Sustainable Economic Sectors in Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam

Abstract

Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam have a significantly different economic structure where the Brunei Darussalam economy is very much dominated by oil and gas, whereas Indonesia is dominated by the manufacturing, trade, and agriculture sectors. This paper aims to identify the economic sectors that have the potential to achieve Sustainable Economic Growth (SEG) in both countries. Secondary data from several sources were processed using the multifactor evaluation process method. The results show that there are two economic sectors with equal potential in the two countries, namely, the Information and Communication Sector and the Business Activities Sector. The growth in these two sectors tends to increase; the addition of labor is greater than the increase in output, and they have a relatively limited environmental impact. However, this finding does not mean that other sectors cannot be sustained. On the contrary, they need regulations that will encourage a shift to an economic growth that cares about the environment and society, especially for crucial sectors such as agriculture as a food provider, and the manufacturing sector, which produces value added goods.

1. Introduction

Indonesia is a big country with scattered islands (around 17,508 islands) with a total population of around 270 million, with the highest density of its population being on Java Island. Indonesia is known for having abundant natural resources, especially in agriculture, whereas Brunei Darussalam is a small country (5270 square kilometers) with a population of around 450,000. The Brunei economy is heavily dependent on the oil and gas industry. So, it is interesting to study these two different backgrounds among the ASEAN countries [1,2,3].

These two contrary economies, Indonesia and Negara Brunei Darussalam (NBD), are committed to achieve the global agenda Sustainable Economic Growth (SEG) as a part of SDGs 2030. This is evident in its medium-term development plan document. Currently, Indonesia is entering the final phase of implementation of the RPJMN (National Medium Term Development Plan) within the framework of the 2005–2025 RPJPN (National Long Term Development Plan), namely the fourth stage of the 2020–2024 RPJMN. Sustainability is one of the Basic Principles of National Development and Mainstreaming in the 2020–2024 RPJMN. Two of the seven development agendas feature economic and environmental dimensions, which are broken down as follows: first, strengthening economic resilience for quality and justice in growth; second, building the environment, improving disaster resilience, and climate change [4]. Meanwhile, NBD with the 2018–2023 Eleventh National Development Plan is directed to support the achievement of the Wawasan Brunei 2035, to be known worldwide as a country with Educated, Highly-Skilled and Accomplished People; A High Quality of Life; and Having a Dynamic and Sustainable Economy. High and Sustainable Economic Growth is one of the national outcomes of Goal 3 of Wawasan Brunei 2035 [5].

The commitment outlined in the development plan document needs to be ascertained by the current economic conditions, considering that the achievement of SEG cannot be separated from the contribution of the performance of each economic sector to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Production activities comprise of various goods and services, categorized into primary sectors (such as Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery, and Mining and Quarrying), secondary sectors (such as Manufacturing, Electricity and Gas, Water Supply, and Construction), as well as service sectors (such as Wholesale and Retail Trade, Transportation, Accommodation and Food-Services, Information and Communication, Finance, Real Estate, Government services, Education, Health Service and Social Activity, and Other Services).

Each economic sector has its own characteristics in the production process, either value is added, or by-products in the form of residual production waste are created. Likewise, regarding the absorption of labor, is it labor intensive or capital intensive? Indonesia has rather equal economic structure in the contribution of the primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors, namely, 20.14%, 31.82%, and 48.04%, respectively [6]. However, this is not the case for the employment structure. The primary sector absorbs more, which is 30.81% compared to the secondary sector at 20.51%, while the tertiary sector has an exact share of its output, namely, 48.68% [7]. Meanwhile, the economic structure of NBD is very unique, as a country that is overflowing with oil and gas, the contribution of the secondary sector reaches 61.5% with the dominance of the oil and gas processing industry, the tertiary sector is 37.5%, and the primary sector is only 1% [8]. It is more unique that the dominance of workers is in the field of government administration [9].

The impact of such an economic structure on environmental quality becomes a concern of this study. A number of studies show that the relationship between economic activity and environmental degradation could be more harmful to the environment due to the production structure [10]; overexploitation of natural resources [11]; the increased manufacturing activity, which leads to the increased CO2 emissions [12]; growing deforestation for country with high levels of vegetal cover [13]; and the risks of resource scarcity increase [14]. Electric utilities also contribute to GHG, Waste Generation, Air Pollution, and Natural Resource Use.

