To translate fiscal policy into football terms, former finance Sri Mulyani Indrawati played defense while her predecessor Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa prefers offensive football.
If Sri Mulyani was Indonesia’s José Mourinho: disciplined, cautious, and focused on protecting the backline, then Purbaya is stepping onto the pitch as Jürgen Klopp: bold, energetic, and determined to press high and attack. Where Sri Mulyani was admired for keeping Indonesia safe from fiscal shocks, Purbaya wants to win the game with speed and relentless forward play.
His tactics are already visible. Purbaya is moving Rp 200 trillion (US$12.17 billion) from government accounts at Bank Indonesia into commercial banks, instructed the central bank not to mop it back up, and demanded ministries and local governments spend their budgets faster. The strategy is simple: keep the ball in play, keep money circulating, and overwhelm the opposition of sluggish growth and weak credit with aggressive attacks.
In total, more than Rp 430 trillion in idle government funds remains available. At the same time, key programs such as Prabowo’s free nutritious meals have already absorbed Rp 7.9 trillion by early August, above the initial projection of Rp 6 trillion. These moves reflect a simple but powerful logic: money that sits idle produces no growth. Money that moves into the economy creates jobs, spending, and momentum.
The context explains why this approach is gaining traction. Indonesia’s economic growth in the first quarter of 2025 stood at 4.87 percent year-on-year, weaker than expected and lower than the country’s potential. The OECD and IMF have both revised Indonesia’s growth forecast downward to around 4.7 to 4.9 percent for this year. Regional governments have been notoriously slow in absorbing budgets, with some realizing as little as 1.69 percent of their allocations well into the fiscal year. Meanwhile, consumer demand remains fragile, with households facing persistent cost pressures. In such an environment, Purbaya’s push to attack rather than defend looks both pragmatic and necessary.
In many ways, this makes sense. For too long, large sums of allocated funds sat idle, absorbed only at the end of the fiscal year. Credit growth was muted as banks hesitated to lend while firms complained of tight financing. By pressing hard, injecting liquidity and pushing money to the ground, Purbaya is trying to change the tempo. Like Klopp’s high-press system, the aim is to create momentum and turn defense into attack in seconds.
The potential upside is real. Faster budget disbursement can quickly translate into jobs, wages, and purchases at the local level. Liquidity injections may lower borrowing costs and give small businesses the confidence to expand. Just as Klopp’s gegenpressing style excites the crowd, Purbaya’s pragmatism sends a message to ordinary Indonesians: this government is not sitting back; it is charging forward.
Yet football fans know that all-out attack carries risks. Push too many players forward and the defense is exposed. Purbaya’s offensive playbook faces the same danger.
The first is inflation. More money chasing goods can lift demand, but if supply is constrained, whether in food, energy, or logistics, prices rise. In football terms, that’s leaving the backline open to a counterattack. The poor, who spend much of their income on essentials, would be the first casualties.
The second is banking stability. Giving banks more cash doesn’t guarantee they will lend. Like a striker reluctant to shoot, banks may sit on liquidity if they doubt borrowers’ ability to repay. And if they are pressured into reckless lending, the result could be a spike in non-performing loans, an own goal for the financial system.
Third, speeding up budget absorption is not just about pace but also precision. A rushed pass can lose possession; a rushed procurement can waste public funds. History shows that when ministries are pressured to spend quickly, oversight weakens and corruption risks rise. Building projects for the sake of “absorbing the budget” can leave behind white elephants rather than lasting value.
Fourth, fiscal credibility is another concern. Sri Mulyani built Indonesia’s reputation on disciplined defense, keeping deficits and debt under control. Investors trusted her as a safe pair of hands. Purbaya’s promise of eight percent growth within three years, combined with aggressive spending, could make markets nervous. If investors fear fiscal recklessness, borrowing costs will rise, and Indonesia could find itself chasing the game from behind.
Next, there is the referee on the pitch: Bank Indonesia. By asking the central bank not to reabsorb liquidity, Purbaya is limiting its defensive tactics. If inflation flares, BI may be forced to raise interest rates sharply, blunting the very stimulus Purbaya is trying to unleash. An overzealous attack that ignores the referee’s role could lead to a red card in the form of monetary tightening.
If tactics are important, so is the owner’s support. Here, President Prabowo Subianto plays a decisive role. By giving his finance minister full backing, Prabowo is essentially acting like the club owner who tells his manager: “You have my confidence. Go win us the championship.” This political cover allows Purbaya to move boldly, overcoming resistance within ministries and bureaucracy, while also signaling to markets that the government is united behind the plan. It also raises expectations. Just as a coach backed by the owner must deliver results, Purbaya will be judged on whether growth accelerates, jobs are created, and inflation is kept under control.
Still, Klopp’s teams show that attacking football can succeed, if backed by discipline, structure, and stamina. The same goes for Purbaya’s strategy. Liquidity injections will only work if paired with credit guarantees and risk-sharing so banks feel safe to lend. Faster budget spending will only deliver real value if matched with strict oversight and anti-corruption safeguards. Inflation risks can be minimized if supply chains and logistics are improved in parallel. And fiscal credibility can be preserved if today’s offensive play is balanced with a clear plan for long-term stability.
Indonesia does not need to choose permanently between Mourinho and Klopp. The best teams combine defense and attack, balancing caution with boldness. Sri Mulyani’s disciplined defense kept Indonesia’s economy resilient. Purbaya’s high press may inject much-needed energy. The real challenge is whether Indonesia can blend the two styles, fast enough to revive growth, careful enough to avoid collapse at the back.
For now, Purbaya is making sense. His tactics are pragmatic, logical, and politically appealing. But just like football, economic games are not won by passion alone. They are won by strategy, coordination, and the ability to adapt when the opposition counters. If Purbaya’s offensive football is not matched by discipline and structure, the scoreline could quickly turn against Indonesia.
Omong-Omong Media’s editorial is also published in The Jakarta Post every Monday.
