{"title":"ANALISIS COST AND EFFECTIVITY PROGRAM KARTU PRAKERJA DI INDONESIA","authors":"Yasserina Rawie, P. L. Samputra","doi":"10.14710/GP.5.2.2020.118-139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the feasibility of the Program Kartu Prakerja as a social security program in dealing with the problem of unemployment in Indonesia. As a form of social security program, Suharyadi et al (2015) stated that the pre-employment card program is possible to overcome the problem of unemployment and poverty in Indonesia. However, other research conducted by Shomad (2010) explains that social security cannot overcome poverty. An example is the Direct Cash Assistance (BLT) program in the era of former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who faced a number of obstacles in realizing social welfare. This research is a recommendation research as a procedure in the analysis of the Workers Card policy to see the feasibility of the program. This research uses a quantitative approach with cost and effective analysis. Cost and effectivity analysis is done by making a comparative picture related to the cost and effectiveness of Program Kartu Prakerja. Based on the results of the analysis of cost effectiveness in this study, it was found that the most effective was alternative 2 (ratio 15: Rp. 11,207,402,000,000), namely only by providing training to the unemployed. Therefore, based on the results of the analysis in this study, Program Kartu Prakerja is feasible, but there are things that need to be reconsidered, namely the provision of incentives for the unemployed.","PeriodicalId":346320,"journal":{"name":"GEMA PUBLICA","volume":"456 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GEMA PUBLICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14710/GP.5.2.2020.118-139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
本文讨论了Kartu Prakerja计划作为一项社会保障计划在处理印度尼西亚失业问题方面的可行性。Suharyadi等人(2015)认为,作为社会保障计划的一种形式,就业前卡计划有可能克服印度尼西亚的失业和贫困问题。然而,Shomad(2010)的另一项研究解释说,社会保障不能克服贫困。前总统苏西洛·班邦·尤多约诺(Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono)时代的直接现金援助(BLT)计划就是一个例子,他在实现社会福利方面遇到了许多障碍。本研究是以推荐研究为程序,在分析工人卡政策的过程中,看看方案的可行性。本研究采用了成本和效益分析的定量方法。成本和效益分析是通过对Kartu Prakerja项目的成本和效益进行比较来完成的。根据本研究的成本效益分析结果,发现最有效的是备选方案2(比率15:Rp. 11,207,402,000,000),即只向失业者提供培训。因此,根据本研究的分析结果,Program Kartu Prakerja是可行的,但有一些事情需要重新考虑,即为失业者提供激励。
ANALISIS COST AND EFFECTIVITY PROGRAM KARTU PRAKERJA DI INDONESIA
This article discusses the feasibility of the Program Kartu Prakerja as a social security program in dealing with the problem of unemployment in Indonesia. As a form of social security program, Suharyadi et al (2015) stated that the pre-employment card program is possible to overcome the problem of unemployment and poverty in Indonesia. However, other research conducted by Shomad (2010) explains that social security cannot overcome poverty. An example is the Direct Cash Assistance (BLT) program in the era of former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who faced a number of obstacles in realizing social welfare. This research is a recommendation research as a procedure in the analysis of the Workers Card policy to see the feasibility of the program. This research uses a quantitative approach with cost and effective analysis. Cost and effectivity analysis is done by making a comparative picture related to the cost and effectiveness of Program Kartu Prakerja. Based on the results of the analysis of cost effectiveness in this study, it was found that the most effective was alternative 2 (ratio 15: Rp. 11,207,402,000,000), namely only by providing training to the unemployed. Therefore, based on the results of the analysis in this study, Program Kartu Prakerja is feasible, but there are things that need to be reconsidered, namely the provision of incentives for the unemployed.