Poverty Alleviation Through Oil Palm Development in Swampland Area

Ir. Hj. Tuti Heiriyani, MP Prof. Ir. H. Luthfi Fatah, MS, PhD
Faculty of Agriculture, Lambung Mangkurat University

Individual Research Project Grant Funded by East Asian Development Network (EADN) As part of Global Development Network (GDN)
Contract Number: EADN/09/025

Description of Research Project

Title of Research Project Poverty alleviation through development in swampland area oil palm

Principle Researcher

Researcher-1

Researcher-2

Date of submission

Ir. Hj. TUTI HEIRIYANI, MP Senior Lecturer Faculty of Agriculture Lambung Mangkurat University INDONESIA Ph. +62 511 4778 015 Mobile +62 8575 11 6070 Email: tuti_luthfi@yahoo.co.id Prof. Ir. H. Luthfi Fatah, MS, PhD Senior Lecturer Department of Agricultural Socio- economics Faculty of Agriculture Lambung Mangkurat University INDONESIA Ph. +62 511 772 254 Email: luthfifataharsyad@yahoo.com Farida Herliyanti, SP Agribusiness and swampland development adviser at Mambangun Banua, a parivate firm operating oil palm cultivation in Swampland areas of South Kalimantan Province INDONESIA Mobile + 62 815 2880 1794 Email: farida_yanti@telkom.net June 2nd, 2010

ii | P a g e

ABSTRACT
In Indonesia, almost a quarter of its area is swampland therefore swampland development is important. One commodity that financially profitable to grow in swampland area is oil palm. This commodity has been cultivated quite largely in some parts of Sumatera and Sulawesi, and it has a clear tendency to expand in the near future. Although financial analyses suggest that the farming is profitable, it is still unclear what the effect of the farming on income distribution. It is also lack of knowledge about whether or not farmer welfare is improving by cultivating oil palm in swampland area. This research is purposed to understand whether or not the cultivation of oil palm in swampland area contribute to the improvement of farmer welfare, and to understand the effect of oil palm cultivation in swampland area on income distribution and poverty alleviation in the area. This research will combine two approaches: macro and micro levels. At macro level a Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) will be utilized to investigate the impacts of oil palm cultivation on income distribution. At micro level, analyses will focus on farmers, firm owners, and traders (brokers) of oil palm plantation. The research results reveal that the cultivation of oil palm in swampland area will benefit more the agriculture entrepreneur households and high level households both urban and rural. The companies are also benefit. However, research results also show that oil palm commodity is important for labor income improvement and will benefit poor farmer households compared to other sectors or commodities in the economy. Multiplier analyses indicate that shocks are better when directed to production side than to commodities side. If the production is supported through the shock, labor will be benefited more compared to capital. If the shock is directed to commodity, oil palm is less important both in labor and capital income generation. Policy implications are that support should be given to production side not to commodity side including land preparation, seeds provision, activities of cultivation, and harvesting. The provision of input at reasonable and affordable price, extension, guidance, and research to support oil palm cultivation are some example of appropriate policy for development of oil palm. The government needs to support farmer to be an entrepreneur, not labor. The multiplier effect of shock to oil palm on production aspect will mostly benefit agriculture entrepreneur. This can be triggered through training and farmer capacity building, following by adequate support of rural micro finance that suitable and has strong commitment to support farmer initiating and running their business in oil palm industry.

iii | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... iv 1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................1
1.1. Research Questions and Objectives ..........................................................................2 1.1. Significance of the Research .....................................................................................2

2. 3. 4.

LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................................................................8

4.1. General Description of Indonesian Economy based on the Constructed Indonesian SAM 2008 ...........................................................................8 4.2. Income Effects of Oil Palm Plantation in Swampland Area .......................................9 4.3. Flow of Oil Palm Income to Different Households ..................................................12 4.4. Contribution of Oil Palm to Farmer Welfare ...........................................................14

4.

CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATION ............................................................17

4.1. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................17 4.2. Policy Implication ...................................................................................................19

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................20 APPENDICES.................................................................................................................21

iv | P a g e

1.

BACKGROUND

Sumatera Island, especially North Sumatra, Lampung and Aceh, has been the first centre of oil palm plantation in Indonesia. Later on the centre has been expanded to West Java, West and East Kalimantan, Riau, Jambi and Irian Jaya. In 1995, oil palm plantation was 2.025 million hectares (Syukur, 2003). Oil palm cultivations mostly are private plantations run by large firms (50.7%). Oil palm cultivation being run by the communities is only 32.7%, and majorities are in small-scale. The rest 16.6% is operated by government (AARD, 2001). Oil palm has an increasing contribution for Indonesia. Global market demand to CPO is increasing while supply of the commodity is still limited. Development of oil palm plantation is one of government policy in order to enhance the base of Indonesian economy through managing resource endowment efficiently. Oil palm becoming more important as it serves as the new source of energy in the middle increasing scarcity of fossil fuel. The change in global climate and the increase in temperature force people to move to alternative source of energy that is pro environment and one of the energy source is the oil produced from oil palm. Oil palm has become a strategic agricultural commodity. Besides bio-fuel, oil palm has thousands of use. It utilization ranges from food, cosmetics, and up to be use as medicine as well. Considering the fact that tropical forest in Indonesia is wide, and that the value of oil produced from oil palm is high, oil palm plantation seems to be a profitable choice economically. However, it has to be noticed as well that in oil palm development there will be many other aspects or parties will lost. To support the development of oil palm, the Government of Indonesia in 2007 has released a decree named Undang-Undang no 25/2007 regarding foreign direct investment. Foreign companies have better chances to invest and run their businesses in Indonesia. The availability of capital through these investments has provided new employment opportunities, which in turn is expected to improve the welfare of community. The expanding potentials of oil palm plantation and the fact that many farmers involved in the plantation, either as labors or as owners, raise concerns about its impacts on income distribution and on improving farmers welfare. As mostly oil palm farmers are poor, the development of oil palm plantations will help to reduce poverty if oil palm farmers are benefited largely from the cultivation. The policy relevance of this study lies in its objectives to investigate the influence of oil palm plantation on income distribution and its effects on farmer welfare. This knowledge will help decision makers in anticipating the growing tendency of oil palm expansion and deciding whether or not to develop oil palm plantation in order to alleviate poverty.

1|Page

1.1. Research Questions and Objectives

This research is purposed to clarify those concerns by addressing these research questions: 1. What are the effects of oil palm plantation in swampland area on income distribution? 2. Among farmers, firms (industries) or traders (brokers), who do receive the highest additional income from oil palm development in swampland area? 3. How does oil palm farming in swampland area contribute to improving farmer income and by how much? Therefore, the research objectives are: 1. To understand the effect of oil palm cultivation in swampland area on income distribution and poverty alleviation in the area. 2. To understand who does acquire the most benefit of oil palm cultivation in swampland area. 3. To understand whether or not the cultivation of oil palm in swampland area contribute to the improvement of farmer welfare.

1.1. Significance of the Research

In Indonesia swampland consists of 33 million hectares or about 18% of total area. This land is distributed in rural areas of Sumatera, Kalimantan, Irian and Sulawesi islands. Only about 4.5 million hectares of swamp land that has been utilized for various agricultural activities and many of these activities are subsistence, small-scale or inefficient. As the result, majority farmers of swamp area are still in poverty. Meanwhile, farming is the main source of income for most of the people living nearby the swamp area. Therefore, to reduce poverty for these people, agriculture needs to be improved. However, it is not easy to find agricultural commodity or agribusiness type to be developed, since swamp area is one of marginal lands, which needs special treatment in order to grow plant profitably. One commodity that financially profitable to grow in swamp area is oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq). This commodity has been cultivated quite largely in some parts of Sumatera and Sulawesi, and it has a clear tendency to expand in the near future. Although financial analysis shows that this commodity is profitable, the contribution of cultivating this commodity toward improving farmer welfare is unclear. Who gets benefit the most is still need to be investigated. The other concern is to understand which party among farmers, firms (industries) or traders (brokers) receiving the highest benefit.

2|Page

2.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Swampland ecosystems are important and have dominant roles on earth. Besides their functions as to provide numerous products for human use and consumption, including fossil fuels and food, they also function invaluably as the kidneys of the landscape for their ability to purify polluted rivers, prevent and minimize flooding, protect shorelines, and replenish groundwater sources. Furthermore, swamplands also provide valuable habitat to numerous species of waterfowl and wildlife (McCreedy and Miller 1997) Swamplands are some areas including swamp, marsh, bog, prairie pothole, or similar area, having a predominance of hydric soils that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Simply stated, Swamplands contain (1) water or saturated soils for at least part of the year, (2) plants that have adapted to life in wet environments (hydrophytic vegetation), and (3) special soils that develop under depleted oxygen conditions (hydric soils) (Anderson, 1995). In Indonesia, almost a quarter of its area is swampland. The swampland is found in rural areas of all major islands of Indonesia, including Sumatera, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and Irian. The size of swampland area in Indonesia reaches 33.4 millions hectares, including 20.11 million hectares of swamp-tidal and 13,280 million hectares of swamp (Balittra, 2004). The distribution of swampland in Indonesia can be seen at Figure 1 as follows.

