A Contribution to Poverty Policy for OIC Countries :

Determinants of Poverty, Comparative Analysis of OIC Member

Countries and Non Member Countries in Southeast Asia Using
Islamic Approach
Ries Wulandari1 and Rozi Fery Setiyaningsih2
Abstract
Poverty is one of the crucial issues in the country - particularly the developing countries of
Southeast Asia. Each country seeks to increase the GDP per capita can increase economic
growth so as to reduce poverty will also affect the imbalance ratio. Every country in
Southeast Asia have different policies in order to reduce the level of poverty in terms of the
role of government. This study aims to determine the determination of poverty in OIC
Members Countries and OIC Non Members Countries in Southeast Asia. The object of OIC
Members Countries are Indonesia and Malaysia as well as Thailand and the Philippines- OIC
Non Members Countries. This research used Fixed Effect regression with panel. The model
consisting of the dependent variable and several independent variables including poverty
human development index, per capita GDP, government spending on education and health,
Gini ratio and access to clean water. The results showed that the poverty in OIC Members
Countries is determinated by HDI, government spending on health, per capita GDP, Gini
ratio, and access to clean water. While the determinants of poverty in OIC Non Members
Countries are HDI, government spending on health, GDP per capita, and access to clean
water. The development of HDI is still very important variable.
JEL Classification : I32, I31, O11, C33
Keywords: Poverty, Basic Needs, Development, Panel Analysis
1. Introduction
Poverty is a crucial problem in many countries. Not only in developing countries but
also developed countries. Economic policies has been made in order to overcome such
poverty problems. The General Agreement for Economic, Technical and Commercial
Cooperation among the OIC Member States was Adopted by the 8th Islamic Conference of
Foreign Ministers (ICFM) held in Tripoli, Libya, in May 1977 and Became effective in April
1981. The agreement aims at encouraging economic, technical and commercial cooperation
among the OIC Member States. In particular, the agreement envisages that the Member States
are to provide, where required, The Necessary arrangements, guarantees and incentives to
encourage the transfer of capital and investments among Themselves, in conformity with the
laws and regulations in force in each Member State, in order to promote the socio-economic
development of all Member States and to provide new Avenues for optimum utilization of the
available economic resources within the Muslim world.
The number of people under the poverty line (absolute poverty) in the world is still
very vulnerable. United Nation Development Program (UNDP) showed that the poverty
1 Tazkia University College of Islamic Economics
2 Tazkia University College of Islamic Economics

index that covers all aspects of life (Multidimention Poverty Index / MPI) accros the
southeast asian has great variation. In 2011, Thailand was ranked 103 of 187 countries based
on HDI ranking with MPI was 0.006. Philippines was ranked 112 with MPI value was 0.064.
Indonesia ranks 124 of 187 countries with a value of 0.095 MPI. According to the data and
synergized with the policy from OIC, the problem of poverty in the OIC members in
Southeast Asian country need to be addressed.

Poverty Level (%)

22.6

12.5

10.8

3.6
Thailand

Filipina

Malaysia

Indonesia

Sumber: Human Development Report 2011

Fig 1.2. Poverty Level in OIC Members Countries and Non Members Countries
From the picture above, there is the highest level of poverty in the Philippines,
followed by Indonesia, and Thailand. Malaysia has the lowest poverty rate compare to the
other three which is supported by the quite high per capita GDP of Malaysia. Poverty in
Indonesia and Philippines is still the main economic issues that must be minimized. The
poverty rate is calculated based on the percentage of poor people with incomes under the
poverty line certain countries. The poverty line for each country according to the Asian
Development Bank are US$ 2 for Malaysia, US$ 0.75 for Indonesia, US $ 2.50 for Thailand,
and , US $ 1.5 for Philippines.
Those above conditions need to be explored. This paper aims to investigate the
determination of poverty among 4 countries represented by Indonesia and Malaysia (OIC
Members Countries) and Thailand and Philiphines (OIC Non members countries) using
Islamic Approach and give recomendation to policy maker related with the finding.
2. Literature Background
2.1. Poverty
The definition of poverty has expanded, along with the more complex the causal
factors and other issues surrounding it. Poverty is no longer only regarded as an economic
dimension but has expanded to social, health, educational and political dimension.
According to the Central Bureau of Statistics of Indonesia, poverty is the inability of the
individual to meet the minimum basic needs for a decent life (diet: 2100 calories per capita
2

