Abstract

Studi ini mengestimasi model spesifikasi dinamis permintaan (demand) rokok di Indonesia. Tujuannya adalah untuk menguji hipotesis kecanduan rasional perokok, dan menghitung elastisitas harga rokok jangka pendek dan jangka panjang. Analisis diaplikasikan pada data agregat individu yang dibentuk dari tiga tahapan survei panel IFLS selama tahun 1993-2000. Studi ini menjajagi sejumlah teknik ekonometrik dan memilih teknik tercocok atas dasar serangkaian uji statistik. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa rokok terbukti sebagai produk yang menimbulkan kecanduan (koefisien konsumsi masa lampau positif dan signifikan pada 1%). Sedangkan koefisien negatif dan signifikan untuk konsumsi rokok masa depan menunjukan sifat kecanduan miopik, artinya para perokok bersifat tidak rasional. Studi ini juga menunjukkan permintaan rokok lebih sensitif terhadap perubahan harga untuk jangka panjang ketimbang untuk jangka pendek. Temuan bahwa perokok memiliki sifat kecanduan miopik mengharuskan pengambil kebijakan mendisain ulang strategi promosi kesehatan masyarakat tentang larangan merokok di Indonesia. Berbagi implikasi kebijakan temuan studi disajikan pula pada bagian akhir tulisan ini.

This study estimates a dynamic model specification of demand for cigarette in Indonesia. The objectives are to test the rational addiction hypothesis of cigarettes demand, and to calculate price elasticity of cigarettes in the short-run and long-term. The data for this analysis were aggregate individual data from three-wave a panel surveys of the IFLS (Indonesian Family Life Survey) from 1993-2000. This study explores several econometric approaches, and selects the best fit of several statistical measures. The results indicate that cigarette indeed an addictive good (the lags consumption coefficients are a positive with p-value

References

  1. Baltagi BH. Econometric analysis of panel data. 3rd Edition. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.
  2. Chaloupka FJ, Warner KE. The Economics of smoking. Handbooks of Health Economics. A.J.Culyer and J.P. Newhouse eds. North-Holland. 2000;1B.
  3. Baltagi B, Griffin J. The econometrics of rational addiction: the case of cigarettes. Journal of Business and Economics Statistics. 2001;19:449- 454.
  4. Grossman M, Chaloupka F J. The demand for cocaine by young adults: a rational addiction approach. Journal of Health Economics. 1998;17:427-474.
  5. Olekalns N, Bardsley P. Rational addiction to caffeine: an analysis of coffee consumption. Journal of Political Economy. 1996;104(5):1100- 1104.
  6. Auld MC, Grootendorst P. An empirical analysis of milk addiction. Journal of Health Economics. 2004;23:1117-1133.
  7. Adioetomo M, Djutaharta T, Hendratno. Cigarette consumption, taxation, and household income: Indonesia case study. HNP Discussion Paper. Economics of Tobacco Control Paper No. 26. Washington DC: The World Bank; 2005.
  8. Djutaharta T. Aggregate analysis of the impact of cigarette tax rate increases on tobacco consumption and government revenue: the case of Indonesia. HNP Discussion Paper. Economics of Tobacco Control Paper No. 25.
  9. Becker G, Murphy KM. A Theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy. 1988;96(41):675-700.
  10. Becker G, Grossman M, Murphy K. An empirical analysis of cigarette addiction. American Economic Review. 1994:396-418.
  11. Windmeijer FAG, Santos-Silva JMC. Endogeneity in count data models: an application to demand for health care. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 1997;12: 281-294.
  12. Jones AM, Labeaga JM. Individual heterogeneity and censoring in panel data estimates of tobacco expenditure. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 2003;18:157-177.
  13. Pagan AR, Hall D. Diagnostic tests as residual analysis. Econometric Reviews. 1983;2:159-218.
  14. Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogeneous explanatory variable is weak. Journal of American Statistical Association. 1995;90:443-450.
  15. Shea J. Instrumental relevance in multivariate linier models: A simple measure. Review of Economics and Statistics. 1997;79:348-352.
  16. Baum CF, Schaffer ME, Stillman S. Instrumental variables and GMM: estimation and testing. Stata Journal. 2003;3:1-31.
  17. Frankenberg E, Karoly L. The 1993 Indonesia Family Life Survey: overview and field report. DRU-1195/1-NICHD/AID. California, USA: The RAND Corporation; 1995.
  18. Frankenberg E, Thomas D. The Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS): study design and results from waves 1 and 2. DRU-2238/1- NIA/NICHD. California, USA: The RAND Corporation; 2001.
  19. Strauss J. The Third Wave of the Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS3): overview and field report. WR144/1-NIA/NICHD. California, USA: The RAND Corporation; 2004.
  20. Roodman D. How to do xtabond2: an introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. Working Paper 103, Center for Global Development, Washington DC; 2006. Available from: http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/11619.
  21. Hu T, Mao Z. Economics analysis of tobacco and options for tobacco control: China casa study. HNP Discussion Paper –Economics of Tobacco Control Paper No 3. Washington DC: The World Bank; 2002.

Download

Included in

Health Policy Commons

Share

COinS