Women and Girls in Indonesia

I N D O N E S I A
UNFPA Indonesia
Monograph Series: No.5
Women and Girls in Indonesia:

Progress and Challenges
UNFPA Indonesia
Monograph Series: No.5
Women and Girls in Indonesia:

Progress and Challenges
OCTOBER 2015
CONTRIBUTORS
Authored by:
Dr. Soedarti Surbakti
(Independent Researcher/Former Head of BPS Statistics Indonesia)
Dr. Theresa Devasahayam

(Visiting Affiliate, Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore)
DISCLAIMER:
Funding for this work was provided by UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund.
The findings, interpretations and conclusions presented in this document are those of the authors,
not necessarily those of UNFPA, and do not reflect the policies and positions of the Government of Indonesia.
Foreword
UNFPA, The United Nations Population Fund, has a strong mandate to
promote women’s empowerment and gender equality. Its core missions
of furthering sexual and reproductive health and supporting high-
quality and consistent national-level data collection are pillars of poverty
reduction, gender equality and development. UNFPA works with partners
in Government, the UN system and civil society to promote and work on
gender equality and women’s empowerment.
Addressing and promoting gender equality is at the heart of UNFPA’s work.

This has been especially marked since the International Conference on
Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo in 1994, and the Fourth World Conference on Women
held in Beijing in 1995, when Governments agreed that a gender perspective should be an integral and
cross-cutting aspect of all development efforts. The ICPD Programme of Action identifies specific issues that
involve complex gender and social relations, these include: sexual and reproductive health, family planning,
youth and adolescents, population dynamics, human rights and gender-based violence.
Furthermore, the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment is both a goal in itself and a
central element to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
One of the key activities of UNFPA Indonesia under its eight Country Programme (2011-2015) was to
provide support to the Government in utilizing data collected from the 2010 Population Census, and other
official statistics, to inform discussion and debate on key population issues of public policy concern. In
order to understand the population dynamics and trends reflected in the recent data, UNFPA initiated the
development of a series of monographs to analyse the information.
The gender monograph is the fifth monograph in this series. This monograph is comprised of five themes:
the demographic characteristics of male and female population, education, employment, family formation,
feminization of ageing, and housing. It provides policy makers, academicians, and practitioners with the
most up to date information about gender related issues derived from analysis of the census and other
relevant sources of data. The monograph will also be useful to inform gender-sensitive public policies
and programmes that lead to the advancement of women in Indonesia. Additionally, the monographs are
intended to be as user-friendly as possible, and thus readers will find the information useful for establishing
a baseline against which the progress of Indonesian women can be measured.
I would like to thank Dr Soedarti Surbakti and Dr Theresa Devasahayam as the respective author and co-
author of this monograph. I also would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by Dr Ghazy
Mujahid as reviewer and Ms Ilana Tulloh as editor. I would like to extend my appreciation to colleagues from
the UNFPA Country Office involved in the production of this monograph. In particular I would like to thank
the Population and Development Unit, headed by Mr Richard Makalew, and the Gender Unit, headed by Ms
Risya Ariyani Kori, and with the support of Mr Dikot Harahap, Mr Dedek Prayudi, Mr Elvince Sardjono and
Ms Alice Garner. Thanks also to Ms Nur Aisyah Usman and Ms Vania Desiyanti for their technical assistance
to the authors, and Ms Jumita Siagian, Ms Indah Alia and Ms Meilawati Mayadewi for their administrative
iii
support. My gratitude also goes to Advocacy and Communications Unit, Mr Samidjo and Ms Satya Nugraheni
for their timely support in ensuring the quality of the layout and printing of the monograph.
My special thanks also goes to the Population Census data processing team from BPS, Statistics Indonesia,
especially staff in the Directorate of Population and Labor Force Statistics who contributed valuable materials
and data, and to officials from the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection (MOWECP) for
contributing to the quality of this monograph. This monograph has also benefited from the valuable inputs and
comments from the discussants and participants of the validation meeting conducted in Jakarta on 5 August
2015, and I wish to acknowledge Dr Omas Bulan Samosir and Dr Dwini Hariyanto, from the Demographic
Institute, University of Indonesia; and Ms Budi Wahyuni, Commissioner of National Commission on Violence
Against Women.
Jakarta, October 2015
Jose Ferraris
UNFPA Representative
iv
Contents
Foreword.................................................................................................................................... iii
Contents..................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgement.................................................................................................................... x
Acronym & Abbreviation.......................................................................................................... xi
Chapter I Introduction................................................................................ 1
1.1. Development In Indonesia: Where are the Women?........................................ 2
1.2. Objectives............................................................................................................... 5
1.3. Data Sources and Limitations.............................................................................. 5
Chapter II Characteristics of Male and Female Population............. 7

2.1 Percentage of Population by Age Group and Sex.............................................. 8
2.1.1 Sex Ratio Variation across Marital Status................................................. 11
2.1.2 Sex Ratio Variation across Region............................................................. 12
2.2 Household and Household Heads....................................................................... 13
2.2.1 First Marriage............................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Fertility.......................................................................................................... 19
2.2.3 Contraceptive Method/Use........................................................................ 22
2.2.4 Dwelling Condition...................................................................................... 23
2.2.5 Economic Status.......................................................................................... 25
2.3 Population Ageing.................................................................................................. 26
2.3.1 Feminization of Ageing............................................................................... 27
2.3.2 Causes of Feminization of Ageing............................................................. 29
2.3.3 Greater Vulnerability of Women in Old Age............................................. 29
2.3.4 Impairment in Seeing................................................................................. 30
2.3.5 Impairment in Listening/Hearing.............................................................. 32
2.3.6 Impairment in Walking and Climbing Stairs............................................ 33
2.3.7 Impairment in Remembering/Concentrating/Communicating............. 34
2.3.8 Impairment in Taking Care of Oneself...................................................... 35
Chapter III Education....................................................................................... 37

3.1 School Participation............................................................................................... 38
3.1.1 School Enrolment Variation across Age Group....................................... 39
3.1.2 School Enrolment Variation across Region.............................................. 41
3.1.3 School Enrolment Variation across Socio-Economic Status................... 44
3.1.4 Why Children Don’t Go to School.............................................................. 45
v
3.2 Educational Attainment........................................................................................ 46
3.2.1 Educational Attainment variation across age group............................... 49
3.2.2 Educational Attainment variation across province................................. 50
3.3. Literacy .................................................................................................................. 52
3.4 Ability to Speak National Language .................................................................... 54
Chapter IV. Employment .................................................................................. 57

4.1 Population Activity ................................................................................................ 58
4.1.1 Variation of Daily Activity by Age Group .................................................. 61
4.2 Gender Gap in Labour Force Participation Rate ............................................... 63
4.2.1 LFPR Variation across Age Groups ........................................................... 63
4.3 Gender Gap in Employment ................................................................................ 65
4.3.1 Variation of Employment across Age Group ........................................... 65
4.3.2 Employment Among the Elderly ............................................................... 67
4.3.3 Variation of Employment across Marital Status ..................................... 67
4.4 Gender Gap on Employment Status ................................................................... 68
4.5 Gender Gap on Sectors of Employment ............................................................ 70
4.6 Gender Gap on Work Hours ................................................................................ 73
4.7 Gender Gap on Wages and Salaries ................................................................... 73
4.8 Gender Gap in Unemployment ........................................................................... 75
4.8.1 Variation of Unemployment across Sex Group ...................................... 76
4.8.2 Variation on Unemployment across Education ...................................... 77
4.8.3 International Migration ............................................................................. 78
4.8.4 Indonesian Migrant Workers..................................................................... 84
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 91
Recommendation .................................................................................................................... 95
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 97
Glossary..................................................................................................................................... 100
vi
List Of Tables
Table 2.1: Number of Population by Age Group and Sex, 2010
Table 2.2: Number of Population by Age and Sex, 2000 and 1990
Table 2.3: Percentage of Population Aged 10 years and over By Marital Status and Sex, 2010
Table 2.4: Household Heads by Sex and Other Background Characteristics, 2010
Table 2.5: Percentage of Ever Married Women by Age at First Marriage and Urban/Rural, 2013
Table 2.6: Median Age at First Marriage by Background Characteristics, 2012
Table 2.7: Average Number of Children Ever Born to Ever-Married Women by Age Group and Urban/Rural,
2010
Table 2.8: Total Fertility Rate by Background Characteristics, 2012
Table 2.9: Median Age at First Birth by Background Characteristics, 2012
Table 2.10: Contraceptive Prevalence Rate among Currently Married Women by Background Characteristics
and Method, 2012
Table 2.11: Percentage of Dwelling Units by Characteristics, Urban/Rural and Sex of Household Heads, 2010
Table 2.12: Age-Sex Differentials in Life Expectancy in Indonesia, 1971, 1990 and 2010
Table 2.13: Percentage of The Elderly (60+) Population Who Have Difficulty in Seeing by Age, Indonesia, 2010
Table 2.14: Percentage of The Elderly (60+) Population Who Have Difficulty in Seeing by Sex & Urban/Rural,
Indonesia, 2010
Table 2.15: Percentage of The Elderly (60+) Population Who Have Difficulty in Listening/Hearing by Sex and
Age, Indonesia, 2010
Table 2.16: Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Listening/Hearing by Sex and Urban/
Rural, Indonesia, 2010
Table 2.17: Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Walking and Climbing Stairs by Age,
Indonesia, 2010
Table 2.18: Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Walking and Climbing Stairs by Sex,
Urban/ Rural Indonesia, 2010
Table 2.19: Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Remembering/Concentrating/
Communicating by Sex and Age , Indonesia, 2010
Table 2.20: Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Remembering/Concentrating/
Communicating by Sex and Urban/Rural, Indonesia, 2010
Table 2.21: Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Taking Care of Oneself by Sex and
Age, Indonesia, 2010
Table 2.22 Percentage of The Elderly Who Have Difficulty in Taking Care of Oneself by Sex and Urban/Rural,
Indonesia, 2010
Table 3.1: School Enrolment Rate By Age Group and Sex, 2010
Table 3.2: School Enrolment Rate by Age Group and Sex, 1990
Table 3.3: Gender Parity Index on Net Enrolment Ratio by Educational Level and Economic Status, 2012
Table 3.4: Percentage of Population by Education Attainment and Sex, 2010
Table 3.5: Percentage of Population by Education Attainment and Sex, 2000 and 1990
Table 3.6: Literacy Rate by Age Group, and Sex, 2010
Table 3.7: Rate of Ability to Speak Bahasa Indonesia, 2010
vii
Table 4.1: Working Age Population by Type of Activity and Sex, 2010
Table 4.2: Working Age Population by Type of Activity and Sex, 2000 and 1990
Table 4.3: Percentage of Working Age Population by Type of Activity, Age Group and Sex, 2010
Table 4.4: Percentage of Working Age Population by Type of Activity, Age Group and Sex, 2000 and 1990
Table 4.5: Percentage of Employed Population by Background/Characteristics and Sex, 2010
Table 4.6: Percentage of Employed Population by Age Group and Sex, 2000 and 1990
Table 4.7: Percentage of Employed population by work status and sex, 2000 and 1990
Table 4.8: Percentage of Employed Population by Main Sector and Sex, 2000 ad 1990
Table 4.9: Average Wage/Salary (Rupiah) per Month by Selected Background and Sex, 2012
Table 4.10: Percentage of Unemployed Population by Age Group and Sex, 2010
Table 4.11: Percentage of Unemployed Population by Age Group and Sex, 2000 and 1990
Table 4.12: Placement of Indonesian Labour Migrants by Major Destination Country in 2009
Table 4.13: Placement of Indonesian Labour Migrants by Major Destination Country in 2015
Table 4.14: Number and Percentage of Women in International Labour Flows, 2000-2007
Table 4.15 Number and Percentage of Men and Women in International Labour Flows, 2011-2015
Table 4.16 Proportion of Population by Migration Status and Sex, 2010
viii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Number of Population by Age Group and Sex, 2010
Figure 2.2: Sex Ratio by Province, 2010
Figure 2.3: Percentage of First Sexual Intercourse at an Early Age (15 Years Old) by Age Group and Sex, 2012
Figure 2.4: Total Fertility Rate by Province, 2012
Figure 2.5: Contraceptive Prevalence Rate (CPR) of Married Women Aged 15-49 Years (Modern Methods) by
Province, 2012
Figure 2.6: Ordinal Comparison of Poor Households by Urban/Rural and Sex of Household Head, 2010
Figure 2.7 Proportion of Females in Indonesia’s Older Population, 2010
Figure 3.1: School Enrolment by Age Group And Sex, 1990
Figure 3.2: School Enrolment Rate by Urban/Rural Age Group And Sex, 2010
Figure 3.3: School Enrolment Rate by Urban/Rural Age Group And Sex, 1990
Figure 3.4: Gender Parity Index of School Enrolment Rate of Population Aged 16 -18 Years by Province, 2010
Figure 3.5: Percentage of Population Having Senior Secondary School Diploma and Higher by Age Group
and Sex, 2010
Figure 3.6: Gender Parity Index in Education Attainment (Having Senior High School Diploma or Higher) by
Province, 2010
Figure 3.7: Relationship between GPI on Education Attainment of Senior Secondary School and Higher and
GPI on School Enrolment of 16-18 Age Group, 2010
Figure 3.8: Gender Parity Index on Literacy by Province, 2010
Figure 3.9: Gender Parity Index of Ability to Speak Bahasa Indonesia by Provinces, 2010
Figure 4.1: Percentage of Labour Force Participation of Women in Indonesia Compared to ASEAN
Neighbouring Countries, 2008
Figure 4.2: Percentage of Labour Force Participation rate of Older Males and Females by Age: Indonesia,
2010
Figure 4.3: Gender Parity Index on Unpaid Family Worker by Province, 2010
Figure 4.4: Numbers of Women from Indonesia Migrating for Work Abroad, 2011-2015
Figure 4.5: Numbers of Men from Indonesia Migrating for Work Abroad, 2011-2015
Figure 4.6: Percentage of Lifetime Migrants Comparing Urban and Rural Areas by Gender,2010
Figure 4.7: Percentage of Lifetime Migrants by Gender Comparing the Three Most Populous Provinces
versus the Least Populous Province, 2010
Figure 4.8: Percentage of Lifetime Migrants by Gender Comparing The Three Provinces with the Highest
Number of Lifetime Migrants versus the Province with the Lowest Number of Lifetime Migrants,
2010
Figure 4.9: Percentage of Recent Migrants by Gender and Urban/Rural, 2010
Figure 4.10: Percentage of Recent Migrants by Gender in the Three Most Populous Provinces versus the
Least Populous Province, 2010
Figure 4.11: Percentage of Recent Migrants by Gender Comparing The Three Provinces with the Highest
Number of Recent Migrants versus the Province with the Lowest Number of Recent Migrants,
2010
ix
Acknowledgements
In the past few decades, women and girls in Indonesia have made significant strides forward in various areas.
Improvements have been recorded in health, education, labour force engagement and political participation.
Credit must be given to the Indonesian Government for their commitment to addressing gender inequality.
Yet gender-based discrimination continues to persist with rural women and girls doing worse off than their
urban counterparts.
Based on data collected in the Population Census of 2010, and other relevant sources, and the contributions
and inputs from population and gender experts, this monograph analyses the persistent gender gaps existing
in Indonesia.
As authors of this monograph, we would like to express our appreciation to Dr. Ghazy Mujahid who acted as
reviewer for the monograph and, in particular, for his insightful comments, and Ms. Ilana Tulloh for her fine
editing to help bring the monograph up to scratch and ready for publication.
We also wish to recognize the contribution of Mr Jose Ferraris, UNFPA Indonesia Representative in shaping
the monograph, in particular, his sharp intellect in helping us form our thoughts at the onset of the writing
process. We would also like to take this opportunity to highlight his role in emphasizing gender as one of
several important issues that needed to be featured in Indonesia’s National Development Policy.
We would also like to thank the UNFPA team involved in the production of this monograph: the Population
and Development Unit headed by Mr Richard Makalew, and the Gender Unit headed by Ms Risya Ariyani Kori,
with the support of Mr Dedek Prayudi, Mr Elvince Sardjono, and Ms Vania Desiyanti.
Our special thanks also goes to the Population Census data processing team from BPS, and in particular the
staff of the Directorate of Population and Labor Force Statistics, who contributed the relevant materials in
writing the monogprah; and to the officials from The Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection,
for their input in enhancing the quality of this monograph.
This monograph has also benefited from the valuable comments received from the discussants and
participants who had attended the Gender Monograph Validation Meeting held in Jakarta in August of
2015. In particular, we would like to acknowledge Dr Omas Bulan Samosir and Dr Dwini Hariyanto, from the
Demographic Institute, University of Indonesia; and Ms Budi Wahyuni, Commissioner of National Commission
on Violence Against Women.
Last but not least, we would like to express our appreciation to BPS for its support in providing access to the
2010 Population Census data files and other sources of data and BNP2TKI for the data on Migrant Workers,
without which this monograph could not have been written.
Dr. Soedarti Surbakti, Dr. Theresa Devasahayam,

Independent Researcher/ Visiting Affiliate, Asia Research Institute,
Former Head of BPS Statistics Indonesia National University of Singapore
Jakarta, October 2015
x
Acronym & Abbreviation
Ministry of National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency (Kementrian
Bappenas
Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional)
National Population and Family Planning Board (Badan Kependudukan dan Keluarga Berencana
BKKBN
Nasional)
BPS Badan Pusat Statistik-Statistics Indonesia
CPR Contraceptive Prevalence Rate
IDHS Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey
FHH Female Headed Households
GII Gender Inequality Index
GMS Gender Main-Streaming
GOI Government of Indonesia
GPI Gender Parity Index
GRBP Gender responsive budget planning
HHM Household Member
IFLS Indonesian Family Life Survey
Inpres Presidential Instruction
Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection (Kementerian Pemberdayaan Perempuan
KPPPA
dan Perlindungan Anak)
LFPR Labour Force Participation Rate
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MHH Male Headed Households
MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
PC Population Census
Podes Village Potential (Potensi Desa)
Prona National Project for Land Reform (Proyek Nasional Agraria)
SAKERNAS National Labour Force Survey
SLB Special School for People with Disabilities (Sekolah Luar Biasa)
SMAM Singulate-Mean Age at Marriage
SUSENAS National Socio-Economic Survey
TFR Total Fertility Rate
UMP Provincial Minimum Wage (upah minimum provinsi)
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
Wajar Compulsory Education (Wajib Belajar)
xi
xii
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1. Development in Indonesia:
Where Are the Women?
In the last four decades, Indonesia’s economy has grown by leaps and bounds. The
most notable change in Indonesia’s economy has been the expansion of sectors such as
manufacturing, banking and tourism sectors, which has led the World Bank to classify
the country as a Newly Industrializing Economy (NIE) (Lee, Simon, 2001). In fact, the surge
in the manufacturing sector provided for the major source of export revenues and the
key engine of growth after the end of the oil boom era in 1982, which in turn generated
employment and reduced poverty. Moreover, high GDP growth rates as a result of macro
policies stimulated the growth of rural small and medium enterprises.1
In terms of social indicators, Indonesia has also shown marked progress in reaching
many development goals. Profits have been channeled into education and health
services so much so that the country could boast of universal primary or basic education
with nearly 97 percent school enrolment rates, as recorded in 2009.2 The total adult
literacy rate now stands at 92.8 percent.3 Furthermore, the country’s family planning
programme has earned worldwide praise for its easing of demographic pressures.4 As a
result of a successful family planning programme, fertility rates were halved from 1971
to 2000 from 5.6 children per woman to 2.3 children per woman respectively,5 freeing
women to enter the labour force.6 While the country has experienced greater success in
its efforts to reduce infant and child mortality,7 efforts to tackle maternal mortality has
been sobering as rates have continued to persist above 200 per 1000 live births over
the past decade with very little progress made. On poverty reduction, Indonesia has
moved forward towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) although
it has been fairly uneven with poverty rates in the rural and outer islands being much
higher than in the cities.8 Regional autonomy or “decentralization” which came into force
in 1999 had the potential to improve the welfare of the people, especially the poor,
with the assumption that this form of governance could ease service delivery at
the local level. However, this would demand that civil society monitor the conduct
of local administrative units, thereby bringing the concerns of the poor closer to the
Government.9
1 Van Diermen, Peter (2004) “The Economic Policy Environment for Small Rural Enterprises in Indonesia”. In The
Indonesian Rural Economy: Mobility, Work and Enterprise, edited by Thomas R. Leinbach. Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.
2 UNICEF (n.d.) “The Children: The School Years”. Accessed 21 August 2015. http://www.unicef.org/indonesia/
children_2833.html
3 UNICEF (n.d.) “Statistics”. At a Glance: Indonesia. Accessed 21 August 2015. http://www.unicef.org/
infobycountry/indonesia_statistics.html
4 (Hull 1994)
5 UNFPA (n.d.) “Population Data for Development”.
6 Khofifah Indah Parawansa (2002) “Institution Building: An Effort to Improve Indonesian Women’s Role and
Status”. In Women in Indonesia: Gender, Equity and Development, edited by Kathryn Robinson and Sharon
Bessell. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
7 UNICEF Indonesia (2012) “Maternal and Child Health”. Issue Briefs, October.
8 Asian Development Bank (2006) “From Poverty to Prosperity: A Country Poverty Analysis for Indonesia”
9 Sumarto, et al (2003) “Governance and Poverty Reduction: Evidence from Newly Decentralized Indonesia”.
SMERU Working Paper, SMERU Research Institute. Accessed 21 August 2015. http://www.adb.org/documents/
indonesia-poverty-assessment>
2
As Indonesia is the largest economy in Southeast Asia and the sixteenth largest in the
world, it would be apt to ask the question of how girls and women have benefited from the
progress the country has made in the last few decades, especially since women comprise
almost half of the country’s population at 49.7 percent based on 2010 Population Census
figures (BPS Statistics Indonesia or BPS, 2012). When there are equal numbers of women
and men, we would expect that women would have the potential of being a powerful
driver behind the country’s development, especially since the bulk of Indonesia’s female
population today belongs to the productive group of 15-64 years old (66.2 percent),
followed by female children in the group of 0-14 year old (28.2 percent) and non-working
age older population aged 65+ (5.6 percent). However, a close look at the Census data
shows that women are lagging behind men in various arenas, as evidenced by the gender
parity index10 (GPI) series. The extent to which women have been lagging behind men in
the field of reproductive health, empowerment and employment as measured by the
gender inequality index (GII) indicates that things have been improving but progress has
been slow. It is beyond doubt then that if the potential of women can be raised to the
level of that of men, they can be agents of change and a potent force for development
in the country.
The Government of Indonesia has been fervent in its pursuit of gender inclusivity as might
be seen in its efforts to give women various opportunities to improve themselves,
a notable step forward being that of the issuance of the Gender Mainstreaming (GMS)
decree in 2000.11 In order for the Government to design and implement efficient and
effective policies to enhance access among women and girls to basic needs such as
education, health, employment and social insurance, it needs relevant information on
the characteristics and trends among women and girls.
In the early 1990s the GPI was used to measure gender equality and women’s
empowerment in the areas of education, employment and women’s involvement in
decision-making in legislative agencies. It showed significant gender gaps in all cases
except in basic education, where there had been a modest achievement in reducing
gender parity. In 1993, the GPI of women’s participation in secondary education was
93.7, which means that here women lagged only slightly, about 6 percent below the ideal
100 percent, whereas in tertiary education, they lagged further behind with a score of
only 74.7 percent. In 1990 the GPI of women contribution in wage employment of non-
agricultural sectors and their participation in legislative agencies was much lower at 29.3
percent and 12.5 percent respectively, which means that here the problem was much
worse.
More recently, in 2011, the gender gap in the field of education did narrow, although
gender inequality continues to persist in the areas of employment and the decision-
making processes in legislative agencies. By looking at the low figures of GPI in
employment and public decision-making, which was 36.6 percent and 18.4 percent12
respectively, it is clear that gender equality is far from having been achieved.
10 Ministry of Woman Empowerment and Child protection and BPS (2012)

