Post-2015

Development
Agenda

Indonesian Perspectives

Population and Demography

SPEAKERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Hans-Peter Kohler
Hans-Peter Kohler is currently the Frederick J. Warren Professor of Demography in the Department of
Sociology and a Research Associate in the Population Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Kohler
is the recipient of the 2005 the Clifford C. Clogg Award for Early Career Achievement by the Population
Association of America, has been a recent fellow at the Norwegian Academy of Science, and his research has
received extensive funding through the National Institutes of Health (USA) and other institutions. Kohler has
widely published on topics related to fertility, health, social and sexual networks, HIV/AIDS, biodemography
and well-being in leading scientific journals, and his work has had substantial influence on policy and media
discussions related to demographic change.

Jere. R. Behrman
Jere Behrman (Ph.D. Economics, MIT, 1966) is the WR Kenan, Jr. Professor of Economics and Sociology and
Population Studies Center Research Associate at the University of Pennsylvania. His research is in empirical
micro economics, economic development, early childhood development, labor economics, human resources
(education, training, health, nutrition), economic demography, household behaviors, life-cycle and
intergenerational relations and policy evaluation. He has published over 370 professional articles (primarily
in leading general and field economic journals, also in leading demographic, sociology, nutritional and
biomedical journals) and 34 books

Dwini Arianto
Dwini Arianto, is Vice Director of the Indonesia Demographic Institute. The Demographic Institute deals with
issues of demography, population and development. It is a semi-autonomous organization with two main
objectives: (i) to promote awareness among planners, policy makers, program implementers, researchers,
business people, scholars, practitioners and people at large of demographic change and variables that impact
upon national development; (ii) to promote cooperation with other population studies centers in order to
develop a stronger and more qualified research culture in the demographic field. Its major activities
include: (1) Research and consultancy on population dynamics, (2) Training in demography and populationrelated matters and (3) Dissemination of information on population-related issues.

Table of Contents
Summary: White Paper Report by Hans-Peter Kohler & Jere R. Behrman .................................. 1
White Paper Report by Hans-Peter Kohler & Jere R. Behrman ................................................... 3
Presentation: Indonesia Demographic Institute ..................................................................... 14

Summary: White Paper Report by Hans-Peter Kohler and

Jere R. Behrman
Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world and will be eighth in the list of countries
contributing to population growth by 2050 (other than African countries, only India, Pakistan and the USA
come higher). The birth rate fell steeply in the last decades of the Twentieth Century, but has stalled since
the mid-90s, with women on average bearing 2.6 children, or about half a child more than needed to simply
keep numbers stable over time.
With continuing significant population growth, it will not seem surprising that a target recommended in the
Copenhagen Consensus study is to make family planning available to everyone. Although it is very difficult to
do a rigorous economic assessment of the costs and benefits of achieving this, we estimate that every 1,000
IDR of spending would pay back between twenty- and thirty-fold.
But access to contraception, in Indonesia at least, is not primarily about reducing population growth. It turns
out that, even if fertility rates dropped to replacement levels (2.1 children per mother) tomorrow, population
growth up to 2050 would be barely affected. This so-called population momentum is simply due to the large
number of women of child-bearing age. Life expectancy is likely to rise to 77.4 years (from 71.2) by 2050, and
the population is set to rise to 321 million.
As long as the country can capitalise on the fact that there will be a large fraction of the population of
working age over coming decades what is known as the demographic dividend Indonesia has much to
gain from a population which will continue to grow until mid-century. Over time, the proportion of people
over 65 will increase as the number below 15 falls, but in the meantime the large number of young and
middle-aged adults can give a real boost to the economy. But it is still important to see fertility rates decline
so that dependency ratios (numbers of old and young people supported by those of working age) remain low
enough for the benefits of the demographic dividend to be felt.
The real benefit of broadening access to contraception will come in reducing the maternal mortality rate, one
of the highest in the region at 470 deaths per 100,000 live births. For comparison, Malaysia has a maternal
death rate less than 10% of that of Indonesia. Expansion of family planning is expected to avoid 5,400 deaths
of mothers in childbirth and 336,000 infant deaths over a five year period.
Better family planning has other benefits as well: less childbearing should result in more education for girls
and young women, a general improvement in womens health, a greater number of women in paid jobs,
lower child mortality and generally improved childhood health, and more time for mothers to devote to the
children they do have. Its no surprise, then, to see the return of dua anak cukup commercials, in a bid to
fulfil the remaining unmet need for family planning (estimated at 11% of the total) and reduce the rate of
births to teenage mothers in rural areas.
There are also other ways to contribute to the growth of prosperity. The total number of international
migrants grew from 103 million in 1980 to 230 million in 2013. 36% of this total over 82 million people
moved from one developing country to another. This includes, for example, Indonesians working in Saudi
Arabia, and the more than one million workers from Indonesia in Malaysia.
Overall, wealth is generated by workers moving to countries where they can be more productive, and the
families of migrants benefit directly via remittances. The boost to host economies is, however, spread more
1

thinly and there are local workers who may lose out, so it is important that migration is well managed to
allow adjustment. The overall benefits are still clear, however, and reducing barriers to migration is a target
which would be highly relevant for Indonesia; the benefit for every thousand rupiah spent is likely to be
around 45,000 IDR.
There are other inescapable trends which have to be recognised and made the most of. Towns and cities will
continue to grow rapidly in low- and middle-income countries. This can create problems, but there are also
opportunities for higher productivity and better healthcare and schooling, so it is important for urbanisation
to be properly managed to maximise the gains. Similarly, the inevitable aging of the population calls for
policies which improve both health and lengthen working lives.
Indonesias population will continue to grow for the next few decades but, properly managed, this can create
both economic growth and better welfare.

White Paper Report by Hans-Peter Kohler and Jere R.

