IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON POVERTY LEVEL IN SOUTH SULAWESI PROVINCE

_


INTRODUCTION
Poverty is always a country's development problem, particularly in the economic field.Poverty, from an economic perspective, has an impact on reducing people's purchasing power, while on the social aspect, poverty is seen as a problem when social stratification in society creates a dividing line in society.In addition, poverty has the potential to increase social security disturbances, such as increased crime rates, as a result of the inability of some people to fulfill life's sufficiency.Therefore, poverty alleviation efforts are important to study to produce policies that impact the effectiveness of poverty reduction.Todaro and Smith (2011) revealed various poverty reduction programs that can be implemented, such as providing at least basic education and health services as a solid foundation for long-term progress.In addition, providing various kinds of goods and services for public consumption financed by taxes for the poorest population groups is another considerable potential instrument for poverty alleviation.Another strategy worth considering to eradicate poverty is to help the poor in developing their microenterprises.It is identified that funding (credit loans) is an obstacle to developing these small businesses.By increasing working capital, productivity and income will increase substantially.
The mainstream of handling poverty which is widely practiced in Indonesia is to reduce the costs of the poor in the short term; this pattern is actualized by carrying out social assistance, for example, free education and health programs.Meanwhile, in the long term, policies are more directed at increasing the productivity of the poor, one of which is carried out by providing micro-credit (Agussalim, 2012).
Government spending on education and health is believed to be a long-term effort to overcome the problem of poverty.Empirical findings reveal that education and public health spending positively impact education and health outcomes (Obi et al., 2016).

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The perspective that supports the statement that government spending on education has a significant impact on increasing gross domestic product is research conducted by Nantwi (2015), who investigated education spending and economic growth in Ghana.
The results show a positive and significant long-term relationship between education spending and real GDP.Government

RESEARCH METHOD
The

Data Analysis Technique
Path analysis is employed under the following model equations: The estimation result of direct influence showcases that the regression coefficient value of education spending on a gross regional domestic product is 0.272, and the probability value is 0.000, meaning that education spending positively impacts the gross regional domestic product.Every 1% increase in education spending impacts an increase in the gross regional domestic product by 0.272%.
The regression coefficient value for health spending on a gross regional domestic product is -0.226 and a probability value of 0.000, meaning that health spending has a negative impact on the gross regional domestic product.Every 1% increase in health spending will reduce gross regional domestic product by 0.226%.

The regression coefficient value of education
spending on the poverty level is 0.776, and the probability is 0.000, meaning that education spending positively impacts poverty.Every 1% increase in education spending will increase poverty by 0.776%.
The regression coefficient value for health spending on the poverty rate is -0.915, and the probability value is 0.000, meaning that health spending significantly negatively impacts the poverty level.Every 1% increase in health spending will reduce poverty by 0.915%.
The regression coefficient value of the gross regional domestic product on the poverty level is -1.551, and the probability value is 0.000, meaning that the gross regional domestic product has a negative impact on poverty.Every 1% increase in the gross regional domestic product will reduce poverty by 1.551%.The results of the estimation of the indirect effect indicate the regression coefficient value of education spending on the poverty rate through gross regional domestic product, which is -0.422, and a probability value of 0.000, which means that education spending indirectly has a negative impact on the poverty rate.Every 1% increase in education spending will reduce poverty indirectly by 0.422%.
The regression coefficient value of health spending on the poverty rate through the gross regional domestic product is 0.350, and the probability value is 0.000, which means that indirectly health spending has a positive impact on the poverty rate.Every 1% increase in health spending will increase poverty indirectly by 0.350%.

Discussion
Education spending has a positive impact on the gross regional domestic product.This research has consistently supported Mukit will alleviate the poverty level through the increase of gross regional domestic product.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Poverty Rate in South Sulawesi Province 2010-2019 South Sulawesi Province still faces problems related to poverty.Based on published data from Statistics Indonesia of South Sulawesi Province, the poverty rate for the last five years (2015-2019) has experienced a slow decline.It has not shown a consistent decline every year.

