Volume 6, Issue 2, February – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

The Effect of Human Development Index (IPM),

Gini Ratio, and Gross Domestic Products on the
Number of Stunting in Indonesia
Fuad Shofi Anam Saiful Adhi Saputra
Economics and Development Studies Sentral Burau of Statistics, Semarang City
University of Diponegoro Jl. Inspeksi Kali No. 01 Semarang,
Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia Central Java, Indonesia

Abstract:- Indonesia, trailing Cambodia, ranks fifth with There are several factors, particularly in Indonesia, that
the highest stunting rate in the Asian region. Especially in cause stunting. One of the causes of stunting in babies is the
Indonesia, there are many factors that cause stunting. issue of poverty in rural areas. In children under five, stunting
There are two kinds of factors: economic and is a state of inability to develop due to persistent malnutrition
noneconomic. The researchers evaluated economic factors which making the body height of the infant too small relative
using sub-factors that were also used as independent to other children of his generation. To resolve this issue, the
variables, such as the Human Growth Index, Gini Ratio, PPDT's Ministry of Villages (Ministry of Villages, Creation of
GDP at constant prices, and GDP at present prices, in this Deprived Areas, and Transmigration) divides the target of
analysis. This research uses a quantitative methodology operation execution in 1000 villages into three parts. This is
from 34 provinces in Indonesia for two consecutive years, one form of efforts by the Indonesian government to minimize
2018 and 2019, with the panel data regression process. Indonesia's stunting rates.
Results of the data review indicate that only the GDP
component has a major influence on the extent of stunting However, the impact of economic and non-economic
in Indonesia at current prices. This is because, in influences is also a point of contention. In Indonesia, there are
Indonesia, the extent of stunting continues to be caused by also many sub-factors of the economy that cause stunting. The
non-economic causes. Human Development Index (HDI), Gini Ratio, New Price
GRDP, and Constant Price GRDP are the economic sub-
Keywords:- Human Growth Index; Gini Ratio; GDP; factors. The four sub-factors are a measuring tool for an area
Stunting. or region's level of welfare or poverty. Poverty is the
predominant cause of economic conditions that cause stunting
I. INTRODUCTION of children under the age of five.

Stunted growth in early childhood is a type of Poverty is one of the most significant challenges facing
malnutrition that is now affecting a number of countries, developed nations like Indonesia. According to the BPS
especially developed countries. This dilemma has never been (Central Statistics Agency), the idea of poverty is an economic
taken seriously and even overlooked after years ago, the case failure, calculated in terms of spending, to fulfill basic needs
of stunting is occurring at this moment. It is a serious problem such as food and non-food goods. Poverty, according to
in the majority of toddlers and has a negative effect on a Branca and Ferrari, is one of the causes of stunting.
country's economy, especially in developed countries. Now,
editing has been a top priority problem that needs to be The purpose of this research is to evaluate the influence
addressed worldwide. From 2010 to 2025, the World Health of economic factors contributing to pregnancy loss in
Organisation plans to minimize stunting by 40 percent. Indonesia, including HDI, HK GDP, HB GDP, and
Between 1990 and 2010, Asia's stunting prevalence fell from Indonesia's Gini Stunting Incidence Ratio in 2018 and 2019.
49 percent to 28 percent. The data for this analysis was compiled using the Eviews 10
program and analyzed using a descriptive quantitative
Indonesia, a developing nation on the Asian continent, methodology with data regression methods tables.
has a comparatively high incidence of stunting for children
under the age of five. Indonesia follows Cambodia as the II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Asian country with the highest stunting rate, according to
WHO data. In Indonesia, the percentage of stunting increased A polemical debate was created on the topic of
to 29.6 percent from the previous 28.9 percent based on the economic factors influencing the number of stunting cases in
findings of tracking nutritional status (PSG) in 2018. With this an area. There are many researchers who note that, especially
statistic in mind, the Indonesian government has launched a in Indonesia, the amount of stunting is not controlled by
national stunting reduction policy in an attempt to minimize economic factors. Other causes have a greater effect on the
the number of stunted infants. occurrence of stunting. As study by Nasrun & Rahmania,
(2018) and Ibrahim & Faramita (2015) shows, the prevalence