A sustainable economy relies on the flow of resource usage and the value of externalities being created and comprises three pillars: environmental, economic, and social dimensions [15]. This study examines all economic sectors within the framework of the three pillars of SEG in the two countries and to find which sectors of the economy have the potential to achieve SEG. No study has been conducted that has highlighted the potential economic sectors that have sustainable criteria for the countries here studied.

2. Literature Review

The core concept of sustainability explicates that a connection should be made between present and future generations [16]. What kind of connection is likely? People in all generations run economic activities such as production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services to meet all their needs. Total production of goods and services is indicated by GDP, and economic growth is the result of an increase in real GDP. As output, GDP utilizes input from the environment such as land, air, water, energy, and a lot of natural resources as raw materials to produce goods and services. These are the stocks of natural resources. In the process of production, besides the output to be consumed, there is the existence of by-product, i.e., waste and pollution that will re-circulate into the environment. If economic growth has no concern over the environment, there would be a high exploitation of natural resources and environmental degradation that disrupt or constraint the economic growth. Therefore, SEG refers to any form of economic growth that does not harm the environment [17] and will remain available for future generations [18]. This definition involves economic and environmental dimensions. Economic systems are integrated and all its elements are closely interconnected to social well-being and protection of the environment should not be opposed to economic interests [19]. Even in the view of Daly in Sanberg, the economic system is embedded in the societal system, which, in turn, is embedded in the environmental system [20].

Recently, many scientists have dedicated themselves to a solution of the sustainable economic growth problem, as well as its components’ definition. In particular, Elisha [14] estimates a possibility of a stability ensuring of economic growth at its higher rates. The widely accepted definition of economic sustainability is “maintenance of capital”, or keeping capital intact [21].

One of the important social dimension aspects related to total GDP is the income distribution. If economic growth is high but is not equally distributed, then the problem of income inequality will arise. Therefore, SEG is a concept that stressed on balance among social, economic, and environmental issues. It is a crucial requirement to secure a good quality of life for future generations [16].

The essential criteria of sustainable growth are non-declining consumption or income (weak sustainability) and capital stock or natural resource stock (strong sustainability). Definition of sustainability can, therefore, imply the preservation of the social, economic, and environmental and ecological productive capacities reflected in some indicators such as ‘capabilities’, ‘basic needs’, and ‘life opportunities’ for all generations [22].

Environmental degradation is the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources, air, sea/water, and soil, and the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of wildlife [23]. It also involves any change or disturbances to the environment perceived to be undesirable by the host communities and detrimental to their socio-economic activities [24]. It is thus the reduction in the capacity of the environment to meet social, economic, and ecological objectives, and needs of the people [25].

Water pollution originating from agriculture is an important environmental issue [26]. The destructive consequences of industrial agriculture on soil health, emissions, and biodiversity have been highlighted in recent reports by international bodies, as well as the negative impacts on livelihoods and access to food. Agriculture is a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, the largest consumer of freshwater among economic sectors, and the largest cause of conversion of natural ecosystems [27].

In addition to water pollution caused by the agricultural sector, the impact of the coal industry also results in water pollution. The processing industry sector, particularly coal mining, can destroy existing vegetation, destroy wildlife and their habitat, reduce air quality, change land use, and permanently change the general topography of mining areas. Coal mining also produces methane gas, which has the potential as a greenhouse gas. Coal mining activities also have an impact on increasing the rate of soil erosion and sedimentation at river boundaries and estuaries.

The factors affecting air pollutant emissions, for example, the industrial structure, such as industrial restructuring and upgrading application of technologies, energy structure, involving energy consumption growth, and the proportion of different types of energy in total demand, transportation, and involving vehicles emission and travel behaviors. The elastic coefficient is 0.2865, 0.2465, and 0.3419, meaning that every 1% growth in coal consumption will cause 0.2865%, 0.2465%, and 0.3419% in sulfur dioxide emission, nitrogen dioxide emission, and smoke (power) dust emission, respectively [28,29,30,31].

