focus of investors shifted from Java and Sumatera, onto Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and other island in the east. This implies the need to improve the infrastructure in those regions. In principle, development of the sectoral FDI would remain growing as long as the regional autonomy regulation associated with the law No. 22/1999 cannot deteriorate the existence of the corresponding economic sectors. The two sectors that cannot be distorted by local regulation and economic crisis were transportation and communication. The existence of those sectors requires regulation coordination among regional or even national government. In this circumstance, the investment guidance in the era of regional autonomy should be directed on the basic infrastructures such as transportation and communication especially in the eastern regions of Indonesia. Also, development of the investment should be directed on those that involving multiregions. This is one of the investment opportunities because the regulation system in either municipal or province cannot operate itself.

13 Table IV. The Development of the Approved FDI According Location, 1997-2002

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 NO LOKASI P I P I P I P I P I P I I SUMATERA 99 11159.3 150 1406.6 134 7640.4 161 3072.1 143 2356.7 106 2070.3 1 NAGGROE ACEH D 2 771.5 8 6.2 4 51.8 3 1811.1 2 6 - - 2 SUMATERA UTARA 25 3508 21 209.5 27 102.7 25 160.2 28 106.5 4 44.4 3 SUMATERA BARAT 3 7.1 8 175.8 7 342.8 4 19 6 38.2 - 10 4 RIAU 59 6744.6 85 548.2 80 6946.5 98 374.5 87 2095.2 83 1153 5 JAMBI - - 5 201.9 4 41.9 11 360.9 6 10.2 6 21.6 6 SUMATERA SELATAN 4 72.4 8 123 3 35.6 5 96 6 42.3 3 724.4 7 BENGKULU - - 5 37.7 2 28.4 1 0.6 1 1.9 - - 8 LAMPUNG 5 54.1 8 98.1 6 96.2 10 97.4 5 53.8 4 85.7 9 BANGKA BELITUNG 1 1.6 2 6.2 1 4.5 4 152.4 2 2.3 6 31.2 II JAWA 318 20500.9 684 10881.4 855 2651.4 1195 11053.6 995 5741.8 896 4799.4 10 DKI JAKARTA 246 6124.8 330 1724.9 435 788.2 737 3257.1 605 1154.5 588 3378.6 11 JAWA BARAT 225 4100.4 159 1568.8 174 12444 210 1770.4 201 1190.9 164 897.6 12 JAWA TENGAH 19 2229.3 39 3074.3 58 68.1 38 3085.4 43 117.1 31 71.6 13 D.I. YOGYAKARTA 3 35.3 10 5.9 11 10.8 20 504.3 10 10.2 9 19.9 14 JAWA TIMUR 58 4172.9 67 580.7 67 283.5 61 1135.3 23 1680.6 22 271.1 15 BANTEN 67 3838.2 79 3926.8 110 258.8 129 1301.1 113 1588.5 82 160.6 III BALI & NUSA TENGGARA 20 129.2 91 364.9 147 199.1 136 1614.4 129 524.9 97 208.7 16 BALI & NUSA TENGGARA 19 114.6 73 307.7 127 183.9 126 201.5 116 518.9 82 86.5 17 NUSA TENGGARA BARAT 1 0.6 14 19.3 19 13.8 8 1407.9 12 4.8 13 119.7 18 NUSA TENGGARA TIMUR - 14 5 37.9 1 1.4 2 5 1 1.2 2 2.5 IV KALIMANTAN 24 1051.1 32 722.7 11 226.8 22 208.8 43 246.6 29 2237 19 KALIMANTAN BARAT 5 28.2 17 251.2 6 102 2 2.9 6 21.8 1 1.4 20 KALIMANTAN TENGAH 1 6 17 0.4 2 50.3 5 74.7 3 11.9 2 8.9 21 KALIMANTAN SELATAN 6 438.7 8 73.4 1 30.3 2 3.1 6 9.7 1 34 22 KALIMANTAN TIMUR 12 578.2 20 397.7 2 44.2 13 128.1 28 203.2 25 2192.7 V SULAWESI 15 426 28 257.8 25 141.8 23 74.4 16 81.1 16 420.2 23 SULAWESI UTARA 4 356.2 10 158.1 14 25.1 10 25.5 2 1.2 4 41.2 24 SULAWESI TENGAH 2 5.5 5 71.2 2 1.7 1 1.5 4 0.5 2 0.3 25 SULAWESI SELATAN 6 59.8 10 27.8 3 12.5 3 39.2 9 - 9 373.7 26 SULAWESI TENGGARA 2 3.5 1 0.6 6 102.5 1 8 1 9.3 1 5 27 GORONTALO 1 1 2 0.1 - - - 0.2 - 0.6 - - VI MALUKU 1 17.8 8 5.2 3 1.8 - 0.1 3 8.7 - - 28 MALUKU 1 17.8 5 5.2 1 0.9 - 0.1 1 5.5 - - 29 MALUKU UTARA - - 3 - 2 0.9 4 - 2 3.2 - - VII PAPUA 4 504.5 10 11.2 2 23.2 4 52.5 4 6069.1 6 89.7 30 PAPUA 4 504.5 10 11.2 2 23.2 4 52.5 4 6069.1 6 59.7 781 33788.8 1034 13649.8 1177 10885 1541 16075.9 1333 15045 1150 9795.3 Source : BKPM, 2003