IJISRT21FEB588 www.ijisrt.com 926

Volume 6, Issue 2, February – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
of the number of stations in Indonesia is not impacted by There are three types of methods to panel data regression
economic factors such as the human development index, the analysis: typical effect models, fixed effects models, and
Gini ratio and the Gross Domestic Product (GRDP). random effects models (Brooks, 2008). One of the most
suitable models will be chosen from the three to forecast the
In comparison to the case of Utami & Mubasyiroh study's outcomes. The F test, also known as the Chow Test,
(2019) and Basbeth (2020) studies, which state that there is a and the Hausman Test are two of the phases that were carried
near correlation between economic factors and Indonesia's out in this analysis.
amount of stunting. There are disputes and study findings on
the impact of economic conditions on the amount of stunting In comparison, this study used a conventional inference
in Indonesia, based on these reports. This is also a subject that test to see if the data are appropriate for regression analysis.
needs to be investigated further in order to yield valuable The normality test, autocorrelation, multicollinearity, and
results. This research would therefore investigate the effect heterocedasticity are all predictions that the regression model
on the amount of stunting instances in Indonesia in the period must pass. The hypothesis testing was then conducted to
2018-2019 of economic factors such as the Human assess the importance of the relationship between the
Development Index, Gini Ratio, and Gross Domestic Product. independent and dependent variables. The partial test (t test)
and the coefficient of determination (R2) were used to test the
III. RESEARCH METHODS hypothesis.

This analysis was carried out in Indonesia's 34 IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
provinces. One dependent variable, the sum of stunting, and
four independent variables, HDI, Gini Ratio, Constant Price A. Hypothesis Test Results
GDP, and Current Price GDP, are included in this analysis.
The data used in this analysis is secondary panel data collected 1. F Test or Chow Test
from each province's Central Bureau of Statistics over a two- The F test, also known as the chow test, decides
year period, from 2018 to 2019. The population in this sample whether a fixed effect model or a general effect model is
is drawn from 34 Indonesian provinces, ranging from Aceh to better for estimating panel data in this analysis. In this
Papua, all at the same time. be the topic of this study's sample. analysis, the chow test hypothesis is:
H0 :Random Effect Model
Panel data regression analysis using the Eviews software H1 :Fixed Effect Model
was used as the analysis tool. This research approach was
selected because it helps the analysis to solve a broader The results of the f-statistical equation with the f-table
continuum problem that cannot be solved using only cross- will be used to evaluate the F test or chow test. If the F-count
sectional data or time series. In general, it increases the approaches the F-table, H0 is rejected, and the fixed effect
reliability of analysis estimates by increasing degrees of model is the best model to use in this analysis, and vice versa.
freedom and reducing collinearity between explanatory The F test, also known as the chow test, shows the following
variables. This research explores the effects of economic results:
factors (HDI, Gini Ratio, Constant Price GDP, and Present
Price GDP) on Indonesia's stunting rate in 2018 and 2019. Table 1. Chow Test Output Results
Redundant Fixed Effects Tests
This is a predictive analysis that is used to assess the Equation: Untitled
Test cross-section fixed effects
degree to which the independent variables have an effect on
the dependent variable. Multiple linear regression is a test used
Effects Test Statistic d.f. Prob.
in this analysis to assess the influence of four independent
variables on the dependent variable. The panel data regression Cross-section F 158.164718 (33,30) 0.0000
model can be defined mathematically as follows: Cross-section Chi-square 351.198137 33 0.0000

𝑌 = 𝛼 + 𝛽1 𝑋1 + 𝛽2 𝑋2 + 𝛽3 𝑋3 + 𝛽4 𝑋4 Source: Processed data

+ 𝜀 … … … … … … … . (1) The chi-square chance cross-section value is 0.0000,
which is less than the value used in this analysis (0.05),
Information : suggesting that the fixed effect model is more fitting for this
Y : Stunting rate study than the typical effect model.
X1 : Human Development Index
X2 : Gini Ratio 2. The Hausman Test
X3 : Constant Price GRDP The Hausman test is a mathematical test that is used to
X4 : Current Price PDRB assess if this analysis is using the right fixed effect model or
α : Constant coefficient random effect model. The following are the Hausman test's
β : Regression coefficient X hypotheses in this study:
ε : Error H0 :Random Effect Model
H1 :Fixed Effect Model

IJISRT21FEB588 www.ijisrt.com 927

Volume 6, Issue 2, February – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Since the findings of the Chow test suggest that the c) Heteroscedasticity Test
fixed effect model is the most appropriate for this analysis, Then the third classical assumption test is the
the Hausman test is used to decide whether the fixed effect heteroscedasticity test. The following are the results of the
model or the random effect model is the most appropriate for heteroscedasticity test:
this study.
Figure 1.3 Heteroscedasticity Test Results
Table 2. Hausman Test Output Results
Correlated Random Effects - Haus m an Tes t
Equation: Untitled
Tes t cros s -s ection random effects

Tes t Sum m ary Chi-Sq. Statis tic Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob.

