What makes a good policy analysis
Online (Zoom)
A credible policy recommendation is not merely a correct idea. This session unpacks the distance between analysis that is right and a recommendation that can actually be used — a distance I only came to understand properly after moving from analysing policy outside government to working inside it.
The backbone is the four-step frame from the World Bank’s Regulatory Impact Assessment practice: define the problem and why intervention is warranted, state targets that can genuinely be checked, map the causal chain from policy to outcome, and test alternatives — including the alternative of doing nothing. To those four I add a fifth: political and institutional analysis. Who implements it, which budget line pays for it, and who stands to lose and has the power to block it. A recommendation that answers none of these is not a recommendation but a wish list.
The frame is then applied to the competition’s three subthemes. On the fiscal side, government revenue moved from 13.4% of GDP in 2000 to 13.3% in 2025 while neighbouring countries held at 20–21%; World Bank estimates put the VAT and corporate income tax gap at an average 6.4% of GDP over 2016–2021, with 58% coming from non-compliance rather than policy design — which makes raising rates the wrong instrument for the diagnosis. On the monetary side, the September 2025 placement of Rp200 trillion of government funds in five state-owned banks is read as a case: government deposits at Bank Indonesia fell from Rp451 trillion to Rp239 trillion in a single month, while what was actually weak was credit demand — working capital credit growth slowed from 12.4% to 4.4%. The most feasible instrument is not necessarily the one that fits the diagnosis. On the real side, manufacturing’s share of GDP fell from 32.0% in 2002 to 19.0% in 2024, and the downstreaming argument serves as an analytical exercise for testing the infant industry conditions and tracing who bears the cost.
The session closes with the Kuvukiland exercise, showing why a policy that is right in aggregate can still lose at the ballot box, a note on comparing mechanisms rather than outcomes when learning from other countries, and ten questions worth answering before an essay is submitted.

My name is Krisna, some call me Imed. I am an advisor at the Indonesian National Economic Council. My research is about trade and investment policy and how it affects Indonesian firms. I use some structured equation such as GTAP model, but also do some empirics like gravity models.
I lecture at Universitas Indonesia. Additionally, I assume a senior fellow position at Center for Indonesian Policy Studies.
I contributed to several projects with Bank Indonesia, Bappenas, ADB, Prospera, and ERIA, among others. Occasional oped writer, typically at Kompas, Jakarta Post and East Asia Forum. Please see CV or contact me for more information.