Behrman
Prioritizing the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda on Population and Demography requires a recognition that
national demographic trajectories are currently more diverse than in the middle and late 20th century. Wealthy
countries of Europe, Asia and the Americas face rapid population aging, while Africa and some countries in Asia
prepare for the largest cohort of young people the world has ever seen. And many of the worlds poorest
countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, continue to face premature mortality, high fertility and often
unmet need for contraception. In light of these demographic transformations, the United Nations Report of
the Global Thematic Consultation on Population Dynamics1 highlights three central aspects of how population
dynamics affect the Post-2015 Development Agenda:
1. Population dynamics are at the centre of the main development challenges of the 21st century, and
must therefore be addressed in the post-2015 development agenda.
2. Mega population trendspopulation growth, population aging, migration and urbanizationpresent
both important developmental challenges and opportunities that have direct and indirect implications
for social, economic and environmental development.
3. Demography is not destiny. Rights-based and gender-responsive policies can address and harness
population dynamics.
Agreeing with these broad implications of population change for human and economic development, our
Copenhagen Consensus analyses for Population and Demography2 highlight the following high-priority policy
areas for the Post-2015 Development Agenda:

Make family planning available to everyone, including achieving universal access to sexual and
reproductive health (SRH) services by 2030, and eliminating unmet need for modern contraception by
2040.

Reducing of barriers to migration, within low- and middle-income countries, as well as between lowand middle-income countries and high-income countries.

Benefit-cost ratios for expanding family planning are likely to be very high, between 20-30 for Indonesia and
possibly larger than 90 in high-fertility countries. The benefit-cost ratios for reducing barriers to migration are
also high though difficult to calculate specifically for Indonesia, broader studies suggest the benefit for every
dollar (or rupiah) spent is around 45. Both of these policy priorities and their relevance for contemporary
Indonesia are discussed below. In addition, our analyses for the Copenhagen Consensus project indicate several
priorities with probably high, but difficult to quantify, benefit-cost ratios. These include the elimination of agebased eligibility criteria for retirement, and interventions facilitating more efficient and more equitable
inevitable urbanization.
Our analyses of Population and Demography also emphasize that population quality (or human capital),
including aspects such as health and education, is an important further aspect of population dynamics that is
essential for addressing the challenges of future population changes, for promoting gender equality and human
rights, and for realizing the benefits of population dynamics for social, economic and environmental
development. Population quality therefore needs to be seen as an inherent component of population
dynamics, and in some areasfor instance policies addressing population agingpopulation quality-related
policies to increase life-long learning and adaptability and to mitigate impacts of chronic diseases are primary
3

policies. Because aspects of population quality are discussed in other Copenhagen Consensus papers, the
discussion here focuses primarily on population quantity, including aspects such population growth, population
age structure, migration and urbanization.
Population trends in Indonesia
Indonesia, with a current population of 241 million persons, is an important example for illustrating the
Copenhagen Consensus Centers assessment of high-priority policy areas in the area of demography and
population dynamics.3 Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world. It is the eighth country in
terms of adding most people to the global population by 2050, the fourth outside of Africa (after India,
Pakistan, USA), adding a total of more than 66 million. Much of this future growth will be concentrated in urban
areas, the infrastructure and social services of which are already struggling due to rapid urbanization in recent
decades. A substantial upsurge in the population, especially among the urban poor, would compound these
problems.
Part of the population growth until 2050 might be attributed to Indonesias stalled fertility decline, that is, the
fact that the number of children born per woman stopped declining in the late-1990s. Fertility has remained
above replacement level, at levels possibly as high as 2.6 children per woman.4 Interestingly, however, even
under the assumption that fertility levels would instantly drop to replacement fertility (and remain at
replacement until 2050), Indonesia would add about 70 millionjust about the same as under the current UN
medium fertility projectionto the global population. How is this possible?

Figure 1 shows Indonesias current and projected 2050 population pyramids, and Figure 2 shows the total
population growth compared to both global and South-Eastern Asias population growth,5 and the trend in
Indonesias total fertility rate (TFR, a measure of the total number of children born to a woman during her lifetime). Indonesias total, young and old-age dependency ratios are plotted in Figure 3. As many other countries
in the region, the next decades will bring about a transformation of Indonesias population with important
implications for human and economic development. Life expectancy is likely to continue its fairly rapid
increase: from 58.6 in 1980, to currently 71.2, and a predicted 77.4 by 2050. The population age structure will
shift from a still relatively young population pyramid to one that is characterized by significant population
aging, with the share of the population above age 65 increasing from currently 5.4% to 16%, while the share of
the population below age 15 will decrease from 28% to 19%. But clearly, even by 2050, Indonesia will not yet
have an old population age structure such as those that are expected by 2050 for many developed countries
or even Asian neighbors such China.
Population growth will slow; having peaked near 2.6% per year when Indonesias population was around 110
million in the late 1960s, it is currently estimated to be around 1.1% and it is projected to decline to 0.2% by
2050 when the population is expected to reach 321 million. By then, it will have added an extra 26% to its
current population, which, in relative terms, is less than the world population growth between now and 2050
but slightly more than South-Eastern Asias population growth in the same time period. An important factor
contributing to this slowing of population growth is the decline in the TFR, which dropped from 5.5 in 1970 to
about 2.32.6 in 201015, a drop of about 3 children per woman.6 At the same time, investments in children
increased, as is illustrated by an increase in the secondary school enrollment rate from less than 20% to 76%

during this time period. But TFR has remained relatively constant since the late-1990s, and there is even
somewhat of a controversy about how low (or not) the current TFR in Indonesia actually is. The United Nations
estimates it to be around 2.3, while recent surveys suggest a level near 2.6 (Figure 2). The latter level is about
1/2 child per woman above the replacement level, and if correct, it would mean that the TFR has been
unchanged since 2002. Nevertheless, the fact that Indonesias population growth by 2050 would be
approximately equal if fertility instantly dropped to replacement level indicates that this growth is driven by
population momentum, that is, the tendency for a population to continue to grow even with replacement-level
fertility because of a relatively large number of individuals at childbearing years.
These broad trends in population dynamics place in the center cell of the taxonomy of population quantity and
quality in Figure 4: while Indonesia has almost completed the fertility transition, and rapid population growth
has thus disappeared, it still has only moderately-high levels of human capital and lacks behind some other
countries in Latin America and some South-East Asian countries with regard to both fertility declines and
human capital increases.
The current and future challenge for Indonesia is to reap the benefits of the demographic dividend,7 that is, the
process by which a favorable age structure with a large fraction of the population in working ages can facilitate
rapid economic development. Whether Indonesia can do so effectively will depend on both population
dynamics and changes in population quality during the next decades.