11 Presidential Instruction No. 9/2000 on Gender Mainstreaming
12 Kementerian PPN/Bappenas (2012), Laporan Pencapaian Pembangunan Milenium di Indonesia 2011
3
Gender gaps have persisted, in spite of the fact that in 2000 the Government launched
a development strategy aimed at achieving gender equality and equity. Because of the
Government commitment to gender equality, the Presidential Instruction No. 9/2000 on
Gender Mainstreaming was drawn up to mandate that the entire cabinet ministries, the
heads of other Government agencies, and the chiefs of military services at the central
and regional levels had to integrate the interests, needs, concerns and characteristics of
men and women in every stage of the nation’s development activities, i.e., from planning
and execution to monitoring and evaluation of development projects.13
GMS performance was slow, with many central and regional level agencies and
ministries14 failing to apply the strategy effectively. In the Ministry of Home Affair’s
Ordinance No. 15/2008 ( later replaced by the Ministry of Home Affair’s Ordinance
No. 67/ 2001), it was decreed that all regional Governments were to perform gender
responsive budget planning (GRBP).15By 2013 the provinces had formed their GMS
13 KPPPA, Inpres No. 9 tahun 2000 tentang Pengarusutamaan Gender

14 Kementerian PPN/Bappenan (2006) Evaluasi Pelaksanaan PUG di 9 Sektor Pembangunan
15 Kemendagri, Permendagri No. 67 Tahun 2012
4
working groups to improve the quality of the GMS execution in the provinces, but all
regency Governments had yet to form their own working groups.16
The effort to accelerate the GMS through the GRBP has also been reaffirmed by the
Government through another national strategy championed by four ministries: the
Ministry of National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency
(Bappenas), the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of
Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection. Each of the four ministries declared their
support in the following bulletins: National Programme Planning Bulletin No. 270/m.
PPN/11/2012, Finance Ministry bulletin No. SE 73/MK.02/2012, Home Affairs Ministry
bulletin No. 050/43791/SJ and the Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection bulletin
No. SE 461/MPP-PA/11/2012.17
1.2. Objectives
This monograph, in providing situation analyses of levels, differentials, patterns and
recent trends of gender in Indonesia, based on data collected in the 2010 Population
Census, is in effect an assessment of the impact of development processes on the lives
of women and girls. Specifically, the analyses covers the following areas:
a. Sex composition of population broken down by various characteristics;

b. Gender gap in education such as school participation of children, level of education
indicated by education attainment, literacy and ability to speak the national language;
c. Gender gap in employment related to the labour market, such as working age
population, labour force participation and unemployment;
d. Family formation such as marriage, number of children and, gap on housing/dwelling
condition by sex of household heads; and
e. Feminization of ageing and the greater vulnerability of women in old age.
To measure the difference in the sex composition of the population, sex ratio (the number
of males divided by the number of females) will be used; in this case, the sex ratio >
100 percent means that the number of males exceeds the number of females in the
population and vice versa. In order to measure the gender dimension of the indicators,
GPI (the value of indicator for females divided by the value of indicator for males) has
been utilized;18 in this case, the GPI > 100 percent indicates that the value indicator for
females is more than that of the male population.
1.3. Data Sources and Limitations

The main data source used to compile this monograph is the 2010 Population Census
as well as the preceding Population Censuses conducted in 2000 and 1990, when
appropriate. In addition, the analyses in the monograph will use evidence obtained from
the results of several large-scale data collection exercises available in BPS and other
relevant sources of data where necessary.
16 AIPD (2014) Profil Gender Kabupaten Lombok Utara; AIPD (2014) Profil Gender Kabupaten Merauke
17 Kementerian PPN/Bappenas, BPS, dan UNFP (2013) Proyeksi Penduduk Indonesia 2010-2035. Jakarta, BPS
18 Kementerian PPN/Bappenas dan UNDP (2007) Laporan Pencapaian Millenium Development Goals
5
This monograph will briefly look at recent trends in the condition of male and female
populations, therefore it is important to present a concise summary on the execution
the past Population Censuses. The 1971, 1980 and 1990 Population Censuses were
implemented in two stages: complete and sample censuses. In the complete enumeration,
the items included were demographic characteristics such as sex, age, marital status,
relationship to the head of the household, migration and housing or dwelling unit
condition. Meanwhile, the items covered in the sample census were more detailed items
regarding education, employment, migration, fertility and family planning. The sample
census covered a large enough number of households so that tables can be estimated
at district (kabupaten/kota) level (except for items with rare cases discovered). From the
results of both the complete and sample censuses, national estimates and indicators
were published. This national data was presented in the form of tables disaggregated by
sex and urban/rural.
In both the 2000 and 2010 Population Censuses all data collected from the population
was gathered using just one questionnaire. Although the two censuses differed in terms
of coverage of MDGs and disabilities, they are relatively comparable. Other characteristics
covered in the 2010 Population Census resembled those collected in the 2000 census
and included sex, age, marital status, relationship to the household head, migration and
housing or dwelling unit condition.
The questionnaire applied in the 2010 Population Census has been utilized as the basis
in the gender monograph compilation. The 2010 questionnaire was less detailed and
not as complete as those used in the 1980 and 1990 censuses when the combination
of complete and sample census was applied (BPS, 2010). Published tables of the 2010
Population Census were also less comprehensive compared to those of the two earlier
censuses. These will to some extent present a limitation on the analysis in the gender
monograph. In spite of these drawbacks, the analyses in the gender monograph have
been augmented with data from the results obtained from the large periodical surveys
such as the socio-economic survey Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (SUSENAS), the labour
force survey Survei Angkatan Kerja Nasional (SAKERNAS) and the Indonesia Demographic
and Health Survey/IDHS Survei Demografi dan Kesehatan Indonesia (SDKI).
6
Chapter II
CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE
AND FEMALE POPULATION
7
Quantitatively, the share of males and females in the Indonesian population is more
or less equal, the country’s male population numbers are only slightly higher than the
female population. Of the 238.5 million people in 2010, 119.7 million were male (or 50.2
percent) while the remaining 118.7 million (or 49.7 percent) were female. The almost
equal proportion suggests that the two groups are equally important as contributors
towards the country’s economic development.
2.1 Age and Sex Composition of

Indonesia’s Population
In 2010, the sex ratio at national level was 101.4 percent. However, the sex ratio differed
across the age groups. Sex ratio of population aged zero (Sex Ratio at Birth/SRB) was
105.7, which was not much different from the ratio in 1990 (104.9) and 2000 (106.3). In
the 0-19 years age group, the figure was generally above 100 percent which means that
the number of males to the females was greater; within the age range of 20-29 years, the
figure decreased to below 100 percent although it climbed back to above 100 percent
within the group of 35-59 years, but continually dropped as the age increased. During
the past five Population Censuses, the sex ratio changed gradually by one percent or
less over the ten years, increasing from 97.2 percent in 1971, to 98.9 percent in 1980 and
then to 99.4 percent in 1990. It then jumped to over 100
percent and became 100.6 in 2000, and finally to 101.37
19
percent in 2010. See also Table 2.2 on the comparison
More males among children of 1990 and 2000 Population Census results.
but more females among the Table 2.1 shows how the sex ratio in 2010, presented in
older groups five-year age groups, has been arranged in ascending
order. There was a sharp decrease in sex ratio within
the age range of 20-29 years. The suspected reason
for this is rapid mobility of young males that caused
20
under enumeration. Mobility among the young males is usually related to education
and employment. Figure 2.1 shows that there were dents in the population bar chart for
both men and women. The decrease in sex ratio at and beyond the age of 60 years (old
aged females share 54 percent of the total old aged population) is very much related to
the fact that the male life expectancy (67.5 years) is lower than that of women’s (71.5
years) (BPS and KPPA, 2010).
The important indicator that can be derived from age composition of population is
dependency ratio— the ratio of the number of non-productive population (aged 0-14
years and aged 65 years old and over) and the number of productive population (aged
15-64 years old). Table 2.1 presents the composition of the population by age so that it
can be converted to non-productive and productive population. Based on data presented
in this table, the 2010 dependency ratio for Indonesia is 51.3 percent, which means that
every two productive persons should be responsible for providing the needs of around
one non-productive person.
19 BPS (2011) Umur dan Jenis Kelamin Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010.
20 Bappenas, BPS, UNFPA (2013) Indonesian Population Projection 2010-2035.
8
Table 2.1:
Number of Population by Age Group and Sex, 2010
Age Group Male Female Total Sex Ratio
0-4 11 662 369 11 016 333 22 678 702 94.5
5-9 11 974 094 11 279 386 23 253 480 94.2
10-14 11 662 417 11 008 664 22 671 081 94.4
0-14 35 298 880 33 304 383 68 603 263 94.4
15-19 10 614 306 10 266 428 20 880 734 96.7
20-24 9 887 713 10 003 920 19 891 633 101.2
25-29 10 631 311 10 679 132 21 310 443 100.5
30-34 9 949 357 9 881 328 19 830 685 99.3
35-39 9 337 517 9 167 614 18 505 131 98.2
40-44 8 322 712 8 202 140 16 524 852 98.6
45-49 7 032 740 7 008 242 14 040 982 99.7
50-54 5 865 997 5 695 324 11 561 321 97.1
55-59 4 400 316 4 048 254 8 448 570 92.0
60-64 2 927 191 3 131 570 6 058 761 107.0
15-64 78 969 160 78 083 952 157 053 112 99.0
65-69 2 225 133 2 468 898 4 694 031 111.0
70-74 1 531 459 1 924 872 3 456 331 126.0
75+ 1 606 281 2 228 308 3 834 589 138.7
65+ 5 362 873 6 622 078 11 984 951 123.5
Total 119 630 913 118 010 413 237 641 326 98.7
Source: Derived from 2010 Population Census (BPS, 2012)
Figure 2.1
Number of Population by Age Group and Sex, 2010
Female Male
75+ 2 228 308
1 606 281
70-74 1 924 872
1 531 459
65-69 2 468 898
2 225 133
60-64 3 131 570
2 927 191
55-59 4 048 254
4 400 316
50-54 5 695 324
5 865 997
45-49 7 008 242
7 032 740
Age group
40-44 8 202 140

8 322 712
35-39 9 167 614
9 337 517
30-34 9 881 328
9 949 357
25-29 10 679 132
10 631 311
20-24 10 003 920
9 887 713
15-19 10 266 428
10 614 306
10-14 11 008 664
11 662 417
5-9 11 279 386
11 974 094
0-4 11 016 333
11 662 369
4 000 000 8 000 000 12 000 000

Number of Population
9
It is projected that the dependency ratio will reach its minimum level in the decade of
2020-2030. When that happens, the productive population will have to shoulder a lesser
burden (BPS, 2012). Consequently, the resources used to support the current non-
productive population will be free, and may be channeled into funding for development.
If the potential of the productive population, male and female, can be optimized, more
funding can be made available for development. The economic benefit generated from
this demographic shift is called the demographic dividend.
Based on the age composition of the population presented in Table 2.1, population aged
0-4 years, 5-9 years and 10-14 years will enter productive age group in the decade 2020-
2030. Looking at the sex ratio of those three age groups, assuming that mortality and
migration are similar, the increase in potential of the productive population, especially
of the female population, will become an important issue.
10
Table 2.2
Number of Population by Age and Sex, 2000 and 1990
2000 1990
Age
Group Male + Sex Male + Sex
Male Female Male Female
Female ratio Female ratio
0-4 10 295 701 10 006 675 20 302 376 102.9 10 760 859 10 224 285 20 985 144 105.2
5-9 10 433 865 10 060 226 20 494 091 103.7 11 928 095 11 294 963 23 223 058 105.6
10 - 14 10 460 908 9 992 824 20 453 732 104.7 11 044 127 10 438 014 21 482 141 105.8
0 -14 31 190 474 30 059 725 61 250 199 103.8 33 733 081 31 957 262 65 690 343 105.6
15 - 19 10 649 348 10 500 169 21 149 517 101.4 9 520 440 9 406 543 18 926 983 101.2
20 - 24 9 237 464 10 020 637 19 258 101 92.2 7 583 305 8 545 057 16 128 362 88.7
25 - 29 9 130 504 9 510 433 18 640 937 96.0 7 457 150 8 166 380 15 623 530 91.3
30 - 34 8 204 302 8 195 418 16 399 720 100.1 6 584 325 6 661 469 13 245 794 98.8
35 - 39 7 432 840 7 471 386 14 904 226 99.5 5 788 441 5 395 776 11 184 217 107.3
40 - 44 6 433 438 6 034 410 12 467 848 106.6 4 010 254 4 071 381 8 081 635 98.5
45 - 49 5 087 252 4 568 753 9 656 005 111.3 3 723 922 3 841 742 7 565 664 96.9
50 - 54 3 791 185 3 593 783 7 384 968 105.5 3 289 190 3 398 396 6 687 586 96.8
55 - 59 2 883 226 2 795 438 5 678 664 103.1 2 321 621 2 510 076 4 831 697 92.5
60 - 64 2 597 076 2 723 943 5 321 019 95.3 2 219 069 2 307 382 4 526 451 96.2
15 - 64 65 446 635 65 414 370 130 861 005 100.0 52 497 717 54 304 202 106 801 919 96.7
65 - 69 1 666 191 1 898 735 3 564 926 87.8 1 329 162 1 420 562 2 749 724 93.6
70 -74 1 368 190 1 468 847 2 837 037 93.1 945 876 1 083 150 2 029 026 87.3
75 + 1 257 526 1 459 459 2 716 985 86.2 867 636 1 104 720 1 972 356 78.5
65+ 4 291 907 4 827 041 9 118 948 88.9 3 142 674 3 608 432 6 751 106 87.1
Total 100 929 016 100 301 136 201 230 152 100.6 89 373 472 89 869 896 179 243 368 99.4
Source: Derived from 2000 Population Census (BPS, 2002) and 1990 Population Census (BPS, 1992)
Looking at the result of the two previous Population Censuses as presented in Table 2.2
we can see that the decreasing trend of the dependency ratio started more than 20 years
ago. In 1990 the dependency ratio was still as high as 67.8 percent and then decreased
to 53.8 percent in 2000.
2.1.1 Variations in Age-Sex Composition of the Population by

Province
The sex ratio differed across the country (see Figure 2.2). From the lowest to the highest,
it ranged from 92.3 percent in NTB province to 113.4 percent in Papua province. In
the provinces where out migration was common such as NTB province and West
21
Sumatera province, male migrants left their own provinces to find employment outside
22
the province or through merantau. The provinces receiving the migrant workers are
21 In NTB province as well as in other provinces, many of the Tenaga Kerja Indonesia (TKI) go to work in other
countries not without the consent of the regional Government.
22 Merantau is a term common amongst the Minangkabau community of West Sumatera province. Merantau
means to go out to gain experience in other places to enrich one’s knowledge in matters of way of living.
11
generally slow to advance and relatively sparsely populated. Male migrant workers
are usually unaccompanied by family for reasons of lack of social as well as economic
facilities, especially in regard to children’s educational facilities. Besides NTB, other such
provinces were Central Kalimantan, East Kalimantan, Papua and West Papua.
Figure 2.2
Sex Ratio by Province, 2010
113.4
112.4
109.0
108.0
111.3
106.3
104.9
105.5
104.6
104.6
104.6
104.4
106.1
105.2
104.7
103.6
120
103.7
102.8
102.6
102.3
100.8
100.7
100.2
101.4
101.0
101.7
99.8
98.8
98.4
98.7
97.7
97.5
95.5
94.3
100
80
Sex Ratio
60
40
20
0
South Kalimantan
Papua
DI Yogyakarta
Bengkulu
Banten
Lampung
East Kalimantan
West papua
East Java
Indonesia
West Sumatera
West Sulawesi
Riau
Central Kalimantan
East Nusa Tenggara
Central Java
North Sumatera
South-east Sulawesi
Bali
Maluku
North Sulawesi
DKI Jakarta
West Kalimantan
West Java
Jambi
Bangka Belitung Islands

South Sulawesi
Gorontalo
South Sumatera
West Nusa Tenggara
Aceh
North Maluku
Central Sulawesi
Riau Islands
Province
2.1.2 Gender Differences in Marital Status
Marriage is customarily important in Indonesian society. In 2010, among the population

aged 30 years and over, only less than 3.8 percent were not married - 4.5 percent among
males and 3 percent among females; and 4.8 percent among the urban population and
2.7 among their counterparts in rural areas.
Two categories of population by marital status could be distinguished (Table 2.3),

namely, one where sex ratios are above 100 percent, which includes the group of not yet
married whose sex ratio was around 127.4 percent, and the group of currently married
with sex ratio of 101.9. The other category of population by marital status consisted
of the divorced and widowed groups, with a sex ratio of less than 100 percent (44.5
percent and 19.6 percent, respectively). This means that in the first category, there were
fewer females than males. In the second category, females were dominant. The larger
number of females in the last category indicates that remarriage was more common
among males than females. Even if the husband passes away, as the result of the lower
life expectancy at birth for males, the wife is not likely to remarry.
12
Table 2.3
Percentage of Population Aged 10 Years and Over
by Marital Status and Sex, 2010
Marital Status Male Female Total Sex ratio

Not yet married 56.0 44.0 100.0 127.4
Currently married 50.5 49.5 100.0 101.9
Divorced 30.8 69.2 100.0 44.5
Widowed 16.4 83.6 100.0 19.6
2.2. Households and Household Heads

Two types of households were distinguished in the 2010 Population census, namely,
ordinary households and special households.23 Special households, which included, among
others, dormitories, hostels, residence halls, prisons, hospitals, are characteristically
different from ordinary households and therefore, the present monograph excluded
them from the analyses. The number of ordinary households, henceforth referred to as
households, according to the 2010 Population Census list was 61.2 million units.
It is decreed by Law regarding marriage

that in a family consisting of husband, wife
and children, the household head would
Widowed or divorced automatically be the husband24. Naturally,
women are less likely than not all of the households to be listed in the
their male counterparts to 2010 PC consisted of only husband, wife and
be remarried children so that to facilitate enumeration a
working definition was used to appoint who
among the household members was crowned
as the head. The household head was defined
as the one member who was considered responsible for the provision of everyday needs
of the household, or in case the criteria is not applicable, one that was regarded as the
elder or assigned to become one by the rest of the members, therefore, anyone, a man or
a woman could become household head if qualified according to the definition applied.
Table 2.4 shows the composition of household heads based on selected characteristics.
According to the 2010 PC results there were 52.6 million of households (84.0 percent)
headed by men, while 8.5 million households (14.0 percent) by women. Household
heads, both males and females, were almost evenly distributed between urban and rural
areas. There were also similar ratio – around 6 —found in those two types of resident,
meaning that there were around 6 male heads in seven households. One aspect that
seems to be of interest about the household heads was their marital status.
23 BPS, 2012, Penduduk Hasil SP 2010

24 Law No1 Year1974 On Marriage, Article 31(3
13
Based on the composition in table 2.4, the number of female heads exceed the number
of male heads among households headed by widowed and divorced people. Among
household heads not yet married, male household-heads numbered more than female.
Among household heads that were widowed there were five times more women than
men, which might indicate that widowed women are far less likely to be remarried after
their spouse has died. The same was also true for the divorced status. This evidence
might find its roots in the traditional behavioural setting where bereaved men are likely
to remarry by their own initiative or more often at the suggestion from relatives.
Table 2.4
Number of Household Heads by Sex and Other
Background Characteristics, 2010
Background
Male Female Male + Female Male/Female
Characteristics
Urban/Rural
Urban 25 833 604 4 384 850 30 218 454 5.9
Rural 26 741 219 4 145 785 30 887 004 6.5
Marital Status
Not yet married/single 1 688 077 1 019 130 2 707 207 1.7
Currently married 49 326 502 1 226 625 50 553 127 40.2

Divorced 465 691 1 176 279 1 641 970 0.4
Widowed 1 094 553 5 108 601 6 203 154 0.2
Age group
10-24 1 861 149 656 859 2 518 008 2.8
25-59 43 432 061 4 762 653 48 194 715 9.1
60 + 7 281 613 3 111 123 10 392 736 2.3
Family size
1 1 914 055 2 716 552 4 630 607 0.7
2 6 540 277 2 032 763 8 573 040 3.2
3-5 35 340 548 3 107 775 38 448 323 11.4
6-8 7 855 475 568 655 8 424 130 13.8
9+ 924 468 104 890 1 029 358 8.8
Total 52 574 823 8 530 635 61 105 458 6.2
When age was put into consideration, Table 2.4 shows that households were dominated
by adult (aged 25-59 years) heads of house, both male and female. However, among the
female household heads, there was relatively more youth (around 0.7 million out of 8.5
million or 8.2 percent) than among male household heads (around 1.9 million out of
52.6 million or 3.6 percent). The same was true for households headed by old people.
Among female household heads there was a greater percentage of old women (around
14
3.1 million out of 8.5 million or 36.5 percent) than the percentage of old male household
heads (around 7.3 million out of 52.6 million or 13.9 percent), but in absolute numbers
old male household heads exceed the number of old female household heads.
The average household size of women headed households was less than that headed
by men, but their value ranges between three and four.25 The smaller size of women
headed households might have resulted from the fact that the former male household
head had died or left.
When welfare level was put into consideration, BPS (2013) found that among the rich
female household heads (20 percent highest income) 21 percent were not yet married.
This figure far exceeded the corresponding percentage for men, which was only one
third of the female figure. The figure for the above group of women was much higher
in urban areas (28.65 percent) than in rural areas (5.25 percent). Meanwhile, among the
group with the lowest income (lowest 40 percent) and the middle income class (middle
40 percent) the percentage of the divorced women was not too different between rural/
urban. The same was true for widowed women household heads.
For many years the Government has given special attention to vulnerable groups,
including household headed by females. The Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and
Child Protection together with BPS regularly produce publications on gender issues
covering female headed households from SUSENAS data. Using the SUSENAS sampling
25 BPS (2013) SUSENAS 2012
15
method, the relatively smaller number of female household heads compared to male
household heads, however, will result in a limited number of cases analyzed especially
at local level. The 2010 Population Census listed more than eight million female headed
households from which better estimates can be produced.
2.2.1 First Marriage
Traditionally a household was deemed to have formed when a man and a woman
married. As time advance the household would grow through the presence of children
and/or other household members who might join at a later date. It is customary that,
within a household there existed, among others, an emotional relationship between its
members, tied together in harmonious interaction and comfortable communication.26
Although the unit of analysis of the 2010 Population Census was not family but a
household where blood relationship was not considered, it was deemed important to
state that marriage was usually at the core of the household. Early marriage occurs often
in Indonesia, especially in rural areas. As has been stated previously although a girl
cannot legally marry before the age of 16, many below that age were still recorded as
married.27
Information on marital status of population was asked in

