2022
DOI: 10.20473/vol9iss20226pp898-912
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Zakat and Income Inequality in Indonesia: Panel Data Analysis in 34 Provinces

Abstract: ABSTRAK Tujuan utama dari makalah ini untuk menguji secara empiris pengaruh zakat, Produk Domestik Regional Bruto (PDRB) perkapita, Upah Minimum Regional/Provinsi (UMP), dan inflasi terhadap tingkat gini rasio di 34 provinsi di Indonesia selama tahun 2018-2020.  Temuan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa distribusi zakat yang diproksikan dengan Indeks Kesejahteraan BAZNAS serta tingkat inflasi secara statistik tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap tingkat ketimpangan pendapatan di Indonesia. Sementara itu, tingka… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 23 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A significant methodology involves using authentic data concerning allocating zakat funds in designated institutions. Alternatively, an index may approximate this allocation process, offering a comprehensive perspective on the complex mechanisms governing zakat distribution (Lestari & Auwalin, 2022). Due to the limited availability of data, the zakat rate in this study is estimated, following the approach taken by Mahat & Warokka (2013); Sarntisart (2016); Shaukat & Zhu (2020); and Bouanani & Belhadj (2019).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A significant methodology involves using authentic data concerning allocating zakat funds in designated institutions. Alternatively, an index may approximate this allocation process, offering a comprehensive perspective on the complex mechanisms governing zakat distribution (Lestari & Auwalin, 2022). Due to the limited availability of data, the zakat rate in this study is estimated, following the approach taken by Mahat & Warokka (2013); Sarntisart (2016); Shaukat & Zhu (2020); and Bouanani & Belhadj (2019).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%