Making family planning available to everyone

In terms of expanding family planning, Indonesias experience is critical for understanding the importance of
sustained investments in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services. On the one hand, Indonesia is widely
credited for having had a successful family planning program that helped facilitate the decline of fertility during
the 1970s and 1980s (Figure 2). This family program begun in 1970 with strong governmental support and
resulted in a large share of couples using modern contraceptives. How much of the fertility decline can be

directly attributed to this program remains controversial, but its key role in facilitating Indonesias path towards
lower fertility is uncontested.8 The practice of contraception during this program became so well-ingrained
that even the fall of family incomes and rising costs of contraception during the 1998 financial crisis only had a
minimal effect on contraceptive use. It seems, contraceptive users in Indonesia valued family planning so much
that these two challenges did not deter them from practicing contraception.9
And yet, progress in reducing fertility has stalled. By 2014, the country had aimed to reach a total fertility rate
of 2.1; however, based on recent DHS survey estimates, the TFR had essentially remained where it was early
in this decade: at 2.6. The above-cited UN population forecasts until 2050 assume that the TFR drops below
2.1 by 202530, and remains below-replacement fertility thereafter. But why should a decline in TFR resume
now, after 10 years or stalling? There is clearly some reason to be skeptical, and some observers have
characterized Indonesias fertility as being stubbornly high. If TFR levels would for instance remain until 2050
constant at 2.5 children per woman, Indonesias population would grow significantly faster and the total and
young-age dependency ratiosthe declines of which are critical for reaping the benefits of the demographic
dividendwould remain substantially higher (dotted lines in Figures 1 and 3). Others, however, think these
concerns about high fertility in Indonesia are exaggerated, in part due to uncertainty about the accuracy of
recent fertility estimates and in part due to concerns that a rapid decline of fertility in the next decades may
exacerbate population aging.10 Nevertheless, in April last year, Health Minister Nafsiah Mboi labelled
Indonesias family planning programs a failure, citing their inability to control the countrys fertility rate. And
progress in other SRH indicators has been slow as well. Infant mortality is around 25 per 1,000 live births, as
compared to 2 for Singapore and 7 in Malaysia. Indonesia also has one of the highest maternal mortality ratios
in Southeast Asia, with an estimated 190 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, as compared to 6 deaths for
every 100,000 live births in Singapore and 29 in Malaysia.11 The total unmet need for family planning services
in Indonesia is 11%, and about 84% of contraceptive demands are satisfied (80% for modern methods).12
Unmet need is substantially higher, around 1315% for less educated and poor individuals, and for women at
the end of their childbearing.13
In response to these trends, Indonesia is reviving its family planning program. A recent Lancet article for
instance stated:14 In the 1970s, dua anak cukup (two children are enough) became more than a fertility
campaignit was a rallying cry for the country. [...] When other low-income countries [now] look to improve
their family planning schemes, the Indonesian model often tops the list. And so, to lower fertility rates, Indonesia
need look no further than within its borders. Today, after a two-decade hiatus, dua anak cukup commercials
have returned to the air. Jakarta is thus hoping to build on its past success, both in terms of reducing fertility
but also in terms of creating the individual, social and economic benefits that would arguable stem from such
reduced fertility. The focus of this renewed effort towards promoting family planning will be in rural areas,
where the rate of 1519 year olds having children is more than double that in urban areas, and it will
particularly encourage the use of long-term contraceptive methods.
Is this effort likely to be effective, and what are the likely benefit-cost ratios one could possibly hope to attain
with such investments in family planning programs in Indonesia?
It would be wrong to evaluate family planning programs primarily with respect to population growth. Broader
human-rights-based and gender-responsive perspectives are required. The UN Secretary General, for example,
highlighted that protecting and fulfilling the human rights of young people and investing in their quality
education, effective livelihood skills, access to sexual and reproductive health services and information,
including comprehensive sexuality education, as well as employment opportunities, are necessary for the
development of their resilience and create the conditions under which they can achieve their full potential.15
Expanding access to family planning is an important component of such a broad human-rights-based and

gender-responsive policy agenda. Specifically, a recent literature emphasized that family planning programs
besides reducing fertility and, related, maternal and child mortalityare likely to result in higher levels of
female education, improvements in womens general health, increases in female labor force participation and
earnings, increased child health (up and beyond the effect on reducing child mortality) and increased child
human capital.16 And in context like Indonesia, where fertility has already declined substantially from its peak,
these benefits in terms of childrens and womens well-being are likely to be the dominant ones. Much less
important is the effect on population growth, which in countries like Indonesia is to a substantial extent driven
by population momentum.
Our analyses for the Copenhagen Consensus project suggest benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) in excess of 90 for family
planning programs in high fertility countries, about one third of which can be attributed to reduced infant and
maternal mortality and two thirds to increased income growth resulting from the demographic dividend.
Most of these high-fertility countries to which this estimate applies are located in sub-Saharan Africa, have
higher levels of unmet need for family planning, have higher levels of maternal and infant mortality, and
experience much more rapid population growth than Indonesia. In high fertility countries, these high BCRs
occur because reduced population growth as a result of expanded family planning programs can help countries
to benefit from the demographic dividend. But in terms of age structure, Indonesiaalong with other countries
in the regionis already relatively well-positioned (Figure 3), and is poised to benefit further from a declining
total dependency ratio (and thus increasing the share of the population in working ages) if its fertility trends
follow the trajectory assumed under the UN median forecast (Figure 2). If fertility levels were to remain
constant at around 2.5 children per women, these potential benefits from a demographic dividend would be
substantially reduced (dotted lines in Figure 3).
Focusing on the benefits in terms of reduced maternal and infant mortality alone, earlier Copenhagen
Consensus analyses suggested benefits-cost ratios of 30 or higher. Yet, the information base on which these
estimates were derived had higher levels of infant and maternal mortality, and presumably lower costs of
operating a family planning programs. USAID estimated the costs of expanding family planning to gradually
eliminating unmet need over a 5-year horizon to be around US$67 million.17 As a result of reduced population
growth, USAID estimates that Indonesia would benefit through reduced required spending on education, water
and sanitation, and maternal/child health by about US$554 million, outweighing the costs by a factor of 8:1
(although these analyses assume that investments in child quality do not increase as a result of reduced
fertility, which is contrary to the usually observed pattern). Subject to caveats about causality, the analyses
also claim that this expansion of family planning could be expected to avert around 5,400 maternal deaths and
more than 336,000 child deaths over a 5-year period. Taken at face value, and evaluating lives according to the
Copenhagen Consensus Center guidelines, this investment of $67 million would result in an exceptionally high
benefit-cost ratio. But it seems likely that these analyses substantially overestimate the benefits and/or
underestimate the costs of the expansion of the family planning program to eliminate unmet need.
A more cautious back-of-the-envelope calculation of the benefit-cost ratio is based on the costs of
eliminating unmet need provided by the Guttmacher Institute.18 These calculations suggest that the benefitcost ratios of expanding family planning are around 2030, attributable to reduced infant and maternal
mortality. This estimate is consistent with earlier analyses conducted as part of the Copenhagen Consensus
project on this topic (see above). This does not yet account for potential additional benefits resulting from the
demographic dividend, which would be reinforced by declining fertility.
In summary, the Copenhagen Consensus analyses related to Population and Demography suggest that, even in
countries such as Indonesia that have experienced large fertility declines and are in the center of the population