14 REFERENCES

Arief, Sritua and Adi Sasono, 1987, Modal Asing, Beban Utang Luar Negeri dan Ekonomi Indonesia,Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.

Aquilar, Linda, 1996, Foreign Direct Investment in Teh U.S and Midwest, Chicago Fed Letter, Vol. 105, 1-3.

Basuki, 1996, Kajian Mengenai Pengaruh Penanaman Modal Asing Langsung Terhadap Pertumbuhan Ekonomi dan Tabungan Domestik Indonesia, Tahun 1969-1994, Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta; Thesis S-2 (Unpublished).

Fukushima, K. and G.H. Kwan, 1995, Foreign Direct Investment and Regional Industrial Restructuring in Asia, in, The New Wave of Foreign Direct Investment in Asia, NRI and ISEAS, Singapore, 1-39.

Fry, Maxwell, 1996, Foreign Direct Investment in East Asia, paper presented for the 20th ACAES Conference on Asian Economies The New Industrial Revolution in Asian Economies, Kuala Lumpur, 14-17 May, 1996.

Hill, Hal, 1991, Investasi Asing dan Industrialisasi di Indonesia, LP3ES, Jakarta.

______, 1996, Transformasi Ekonomi Indonesia Sejak 1966, Sebuah Studi Kritis dan Komprehensif, Tiara Wacana, Yogyakarta.

______, 1997, Indonesia’s Industrial Transformation, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Lansbury, M, N. Pain, and K. Smidkova, 1996, Foreign Direct Investment in Central Europe since 1990: An Econometric Study, National Institute Economic Review, Vol. 156, 104-114.

Lee, Pui-Mun and William, G. Sullivan, 1995, Considering Exchange Rate Movements in Economic Evaluation of Foreign Direct Investment, The Engineering Economist, Vol. 40, No. 2, 171-199.

Masuyama, Siichi, Donna Vandenbrink, and Chia S. Yue, 1997, Industrial Policies in East Asia, Nomura Research Institute NRI and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies ISEAS, Singapore.

Meier, 1995, Leading Issues in Economic Development, 6th Ed., Oxford University Press, New York.

Mirza, Hafiz, John R. Sparkes, and Peter J. Buckley, 1996, Contrasting Perspectives on American and European Direct Investment in Japan, Business Economics, Vol. 31, No.1, 42-48.

15 Nomura Research Institute NRI and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies ISEAS, 1995, The New Wave of Foreign Direct Investment in Asia, ISEAS, Singapore.

Rana, P. B. and J. M. Dowling Jr., 1988, The Impact of Foreign Capital on Growth: Evidence from Asian Developing Countries, The Developing Economics, VVVI-I (March).

Rugman, A. M. and, R. M. Hodgetts, 1995, International Business, A Strategic Management Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Saad, Ilyas, 1995, Foreign Direct Investment, Structural Change and Deregulation in Indonesia in, The New Wave of Foreign Direct Investment in Asia, Singapore: NRI and ISEAS, 197-220.

Thee, Kian Wie, 1994, Intra-Regional Investment in Indonesia KELOLA, Vol. 3, No. 7, 25-45.

UNCTAD, 1998, World Investment Report, 1998 Trends and Determinants, United Nations, New York, 1-40.

UNCTAD, 1999, World Investment Report, 1999 Foreign Direct Investment and The Challenge of Development, United Nations, New York.

16