Cros s -s ection random 27.605221 4 0.0000

Source: Processed data

According to the performance findings above, the

random cross-section value is higher than the α value (0.05),
which is 27.605221, and the chi-square likelihood cross- With the above results we suspect that
section value is 0.0000, which is smaller than the value (0.05) heteroscedasticity does not occur, because the residuals do
used in this analysis, suggesting that the fixed effect model is not form a certain pattern, in other words the residual tends to
more fitting for this study than the random effect model. In be constant.
addition, the standard inference evaluation will be done.
d) Autocorrelation Test
a) Normality Test Based on the calculations of Durbin Watson tables and
The aim of the normality test is to determine whether or Durbin Watson calculations, it can be seen that d> dU is
not the data in this sample is naturally distributed. This can be 1.7798> 1.5353, so there is no autocorrelation in this study.
calculated by looking at the jarque-bera coefficient and its
likelihood (Gujarati, 2012). The consequence of the normality 3. Hypothesis Testing
test is as follows:
a) t test (partial)
Figure 1. Normality Test Results From the output above, it can be seen that the t-statistic
10
Series: Standardized Residuals value of x1 x2 x3 and x4. The t value shows the effect of the
8
Sample 2017 2018
Observations 68
partial variable predictor on the response variable in the panel
data regression model in this study. While the Prob value in
Mean 0.000000
6
Median 0.000000 the output result above is the p value or the significance level
4
Maximum
Minimum
0.585719
-0.585719
of the partial t in the t-statistics column. This p value
Std. Dev.
Skewness
0.215361
0.000000
indicates the significance level of t partial in order to answer
2
Kurtosis 2.694086 the partial test hypothesis. If the p value is less than the
0 Jarque-Bera 0.265153
critical limit, 0.05 then the answer to the hypothesis is that the
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Probability 0.875836
predictor variable has a statistically significant effect on the
Source: Processed data response variable. And conversely, if the p value is more than
the critical limit, then receiving H0 or which means the
The probability value of 0.27525> 0.05, as calculated predictor variable in question does not have a statistically
by the Jarque-Bera measure, implies that the data from this significant effect on the response variable.
variable is usually distributed or free of anomalies from the
classical expectations of normality. The panel regression coefficient on vector X1 Human
Development Index (HDI) is -0.122052, according to the
b) Multicollinearity Test findings of mathematical analysis using panel data regression.
The HDI vector coefficient is -0.2079, with a probability
Table 3. Multicollinearity Test Results value of 0.9037, which is higher than the study's critical
X1 X2 X3 X4 value. As a result, in 2018 and 2019, HDI has a negative and
X1 1 0.05853960... 0.49306335... 0.24361548... negligible impact on the stunting rate in Indonesia.
X2 0.05853960... 1 0.01504553... -0.0966850...
X3 0.49306335... 0.01504553... 1 0.34561015...
The panel regression coefficient on the X2 Gini Ratio
X4 0.24361548... -0.0966850... 0.34561015... 1
component is also considered to be -0.4966. The Gini Ratio
Source: Processed data
indicator has a coefficient of -21.186 and a probability value
of 0.6230, which is higher than the critical value in this
Based on this statistic, the coefficient values between
analysis. As a result, in 2018 and 2019, the Gini Ratio had no
the independent variables in this analysis are less than 0.8,
major effects on the stunting rate in Indonesia. Similarly, the
suggesting that the independent variables used in this study
HK GDP X3 indicator had no major effect on Indonesia's
are not correlated, indicating that they are free of
stunting rate in 2018 and 2019.
multicollinearity concerns.