quality-quantity taxonomy in Figure 4, the BCRs associated with the expansion (or revival, as in the case of
Indonesia) of family planning programs can be substantial and far above the break-even point of one.

Reducing barriers to migration

Globally the number of international migrants more than doubled between 1980 and 2010, from 103 million
to 220 million. Despite the fact that Indonesia still has relatively few migrant workers, Indonesia plays an
important role in this global system of migration. For example, the largest flow of migrants, just over 82 million
or 36 percent in 2013, moved from one developing country to another, as from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia.
There are also more than 1 million Indonesian workers in Malaysia. The Copenhagen Consensus Center
Population and Demography analyses suggest that such international immigration should be further facilitated.
If workers are much more productive in one country than in another, restrictions on immigration lead to large
efficiency losses. Hence, reducing barriers to migration should be an important priority of the post-2015
Development Agenda. Countries such as Indonesia are likely to benefit, as it is already well integrated in the
Asian and global system of migration.
BCRs are difficult to compute for this policy priority, in part because the costs of changing migration policy is
difficult to estimate. One of the few existing analyses suggests BCRs in excess of 45, if the political will for doing
so can be brought about. If undertaken at a moderate pace to allow internal adjustments, these gains will be
shared by both citizens of recipient and origin countries. This general insight about the substantial benefits of
reducing barriers to migration also pertain to Indonesia, even if detailed BCRs cannot be estimated here.

Urbanization
The global population will continue to rapidly urbanize during the next decades, with most rapid urbanization
occurring in low- and middle-income countries.19 Indonesia will be no exception to this trend. The proportion
of the population that is urban has more than doubled in the last three decades, standing now at 54%, and is
expected to increase further to 72% by 2050. Existing and possibly new megacitiesthat is, cities like Jakarta
with more than 10 million peoplewill absorb a substantial fraction of this urban population growth.
While clearly associated with many problemsfor instance overcrowding, local pollution, concentrated
povertyurbanization has potentially important positive implications for development, including through
higher wages due to higher productivity in urban industries/services, better schooling and health services,
greater opportunities for political participation, reduced environmental impact of population, and freedom
from traditional norms, all of which are pull factors for urbanization.
The challenge for the Post-2015 Development Agenda will be to implement policies that mitigate the
downsides of urbanization while enhancing its benefits for individuals and the society. The Copenhagen
Consensus Center paper on Population and Demography did not succeed in estimating global benefit-cost
ratios for changes to promote better urbanization, as conditions among countries for what are basically
national and subnational policies and regulations vary enormously. But even for a specific context such as
Indonesia, such calculations are not easily possible. Nevertheless, even in the absence of such detailed benefitcost calculations, it is likely that interventions to facilitate successful urbanization have high benefit-cost
ratios.

10

Population Aging
The consequences of population aging will increasingly become a policy concern for Indonesia. By 2050, the
proportion of the population aged 65 and over will have increased from currently 5.4% to 16%, and the median
age will rise from 28 to 38 years (Figure 1). There are no viable policy options that can change the basic
tendency of countries, including Indonesia, to grow considerably older during the next decades. In light of rapid
growth of elderly populations, the Copenhagen Consensus Center paper on Population and Demography
therefore emphasized the need to accommodate populations aging in social, economic and environmental
development, and creating institutional environments where possible negative consequences of population
aging are lessened. This, however, poses challenges as some countries may get old before they get rich.
Population aging in middle-income countries such as Indonesia potentially brings two important national goals
into conflict: (1) developing economic systems that will provide economic security to the growing number of
old people, and (2) sustaining strong economic growth.20 Achieving these two goals will require new policies,
most importantly policies that encourage saving, and investment in health and education to improve
productivity. In contrast to European and many Latin American countries, however, policymakers in many Asian
countriesincluding Indonesiahave one important advantage. Social-security systems in the region tend to
be relatively modest. The specific high-priority policy emphasized in our analyses for the Copenhagen
Consensus, namely eliminating age-based eligibility criteria for retirements in public pension systems, is less
important in Indonesia as compared to European or Latin American countries. Instead, other policies are likely
to be more promising. For example: (1) untying social safety nets and health and pension systems from formal
labor market participation, to reduce distortions and benefit the poorer members of society, who tend to work
in informal employment or home production that is not covered by formal sector benefits; (2) renewing efforts
to assess formal and informal means of making education over the life cycle more effective as social returns to
more general education (learning how to learn) and to education over the life cycle are likely to increase in an
aging world; and (3) promoting investments in adult health and human capital, especially in contexts where
healthy aging can facilitate higher labor force participation and productivity at older ages.

