Income Insecurity and Underemployment in Indonesia's Informal Sector

How serious are the problems of income insecurity and underemployment in Indonesia? And do they require a policy response? This researcher concludes that employment data do not provide compelling evidence of the need for a new income security scheme. Recent legislation to provide income security to workers in Indonesia covers only those in the formal sector, initially. But workers in the informal sector are at even greater risk of income loss and are more vulnerable to shocks because of lower average incomes. Wiebe addresses the question of whether there is a rationale for income security schemes for Indonesia's informal sector. His research suggests that, through a range of existing public programs, Indonesia's government already provides important security mechanisms for informal sector workers, and must continue to do so. He finds no compelling evidence of the need for a nationwide income security scheme for such workers. He bases his argument against a new income security scheme on three main conclusions: First, contrary to popular belief in Indonesia, only about 12 percent of the workforce in the informal sector (not 40 percent) -- and even less in the formal sector -- is underemployed. Second, this level of underemployment does not represent compelling empirical evidence of income insecurity in Indonesia. The connection between underemployment and income insecurity is problematic in theory and remains unsubstantiated by national survey data. Third, many mechanisms already exist in Indonesia to mitigate the disruption caused by income insecurity. Households and communities use private strategies to smooth consumption and investment, and the government is already active in providing additional income security. Not only does empirical evidence fail to justify a major new policy response, says Wiebe, but most evidence suggests that such a res...