per day, non-food: food, clothing, housing, health and education). According to the UNDP's
definition of poverty is the condition of someone who does not have the income to meet basic
needs of food, and do not have the ability to support basic human survival. UNDP poverty
divided into four kinds, namely income poverty, human poverty, basic needs and poverty
reduction capabilities.
Through a hadith that the Prophet once said: "People are not poor people around (to
beg) and not the person who is rejected (because) one or two grains of dates, or a bite of two
mouthfuls of food. However, the poor are those who keep away from begging and
poverty"(Narrated by Saheeh Muslim 999, 1982: 207).
Gunnar Myrdal has its own theory about the 'vicious circle of poverty or
backwardness'. The concept is contrary to the concept of the cycle of poverty proposed by
Nurske. Where the causes of poverty by Nurske due to lack of capital formation.
According to Myrdal, poverty not only in the matter of capital, but more due to the lack of
nutrition, education and other basic needs. Poor state stems from low income resulting in a
lack of quality nutrition, low nutritional quality will lead to lower health which led to low
productivity. Low productivity caused low income, and in turn lead to poverty.
Poor
Country
Low
GDP

Low
Income

Low
Productivity

Low Nutrition
Quality
Low Health
Quality

Fig 2.1. The Vicious Cyrcle of Poverty by Gunnar Myrdal

World Bank (2008) calculates the rate and absolute number of poor people by using a
single uniform measure for all countries. In countries - developing countries called the poor
man if his income is less than U.S. $ 1.25 per day (Todaro and Smith, 2011: 229). While the
poverty line measured by the size of the $ U.S. 2 have been published in which more than 2
billion people who live on less than this limit. U.S. dollars are used is U.S. $ PPP (Purchasing
Power Parity) is not the official exchange rate (exchange rate). Both of these limits is the
absolute poverty line.
Dimensions of poverty by Central Bureau of Statistics of Indonesia grouped into two
components:
a) Food Poverty Line (GKP), the total value of expenditure of 52 food commodities
consumed by real people, equivalent to 2100 kilocalories per capita per day and is also
equivalent to the consumption of foods that produce 2100 calories per person per day. In
Thailand also utilize the same nutrition (2100 kcal), while the Philippines utilize the 2000
kcal.
3

b) Non-Food Poverty Line (GKNP), is the sum of the value of the minimum requirement of
commodities non-food (urban: 51 commodities, rural: 47 commodities) were selected
covering housing, clothing, education, and health.
2.2. Human Development Index Using Islamic Concept
One of main contributor for Islamic Concept for Poverty is Sadeq (1991). According
to Sadeq (1991:4) index of economic development consists of: (1) economic growth, (2)
equitable distribution of income and welfare, (3) health and environmental friendliness of
social norms and values - values of Islam. High economic growth and a high level of income
is essential to meet the needs of food, shelter, clothing, education, medicine and comfort for
all human needs. If the income is not distributed across the population, only a few people
who enjoy the fruits of growth and development while others suffer, it is not desirable in
Islam. Islam requires that income and wealth should be distributed equally. Therefore, Sadeq
(1991: 5) characterize the economic development index in Islam consists of : growth,
equitable distribution and Islamic values. So the function of the equation is economic
development:
D = f (G, E, V) ..................................................................................................(1)
where