Figure 2 .Figure 3 .
Figure 2. Realization of Government Expenditure in the Education and Health Sector (Rupiah) in South Sulawesi Province in 2015-2019 The realization of public spending for the education and health function is based on the Directorate General of Fiscal Balance report, which shows a significant increase from 2015 to 2019.Increasing public spending on education and health functions is expected to contribute to the population's average length of schooling and life expectancy, which can eventually increase productivity and a good work ethic in the community.Later, it will provide long-term progress in the economy.
such a way as to place a poor country in a poverty state.For example, the poor, who always eat less, will have bad health.Due to weak physical conditions, their work capacity becomes low.Because of low work capacity, their income will also be low, and that means they remain poor with less to eat, and so it goes.From a demand perspective, the vicious circle can be explained: low-income levels lead to low levels of demand and direct to low investment and investment returns, causing low productivity.Meanwhile, from a supply point of view, low productivity is reflected in low income; low income means a low saving rate.Low savings rates lead to low investment levels and less capital.Lack of capital eventually leads to low productivity.Davis and Miguel (2015) revealed that the different poverty literature over time reflects a shift in thinking from monetary aspects to broader issues.The Classical and Neoclassical approaches emphasize the monetary aspect of the individual and the limited role of government; classical economics argues that individuals are ultimately responsible for poverty, thus providing the basis for laissezfaire policies, while the more mainstream Neoclassical is more diverse and provides an explanation of poverty that exists outside the individual's control (especially market failures).The Keynesian/Neoliberal view focuses on macroeconomic forces and emphasizes the role of government in providing economic stabilization and public goods.Poverty is largely considered to be accidental and caused by unemployment.The Marxian/radical view considers class and group discrimination as the center of poverty and provides a key role for the state in market intervention/regulation.Meanwhile, social exclusion and social capital theories recognize the role of social and economic factors and assist in understanding the persistence of poverty over time.Therefore, to maximize the relevance of insights about poverty alleviation, a selective approach is required that refers to social disciplines to understand human behavior more broadly beyond material and individual aspects.Based on some literature, poverty is classified as Absolute Poverty when the income level is below the poverty line, or the amount of income is insufficient to meet the minimum needs (clothing, food, housing, health, and education) for life and work.Absolute poverty indicators are not limited to income but also include a lack of basic infrastructure, social capital, and natural capital (Gordon and Nandy, 2012).Chronic poverty is defined as a situation where a person or household is in a state of poverty for a long period, sometimes intergenerationally.It can be concluded that absolute and chronic poverty are the same in all aspects; the difference lies in the fact that absolute poverty is temporary, while chronic poverty occurs over a long period.Relative poverty is a condition where income is in a position above the poverty line but relatively lower than the surrounding community.Relative poverty relative is considered a condition in which individuals presume themselves poor by comparing their socioeconomic conditions with others.Poverty, in this case, is a perception in which a person should be seen based on his socioeconomic status compared to others.Structural Poverty is a condition or situation of poverty due to the influence of development policies that have not yet reached the entire community, causing income inequality; and Cultural Poverty refers to the problem of a person's or society's attitude caused by cultural factors such as the unwillingness to improve the level of life, being lazy, wasteful, not creative even though there are efforts from outsiders to help them.In addition, some classify poverty into persistent poverty (hereditary poverty), cyclical poverty (poverty that follows the pattern of the overall economic cycle), seasonal poverty (seasonal poverty as found in the case of fishermen and food crop farmers), and accidental poverty (poverty that caused by natural disasters or the impact of certain policies that cause a decrease in the level of welfare).Theories that are rooted in the causes of poverty, Individual deficiencies (individual deficiencies-conservative), and social phenomena theories (social phenomenaliberal/progressive).Causes of poverty in 5 categories, namely poverty caused by individual deficiencies; cultural belief systems that support poverty sub-cultures; economic, social, and political distortion/ discrimination; geographic disparity and; cyclical and cumulative interventions.Poverty is not only caused by natural disasters but also by dictatorship exists in a country's political system.Development is found as a way to end