the 2010 Population Census, making it possible for us to
estimate singulate-mean age at marriage (SMAM). Based
Younger female generations,
on 2010 Population Census results, the SMAM for male was
especially those residing in urban 25.7 years, which was older than for female (22.3 years).28
areas, tend to marry later than More important measure used to illustrate aggregate data
their predecessors of marriage age of the population, among others, is median
age at first marriage. Median age at first marriage is the age
that lies in the middle of the range of ages below which 50
percent of women and men belonging to a certain group
got married, while the other 50 percent got married at the age above it. Median is used
more often than mean as a central measure because unlike mean, median value is not
affected by extreme values. Unfortunately, unlike the 1990 Population Census, the 2010
Population Census did not cover the question on individual age at first marriage; the
recent information presented below will supplement the limited information gathered in
2010 Population Census.
BPS et al. (2013) through IDHS 2012 found that the positive trend of the median age at
first marriage of ever-married women age 25-45 years. The figure in Table 2.5 shows
that the median has an increasing trend for the younger cohorts. In 1991 the median
age of marriage was 17.1 years and slowly increased to 20.1 years in the year of 2012.
It has been mentioned previously that one of the factors responsible for the increase of
women’s age at first marriage was the increased education level.
26 Herien Puspitawati (2012) Gender dan Keluarga: Konsep dan Realita Di Indonesia, p.621.
27 Law No.1/1974 On Marriage, Article 7
28 Calculated by Sub-Directorate of Demographic Statistics, BPS.
16
Table 2.5:
Percentage of Ever Married Women by Age at First Marriage
and Urban/Rural, 2013
Age at First
Urban Rural Total
Marriage
<15 years 8.4 13.4 11.0
16-18 years 26.3 37.7 32.2
19-24 years 48.0 40.2 44.0
>=25 years 17.3 8.7 12.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Derived from 2013 SUSENAS (BPS, 2014)
The 2013 SUSENAS (BPS, 2014) in which information was gathered from ever-married
women found that more than 11 percent of the group were first married at the age
younger than 15 years. Moreover, it was found that more than 32.2 percent of the
group member had been married for the first time at an un-recommended age from
29
reproductive health point of view, which is 20 years for girls.
Table 2.5 presents the complete data on the percentage of ever-married women by age
at first marriage and urban/rural types. The table indicates that in 2013 women residing
in urban areas married later than their counterparts in rural areas. It is shown there that
in the urban areas ever-married women whose age at first marriage was 19 years was
48 percent, with marriage at an older age only 17.3 percent. In the rural areas the figures
were 40.2 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively.
The fact that men have been exposed to education for a longer period of time than
women is represented by the fact that their education achievements are higher than that
of women. This has impacted on the median age of first marriage. For men, the median
age of first marriage was as high as 22-23 years for those
with lower education and 23-24 years for the group whose
education was middle level or higher.
Younger female generations Table 2.6 shows that there are large variation between
are refraining from sexual the median age at first marriage of the population aged
relationships longer than their 25-49 years whether disaggregated by sex, Urban/Rural,
older predecessors educational level, or welfare status. For all of the variables
mentioned, the male median age at first marriage was
higher than that of females. In urban areas women married
later than their rural counterparts. There was a positive
relationship between the age at first marriage for both
males and females and their education level. The higher the education, the later the age
at first marriage. A positive relationship was also found between their income level and
their age of marriage.
29 Law No. 10/1992, On Population Growth and Family Welfare Development.
17
Table 2.6:
Median Age at First Marriage by Background Characteristics, 2012
Ever-married Married
Selected Characteristics
women aged 25-49 men aged 25-49
Urban/Rural
Urban 21.2 a
Rural 19.0 23.4
Educational Attainment
No schooling 17.0 21.8
Some primary school 17.3 21.9
Primary school 18.3 23.0
Some high school 19.6 23.8
Senior high school or higher 22.6 a
Welfare Status
Lowest 18.9 23.4
Middle low 19.2 23.7
Middle 19.5 23.7
Middle high 20.4 24.6
Highest 22.2 a
Total 20.1 24.3
Source: 2012 IDHS (BPS et al., 2013)
Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country and it is Muslim custom that a person’s first
sexual relationship would correspond to the time at which they marry. In such a case,
age at first marriage can also be used as an early indicator for a girl’s likelihood of falling
pregnant. In a society where most women first married at young ages, the birth rate
would be higher than in one whose age at first marriage was higher. In Indonesia, most
women give birth after marriage. Thus, knowing the trend of age at first marriage is very
important when examining fertility changes in a certain area (BPS, et al., 2013). Figure
2.3 illustrates the percentages of each group of males and females conducting their first
sexual relationship at different ages. The young cohort can be assumed as representing
current behavior and older cohorts as representing past behavior. The figure shows that
the percentage of women in early sexual relationships was high in people of older age
but diminishing for younger people, while the percentage change for males of each age
group was not significant. The figure also shows that male and female sexual behavior
among the young people was largely indistinguishable.
18
Figure 2.3:
Percentage of First Sexual Intercourse at an Early Age (15 Years Old)
by Age Group and Sex, 2012
16 14.9
14
12 11.1
10
8 7.1
6.3
6
4.3
4
2.5
1.5 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7
2 0.9
0
45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19
male female
2.2.2 Fertility
By collecting data on the number of children ever born and the number of children
surviving in the 2010 Population Census, BPS can provide information on fertility. Table
2.7 shows the average number of children born to ever-married women (known as
age-specific fertility rate), summarized from the results of the 2010 Population Census,
broken down by age group and urban/rural. The table shows that the age specific fertility
rates were always larger in rural areas than that of the urban areas. Until the age of 59
years, the average number of children born to rural women was 0.3 persons larger than
that of urban women. The average number of children born to women age 15-49 years
is known as total fertility rate.
Table 2.7
Average Number of Children Ever Born to Ever-
Married Women by Age Group and Urban/Rural, 2010
Age Group Urban Rural Total Age Group Urban Rural Total
10-14 0.03 0.06 0.04 40-44 2.8 3.9 2.9
15-19 0.4 0.5 0.4 45-49 3.1 3.4 3.2
20-24 0.8 1.0 0.9 50-54 3.3 3.6 3.5
25-29 1.3 1.5 1.4 55-59 3.9 4.1 4.0
30-34 1.9 2.2 2.0 Total 2.5 2.8 2.6
35-39 2.4 2.7 2.6 Source: Derived from 2010 Population Census (BPS, 2012)
19
Total fertility rate (TFR) is defined as the average number of children that would be born
to women if they were to live to the end of their child bearing age and all experience
the same age-specific fertility rates for a specified time period. Based on the results
of 2010 Population Census, it was estimated that TFR in Indonesia was 2.4 persons
(BPS, 2012). In 2012, TFR derived from IDHS/SDKI was slightly higher than that of 2010
Population Census, i.e. 2.6 persons. The figure varied according to women’s background
characteristics such as urban/rural category, education level, and welfare level (Table
2.8).
Table 2.10 shows that rural women have slightly more children than that of urban women
- TFR for rural was 2.8 persons, while for urban women the figure was 2.4 persons. There
was a strong negative relationship between TFR and welfare status. Women belonging
to the lowest welfare group would bear 3.2 children until the end of their child bearing
age, while their counterparts in the highest welfare group would only bear 2.2 children.
The relationship between TFR and education as shown in the table, is not very strong,
however there was an indicative sign that highest education could promote less number
of children ever born. The average number of children born to the highest educated
women group was estimated around 2.4 persons, while the figure reached 3.0 persons
for primary school graduates and 2.8 persons for those who never go to school. TFR
also varied across provinces (Figure 2.4). In 2012, the low rates (lower than national rate)
only occured in Java, Bali and three other provinces. The range of TFR was between 2.1
persons (DI Yogyakarta) and 3.7 persons (West Papua). It is unlikely a coincidence that
four out of five provinces having the lowest rate of contraceptive use are among the five
provinces which have the highest TFR.
Table 2.8
Total Fertility Rate by Background Characteristics,
2012
Background Characteristics Total Fertility Rate Background Characteristics Total Fertility Rate
Urban/Rural Welfare Status

Urban 2.4 Lowest 3.2
Rural 2.8 Middle low 2.7
Educational Attainment Middle 2.5
No schooling 2.8 Middle high 2.4
Some primary school 3.0 Highest 2.2
Primary school 2.9 Total 2.6
Some high school 2.6 Source: 2012 IDHS (BPS et al., 2013)
Senior high school 2.7

Diploma or higher 2.4
20
Figure 2.4
Total Fertility Rate by Province, 2012
3.7
4
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
3
Total Fertility Rate
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.1
Papua
DI Yogyakarta
Bengkulu
East Java
Banten
Indonesia
Lampung
Riau
Maluku
Bali
Central Java

Jambi
DKI Jakarta
West Java
Riau Islands
Gorontalo
Aceh
South Kalimantan
East Kalimantan
West Sumatera
Central Kalimantan
West Sulawesi
North Sulawesi
North Sumatera
South-east Sulawesi
East Nusa Tenggara
West Papua
West Kalimantan
South Sulawesi
South Sumatera
West Nusa Tenggara
North Maluku
Central Sulawesi
Province
Women who get married at young ages are likely to Table 2.9
be sexually active at a young age, so that if they are Median Age at First Birth by Background
Characteristics, 2012
unprotected by contraceptive devices they will soon get
pregnant and give birth. The information regarding median Median Age
Selected Characteristics
at First Birth
age at first childbirth was acquired from women aged 25-49
years through IDHS/SDKI 2012 (BPS, et al., 2013). Median Urban/Rural
age at first childbirth is influenced by a few background Urban 23.0
characteristics, such as type of residential area, education Rural 21.0
and welfare status. Educational Attainment

No schooling 19.4
Based on the results of the survey, in 2012 the median age Some primary school 19.3
at first childbirth was 22 years. The figure differed between Primary school 20.3
various groups, though not by a huge amount (see Table Some high school 21.3
2.9). In the urban areas, women give birth later than women Senior high school 24.2
in rural areas. The range within various educational levels Welfare Status
was from 19.3 years for those having some primary school Lowest 21.0
level, and 24.2 years for senior high school graduates or Middle low 21.2
higher. Among the welfare groups the figure ranged from Middle 21.4
21 years for the lowest status to 24.1 years for the highest Middle high 22.2
level.
Highest 24.1
Total 22.0
21
2.2.3 Contraceptive Method/Use
The number of children ever born to women at childbearing age is

very much related to the use of contraception. The 2010 Population
Census did not collect information on contraceptive use because it
Few contraceptive
is considered taboo for census interviewers, who are usually male,
users are men
to ask about contraception to female respondents. To present more
fertility-related information, it is considered worthwhile to utilize
IDHS, in which most interviewers were female.
Based on IDHS 2012 results (BPS et al., 2013), there were variations on the use of family
planning method/devices among currently married women across certain background
characteristics, except for residential types, where there was a similarity. The results
indicated that there was almost no difference in accessibility of contraceptive methods/
devices between urban and rural. Table 2.10 shows the similarity of contraceptive
prevalence rate in the two types of residence. More than 60 percent of the total of currently
married women were using any method contraceptives, while most of them were using
a modern method (57.9 percent of the total). Broken down by user’s education, it is
shown in the table that a high percentage of users of family planning methods/devices
were moderately educated: primary school, some high school and senior high school.
By welfare status, the middle and lowest income groups were the more frequent users.
Table 2.10:
Contraceptive Prevalence Rate among Currently Married Women by
Background Characteristics and Method, 2012
Selected Characteristics Any Method Any Modern Method
Urban/Rural
Urban 62.1 57.0
Rural 61.6 58.7
Educational Attainment
No schooling 43.4 41.8
Some primary school 53.4 50.8
Primary school 65.7 63.7
Some high school 67.4 63.9
Senior high school 61.8 56.2
Diploma or higher 55.8 46.6
Welfare Status
Lowest 56.2 53.0
Middle low 64.3 61.4
Middle 63.9 60.2
Middle high 63.0 58.7
Highest 61.3 55.4
Total 61.9 57.9
22
The gender gap among contraceptive users should be very pronounced if they were
broken down by sex; it could be identified from the methods/devices used. The suitable
methods/devices made available for men are vasectomy and condoms. It appeared that
in 2012 only few acceptors were men - less that 1 percent of the total acceptors chose
vasectomy and less than 2 percent chose to use condoms (BPS et al., 2013).
Figure 2.5:
Contraceptive Prevalence Rate (CPR) of Married Women Aged 15-49 Years (Modern Methods) by
Province, 2012
70
59.9
60.1
58.8
58.1
56.3
55.8
54.9
54.3
55.1
53.8
54.1
53.4
52.9
53.1
60
51.9
51.9
50.3
51.2
49.3
48.3
47.7
45.0
45.3
43.6
50 43.5
40.9
41.7
41.5
38.9
38.8
Percentage
32.6
40
30.6
30.7
30
17.2
20
10
0
Papua
DI Yogyakarta
West Nusat Tenggara
South Kalimantan
Indonesia
East Java
East Kalimantan
Banten
Lampung
Bengkulu
Maluku
West Sulawesi
West Sumatera
East Nusa Tenggara
South-east Sulawesi
Riau
Central Kalimantan
West Papua
North Sumatera
Central Java
North Sulawesi
Bali
DKI Jakarta
South Sulawesi
West kalimantan
Banga Belitung Islands

Riau Islands
Gorontalo
West java
South Sumatera
Jambi
Aceh
North Maluku
Central Sulawesi
Province
Source: Derived from the 2012 IDHS (BPS et al., 2013).
IDHS results on modern methods contraception used by currently married women

broken down by province is presented in Figure 2.5. The CPR range was very wide, from
19.1 percent (Papua) to 66.4 percent (South Kalimantan). Five provinces with the lowest
rate were Papua, East Nusa Tenggara (NTB), Maluku, West Papua and North Sumatera.
2.2.4 Dwelling Condition

30
Comparing the results of the 2000 Population Census and 2010 Population Census,
there has been quite a substantial increase in terms of the number of households in
Indonesia between 2000 and 2010. While in 2000, it was found that there were 51
million households, in 2010 the number had increased to 61.2 million - an increase of
about 10.2 million units or about 20 percent. Among the total number of households,
there were approximately 6.2 million female- headed households (FHH), or 12.2
percent of the total number, in 2000. In 2010, this number increased to 8.5 million
30 BPS (2012) Population of Indonesia, Result of The 2000 Population Census, Series L2.2.
23
units or 14 percent. This means that the number of the FHH
alone increased by 23.2 million units or 37.2 percent, larger
than the percentage increase of total households ( since the
Inferior dwelling units were increase in the number of male-headed households (MHH) was
more common in female than only 17.6 percent).
male headed households
To reach the 2000 level of housing sufficiency, the Government
must build an additional 10.2 million dwelling units, otherwise
some of the new households would have to continue to operate
with lower sufficiency. In 2010, the condition of FHH is described
as follows.
Table 2.11:
Percentage of Dwelling Units by Characteristics, Urban/Rural and Sex
of Household Heads, 2010
Urban Rural
Dwelling Unit’s Characteristics Gender Gender
Parity Index* Parity Index*
Soil/ground floor and others 3.7 5.5 148.6 16.4 21.7 132.1
Floor area <30 m2 18.1 26.0 143.9 12.0 16.5 138.1
No electricity for lighting 0.7 1.1 145.2 11.3 11.4 101.6
Wood, charcoal and other for cooking 13.7 18.9 132.5 65.7 71.9 109.4
Unprotected well/spring, river, rain
6.1 6.3 104.0 27.0 25.9 96.0
water and other source of water
No toilet facility 8.0 9.7 121.9 28.7 33.6 117.1
No telephone 13.4 24.8 185.4 35.3 55.5 157.2
No access to internet 77.4 76.8 99.2 92.5 94.4 102.0
Not having dwelling unit 31.9 33.1 103.9 13.0 11.0 84.7
No certificate of own dwelling units 17.2 17.8 99.7 37.7 38.4 101.9
*The Institute for Statistics of UNESCO also uses a more general definition of GPI: for any development indicator one can define the GPI relative to this
indicator by dividing its value for females by its value for males (Koronkiewicz,2008)
Source: Derived from the 2010 Population Census (BPS, 2012)
In Indonesia, a housing unit may be inhabited by one or more households. The part of
the house used by a household is termed the dwelling unit. The area of the dwelling unit
is made up of the space of the house occupied by the household, plus the area shared
with other households, if any. In addition to information on floor material and floor
area in residential buildings collected in the 2010 Population Census, other information
includes the amenities installed in a home such as lighting facility, drinking water, fuel
for cooking, toilet facilities, excreta disposal and the like. In addition, the 2010 Population
Census also included communication facilities, such as telephone and Internet, as well as
housing unit ownership.
24
The categorized items in Table 2.11 represent shortcomings in basic housing needs for
households, with the corresponding urban and rural household percentages showing
the lack of house materials and facilities in what may be considered as a non-monetary
measure of poverty.
Comparing the proportion of MHHs and FHHs, FHHs are found to be poorer than
MHHs. Generally, this percentage difference showed up in both the urban and rural
areas. However, exceptions did exist. First, the percentage of FHHs appeared smaller
than that of MHHs for access to Internet (GPI=99.1 percent) and home ownership
without certificate (GPI=99.7 percent), in urban areas, although the difference was
very insignificant. In terms of water facilities in rural areas, the percentage of FHHs was
smaller than for MHHs, although the GPI was only 96 percent. Also for the component
“not having dwelling unit”, it was found that the FHH percentage in rural areas was
smaller than MHHs with a GPI of 84.7 percent. Overall, it could be concluded that
based on the dwelling unit condition and home facilities, FHHs were poorer than MHHs
and urban households are richer than rural households.
2.2.5 Economic Status
The materials used to construct the dwelling units, the floor area
occupied, and the kinds of facilities available within the dwelling unit
Female-headed households can be used as a proxy measure of the wellbeing of the household.
These indicators may be used as non-monetary measures of
were poorer than those
household economic status. BPS has used this as a tool to help the
headed by males
Government identify those who would be considered poor and in
turn eligible for economic assistance. The composite index used at
that time was a combination of 14 items of information on three
aspects of dwelling units, i.e. house materials, convenience facilities acquired, and the
ownership of valuable items.31 Suharyanto (2007) also used a non-monetary measure to
32
identify poor agricultural households using the returns of the 2003 Agricultural Census.
Similarly, the 2010 Population Census results could also be arranged in such a way as to
obtain a picture of the negative characteristics of the existing dwelling units at that time
(Table 5.8).
Unlike the enumeration exercise conducted on poor people as decreed by the

Presidential Instruction No. 12/2005 and the estimation of the number of poor
agricultural households using the 2003 Agricultural Census results, both of which have
been made available in the household database, this monograph attempts to present
an analysis of the data obtained from publication and it is not calculated from raw
data. By combining the percentage values of the 10 components included in the worst
31 Badan Pusat Statistik, 2006, Pendataan Sosial Ekonomi 2005: Uraian Kegiatan dalam Rangka Pendataaa
Rumah Tangga Miskin menurut Inpres 12/2005. BPS, Jakarta, 2006.
32 Suharyanto , 2007, Memantau Tingkat Kemiskinan di Perdesaan dengan Indikator dari Sensus Pertanian
2003.
25
category of housing, a diagrammatic analysis of poverty might be derived. Figure 2.6
shows that in ordinal sense, the percentage of rural poor households is larger than that
of urban households and poor FHHs are greater in number than poor MHHs.
Figure 2.6:
Ordinal Comparison of Poor Households by Urban/Rural and Sex of Household Head, 2010
400
38.4
350
1 1 .0
37.7
300 1 3.0
94.4
250
92.5
Percentage
1 7.2 55.5
200
1 7.2 33.1 35.3
33.6
1 50 31 .9
28.7
76.8 25.9
27.0
1 00 77.4
24.8 71 .9
65.7
1 3.4 9.7
50 6.3
8.0
6.1 1 8.2 1 1 .4
10.7
3.7 1 .1 1 1 .3 1 6.5
26.0 1 2.0
1 8.1 1 6.4 21 .7
0 3.7 5.5
Urban Rural
Type of Residence/Sex
Dirt/ground floor and others Floor area <30 m2 No electricity for lighting
Wood, charcoal and other for cooking worse source of water No toilet facility
No telephone No access to internet Not having dwelling unit
No certificate of own dwelling units
2.3 Population Ageing

Population ageing refers to the increasing proportion of older persons in a country’s
total population. The Population Census 2010 found that 18.1 million or 7.6 percent of
Indonesia’s total population is 60+.33 That the numbers of people joining the older-age
cohorts are projected to increase over the coming years indicates that the country will
experience a continued trend in population ageing in the coming decades. By 2025, the
country is projected to have 33.7 million people age 60+ which accounts for 11.8 percent
of its total population; and by 2035, the figure will rise to 48.2 million or 15.8 percent.34
Because a greater proportion of the country’s total population will live past 60+ years, it
is expected that the dependency ratio, which stands at 13 working adults per one older
person in 2010, will decline to 6.4 working adults per one older person in 2035. 35
33 Mujahid (2015)
34 Ibid
35 Ibid
26
2.3.1 Feminization of Ageing
As in the rest of the world, older women in Indonesia have an obvious demographic
advantage as they tend to live longer than men. According to the Gender Development
Index, based on the sex-disaggregated Human Development Index documented in the
2014 Human Development Report, life expectancy at birth was 72.9 years for females
and 68.8 years for males.36 But not only are Indonesians living longer, larger proportions
are joining the young-old cohorts, thereby lending to the country’s ageing population.
According to the 2010 Population Census, 54 percent of Indonesia’s population 60 years

and above consists of women. While there are greater numbers of males in the younger
age cohorts, starting from birth where the sex ratio has been recorded at 105.86, the
older age cohorts consist of more women than men. For example, in the age cohort of
60-64, there are 93.5 men to 100 women. Women’s demographic advantage continues
into the later age cohorts starting from the age cohort of 60 years and above with the
proportion of females remaining is consistently higher than the proportion of males
because of women’s longer life expectancy.
The pattern is slightly different in the 2000 Population Census data where females from
the age cohorts of 20-39 years appear to have a survival edge over males. The trend
in the age cohorts from 40- 59 is a pattern in which the proportion of women to men
is in favour of women, and the trend lasts until the 75+ cohort. Curiously, in the age
cohort of 70-74 years, there is a larger proportion of men (51.5 percent) compared
with women (48.5 percent). This is in stark contrast to the 2010 Population Census data
where the gap shows greater numbers of females (55.7 percent) compared with males
(44.3 percent).
36 UNDP (2014) “Indonesia” In Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience
Explanatory Note on the 2014 Human Development Report Composite Indices. Accessed:29 August 2015
URL:<http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/IDN.pdf
27
The 1990 Population Census data demonstrates a slightly different trend as compared
to the 2000 and 2010 Population Census data in terms of proportion between the sexes
of the different age groups. While the trend of a slightly larger proportion of males
compared with females in the earlier age cohorts was found, the data for the age cohort
35-39 showed a slightly larger proportion of males to females. Moreover, from the
age cohorts 40-44 and above right up to the 75+ age cohort, women have a distinct
advantage in terms of sex ratio as their proportion gradually increases until the medium
old and oldest old age cohorts.
In fact, projections based on 2010 Population Census data show that this trend will
continue in the years to come in that the proportion of females compared with the
males in the older population will remain consistently higher in the older cohorts. The
proportion of females in the age group 70 years and above will be consistently higher
than the age cohort of 60-69 years because of women living longer than men (see Figure
2.7) (cf. UNFPA 2014).
Figure 2.7
Projected Proportion of Females in Indonesia’s Older Population, 2010-2035
58.0 57.3
56.6
55.8
56.0
Females in Age Group (%)
54.5 54.7
54.0 54.3
54.0
52.8 52.6 52.9
52.3 52.5
51 .7 51 .6 51 .6
52.0 51 .3
50.5 50.4
50.0
48.0
46.0
201 0 201 5 2020 2025 2030 2035
60+ 60-69 70+
Source: Population Projection 2010-2035 (BPS, 2014)
A longer life expectancy compared with men means that women in all the older age
groups are expected to live on average longer than men in that same age group. It was also
found that in the cohorts 60-64 years and 60-69 years, women’s life expectancy exceeds
that of men’s by 10 percent or more (see Table 2.12). Hence, the phrase “feminization
of ageing” means firstly that the number of females exceeds that of males in the older
population 60+ and above, while also indicating that older females live longer than their
older males.37
37 Kinsella, Kevin (2009) “Global Perspectives on the Demography of Aging”. In The Cultural Context of Aging,
edited by Jay Sokolovsky. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing.
28
2.3.2. Causes of Feminization of Ageing
The factors for population ageing and feminization of ageing are twofold: the decline
in fertility and the decline in mortality. Indonesia has embarked on a successfull
family planning programme, which steered couples towards smaller family size.
Under the family planning programme, there was an increase in usage of modern
methods of contraception among married women. With access to quality healthcare
services becoming more widely available, life expectancy has gradually increased. As a
consequence, Indonesia’s age structure has been gradually shifting towards higher age
groups with women’s numbers being higher in these groups compared with men’s.
2.3.3. Greater Vulnerability of Women in Old Age
Feminization of ageing is important for policy makers because it is related to greater