D = E = Equity (equity)
G = V = Islamic Growth Value

3. Research Metodology
The data used is secondary data obtained from the Human Development Report
(HDR) in the UNDP, the World Bank, as well as read other literature related to the study of
both print and internet media. Pooled data is annual data 1990 -2011 with an analysis unit 4
states of Southeast Asia. Some of the data is converted into natural logarithms to reduce the
scale and simplify the analysis.
The variables included in the study are. Human Development Index, GDP per capita,
Government Spending in Education, Government expenditure on health sector, Gini ratio
(ratio imbalance), Clean Water Access as the proxy of islamic value. In this case is the
dependent variable is the percentage reduction of poverty as measured by the national
poverty line (national poverty line) set by the state authorities in a region.
3.1. Econometric Model
The focus of the study is to investigate how human development component (Human
Development) and the index of economic development (Economic Development Index)
determinated to the level of poverty in some OIC member countries and Muslim-majority
countries and non OIC member countries non -Muslims in Southeast Asia.
Then the econometric model used in this study is a panel regression model equations are:
P = f ( LnHDI, LnGDPkap, Educ, Health, LnGini, AW)........................................(2)
Where :
P
= number of poor citizens
LnHDI
= Human Development Index
LnGDPkap = per capita GDP
Educ
= Government Spending in Education
Health
= Government expenditure on health sector
LnGini
= Gini Ratio
AW
= Clean Water Access
4

4. Findings
The model is estimated by panel data analysis followed Baltaghi (1998). The first
stage of analysis is the PLS method followed by a fixed effect method and random effect. In
the next stage, it is not the data can be analyzed using a random effect. The best model is
selected through the Chow test to compare the PLS with fixed effect. The next Hausmant test
and LM test can not be done.
According to the previous test the best model that tested the Determinants of Poverty,
Comparative Analysis of OIC Member Countries and Non Member Countries in Southeast
Asia using Fixed Effect Panel Regression Model.
4.1. OIC Member Countries
Firstly the data is processed by the PLS approach, then the Fixed Effect. By using the
Chow test, indicating the probability of 0.0226 <alpha of 5%, which means reject H0. Thus a
good model to use in analyzing poverty OIC member countries in Southeast Asia with a fixed
effect model.
Table 4.4. Fixed Effect Test (Chow Test)
Effect Test
Statistic
Cross-section F

5.678152

d.f.

Prob.

(1,36)

0.0226

Table 4.5. Fixed Effect Panel Regression Model

Variable
LNHDI
LNGDP
EDU
HEALTH
LNGINI
AW
C

R-squared

Coefficient
Probabilitas
30.51978
0.0012
-20.03931
0.0000
-0.883651
0.203
2.234913
0.0000
-16.9844
0.0021
0.227771
0.0055
244.0371
0.0000
Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)
Weighted Statistics
0.73697 F-statistic

14.4095

Adjusted R-squared

0.685825 Prob(F-statistic)

0.000000

S.E. of regression

3.543709 Sum squared resid

452.0835

Durbin-Watson stat
Unweighted Statistics

1.976598

R-squared

0.716183 Durbin-Watson stat

2.039244

Sum squared resid

475.2533

Effect on Fixed Data processing using criteria weighting Cross Section Weights in GLS,
which assumes a cross section heteroscedasticity (accommodate the heteroscedasticity) as in
the previous data processing. So that the resulting probability has a better level of
significance.
To determine the individual effect of the above analysis, the obtained results effectnya fixed
cross section is:
Tabel 4.6. Cross Section Fixed Effect
CROSSID

Effect

1
2

6.690556
-6.690556

The Estimation Models becomes:

Poverty Malaysia = (244.0371 + 6.690556) + 30.51978LNHDI - 20.03931LNGDP
-0.883651EDU + 2.234913HEALTH -16.9844LNGINI + 0.147125 AW ...................(3)
Poverty Malaysia = 250.727656 + 30.51978LNHDI - 20.03931LNGDP -0.883651EDU +
2.234913HEALTH -16.9844LNGINI + 0.147125 AW ...........................................(4)
Poverty Indonesia =