poverty while freedom is considered as a measure of development because: (a) Evaluative reason, an assessment of the success of development that is understood based on the extent to which human freedom has increased, who is able to express and try to meet their needs; (b) Effectiveness reason, the success of development depends entirely on human beings who are free, able to determine goals and ways of fulfilling their needs.Therefore, to actualize this, two points of view are needed: the primary end (constitutive, human development) and the principal means (instrumental, infrastructure for accessing community welfare).According to Sen, there are 5 attributes, which are political freedom; opportunities in the economic field; opportunities in the social sector, namely education and health; guarantee of opennessof government spending with a focus on public spending has a significant impact on reducing poverty, starting from the general theory that states that the provision of a wide range of goods and services for public consumption financed by taxes for the most vulnerable groups of the population poor, is an important instrument that has the potential to alleviate poverty, (Todaro and Smith, 2011).It is supported by Dahmardeh's (2013) research findings on government expenditure and its impact on reducing poverty in Iran.The results of the study show that constructive spending has a significant impact on reducing poverty.Government spending is essential for national development, and the availability of various types of public needs for poor population groups is a variable that can contribute to solving problems related to poverty.As with the empirical findings of Mehmood and Sadiq (2010), who investigated the relationship between government public spending and poverty in Romania, the result indicated that government public spending has an impact on reducing poverty.In addition, there is also a long-term impact, where poverty reduction is caused by an increase in government public spending, such as the construction of social facilities, public facilities, infrastructure, education, and health.Similar empirical findings by Awe (2013) which examined the impact of government spending on poverty in Nigeria, the results show that public spending on education, health, and agriculture functions has an impact on reducing poverty.Not all research results support the statement that government spending with a focus on public spending has a significant impact on poverty reduction.Birowo (2011) research investigated the relationship between government spending and poverty levels in Indonesia.The study results show that government spending does not have a negative and significant relationship with poverty levels.
conducted byMukit (2012) analyzed the impact of education spending on economic growth in Bangladesh; the findings revealed a positive impact, where an increase in education public spending would increase economic growth in the long term.Empirical findings by Lacheheb support the research findings, Nor and Baloch (2014), who analyzed the impact of health and education spending on economic growth in MENA (Middle East and North Africa) countries.The findings reveal that spending on health and education has an effect on increasing economic growth.Research conducted by Maitra and Mukhophadhyay (2012) investigated public spending on education, and economic growth in Asia-Pacific.The results showed that health spending significantly positively affected GDP growth in Bangladesh, Nepal, the Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka.This finding is supported by research conducted by Lacheheb, Nor, and Baloch (2014), who investigated spending on health, and education and their impact on economic growth in MENA (Middle East and North Africa) countries.The results of the study show that health and education expenditures have a positive and significant effect on economic growth and gross domestic product formation.A small number of researchers believe that government spending on education and health does not have a significant impact on increasing gross domestic product; in fact, government spending actually has a negative impact on the gross domestic product, is research conducted by Reza and Valeecha (2012) who investigates the impact of education on economic growth in Pakistan.The results of the study demonstrated the absence relationship between education spending and economic growth in the short term.At the same time, research conducted by Ali, Ullah, and Asghar (2017) investigated the effect of health spending on GDP in Pakistan, China, India, and Bangladesh.The results of the study show that health spending has no significant effect on GDP.
scope of the research covers 24 districts/cities in South Sulawesi Province during 2015-2019.This type of research is quantitative, using secondary data obtained from various official sources, including Statistics Indonesia (BPS) of South Sulawesi Province and DJPK of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia.
scheme, which only a small portion of the poor can access due to various problems, such as the absence of collateral, and the provision of interest, is still considered quite high.

Table 1 .
Estimating Results of Direct Influence Variables

Table 2 .
Estimating Results of Indirect Influences Variables