11

Notes
1UNFPA,

UNDESA, UN-HABITAT, IOM (2013). Population Dynamics in the Post-2015 Development Agenda:
Report of the Global Thematic Consultation on Population Dynamics. United Nations. URL
http://www.worldwewant2015.org/file/313464/download/340868.
2

Kohler, H. P. and Behrman, J. R. (2014). Population and demography: Benefits and costs of the population
and demography targets for the post-2015 development agenda. Copenhagen Consensus Project: Post-2015
Consensus, URL http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus/populationanddemography.
3

Population trends and indicators reported here are obtained from UN Population Division (2012a). World
Population Prospects, the 2012 revision: Standard (median) forecasts. United Nations, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, URL http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/. In addition, because of
the likely higher accuracy for recent years, estimates of the total fertility rate are obtained from Indonesia
DHS (2013). Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey 2012: Preliminary Report. Jakarta, Indonesia and
Calverton, Maryland: Statistics Indonesia, National Population and Family Planning Board, Ministry of Health
and Measure DHS.
4There

is some concern that this DHS-based fertility estimate is biased upward; see McDonald, P. (2014). The
demography of Indonesia in comparative perspective. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 50(1): 2952.
doi: 10.1080/00074918.2014.896236
5South-Eastern

Asian countries include, besides Indonesia, also Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Lao Peoples
Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam.
6Note

that the recent Indonesia DHS estimates the TFR for 2012 as 2.6, 11% higher than the UN estimate of
2.35 for the period 2010-15; moreover, the DHS estimates suggest that there has been no change in TFR
across three surveys during since 200203 to 2012.
7Bloom,

D. E., Canning, D. and Sevilla, J. (2002). The Demographic Dividend: A New Perspective on the
Economic Consequences of Population Change. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
8Ezeh,

A. C., Bongaarts, J. and Mberu, B. (2012). Global population trends and policy options. Lancet
380(9837): 142148. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60696-5.
9McKelvey,

C., Thomas, D. and Frankenberg, E. (2012). Fertility regulation in an economic crisis. Economic
Developmemt and Cultural Change 61(1): 738. doi: 10.1086/666950.
10McDonald,

P. (2014). The demography of Indonesia in comparative perspective. Bulletin of Indonesian

Economic Studies 50(1): 2952. doi: 10.1080/00074918.2014.896236.
11World

Bank World Development Indicators, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator.

12Unmet

need is a concept used by demographers to measure the number or proportion of women who are
fecund and sexually active, but are not using any method of contraception despite the fact that they report
not wanting any more children or wanting to delay the next child.
13Indonesia

DHS (2013). Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey 2012: Preliminary Report. Jakarta,
Indonesia and Calverton, Maryland: Statistics Indonesia, National Population and Family Planning Board,
Ministry of Health and Measure DHS.
14Seiff,

A. (2014). Indonesia to revive national family planning programme. The Lancet 383(9918): 683. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60244-0. URL http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736(14)60244-0/abstract.
15UNFPA

(2014). ICPD Beyond 2014 Global Report. New York, NY: United Nations. URL
http://www.unfpa.org/public/home/sitemap/ICPDReport.

12

16

Kohler, H.-P. (2013). Population growth. In: Lomborg, B. (ed.), Global Problems, Smart Solutions: Costs and
Benefits, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 510580. Working paper version available at
http://repository.upenn.edu/pscworkingpapers/34. Miller, G. and Singer Babiarz, K. (2014). Family planning:
Program effects. NBER Working Paper #20586. doi: 10.3386/w20586.
17

USAID Health Policy Initiative (2009). Achieving the MDGs in Indonesia: The contribution of family planning.
USAID Health Policy Initiative, URL
http://www.healthpolicyinitiative.com/Publications/Documents/2461MDGIndonesiafinal.pdf
18

Singh, S., Darroch, J., Ashford, L. and Vlassoff, M. (2010). Adding it up: The costs and benefits of investing in
family planning and maternal and newborn health. Guttmacher Institute Report, URL
http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/28189
19UN

Population Division (2012b). World urbanization prospects: The 2011 revision. Population Division,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York.
20Mason,

A. and Lee, S. H. (2011). Population aging and economic progress in asia: A bumpy road ahead?
AsiaPacific Issues 99.

13

Population and Demography of Indonesia

Sonny Harry Budiutomo Harmadi

Director of Demographic Institute UI
Special Staff to the Minister of National
Development Planning

Demographic Issues
Post-2015 Five Demographic Issues in
Indonesia:
continuing large number of population with a bulk
of productive age people
emerging ageing population
urbanization
complex population mobility
High number of maternal deaths

A Democratizing Era
Indonesian Population Dynamics
since 1998 has been occurring in the
context of Democratization and
Decentralization

AN EVER
LARGER
GIANT
POPULATION

In 2015, Indonesia is estimated to have 255

million population.

2035 marks 306 million population

50

Expecting about
million new comers, they are
the upcoming young people, leading to greater
concerns related to sexual and reproductive health
and rights

Today Indonesias population is in its favorable

pace for economic development

The number of population was

237.6 million as of the 2010
population census, an increase of
147 million in nearly 40 years.
Due to the successful past decline
in fertility and mortality rates,
today Indonesias population
structure has
28% population aged below
15.
8% people aged 60 and above
64% working age population

Indonesia in 2010

64M

Source: based on the 2010 population census

Continue Internalization of a 2-Child Family Norm

Note:
* CPR: Contraceptive Prevalence Rate
* TFR: Total Fertility Rate

Continuation of an aggressive
promotion of fertility reduction is
unjustified.
Half of currently married women want
no more children.
Pay attention to regional variation.
Among those who intend to have more
children, half want to delay the next
birth for at least 2 years.
This means that the demand for
contraceptive is relatively high.
Unfortunately, they often face
obstacles in gaining access to methods
of birth control appropriate to their
personal preferences and needs. As a
result, the need is significantly unmet
as the supply cannot meet the
demand.
6

Demographic Window of Opportunity (DWO):

results of fast and then slow decline in fertility rates

The Percentage of Working-age
Population will decline after 2020

The Number of Working Age Population

will decline after 2030

Source: compiled and drawn from the UN (2011)

EMERGING AGEING POPULATION

After 2015, the number and percentage of population aged 60 and above will accelerate

PEMBANGUNAN MANUSIA INDONESIA

Kemajuan suatu bangsa juga diukur berdasarkan indikator
kependudukan. Ada kaitan yang erat antara kemajuan suatu
bangsa dengan laju pertumbuhan Penduduk, termasuk
derajat kesehatan. Bangsa yang sudah maju ditandai dengan
laju pertumbuhan penduduk yang lebih kecil, angka harapan
hidup yang lebih tinggi; dan kualitas pelayanan sosial yang
lebih baik. Secara keseluruhan kualitas sumberdaya manusia
yang makin baik akan tercermin dalam produktivitas yang
makin tinggi
Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang
Nasional 2005-2025 (RPJPN) hal. 37.