(244.0371 - 6.690556) + 30.51978LNHDI - 20.03931LNGDP

-0.883651EDU + 2.234913HEALTH -16.9844LNGINI + 0.147125 AW ..................(5)

Poverty Indonesia = 237.346544 + 30.51978LNHDI - 20.03931LNGDP -0.883651EDU +
2.234913HEALTH -16.9844LNGINI + 0.147125 AW ..........................................(6)
R-squared value of 0.73697 explain that 73.70 per cent of the diversity of the
dependent variable (poverty) in OIC members countries be explained by variables
penjelasnya (HDI, GDP per capita, education, health, Gini ratio, and access to clean water).
While the rest of 0.26303 or 26.3 percent is explained by other variables outside the model.
The test results are reinforced by the F-statistic probability value 0.000 <alpha 5%, which
means that at least one significant independent variable on the dependent variable so that the
model is feasible estimator to estimate the parameters in the function.
4.2. OIC Non Member Countries
After going through the stages in the panel method, based on the Chow test results
indicate that the F test significant (p value less than 0000 alpha 5%). The Fixed Effect models
are better than PLS. So the model used to analyze poverty OIC Non Member Countries in
Southeast Asia with a fixed effect model.
Table 4.5. Fixed Effect Test ( Chow Test)
Effect Test
Statistic
Cross-section F

37.382863
6

d.f.

Prob.

(1,36)

0.0000

Tabel 4.6. Cross Section Fixed Effect

Variable
LNHDI
LNGDP
EDU
HEALTH
LNGINI
AW
C

Coefficient
Probabilitas
15.18562
0.0000
-10.45005
0.0000
-0.628459
0.1047
-0.153202
0.0000
0.848467
0.6071
0.117355
0.0000
106.2046
0.0000
Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)
Weighted Statistics

R-squared

0.887526 F-statistic

40.58193

Adjusted R-squared

0.865656 Prob(F-statistic)

0.000000

S.E. of regression

4.429053 Sum squared resid

706.1943

Durbin-Watson stat
Unweighted Statistics

1.073527

R-squared

0.849669 Durbin-Watson stat

0.861553

Sum squared resid

919.0379

The Estimation Models becomes:

Poverty Thailand = (106.2046 - 6.973358) + 15.18562 LNHDI - 10.45005 LNGDP -0.628459
EDU- 0.153202 HEALTH + 6.300853 LNGINI + 0.52404 AW ...................(7)
Poverty Thailand = 99.231242 + 15.18562 LNHDI - 10.45005 LNGDP -0.628459 EDU0.153202 HEALTH + 6.300853LNGINI + 0.52404 AW .................................. .......(8)
Poverty Filipina = (106.2046 + 6.973358) + 15.18562 LNHDI - 10.45005 LNGDP -0.628459
EDU- 0.153202 HEALTH + 6.300853 LNGINI + 0.52404 AW .................................(9)
Poverty Filipina = 113.177958 + 15.18562 LNHDI - 10.45005 LNGDP -0.628459 EDU0.153202 HEALTH + 6.300853 LNGINI + 0.52404 AW ..........................................(10)
Interpretation of output above fixed effect, suggesting that the model is able to explain the
diversity of Y. Judging from the results of the test F-statistic probability value 0.000 <alpha
5%, which means that at least one independent variables that significantly affect the
dependent variable. So that the model is feasible estimator to estimate the parameters in the
7

function.
4.3.

Human Development Index

The estimation shows by the Table 4.2. This table shows that the poverty ratio to human
development index is higher at two OIC countries compare to non OIC countries. According
to the output estimation the probability does significant to support this finding. The
incereasing level of HDI not always followed by the decreasing of poverty level.
Table 4.7. Comparative Poverty Elasticity to Human Development Index
Members of OIC
30.528
4.4.