vulnerability of the biggest proportion of the elderly, which is women in old age as
reported by Sri Moertiningsih Adioetomo and Ghazy Mujahid (2014). The following male-
female differentials were identified: (1) the difference of labour force participation rate
of population aged 60+ is very high 70 percent for males and 35 percent for females,
labor force participation rate of older cohorts is important for financial independence
in developing countries; (2) Old females were also left behind in the level of education
attainment; 23 percent of old males and 39 percent of old females reported not having
any schooling experience; (4) More older women were widowed or divorced (61 percent)
and therefore without support, while the figure for older men was lower (16 percent)
because they were usually re-married.
Women in Indonesia face greater vulnerabilities than their male counterparts. In old age,
these vulnerabilities faced by women become magnified as a result of various factors.
Women in old age are more likely to have lost their husbands since women outlive their
husbands. In losing their husbands, who would have been their main source of financial
support, these women are more likely to become dependent on their children or the
state. This dependence is caused because women would not have worked or would have
spent fewer years in the labour force because they would have needed to provide care
to their families. For most widows of civil servants or army personnel, they have been
fortunate to have access to the pensions of their late husbands, there is also a smaller
percentage who benefit from a pensions because they were civil servants themselves.38
Among older cohorts of women who have not been actively participating in the labour
force, regardless of marital status, it is critical that social security schemes apply to them
as well so as to meet the financial needs of this group since pensions would guarantee a
certain amount of stability and independence.39
38 Marianti, Ruly. “‘You can bite it, but it’s tough!’ Pensions for Widows in Indonesia”. IIAS Newsletter, #32,
November 2003. Accessed on: 15 August 2015 URL:<http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/32/Theme_ECI_pensions_of_
widows_in_indonesia.pdf>(accessed 15 May 2015)
39 Theresa W. Devasahayam (2014) ‘Growing Old in Southeast Asia: What do we Know about Gender?’ In Gender
and Ageing: Southeast Asian Perspectives, edited by Theresa W. Devasahayam. Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Perspectives.
29
Table 2.12:
Age-Sex Differentials in Life Expectancy in Indonesia, 1971, 1990, 2010
Age 1971 1990 2010
Male Female F/M Male Female F/M Male Female F/M
average number of additional years an individual is expected to live
60-64 13.1 14.4 1.10 14.9 16.5 1.11 16.7 18.7 1.12
65-69 10.5 11.5 1.10 11.9 13.2 1.11 13.3 14.9 1.12
70-74 8.1 8.9 1.09 9.2 10.2 1.10 10.3 11.5 1.12
75-79 6.1 6.7 1.09 6.9 7.6 1.10 7.7 8.6 1.11
80-84 4.5 4.9 1.08 5.1 5.5 1.09 5.7 6.2 1.10
85-89 3.2 3.4 1.08 3.6 3.9 1.09 4.0 4.4 1.10
90-94 2.2 2.4 1.06 2.5 2.7 1.07 2.8 3.0 1.08
95-99 1.5 1.6 1.05 1.7 1.8 1.06 1.9 2.0 1.07
100+ 1.0 1.1 1.03 1.1 1.2 1.04 1.2 1.3 1.04
Source: Derived from 1971, 1980, 1990 and 2010 Population Census and Indonesia Population Projection 2010-2035, (as cited
in UNFPA 2014)
Living longer also suggests the onset of a range of health complications. The 2010
Population Census data reveals gender differences in the health conditions among
Indonesians aged 60 and above. Gender differences in difficulties in seeing, hearing,
walking and climbing stairs, concentrating and communicating, remembering and taking
care of oneself were recorded. A close examination of the 2010 Population Census data
shows that the gender differences are pronounced in the “some” category more than
the “severe” category in the young-old age cohort (60-69 years) while in the medium-old
and old-old age cohorts, the gender differences are more pronounced for the “severe”
category. Thus, living longer is not necessarily an advantage to women since women,
compared with men, tend to live greater number of years in disability and therefore
enjoy shorter healthy life expectancies.
2.3.4 Impairment in Seeing
If we were to examine the data on impairment of sight across the age groups 60-69
years and above in the urban and rural areas, the proportion of females who suffer from
this ailment exceeds that of males. While the gender difference is much larger among
those who have reported to suffer “severely” from this disability at all the age cohorts,
the difference is much less among those who have some form of difficulty in terms of
eye-sight (see Table 2.13). In addition, among the elderly who have “severe” difficulties in
seeing, the ratio of females to males tends to be consistently higher compared with the
gender ratio in each age group. The same pattern follows for the elderly in the age groups
70-79, 80-89 and 90 and above where the ratios of females to males (63 percent versus
37 percent; 65 percent versus 35 percent; 70 percent versus 30 percent, respectively)
30
were much higher than the gender ratios in those age cohorts at the national level (56
percent versus 44 percent; 58 percent versus 42 percent; 64 percent versus 36 percent,
respectively). This suggests that among all the males and females in those age cohorts,
females fare worse off than their male counterparts in the area of sight. Among those
with some form of disability in seeing, however, the proportion of females to males is
much less for each age cohort from 60+ and above. In fact, the gender ratio among those
with some form of difficulty in seeing is closer to the gender ratios in the age cohorts of
60-69, 70-79, 80-89 and 90 and above at the national level.
Table 2.13:
Percentage of The Elderly (60+) Population Who Have Difficulty in Seeing by
Age, 2010
Age group
60-69 70-79 80-89 90 & above 60 & above

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Severe 41 59 37 63 35 65 30 70 37 63
Some 45 55 41 59 40 60 35 65 42 58
None 48 52 45 55 43 57 38 62 47 53
Total 48 52 44 56 42 58 36 64 46 54
31
Furthermore, a comparison of the elderly in the urban and rural areas shows that a
higher proportion of older adults in the rural areas suffer from a severe disability in
seeing compared to older adults residing in the urban areas. The difference in the urban
and rural areas for older adults suffering from some difficulty in seeing is more or less in
line with their population distribution within urban and rural areas. Gender differences
in difficulty in seeing are evident in both urban and rural areas. The gender difference
in both urban and rural areas (see Table 2.13) follows the same pattern of the gender
difference in the older population aged 60 and above (see Table 2.14).
Table 2.14:
Percentage of The Elderly (60+) Population Who Have Difficulty in Seeing by Sex
& Urban/Rural, 2010
Urban Rural Urban Rural

Male Female Male Female (Male & Female) (Male & Female)
Severe 37 63 37 63 39 61
Some 42 58 42 58 42 58
None 46 54 47 53 43 57
Total 46 54 46 54 43 57
2.3.5 Impairment in Listening/Hearing
In terms of difficulty in listening/hearing, while there is a gender difference with more

females than males suffering from this disability across the age cohorts of 60-69, 70-79,
80-89 and 90 and above, it was found that overall, the gender ratio was not very different
from the total population. The exception was those in the 60-69 year age cohort who
have some form on disability. Among this cohort, the gender ratio was much higher in
favour of males (39 percent versus 61 percent) compared with the gender ratio of the
total population in that age group (48 percent versus 52 percent), indicating that some
difficulties with listening/hearing tends to start in the young-old cohort for females more
than males.
In regards to difficulties in listening/hearing between males and females living in urban

or rural areas, it was found that in the urban areas a higher proportion of women (62
percent) have some difficulty in hearing/listening compared to men (38 percent) (see
Table 2.16). The proportions among older women and men suffering from severe
difficulty in listening/hearing are the same as for those who have some difficulty in this
area. However among the population above 60 years and over in the entire country, the
proportion who do not have any difficulties in hearing in the rural areas (57 percent)
compared with the urban areas (43 percent) follows that of the population distribution
in rural and urban areas. In terms of some and severe difficulty in hearing, this pattern
no longer remains and those in rural areas tend to be worse off with a larger proportion
in the rural areas.
32
Table 2.15:
Percentage of The Elderly (60+) Population Who Have Difficulty in Listening/
Hearing by Sex and Age, 2010
Age group
60-69 70-79 80-89 90 & above 60 & above

Severe 44 56 40 60 38 62 32 68 39 61
Some 39 61 38 62 39 61 35 65 39 61
None 48 52 45 55 43 57 38 62 47 53
Total 48 52 44 56 42 58 36 64 46 54
Table 2.16:
Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Listening/Hearing
by Sex and Urban/Rural, 2010
Urban Rural Urban (Male & Rural (Male &

Male Female Male Female Female) Female)
Severe 38 62 33 67 35 65
Some 38 62 39 61 38 62
None 47 53 47 53 43 57
Total 46 54 46 54 43 57
2.3.6 Impairment in Walking and Climbing Stairs
The older population was also found to be impaired in the area of walking and climbing
stairs. Comparing males and females, a higher proportion of females were found to
have difficulty in walking and climbing stairs. Across the age cohorts of 60 years and
above, there are larger proportions of females over males who have some and severe
difficulty with walking and climbing stairs compared with the percentage of those age
groups recorded at the national level (see Table 2.17). However, the reverse is true for
males suggesting that there are fewer numbers of men in the older age cohorts who are
suffering from this disability.
The 2010 Population Census data, however, records that a greater numbers of females
(65 percent) in the urban areas have difficulty walking and climbing stairs compared with
their male counterparts (35 percent) (see Table 2.18). In fact, females in the urban areas
(65 percent) are slightly worse off in terms of this impairment compared with females in
the rural areas (63 percent).
33
Table 2.17:
Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Walking and
Climbing Stairs by Age, 2010
Age group
60-69 70-79 80-89 90 & above 60 & above

Severe 44 56 36 64 33 67 28 72 36 64
Some 37 63 36 64 37 63 34 66 36 64
None 49 51 45 55 45 55 40 60 47 53
Table 2.18:
Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Walking and
Climbing Stairs by Sex, Urban/Rural, 2010

Severe 35 65 37 63 41 59
Some 35 65 37 63 41 59
None 47 53 48 52 43 57
Total 46 54 46 54 43 57
2.3.7 Impairment in Remembering/Concentrating/

Communicating
Difficulty in remembering/concentrating/communicating was another impairment

prevalent among older persons. As in the other impairments recorded in the 2010
Population Census, there were more females than males across the age groups 60 years
and above who had severe or even some difficulty in this area. However, the proportion
of females reporting severe or some difficulty in this area is consistently higher across
the age groups compared with the proportion of females in the total population (see
Table 2.18). The reverse trend is found among men: their proportions are consistently
lower than the national rate in every age group.
Among those living in the urban areas, the same pattern as in the other impairments
shows up where more females than males have been found to have either some or
severe difficulty in remembering/concentrating/communicating (see Table 2.20). A
similar trend was found in the rural areas. In addition, higher proportions of elderly in
rural areas had some or severe difficulty in remembering/concentrating /communicating
compared to elderly in the urban areas.
34
Table 2.19:
Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Remembering/
Concentrating/Communicating by Sex and Age, 2010
Age Group
60-69 70-79 80-89 90 & above 60 & above
Severe 42 58 35 65 32 68 27 73 35 65
Some 37 63 35 65 36 64 33 67 36 64
48 52 45 55 44 56 40 60 47 53
Total 48 52 44 56 42 58 36 64 46 54
Table 2.20:
Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Remembering/
Concentrating/Communicating by Sex and Urban/Rural, 2010

Severe 34 66 35 65 38 62
Some 35 65 36 64 40 60
None 47 53 47 53 43 57
Total 46 54 46 54 43 57
2.3.8 Impairment in Taking Care of Oneself
Older persons were also found to struggle with self-care in terms of activities of daily
living such as feeding, bathing, dressing, grooming, working, homemaking and engaging
in leisure activities. Here, the gender differences were as pronounced as in the case of
health problems related to walking and climbing stairs and remembering, concentrating
and communicating. Among those suffering from this disability, the proportion of
females with severe and some problems in this area was consistently higher compared
with the national rate across the age groups. The gender ratio is found to widen with
every age cohort from 60-69 years to 90 & above for those recording severe difficulty in
taking care of oneself (see Table 2.21).
Comparing urban and rural areas, there was no difference in the proportions of women
to men in terms of difficulty of taking care of oneself. But if the rates across rural and
urban areas are compared, a higher proportion of elderly (both men and women) in
the rural areas were found to have difficulty in taking care of oneself compared to the
elderly (both men and women) in urban areas (see Table 2.22).
35
Table 2.21:
Percentage of The Elderly Population Who Have Difficulty in Taking Care of
Oneself by Sex and Age, 2010
Age group
60-69 70-79 80-89 90 & above 60 & above

Severe 44 56 36 64 32 68 27 73 36 64
Some 38 62 35 65 36 64 33 67 36 64
None 48 52 45 55 44 56 40 60 47 53
Total 48 52 44 56 42 58 36 64 46 54
Table 2.22:
Percentage of The Elderly Who Have Difficulty Difficulty in Taking Care of
Oneself by Sex and Urban/Rural, 2010

Severe 36 64 36 64 41 59
Some 35 65 36 64 42 58
None 46 54 47 53 43 57
Total 46 54 46 54 43 57
36
Chapter III
EDUCATION
37
During the pre-independence era, especially prior to 1900, women
were given fewer opportunities than men to develop themselves.
Educational In that period, women were generally not allowed to go to school.

Furthermore, they were even prohibited to work outside the home,
development
let alone occupy a communal position. Instead women would often
brings females
aspire to marriage.40 Records show that in 1897 in a two-year school
closer in reaching available for the native population in Java-Madura, there were only
the achievements 278 students, and none were female students; in 1898, in a school
of their male run by the colonial Government, there were only 11 female students
counterparts in the entire Dutch Indies territory (Armijn Pane, 2009).
Education clearly empowers those who have access to it, as an

educated person is more likely to be able to actualize a higher level of
wellbeing. A person who has less education has a lower command
in other areas of his or her life such as employment, salary and bargaining position in
decision-making, both in the public domain and at the household level. Females have
long been less successful than males both as actors as well as recipients of development.
After independence, the situation for women began to see a slight improvement
because of the right to education for every citizen, as guaranteed in Indonesia’s various
constitutions, legislations and policies.41 Being aware of how education impacts on national
‘productivity’, the Indonesian Government and the private sector have undertaken
numerous measures to improve the country’s educational level. There have been a
series of policies implemented to remove various barriers to education. The outcome of
these policies has been positive, with women showing an increased motivation to gain
an education. Noteworthy education programmes include the Presidential Instruction
(Inpres) on aid for construction of primary school buildings42 and Wajar (Compulsory
Education) 6 Years, 9 Years and 12 Years are the most important ones.43
3.1. School Participation

44
In Indonesia, one of the development pillars was equitable and accessible education.
While this needed to be strengthened, designers of policy and programmes had to
bear in mind that geographically Indonesia covers a very large area; in many places,
the conditions and geographical terrain are rough and difficult to reach, thereby
hampering school-age children from participating in education programmes. It had
to be recognized that only when these barriers are removed, can children, male and
female, go to school, thereby realizing equitable and accessible education for all.
40 Armijn Pane, 27th edition, Habis Gelap Terbitlah Terang

41 UUD 1945 Chater XIII Para.31 and Law No 4 1950 Jo.; Law No.12, 1954
42 Inpres No. 10. 1973; Inpres No.6, 1974; Inpres No. 6, 1975
43 Repelita III (1979/80-1983/84) tentang Wajar 6 Tahun; PP 38/1990 tentang Pendidikan Dasar 9 Tahun; UU No.
20/2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional; Peraturan Presiden No. 47/2008 tentang Wajib Belajar
44 Law No. 20, 2003 on National Education System
38
3.1.1. School Enrolment Variation across Age Group
While primary, secondary and tertiary education has been long administered, the
education for pre-school-age children has only recently started.45 Therefore, the
participation rate of the pre- school-age children is generally low. The participation rate
of children aged 5-6 years was considerably low, that is, between 34.8 percent for boys
and 37.4 percent for girls. Some of the children belonging to this age group would not
participate in schooling because of the absence of pre-school-age schools close enough
to their place of residence.
Despite the fact that not all pre-school age children were enrolled in pre-school age
education, some of them might have gone to primary school. Some children, both boys
and girls, belonging to the 7-12 year age group currently enrolled in primary school
would preferably have gone to preschool but did not - whether they were boys or
girls. Quantitatively, more girls than boys went to school, but in terms of percentage,
the proportion of girls was much lower than that of boys. The older the children were
the less chance they got to go to school because of, among other reasons, the absence
of formal education institutions (BPS, 2014), as well as the higher cost associated with
receiving a higher level education (BPS, 2012), and the tendency to become involved in
income-earning activities. In 2010, only 95.3 percent of children aged 7-12 years and
only 85 percent of children aged 13-15 actively went to school. Even lower were
the participation rates of senior-secondary school-aged children and university-aged
youth which were 52.8 percent, and 15.1 percent, respectively.
Gender gaps were found to favour females in the lower levels of education: pre-school,
primary school and junior high school, but the opposite was true in the higher levels:
senior high school, and university (Table 3.1). That fact that more girls were going to
primary school indicates an interesting cultural shift: increasingly parents are not
opposed to the girl child receiving an education. But in the older age cohorts there were
more males than females in school, indicating that females are dropping out of school.
In this case, the question of retaining girls becomes important in order to ensure gender
parity in education in the older age groups.
Information on school enrolment in 2000 cannot be obtained from the complete

enumeration census publication, but from the Population Module publication. The
Population Module survey was done three months prior to the census and based on
203,008 household samples only. Therefore the monograph will leave out the discussion
on school enrolment from the 2000 population census results.
Referring to the 1990 Population Census data, an interesting shift is seen as females have
a higher school attendance rate compared with males in the age cohorts 5-9 years (Table
3.2). For the subsequent age cohorts, school attendance amongst males has always
been higher than school attendance amongst females. This is in contrast to the 2010
Population Census data where school enrolment among females is higher compared to
males until the 13-15 year age cohort, indicating that more girls would stay on in school
in 2010 compared to 1990.
45 Ibid
39
Table 3.1: Table 3.2:
School Enrolment Rate By Age Group and Sex, 2010 School Enrolment Rate by Age Group and Sex, 1990
Age Male + Gender Age Male + Gender

Group Female Parity Index Group Female Parity Index
5-6 37.4 38.9 38.1 104.1 5-9 65.3 67.5 66.4 103.3
7-12 94.5 95.3 94.1 100.8 10-14 84.6 82.9 83.7 98.0
13-15 83.5 85.0 84.2 101.9 15-19 44.7 37.8 41.2 84.4
16-18 53.2 52.4 52.8 98.5 20-24 12.7 7.5 10.0 58.8
19-24 15.4 14.8 15.1 95.8 25-29 2.8 1.1 1.9 38.7
Total 24.7 23.8 24.2 96.2 30-34 0.7 0.4 0.6 52.1
Source: Derived from 2010 Population Census (BPS, 2012) 35-39 0.5 0.3 0.4 65.3
40-44 0.4 0.3 0.4 87.2
45 and
0.02 - 0.01 0
older
Total 28.7 26.8 27.2 90.0
40
In 1990, as in the 2010 Population Census data, there was a distinct gender gap in favour
of girls in the lower level of education especially in the age cohort of 5-9 years, that is,
at the pre-school and primary school levels. While this gap continues into junior high
school for females in 2010, the gap had shifted in favour of boys according to the 1990
Population Census data (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1:
School Enrolment Rate by Age Group and Sex, 1990
Male Female
84.6
90
82.9
80
67.5
65.3
70
60
44.7
50
40 37.7
30
20
12.7
7.5
10 2.8
0.02
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.1
0
5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45+
3.1.2. School Enrolment Variation across the Region
Both girls and boys suffer from inequality due to the geographical location of education
facilities and there is particular disparity between urban and rural regions. Location of
residence often becomes the reason a child does not go to school. Figure 3.2 shows
how school participation rate varies between the urban and rural settings, and between
males and females for children aged 5-6 years, 7-12 years, and 16-18 years, respectively.
The rural/urban difference of participation rate of people aged 19-24 is not shown,
because the individual’s belonging to the group were supposed to have already enrolled
in university either in a large town/city. In Figure 3.2, it is clearly shown that urban/rural
variation is more dominant than male/female differentials. In age groups 7-12 and 13-
15 years, attendance rates in urban and rural areas were almost equal, however a gap
emerges among children aged 16-18 years who are generally enrolled in senior high
school.
41
Figure 3.2:
School Enrolment Rate by Urban/Rural, Age Group and Sex, 2010
96.4
96.0
94.3
93.3
87.8
1 00
88.1
82.2
79.6
90
80
59.4
70
57.3
60
46.9
46.9
42.4
41 .1
50
35.6
33.9
40
30
20
10
0
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
5-6 7-1 2 1 3-1 5 1 6-1 8
Male Female
Not all interprovincial variation is presented here, with the focus solely on the difference
between urban and rural areas, especially for children aged 16-18 years, which showed
the largest gap in school attendance. While school attendance among girls has been
slightly higher in the urban and rural areas until the age cohort 13-15 years based on
figures from the 2010 Population Census, the 1990 census data shows the same trend
only in the 5-9 years cohort both in the urban and rural areas (Figure 3.3). In the cohorts
ages 10-14 and above, there have always been a higher proportion of males attending
school compared with females both in the urban and rural areas. It is also clearly shown
that urban/rural variation is more dominant than male/female differentials in 1990 and
the variation is greater than that in 2010.
At the national level, gender equality on school participation for the 16-18 year age group
has almost been achieved, however it varies across provinces. Figure 3.4 shows the GPI
on school participation by province. The worst gender gap indicated by GPI less than
90 percent and more than 110 percent was found in two different groups of areas. The
first group constitutes DKI Jakarta and Bali where females had lower school participation
rates, and the other part are Gorontalo and West Sumatra (barely North Sulawesi) where
males had lower school participation rates.
42
Figure 3.3:
School Enrolment Rate by Urban/Rural, Age Group and Sex, 1990
100
90
80
School Enrollment Rate

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45+
Urban Male 71.4 91.9 63.7 23 5.8 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.05
Urban Female 72.9 89.3 53.7 14.4 2.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.01
Rural Male 63 81.5 34.7 6.2 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0
Rural Female 65.4 80.1 28.5 3.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0
Three factors might influence the variability of the GPI condition: early marriage, the
existence of a high school facilities and labour market opportunities that had opened
up for the younger population. A discussion on these factors will be presented later.
However, it is worthwhile to note that school enrolment and education attainment
levels in Indonesia have been found to be lower than in the other ASEAN-6 countries,
suggesting that Indonesian females are lagging behind their counterparts in the other
ASEAN countries.46 The gap in the levels of school enrolment and education attainment
has been found to be most pronounced when urban and rural areas are compared, which
would mean that females from rural areas in Indonesia are worse off when compared
with other ASEAN countries than those from the urban areas. In this case, socio-economic
background becomes a critical factor for explaining the gaps in enrolment ratios and
educational performance.47 Enhancing the chance for females to stay in school raises
their income-earning capacity as they reach adulthood, thereby enabling them to find
employment in the country rather than migrating for work,48 as well as earn higher
salaries should they decide to stay in Indonesia.
46 “Structural Policy Notes: Indonesia”. Southeast Asian Economic Outlook 2013: With Perspectives from China
and India. OECD, 2013. (accessed 26 June 2015)
URL:<http://www.oecd.org/dev/asia-pacific/Indonesia.pdf>
47 Jones, Gavin. “Education in Indonesia”. Changing Family in Asia Cluster Research Brief Series No. 7, Asia
Research Institute, September 2013. Accessed on 15 August 2015
URL:<http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs%5Cdownloads%5CReports-and- Proceedings%5CCF
48 Maruli Tobing, Maria Hartiningsih, AM. Dewabrata & Widi Krastawan, Perjalanan Nasib TKI-TKW: Antara Rantai
Kemiskinan dan Nasib Perempuan, Jakarta: Gramedia, 1990, p. 85, as cited in Zakiah Hasan Gaffar (2008)
“Deciding to Migrate: Factors, Influences, and Processes in the Experiences of Indonesian Women who Migrate
to Malaysia as Domestic Workers”, Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific, Issue 17, July 2008.
(accessed 28 June 2015) URL:<http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue17/gaffar.htm#n4>
43
Figure 3.4:
Gender Parity Index of School Enrolment Rate of Population Aged 16 -18 Years
by Province, 2010
3.1.3. School Enrolment Variation across Socio-Economic