Pembangunan Kebersamaan
Keadilan Pemerataan
Kesejahteraan

Integrasi komponen kependudukan dan

aspek-aspek pembangunan
Quantity Aspects

Number
Structure
Distribution

Quality Aspects

Social
Economy
Culture
Environment
Politic
Security
Others

Growth
Component

Fertility
Mortality

Migration

Highly Mobile Population

Facilitated by the advancement in public transportation
and information, as well as smaller family sizes,
population mobility in Indonesia has taken different types
of mobility:
Increasing commuter;
Rising seasonal migration;
Complex internal migration;
More return migration;
IDP (Internally Displaced Persons);
Rising overseas migrations;
Rising flow of foreign migrants;
BRAIN GAIN for Indonesia.

11

Variation in Fertility Rate: 2012

TFR <2.1
TFR 2.1-2.5

TFR 2.6-2.9
TFR above 3

Yogyakarta, Lowest
TFR of 2.1

Source: Drawn based on 2012 IDHS 12

Variation in Infant Mortality Rate: 2010

West Java, and

Jakarta
Yogyakarta

Hard rock <30

East Java

Intermediate 30-100

Soft rock >100

13

Gender Balance: Sex Ratio, 2010

East Kalimantan, 111

West Papua, 113

Papua, 112

Surplus of Women
Surplus of Men
Sex ratio above 110
14

AGLOMERATION of POPULATION and ECONOMY

JOBS FOLLOW PEOPLE

Source: Harry Heriawan Saleh

Variation in Urbanization: 2010

100%
50-99%

25-49%
< 25%
16

Contrast between West Papua and

Yogyakarta, 2010
Yogyakarta

West Papua

Source. Indonesia Statistical Bureau, 2010

17

WORLD POPULATION DENSITY 2012

Sonny Harry B Harmadi

Source: CIA World Factbook http://www.indexmundi.com

WORLD POPULATION 1950-2010

WORLD POPULATION 1950-2010
7000

POP GROWTH 2005-2010

Average annual rate of population change (%)

6500

WORLD

6000

1.16

More developed regions

0.41
Least developed countries
2.21
Less developed regions, excluding least
1.18
developed countries

5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

WORLD
(Thousand)

1950
2.532.229

1960
3.038.413

1970
3.696.186

AFRICA
ASIA
EUROPE

2.30
1.08
0.20

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

1.15

NORTHERN AMERICA
OCEANIA

0.91
1.75

1980
4.453.007

Sonny Harry B Harmadi

1990
5.306.425

2000
6.122.770

2010
6.895.889

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011). World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, CD-ROM Edition.

WORLD POPULATION 1950-2010 (cont.)

WORLD POPULATION BY DEVELOPMENT
CATEGORIES 1950-2010
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

POP GROWTH 2005-2010

Average annual rate of population change (%)

1950

1960

1970

More developed

1980

1990

2000

More developed regions

0.41

Less developed regions

1.18

Least developed countries

2.21

2010

Least developed

Less developed
(Thousand)

More developed
Less developed
Least developed

1950
811.187
1.524.954
196.088

1960
913.330
1.881.432
243.650

1970
1.006.421
2.377.735
312.030

1980
1.081.094
2.978.145
393.768

Sonny Harry B Harmadi

1990
1.144.404
3.651.914
510.107

2000
1.188.809
4.271.965
661.996

2010
1.235.900
4.827.660
832.330

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011). World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, CD-ROM Edition.

WORLD POPULATION 1950-2010 (cont.)

WORLD POPULATION BY CONTINENTS 1950-2010
4500
4000

POP GROWTH 2005-2010

Average annual rate of population change (%)

3500
3000

AFRICA
ASIA
EUROPE

2500
2000

2.30
1.08
0.20

1500

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN 1.15

1000

NORTHERN AMERICA
OCEANIA

500
0

1950
AFRICA
(Thousand)

AMERICA
EUROPE
ASIA
AFRICA
OCEANIA

1960

1970

ASIA

1950
338.983
547.287
1.403.389
229.895
12.675

1980

EUROPE

1990

2000

OCEANIA

1960
424.376
603.854
1.707.682
286.729
15.773

0.91
1.75

2010

AMERIKA

1970
517.662
655.879
2.134.993
368.148
19.506

1980
616.780
692.869
2.637.586
482.803
22.970

Sonny Harry B Harmadi

1990
724.193
720.497
3.199.481
635.287
26.967

2000
834.718
726.777
3.719.044
811.101
31.130

2010
934.611
738.199
4.164.252
1.022.234
36.593

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011). World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, CD-ROM Edition.

Population Growth Rate, 2005-2010

Source: Population Council, 2013

Jumlah Penduduk Indonesia

1971 118,3 Million

Growth Rate
2,32 persen

1980 146,7 Million

1,97 persen

1990 179,2 Million

1,45 persen

2000 205,1 Million

1,49 persen

2010 237,6 Million

Source: BPS, 2013

Median umur menikah di Indonesia

22
21
Umur

20
19
18
17
16
No
Some Complete Some
education primary primary secondary

Juta

Skenario Proyeksi Penduduk

500
Tinggi

400

Replacement
300
Sedang
200
Rendah

100
0
1950

2000

2050
Sonny Harry B Harmadi

2100

2150

Permasalahan Kuantitas

Laju pertumbuhan penduduk

Population momentum
TFR dan CPR stagnan
Perhatian terhadap peran pemuda
Sinergi Koalisi Kependudukan dan
BKKBN serta Pemda
28

Konsekuensi Tingkat Kelahiran yang Tinggi

Ekonomi:

kemampuan menabung, upah,

kemiskinan, pertumbuhan pendapatan
perkapita

Lingkungan:

Menurunnya sumberdaya alam, daya

dukung dan daya tampung lingkungan

Kesehatan:

Tingginya angka kematian

Pemerintah:

Kemampuan pelayanan publik

Politik:

Munculnya kerentanan sosial,

persaingan, konflik, ekstrimis

Umur
0 - 14
15 - 64
> 64
DR

2014
27.6
67.2
5.3
48.9

2015
27.3
67.3
5.4
48.6

2016
27.1
67.4
5.5
48.4

2017
26.8
67.5
5.6
48.1

2018
26.6
67.6
5.8
47.9

2019
26.3
67.7
6.0
47.8

2020
26.1
67.7
6.2
47.7

Umur
0 - 14
15 - 64
> 64
DR

2021
25.8
67.8
6.4
47.6

2022
25.5
67.8
6.7
47.5

2023
25.2
67.8
6.9
47.4

2024
24.9
67.9
7.2
47.3

2025
24.6
67.9
7.5
47.2

2026
24.2
68.0
8.1
47.0

2027
23.9
68.0
8.1
47.0

Umur
0 - 14
15 - 64
> 64
DR

2028
23.5
68.1
8.4
46.9

2029
2030
2031
23.2
22.9
22.6
68.1
68.1
68.1
8.7
9.0
9.3
Sonny Harry B Harmadi
46.9
46.9
46.9

2032
22.3
68.0
9.6
47.0

2033
22.0
68.0
10.0
47.0

2034
21.8
68.0
10.3
47.2

BONUS DEMOGRAFI (BD) DAN IMPLIKASI

KEBIJAKAN
Windows of Opportunity

BD dimulai sejak 2012 ketika DR di bawah 50, titik

terendah rasio ketergantungan terjadi 2028-2031.
Potensi BD: meningkatnya angkatan kerja usia produktif,
disertai tabungan masyarakat sumber pertumbuhan
ekonomi.
Sonny Harry B Harmadi

Prasyarat:
Kualitas penduduk
Ketersediaan
lapangan kerja
berkualitas
Akses terhadap
tabungan
Tidak ada
diskriminasi pekerja
perempuan
Program KB
mencapai targetnya

PERSEBARAN PENDUDUK
7%

7%

7%
4%
69%

7%

14%

8%

7%

4%
65%

7%
7%
4%
64%

7%
5%
60%

7%
7%
5%
60%

7%
5%
62%

16%

18%

19%

8%
6%
58%

20%

20%

21%

7%

1930
1961
1971
1980
1990
2000
2010
Sumatera
Jawa & Madura
Kalimantan
Sulawesi
Lainnya
Sonny Harry B Harmadi

Persentase Penduduk dan Wilayah Kota

70.0

Secara nasional, luas wilayah kota di Indonesia hanya 1,7% luas

wilayah Indonesia.

60.0
50.0

Jumlah penduduk kota 22,0% dan penduduk perkotaan 49,7%.

40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0

Kepri
Kaltim
Banten
Sulut
Sumbar
Malut
Sumsel
Maluku
Sumut
Papua barat
Kalsel
Jabar
Riau
Bali
Sulsel
Jambi
Sultra
Bengkulu
Gorontalo
Kalbar
Babel
NAD
Lampung
Jatim
Sulteng
NTB
DIY
Kalteng
Papua
Jateng
NTT

Penduduk

Wilayah

Sumber:
Data
Diolah
dari BPS, 2011
Sonny
Harry
B Harmadi

Persentase Penduduk Perkotaan 20102025

DKI Jakarta 100% (2010) 100% (2025)

Kepri 82.8% (2010) 83.8% (2025)
DIY 66.4% (2010) 78.0% (2025)
Jawa Barat 65.7% (2010) 83.1% (2025)
NTT 19.3% (2010) 27.3% (2025)
Indonesia 49.8% (2010) 60.0% (2025)

Sonny Harry B Harmadi

Persentase Penduduk Usia Kerja dan Angkatan Kerja Menurut

Pendidikan Tahun 2003-2012
Sampai dengan tahun 2009, lebih dari setengah
Penduduk Usia Kerja dan Angkatan Kerja hanya
lulus SD dan bahkan kurang dari SD
Persentase Penduduk Usia Kerja
Menurut Tingkat Pendidikan, Tahun 2003-2012

Persentase Angkatan Kerja Menurut Tingkat Pendidikan,

Tahun 2003-2012

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

2003

2009

2010

2011

2012

2003

2009

2010

2011

2012

< SD

54.3

50.1

48.8

48.3

47.2

< SD

55.06

50.4

48.64

47.77

47.36

SLTP

23.1

21.9

22.3

22.3

22.2

SLTP

20.47

18.59

19.13

19.29

18.57

13.89

14.98

15.50

15.59

16.17

SMA

13.9

14.8

15.3

14.9

15.9

SMA

SMK

5.2

7.3

7.4

7.9

7.8

SMK

6.06

8.48

8.64

9.05

8.93

D1-D3

1.6

2.3

2.4

2.6

2.2

D1-D3

1.90

2.84

2.98

3.14

2.69

Univ

2.0

3.6

3.9

4.0

4.7

Univ

2.62

4.71

5.11

5.16

6.28

Sonny Harry B Harmadi

11.5

11.2

11.0

11.7

9.8

9.6

9.0

8.9

8.3

8.6

8.2

7.5

7.3

0%
11.9

20%

Tertiary School

Sumber : BPS dan Kemenkeu

Secondary School
Primary School
Not Pass Primary

14.9

15.0

Not/Yet School

32.1

31.9

33.2

29.3

29.1

30.4

31.0

29.7

33.0

32.3

32.6

19.5

20.1

19.9

20.2

20.6

17.1

17.5

17.0

16.3

18.2

19.9

15.1

14.2

14.5

16.4

19.0

19.8

60%

14.4

15.0

15.2

15.3

15.7

33.1

32.7

33.2

33.4

40%

16.2

17.5

18.0

18.7

19.5

19.5

20.9

31.7

70%

12.7

10%
13.6

30%
23.0

50%
32.8

80%

14.5

22.3

29.7

28.5

27.5

26.7

25.8

24.4

23.7

22.4

22.4

20.7

21.1

20.5

19.6

19.0

17.7

16.6

16.5

90%

13.8

% Total 15>

Perkembangan Pendidikan Penduduk

Tingkat Pendidikan Penduduk Usia 15 Tahun ke Atas

100%

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Kondisi Kualitas Penduduk Miskin Saat Ini

Lebih dari 47% penduduk usia 15 tahun ke atas
berpendidikan maksimal tamat sekolah dasar