Non Members of OIC

15.186

Government Spending in Education and Health

The output of government spending in the education sector has negative but insignificant.
In non-Muslim countries with a slope coefficient of -0.628459, probability value 0.1047>
of 5%. While in Muslim countries, the value of the slope coefficient of the education variable
with probability -0.883651 0203> of 5%. Probability values were not significant means that
government spending in the education sector have no effect on poverty.
However, government spending in the health sector of Thailand and the Philippines
provide real impact on poverty. Each sector health expenditure occurs OIC non-member
states A 1% larger than the non-OIC member countries B, it will cause the level of poverty in
the non-OIC member countries A is lower than B-related non-Muslim countries by 0153 per
cent. These results agree with Wieser (2011) from the results of his research states that
government spending on health infrastructure is an important factor in the determination of
the impact of government spending on poverty. While the results of panel data output for
Muslim majority countries have coefficients 2.234913 with probability 0.0000. Then the state
health sector spending Malaysia and Indonesia have significant positive relationship to the
level of poverty. That is, when the country's health sector expenditure Muslim A greater than
1% OIC member countries B, then poverty in Muslim countries a greater than 2.234913%
OIC member countries B. Rising government spending health sector, but the level of poverty
in Muslim countries still occur.
4.5.

per capita GDP

Output estimates of GDP per capita in Thailand and the Philippines showed that the value
of the coefficient of elasticity of poverty on the probability -10.45005 GDP by 0000. There is
a negative and significant relationship between GDP per capita and the level of poverty.
Likewise in Malaysia and Indonesia, has a coefficient of elasticity of poverty on GDP per
capita for 0000 with probability -20.03931. Significant probability 0.000 < 5%, indicating
the influence of GDP per capita on poverty. That is when the GDP per capita of Muslim and
non-Muslim countries A greater than 1% Muslim and non-Muslim country B, then poverty in
Muslim and non-Muslim country A is lower than B and non-Muslim countries for their
coefficient - respectively.
4.6. Gini Ratio
The value of the Gini coefficient of elasticity of poverty ratio in the country of Thailand
and the Philippines with probability 0.848467 and 0.6071. That is, the Gini ratio (ratio
imbalance) has no effect on the level of poverty in the non-Muslim majority country. On the
8

show with a probability value> of 5%. In Muslim-majority countries, Malaysia and

Indonesia have the value of the Gini coefficient elasitisitas poverty ratio of -16.9844 with
probability 0.0021. This means that the Gini ratio has a significant effect on poverty, but
negatively correlated. As a Muslim country gini ratio greater than 1% Muslim country B, then
poverty in Muslim countries A 16.9844% lower than the Muslims B. Recalling the theory of
the Kuznets hypothesis, that the relationship between inequality and income per capita is
shaped like the letter U inverted. That is, the period when the income per capita rose
(growing up) then followed by rising inequality, because it is happening during the process of
transition from an agricultural economy of income distribution (rural) to industrial economy
(urban). Until the end of the development process, inequality will decrease, when the industry
was able to absorb labor in the agricultural sector (Tambunan: 2003).
4.7. Clean Water Access
From the results of the data fixed effect estimation, the value of the coefficient of a
variable number of people with access to clean water with a probability of 0.117355 0.0000
in Thailand and the Philippines. While in Malaysia and Indonesia, the slope coefficient of
0.227771 with probability 0.0055. The increase in the number of people with access to clean
water can not reduce poverty. Poverty levels are still high or when there is an increase the
percentage of the population with access to clean water. Reyes (2001) have examined
variables related to basic services in the Philippines. The results suggested that the proportion
of families with access to safe water (safe for consumption) increased trend, but more urban
residents gain access to the water than in rural areas.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1. Conclusion
Based on the analysis of data in this study it can be concluded that the Human
Development Index in both OIC member countries (Malaysia and Indonesia) as well as OIC
non member countries (Thailand & Philippines) has a positive and significant impact on
poverty. Government expenditures for public needs in the education sector does not affect the
level of poverty in both countries. However, with the increase in government spending on
health care needs of the public sector in OIC non member countries to reduce poverty. While
in OIC member countries, health sector spending has a significant positive relationship to the
level of poverty. The increase in GDP per capita can reduce poverty both in the OIC member
countries and non members countries. Gini ratio had no significant effect on poverty
reduction in non members countries. By contrast, in OIC member countries there is a
significant negative correlation between the Gini ratio of the poverty level. The increase in
the number of people with access to clean water and a significant positive correlation to the
level of poverty in their respective countries Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
Of the six indicators, the indicator most significant effect on the reduction in OIC member
countries are the health sector is government spending, GDP per capita, HDI, Gini ratio, and
access to clean water while in OIC non member countries: HDI, health sector spending, GDP
per capita, and access to clean water.
5.2.Suggestion
OIC member countries need to increase the proportion of public expenditure
allocation in the health and education sectors. Both are basic human needs as a requirement to
be able to live comfortably. Of course, along with distribution to the people who have more
right. Lowering the ratio imbalance that occurs equitable distribution of income to sustain the
increase in GDP per capita. So that the poor participate are in achieving economic
development.
Allocation of distribution access to clean water, sanitation, etc. should be right on target,
9