Status
Data on the school participation rates across socio-economic status could not directly be
obtained from the 2010 Population Census. As a proxy, the GPI of net participation rate
by socio-economic status was used and obtained from the 2012 SUSENAS presented
below. Table 3.3 shows that in 2012 at the primary school level, educational equality has
been achieved.
Table 3.3:
Gender Parity Index on Net Enrolment Ratio by Educational Level and Economic
Status, 2012
The Poorest Middle Class The Richest

Education Level
(40% the lowest) (40% Middle) (20% the highest)
Primary School 100.3 99.4 99.5

Junior High School 106.2 103.3 99.9
Senior High School 104.0 100.4 90.1
University 116.0 122.3 95.8
Source: MDGs Report (Ministry of National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), 2013)
44
Nevertheless, in groups belonging to the medium and low income classes, the value
of GPI was always greater than 100 which means that within the same social groups of
medium and low income, female participation was higher than that of male participation
in the education level of junior high school or higher (Ministry of National Development
Planning/National Development Planning Board/Bappenas, 2014). In an analysis of
children belonging to poor households (BPS, 2013), it is also shown that the GPI favoured
females more than males. The opposite was true in non-poor families.
3.1.4. Why Children Don’t Go to School
The result of the 2012 SUSENAS shows that the reason more than 43.9 percent of children
do not go to school was because of the lack of funds in the household. Other reasons
given by the children were closely related to family economic condition, such as: (a) they
had to work for payment and the shame around one’s economic situation, which were
the reasons given by male children, and (b) marriage and household responsibilities,
which were the reasons that came from female children. Female children aged 7-18
years who were no longer in school were generally of the ever-married status. One
way to keep children in school was to give scholarships to households which needed
economic assistance. However, those children who are able to secure scholarships have
45
been found to be a very small group. Only 12 percent of the primary school students, 12
percent of junior high school students, 9 percent of senior high school students, and 7
percent of university students actually received scholarships.
At the primary school and junior high school the number of male and female students
receiving scholarships was about equal. However at the higher levels, female recipients
outnumbered male recipients marginally.
Distance is a reason given by around 1 percent of both male and female children for not
attending school. According to BPS (2014), not all villages had an operational school. Of
78,736 villages in Indonesia, only 71,205 villages had the resources to offer residents
an operating primary school. The average distance from home to the nearest primary
school was 2.4 kilometers, 4.5 kilometers to a junior high school, and 7 kilometers to
a senior high school (BPS 2013). BPS (2013) also asserted that around 2.8 percent of
children who did not go to school were those with disabilities. According to the 2013
potensi desa or podes (complete enumeration activity to collect information on the socio-
economic potential of all villages), facilities for disabled individuals were very limited.
Only 1,505 villages managed to make sekolah luar biasa (schools provided for disabled
children) available. Unfortunately, studies on multivariate analysis that are related to
causes of children for not going to school are still lacking.
3.2. Educational Attainment

In the year 2010, the overall difference in average lengths
of schooling between males and females aged 15 years
and older was only around one year (KPPA and BPS, 2012).
Knowledge, which is Examining the 2010 Population Census results on the type
usually measured by of diploma achieved, shows that the number of people
educational attainment or who attained a primary school diploma (31.9 percent) was
diploma/certificate level highest, with a GPI value of 104.8 percent, and the number
of achievement, has a with junior high school diploma was 17.6 percent, with a
gender parity of 95.6 percent (see Table 3.4).
beneficial impact on the
person and those living A salient figure is shown for GPI on Diploma I/II/III which
around the person equals to 129.7 percent. The case here might be related to
the fact that more females than males had graduated from
the nursing academy and midwifery academy while receiving
tertiary-level health education.
Data from the 2000 Population Census shows a similar general trend. Similar to the 2010
Population Census data, the data from 2000 also found that of the entire population (35.3
percent) Females (37.6 percent) are more likely than males (33.1 percent) not to attend or
complete primary school - although the data from 2010 showed a marked improvement
in school attendance (Table 3.4). As in the 2010 Population Census data, in 2000, it was
also found that females had better attendance in primary school but in secondary and
46
vocational school, males had an edge over females. A difference was found amongst
diploma and university graduates; in 2010, it was found that more females had Diploma
I/II/III qualifications compared with females in 2000. The 2000 Population Census data
also shows a larger gender gap in university education.
Table 3.4:
Percentage of Population by Education Attainment and Sex, 2010
Gender
Education Attainment Male Female Total
Parity Index
Never attended + Not Completed
Primary School 28.0 31.5 29.7 112.2
Primary School 31.1 32.6 31.9 104.8
Junior secondary school 18.0 17.2 17.6 95.6
Senior Secondary + Vocational school 21.6 17.6 19.6 81.8
Diploma I/II/III 1.7 2.2 2.0 129.7
Diploma IV/ Undergraduate +
Postgraduate 3.8 3.1 3.6 80.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: 2010 Population Census (BPS, 2012)
Table 3.5:
Percentage of Population by Education Attainment and Sex, 2000 and 1990
2000 1990
Education Gender Gender
attainment Male Female Total Parity Male Female Total Parity
Index Index
Never attended + Not
33.1 37.6 35.3 113.6 35.4 40.0 37.6 112.9
Completed primary school
Primary school 33.5 34.9 34.2 104.2 35.3 36.5 35.9 103.4
Junior high school 14.2 12.9 13.6 90.6 13.5 12.1 12.8 89.7
Senior high school 15.8 12.2 14.0 77.1 13.4 10.0 11.8 74.6
Diploma I/II 0.6 0.5 0.5 92.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 80.5
Diploma III/Academy 0.8 0.7 0.8 84.1 0.8 0.5 0.6 63.3
University 2.0 1.2 1.6 61.5 1.2 0.6 0.9 51.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
The 2000 Population Census data follows the pattern of the 1990 Population Census
for educational attainment by sex. The percentage of females (40 percent) who had not
completed or not yet completed primary school is higher than the percentage of males
(35.4 percent), with a gap of 4.6 percent in 1990 (Table 3.5). While there was a slightly
higher percentage of girls (36.5 percent) who finished primary school compared with
47
boys (35.3 percent), the gender gap expands again for those with junior high school
(General + Vocational) and senior high school, while it closes again at Diploma I/II (General
+ Vocational). However, among those with Diploma III Academy / Diploma III and among
university graduates, the gender gap widens and, is much wider than for those with
all the other educational qualifications.
Generally since 1990, there has been a trend of larger proportions of Indonesians
completing primary education then staying on to complete higher levels of education
including vocational training. However, there appears to be a persistent trend that there
is a higher proportion of girls than boys among those not completing or having not
yet completed primary school, although the proportions among both sexes have been
gradually decreasing since 1990.
Comparing data on educational attainment in the year 1990, 2000 and 2010, it can be
seen that females having a high school diploma or higher increased by almost double
between 1990-2010 and its GPI also increased from around 72.4 percent to 83.8 percent.
48
3.2.1. Educational Attainment Variation across Age Group
Based on age distribution, it can be seen that the younger generation are more likely to
achieve the highest diploma in senior high school or above. The GPI value, which was
negatively related to age, showed that the younger generation of females tended to rise
to an education level approaching the educational level of males.
In Figure 3.5, it is seen that at young ages, the number of senior high school diploma
holders was relatively equal between males and females. However, at the age of 30-
60 years the gap has widened, and females lag behind males in terms of educational
attainment. At the age range of 60 years and above, the gap has narrowed, which means
that many surviving females of that age group tend to possess diploma level education
similar to that of men.
Figure 3.5:
Percentage of Population Having Senior Secondary School Diploma or Higher by
Age Group and Sex, 2010
6
5.7
5 5.6
4.6
4 4.4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3.1
2.9
2 2.2 2.1
1.3 1.3
1 0.9
0.7
0.4 0.5
0.3 0.3 0.2
0 0.1 0.1 0.1
0
19-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+
Male Female
The 2010 Population Census data shows that, in the age cohort of 19-24 years and above,
more males (19.2 percent) than females (14.6 percent) had completed senior high school
and higher education. Compared with the 2010 Population Census, the 2000 Population
Census data shows a positive trend in the 16-18 age cohort as a slightly larger proportion
of females (0.73 percent) compared with males (0.67 percent) had attained a senior high
school education or higher. This trend from the 16-18 age group in 2000 might have
been expected to show up in the 19-24 age cohort in the 2010 Population Census.
Data from the 1990 Population Census also shows a gender gap in favour of females
in the 15-19 age cohort, while in the cohorts from 20-24 years and above, the gap is
consistently in favour of males, indicating that males were more likely to have a senior
high school education and above compared to females.
49
3.2.2. Educational Attainment Variation across Province
The GPI on educational attainment varies across provinces, as presented in Figure 3.6.
There are three provinces where the percentage of females having at least high school
diploma is higher than males from the same category: Gorontalo province (formerly part
of North Sulawesi province), West Sumatera province, and North Sulawesi province. In
this case, traditional practices tend to favour female education, as seen in the GPI among
those having at least high school diploma, which is higher than 100 percent. The gender
gaps in Gorontalo, West Sumatera and North Sulawesi are 112.9 percent, 104.1 percent
Figure 3.6:
Gender Parity Index in Education Attainment (Having Senior High School
Diploma or Higher) by Province, 2010
Gorontalo 112
West Sumatera 104
North Sulawesi 102.8
Riau Islands 98.4
North Sumatera 93.4
Maluku 92.8
Aceh 91
Riau 91
Bengkulu 90.3
South Sulawesi 90.2
Central Sulawesi 90.1
South Sumatera 89
Bangka Belitung 87.8
West Sulawesi 87.6
Lampung 87
DKI Jakarta 86.4
DI Yogyakarta 86.2
East Nusa Tenggara 85.8
SouthEast Sulawesi 85.4
Jambi 85
INDONESIA 84.6
Central Jawa 83.3
Central Kalimantan 83.2
North Maluku 83
South Kalimantan 82.9
West Kalimantan 82.8
Banten 82.3
East Kalimantan 82.1
West Jawa 81
West Papua 80.6
East Jawa 79.5
Bali 75.7
West Nusa Tenggara 75.2
Papua 72
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
50
and 102.8 percent respectively. Meanwhile, it was found that the GPI in four provinces
is very low - less than 80 percent for female educational attainment, which was much
lower than for males; this trend was found in the Papua province (72.1 percent), East
Nusa Tenggara (NTB) at 75.2 percent, Bali (75.8 percent) and Jawa T imur (79.5 percent).
Comparing the GPI on education attainment (high school diploma and above) and school
participation of children aged 16-18 years, it is reasonable to say that there is a positive
relationship between GPI on education attainment and school enrolment of children
aged 16-18 years old. This is supported by the coefficient (0.56). The data presented
in Figure 3.7 shows a positive relationship between the educational attainment of the
female population and the school participation of girls aged 16-18 years relative to
males.
Figure 3.7:
Relationship between GPI on Education Attainment of Senior Secondary School
or Higher and GPI on School Enrolment of 16-18 Age Group, 2010
120
GPI School Participation of Population
115
110
Age 16 -18 Years
105
100
95
90
85
80
70 80 90 100 110 120
GPI on Education Attainment senior secondary and Higher
The Indonesian Family Life Survey, a study based on a longitudinal survey done between
the years 1993 and 2000, shows that the impact of the education level of the mother on
the education of children starts to take effect when she engages in family planning to
limit the number of wanted children and strives to improve the quality of household life.
Results from the SUSENAS 2012 show that education has a significant influence on the
age of female first marriage (BPS, 2013). Among those who married at 15 years or below,
there are only a few among them who have middle level of education - 5.9 percent having
junior high school diploma, 1.1 percent percent having senior high school diploma and
almost none of them (0.2 percent) have graduated from an academy or university.
The rest of about 93 percent are distributed among those who never attended school
51
(23.5 percent), have some primary school experience
(35.2 percent) and have primary school diploma (34.2
Educational improvement percent). The data above suggest that keeping the
children in education delays the age of marriage. The data
in a region does not only
also indicates that the implication of Wajar 9 years can
impact school participation
significantly delay age of first marriage compared to that
by girls, it also results in of Wajar 6 years. Those suggestions have been supported
an increased age at first by the fact that there is an increase of female median age
marriage, decreased number at first marriage during the period of 1991-2012 (BKKBN
of children born, increased et al., 2013), while in the same period the trend of female
nutritional status of children education has also increased.
and decreased infant The fertility indicator derived from IDHS-Indonesia

mortality rate. (BKKBN et al., 2013), namely average number of children
born to ever married women aged 40-49 years old has a
negative relationship with the education of mother. The
average number of children ever born to mothers with no
education/few years in primary school is 3.7 while the figure is reduced to 2.3 for those
having academy/university education.
BPS and UNICEF executed a large-scale multiple indicator cluster survey, or MICS, in six
districts in the Papua and West Papua Provinces which revealed that education of the
mother has reversed the correlation between low birth weight and infant mortality rate
(BPS, 2012). The data in the Province of West Papua showed a weaker correlation than
the correlation shown in the Papua Province.
3.3. Literacy
The effect of the Wajar programme was a swift increase of literacy, with females being
the beneficiaries of the programmes. According to Ace Suryadi (2001) the percentage of
female literacy rate increased from 63 percent in 1980 to 79 percent in 1990, increasing
further to 86 percent in 1998; while in the same period male literacy increased less
dramatically from 80 percent in 1980 to 90 percent in 1990 and to 93 percent in 1998.
Briefly, in the 1980-1998 period the literacy rate for women increased by 23 points or 37
percent while men’s only by 13 points or 16 percent. One of the consequences of delayed
involvement of women in education before the independence was a high rate of illiteracy
among the old population. The GPI trend, which is negatively correlated with age, proves
that in terms of education, women have been left behind compared to men. Although
in 2010 there was no difference between women’s and men’s literacy rates, aggregately
speaking (GPI 96.2), among the old, fewer women were literate compared with men; 83.8
percent for men as compared to 67.5 for women (GPI = 80.5 percent). However a higher
literacy rate among females compared to males was found among the young age group
as was the case in the rural areas.
52
The gender gap for literacy has been different from province to province. Its values ranged
from the lowest GPI of 91 percent in NTB to the highest value of 101.8 in Gorontalo. The
GPI on school enrolment of children aged 16-18 years and the GPI on the percentage
of population having senior high school diploma or higher also show that NTB has the
lowest educational levels by sex compared with the national levels. Meanwhile, the
reverse trend has been found in the provinces of Gorontalo and North Sulawesi, both of
which were enjoying the relatively equal gender ratio in literacy.
Table 3.6:
Literacy Rate by Age Group and Sex, 2010
Gender Parity
Age Group Male Female Total
Index
5-14 84.8 85.7 85.3 101.1
15-24 98.5 98.6 98.6 100.1
25-49 97.0 94.8 95.9 97.7
50+ 85.3 70.0 77.5 82.1
Total 92.6 89.1 90.9 96.2
53
3.4. Ability to Speak National Language
Almost every ethnic group in Indonesia has its own language. Children, except those
whose mother tongue is Malay - the roots of the national language, Bahasa Indonesia,
only start speaking the national language at school. Before starting school they may have
only been after being able to read and write. That is why illiteracy relates to the person’s
ability to speak the national language. After 65 years of independence, illiteracy rates
continue to be high, especially among females, and those who do not speak Bahasa
Indonesia.
In terms of the ability to speak Bahasa Indonesia, a gender gap was almost non-existent
among the young and middle-aged people. In contrast, among those age 50 years and
older, especially women, there was a significant number who did not speak Bahasa
Indonesia. Among them, the percentage of those who are able to speak Bahasa Indonesia
was 85.78 percent for men and 72.88 percent for women.
Based on Table 3.7, the gender gap in ability to speak Bahasa Indonesia is very slight
among the young and middle age generations. However, the gap increases in number
54
as age increases, and the increase is more pronounced among women than men. At
the national level, the percentage of population that is able to speak Bahasa Indonesia
is around 92.5 percent and the figure deceases among those aged 50 years and over to
79.2 percent, with the distribution being 85.8 percent for males and 72.9 females. Thus,
the gender gap between males and females in ability to speak Bahasa Indonesia is not
significant, except among those aged 50 years and over.
Figure 3.8:
Gender Parity Index on Literacy by Province, 2010
104
101.8
102
100.1
99.4
99.1
100
98.8
98.7
98.7
98.5
98.4
98.3
98.3
98.2
98.1
97.7
97.6
97.5
97.4
97.3
97.2
97.2
97.0
98
96.8
96.6
96.2
96.2
96.0
95.7
Gender Parity Index
96
94.2
94.2
93.3
94
92.7
92.3
91.6
91.0
92
90
88
86
84
Province
Table 3.7:
Gender Parity Index on Ability to Speak Bahasa Indonesia
by Age Group and Sex, 2010
Age Gender
Male Female Total
Group Parity Index*
5-14 90.1 90.9 90.5 100.9
15-24 98.6 98.6 98.6 100.0
25-49 97.3 95.3 96.3 97.9
50+ 85.8 72.9 79.2 85.0
Total 94.0 90.9 92.5 96.7
*The Institute for Statistics of UNESCO also uses a more general definition of GPI: for
any development indicator one can define the GPI relative to this indicator by dividing
its value for females by its value for males (Koronkiewicz,2008)
55
The variation of the GPI on ability to speak Bahasa Indonesia across provinces was
different from the variation across the age groups. Based on the 2010 Population Census
results, the range of GPI is not very wide, spanning from 92.2 percent (NTB) to 100.0
percent (Gorontalo). Besides NTB, five more provinces have a GPI lower than that of the
national average: East Java, Bali, DI Yogyakarta, Central Java and Papua. It seems that in
these provinces, people are still influenced strongly by traditional practices.
Figure 3.9
Gender Parity Index of Ability to Speak Bahasa Indonesia by Province, 2010
1 02
1 00.0
1 00.0
1 00.0
99.8
99.7
99.6
99.5
99.5
99.4
1 00
99.0
98.8
98.7
98.5
98.4
98.3
98.0
97.9
97.9
97.7
97.7
97.7
97.6
97.5
97.5
97.3
97.1
98
97.0
96.7
Gender Parity Index
95.4
95.0
96
94.4
94.0
93.5
94
92.2
92
90
88
West Java

Lampung
East Java
Bali
DKI Jakarta
Gorontalo
Riau
Jambi
East Nusa Tenggara
Maluku
DI Yogyakarta
Aceh
Papua
Riau Islands
Banten
Central Java
Bengkulu
Indonesia
West Sulawesi
West Nusa Tenggara
Central Kalimantan
South-east Sulawesi
West Kalimantan
South Sulawesi
West Papua
West Sumatera
East Kalimantan
North Sulawesi
North Maluku
South Kalimantan
Central Sulawesi
South Sumatera
North Sumatera
Province
56
Chapter IV
EMPLOYMENT
57
The 1945 Constitution decreed that every citizen is entitled to employment and a decent
living fit for humanity,49 but this entitlement has not been fully realized. For example,
instead of working to earn an income, many women have chosen to stay at home to
manage the household or to raise the children, because
society has posited that these tasks are the duties of
women. It follows that the reasons a woman does not join
Gender Gap in Employment the work force are that either a woman is not educated
Still Exists enough to meet the educational qualifications demanded
of the job, or she has freely chosen to remain at home to
fulfil her household obligations.
In the census, people were categorized into the following groups: the productive age
group, if they are 15-64 years of age; and the non-productive age group, those aged
0-14 or 65 years, it was assumed that they were not working and therefore not earning
an income. The relative ratio of the unproductive group is linked to the potential of
the country to provide for the wellbeing of the citizens because a large ratio means
relatively few people who produce income and vice versa. At the national level in
Indonesia according to 2010 Population Census data, the ratio was 51.3 percent, with a
slight difference between the rural and urban areas. The ratio for the rural area was 56.2
percent while the urban ratio was 45.6 percent.
4.1. Economic Activity