Figure 1. The Distribution of Swampland in Indonesia The swampland in Indonesia has the potentials to substitute the farmlands that have been converted into housings and industries. The development of swampland is important for Indonesia and could significantly contribute to the provision of food for its growing population, with the growth rate stands at three millions people a year. The failure in handling and utilizing swampland could result in a serious food security problem for 3|Page

Indonesia in the near future (Saragih, 2003). Swampland cultivation with appropriate commodities can accelerate economic growth in the region through its backward and forward linkages. It also contributes to agribusiness development and in turn employment (Luthfi et al., 2003). The government of Indonesia has been utilizing swampland as one of the national food sources since PELITA I through the project of Farming Development in Swamp-tidal Area, which was carried out in Sumatera and Kalimantan. In these two islands about 3.6 million hectares of swamplands have been cultivated by rural community with the help of Department of Public Facility in the land preparation process. Besides that, the government has also facilitated the generation and distribution of swampland management technology, including water management and land management. For water management, utilization of swampland needs to manage water systems both macro and micro. For land management, the type, mineral and structure of swampland has to be given adequate attention and appropriate handling. Swampland management needs to carefully consider characteristic of the area (AARD, 2001). Various agricultural crops can be cultivated in swampland areas. In Indonesia mostly food crops are cultivated. Generally, food crops productivity and crop intensity are still very low, and land utilization intensity is also very limited. For instance, from 9.53 million hectares swamplands that are potentials for agriculture, 4.19 has been reclaimed and prepared by the government. However, only about 1.5 million hectares have been planted with food crops (Balittra, 2004). In some parts of Indonesia, swamplands have also been utilized for the cultivation of perennial commodities. Oil palm is one of the perennial crops that has been cultivating largely, mainly in swampland areas of Sumatera and some parts of Kalimantan. Financial analyses suggest that oil palm cultivation is feasible (Luthfi et al. 2003, Syukur 2003, Prasetyo 2002). However, mainly the oil palm farming in swampland area is operated by large firms, and farmers are only workers for the firms. Although the oil palm cultivation financial analyses suggest that the farming is profitable, it is still unclear what the effect of the farming on income distribution in the area is. It is also lack of knowledge whether or not farmer welfare is improving through the promotion of oil palm cultivation in swampland area. The main contribution of this research is to provide good knowledge about the potentials of developing oil palm farming in swampland area for reducing poverty and improving income distribution in the area, and also to provide some empirical data about income generation and income distribution of cultivating oil palm in swampland areas among farmers, plantation owners and traders (brokers). Two provinces are chosen to be investigated more in details in this project. One province is South Sumatera as to represent the well establish oil palm plantation. The other province is South Kalimantan where the utilization of swampland, has just been started. By using these two different characteristics of oil palm plantation areas, the information that will be investigated will be more representative for the activity of Indonesian oil palm plantation in general. 4|Page

Below is presented some descriptive data of these two areas where the research project will take place. Table 1. Characteristics of Research Areas Characteristics Provincial Capital Provincial Area (sqkm) Percentage to total area of Indonesia Male (in thousands) Female (in thousands) Total Male+Female (in thousands) Population Density per sqkm Sex Ratio Growth Rate of Population (1990-2000) Labor Force Participation Rate Open Unemployment Rate Gross Regional Domestic Product at current market prices (million rupiahs) GRDP at constant 1993 market prices (million rupiahs) Source : Statistic of Indonesia 2004.

South Sumatera Palembang 103,688 5.40 3,444.12 3,413.26 6,857.38 78 101.0 2.39 57.46 4.11 19,944,999 14,072,706

South Kalimantan Banjarmasin 37,66 1.96 1,491.9 1,483.8 2,975.7 70 100.5 1.45 65.46 2.89 8,040,646 6,293,905

The variables that will be investigated from the areas through this research are variables for micro data, including oil palm income of farmers, firms (industries) and traders (brokers). This data will be combined with macro data at national level which will be organized in a Social Acconting Matrix (SAM) framework.

5|Page

3.

METHODOLOGY

This research combines two approaches: macro and micro levels. At macro level a Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) is utilized. The SAM is used mainly to analyze the distributive effects of oil palm development in swampland area on income using SAM based analyses. To complement the macro analyses (SAM based analyses), the research will apply micro analysis as well. This will focus on farmers, firm owners, and traders (brokers) of oil palm plantation. This approach is used to gather information on how income generated from oil palm plantation is distributed among household types. This also investigates how oil palm cultivation in swampland area contribute to improving farmer income, including the process of product transactions, price determination, farmer bargaining position and transaction cost, which all influence the proportion of the income generated from oil palm plantation received by farmers. For the macro approach, data requirement includes the most recent SAM Indonesia, Indonesian Economic Indicators 2008 as the current data on Indonesian economy and recent data about oil palm production including its input and output structures. The recent SAM of Indonesia is the 2005 Indonesias SAM. This is used as the base matrix of SAM, which is then modified and combined with the Indonesian Economic Indicators April 2009 to develop an up to date SAM for the economy of Indonesia. The best up to date SAM that can be developed given the most recent data available is the SAM Indonesia 2008. To utilize the SAM Indonesia 2008 for analyses in this study, its agricultural sector were disaggregated to represent the oil palm activities in the model. For this purpose the recent data on oil palm production will be utilized. The data include Agricultural Indicator 2006, Directory of Plantation Firms 2006, South Sumatera in Number 2008, and South Kalimantan in Number 2008. SAM Indonesia 2005 and Indonesian Economic Indicators are collected from Biro Pusat Statistik (Bureau of Statistical Centre). The recent data on oil palm were collected from several sources including: Department of Agriculture Directorate General of Plantation, some previous research reports, Bureau of Statistical Centre and from National Development Planning Agency. The SAM based analyses are multiplier analysis and snapshot analysis. Multiplier analysis utilizes multiplier matrix derived from the SAM matrix. This analysis helps to understand the effect of oil palm activities on income generation of various household levels in the economy. In turn the analysis can indicate distributive effect of oil palm plantation on income distribution. Snapshot analysis is the analysis of existing economic interdependency using a particular part of the SAM matrix. For this research, the snapshot analysis especially utilized to help understanding on contribution mechanism of oil palm farming in swampland area toward the improvement of farmer income. For the micro approach, some primary data will be collected from farmers, oil palm plantation owners, traders (brokers) of oil palm product and other primary sources that are relevant. In this research two provinces are chosen as the project areas. One province is South Sumatera. This province is chosen to represent the well establish oil palm plantation, because the plantation in Sumatera relatively older and has been quite long time in operation compared to oil palm plantation in any other part of Indonesia. Oil palm estate has been 6|Page

started since 1911 in North Sumatera. Besides that, oil palm estate in swampland area of South Sumatera has been popular. The system and mechanism of oil palm development in this area become a destination place for any other region to do study comparative. The other province is South Kalimantan. In this area the oil palm development, particularly for the utilization of swampland, has just been started. By using these two different characteristics of oil palm plantation areas, the information that will be investigated will be more representative for the activity of Indonesian oil palm plantation in general. The farmer population is the farmer that cultivates oil palm which is included in farmer group. The sampling method is proportionate random sampling, based on the number of farmer in a group with the sample of farmers are 60 for each province. Therefore the total sample will be 120 farmers. For oil palm estate representative, number of plantations will be decided proportionally between the two provinces, based on the number of plantations operate in the provinces. The total of plantation samples is 10 units. For the traders (brokers) number of total traders as representatives are 10 units, with the same procedure of sampling as the oil palm plantations. Basically, this is descriptive statistical analysis that is using mean, median and modus and other relevant statistical measures to describe trends in population of respective data.