where the majority of poor people live in rural areas have access to clean water level
requirement is higher. The increase is necessary as a reflection HDI index of the quality of
human life. The addition of fairness indicators, job security, democracy, etc. will make the
HDI as an indicator of human development is more comprehensive.
Bibliography
Ahluwalia, M.S, 1974, Income Inequality: Some Dimensions of the Problem In
Redistribution with Growth by H. Chenery, M.S. Ahluwalia, C. L. G. Bell, J. H.
Duloy and R. Jolly. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) pp. 3-37.
Alisjahbana, Armida & Yusuf, Arief Anshory., 2003, Poverty Dynamics In Indonesia: Panel
Data Evidence, Working Paper in Economics and Development Studies, Padjadjaran
University,Department of Econommics, Bandung.
Barber, J William, 2007, Gunnar Myrdal, Palgrave Macmillan, Jenewa.
Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan, 2012, Jaminan Kesehatan Masyarakat, Februari 2012,
http://jdih.bpk.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Tulisan-hukum-Jamkesmas2.pdf
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2011, Perkembangan Beberapa Indikator Utama Sosial Ekonomi
Indonesia, BPS, Jakarta.
______, 2012, Kerangka Pikir Dan Spektrum Pelaksanaan Tugas Statistik Ketahanan Sosial,
BPS, Jakarta.
BPS BAPENAS UNDP, 2001, Indonesia Human Development Report 2001 Towards a New
Consensus (Democracy and human development in Indonesia, BPS, Jakarta.
Bappenas, 2011, Data Terkini Cakupan Pelayanan Air Bersih dan Sanitasi Indonesia,
September
2011,
http://www.slideshare.net/SekberStbm/data-terkini-cakupanpelayanan-air-bersih-dan-sanitasi-indonesia-stbm-2011
Chapra, M Umer, 1999, Islam dan Tantangan Ekonomi, Risalah Gusti, Surabaya.
______. 2008, Reformasi Ekonomi Sebuah Solusi Perspektif Islam, PT Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Damanhuri, S Didin, 2010, Ekonomi Politik dan Pembangunan Teori, Kritik, dan Solusi bagi
Indonesia dan Negara Sedang Berkembang, IPB Press, Bogor.
Danim, Sudarman, 2004, Ekonomi Sumber Daya Manusia, Pustaka Setia, Bandung.
Departemen Perdagangan Republik Indonesia, 2009, Menuju Asean Economic Community
2015, Kemendag, Jakarta.
Dinar, A., M. Rosegrant and R. Meinzen-Dick., 1997, Water Allocation Mechanisms:
Principles and Examples, Policy Research Working Paper 1779, World Bank,
Washington DC.
Djojohadikusumo S, 1994, Dasar Teori Ekonomi Pertumbuhan dan Ekonomi Pembangunan,
LP3ES, Jakarta.
10