In a particular industry, oil and gas, the exploitation and exploration could greatly degrade the environmental impacts that outweigh the benefits to the economy. Omorede (2014) found in her study that the intensive oil and gas exploration had interfered with socio-economic activities in selected communities in Delta state of Nigeria. Such activities forced the settlements to relocate, which was the result of a scarcity of resources such as fishing spots, pastures, and farmlands, resulting in the populaces living in unrest as they quarreled over limited resources [25]. Alam (2019) reported a similar result on how oil and gas activities can destroy environments. In their study of the Magurchara gas field, seismic and drilling activities were used, which caused huge environmental damage to socio-economic conditions, land use, soil fertility, air quality, surface and groundwater quality, fish and wildlife, and historical and archaeology resources, resulting from the explosions. The explosions themselves damaged about 60 hectares of natural forest, and 300 hectares of land was burnt [32]. In another study conducted by Cordes et al. (2016), the exploration activities led to ecological effects that influenced deep water species and ecosystems, and continuous activities will eventually lead to the production of contaminants in the environment. Further, the sound and light emissions resulting from the exploration activities in deep water have resulted in disturbing the marine species’ behaviors, such as, respectively, acoustic disturbance to marine mammals and visually sensitive species [33].

The production of crude oil and natural gas involves many processes. One of the main processes is gas flaring. In the study of Olao, V. (2018), he mentions that the flaring-off natural gas or associated gas is a by-product of the drilling of crude oil from reservoirs in which oil and gas are mixed. This involves releasing dangerous gases, which can directly harm the public health apart from having a negative impact on the environment such as noise and water pollution [34].

Ngene S. et al. (2016) explained in detail the negative impacts from the production of crude oil and natural gas, specifically focusing on the harmful gases produced from the production of crude oil and natural gas to the public health. There are many more harmful gasses generated from the processing of crude oil and natural gas, namely, Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), Hydrofluoric Acid (HF), Radon, and Silica, which can contribute to lung cancer and global warming [35].

After the production of crude oil and natural gas, i.e., in the transportation process, Olao, V. (2018) also mentioned the danger and risk of oil spillage. Oil spillage can be disastrous especially in a developing country such as Kenya. This was proven in the case of the Kenya incident, where oil spillage led to the death of hundreds of lives and left the environment dilapidated, as oil is highly flammable and dangerous [34].

According to the above cases, a primary sector based on exploitation of natural resources, namely the agricultural and mining sectors, is very sensitive to environmental degradation. Likewise, the secondary sectors, namely, manufacture industries, electricity and gas procurement, and construction, are also sensitive to environmental degradation. The results of Shmelev’s (2012) study of the British economy showed that there are several sectors that have small impact on the environment, namely, the health and veterinary services sector, housing, education, recreational services, insurance and pension funds, social work activities, and telecommunications [36]. These are the tertiary sectors.

Another concept of sustainability is looking at how a country is resilient towards economic crisis. Razniak, P. et al. (2017) analyzed sustainability by looking at how will a city’s world rank change in the face of crisis in its main economic sector. The study has shown that the ability of the main economic sector to resist economic crisis is largely dependent on the strength of the command-and-control function of a city in a country. The key determinant for this strength is a high globalization level of a city. The authors also mentioned the need to have more than one dominant sectors in a country in order to survive economic crisis [37]. The importance this was also stated by Razniak, P. (2020), where the authors mentioned the decline in major corporations in a sector during a recession can be an improvement to other small firms in a country [38].

However, this article examines the economic sectors that have the potential for sustainability by focusing on the three dimensions of SEG, which are Social, Economics, and Environment.