Angka kematian ibu justru meningkat

Angka kematian bayi hanya turun sedikit dan hampir

seperlima balita masih mengalami masalah gizi

Ketimpangan pengeluaran (pendapatan) memburuk

11,37% penduduk miskin, 60% pekerja informal,

asupan kalori di bawah tingkat minimu 1400 kkal
masih 19,04%

Rata-Rata Usia Pekerja

Sektor/Koridor Sumatra

Jawa

Kalimantan Sulawesi

Mapua Bali-Nusa Nasional

Pertanian

39.3

45.5

38.5

40.0

35.6

41.7

42.1

Pertambangan

34.3

39.5

32.6

34.3

35.8

36.1

35.8

Industri

34.5

34.5

36.0

37.1

37.6

37.5

34.8

LGA

36.1

36.5

35.7

36.2

36.5

36.5

36.4

Konstruksi

35.9

37.9

35.8

35.3

37.4

36.8

37.2

PHR

36.8

38.3

35.9

37.4

37.1

37.1

37.8

Transkom

36.0

37.2

35.8

34.0

33.4

33.7

36.4

Keuangan

34.2

35.0

32.9

33.3

34.1

33.7

34.7

Jasa

36.8

38.3

36.8

36.8

36.6

37.0

37.7

Perkembangan Mobilitas Penduduk di

Indonesia
Tabel 1. Angka migrasi bersih menurut provinsi,
Indonesia 2000, 2010 dan 2025
Provinsi
Aceh
Sumatera Utara
Sumatera Barat
Riau
Jambi
Sumatera Selatan
Bengkulu
Lampung
Bangka-Belitung
DKI Jakarta
Jawa Barat
Jawa Tengah
DI Yogyakarta
Jawa Timur
Banten

2000
-11,4
-4,4
-6,9
20,6
2,3
0,2
4,8
0,5
-0,1
-6,3
3,7
-7,5
4,8
-3,0
10,6

Tahun
2010
-11,3
-4,4
-7,1
19,0
2,3
0,3
4,7
0,8
0,1
-7,9
3,7
-7,1
3,4
-2,6
10,6

2025
-10,9
-4,0
-6,5
17,9
2,1
0,5
4,5
0,7
0,5
-7,9
3,5
-6,4
2,9
-2,1
10,1

Provinsi
Bali
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Kalimantan Barat
Kalimantan Tengah
Kalimantan Selatan
Kalimantan Timur
Sulawesi Utara
Sulawesi Tengah
Sulawesi Selatan
Sulawesi Tenggara
Gorontalo
Maluku
Maluku Utara
Papua

2000
2,6
0,3
-1,7
0,2
10,3
2,1
9,1
1,4
4,4
-3,3
7,4
-6,3
-0,2
-0,1
3,9

Sumber: Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (2005)

Tahun
2010
2,3
0,3
-1,8
0,2
10,3
2,0
8,7
1,5
4,4
-3,4
7,6
-6,2
-0,2
-0,1
3,9

2025
2,1
0,4
-1,7
0,1
9,8
1,8
8,0
1,5
4,3
-3,2
7,7
-5,9
-0,2
-0,1
3,5

DKI Jakarta
Banten dan
Jawa Barat
Riau
Kalteng,
Kaltim
Papua
Sulteng, Sultra
Peningkatan
Urbanisasi

PERSEBARAN PENDUDUK
7%

7%

7%
4%
69%

7%

14%

8%

7%

4%
65%

7%
7%
4%
64%

7%
5%
60%

7%
7%
5%
60%

7%
5%
62%

16%

18%

19%

8%
6%
58%

20%

20%

21%

7%

1930
1961
1971
1980
1990
2000
2010
Sumatera
Jawa & Madura
Kalimantan
Sulawesi
Lainnya

Dasar Aturan Adminduk

UUD NRI 1945

UU 23/2006

Pasal 26 ayat 2 dan 3 UUD NRI 1945 pasca Amandemen Kedua

secara jelas mendefinisikan penduduk dan menjelaskan bahwa
hal-hal yang terkait warga negara dan penduduk diatur dengan
undang-undang tersendiri.

Tentang Administrasi Kependudukan

Pemerintah melalui Menteri Dalam Negeri, berkewajiban, bertanggung jawab dan

berwenang menyelenggarakan administrasi kependudukan secara nasional
Pemerintah Provinsi melalui Gubernur berkewajiban, bertanggung jawab dan berwenang
menyelenggarakan administrasi kependudukan skala Provinsi
Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota melalui Bupati/Walikota berkewajiban, bertanggung jawab dan
berwenang menyelenggarakan administrasi kependudukan skala Kabupaten/Kota

TUJUAN ADMINISTRASI KEPENDUDUKAN

1

TERTIB
2

DATABASE
KEPENDUDUKAN
Terbangunnya Database
Kependudukan yang
Akurat ditingkat
Kab/Kota, Prov & Pusat
Database Kependudukan
Kab/Kota tersambung
(online) dengan Prov &
Pusat menggunakan SIAK
Database Kependudukan
Kemendagri & Daerah
Tersambung dengan
Instansi Pengguna

PENERBITAN NIK

NIK Diterbitkan setelah

penduduk mengisi
biodata penduduk per
keluarga (F1-01) dengan
menggunakan SIAK
Tidak ada NIK ganda
Pemberian NIK Kepada
semua penduduk harus
selesai akhir tahun 2011

DOKUMEN
KEPENDUDUKAN
(KK, KTP, AKTA CAPIL, DLL)

Prosesnya sesuai dengan

ketentuan yang berlaku
Tidak adanya dokumen
kependudukan ganda
dan palsu

V. MANFAAT DATA KEPENDUDUKAN DAN e-KTP

Untuk mendukung suksesnya Pemilu 2014 dan
Pemilukada berikutnya, melalui peningkatan akurasi data
sebagai bahan untuk penyusunan Daftar Pemilih (DAK2
dan DP4).

Untuk meningkatkan efektifitas administrasi

pemerintahan dan pelayanan publik bagi
penduduk dalam skala nasional.
Meningkatkan keamanan negara antara lain :
melalui pencegahan terorisme, TKI ilegal,
trafficking dll.
e-KTP berlaku secara nasional sebagaimana diatur
dalam Perpres Nomor : 67 tahun 2011.

Alternatif Solusi
Solusi masalah kuantitas penduduk
Solusi masalah kualitas penduduk
Solusi masalah mobilitas penduduk

Solusi masalah adminduk

Thank You

49