Abstract
Economic development in East Java Province increases each year, can be seen from the Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP) Per Capita is increasing. The increase in GRDP Per Capita, cigarette consumption can increase so that the impact on tax receipts and an increase in life expectancy is low. Tax receipts made as the Province of East Java with revenue sharing fund of tobacco products excise highest. The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of revenue sharing fund of tobacco products excise, betel leaves and tobacco expenditures and GRDP Per capita against life expectancy in East Java Province. Research methods used in this research is quantitative research methods with processing and data analysis technique used is Panel regression analysis with Fixed Effects Model (FEM). The results showed that only the GRDP Per Capita affects life expectancy while revenue sharing fund of tobacco products excise and expenditure of tobacco and betel leaves don't effect on life expectancy in East Java province. Based on those results, so in an attempt to improve life expectancy in East Java province by improving the use of programme revenue sharing fund of tobacco products excise that can provide direct benefits to society such as examination health routine.
Highlights
Households in developing countries tend to spend higher amount of money proportionately to their total income compared to their counterparts in developed countries
Using Broadman standard, this paper analyze whether Indonesia or any of its Clusters suffer from Energy Poverty
It was found that Indonesia households cost wisely - do not suffer from the energy poverty
Summary
Households in developing countries tend to spend higher amount of money proportionately to their total income compared to their counterparts in developed countries. The difference of spending is an interesting issue to learn as people’s decision to spend income could give information regarding their household economy. In the United Kingdom, Fuel Poverty (or Energy Povery) is defined as the need to spend more than 10% of household income for all energy use to maintain a satisfactory heating regime and other energy services (Rosenow et al, 2013). This 10% rule was previously introduced by Broadman (1991) as a specific definition of energy poverty. If majority of people in a country have to bear 10% or more, by Broadman standard they can be considered as people who suffer from energy poverty
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