7|Page

4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. General Description of Indonesian Economy based on the Constructed Indonesian SAM 2008
The Indonesian SAM 2008 is developed based on Indonesian SAM 2005 released by Bureau of Statistical Centre. This base year of 2005 is then upgraded to 2008 using 2009 Indonesian Economic Indicators. Based on the 2005 SAM, GDP of Indonesia is IDR 2,896,945.16 million. In 2008, the recent data shows that GDP increase to IDR 4,954,028.90 million. The 2008 Indonesian SAM has been consistent with this figure. The complete 2008 Indonesian SAM is presented in Appendix 1. The calculation of GDP based on the 2008 SAM also shows the same numbers. Based on the 2008 SAM, general description of Indonesian economy is as the following Table 2. Table 2. General Description of Indonesian Economy Account Value (IDR millions) Labor 2,575,262.39 Capital 2,273,921.84 Household 3,751,725.54 Company 1,722,508.64 Government 1,117,304.73 Production Sectors 9,624,191.27 Trade and Transportation 1,061,663.76 Domestic Commodity 10,603,939.14 Imported Commodity 1,665,485.78 Capital Account 1,329,618.70 Indirect Tax 295,151.34 Subsidy 184,872.82 Overseas 1,768,498.92 TOTAL 37,974,144.87

Percentage 6.78 5.99 9.88 4.54 2.94 25.34 2.80 27.92 4.39 3.50 0.78 0.49 4.66 100.00

Table 2 shows revenue value (in IDR million) of all accounts in the 2008 SAM. If outputs or inputs of all account in Indonesian economy are added together, their total value is almost IDR 38 trillion. Return to factors (labor and capital) produce income about 12% of the total output of the economy. Labor contribution is a little bit higher than the contribution of capital. Total income value produced by factors is IDR 4,849,184.23 million.

8|Page

Different categories of households receive some of the income produced by factors. The households also receive transfers from various sources including other household categories and transfer from overseas. If these amounts are summed, the value stands at IDR 3,751,725.54 million. This comprises about 10% of total output of Indonesian economy. If we look at the total output value of commodity, the number stands at IDR12,269,424.92 million or about 32% ot Indonesian Output in total. From this amount IDR 10,603,939.14 million is output of domestic commodities, and IDR 1,665,485.78 million. This structure indicates that domestic commodity is more strategic for Indonesia compared to imported commodity. If we use total Indonesian output as denominator, we can see that domestic commodity contribute about 28% while the imported commodity only shares about 4%. If we look at the importance of overseas account in Indonesian economy based on the 2008 SAM, we can see from the Table 2 above that contribution of overseas account in Indonesias total output is less than 5% or IDR 1,768,498.92 million. This account structure implies that Indonesian economy has only little dependency on overseas. From IDR 37,974,144.87 million output of all accounts in Indonesian economy, overseas account only share lest than 5%. If the management of production and other economic transactions is appropriate, Indonesia can promote the improvement of its economy without strong needs to overseas intervention.

4.2. Income Effects of Oil Palm Plantation in Swampland Area

In the constructed 2008 SAM, production sectors and their commodities are grouped into six big categories as the followings: 1. Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor 2. Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 3. Oil Palm 4. Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and Drinking Water 5. Trade, Restaurant and Hotel, Transportation and Communication, Individual Service 6. Finance, Real Estate, Government, Social and Cultural Service, and Entertainment In the SAM income is generated by factors of production which are labor and capital. These labor and capital income will then flow to households of different categories. The source of income is the value of commodity produced production sectors. To analyze the effects of oil palm plantation in swampland area a mixed multiplier matrix calculated and constructed based on the 2008 SAM. The complete mixed multiplier is provided in Appendix 2. Based on the mixed multiplier income effects of production sectors are as in Table 3 below. The Table captures the effects of shocks given to particular account in production sectors categories. Shock to production sectors means that intervention to the category is given in its production process. As can be seen from Table 3 shock to production sectors has different effects, depend on which category the shock is given. If we observe the effect on labor income, among the 9|Page

categories oil palm and other agriculture, forestry, and hunting have the highest multiplier effects on labor. These two categories have the multiplier 0.7529. This means that if these categories are given additional one unit of shock, they will produce additional 0.7529 unit of income for labor. Based on this fact we can understand that if government focus on increasing labor income, then the government could direct the shock to oil palm or to other agriculture, forestry, and hunting. The description above infers that oil palm commodity is important for labor income improvement. Table 3. Income Effects of Shocks on Production Sectors on Labor and Capital Income Account Labor Capital Production Sectors Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor 0.4710 0.2810 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 0.7529 0.4143 Oil Palm 0.7529 0.4143 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and Drinking Water 0.4003 0.5395 Trade, Restaurant and Hotel, Transportation and Communication, Individual Service 0.6592 0.4142 Finance, Real Estate, Government, Social and Cultural Service, and Entertainment 0.6222 0.5382 The effects of production shock on capital is dominated by Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and Drinking Water category. Based on mixed multiplier analysis this category has the highest capital multiplier. It stands at 0.5395. Finance, Real Estate, Government, Social and Cultural Service, and Entertainment category stands at the second place with multiplier of 0.5382. Oil palm, Other agriculture, forestry, and hunting, and Trade, Restaurant and Hotel, Transportation and Communication, Individual Service follow. The first two have the same multiplier (0.4143), followed by the third one with 0.4142 of multiplier value. Although oil palm only stands at the third place for capital income effect of the shock, considering the multiplier value, we can understand that its effect is quite significant. It is much higher if we compare it with Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor category. Multiplier analysis of shock on production sectors of the six categories reveals that oil palm is dominant for labor income generation, but less dominant for capital income generation. This may be related to the facts that in oil palm plantation, labor shares significant contribution to the farm daily operation compared to other resources, both in terms of cost required and also in terms of quantity of activities. Therefore if the production is supported through the shock, the labor will be benefited more compared to the capital.

10 | P a g e

Income effects will be slightly different if the shock is directed to the commodity. The shock to commodity means that intervention to the category is given in order to add value to the commodity. Table 4 illustrates that if the shock is given to domestic commodities category that generates the highest labor income is Trade, Restaurant and Hotel, Transportation and Communication, Individual Service. This is then followed by Finance, Real Estate, Government, Social and Cultural Service, and Entertainment. At the third high multiplier Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and Drinking Water takes the place. Oil palm has the smallest labor income multiplier. There is an interesting figure here. Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor situates at the fourth place better than oil palm and other agriculture. These figures could be caused by the facts that the category is labor intensive. Many of the activities in this category are small-scale but they are numerous, so that as a sum their number is quite significant. Table 4. Income Effects of Shocks on Domestic Commodities on Labor and Capital Income Account Labor Capital Domestic Commodities Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor 0.1211 0.0761 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 0.0689 0.0433 Oil Palm 0.0619 0.0389 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and Drinking Water 0.4196 0.5181 Trade, Restaurant and Hotel, Transportation and Communication, Individual Service 0.6475 0.4068 Finance, Real Estate, Government, Social and Cultural Service, and Entertainment 0.6161 0.5329 Meanwhile, if we look at the effect of commodity shock on capital income generation, the best multiplier effect is provided by Finance, Real Estate, Government, Social and Cultural Service, and Entertainment, followed respectively by Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and Drinking Water and Trade, Restaurant and Hotel, Transportation and Communication, Individual Service. Oil palm has the smallest multiplier. It seems clear for this situation that the more capital investment the higher multiplier effect for capital income generation. Table 4 reveals that based on multiplier analyses of domestic commodity shocks, oil palm is less important both in labor and capital income generation. Multiplier effects of oil palm for commodity shocks are relatively smaller than other categories. Even more, if capital income generation becomes our concern, among other categories oil palm has the smallest capital income multiplier. These facts indicate that shocks for oil palm are better when directed to production than directed to commodities.

11 | P a g e

Table 5. The Distribution of Labor Income Labor Paid Agriculture Un paid Production, Operator of transportation, Paid and Low income labor Un paid Paid Administration, Selling, and Service Un paid Leadership, Army, Professional, and Paid Technician Un paid

Production 0.1830 0.2942 0.0648 0.0261 0.0829 0.0497 0.0437 0.0084

Commodity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0097 0.0054 0.0209 0.0190 0.0058 0.0010

Income in the concerned economy is produced by production factors which are labor and capital. Capital income will mostly flow to company while labor income will flow to different category of households depending on the category of labor. Table 5 above describes how labor income generated from oil palm is being distributed to different type of labor. It will have different multiplier effects depending on where was the shock directed to, production sectors or domestic commodity. It can be seen on Table 5 that if the shock was given to production sectors then the most of labor income generated by multiplier effect will be received by Unpaid Agricultural Labor. On the other hand, if the shock was directed to domestic commodity, then the Paid Administration, Selling, and Service will benefit most from the labor income flow. This will receive the highest income. Agricultural labor both paid and unpaid will receive no income. It is apparent from Table 5 that if the shock is on production the agricultural labor will benefit, while if the shock is on commodity seller and service will benefit more. Inclusive in this category is trader, agent, broker and dealer of various levels.