According to the kind of work engaged in, the working-age population might be broken
into three groups. The first two are the working groups and the unemployed groups -
both of which have been combined to be referred to as the labour force. The third group
is termed as not in the labour force, comprising people whose activities were either
attending school, managing the household, or were inactive. By definition, a person is
considered as working if he or she was actively engaged in the labour force or helping
others to earn an income at least for one hour continuously in the period of seven days
prior to the data of enumeration.
At the national level, the number of people falling into the working age groups
was 168.4 million, among which the employed consiste d of 104.9 million while the
unemployed consisted of 12.4 million. The unemployed group could be further broken
down into three categories: 2.80 million people actively looking for work; 9.56 million
willing to accept job assignments (available to work); and 51.1 million people not in
labour force consisting of 13 million male and 38.1 million female.
The types of economic activity or non-activity engaged in by men and women were
different. Men of the working age group were mostly employed (79.6 percent), whereas
only less than half of the women (45.1 percent) of the same age were employed, with
the other half engaged in household duties (Table 4.1). The table shows contradictive
49 1945 Constitution, Chapter IX, Paragraph 27
58
GPI figures on daily activity between the employed group (far below 100 percent), on
the one hand, and the unemployed groups and the groups doing household duties,
on the other.
Table 4.1:
Working Age Population by Type of Economic Activity and Sex, 2010
Gender
Type of Activity Male Female Total
Parity Index*
Employed 79.6 45.1 62.3 56.7
Unemployed 5.0 9.7 7.3 194.3
Not in Labour Force 15.4 45.2 30.4 292.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
*The Institute for Statistics of UNESCO also uses a more general definition of GPI: for any development indicator one can
define the GPI relative to this indicator by dividing its value for females by its value for males (Koronkiewicz,2008)
Looking at the 2000 Population Census data, there appeared to be a greater proportion
of women (53.5 percent) in the labour force in 2000 than in 2010 with the GPI at 68 (Table
4.2). In 2010 there were more than twice as many men in the labour force than women.
In 2000, the GPI was 68 which shows that there were more women in the labour force in
2000 compared with women in the labour force in 2010. Comparing persons not in the
labour force, 2010 saw more women than men in this category at a GPI of 292.8 (Table
4.1) while there were more women not in the labour force in 2000 at a GPI of 252.4 (Table
4.2).
Table 4.2:
Working Age Population by Type of Activity and Sex, 2000 and 1990
2000 1990
Age group/Type
of Activity Gender Parity Gender Parity
Male Female Total Male Female Total
Index* Index*
Employed 78.8 53.5 66.1 67.9 69.1 37.7 53.2 54.5
Unemployed 4.0 3.0 3.5 75.5 2.0 1.5 1.8 76.1
Not in Labour Force 17.2 43.5 30.4 252.4 28.8 60.8 45.0 210.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
*The Institute for Statistics of UNESCO also uses a more general definition of GPI: for any development indicator one can define the GPI relative to this indicator by
dividing its value for females by its value for males (Koronkiewicz,2008)
The 1990 Population Census data also showed a similar gender gap in labour force
participation. In fact, the GPI is closer to 2010’s figures compared to the figures from
2000, suggesting that there were more men than women in the labour force. However
in regards to those who are unemployed, the gender gap in 1990 was closer to the gap
in 2000. However, for those who are not in the labour force at all, the numbers in 1990
were much higher than they were compared with 2000 and 2010.
59
Looking back at the last 30 years, there are more women now than in 1990 engaged in
wage work. The proportion of women who are not in the labour force has been relatively
steady over the last 20 years. As in many countries across the world, men’s participation
is proportionately greater than women’s participation in the workforce, principally
because the prevailing gender ideology demands that men play the breadwinner role
while women are expected to be the primary caregiver. Indonesia is no different in this
50
respect. About 74.7 percent, or 38.2 million out of 51.1 million, of women made up the
non-economic work force.
Based on SAKERNAS 2011, among those women who made up the non-economic work
force, some were attending school (15.9 percent), housekeeping (76.4 percent) or doing
other kinds of non-economic activity (7.8 percent). This pattern was different from the
group of non-economically active males which comprised of those doing schooling
(49.2 percent), housekeeping (12.2) or other (38.7 percent). Such figures indicate that
household chores are still considered a female responsibility.
50 Ananta, Aris (2014), Gender and Ageing: Southeast Asian Perspectives. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies.
60
4.1.1. Variation of Daily Activity by Age Group
Dividing further the working age groups into three subgroups, youth (15-24 years old),
adult subgroup (25-29 years old), and the older adult subgroup (65 years old or older), it
was found that the activity pattern of men and women within each group was not similar.
Table 4.3 shows that working-aged men in the three groups - youth, adult and elderly
- were generally involved in income-earning activities, while working-aged women
were involved in a variety of activities. In general, only women belonging to the adult
subgroups were involved in income-earning activities, while the women in youth and
elder subgroups were doing household duties; with the percentage of adult females
not in labour force shown to be more than 10 times that of males. The GPI figures in
the table indicate that there were more working aged males who were employed, but
more working aged females who were looking for a job or willing to work. In the youth
subgroup the GPI figure was 113.1 percent, while in the adult subgroup, it was 344.7
percent (the largest) and in the elder subgroup, it was 144.9 percent.
Table 4.3:
Percentage of Working Age Population by Type of Activity, Age
Group and Sex, 2010
Age Group Type of Activity Male Female Total Gender Parity Index*
Employed 45.4 29.6 37.5 65.2
15-24 Unemployed 12.8 14.5 13.7 113
Employed 93.7 52.8 73.4 56.4
25-59 Unemployed 2.7 9.4 6.1 344.7
Employed 69.2 34.3 50.3 49.5
60+ Unemployed 0.7 1.1 0.9 144.9
Employed 79.6 45.1 62.3 56.7
Total Unemployed 5.0 9.7 7.3 194.3
This trend has shifted over time. In the 2000 Population Census data, while more men
than women were working, there were proportionately far less women who were looking
for a job in all the age groups except for those in the 60+ age group where there were
slightly more women (0.5) than men (0.4) who were seeking work (Table 4.5). Based on
the 2010 Population Census data, it could be assumed that more women are looking
for employment because greater numbers of women are educated, and that the ‘male
as breadwinner’ model is slowly being replaced by the ‘dual-earner‘ model due to the
increasing cost of living. However, unlike the 2000 Population Census data, the 1990 data
shows that there were fewer women than men from the older generation (60+ group)
who were seeking work (Table 4.5).
61
Overall, if the female labour force participation rate in Indonesia is compared to its
neighbouring countries (see Figure 4.1) based on figures from 2008, Indonesia is falling
behind Thailand (70 percent) and Singapore (60.2 percent) while only Malaysia’s female
labour force participation rate is lower (45.7 percent).51 In fact, the low representation
of women in employment occurs in Indonesia in spite of equal education opportunities
accessible to both males and females. Interestingly, this trend of significantly lower
representation of women in the workforce has also been observed in the other two
predominantly Muslim countries in Southeast Asia - Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam. In
comparison to OECD countries, labour supply in Indonesia among women is fairly low.52
While there are cultural reasons for not wanting to work, it has also been argued that the
lack of affordable childcare so as to facilitate work demands and family commitments is
a contributing factor. However, among women with increasing education, their labour
supply increases concomitantly.
Table 4.4:
Percentage of Working Age Population by Type of Activity, Age Group and Sex, 2000 and 1990
2000 1990
Age group/Type of Gender Gender
activity Male Female Total Parity Male Female Total Parity
Index* Index*
15-24**
Employed 45.7 38.9 42.3 85.1 39.2 24.9 32.0 63.7
Unemployed 9.7 6.7 8.2 68.4 3.5 2.7 3.1 78.2
25-59
Employed 93.8 61.1 77.6 65.1 95.0 49.6 71.9 52.2
Unemployed 1.9 1.7 1.8 88.2 1.0 0.8 0.9 75.2
60+
Employed 67.4 30.2 47.8 44.8 67.4 30.1 47.8 44.8
Unemployed 0.5 0.3 0.4 60.7 0.5 0.3 0.4 60.7
Total
Employed 78.8 53.5 66.1 67.9 78.8 53.5 66.1 67.9
Unemployed 4.0 3.0 3.5 75.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 75.5
**Age group for 1990 census is 10-24 years
51 Economic Planning Unit (2010) “Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011–2015”. Putrajaya: Prime Minister’s Department.
URL:<http://www.pmo.gov.my/dokumenattached/RMK/RMK10_Eds.pdf>(accessed 2 July 2015).
52 OECD (2008) OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia: Economic Assessment. Vol 2008/17. Paris: OECD.
62
Figure 4.1:
Percentage of Labour Force Participation of Women in Indonesia Compared to
ASEAN Neighbouring Countries, 2008
Thailand 70.0
Singapore 60.2
Indonesia 51.8
Malaysia 45.7
Source: Labour and Social Trends in ASEAN (Economic Planning Unit, Department of
Statistics and International Labour Organisation, 2008)
4.2. Gender Gap in Labour Force Participation Rate

Labour force participation rate (LFPR) is one of the key indicators of labour market (KILM);
it is indicative of the relative size of the labour input of work needed to produce goods
and services.53 Using the approach mentioned above, the national average of LFPR in
2010 was in the vicinity of 69.9 percent but there was a significant discrepancy between
men and women: 84.6 percent for men and 54.8 percent for women. However, without
including the population who were willing to work, the approach used in the 1990 and
2000 Population Censuses, the national level of LPFR in 2010 became 64 percent - 81.2
percent for males and 46.8 percent for females.
4.2.1. LFPR Variation across age groups and educational level
The highest value of LFPR in 2010 was found for the 25-59 years age group, where
the figure for men was 96.4 percent and for women 62.2 percent (or GPI value of 64.6
percent). There was a negative correlation between age group and GPI, suggesting that
the older the age group, the smaller the level of women’s participation in the labour force
compared to men’s.
The 2000 Population Census data shows a different trend from that of the 2010 Population
Census data. In the 15-24 and 60+ age groups, there was a far greater proportion of
females who were in the labour force compared with males. However, in the age group
of 25-59 years, the GPI was relatively similar to 2010. Following the 2010 Population
Census data among the 15-24 age group it is possible to infer that a greater number have
decided to continue in school instead of entering the labour force.
53 54BPS, 2011 Indikator Tenaga Kerja
63
The 1990 Population Census data also displays an interesting trend. In every age group,
there are nearly twice as many men than women in the labour force especially among
the 25-59 and 60+ age groups. That aside, following the trends of the most recent
Population Censuses (2000 and 2010), the 1990 census data shows that in the past, there
was a greater proportion of men who were in the workforce compared with women,
suggesting that generally over the three decades, there has been very little change in
terms of gender role differentiation.
The pattern of labour supply between men and women across educational levels was
similar, although men’s LFPR was always higher than women’s. The GPI value was lowest
in the group having senior high school diploma (60.5 percent), while the highest was found
in the group having postgraduate degrees. The value of the GPI was quite homogenous,
between 60-68 percent, for the group with high school or lower but it steeply increased
when the educational level increased from high school to college. This suggests that
women with higher education are more likely to join men in the labour force compared
to women with medium or lower educational levels. This is also not surprising since,
“compared with previous generations, young men and women [of today] are [more]
54
likely to be in school longer and experience a later entry into the labour market”.
That the more educated women join the labour force was a trend also found in the
2000 Population Census data. This was the case for Indonesian women with Diploma I,
II right up to university although the gap widens slightly among those with DIII/Academy
qualifications. Compared to the 2010 Population Census, the Population Census in 2000
found that there were more women (62.5 percent) than men (87.6 percent) from the “did
not complete/not yet completed primary school” group who were found in the labour
force at that time.
As in the Population Census data from 2000, the same trend was found in 1990. At the
higher educational levels (vocational right up to university levels), the GPI tended to
be much higher than in the lower educational levels, suggesting that as women were
more educated or received more advanced training in a skill, they were more likely to
join the labour force. However, in contrast to the 2000 Population Census data, in the
1990 Population Census data there were twice as many men than women in the “did not
complete/not yet completed primary school” who worked. In 2010 Population Census
data, there were fewer women in that same group who were in the workforce. However,
in 2010, the GPI had improved amongst this group.
54 Naafs, Suzanne (2013) “Youth, Gender, and the Workplace: Shifting Opportunities and Aspirations in an
Indonesian Industrial Town”. ANNALS, AAPSS, 646: 233-50.
64
4.3. Gender Gap in Employment
4.3.1. Variation Of Employment across Age Group
The distribution of employed males and females across the age classes - youth,
adult, and elderly - as shown in Table 4.5, tend to be similar even though percentage-
wise, they are a little different. At the national level, employed people, both males and
females, were found to belong mainly to the adult group, followed by the youth group in
second place and the elder group falling into third place. Apparently, a significant gender
gap was found within the youth group (113.3 percent), when compared to the adult
group (97.4 percent), and the elder group (102.0 percent).
In terms of age groups, those from ages 25-59 dominated the workforce in 2010 and
this group had the highest GPI when compared with 2000 and 1990. This suggests that
the gender gap for the working group aged 25-59 years has been closing since 1990 (see
below for discussion).
65
Table 4.5:
Percentage of Employed Population by Background/Characteristics and Sex, 2010
Male/Female
Background/Characteristics Male Female Male+Female
Ratio
Age Group
15-24 13.8 15.6 14.4 113.3
25-59 77.7 75.6 76.9 97.4
60+ 8.6 8.8 8.7 102.0
Marital Status*
Not Married yet 20.8 15.8 n.a 76.0
Married 76.1 72.0 n.a 94.6
Divorced 1.7 3.6 n.a 261.8
Widow 1.7 8.6 n.a 508.2
Work Status
Self employed 24.4 20.7 23.1 84.7
Self-employed assisted by unpaid temporary
17.2 7.2 13.6 42.1
employees
Employer assisted by paid permanent employees 4.3 1.8 3.4 41.8
Employee 34.3 31.1 33.1 90.5
Casual Worker 14.1 8.6 12.1 61.0
Unpaid Family Worker 5.7 30.6 14.7 541.1
Main Sector
Agricultural, Forestry, afforestation, Fisheries 39.5 42.3 40.5 107.3
Mining and Quarrying 1.5 0.3 1.1 19.7
Manufacturing 9.7 12.7 10.8 131.2
Electricity, Gas and Drinking Water 0.5 0.1 0.4 20.8
Construction 8.1 0.3 5.3 4.0
Wholesale, Retail trade, Restaurants and Hotels 15.5 23.5 18.4 151.7
Transportation, Storage and Communication 7.7 0.7 5.2 8.8
Financial, Insurance, Rent, Building, Land and
1.1 1.1 1.1 99.0
Services activity
Public Services 16.5 19.0 17.4 115.4
Work Hours
0 Hour** 2.3 2.6 2.4 111.7
1 - 14 Hours 3.7 9.8 6.1 262.6
15 - 24 Hour 9.1 16.1 11.8 177.0
25 - 34 Hours 12.6 15.6 13.7 123.1
35 - 39 Hours 9.8 10.8 10.1 110.5
40 - 48 Hours 32.4 23.1 28.9 71.1
49 - 59 Hours 17.6 10.9 15.1 61.9
≥ 60 Hours 12.5 11.2 12.0 90.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
*SUSENAS, 2012
**for the time being, not working
Source: 1. Badan Pusat Statistik ( 2011), 2. Derived from 2010 Population Census (BPS, 2012)
66
The same age group (25-59 years) dominated the workforce according to the 2000
Population Census data. But it was amongst those in the 60+ group that the GPI was the
highest at 101.6, suggesting that the number of males and females in this age group who
were working is nearly equal to that found in the entire population (Tables 4.6).
Amongst those younger (10-24 years), the GPI indicated that larger numbers of women
were working when viewed in comparison with the larger population. This could be seen
as problematic, because at a young age girls/women of this age group arguably should
be in school rather than in the labour force, which would result in a positive long-term
impact on these girls/women.
Table 4.6:
Percentage of Employed Population by Age Group and Sex, 2000 and 1990
2000 1990
Age
Group Gender Parity Gender Parity
Index* Index*
15-24** 16.55 21.26 18.46 128.42 23.91 27.35 25.14 114.38
25-59 73.37 68.51 71.39 93.37 68.09 65.55 67.18 96.26
60+ 10.07 10.23 10.14 101.59 7.99 7.10 7.68 88.83
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
*The Institute for Statistics of UNESCO also uses a more general definition of GPI: for any development indicator one can define the GPI relative to this
indicator by dividing its value for females by its value for males (Koronkiewicz,2008)
**10-24 age group for 1990 Population Census
4.3.2. Employment among the Elderly
The 2010 Population Census data also shows that among the older cohorts, a greater
proportion of older males (70 percent) compared with older females (35 percent) was
reported as being actively engaged in the labour force (see Chart 23). While it may be
argued that the significant difference in labour force participation between the sexes
may be because men have always worked throughout the life course in keeping with
social expectations of being the breadwinner in the family, higher levels of morbidity
amongst women would have also prevented them from engaging in wage work.
4.3.3. Variation of Employment across Marital Status
The marital status distribution of the employed cohort of the population is no different for
males and females, although the percentage was not exactly the same. The percentage
of employed unmarried and married women was lower than for men. However, the
percentage of employed divorced and widowed women was far higher than men. This
fact corresponds to a very high GPI value which was 261.8 percent for divorced and 508.2
percent for widowed women (back to Table 4.5).
67
Figure 4.2:
Labour Force Participation Rates of Older Age Group by Sex, 2010
90
79.4
Labour Force Participation Rate

80
69.9
70
60.0
60
50 44.8
35.0 37.2
40
30 26.1
20 12.3
10
0
60+ 60-69 70-79 80+
Age Group
Male Female
Source: 2010 Population Census (as cited in UNFPA, 2014)
4.4. Gender Gap on Employment Status

If the employed people were disaggregated based on their employment status, the
pattern of employment distribution between men and women would be different. About
one-third of men were earning income through their labour (34.3 percent), although
many were self-employed (24.4 percent). The remainder, about 41.3 percent, was
earning an income through self-employment as unpaid employees, employers, casual
workers and unpaid family workers.
When comparing males and females with regard to their role in income earning, the
percentage of women working as unpaid family workers far exceeds the corresponding
percentage of men, with a GPI of 541.1 percent. Because this group of women (standing
at 30.6 percent) is unpaid, the value of their work does not count as income and thus
the value of the country’s national income is lower than otherwise might be (Table 4.5).
That men were more likely employers or self-employed and assisted by others was also
the trend in the 2000 Population Census data (Table 4.7), as it was in the 2010 Population
Census data. In the employee group; women’s proportions increased in 2010 and were
approaching those of men, indicating that if women were to be employed, a greater
proportion would be dependent on others for employment. In 2000 women were also
likely to be unpaid workers (39.9) compared with men (7.6) with a GPI of 528.5 which is
also a GPI similar to that in the 2010 Population Census.
The 1990 census data (Table 4.7) also showed that men were more likely to be employers
or self- employed and assisted by others (family help/temporary help). This trend shows
in both the 2000 and 2010 Population Census data. As in 2000, women’s proportions in
the employee category also showed a gap with a GPI of 78.9. In 1990, the GPI was slightly
larger, suggesting that the proportion of women in comparison to men as employees in
68
the workforce is slightly larger than it was in 2000 (72.7). Women were also likely to be
family or unpaid workers (34.3) more than men (10.9) with a GPI of 315.
Table 4.7:
Percentage of Employed Population by Work Status and Sex, 2000 and 1990
2000 1990
Work Status Gender Gender
Self employed 30.1 23.9 27.6 79.5 21.3 16.7 19.7 78.7
Self-employed assisted
22.0 7.1 15.9 32.3 28.0 17.22 24.1 61.6
by helper
Employer 1.6 0.8 1.3 51.6 1.8 0.9 1.5 52.7
Employee 38.7 28.1 34.4 72.7 37.6 29.7 34.8 78.9
Unpaid Family worker 7.6 39.9 20.7 528.5 10.9 34.3 19.3 315.0
Not stated 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
*The Institute for Statistics of UNESCO also uses a more general definition of GPI: for any development indicator one can define the GPI relative to this indicator
by dividing its value for females by its value for males (Koronkiewicz,2008)
Figure 4.3:
Gender Parity Index on Unpaid Family Worker by Province, 2010
991 .0
1 050
81 8.7
950
850 683.9
Gender Parity Index
639.0
750
595.8
585.3
582.6
582.5
564.2
544.6
543.6
542.4
540.0
531 .4
541 .1
534.1
509.4
504.9
650
496.0
500.3
487.6
477.0
490.1
469.4
471 .7
463.7
464.1
441 .8
422.9
41 4.2
550
359.4
358.9
351 .3
326.9
450
350
250
1 50
Bengkulu
DI Yogyakarta
Jambi
East Java
Papua
DKI Jakarta
Lampung
Aceh
Riau Islands
Indonesia
Maluku

Riau
Banten
Gorontalo
Bali
North Sumatera
East Nusa Tenggara
West Sumatera
West Papua
East Kalimantan
North Maluku
South Sulawesi
Norht Sulawesi
Central Sulawesi
West Nusa Tenggara
Central Java
South Kalimantan
West Sulawesi
West Java
Central Kalimantan
West Kalimantan
South-east Sulawesi
Sotuh Sumatera
Province
69
The GPI of unpaid family workers across the provinces showed a great range. The fact
that the value of GPI in all of the provinces was far more than 100 percent means that
in all the provinces more women than men were employed as family workers. Figure 4.3
shows that the range of GPI is from 326.9 percent in Papua to 991.0 percent in West Java.
4.5 Gender Gap on Sectors of Employment

The questions on employment sector in the 2010 Population Census questionnaire were
quite detailed. The employment sector was broken down into 19 sectors. However,
for the purpose of intercensal comparison, the subdivision of the sectors used in the
monograph will be a simplified. Reclassification is based on standard classification
used by BPS not only for the census data but also for other large surveys, as well as the
SAKERNAS and SUSENAS. That way, employment data can be easily compared across
surveys.55 In this monograph, employment sector classification has been reduced from
19 sectors to 9 sectors. A simpler classification is also often used, mostly based on the
Revision 2 and 3 of the ISIC (International Standard Industrial Classification), which is
as follows: primary sector, secondary sector and tertiary sector. The primary sectors
include agriculture and mining, while the secondary sectors include the manufacturing
and tertiary sector which also covers services.
55 BPS, 2009, Klasifikasi Baku Lapangan Usaha Indonesia (KBLI)
70
Table 4.8:
Percentage of Employed Population by Main Sector and Sex, 2000 and 1990
2000 1990
Main Sectors Gender Gender
Food crops 33.1 37.0 34.7 111.6
Plantations 6.2 6.26 6.2 101.0
Fishery 2.3 0.5 1.7 21.5 49.9 48.1 49.3 96.5
Animal Husbandry 0.8 0.9 0.8 108.6
Others agriculture 4.0 3.6 3.8 90.8
Manufacturing 8.3 8.0 8.2 96.7 10.1 13.8 11.4 137.3
Trade 11.6 14.1 12.6 121.9 11.7 20.2 14.7 172.6
Services 20.7 14.7 18.3 71.0 13.1 14.1 13.5 107.5
Transportation 3.8 0.3 2.3 7.1 5.7 0.2 3.7 2.9
Others including: 9.2 14.6 11.4 158.9 9.6 3.8 7.4 167.4
Construction 6.0 0.3 4.0 4.7
Financing, insurance,
real estate & business 0.9 0.5 0.7 60.5
services, not stated
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
There were differences in the employment sectors in which men and women were
employed. Both groups contributed as much as 40 percent in the agricultural sector.
But it must be noted that involvement in agriculture does not mean actually working
in farms. There has been research showing that women have contributed less labour
to agriculture especially in the more urbanized villages, but nonetheless continue to be
involved in the decision-making about agriculture.56 However, the remaining 60 percent
of men worked in the following five sectors: services (16.5 percent), trade (15.5 percent)
and manufacturing industry (9.7 percent), construction and transportation (8.1 percent);
while the remaining 60 percent of women were employed in the following three sectors:
trade (23.5 percent), services (19.0 percent) and manufacturing (12.7 percent).
As in 2010, the 2000 Population Census data found that 44.7 percent of those in the
labour force were engaged in the food crops, plantations sectors and other agricultural
sectors (Table 4.8). Men in the remaining labour force were employed in the following
four sectors: services (20.7 percent), trade (11.6 percent) manufacturing (8.3 percent)
and transportation (3.8 percent); while the remaining 60 percent of women were
employed in the following three sectors: services (14.7 percent), trade (14.1 percent) and
manufacturing (8.0 percent). Moreover unlike 2010, the 2000 census data showed that
56 Kusujiarti, Siti and Ann Tickamyer (2000) “Gender Division of Labor in Two Javanese Villages”. Gender,
Technology and Development, 4(3): 415-39.
71
there were slightly more women (37 percent) than men (33 percent) who were involved
in the food crop or agricultural sector, while in the plantations, the gap was negligible
(6.2 percent versus 6.3 percent). In manufacturing, the difference was also slight with
more males (8.3 percent) than females (8.0 percent) employed in this sector. However,
in comparison to the 2010 Population Census data, the gap in this sector in 2000 where
it was significantly more dominated by females (12.7 percent) compared with males (9.7
percent).
According to the 1990 Population Census data, 49.3 percent of the workforce
was employed in the agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishery sectors. As in 2000 and
2010, more women (13.8 percent) worked in manufacturing compared with men (10.1
percent). Men in the remaining labour force were employed in the wholesale trade, retail
trade, restaurants and hotel sectors (11.7 percent) and public services (13.1 percent)
although there were more women working in these work sectors at 20.2 percent and
14.1 percent, respectively (Table 4.8). However, men dominated the construction sector
(6.0 percent) compared with women (0.3 percent) although this sector was much smaller
than most of the other sectors.
72
4.6. Gender Gap on Work Hours
Generally men work more hours than women. Short working hours tend to be associated
more with women than men as suggested by the fact that only 27.8 percent of men
worked less than 35 hours weekly while a greater portion of women (44 percent) worked
less than 35 hours a week. The employed population which spends less than average
working hours at work, while still needing additional work or earnings, tends to be
grouped as underemployed.
The working hours appeared to be the same for both men and women, that is, between
40 and 48 hours a week; however, there were more men than women who worked that
long. The percentage of men working 10 to 48 hours weekly was 32.4 percent, which was
9.4 percent higher than women (23.1 percent). The percentage difference did not imply a
work condition that women performed lighter jobs than men. On top of working to earn
income, women had domestic duties such as taking care of children and maintaining the
household. Even today Indonesian women are obliged to execute these multiple roles
according to cultural norms.
4.7. Gender Gap on Wages and Salaries

