Muhammad Kholisul Imam, Anas Tania Januari


The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken Indonesia's macroeconomy. The economic growth experienced a contraction accompanied by an increase in poverty and unemployment. On the other hand, the COVID-19 pandemic also provides an opportunity for the growth of the digital economy. Digitalization that goes well will increase economic activity due to greater accessibility. However, there has been a decline in income during the pandemic. Therefore, this research aims to learn whether digitalization can improve income levels by understanding the impact of having a cell phone and accessing the internet for economic activities towards revenues. Here, the treatment effect is conducted to estimate the magnitude of that impact and identify the factors determining digitalization (have a cell phone and access the internet for economic activities). This research uses secondary data obtained from the Indonesia family life survey fifth wave. The result shows that the income of someone who can digitize is higher than that of non-digitalization participants, indicating the digitalization significantly contributes to increased revenues. Moreover, object perception for having a cell phone and accessing the internet for economic activities supports people's interest in digitalization mainly due to happiness, subjective well-being, and marital status.

Save to Mendeley


Digitalization; Income; IFLS-5; reatment effect model

Full Text:



BPS. (2021a, February 5). Ekonomi Indonesia 2020 Turun sebesar 2,07 Persen (c-to-c). Berita Resmi Statistik.

BPS. (2021b, February 15). Persentase Penduduk Miskin September 2020 naik menjadi 10,19 persen. Berita Resmi Statistik.

BPS. (2021c, November 5). [REVISI per 09/11/2021] Agustus 2021: Tingkat Pengangguran Terbuka (TPT) sebesar 6,49 persen. Berita Resmi Statistik.

BPS. (2021d). Indeks Pembangunan Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi 2020. Jakarta: BPS Indonesia.

BPS. (2020, November 5). [REVISI per 18/02/2021] Agustus 2020: Tingkat Pengangguran Terbuka (TPT) sebesar 7,07 persen. Berita Resmi Statistik.

Case, Karl. (2007). Case Fair: Prinsip-prinsip Ekonomi Jilid 2. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Greene. R. (2012). Econometric Analysis, 7th Edition. New York. Pearson.

Heckman, J., & Robb, R. (1985), Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions: An overview, Journal of Econometrics, 30, (1-2), 239-267.

Karbhari, Y., Muye, I., Hassan, A. F. S., & Elnahass, M. (2018). Governance mechanisms and efficiency: Evidence from an alternative insurance (Takaful) market. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 56, 71-92.

Lester, Bijou. (2011). An exploratory analysis of composite choices: Weighing rationality versus irrationality. Journal of Socio-economics. 40. 949-958.

Mankiw, Gregory. (2008). Principles of Economics 5th edition. Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Rubin, H. (2011). Future Global Shocks: Pandemics. Paris: OECD.

Sitio, A., & Tamba, H. (2001). Koperasi: Teori dan Praktek. Jakarta: Erlangga

Spence, Michael. (2021). Government and economics in the digital economy. Journal of Government and Economics, 3, 100020.

Sukirno, Sadono. (2009). Mikro Ekonomi Teori Pengantar Edisi Ketiga. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Suprapto, E., Santoso, D.B., Imam, M.K., & Paksi, G.M. (2020). Does cooperative participant strengthen small and medium enterprises competitiveness in East Java? International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 12(2), 178-189.

Todaro, M. P. and Smith, S. C. (2011) Pembangunan Ekonomi Jilid 1 Edisi 11. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S251–S278.