4.3. Flow of Oil Palm Income to Different Households

To understand who does acquire the most benefit of oil palm cultivation in swampland area this income flows to households as multiplier effects of shock on production or commodity can describe the situation. If in particular we want to investigate the highest recipient of additional income from oil palm development in swampland area among farmers, firms (industries) or traders (brokers), we need first to understand in which category of households these parties belong to. Majorities of farmers are in low labor agriculture and some of them are in rural low level households. Traders and brokers are mainly in the category of agriculture entrepreneur and rural high level households. Capital owners investing in oil palm will fall in the category of high level households both in urban area and rural areas. Firms or industries in this model are included in the category of company. Income generated from oil palm will flow to different households. Multiplier analysis produces results as presented in Table 6. 12 | P a g e

Table 6. Income Flow of Shock on Production and Commodity on Different Households Households Production Commodity Agriculture Low labor 0.0928 0.0025 Entrepreneur 0.2878 0.0096 Rural Low level 0.1590 0.0081 High level 0.1248 0.0132 Urban Low level 0.1244 0.0005 High level 0.1234 0.0228 Company 0.3001 0.0277 If the shock is directed to oil palms production process, the most benefit household is Agriculture Entrepreneur. It has 0.2878 of multiplier effect. At the second place is Rural Low Level and then followed by Rural High Level. Agriculture Low Labor has the lowest multiplier effect. The multiplier in Table 6 implies that with production shock rural community will benefit more. In particular households of agricultural entrepreneur will benefit the most. This household category includes traders, brokers, and households that managing the cultivation oil palm and other plantation although with the small-scale farming. Low labor is less benefited compared to the other. Although the shock is directed to production process, the low labor agriculture households are lacking of ability to capture the benefit. They only receive wage in doing agriculture activities of oil palm. The owner of oil palm will receive benefit from the shock. Meanwhile companys share of income multiplier produced by the shock on production process is in fact higher than agriculture entrepreneur. The multiplier effect stands at 0.3001. This is caused by the fact that shock on production will make productivity is better and in turn will generate more return to capitals. This return is then flow to company. This makes company multiplier effect is higher than agriculture entrepreneur multiplier effect. On the other hand, if the shock is given to commodity, the most benefit household is in the category of Urban High Level. This is followed by Urban Low Level at the second place and Rural High Level at the third place. This indicates with commodity shock the urban community and high level household will benefit more. Agricultural labor has less benefit if the shock is on commodity. Income flow of multiplier effect is not captured by low level household and agricultural labor. If we take the figure for company, the multiplier effect is slightly lower than the urban high level household, but still exceeding the multiplier of other household category. This is caused by the fact that for commodity the roles of agricultural company are reduced. Traders and brokers, and other commodity transaction or processing will have higher multiplier effect values if the shock is given to commodity. From the description above we can infer that the cultivation of oil palm in swampland area based on this multiplier analysis will benefit more the agriculture entrepreneur households and the firms or companies if the shock is given to production process. On the other hand, if 13 | P a g e

the shock is directed to commodity then the most benefit is high level households both urban and rural. The companies are also benefit with this shock.

4.4. Contribution of Oil Palm to Farmer Welfare

Multiplier analysis reveals that oil palm development is a suitable choice of policy for poverty alleviation. Compared to other category of economic activities as represented in the SAM accounts, shock to oil palm production will produce the highest multiplier effects. The details of multiplier effects of shock on production of various categories in the economy of Indonesia are presented on Table 7 below. Table 7. Multiplier effects of Production of Various Categories on Households Households 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agriculture 0.0415 0.0928 0.0928 0.0200 0.0266 0.0278 Low labor Entrepreneur 0.1747 0.2878 0.2878 0.0879 0.1026 0.1223 Rural 0.1019 0.1590 0.1590 0.1095 0.1402 0.1079 Low level 0.0807 0.1248 0.1248 0.0677 0.0863 0.1016 High level Urban 0.0978 0.1244 0.1244 0.1817 0.2185 0.1943 Low level 0.0821 0.1234 0.1234 0.1371 0.2428 0.2710 High level Note: 1 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor 2 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 3 Oil Palm 4 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and Drinking Water Trade, Restaurant and Hotel, Transportation and Communication, 5 Individual Service 6 Finance, Real Estate, Government, Social and Cultural Service, and Entertainment

From Table 7 we can see that multiplier effects of shock on production of oil palm will produce multiplier effect 0.0928 to Low Labor Agriculture household and 0.1590 to Low Level Rural household. These two values of multiplier effects are the highest if we compared with other categories for the same household levels in the economy. Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting has the same multiplier effect value with oil palm. The cause of this is that in the production structure oil palm and other agriculture, forestry, hunting are the same. In the SAM account agriculture basically is divided only into two big categories: (1) Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor and (2) Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor. Oil palm was excluded from Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting for the purposes of analyses, therefore their values in production structure has very little difference which are not reflected in the multiplier effect for shock on production aspect. Poor farmer households mainly fall in the category of Low Labor Agriculture and Low Level Rural households. To help improving these poor farmers welfare the target of income 14 | P a g e

multiplier effects should be directed toward these two households. Table 7 shows that shock directed to oil palm production is suitable for the purpose. This shock will produce multiplier effects that will benefit these two categories of household, and the multiplier of this shock produce higher values than the value produced by shocks on other categories. Shock to food crop produces less multiplier effect for Low Labor Agriculture household than shock on oil palm. Its multiplier only stands at 0.4105. Actually many poor farmer households grow food crop. This is basically based on the concern of food security for the family and also based on the facts that this food crop has been cultivated years since their parents and parents of parents. They get used to this crop cultivation, and movement to other crop will require significant efforts, not only internally by them-selves but also for some degree requires external help. Although the analysis shows that oil palm is better in terms of multiplier effect produced, it is a challenge to introduce this crop replacing food crop. Food security and skill concern will be significant constraints for majority of farmers. Some possible easy to adopt option for farmer is if oil palm can be introduced in-line with the cultivation of food crop category which in this SAM model includes food crop, livestock, fishery, and food processor. As previously explained, in the model shocks could be directed to production side or to commodity side, and based on the analysis these two directions will have quite significant differences. In shock policy it is very important to maintain that the shock on oil palm is directed to production side, not to commodity side, because if the shock is directed to commodity side the shock on oil palm is no longer pro poor farmer households. For detail please see Table 8 below. Table 8. Multiplier effects of Commodity of Various Categories on Households Households 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agriculture Low labor 0.0049 0.0028 0.0025 0.0203 0.0261 0.0275 Entrepreneur 0.0189 0.0107 0.0096 0.0880 0.1008 0.1211 Rural Low level 0.0258 0.0147 0.0132 0.1108 0.1377 0.1069 High level 0.0159 0.0090 0.0081 0.0684 0.0847 0.1006 Urban Low level 0.0401 0.0229 0.0205 0.1824 0.2146 0.1924 High level 0.0446 0.0254 0.0228 0.1454 0.2385 0.2684 Note: 1 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor 2 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 3 Oil Palm 4 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and Drinking Water Trade, Restaurant and Hotel, Transportation and Communication, 5 Individual Service Finance, Real Estate, Government, Social and Cultural Service, and 6 Entertainment

15 | P a g e

Table 8 shows that if the shock is given to oil palm on commodity side the multiplier effect for Low Labor Agriculture household is only 0.0025. This is actually the smallest if compared to other categories multiplier effects. The highest multiplier effect will be produced by Finance, Real Estate, Government, Social and Cultural Service, and Entertainment category of commodity. Shock on oil palm on commodity side will mostly benefit High Level Urban household. The multiplier effect for this category is the highest that is 0.0228 compared to the multiplier effects received by other household categories. In this shock capital owners gain more. Urban high level household are mainly capital owner who invest their capital in oil palm. If we observe Rural Low Level households, multiplier effect of oil palm from the shock on commodity is also the smallest, it stands only at 0.0132. The highest multiplier for this household category is from Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor. Its multiplier effect received by Rural Low Level household is 0.0258. Rural low level households consist of farmers who have small land and small farming. Small-scale oil palm farmers are also included in this category although their numbers are very limited. Majority of these farmers are growing food crops, livestock and fishery. Therefore, shock on oil palm commodity does not benefit this category very much. The multiplier effect will be more benefited for them if the shock is directed to Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processor. It is apparent from the Table above that shock on commodity of oil palm does not benefit the poor farmers. Instead it will benefit the capital owners.

16 | P a g e

4.

CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATION

4.1. Conclusion
Swamp land in Indonesia is large. It consists of 33 million hectares or about 18% of total area. This land is distributed widely in rural areas of all most all of big islands of Indonesia, except Java. However, many of these swamp land are still idle, and only about 4.5 million hectares of swamp land that has been utilized for various agricultural activities and many of these activities are subsistence, small-scale or inefficient. As the result, majority farmers of swamp area are still in poverty. Considering the fact that tropical forest in Indonesia is wide, and that oil palm product values are promising, oil palm plantation seems to be a profitable choice. However, it needs a careful assessment to see who will be benefit from the oil palm activities and how much the benefit is. The trend shows that oil palm plantation is expanding and this attracts many farmers into the plantation, either as labors or as owners. This fact raises concerns about its impacts on income distribution and on improving farmers welfare. As mostly oil palm farmers are poor, the development of oil palm plantations will help to reduce poverty if oil palm farmers are benefited largely from the cultivation. The research objectives are: (1) To understand the effect of oil palm cultivation in swampland area on income distribution and poverty alleviation in the area. (2) To understand who does acquire the most benefit of oil palm cultivation in swampland area. (3) To understand whether or not the cultivation of oil palm in swampland area contribute to the improvement of farmer welfare. The policy relevance of this study lies in its objectives to investigate the influence of oil palm plantation on income distribution and its effects on farmer welfare. This knowledge will help decision makers in anticipating the growing tendency of oil palm expansion and deciding whether or not to develop oil palm plantation in order to alleviate poverty. This research combines two approaches: macro and micro levels. At macro level a Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) is utilized. The SAM is used mainly to analyze the distributive effects of oil palm development in swampland area on income using SAM based analyses. To complement the macro analyses (SAM based analyses), the research will apply micro analysis as well. This will focus on farmers, firm owners, and traders (brokers) of oil palm plantation. This approach is used to gather information on how income generated from oil palm plantation is distributed among household types. This also investigates how oil palm cultivation in swampland area contribute to improving farmer income, including the process of product transactions, price determination, farmer bargaining position and transaction cost, which all influence the proportion of the income generated from oil palm plantation received by farmers. Research results show that oil palm commodity is important for labor income improvement. Multiplier analyses reveal that for oil palm, shocks are better when directed to production than directed to commodities. If a shock is directed on production of oil palm, agricultural 17 | P a g e

labor will benefit, while if the shock is on commodity seller and service will benefit more. If government focuses on increasing labor income, then the government should direct the shock to oil palm or to other agriculture, forestry, and hunting. Multiplier analysis of shock on production sectors of the six categories reveals that oil palm is dominant for labor income generation, but less dominant for capital income generation. This may be related to the facts that in oil palm plantation, labor shares significant contribution to the farm daily operation compared to other resources, both in terms of cost required and also in terms of quantity of activities. Therefore if the production is supported through the shock, the labor will be benefited more compared to the capital. On the other hand, if we observe the shock that is directed to commodity, multiplier analyses reveal that oil palm is less important both in labor and capital income generation. Multiplier effects of oil palm for commodity shocks are relatively smaller than other categories. Even more, if capital income generation becomes our concern, among other categories oil palm has the smallest capital income multiplier. Furthermore, the research results also reveal that the cultivation of oil palm in swampland area based on this multiplier analysis will benefit more the agriculture entrepreneur households and firms or companies if the shock is given to production process. On the other hand, if the shock is directed to commodity then the most benefit is high level households both urban and rural. The companies are also benefit with this shock. For improvement of poor farmers welfare, the target of income multiplier effects should be directed toward improving income of two households: Agriculture Low Labor and Rural Low Level households. The research results show that shock directed to oil palm production is suitable for the purpose. This shock will produce multiplier effects that will benefit the two categories of poor farmer households, and the multiplier of this shock produce higher values than the value produced by shocks on other categories. It is also apparent however that shock on commodity of oil palm does not benefit the poor farmers. Instead it will benefit the capital owners.

18 | P a g e

4.2. Policy Implication

Based on multiplier analyses it is obvious that oil palm development is more suitable to help improving poor farmer welfare compared to other production sectors and commodities, however it will bring more benefit for Agriculture Entrepreneur and Rural Low Level households. Therefore, a policy of oil palm development for poverty alleviation needs a careful attention. Some policy implications based on the research results are that in promoting oil palm development, it is very important that support should be given to production side not to commodity side. Production side is part of the oil palm industry which operates in production process. This includes land preparation, seeds provision, activities of cultivation, and harvesting. Commodity side is all efforts to add value to oil palm products. This includes post harvest handling, transporting, processing, and other downstream process to generate value added to the products. Support to production side will benefit labor and to commodity side will benefit capital owner more. The provision of input at reasonable and affordable price, extension, guidance, and research to support oil palm cultivation are some example of appropriate policy for development of oil palm. Price supports, infrastructure for transportation, processing factories and the likes will be not appropriate. These activity will not benefit poor farmers, instead it will benefit capital owner from the households of high level urban and rural. Another important policy implication is that the government needs to facilitate and to encourage farmer to be an entrepreneur, not labor. The multiplier effect of shock to oil palm on production aspect will mostly benefit agriculture entrepreneur. This can be triggered through training and farmer capacity building, following by adequate support of rural micro finance that suitable and has strong commitment to support farmer initiating and running their business in oil palm industry.

19 | P a g e

REFERENCES
AARD, 2001, The potentials of swamplands for agriculture, Bulletin of Agricultural Research and Development, Vol. 23 No. 6, p 3-7. Anderson, Julie, 1995, Wetland incentives programs for landowner, Austin-Texas: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Balittra, 2004, Characteristics and prospect of swampland development, Banjarbaru: Swampland Research Centre. Luthfi et al., 2003, Regional development through land utilization to improve welfare and the performance of regional economy, Research report, Banjarbaru: Collaboration between Faculty of Agriculture Lambung Mangkurat University and Regional Development Planning Agency of Hulu Sungai Selatan Distric. McCreedy, Clark D. and Brian K. Miller, 1997, Farm income through conservation: the wetlands reserve program Hoosier Farmland Wildlife Notes Fostering Wildlife in Agriculture Vol. 3 No. 2 p.130. Prasetyo, Sigit, 2002, The evaluation of oil palm plantation with partnerships system in Kalumpang District of South Kalimantan Province, Thesis for Graduate Degree, Banjarbaru: Faculty of Agriculture Lambung Mangkurat University. Saragih, Bungaran, 2003, Swampland (33 million hectares) replaces farming in Java. National expose of Swampland farming, Karang Buah South Kalimantan Wednesday, July 30th. Syukur, Suheimi, 2003, Oil palm in brief, Pematang Siantar: Marihat Research Centre.

20 | P a g e

APPENDICES

AppendiceS

21 | P a g e

Appendix 1. Indonesia Social Accounting Matrix 2008

(Million Rupiah) Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Capital 9 Low labour 10 Agriculture Enterpreneur 11 Low level 12 Rural High level 13 Low level 14 Urban High level 15 Company 16 Government 17 18 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 19 Oil Palm 20 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 21 22 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 23 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu Trade and Transportation Margin 24 25 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 26 Oil Palm 27 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 28 29 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 30 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 31 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 32 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 33 34 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 35 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu Capital Account 36 Indirect Tax 37 Subsidy 38 Overseas 39 TOTAL Paid Agriculture Un paid Production, Operator of Paid transportation, and Low Un paid Administration, Selling, Paid Un paid and Service Paid Leadership, Army, Un paid Professional, and Production Factor Imported Comm Domestic Commo Production Sector Institution Household Labour Description 1 2 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49,279.14 18,941.50 29,206.18 46,530.61 209,371.78 72,166.37 29,005.40 62,699.94 147,114.97 11,375.11 74,849.96 12,146.01 2,276.34 4,523.62 285,302.24 3,772.09 3,418.42 22,494.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,333.70 142,238.69 373,805.23 569,763.80 4 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,948.27 30,435.03 39,357.94 77,514.04 55,373.72 37,416.77 47,402.22 41,525.92 70,452.05 179,278.20 34,691.56 174,900.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,743.06 249,225.76 542,813.54

onesian SAM

IDR Million

22

Appendix 1. Indonesia Social Accounting Matrix 2008

(Million Rupiah) 6 Code 1 0.00 2 0.00 3 0.00 4 0.00 5 0.00 6 0.00 7 0.00 8 0.00 Capital 9 0.00 Low labour 10 6,384.60 Agriculture Enterpreneur 11 20,942.91 Low level 12 91,533.06 Rural High level 13 35,168.46 Low level 14 69,240.02 Urban High level 15 161,408.24 Company 16 0.00 Government 17 0.00 18 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 19 0.00 Oil Palm 20 0.00 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 21 0.00 22 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 23 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 Trade and Transportation Margin 24 0.00 25 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 26 0.00 Oil Palm 27 0.00 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 28 0.00 29 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 30 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 31 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 32 0.00 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 33 0.00 34 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 35 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 Capital Account 36 0.00 Indirect Tax 37 0.00 Subsidy 38 0.00 Overseas 39 0.00 TOTAL 384,677.29 Description Production Factor Paid Agriculture Un paid Production, Operator of Paid transportation, and Low Un paid Administration, Selling, Paid Un paid and Service Paid Leadership, Army, Un paid Professional, and Imported Comm Domestic Commo Production Sector Institution Household Labour 7 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,337.91 206.14 45,195.31 3,028.16 17,594.81 7,805.23 44,931.67 3,158.58 20,939.24 8,813.35 131,265.54 20,804.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,657.35 0.00 268,921.82 43,816.26 9 10 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,104.36 244.56 924.36 130,153.72 247.14 825.27 131,233.73 245.20 698.47 134,960.22 52.31 137.44 172,038.92 279.83 923.94 176,099.86 29.51 82.11 1,359,982.21 5,680.70 19,257.03 0.00 6,148.80 18,382.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 106,613.84 247,382.36 0.00 1,528.28 4,093.73 0.00 454.34 1,217.03 0.00 29,197.32 102,016.75 0.00 22,334.73 113,004.89 0.00 36,049.10 90,676.83 0.00 3,924.43 18,285.22 0.00 13.81 70.93 0.00 6,218.62 47,342.50 0.00 566.73 9,984.32 0.00 369.96 2,297.47 0.00 12,684.84 63,553.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 156,348.82 911.11 4,369.92 2,273,921.84 233,795.16 745,527.00