3. Methods

In accordance with the research objectives, this study focuses on 17 sectors in GDP seen from a sustainability perspective. Therefore, the first thing that needs to be clarified is the measurement of the SEG concept, namely the balance between the economic, social, and environmental dimensions. The economic dimension includes the activities of each economic sector reflected in the share of total GDP and its growth. Contribution will reflect the volume of the sector as output, which simultaneously determines the amount of environmental output. When the sector grows positively, the volume will become bigger, meaning that if the output is higher, then the environmental impact will be even greater in ceteris paribus conditions where there is no adequate environmental policy. Thus, the indicator that best represents the economic dimension is the share multiplied by the growth sector that is known as the source of growth. The bigger the sector that becomes a source of economic growth, the greater its potential for sustainability. The data analyzed for the period of 2014–2020 were obtained directly from the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics and for Brunei Darussalam, the data were obtained from the Department of Economic Planning and Development, and Ministry of Finance and Economy.

The social dimension that leads to economic justice is the distribution of income among population. Since the focus of this study is on 17 economic sectors in GDP, then the social dimension is approached by employment opportunities in each economic sector. Logically, each growing sector will add new jobs that provide opportunities to increase the number of working people and income. Notably, the growth in employment opportunities is not always proportional to economic growth. In this context, employment elasticity can be the right measure to represent social dimension. The coefficient of employment elasticity is a number that shows the percentage of the total number of workers needed or requested for a percentage change in the amount of output in each sector. The labor needs model assumes that there is a functional relationship between processes and labor needs. A number of workers and with a certain level of quality is needed to carry out the production process to produce a certain amount of output.

Employment elasticity is to find out how much the ability of each sector (tertiary sector, primary sector, and secondary sector) provides employment opportunities that can be formulated as follows:

(1)$E=\frac{Growth Rate of Employment Opportunities \left(i sector\right)}{\mathrm{GDP} Growth Rate \left(i sector\right)}$

• E > 1: employment opportunities are said to be elastic; this means that the percentage increase or decrease in the amount of labor demanded as a result of changes in wages is greater than the percentage change in the wage of labor. Every change in the output of 1 percent will result in a change in employment that is greater than 1 percent.

• E = 1: employment opportunities are said to be elastic neutral (unitary elasticity), meaning the percentage change in the amount of labor absorbed due to changes in wages is equal to the percentage change in wages. The percentage change in output is as large as the percentage change in employment opportunity.

• E < 1: employment opportunities are said to be inelastic, which means that the percentage change in the amount of labor demanded as a result of wage changes is smaller than the percentage change in wages. Every change in output of 1 percent will result in a change in employment opportunities of less than 1 percent.

The more elastic the employment elasticity, the greater the opportunity to work, meaning the greater the potential for sustainability. The data analyzed for the period of 2014–2020 were obtained directly from the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics and for Brunei Darussalam, the data were obtained from the Department of Economic Planning and Development, and Ministry of Finance and Economy.

Environmental dimension is the impact of sectoral economic activities that cause environmental degradation in the form of water, air, and soil pollution, critical land area, deforestation, decreased biodiversity, coastal abrasion, etc. It is not easy to obtain data that show environmental degradation that is directly caused by the activities of each economic sector, unless it uses the Environmental Input Output Table. This study does not use the Environmental IO Table because the table is limited to only linking GDP in the economic sector with environmental output, and does not accommodate the social dimension.

The physical environmental impact on sectoral economic characteristics was described by using the availability of secondary data. Each sector was classified into very sensitive sectors where the type and amount of environmental degradation it causes was relatively greater. It is a sensitive category if the type and amount of environmental degradation it causes is less than the very sensitive category, and it is a less sensitive category if the type and amount of environmental degradation it causes is relatively less than the sensitive one.

Based on these three dimensions above, all data are processed using a multi-factor evaluation process method with the following steps:

• Using environmental, economic, and social dimensions as its factors for each economic sector.

• The economic dimension uses source of economic growth. The data on growth and distribution of GDP by sector were used; where the source of economic growth is growth multiplied by share. The data used are the trend of figures for the period of 2015–2020. The steps taken are to obtain a trend of normal conditions until 2019, and a trend of abnormal conditions until 2020, then take the average of both trends. Three clusters are made to give points for the average number.

• The social dimension uses employment elasticity; thus, the data employed were the number of job opportunities or people working in each sector, in which the growth is calculated and a ratio of economic growth is made to obtain the employment elasticity.

• For the environmental dimension, the impact of each economic sector on environmental degradation can be very sensitive, sensitive, or less sensitive depending on the characteristics of the sectoral economy and the availability of secondary data.

