Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Penelitian ini memiliki dua tujuan yakni menganalisis sisa belanja pemerintah (SiLPA), pendidikan (EDU), pertumbuhan ekonomi (EG), dan ketimpangan (GINI) terhadap kemiskinan (KMS) di Provinsi Aceh dan menganalisis ambang batas SilPA dan Pendidikan. Penelitian ini menggunakan data panel 23 Kabupaten/Kota dari periode 2011 hingga 2020. Analisis data menggunakan dua pendekatan yakni SYS-GMM dan Panel Threshold. Hasil penelitian menemukan sisa belanja pemerintah dan ketimpangan berpengaruh positif signifikan terhadap kemiskinan. Sementara itu pendidikan ditemukan berpengaruh negatif signifikan terhadap kemiskinan. Pertumbuhan ekonomi ditemukan tidak signifikan. Berdasarkan estimasi panel threshold, sisa belanja pemerintah ditemukan batas yakni 1,725 persen dan pendidikan 8,07 tahun. Jika sisa belanja pemerintah di bawah ambang batas maka kemiskinan akan berkurang sedangkan jika sisa belanja pemerintah di atas ambang batas maka kemiskinan akan bertambah. Selanjutnya jika rata-rata pendidikan di suatu daerah di bawah lebih rendah dari ambang batas maka menimbulkan kemiskinan dan sebaliknya jika daerah mampu meningkatkan pendidikan maka kemiskinan akan berkurang. Oleh karena itu, pemerintah sebagai pelaku kebijakan perlu menggunakan anggaran secara maksimal hingga di bawah angka ambang batas, lalu meningkatkan mutu pendidikan baik secara formal maupun informal serta menekan angka ketimpangan.

Kata kunci: Kemiskinan, SilPA, Pendidikan, Pertumbuhan Ekonomi, Ketimpangan, Panel Analisis

This study has two objectives, namely analyzing the remaining government budget (SiLPA), education (EDU), economic growth (EG), and inequality (GINI) towards poverty (KMS) in Aceh Province and analyzing the thresholds of SilPA and Education. This research uses panel data from 23 Regencies/Cities from the period 2011 to 2020. Data analysis uses two approaches, namely SYS-GMM and Panel Threshold. The research results found that remaining government spending and inequality had a significant positive effect on poverty. Meanwhile, education was found to have a significant negative effect on poverty. Economic growth was found to be insignificant. Based on the threshold panel estimates, the remaining government budget was found to be limited at 1.725 percent and education at 8.07 years. If the remaining government budget is below the threshold then poverty will decrease, whereas if the remaining government budget is above the threshold then poverty will increase. Furthermore, if the average education in an area is lower than the threshold, it will lead to poverty and conversely, if the area is able to improve education, poverty will decrease. Therefore, the government as a policy actor needs to use the budget optimally to below the threshold figure, then improve the quality of education both formally and informally and reduce inequality. Keywords: Poverty, SilPA, Education, Economic Growth, Inequality, Panel Analysis