2008 Indonesian SAM

IDR Million

23

Appendix 1. Indonesia Social Accounting Matrix 2008

(Million Rupiah) Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Capital 9 Low labour 10 Agriculture Enterpreneur 11 Low level 12 Rural High level 13 Low level 14 Urban High level 15 Company 16 Government 17 18 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 19 Oil Palm 20 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 21 22 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 23 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu Trade and Transportation Margin 24 25 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 26 Oil Palm 27 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 28 29 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 30 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 31 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 32 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 33 34 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 35 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu Capital Account 36 Indirect Tax 37 Subsidy 38 Overseas 39 TOTAL Paid Agriculture Un paid Production, Operator of Paid transportation, and Low Un paid Administration, Selling, Paid Un paid and Service Paid Leadership, Army, Un paid Professional, and Production Factor Imported Comm Domestic Commo Production Sector Institution Household Labour Description 12 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 651.73 733.55 540.69 660.43 571.92 634.94 103.24 182.18 522.28 664.38 77.38 71.48 12,154.22 12,644.22 16,050.77 16,424.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 206,293.14 94,433.28 4,103.31 1,812.98 1,219.88 538.98 130,347.47 73,251.55 116,198.53 72,982.91 101,641.93 45,645.71 16,636.18 13,007.61 46.83 49.82 21,890.69 27,831.10 8,029.55 8,955.86 2,974.92 3,631.55 37,246.73 52,032.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,603.02 1,970.15 680,904.40 428,158.84 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,011.16 865.14 885.18 148.09 589.38 97.71 15,963.83 29,538.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 242,554.25 3,832.19 1,139.28 174,699.57 172,020.80 126,649.08 19,191.33 57.99 29,330.50 12,868.63 4,861.51 56,542.60 0.00 0.00 5,003.82 897,850.45 15 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,104.25 5,100.18 796.60 21,055.77 883.86 17,331.15 88.37 7,768.40 1,019.13 24,230.85 111.35 26,389.50 13,438.83 182,069.75 28,341.66 535,307.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150,921.50 0.00 2,766.39 0.00 822.42 0.00 135,375.69 0.00 135,108.08 0.00 93,656.51 0.00 21,709.09 0.00 95.41 0.00 48,559.76 0.00 21,515.59 0.00 8,718.07 0.00 96,310.75 825,217.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,146.36 78,037.85 765,489.69 1,722,508.64

2008 Indonesian SAM

IDR Million

24

Appendix 1. Indonesia Social Accounting Matrix 2008

(Million Rupiah) 17 18 19 Code 1 0.00 92,048.07 38,719.66 2 0.00 293,112.80 62,250.35 3 0.00 62,363.46 3,238.46 4 0.00 30,937.19 816.76 5 0.00 19,552.29 2,733.55 6 0.00 3,255.16 343.09 7 0.00 6,583.22 602.66 8 0.00 1,617.59 634.12 Capital 9 0.00 243,323.47 41,414.16 Low labour 10 59,494.15 0.00 0.00 Agriculture Enterpreneur 11 63,452.46 0.00 0.00 Low level 12 56,285.68 0.00 0.00 Rural High level 13 11,179.46 0.00 0.00 Low level 14 39,373.26 0.00 0.00 Urban High level 15 7,176.51 0.00 0.00 Company 16 74,361.17 0.00 0.00 Government 17 169,761.88 0.00 0.00 18 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oil Palm 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 0.00 0.00 23 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trade and Transportation Margin 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 505,777.66 1,859.11 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 26 24.72 86,684.18 14,087.70 Oil Palm 27 7.35 25,770.42 4,188.14 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 28 35,895.54 55,630.98 25,346.59 29 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 45,290.59 17,241.87 4,982.71 30 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 140,529.45 25,190.74 6,985.15 31 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 35,484.41 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 32 0.00 638.07 99.38 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 33 8,448.10 16,476.48 3,052.62 34 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 2,974.56 2,872.30 112.63 35 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 7,947.59 2,614.35 95.74 Capital Account 36 186,030.20 0.00 0.00 Indirect Tax 37 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subsidy 38 184,872.82 0.00 0.00 Overseas 39 24,199.26 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 1,117,304.72 1,527,174.70 211,562.58 Description Production Factor Paid Agriculture Un paid Production, Operator of Paid transportation, and Low Un paid Administration, Selling, Paid Un paid and Service Paid Leadership, Army, Un paid Professional, and Imported Comm Domestic Commo Production Sector Institution Household Labour 20 21 11,470.96 0.00 18,442.08 0.00 959.41 385,280.65 241.97 141,274.30 809.83 96,976.57 101.64 6,510.79 178.54 46,462.28 187.86 16,511.58 12,269.22 1,277,233.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 550.77 12,968.37 4,173.57 86,263.89 1,240.77 25,645.47 7,509.09 1,446,403.17 1,476.16 102,888.73 2,069.40 122,295.80 0.00 776.40 29.44 13,415.11 904.36 682,021.63 33.37 22,017.07 28.36 41,783.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62,676.81 4,526,729.69

2008 Indonesian SAM

IDR Million

25

Appendix 1. Indonesia Social Accounting Matrix 2008

(Million Rupiah) 22 23 24 Code 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 102,833.84 14,623.60 0.00 4 69,626.08 6,329.45 0.00 5 257,677.38 164,254.67 0.00 6 352,397.60 22,069.00 0.00 7 32,407.15 181,911.76 0.00 8 9,608.07 15,257.04 0.00 Capital 9 356,555.58 339,741.50 0.00 Low labour 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Agriculture Enterpreneur 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Low level 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rural High level 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 Low level 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Urban High level 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Company 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Government 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oil Palm 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 0.00 0.00 23 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trade and Transportation Margin 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 187,124.07 48,742.03 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 26 3,257.53 432.47 0.00 Oil Palm 27 968.44 128.57 0.00 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 28 307,253.99 109,257.39 0.00 29 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 194,607.58 39,870.61 1,061,663.76 30 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 146,900.28 115,254.30 0.00 31 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 2,724.97 326.64 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 32 69.26 1.62 0.00 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 33 92,554.50 18,206.05 0.00 34 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 24,232.08 5,102.21 0.00 35 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 43,595.49 30,144.69 0.00 Capital Account 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 Indirect Tax 37 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subsidy 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overseas 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 2,184,393.89 1,111,653.61 1,061,663.76 Description Production Factor Paid Agriculture Un paid Production, Operator of Paid transportation, and Low Un paid Administration, Selling, Paid Un paid and Service Paid Leadership, Army, Un paid Professional, and Imported Comm Domestic Commo Production Sector Institution Household Labour 25 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,526,922.11 0.00 0.00 211,562.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 365,311.08 25,636.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,551.62 3,596.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,952,784.81 240,795.81

2008 Indonesian SAM

IDR Million

26

Appendix 1. Indonesia Social Accounting Matrix 2008

(Million Rupiah) Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Capital 9 Low labour 10 Agriculture Enterpreneur 11 Low level 12 Rural High level 13 Low level 14 Urban High level 15 Company 16 Government 17 18 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 19 Oil Palm 20 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 21 22 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 23 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu Trade and Transportation Margin 24 25 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 26 Oil Palm 27 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 28 29 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 30 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 31 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 32 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 33 34 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 35 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu Capital Account 36 Indirect Tax 37 Subsidy 38 Overseas 39 TOTAL Paid Agriculture Un paid Production, Operator of Paid transportation, and Low Un paid Administration, Selling, Paid Un paid and Service Paid Leadership, Army, Un paid Professional, and Production Factor Imported Comm Domestic Commo Production Sector Institution Household Labour Description 27 28 29 30 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62,676.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,416,148.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,181,980.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,111,286.86 0.00 6,721.59 506,747.86 240.19 0.00 20,193.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 942.92 73,189.45 39,407.40 11,016.65 12,366.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101,480.61 70,341.31 4,996,085.98 2,221,627.71 1,122,303.51 134,039.87