Economic and Social Comission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), 2011, Statistical
Yearbook for Asia and The Pacific 2011, United Nation ESCAPE, Thailand.
Fauzi, Akhmad., 2004, Ekonomi Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan, PT Gramedia Pustaka
Utama, Jakarta.
Gujarati, D., 2003, Basic Econometrics. 4th. ed, NewYork: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Haniafiah, Omi Firliyani.,2009, Analisis Pengaruh Variabel Dalam Model Dinamika Ibnu
Khaldun Terhadap Tingkat Kemiskinan
di beberapa Negara Muslim, Tesis
Universitas Indonesia, Depok.
Hudaya, Dadan., 2009, Faktor faktor yang Mempengaruhi Tingkat Kemiskinan di
Indonesia, Skripsi FEM IPB, Bogor.
Kurita, Kyosuke & Kurosaki, Takashi., The Dynamics of Growth, Poverty, and Inequality: A
Panel Analysis of Regional Data from the Philippines and Thailand, Discussion
Paper Series No.223, October 2007.
Mankiew, N Gregory, 2000, Teori Makro Ekonomi Edisi Keempat, Erlangga, Jakarta.
Manurung, Adler Haimans et al, 2005. Ekonometrika Teori dan Aplikasi. Elek Media
Komputindo, Jakarta.
Modul Ekonometrika, Data Panel, Laboratorium Komputasi Ilmu Ekonomi FEUI:
diterbitkan.

tidak

Nachrowi & Usman, 2006, Pendekatan Populer dan Praktis Ekonometrika Untuk Analisis
Ekonomi dan Keuangan, Lembaga Penerbit Fakultas Indonesia: Jakarta.
Raharja, Pratama & Manurung, Mandala., 2000. Pengantar Ilmu ekonomi (Mikroekonomi
dan Makroekonomi) Edisi Ketiga, FEUI, Jakarta.
Reyes, M Celia, Poverty Profile of the Philippines, Discussion Paper Series No. 2000 40
(Revised), Philippina Istitute for Development Studies, January 2001.
Roslan, A. H., Income Inequality, Poverty and Development Policy in Malaysia, School of
Economics,Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia.
Saleh, Samsubar, Faktor-faktor Penentu Tingkat Kemiskinan Regional Di Indonesia, Jurnal
Ekonomi Pembangunan, Vol. 7 (No. 2), 2002.
Sadeq, M Abul Hasal., 1991,
Malaysia.

Economic Development In Islam, Pelanduk Publications,

Soekarni, Muhammad et al, 2005, Kebijakan Ekonomi Dalam Islam, Kreasi Wacana,
Yogyakarta.

11

Sukirno, Sadono, 1985, Ekonomi Pembangunan Proses, Masalah, dan Dasar Kebijakan,
FEUI Bima Grafika, Jakarta.
Sumodiningrat, Gunawan, 2000, Responsi Pemerintah Terhadap Kesenjangan Ekonomi,
Perpod, Jakarta.
Tambunan, T, 2003, Perekonomian Indonesia Beberapa Masalah Penting, Ghalia Indonesia,
Jakarta.
Todaro dan Stephen C. Smith, 2011, Economic Development, elevent edition, Pearson
Education Limited, United Kingdom.
UNDP, (1990 2011), Human Development Report (HDP), www.hdr.undp.org
Wieser, Christina.,Determinants of the Grrowth Elasticity of Poverty Reduction: why the
Impact on Poverty Reduction is Large in Some Developing Countries and Small in
Others, WIFO Working Paper (No.406), Vienna University of Economics and
Business, Osterreichisches Institut Fur Wirtschaftsforschung, 2011.
World Bank, (2002-2008), World Development Report, The World Bank and Oxford
University Press, New York.

12