Government intervention and market integration in Indonesian rice markets
利用1982-1993年周度价格数据，通过协整检验评估印尼大米市场的长期空间价格关系及影响市场整合程度的因素，发现1984年大米自给自足后政策调整降低了市场整合，但政府收购对整合有正向影响。
Abstract Long‐run spatial price relationships in Indonesian rice markets and factors affecting the degree of market integration are evaluated using multivariate cointegration tests with weekly price data for the 1982‐1993 period. The analysis includes evaluation of pre‐self‐sufficiency and post‐self‐sufficiency periods as well as Cot the entire period. The cointegration tests for entire Indonesian rice market, represented by the nine most relevant price series, indicate that relative to the pre‐self‐sufficiency period, the post‐self‐sufficiency period has a smaller degree of market integration. The change of the degree of market integration over time indicates that rationalizing of the Indonesian rice price policy beyond 1984 rice self‐sufficiency has resulted in a less integrated market. This suggests that the policy shift has allowed the government to decrease its intervention without significantly decreasing market integration, indicating that the private sector is responding to price signals appropriately. It is possible that further reduction in intervention through widening the band between the floor and ceiling price could be accomplished without greatly affecting market integration. Regression results show that government intervention in terms of rice procurement significantly influenced market integration during the period of post‐self‐sufficiency (1985‐1993) and the entire period of 1982‐1993. This indicates that this aspect of government intervention has had positive influences on market integration, in contrast to distribution efforts, which were not found to be statistically significant, Procurement prices may be high, and could perhaps be lowered, reducing program costs. Regional per capita income is also found to be positively related to highei levels of market integration, suggesting that in periods of economic growth, government intervention may be decreased, thereby reducing program costs.