2008 Indonesian SAM

IDR Million

27

Appendix 1. Indonesia Social Accounting Matrix 2008

(Million Rupiah) 32 33 34 35 36 Code 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Capital 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Low labour 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Agriculture Enterpreneur 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Low level 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rural High level 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Low level 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Urban High level 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Company 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Government 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oil Palm 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trade and Transportation Margin 24 468.06 136,343.82 1.04 0.00 0.00 25 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -22,578.95 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,953.72 Oil Palm 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 576.49 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,074,470.43 29 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,992.77 30 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,654.77 31 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,973.60 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 151.85 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 169,867.11 34 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 453.58 35 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,961.52 Capital Account 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Indirect Tax 37 2,333.00 91,747.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subsidy 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overseas 39 11,938.47 1,015,870.98 119,717.44 153,025.19 82,141.82 TOTAL 14,739.53 1,243,962.72 119,718.48 153,025.19 1,329,618.70 Description Production Factor Paid Agriculture Un paid Production, Operator of Paid transportation, and Low Un paid Administration, Selling, Paid Un paid and Service Paid Leadership, Army, Un paid Professional, and Imported Comm Domestic Commo Production Sector Institution Household Labour

2008 Indonesian SAM

IDR Million

28

Appendix 1. Indonesia Social Accounting Matrix 2008

(Million Rupiah) 37 38 39 Code 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 464.39 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 809.25 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 0.00 0.00 776.21 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 Capital 9 0.00 0.00 3,384.00 Low labour 10 0.00 0.00 8,688.08 Agriculture Enterpreneur 11 0.00 0.00 12,822.64 Low level 12 0.00 0.00 23,590.37 Rural High level 13 0.00 0.00 2,981.21 Low level 14 0.00 0.00 17,383.42 Urban High level 15 0.00 0.00 2,598.78 Company 16 0.00 0.00 26,956.67 Government 17 295,151.34 0.00 2,197.71 18 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 252.60 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oil Palm 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 21 0.00 110,581.01 0.00 22 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 2,413.76 0.00 23 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 366.76 0.00 Trade and Transportation Margin 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 0.00 170,143.38 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 26 0.00 0.00 25,781.14 Oil Palm 27 0.00 0.00 6,423.73 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 28 0.00 0.00 1,289,430.45 29 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 0.00 108,963.00 30 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 0.00 65,104.47 31 Food Crop, Livestock, Fishery, and Food Processo 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Agriculture, Forestry, and Hunting 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mining, Processor non food, Electricity, Gas, and 33 0.00 71,258.70 0.00 34 Trade, Restoran and Hotel, Tranportation and Com 0.00 0.00 0.00 35 Finance, Reas Estate, Government, Social and Cu 0.00 0.00 0.00 Capital Account 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 Indirect Tax 37 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subsidy 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overseas 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 295,151.34 184,872.82 1,768,498.91 Description Production Factor Paid Agriculture Un paid Production, Operator of Paid transportation, and Low Un paid Administration, Selling, Paid Un paid and Service Paid Leadership, Army, Un paid Professional, and Imported Comm Domestic Commo Production Sector Institution Household Labour TOTAL 142,238.69 373,805.23 569,763.80 249,225.76 542,813.54 384,677.29 268,921.82 43,816.26 2,273,921.84 233,795.16 745,527.00 680,904.40 428,158.84 897,850.45 765,489.69 1,722,508.64 1,117,304.73 1,527,174.70 211,562.58 62,676.81 4,526,729.68 2,184,393.88 1,111,653.62 1,061,663.76 1,952,784.82 240,795.81 70,341.31 4,996,085.98 2,221,627.71 1,122,303.51 134,039.87 14,739.53 1,243,962.71 119,718.48 153,025.19 1,329,618.70 295,151.34 184,872.82 1,768,498.92 37,974,144.87

2008 Indonesian SAM

IDR Million

29

Appendix 2. Mixed Multiplier Matrix Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 18 19 20 25 26 27 1 1.0000 0.0000 0.0449 0.0209 0.0753 0.0517 0.0455 0.0057 0.2116 0.3584 0.3734 0.2570 0.1170 0.1033 0.1213 0.1754 0.3325 0.2889 0.2310 0.0568 0.3762 0.2942 0.2333 0.0311 0.0011 0.1263 0.0221 0.0209 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.4786 -0.0142 -0.0042 2 0.0000 1.0000 0.0468 0.0219 0.0769 0.0554 0.0443 0.0057 0.2153 0.0630 0.6073 0.2227 0.2380 0.1021 0.1059 0.1797 0.3432 0.3130 0.2206 0.0601 0.3883 0.3187 0.2228 0.0343 0.0012 0.1415 0.0265 0.0221 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.4362 -0.0140 -0.0042 3 0.0000 0.0000 1.0533 0.0248 0.0859 0.0616 0.0495 0.0064 0.2437 0.0648 0.1794 0.3198 0.0637 0.6014 0.1477 0.1932 0.3955 0.3478 0.2464 0.0652 0.4474 0.3541 0.2489 0.0329 0.0013 0.1349 0.0273 0.0248 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.4333 -0.0149 -0.0044 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0523 1.0244 0.0837 0.0609 0.0475 0.0062 0.2373 0.0212 0.2095 0.2826 0.2315 0.3814 0.2448 0.1910 0.3869 0.3448 0.2350 0.0654 0.4378 0.3511 0.2374 0.0351 0.0013 0.1427 0.0302 0.0256 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.4081 -0.0145 -0.0043 5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0516 0.0241 1.0830 0.0602 0.0472 0.0061 0.2347 0.0693 0.1938 0.1287 0.1174 0.4279 0.4268 0.1878 0.3814 0.3412 0.2337 0.0647 0.4315 0.3474 0.2361 0.0344 0.0013 0.1427 0.0316 0.0261 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.4011 -0.0140 -0.0042 6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0528 0.0246 0.0843 1.0613 0.0478 0.0062 0.2393 0.0301 0.1063 0.2989 0.1330 0.2795 0.5259 0.1902 0.3914 0.3474 0.2362 0.0664 0.4428 0.3537 0.2386 0.0359 0.0013 0.1459 0.0334 0.0273 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.3893 -0.0143 -0.0043 7 0.0000 0.0000 0.0501 0.0234 0.0802 0.0589 1.0451 0.0059 0.2267 0.0366 0.2174 0.1235 0.2066 0.1727 0.5893 0.1832 0.3695 0.3341 0.2223 0.0642 0.4181 0.3402 0.2245 0.0362 0.0012 0.1487 0.0343 0.0268 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.3741 -0.0135 -0.0040 8 0.0000 0.0000 0.0528 0.0247 0.0843 0.0615 0.0476 1.0062 0.2391 0.0182 0.1209 0.2391 0.1137 0.3007 0.5811 0.1898 0.3911 0.3490 0.2349 0.0666 0.4425 0.3554 0.2372 0.0360 0.0013 0.1475 0.0344 0.0276 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.3831 -0.0142 -0.0042