People from the Indonesian business world today enjoy work conditions in which
employers are obliged to pay each employee a salary not lower than the set minimum
wage;57 however, the regulation is yet to be extended to cover those in the informal
sector. The value of the minimum wage has been set at different levels in the different
provinces and the popular term for it is upah minimum provinsi (UMP). Examples of UMP
are shown in Appendix 2.
If wages were disaggregated by educational attainment and sex, it appears that the
higher the education attainment the less the wage difference, in relative terms, between
men and women, other things held constant. Table 4.9 presents data on average monthly
wages received by a worker, both in the formal and informal sector, by education
attainment and sex. It was found that monthly wages/salary received by a worker
below the minimum wage is almost positively correlated with the worker’s educational
attainment. That is, the higher the education the higher the income. The above was
true all education groups except for junior high school graduates who received wages/
salaries lower than that of females having lower education.
In general, the average wage received by women was lower than that received by men.
The average wage of women was Rp. 1.4 million while that of men was Rp. 1.7 million.
The lowest wage was that for workers who had no schooling, even in this group the
average wage received by women was inferior to that received by men, the average
women’s wage was Rp. 547,000 while that of men was Rp. 960,000 or women’s average
wage was only 56.9 percent that of men’s. Needless to say workers with no schooling
only did manual work so that the amount of goods produced by women is different from
that of men. Nonetheless, the wage received by female university graduates was also
57 Peraturan Menteri Tenaga Kerja No. 1 Tahun 1990, Pasal 1; Sources: SAKERNAS 2012
73
lower than that received by their male counterparts at Rp. 2,.5 million and Rp. 3.6 million,
respectively. From the employment sector point of view, the result shows that both men
and women received the highest salary in the mining and quarrying sector. Table 4.9 also
shows that in the mining and quarrying sector, men receive a salary of an average of Rp.
2.8 million per month while women received Rp. 2.5 million.
In three other sectors, namely construction, transport and services/finance, women

receive wages greater than men’s generally, because in these sectors women were
relatively better educated than men.
Table 4.9:
Average Wage /Salary (Rupiah) per Month by Background Characteristics and
Sex, 2012
Background Male Female Female/Male

Urban/Rural
Urban 1,881,459 1,147,160 61.0
Rural 1,385,487 1,903,776 137.4
Education Attainment
No Schooling 962,737 547,634 56.9
Not/ not yet Completed 999,746 621,639 62.2
Primary School 1,072,273 683,204 63.7
Junior High School 1,185,850 659,505 55.6
Senior High School 1,737,907 1,198,453 69.0
Vocational 1,665,206 1,273,023 76.5
Diploma I,II, III and Academy 2,541,036 2,030,139 79.9
University 3,592,315 2,574,337 71.7
Main Industry
Agricultural, Forestry, Afforestation,
1,175,105 762,632 64.9
Fisheries
Mining and Quarrying 2,807,191 2,529,501 90.1
Manufacturing 1,523,715 1,094,969 71.9
Electricity, Gas and Drinking Water 2,263,159 1,807,867 79.9
Construction 1,510,263 1,960,298 129.8
Whole Sales, Retails trade, Restaurants
1,367,945 1,066,283 78.0
and Hotels
Transportation, Storage and
1,863,177 2,550,789 136.9
Communication
Financial, Insurance, Rent, Building,
2,208,586 2,309,799 104.58
Land, and Services activity
Public Services 2,113,915 1,567,123 74.13
Total 1,724,478 1,368,546 79.36
Source: Derived from 2012 SUSENAS (BPS, 2013)
74
According to the 2011 SAKERNAS results, around 17.8 percent of female workers in the
construction sector had senior high school or higher educational qualifications, while
among male workers—who are generally blue collar workers—only 3.1 percent attained
that level of education. In the transport sector, the proportion of women with higher
than senior high school diploma was 26.8 percent while the proportion of men with
that level of education was 4.5 percent, whereas in service/finance sector 40 percent of
women and 26.1 of men had that level of education.
4.8. Gender Gap in Unemployment

It was discussed earlier in this chapter that in 2010, the underemployment rate for the
female population (44 percent) was much larger than that of males (27.8 percent); or
GPI equal to 158.5 percent. There is also an important key indicator of labour market
participation, which is the open unemployment rate (OUR). This indicator is the ratio of
the number of working age population who are unemployed, which includes those who
are looking for work and available to work, to the number in the labour force.58 At the
national level, the value of OUR in 2010 for women was 17.9 percent, which was almost
three times higher than the value for men (5.9 percent); the GPI, in this case, was 299.8
percent.
58 59BPS,2011, Indikator Pasar Tenaga Kerja Indonesia
75
4.8.1. Variation on Unemployment across Sex Group
Table 4.10 shows the distribution of the unemployed population by age group and sex.
The figures suggest that in 2010 only a small percentage of older males and females in
the population needed to work (less than 1.5 percent). It is also clear from the table that
the distribution pattern of the unemployed in the female population differs from that of
the unemployed males. There were more unemployed young males than young females,
while the opposite was true for the adult population. This is of no surprise since male
youth are under greater pressure than young women to earn a stable income, because
following marriage they are expected to become the breadwinners of the family.
In fact, there have been several studies that have argued that “employment insecurity
threatens young men’s abilities to take on the responsibilities that are associated with
male adulthood”.59 Almost two-thirds of young males needed employment and about
the same percentage of adult women were forced to work. Two reasons might be related
to the high percentage of adult females looking for work. First, they need the money to
support the family; and second, they had ample time since there was no longer a small
60
child to take care of.
Table 4.10:
Percentage of Unemployed Population by Age Group and Sex, 2010
Gender
Age group Male Female Total
parity Index*
15-24 62.3 35.7 44.7 57.3
25-59 36.3 63.1 54.0 173.9
60+ 1.4 1.3 1.3 87.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
The 2000 Population Census data showed that almost equal proportions of men and
women in the age group 15-24 years were looking for employment. Amongst the 25-
29 age group, there were slightly more women than men seeking work. The greatest
difference was found in the 60+ age group: a much larger proportion of women compared
with men were looking for employment and the GPI was 182.7 (Table 4.11).
In 1990, an equal number of males and females in the age group 10-24 were seeking
employment. The GPI was similar for those in the age group 25-59. In contrast in the
older cohort (60+), slightly more men than women were unemployed. Compared with
1990 and 2000, females in the 25-59 age cohort in 2010 were almost twice as likely to
seek employment (with a GPI of 173.85). In contrast in the age group 15-24, males were
twice as likely to be unemployed compared with females (Table 4.11).
59 Naafs, Suzanne (2013) “Youth, Gender, and the Workplace: Shifting Opportunities and Aspirations in an
Indonesian Industrial Town”. ANNALS, AAPSS, 646: 233-50; p.235.
60 SAKERNAS (2013)
76
Table 4.11:
Percentage of Unemployed Population by Age Group and Sex, 2000 and 1990
2000 1990
Age Group Gender Gender

Male Female Total Parity Male Female Total Parity
Index* Index*
10-24 72.9 73.3 73.1 100.5
15-24 69.5 64.5 67.4 92.9
25-59 29.5 33.6 31.7 113.9 24.9 24.8 24.9 99.3
60+ 1.0 1.9 1.4 182.7 2.2 1.9 2.0 86.1
Not stated 0.01 0.01 0.01 122.5 0.00 0.09 0.04 -
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4.8.2. Variation on Unemployment across Education
The level of unemployment among educated males and females, that is, graduates of
educational institutions higher than high school (diploma, academy, university and post
graduate school) was very similar; both were at a little less than 7 percent. However,
most of the GPI figures are higher than 100 percent among the low educated (which
includes those with no education, not completed primary school, and primary school),
Diploma I and II holders.
On the other hand, there were more unemployed males than females who graduated
from junior high school, senior high school (including vocational school) and postgraduate
school. This means that females with high school attainment, especially vocational school,
and postgraduate school, could find jobs much easier than their male counterparts.
Difficulties in securing gainful employment among those with lower levels of education
have led to Indonesians migrating temporarily to the more affluent countries in the
Southeast Asian region or further away in search of wage work. Among this group are
also those who migrate for employment because wages tend to be more attractive
abroad than if they remained in Indonesia. Migration in search of paid employment is a
viable option for many of the rural poor in Indonesia since the Indonesian Government
has not been able to produce non-farm work quickly enough to absorb the “vast army of
61
underemployed labour [especially] in its agricultural sector”.
Thus, for Indonesia, international migration is dominated by labour migration. As a

country, Indonesia has the fourth largest population in the world. It is a lower-middle
income country and in 2008 was ranked 108 out of 210 countries in the world in terms of
61 Stahl, Charles W. (2003) ‘International Labour Migration in East Asia: Tends and Policy Issues.’ In Migration in
the Asia Pacific: Population, Settlement and Citizenship Issues, edited by Robyn Iredale, Charles Hawksley, and
Stephen Castles. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, p. 39.
77
GDP per capita.62 In spite of having been able to weather two economic crises (1998 and
2008), the country continues to battle unemployment.63 It’s rapidly growing population
despite its fertility rate having declined over the recent decades means that the country
has a huge surplus of workers.
4.8.3 INDONESIAN MIGRANT WORKERS
It is of little surprise then that Indonesia is one of the largest exporters of migrant labour
in the world. However, in spite of significant numbers of Indonesians leaving the country
for abroad in search of wage work, the country’s trends in international migration were
not captured in the 2010 Population Census. In order to analyze trends in international
migration, the discussion utilizes data documented by BPN2TKI, the Badan Nasional
Penempatan dan Perlindungan Tenaga Kerja Indonesia (The National Authority for the
Placement and Protection of Indonesian Overseas Workers). The data from BNP2TKI on
international migrants however does not state the length of stay of each respondent.
According to the data from BNP2TKI the major destination regions for Indonesian
migrant workers in 2009 include the Middle East (Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia
and United Arab Emirates) and East and Southeast Asia (Brunei Darussalam, Hong Kong
62 OECD (2010) OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2010. Vol 2010/18.

63 “Youth unemployment needs serious attention”.URL:<http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/20/youth-
unemployment-needs-serious- attention.html>(accessed 23 June 2015)
78
SAR, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan) (Table 4.12).64 In 2015,
Malaysia continued to be the most popular destination for Indonesians seeking work
(Table 4.13). According to the Malaysian Ministry of Human Resources, 50 percent of the
approximately two million migrant workers employed in Malaysia in 2008, were from
Indonesia, reflecting the scale of Indonesian labour migration to Malaysia.65 Moreover it
has been reported that in 2004, more than 90 percent of domestic workers in Malaysia
66
came from Indonesia.
Table 4.12:
Placement of Indonesian Labour Migrants by Major
Destination Country in 2009
No. Destination Country Total

1. Malaysia 222,198
2. Singapore 37,496
3. Brunei Darussalam 5,852
4. Hong Kong SAR 29,973
5. Republic of Korea 3,830
6. Japan 96
7. Taiwan Province of China 50,810
8. Saudi Arabia 257,217
9. Kuwait 25,756
10. UAE 28,184
11. Bahrain 2,267
12. Qatar 10,449
13. Jordan 12,062
14. Oman 7,150
Source: BNP2TKI - The National Authority for the Placement and Protection of Indonesian
Overseas Workers (2009), as cited in International Organization for Migration (2010)
Labour Migration from Indonesia: An Overview of Indonesian Migration to Selected
Destinations in Asia and the Middle East. Jakarta, Indonesia: International Organization
for Migration.
The bulk of Indonesia’s migrants tend to be semi-skilled or low-skilled, working in the

agricultural, forestry, construction sectors (dominated by men) and the domestic work
sector (dominated by women). In Malaysia, the labour sectors tend to be differentiated
along gender lines as Indonesian male migrant workers have been absorbed into the
64 International Organization for Migration (2010) Labour Migration from Indonesia: An Overview of Indonesian
Migration to Selected Destinations in Asia and the Middle East. Jakarta, Indonesia: International Organization for
Migration.
65 International Organization for Migration (2010) Labour Migration from Indonesia: An Overview of Indonesian
Migration to Selected Destinations in Asia and the Middle East. Jakarta, Indonesia: International Organization for
Migration.
66 Human Rights Watch (2004) Help Wanted: Abuses against Female Migrant Domestic Workers in Indonesia
and Malaysia. July Vol. 16, No. 9B. URL:<http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/indonesia0704full.
pdf>(accessed 16 July 2015)
79
plantation and construction sectors, while their female counterparts have been received
into the domestic work and services sectors. Increasingly, migrant women from Indonesia
67
are also employed in the manufacturing sector.
Table 4.13:
Placement of Indonesian Labour Migrants by
Major Destination Country in 2015 (Until March)
No. Destination Country Total

1. Malaysia 222,198
2. Taiwan 37,496
3. Saudi Arabia 5,852
4. Singapore 29,973
5. Hong Kong SAR 3,830
6. Oman 96
7. Brunei 50,810
8. South Korea 257,217
9. UAE 25,756
10. Bahrain 28,184
Source: BNP2TKI - The National Authority for the Placement and Protection of Indonesian
Overseas Workers (2015)
URL:<http://www.bnp2tki.go.id/uploads/data/data_15-07-2015_105713_Laporan_
Pengolahan_Data_BNP2TKI_S.D_30_JUNI_2015.pdf>(accessed 17 July 2015)
Yet in 2015 the domestic work sector has continued to be the largest labour sector
into which Indonesians entered at 34,020 followed by the caregiver sector (12,516) and
68
production operator sector (7,859). It is little wonder that in recent years there were
more women than men from Indonesia migrating for work abroad. Female migration
has been a significant trend in the last few decades as growing numbers of women
join the migration flows abroad. Especially since 2004 onwards, the numbers of women
migrating for work has been gradually increasing (Table 4.14) up to a point where in 2006
and 2007, there were more than half a million of women migrating abroad for wage work.
In recent years, more Indonesian women have been migrating for work abroad than
Indonesian men (Table 4.15) although their numbers have been gradually falling in recent
years (Figure 4.4), possibly because of the rising prospects of finding employment
within Indonesia. In fact in 2013, there were 168,318 women joining the domestic
work sector while in 2014, the numbers dropped to 133,390. The same can be said of
the caregiver sector and of male migrants (Figure 4.5). Nevertheless, the proportion of
women migrating for work abroad has consistently exceeded that of men in recent years.
67 Azizah Kassim (2001) “Recent Trends in Migration Movements and Policies in Malaysia”. In International
Migration in Asia: Trends and Policies. Paris: OECD; Crinis, Vicki (2005) “The Devil You Know: Malaysian
Perceptions of Foreign Workers”, Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs, Vol. 39 (2): 91-111.
68 BNP2TKI (The National Authority for the Placement and Protection of Indonesian Overseas Workers) (2015)
80
Table 4.14:
Number of Indonesian Women in International Labour Flows, 2000-2007
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Number 297,273 239,942 363,614 213,824 296,615 325,045 542,000 543,859
Source: BNP2TKI - The National Authority for the Placement and Protection of Indonesian Overseas Workers (2009), as cited
in International Organization for Migration (2010)
69
<http://www.bnp2tki.go.id/content/view/180/87/>(accessed 25 July 2010)
(BNP2TKI-Badan Nasional Penempatan dan Perlindungan Tenaga Kerja Indonesia (Indonesian National Authority for
the Placement and Protection of Indonesian Overseas Workers)
Table 4.15:
Number of Indonesian Men and Women in International Labour Flows,
2011-2015
2015 (until
Sex of Migrants 2011 2012 2013 2014
31 March)
Male 210,116 214,825 235,170 186,243 28,233
Female 376,686 279,784 276,998 243,629 44,684
Source: Penempatan Tenaga Kerja Indonesia, Tahun 2011 - 2015 (s.d. 31 Maret), (BNP2TKI-Badan Nasional Penempatan
dan Perlindungan Tenaga Kerja Indonesia (Indonesian National Authority for the Placement and Protection of Indonesian
Overseas Workers, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015)
The economic impulse forms the primary factor for seeking out employment abroad.70
Remittances have gone towards the education of children and younger siblings as well
as health bills of ageing parents and buying land. In 2012, Indonesia received US$7.2
billion worth of remittances from around 6.5 million migrants working abroad, making
71
the country the third-largest recipient of remittances in Southeast Asia.
Migration has enabled migrants to seek out a better life for themselves and their families
who remain in Indonesia. But because they are seeking higher wages in the destination
economies, female and male migrants have become vulnerable to various labour and
human rights abuses. In fact because the bulk of migrants are concentrated in low-paid
and low-status jobs, many are vulnerable to labour abuses such as the withholding of
wages and verbal and physical abuse.
69 As cited in Theresa Devasahayam and Ann Brooks (2011) Gender, Emotions and Labour Markets: Asian and
Western Perspectives. London: Routledge.
70 Devasahayam, Theresa W. (2013) “Making the Most of Remittances: Obligations, Aspirations, and Precarity
among Indonesian Women Migrants in Singapore”, Diversities, 15(1): 21-36.
71 Veeramalla Anjaiah (2013) “RI ranks third on SE Asia remittance list”, The Jakarta Post, April 29. URL:<http://
www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/04/29/ri-ranks-third-se-asia-remittance-list.html>(accessed 17 July 2015)
81
Figure 4.4:
Numbers of Women from Indonesia Migrating for Work Abroad, 2011-2015
450000
400000 376,686
350000
300000 279,784 276,998

243,629
250000
200000
150000
100000
44,684
50000
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (until 31 March)
Figure 4.5:
Numbers of Men from Indonesia Migrating for Work Abroad, 2011-2015
300000
250000 235,170
210,116 214,825
200000 186,243
150000
100000
50000 28,233
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (until 31
March)
Women migrants, in particular, are vulnerable to a series of labour abuses, including

health risks,72 because of their gender identity. In Singapore, for example, while all workers
are protected under the country’s labour laws, including foreign workers, these laws do
not apply to domestic workers since they work on short-term contracts.73 Furthermore,
72 International Labour Organization (2007) Hanging by a Frayed Rope. Jakarta, Indonesia: International Labour
Organization. URL:<http://ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---ilo- jakarta/documents/
publication/wcms_1172>(accessed 16 July 2015)
73 ‘Asia’s Labour Migration Dynamics’, Asia Development Outlook 2008. URL:<http://www.adb.org/Documents/
books/ADO/2008/part020303.asp>(accessed 8 November 2009).
82
they are especially vulnerable to labour abuses and sexual exploitation because of the
nature of the work they engage in. Their work cannot be closely surveyed since it occurs
behind closed doors; they are confined to the household of their employers74 as they
are contracted to work as domestic workers and caregivers for the sick and elderly.75
Moreover, because they are dependent on their employers as sponsors, this leaves them
at the mercy of the employers who feel that they have full monopoly over the movement
and activities of these women.76
Generally, the Governments of receiving destinations in the Asian region have been
slow in reacting to the need to protect foreign nationals, including Indonesian migrants
working on their shores, arguing that migrant workers are protected by national laws
and labour policies, although in reality they are not because of their immigrant status.77
Moreover, these Governments have argued that labour practices are private sector
business practices for which Governments should not intervene in order to ensure a
78
market-oriented system.
Attempts to address migrant worker rights violations have occurred at various levels
on the Indonesian side. Indonesia resorted to establishing pre-departure programmes
to empower its migrant workers by providing information and increasing awareness on
key issues related to labour practices.79 Because of the limits to managing labour from
the sending country Indonesia has pressured some labour-receiving Governments
to address migrant worker abuses promptly, lest the situation lead to ‘irritation’ in
bilateral ties.80 Such is the case of Indonesia’s ties with Malaysia.
74 Yeoh, Brenda S.A., Shirlena Huang and Theresa W. Devasahayam (2004) “Diasporic Subjects in the Nation:
Foreign Domestic Workers, the Reach of the Law and Civil Society in Singapore”, Asian Studies Review, 28: 7-23;
Brooks, Ann and Theresa Devasahayam (2011) Gender, Emotions and Labour Markets: Asian and Western
Perspectives. London: Routledge.
75 Loveband, Anne (2004) “Positioning the product: Indonesian migrant women workers in Taiwan”. Journal of
Contemporary Asia, 34(3): 336-48.
76 Kaur, Amarjit (2007) “International labour migration in Southeast Asia: governance of migration and women
domestic workers”, Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context, 15. URL:< http://intersections.
anu.edu.au/issue15/kaur.htm>(accessed 4 January 2010).
77 Yeoh, Brenda S.A., Shirlena Huang and Theresa W. Devasahayam (2004) “Diasporic Subjects in the Nation:
Foreign Domestic Workers, the Reach of the Law and Civil Society in Singapore”, Asian Studies Review, 28:
7-23; Piper, Nicola (2004a) “Gender and migration policies in Southeast and East Asia: legal protection and
sociocultural empowerment of unskilled migrant women”, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 25(2): 216-
31 & (2004b) ‘Rights of foreign workers and the politics of migration in South-east and East Asia’, International
Migration, 42:71- 97.
78 Devasahayam, Theresa W. (2010) “Placement and/or Protection?: Singapore’s Labour Policies and Practices
for Temporary Women Migrant Workers”, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 15(1): 45-58.
79 Devasahayam, Theresa (2011) “”Say No to Seks Bebas!”: Transnational Women Migrants and Indonesia’s
Strategies for HIV Prevention”. Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific, Issue 26, URL:<http://
intersections.anu.edu.au/issue26/devasahayam.htm>(accessed 23 August 2015)
80 “Jakarta wants KL to settle maid abuse cases promptly”, The Malaysian Insider, 29 January 2010.
83
4.8.4 Indonesian Migrant Workers
While international migration fuelled by the aim of seeking employment abroad is a

recent phenomenon in Indonesia, migration within the country has had a much longer
history. In fact internal migration has been responsible for the growth of cities in
Indonesia. Human flows into the urban areas are not uncommon in Indonesia, since it
is the urban areas that afford more employment opportunities to those from the rural
areas seeking wage work. Since urbanization is also occurring through transformations
of rural areas into urban areas, it is likely that migration flows will begin to flow into
traditionally rural areas as a result of the outward spread of large cities.81 Interestingly,
during the 1997 financial crisis, which hit Indonesia very badly, there was a “turnaround”
in migration with many migrants returning to the villages and contributing to agricultural
activities at least temporarily.82
The 2010 Population Census data shows that males are more likely to migrate compared
with females. There is evidence that Indonesian men choose to migrate for economic
reasons in keeping with the ‘male as breadwinner‘ model. There are also cultural reasons
for males to migrate more than females although female migration has been increasing
in the last few decades. Among the Minangkabau, for example, young men are expected
to leave the community for long periods to prove their worth and build their status
based on merantau employment.83
Among the lifetime migrant population, the data reveals that for every 100 females,
there have been 111 males who had migrated in their lifetime (see Table 4.16). Among
non-migrant populations however there were equal proportions of males and females.
This pattern does not change markedly among recent migrants. The 2010 Population
Census data shows that for every 100 females who were a recent migrant, there
were 110.3 males; indicating that as with lifetime migrants males are slightly more likely
to migrate compared with females (see Table 4.16). Among the recent non-migrant
population, a similar pattern as in the life-time non-migrant population was found: the
ratio was 100.5 males to 100 females.
81 Webster, Douglas R. (2004) Urbanization Dynamics and Policy Frameworks in Developing East Asia, The World
Bank, East Asia Infrastructure Department, Washington D.C.
82 Jones, Gavin, Terrence Hull and Dennis Ahlburg (2000). “The social and demographic impact of the Southeast
Asian Crisis of 1997-1999”. Journal of Population Research, 17(1): 39-62.
83 Indrizal E. Problems of elderly without children: a case study of the matrilineal Minangkabau, West Sumatra.
In: Kreager P, Schröder-Butterfill E, editors. Ageing Without Children: European and Asian Perspectives. Oxford:
Berghahn; 2004. pp. 49–76; Kraeger, P. “Migration, social structure and old-age support networks: a
comparison of three Indonesian communities”. Ageing and Society, 26(1): 37-60.
84
Table 4.16
Proportion of Population by Migration Status and Sex, 2010
Migration Status Male Female Total Sex Ratio