IJISRT21FEB588 www.ijisrt.com 928

Volume 6, Issue 2, February – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
However, in Indonesia in 2018 and 2019, variable X4, REFERENCES
namely PDRB HB, has a major impact on stunting rates. The
t-statistic value of vector PDRB HB is -0.0296 with a [1]. ACC/SCN. 2002. 4th Report-The World Nutrition
probability value of 0.00976 below a critical value of 0.05 Situation “Nutrition troughout the life cycle. Geneva:
and a coefficient value of 1.30E. WHO.
[2]. Basbeth, F. (2020). Stunting di Indonesia dan
b) F Test (Simultaneous) kemiskinan. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(1), 1–14.
The results of the F test in the Random Effect Model http://scioteca.caf.com/bitstream/handle/123456789/109
can be seen from the output F-stats. Based on the results of 1/RED2017-Eng-
the F-statistic output, it is shown that Fcount is 5.0881 with a 8ene.pdf?sequence=12&isAllowed=y%0Ahttp://dx.doi.
significance level of 0.000008 and Ftable value is 2.28, which org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.06.005%0Ahttps://ww
means that the value of F-count is greater than F-table and the w.researchgate.net/publication/305320484_SISTEM_P
significance value is smaller than α = 0.05, so it can be It is EMBETUNGAN_TERPUSAT_STRATEGI_MELEST
concluded that the variables X1, X2, X3, and X4 ARIKAN_
simultaneously or together have a significant effect on [3]. Brooks, C. (2008). RATS Handbook to accompany
variable Y. introductory econometrics for finance. Cambridge
Books.
c) R2 Adjusted R Square [4]. Ekananda, Mahyus. 2014. Analisis Ekonometrika Data
Based on the results of the FEM output, it can be seen Panel: bagi penelitian ekonomi, manajemen dan
that the Adjusted R-squared value is 0.6930, which means akuntansi. Bogor: Mitra Wacana Media.
that 69.52 percent of the stunting rate in Indonesia in 2017- [5]. Gujarati, D. N. (2012). Dasar-dasar Ekonometrika,
2018 is influenced by the HBG PDRB variable, while the Terjemahan Mangunsong. RC (5th Ed.). Jakarta:
remaining 30.48 percent is influenced by other variables that Salemba Empat.
are not exist in this study. The closer to number 1, the [6]. Ibrahim, I. A., & Faramita, R. (2015). Hubungan faktor
stronger the influence of the independent variable on the sosial ekonomi keluarga dengan kejadian stunting anak
dependent variable. usia 24-59 bulan di wilayah kerja puskesmas
Barombong kota Makassar tahun 2014. Al-Sihah :
 The Effect of Human Development Index (Ipm), Gini Public Health Science Journal, 7(1), 63–75.
Ratio, and Gross Domestic Products on the Number of http://103.55.216.55/index.php/Al-
Stunting in Indonesia Sihah/article/view/1978
As far as we know, Indonesia is the Asian nation with [7]. Irvan, Fahmi. 2016. Eviews : Tahap Regresi Data
the fifth highest stunting incidence. The Human Growth Panel, (Online),
Index, Gini Ratio, and Gross Regional Domestic Product (https://www.ytb.com/watch?v=lvBAC7a1Tpk), diakses
using Constant Prices do not influence the degree of stunting 10 November 2017.
in Indonesia in 2018 and 2019, according to analysis using a [8]. Jackson, A, & Calder, P. C, 2004, (Handbook of
descriptive quantitative method. Gross Regional Domestic Nutrition and Immunity (Servere Undernutrition and
Product with Applicable Rates, on the other hand, has a Immunity).M. Eric Gershwin, M. E. Nestel, P., & Keen,
substantial effect. Indonesian stunting rates in 2018 and 2019. C.L. (Ed). Humana Press. 77.
Stunting rates in Indonesia are affected by non-economic [9]. Mukhlis, Imam., S.Hamonangan, Timbul. 2017.
factors such as heredity, maternal genes, as well as mother's Ekonometrika Teori dan Aplikasi.Tulungagung: Cahaya
level of knowledge and education. Economic factors such as Abadi.
HDI, Gini Ratio, and GRDP at Constant Prices have little [10]. Milman. Anna.et al. 2005. “Diferential Improvement
effect on stunting rates because stunting rates are influenced Countries in Child Stunting Is Associated with Long-
by non-economic factors such as heredity, maternal genes, Term Development and Specific Interventions”. The
and mother's level of knowledge and education. Stunting Journal of Nutrition, 135: 1415-1422. Diakses 28
events in Indonesia are also highly affected by dietary November 2019 dari www. Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
conditions at a young age. [11]. Mujiati, Sri. Triwinarto, Agus. 2011. (Determinants Of
Stunting In Children 2-3 Years Of Age At Province
V. CONCLUTION Level): PGM 2011, 34(1):50-62.
[12]. Nasrun, M. A., & Rahmania. (2018). HUBUNGAN
Economic factors such as the Human Growth Index, INDIKATOR KEBERHASILAN PEMBANGUNAN
Gini Ratio, and Gross Regional Domestic Product at Constant EKONOMI DENGAN STUNTING DI INDONESIA
Prices have no impact on the Stunting Rate in Indonesia, M. Ali Nasrun. FEB Universitas Tanjungpura, 1–14.
according to the findings of the report. This is because non- [13]. Utami, N. H., & Mubasyiroh, R. (2019). Masalah Gizi
economic causes such as hunger at a young age, genetic Balita Dan Hubungannya Dengan Indeks Pembangunan
factors, and the climate have a larger effect on stunting in Kesehatan Masyarakat. Penelitian Gizi Dan Makanan
Indonesia. This is because non-economic causes such as (The Journal of Nutrition and Food Research), 42(1),
hunger at a young age, genetic factors, and a mother's level of 1–10. https://doi.org/10.22435/pgm.v42i1.2416
schooling have a larger effect on stunting in Indonesia. [14]. TNP2k, Sekretariat wakil presiden RI, “100 kab/kota
Prioritas Untuk Intervensi anak kerdil (Stunting),
Jakarta 2017

IJISRT21FEB588 www.ijisrt.com 929