Mixed Multiplier Matrix

30

Appendix 2. Mixed Multiplier Matrix Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 18 19 20 25 26 27 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0192 0.0090 0.0308 0.0224 0.0175 0.0023 1.0873 0.0127 0.0844 0.0867 0.0776 0.1214 0.1266 0.7392 0.1422 0.1272 0.0866 0.0242 0.1609 0.1295 0.0874 0.0132 0.0005 0.0538 0.0116 0.0096 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.1500 -0.0053 -0.0016 10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0379 0.0174 0.0676 0.0412 0.0451 0.0053 0.1894 1.0106 0.0415 0.0459 0.0332 0.0763 0.0848 0.1605 0.2846 0.2239 0.2374 0.0471 0.3220 0.2279 0.2398 0.0245 0.0009 0.0973 0.0127 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.5636 -0.0137 -0.0041 11 0.0000 0.0000 0.0438 0.0207 0.0736 0.0531 0.0425 0.0054 0.2032 0.0118 1.0449 0.0521 0.0359 0.0854 0.0924 0.1721 0.3162 0.3004 0.2125 0.0570 0.3577 0.3058 0.2147 0.0331 0.0011 0.1432 0.0251 0.0200 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.4531 -0.0135 -0.0040 12 0.0000 0.0000 0.0548 0.0254 0.0882 0.0619 0.0518 0.0066 0.2522 0.0137 0.0541 1.0630 0.0436 0.1033 0.1112 0.1975 0.4118 0.3482 0.2590 0.0671 0.4658 0.3545 0.2616 0.0348 0.0013 0.1323 0.0259 0.0248 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.4481 -0.0163 -0.0048 13 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0234 0.0777 0.0588 0.0422 0.0056 0.2216 0.0131 0.0487 0.0578 1.0388 0.0937 0.0985 0.1892 0.3696 0.3359 0.2043 0.0655 0.4182 0.3421 0.2063 0.0397 0.0013 0.1554 0.0337 0.0265 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.3523 -0.0135 -0.0040 14 0.0000 0.0000 0.0569 0.0266 0.0907 0.0660 0.0515 0.0067 0.2579 0.0143 0.0557 0.0654 0.0448 1.1066 0.1144 0.2015 0.4222 0.3743 0.2540 0.0683 0.4777 0.3811 0.2565 0.0321 0.0014 0.1360 0.0289 0.0264 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.4206 -0.0148 -0.0044 15 0.0000 0.0000 0.0522 0.0244 0.0828 0.0613 0.0461 0.0060 0.2347 0.0134 0.0509 0.0602 0.0408 0.0983 1.1044 0.1849 0.3854 0.3490 0.2256 0.0674 0.4360 0.3553 0.2279 0.0382 0.0013 0.1580 0.0415 0.0305 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.3355 -0.0133 -0.0039 16 0.0000 0.0000 0.0034 0.0016 0.0055 0.0039 0.0031 0.0004 0.0154 0.0042 0.0170 0.0152 0.0077 0.0221 0.0240 1.1306 0.0250 0.0223 0.0155 0.0042 0.0283 0.0227 0.0157 0.0023 0.0001 0.0094 0.0020 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0272 -0.0009 -0.0003

Mixed Multiplier Matrix

31

Appendix 2. Mixed Multiplier Matrix Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 18 19 20 25 26 27 21 0.0000 0.0000 0.1499 0.0590 0.0884 0.0483 0.0457 0.0091 0.5395 0.0200 0.0879 0.1095 0.0677 0.1817 0.1371 0.3746 1.5899 0.2662 0.1552 0.1011 0.6674 0.2710 0.1567 0.0156 0.0048 0.2820 0.0218 0.0281 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.1967 -0.0336 -0.0100 22 0.0000 0.0000 0.1037 0.0579 0.2023 0.2223 0.0623 0.0107 0.4142 0.0266 0.1026 0.1402 0.0863 0.2185 0.2428 0.2954 0.4390 1.3454 0.2313 0.0721 0.4967 0.3517 0.2336 0.0224 0.0014 0.1668 0.0330 0.0428 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.3413 -0.0142 -0.0042 23 0.0000 0.0000 0.0619 0.0278 0.2275 0.0703 0.2148 0.0199 0.5382 0.0278 0.1223 0.1079 0.1016 0.1943 0.2710 0.3789 0.3783 0.2767 1.2639 0.0612 0.4280 0.2818 0.2665 0.0218 0.0012 0.1316 0.0262 0.0492 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.2945 -0.0119 -0.0035 24 0.0000 0.0000 0.1019 0.0569 0.1987 0.2183 0.0612 0.0105 0.4068 0.0261 0.1008 0.1377 0.0847 0.2146 0.2385 0.2902 0.4312 1.3216 0.2272 1.0709 0.4879 1.3456 0.2294 0.0220 0.0014 0.1639 0.0324 0.0421 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.3352 -0.0140 -0.0042 28 0.0000 0.0000 0.1428 0.0579 0.0983 0.0649 0.0466 0.0091 0.5181 0.0203 0.0880 0.1108 0.0684 0.1824 0.1454 0.3605 1.4491 0.3694 0.1602 0.1980 1.6394 0.3761 0.1618 0.0161 0.0044 0.2659 0.0225 0.0291 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.2079 -0.0311 -0.0092 29 0.0000 0.0000 0.1019 0.0569 0.1987 0.2183 0.0612 0.0105 0.4068 0.0261 0.1008 0.1377 0.0847 0.2146 0.2385 0.2902 0.4312 1.3216 0.2272 0.0709 0.4879 1.3456 0.2294 0.0220 0.0014 0.1639 0.0324 0.0421 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.3352 -0.0140 -0.0042 30 0.0000 0.0000 0.0612 0.0276 0.2253 0.0696 0.2127 0.0197 0.5329 0.0275 0.1211 0.1069 0.1006 0.1924 0.2684 0.3752 0.3746 0.2740 1.2515 0.0606 0.4238 0.2790 1.2639 0.0216 0.0012 0.1303 0.0260 0.0487 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.2916 -0.0117 -0.0035 31 0.0000 0.0000 0.0154 0.0086 0.0299 0.0329 0.0092 0.0016 0.0613 0.0039 0.0152 0.0207 0.0128 0.0323 0.0359 0.0437 0.0650 0.1991 0.0342 0.1613 0.0735 0.2027 0.0346 1.0033 0.0002 0.0247 0.0049 0.0063 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0505 -0.0021 -0.0006

Mixed Multiplier Matrix

32

Appendix 2. Mixed Multiplier Matrix Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 18 19 20 25 26 27 32 0.0000 0.0000 0.0032 0.0018 0.0063 0.0069 0.0019 0.0003 0.0129 0.0008 0.0032 0.0044 0.0027 0.0068 0.0076 0.0092 0.0137 0.0420 0.0072 0.0340 0.0155 0.0427 0.0073 0.0007 1.0000 0.0052 0.0010 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0106 -0.0004 -0.0001 33 0.0000 0.0000 0.0112 0.0062 0.0218 0.0239 0.0067 0.0012 0.0446 0.0029 0.0111 0.0151 0.0093 0.0235 0.0261 0.0318 0.0473 0.1448 0.0249 0.1174 0.0535 0.1475 0.0251 0.0024 0.0002 1.0180 0.0036 0.0046 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0367 -0.0015 -0.0005 34 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 35 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 18 0.0603 0.1919 0.0677 0.0326 0.0544 0.0314 0.0285 0.0042 0.2810 0.0415 0.1747 0.1019 0.0807 0.0978 0.0821 0.2024 0.2061 0.1650 0.1197 0.0382 0.2332 0.1680 0.1209 0.0379 0.0011 0.0799 0.0143 0.0134 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.5193 -0.0639 -0.0190 19 0.1830 0.2942 0.0648 0.0261 0.0829 0.0497 0.0437 0.0084 0.4143 0.0928 0.2878 0.1590 0.1248 0.1244 0.1234 0.3001 0.4018 0.2700 0.1998 0.0645 0.4546 0.2749 0.2017 0.0229 0.0018 0.1356 0.0202 0.0198 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 -0.3133 -0.0794 -0.0236 20 0.1830 0.2942 0.0648 0.0261 0.0829 0.0497 0.0437 0.0084 0.4143 0.0928 0.2878 0.1590 0.1248 0.1244 0.1234 0.3001 0.4018 0.2700 0.1998 0.0645 0.4546 0.2749 0.2017 0.0229 0.0018 0.1356 0.0202 0.0198 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 -0.3133 -0.0794 -0.0236 25 0.0000 0.0000 0.0191 0.0106 0.0372 0.0408 0.0114 0.0020 0.0761 0.0049 0.0189 0.0258 0.0159 0.0401 0.0446 0.0543 0.0807 0.2472 0.0425 0.2003 0.0913 0.2517 0.0429 0.0041 0.0003 0.0307 0.0061 0.0079 -0.7819 0.0000 0.0000 0.9373 -0.0026 -0.0008

Mixed Multiplier Matrix

33

Appendix 2. Mixed Multiplier Matrix Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 18 19 20 25 26 27 26 0.0000 0.0000 0.0108 0.0061 0.0212 0.0232 0.0065 0.0011 0.0433 0.0028 0.0107 0.0147 0.0090 0.0229 0.0254 0.0309 0.0459 0.1407 0.0242 0.1140 0.0519 0.1433 0.0244 0.0023 0.0001 0.0174 0.0034 0.0045 0.0000 -0.8786 0.0000 -0.0357 0.9985 -0.0004 27 0.0000 0.0000 0.0097 0.0054 0.0190 0.0209 0.0058 0.0010 0.0389 0.0025 0.0096 0.0132 0.0081 0.0205 0.0228 0.0277 0.0412 0.1263 0.0217 0.1023 0.0466 0.1286 0.0219 0.0021 0.0001 0.0157 0.0031 0.0040 0.0000 0.0000 -0.8910 -0.0320 -0.0013 0.9996

Mixed Multiplier Matrix

34