Lifetime migrant
- Migrant 52.9 47.3 100.0 111.3
- Non-migrant 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.1
Total 50.3 49.7 100.0 101.4
Recent Migrant
- Migrant 52.4 47.6 100.0 110.3
- Non-migrant 50.1 49.9 100.0 100.5
Total 50.2 49.8 100.0 100.7
A closer look at the lifetime migrant population by gender presents an interesting picture.
The 2010 Population Census data of the entire country shows that there is a gender
difference in internal migration trends between males and females. For Indonesia as a
whole, there were more men (53 percent) compared to women (47 percent) who migrated
within the country (see Figure 4.6). The difference was slightly less among the urban
population wherein men comprised 52 percent of migrants while women 48 percent of
migrants. In the rural reaches of the country, however, the difference between male and
female migrants was found to be the largest at 54 percent for males and 46 percent for
females. In other words, the difference in internal migration patterns across the
sexes was seen to be most pronounced in the rural areas.
By looking at the 2010 Population Census data from the most populous provinces
such as West Java, East Java and Central Java in comparison to the least populous
province such as West Papua, overall it appears that slightly more men than women
have chosen to migrate (see Figure 4.7). But the percentage difference is largest for the
least populous province of West Papua. In this case, it could be assumed that males
were migrating for work such as to establish businesses since in 2010, the governors of
West Java and West Papua signed an agreement to enable annually the establishment
of 700 West Javanese farming households in West Papua. Furthermore, Indonesians
from other provinces have been moving into West Papua to take on employment in
the service sectors such as transport, trade, hotels, and restaurants or to set up small
businesses.84 But this may not be the only reason for migration into West Papua. Papua
Barat is one of the less urbanized areas in the country with a less vibrant economy
compared to other provinces. For this reason, Indonesia’s transmigration policy has
focused on encouraging immigration flows into the province in recent years.
84 Resosudarmo, Budy P., Mollet Julius A. and Raya, Umbu R. and Hans Kaiwai (2014) “Development in Papua
after Special Autonomy”. In Regional Dynamics in a Decentralized Indonesia. Hal Hill (ed). Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.
85
Figure 4.6:
Percentage of Lifetime Migrants Comparing Urban and Rural Areas by Sex, 2010
56%
54
54%
53
52
52%
50%
Male Migrant
48
48% Female Migrant
47
46
46%
44%
42%
Urban Rural Urban + Rural
The 2010 Population Census data also reveals another interesting gendered trend.
Jakarta and the areas surrounding the capital including West Java continue to be a
significant magnet for lifetime migrants.
The gender difference in the human inflow and outflow in the provinces with the
highest number of lifetime migrants was most visible in West Java with men (52 percent)
outnumbering women (48 percent) while the gender differential was only negligible (2
percent) for DKI Jakarta h a d (see Figure 4.8). However, DKI Jakarta had slightly more
lifetime female migrants (49 percent) compared to West Jawa and Banten, although the
number of lifetime male migrants was proportionally much less than that of West Java
and Banten. In Gorontalo in North Sulawesi, a province with the lowest proportion of
lifetime migrants, the gender differential was significant among its lifetime migrants; It
was found that 47 percent of its lifetime migrant population was female while 53 percent
were male.
86
Figure 4.7:
Percentage of Lifetime Migrants by Sex, Comparing the Three Most Populous
Provinces versus the Least Populous Province, 2010
60%
56
52 53 52
50% 48 47 48
44
40%
30% Male Migrant

Female Migrant
20%
10%
0%
West Java East Java Central Java West Papua
Figure 4.8:
Percentage of Lifetime Migrants by Sex, Comparing Three Provinces with the
Highest Number of Lifetime Migrants versus the Province with the Lowest
Number of Lifetime Migrants, 2010
54%
53
53%
52 52
52%
51
51%
50%
49
49% Male Migrant
48 48 Female Migrant
48%
47
47%
46%
45%
44%
West Java DKI Jakarta Banten Gorontalo
Among the recent migrant population, the 2010 Population Census shows a greater
gender difference between those in the urban and rural areas who have chosen to
migrate. Among the rural migrant population, 55 percent were male while 45 percent
were female (see Figure 4.9). This suggests that men tend to engage in migration more
than women even in the rural areas. However, if the entire population of recent migrants
in the country is taken into account, the difference is similar to that of the difference
found in the urban areas, with slightly more males (52 percent) than females (48 percent)
choosing to migrate recently. This suggests that overall in Indonesia, men are slightly
more likely to migrate compared with women.
87
Figure 4.9:
Percentage of Recent Migrants by Sex and Urban/Rural, 2010
60%
55
52 52
48 48
50%
45
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Urban Rural Urban + Rural
Male Migrant Female Migrant
Looking at the three most populous provinces in Indonesia, namely West Java, Central
Java and East Java, there is only a slight percentage difference with more males than
females being recent migrants (see Figure 4.10). In contrast in West Papua, which is the
least populous province, the recent migrant population consists of a greater proportion
of males at 58 percent over females at 42 percent. Thus in West Papua among the lifetime
and recent migrants, males appear to outnumber females by a significant percentage.
This might be explained by the fact that a proportion of the men may have migrated for
employment purposes, as mentioned earlier.
Moreover, West Java, DKI Jakarta and Banten were the provinces with the highest
proportion of recent migrants while North Maluku had the lowest proportion of recent
migrants. In terms of recent migrants in these areas, the gender differential reverses
only in DKI Jakarta where slightly more females (52 percent) than males (48 percent)
were found among the recent migrants (see Figure 4.11). In North Maluku, the same
pattern as in the other provinces was found: there were more males (56 percent) than
females (44 percent) among the recent migrant population and the gender difference
was significant.
88
Figure 4.10:
Percentage of Recent Migrants by Sex in the Three Most Populous Provinces
versus the Least Populous Province, 2010
70%
60% 58
51 52 51
49 48 49
50%
42
40%
Male Migrant
30% Female Migrant
20%
10%
0%
West Java East Java Central Java West Papua
Figure 4.11:
Percentage of Recent Migrants by Sex Comparing the Three Provinces with
the Highest Number of Recent Migrants Versus the Province with the Lowest
Number of Recent Migrants, 2010
60%
56
51 52 51
49 48 49
50%
44
40%
30% Male Migrant

Female Migrant
20%
10%
0%
West Java DKI Jakarta Banten North Maluku
89
90
CONCLUSIONS
91
Although Indonesian women and girls have made some strides forward in the last
decade or more, there are several areas in which they are consistently lagging
behind men and boys. Gender gaps, for example, continue to be evident in education,
employment and wages and will most likely persist unless there are robust policies put
in place to address the gender inequalities and inequities in these areas.
In the 2010 Population Census, the percentage of males to females was almost the same
as in the population as a whole. However, this pattern was not found in the subgroups:
the proportion of young males was greater than young females while the reverse was
found among the older cohorts of the population as female life expectancy was higher
than that of males. Among the younger groups, early marriage was found among
girls more than boys especially in the rural areas where the age at first marriage
for females was lower than in the urban areas. In the 25-49 age cohort, age at first
marriage was related to education and economic status.
Between 1990 to 2010, school enrolment among girls increased more compared with
the previous decades. At the lower levels of education, girls have been found to be doing
slightly better than boys. However, levels of enrolment among girls are still lower than
that of boys, especially at the higher levels of education which is even more crucial to
women’s empowerment in the long run. Looking at the percentage of graduates of
high school and above, there was a 4 percent difference between males and females.
However, in terms of the overall rate of school enrolment, improvement has been larger
for females than males, principally because of the successful implementation of various
efforts made by the education system. These efforts included expanding and equalizing
access to quality education - a development yardstick in Indonesia. The “Elementary
School Presidential Instruction”pushed for elementary school development assistants
along with the formulation of six years, nine years and twelve years compulsory
education milestones, providing the bedrock for these efforts. Furthermore, the
Presidential Instruction shortened the distance between school locations and children’s
residences, especially for females, thereby making it easier for girls to access education.
Nonetheless, the problem of distance is still proving to be a challenge in some rural areas
as not all rural areas have a primary school. Also to be noted is the fact that compulsory
education has eased parents’ burden in sending their children to school. In particular,
girls benefited from the reduced competition for family resources since parents are
obligated to allow their girls to attend school.
Among the old female cohorts, there were more widows and divorced women, while
older males tended to be married. Because of the rise in the numbers of widows and
divorced females, consequently there has been a rise in the number of female-headed
households. Among the older cohorts, health is also a matter of concern, and because
women live longer than their male counterparts, they live longer with disability. Overall,
they are more vulnerable as they are less educated, less financially secure and living
alone.
92
Generally, an Indonesian woman has her first child less than two years after marriage and
the average number of children born at the end of the fertile period (total fertility rate) is
2.6. The delay may be explained by the ease at which contraception is now available to
women which means that they have a choice to control the timing of their first child. In
fact, a greater proportion of married women, about two thirds, are using contraception.
Among men, however, the numbers who use contraception are very low, indicating that
birth control use was a women’s responsibility.
The results of the 2010 Population Census show that there is a correlation between female-
headed households and poorer quality homes, compared with households headed by
males which tend to be constructed with better quality materials. Since housing quality
was also used as a non-monetary measure of household economic status, it could be
asserted that female-headed households were poorer than male-headed households.
From a social point of view, the higher proportion of females now educated has lent to
improvements in their well-being as well as that of their families, since there is a high
correlation between “keeping the girl child in school” and delayed marriage and better
health and nutrition outcomes. Subsequently, as they become mothers themselves, they
tend to have a positive influence in the quality of their children’s education as well as
their nutrition and health.
From an economic point of view, improvements in female education had a positive impact
on labour force participation as it enhanced female’s bargaining position, especially in
regards to wages/salaries. While assuming other factors remain the same, the higher
the education, the smaller the difference between wages/salaries received by male and
females. However, overall men receive higher wages than women with the exception
of the construction and transportation sectors. The women who entered these sectors
ended up in white-collar jobs as they took on administrative and clerical positions which
demanded that they have a decent level of education, in contrast, the men in these
industries commanded lower wages since they took on blue-collared jobs.
93
94
RECOMMENDATIONS
95
To enhance the quality of the younger generation, female education should be
one of the focuses of development, because it helps delay age at first marriage and
enhances general knowledge for effective childcare. Consequently, educational facility
enhancement especially at senior high school level in rural areas must receive great
attention. However, this should not result in the neglect of male children’s participation.
Reaching median age at first marriage around 20 years is a great achievement, however,
it should not stop there. The Government should consider increasing the prevalence of
contraceptive method/used, especially encouraging men to become active participants
of family planning so that fertility stays low or continues to decrease.
As indicated by the lower quality of their dwelling units female-headed households

were poorer than male-headed ones. It is imperative therefore that the participation
of female-headed household heads be increased in income-generating activities in all
regions. It is also necessary to monitor assistance to the poor so that female-headed
households are not neglected, i.e. by administering receipts indicating the sex and the
status of the household of assistance recipients.
Those with low income, especially females, generally earn their income from informal
portions of agriculture, trade and public sectors. Workers in informal sectors do
not usually enjoy security systems and workers’ protection. It is suggested that the
Government help them by, among other ways, (1) improving their life skills so that
their income increases and (2) intensifying the motivation to the informal workers to
participate in social security schemes.
Female educational improvement has motivated them to join the workforce. However,
it does not free them from their reproductive function. Because society still considers
raising children as the female responsibility, women would be greatly helped if the
Government and other institutions develop widespread and easily accessed childcare
facilities so that working females, both in the formal and informal sectors, can continue
to focus on their jobs. This will also create work opportunity for job seekers.
As long as the gender gaps exists, gender analysis in various disciplines is essential in
order to identify where action is needed. In addition, qualitative studies are also required
to find out the factors causing the problems. To increase the utilization of data sources,
secondary data analysis on gender issues is also warranted. Multivariate analysis for
example, can identify gaps and causes of not going to school, factors influencing wages/
salaries and female decisions to work. The Government and donor agencies should
motivate women/gender study centers and research institutes to conduct these kind of
studies.
96
Selected Bibliography
Ace Suryadi dan Banu Pratitis, 2001, Analisis Gender Dalam Pembangunan Pendidikan, Aplikasi Gender
Analysis Pathway (GAP), seri perangkat Analisis Gender, Badan Perencanaan Pembanguan
Nasional (BAPPENAS) berkerjasama dengan Women’s Support Project II-CIDA, Jakarta Juni 2001.
ISBN 979-96149-4-5.
Ahmad Muhammad Saleh and Joko Widiarto, 2011, Perumahan Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk
Indonesia 2010, Jakarta, BPS Katalog 2102031.
Badan Kependudukan dan Keluarga Berencana Nasional (BKKBN), 2013, Survei Demografi dan Kesehatan
Indonesia 2012, Kerjasama Badan Pusat Statistik dan Badan Kependudukan dan Keluarga
Berencana Nasional (BKKBN), Kementerian Kesehatan, U.S. Agency for International
Development.
Badan Pusat Statistik, National Population and Family Planning Board (BKKBN), and Kementerian
Kesehatan (Kemenkes-MOH), and ICF International. 2013. Indonesia Demographic and Health
Survey 2012. Jakarta, Indonesia: BPS, BKKBN, Kemenkes, and ICF International)
Badan Pusat Statistik, 1998, Kumpulan Bahan-Bahan Penyusunan Indikator Kesejahteraan Rakyat, Jakarta,
BPS, ISBN. 979-598-490-X, No. Publikasi 04420.9803.
Badan Pusat Statitistik 2010, Katalog Metadata SP 2010 Dan Pendukungnya. Jakarta, BPS. Badan Pusat
Statitistik 2011, Profil Perempuan Indonesia, 2011. Jakarta, BPS.
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2011, Indikator Pasar Tenaga Kerja Indonesia Agustus 2011, Jakarta, BPS ISSN. 2088-
5679 No. Publikasi 04120-1106. Kalalog BPS 2302004,.
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2011, Keadaan Angkatan Kerja Di Indonesia Agustus 2011, Jakarta, BPS ISSN. 04120-
1104 No. Publikasi 04120-1104. Kalalog BPS 2303004.
Badan Pusat Statistik adn KPPA, 2011, Modul Pelatihan Pengelolaan Data Gender dan Anak, Kerja Sama
Kementerian Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak (KPPA) dengan Badan Pusat
Statistik (BPS) ISSN. 2089-3515, Jakarta, BPS.
Badan Pusat Statitistik sub-Direktorat Statistik Demografi, 2012, Estimasi Parameter Demografi: Tren
fertilitas, Mortalitas, dan Migrasi, Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010. Jakarta, BPS.
Bada Pusat Statistik-Direktorat Statistik Kesejahteraan Rakyat, 2012. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
Kabupaten Terpilih di Papua dan Papua Barat (Temuan Kunci Awal). Makalah disampaikan pada
Seminar Diseminasi. Jakarta, November 2012.
Badan Pusat Statistik dan KPPA, 2013, Profil Perempuan Indonesia 2013, Kerja Sama Kementerian
Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak (KPPA) dengan Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS)
ISSN. 2089-3515, Jakarta, BPS.
Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia, 2013, Kajian Anak pada Rumah Tangga Miskin, Badan Pusat Statistik
Indonesia, Jakarta ISBN 978-979-064-622-3 Katalog BPS No. 4103012
97
Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia, 2013, Profil Perempuan Indonesia, 2012, Jakarta, BPS.
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2013, Kajian Anak Pada Rumah Tangga Miskin, Jakarta, BPS, ISBN. 978-979-064- 622-3,
No. Publikasi 07330.1314. Kalalog BPS 4103012.
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2013, Keadaan Pekerja Indonesia 2013, Jakarta, BPS, ISSN. 1979-7702, No.
Publikasi 04120.1310. Kalalog BPS 2303006.
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2013, Profil dan Pendaptan Perkerja Bebas Di Indonesia 2011-2012, Jakarta, BPS, ISBN.
978-979-064-589-9 No. Publikasi 04130-1203. Kalalog BPS 2305011.
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2013, Statistik Kesejahteraaan Raykat 2012, Jakarta, BPS, ISSN. 0215-4641, No. Publikasi
04210.1309. Kalalog BPS 4101002.
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2013, Statistik Upah Wages Statistics 2013, Jakarta, BPS, ISSN. 0216-0005, No. Publikasi
04130.1310. Kalalog BPS 2305001.
Badan Pusat Statisik Indonesia, 2014, Statistik Kesejahteraan Rakyat 2013, Badan Pusat Statistik
Indonesia, Jakarta, ISSN 0215-4641, Katalog BPS No. 4101002, Jakarta, BPS.
Dani Jaelani and Rach Agustiani, 2011, Ketenagakerjaan Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk Indonesia
2010,, Jakarta, BPS Katalog 2102030.
Gumono, 2010, Permasalahan Mutu Dalam Wajib Belajar Pendidikan Dasar 9 Tahun, https://gumonounib.
wordpress.com/2010/09/19/permasalahan-mutu-dalam-wajib-belajar- pendidikan-dasar-9-tahun.
Herien Puspitawati, 2012, Gender dan Keluarga: Konsep dan Realita Di Indonesia. Bogor, IPB Press.
Hull, Terence H. and Henry Mosley, 2009, Revitalizing of Family Planning in Indonesia, The Government of
Indonesia and United Nations Population Fund.
Koronkiewicz, Michael. “Gender Parity Index” (PDF). UNESCO Bangkok Retrieved 2008-11-26. https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Parity_Index, 17/7/2010
Paramitha Hanifia dan Adhie Surya Mustari, 2013, Statistik Pendidikan 2012, Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional,
Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia, ISSN2086-4566 Katalog BPS No. 4301002
Robert D. Mare and Vida Maralani. 2003. How Do Mothers’ Educational Attainments Affect Stratification of
the International Sociological Association in Tokyo on March 1-3, 2003 and the conference on
“Frontiers of Socioeconomic Mobility: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges” in Ithaca, New
York on March 27-29, 2003). The Educational Attainment Of The Next Generation? .Preliminary. (This
paper was prepared for presentation at the meetings of the Research Committee on Social
Sri Moertiningsih Adioetomo, Horst Posselt, Ariane Utomo, 2014, Youth in Indonesia, UNFPA Indonesia
Monograph series No. 2. UNPFA, Jakarta 2014.
Sri Wahyuni, SE, M. Si, 2011, Umur dan Jenis Kelamin Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk Indonesia
2010, Jakarta, BPS Katalog 2102023.
Syaiku Usman, Akhmadi, Daniel Suryadarma, 2004, Ketika Guru Absen, Kemana Mereka Dan Bagaimana
Muridnya?, Smeru, Laporan Lapangan, Lembaga penelitian Smeru, April 2004.
98
Suharyanto Dr , 2007, Memantau Tingkat Kemiskinan di Perdesaan dengan Indikator dari Sensus Pertanian
2003, dalam dalam Soedarti Surbakti: Upaya Pemantauan dan Evaluasi Program Pelayanan
Sosial Ibu dan Anak Melalui Indikator Pembangunan Milenium di Indonesia, BPS, Jakarta.
Tini Suhartini, dkk, 2013, Profil Perempuan Indonesia, Kerja sama Kementerian Pemberdayaan Perempuan
dan Perlindungan Anak dan Badan Pusat Statistik Jakarta Indonesia, 2013, ISSN 2089-3515
99
Glossary
Demographic dividend: the economic growth potential that can result from shifts in a population’s age
structure, mainly when the share of the working-age population (15 to 64) is larger than the non-working-age
share of the population (14 and younger, and 65 and older)., it is a boost in economic productivity that occurs
when there are growing numbers of people in the workforce relative to the number of dependents. A country
with both increasing numbers of young people and declining fertility has the potential to reap a demographic
dividend.
Dependency ratio: A measure showing the number of dependents (aged 0-14 and over the age of 65) to the
total population (aged 15-64). Also referred to as the “total dependency ratio”.
Calculated by:
Education attainment: The highest grade completed within the most advanced level attended in the
educational system of the country where the education was received. Some countries may also find it useful
to present data on educational attainment in terms of the highest grade attended.
Employment status/status of work: the status of an economically active person with respect to his or her
employment.
Gender: the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex.
Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are
viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity.
Gender Mainstreaming: the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned
action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in any area and at all levels. It is a strategy for making
the concerns and experiences of women as well as of men an integral part of the design, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres, so that
women and men benefit equally, and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal of mainstreaming is to
achieve gender equality.
Gender Parity Index: the ratio of the female-to-male value of a given indicator = (The value of indicator for
female/the value of indicator for male) x 100%
Industry/sector of work: Goods-producing segment of an economy, including agriculture, construction,

fisheries, forestry, manufacturing and services.
Labour Force: The total number of persons employed or employable in a country.
Labour Force Participation Rate: the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who are employed
and unemployed but looking for a job.
100
Literacy Rate: The percentage of the population (usually 10 years old and over), who can read, write and
understand simple messages in any language or dialect.
School Enrolment rate: The ratio of the enrolment for the age group corresponding to the official school
age in the elementary/secondary or higher level to the population of the same age group in a given year.
Sex Ratio: (The number male/the number of female) x 100%
Singulate Mean at Marriage: the average length of single life expressed in years among those who marry
before age 50.
Total Fertility Rate: Total fertility rate is defined as the average number of children that would be born
to a woman if she experiences the current fertility pattern throughout her reproductive span (15-49 years).
Unemployment: The number of unemployed persons divided by the number of people in the labor force.
Working Age Population: people between the ages of 15-64. People in those age groups who are not
counted as participating in the labor force are typically students, homemakers, and persons under the age
of 64 who are retired.
101
I N D O N E S I A
Delivering a world where

every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe
and every young person's potential is fulﬁlled.
UNFPA Indonesia
7th Floor Menara Thamrin
Jl. M.H. Thamrin Kav. 3
Jakarta 10250 Indonesia
Ph. +6221 2980 2300
Fax. +6221 3192 7902
Website: http://indonesia.unfpa.org

Women and Girls in Indonesia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Women and Girls in Indonesia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Women and Girls in Indonesia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I N D O N E S I A

Women and Girls in Indonesia:

Women and Girls in Indonesia:

Dr. Theresa Devasahayam

Addressing and promoting gender equality is at the heart of UNFPA’s work.

Jakarta, October 2015

Chapter II Characteristics of Male and Female Population............. 7

Chapter III Education....................................................................................... 37

Chapter IV. Employment .................................................................................. 57

Dr. Soedarti Surbakti, Dr. Theresa Devasahayam,

Jakarta, October 2015

10 Ministry of Woman Empowerment and Child protection and BPS (2012)

13 KPPPA, Inpres No. 9 tahun 2000 tentang Pengarusutamaan Gender

a. Sex composition of population broken down by various characteristics;

1.3. Data Sources and Limitations

2.1 Age and Sex Composition of

40-44 8 202 140

4 000 000 8 000 000 12 000 000

Source: Derived from 2010 Population Census (BPS, 2012)

2.1.1 Variations in Age-Sex Composition of the Population by

Bangka Belitung Islands

Source: Derived from 2010 Population Census (BPS, 2012)

2.1.2 Gender Differences in Marital Status

Marriage is customarily important in Indonesian society. In 2010, among the population

Two categories of population by marital status could be distinguished (Table 2.3),

Marital Status Male Female Total Sex ratio

2.2. Households and Household Heads

It is decreed by Law regarding marriage

23 BPS, 2012, Penduduk Hasil SP 2010

Currently married 49 326 502 1 226 625 50 553 127 40.2

25 BPS (2013) SUSENAS 2012

2.2.1 First Marriage

Information on marital status of population was asked in

Source: Derived from 2013 SUSENAS (BPS, 2014)

29 Law No. 10/1992, On Population Growth and Family Welfare Development.

Source: 2012 IDHS (BPS et al., 2013)

Urban/Rural Welfare Status

No schooling 2.8 Middle high 2.4

Some primary school 3.0 Highest 2.2

Primary school 2.9 Total 2.6

Senior high school 2.7

Bangka Belitung Islands

East Nusa Tenggara

Source: 2012 IDHS (BPS et al., 2013)

age at first childbirth is influenced by a few background Urban 23.0

characteristics, such as type of residential area, education Rural 21.0

and welfare status. Educational Attainment

Source: 2012 IDHS (BPS et al., 2013)

The number of children ever born to women at childbearing age is

Source: 2012 IDHS (BPS et al., 2013)

West Nusat Tenggara

Banga Belitung Islands

Source: Derived from the 2012 IDHS (BPS et al., 2013).

IDHS results on modern methods contraception used by currently married women

2.2.4 Dwelling Condition

2.2.5 Economic Status

Unlike the enumeration exercise conducted on poor people as decreed by the

Source: Derived from 2010 Population Census (BPS, 2012)

2.3 Population Ageing