• A matrix is created where rows contain economic sectors and columns contain factors of economic, social, and environmental dimensions.

• We fill all cells of economic sectors in this matrix with the average trend of source of economic growth: score 3 is given for sources in the highest range, score 2 for sources in the moderate range, and score 1 for sources in the lowest range. Whereas, for employment elasticity, score 3 means the sector tends to be elastic, score 2 means it tends to be inelastic, and score 1 means it tends to decline. Lastly, for the physical impact on environment: score 3 is given if the sector is less sensitive to environmental degradation, score 2 if it is sensitive, and score 1 if it is very sensitive.

• The weight for each dimension is determined with the consideration that the three dimensions are equally important, the weight is balanced, 1 divided by 3.

• The score numbers are multiplied by weights, then ranked.

4. Result and Discussion

4.1. SEG in Indonesia

The economic dimension includes the activities of each economic sector reflected in the share of total GDP and its growth. Share and growth reflect the volume of activity, the added value created, and the resulting environmental output. The distribution of Indonesia’s GDP and its growth during the 2015–2020 period is presented in Table 1.

An interesting pattern occurs in the primary sector, namely Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery as the second dominant sector in Indonesia’s economic structure, where it tends to decline even though its growth during 2016–2018 continued to increase. When an economic crisis hit as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, this sector continued to grow positively, so even though it was low amid the contraction of most other sectors, its share still increased in 2020. The phenomenon of positive growth in the last five years shows the ability of this sector to survive in various conditions, including the issue of climate change.

Meanwhile, for the most dominant sector, namely, manufacturing, the condition is rather concerning because it continues to slow down so that the share has decreased from 2015 to 2019. The industrialization process that is expected to increase the added value of the economy, mastery of technology, employment opportunities, and upgrade the status to a high-income country, seems to be constrained by a number of things. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, this sector experienced a sharp contraction of minus 2.93%.

As the second most dominant, the trade sector also experienced the same thing where in the last three years it had a slowdown and had an even bigger contraction compared to the manufacturing sector amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The Information and Communication Sector, the Human Health Sector, and Social Work Activities Sector, are sectors that have consistently grown positively with an increasing trend, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Accommodation and Food Service Activities Sector, which is directly related to tourism activities, before the COVID-19 pandemic, was a sector whose growth tended to increase, but it experienced the deepest contraction in 2020 so that its share fell quite significantly.

For the sake of reflecting the performance of the economic dimension, it is necessary to combine share and growth, to be precise, the share is multiplied by the growth, this shows the source of growth in each sector towards real GDP growth. The COVID-19 pandemic can correct the trend of sources of growth in these sectors. Score 3 for sources in the range of 0.24–0.39, which means the sectors have great potential for sustainability from an economic point of view; score 2 for sources in the range of 0.08–0.23, which means the sectors have sufficient potential for sustainability; and score 1 for sources in the range of −0.08 to 0.07, which means the sectors have less potential for sustainability.

From the social dimension, the indicator used is Employment Elasticity (EE). The Table 2 below presents the Employment Elasticity (EE).

Based on the results of EE calculations, there are different sectoral patterns. A positive EE value of a sector can mean two things, namely a positive growth followed by an increase in the working population or a contraction followed by a decrease in the working population. Meanwhile, a negative EE value indicates that the sector is growing positively, but the population working in this sector is decreasing or contracting, but the population working in this sector increases. These four types of EE occur in economic sectors in Indonesia.

The EE value for the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery sector in the last 4 years has fluctuated. A negative EE number indicates that the agricultural sector is growing positively but the population working is decreasing, and a positive EE number reflects positive growth followed by an increase in the number of people working in this sector. In 2020, the EE figure was very elastic, where this sector only grew 1.75%, but the growth in the working population reached 7.84%. This means that the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery Sector was a very reliable labor-absorbing sector in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. This fact strengthens the economic dimension that this sector has great potential for sustainability.

It is interesting that manufacturing sector during the 2017–2019 period had a positive EE figure but tended to decrease from elastic to inelastic, indicating that every growth in this sector increases the number of working people but with a lower trend. Only in 2020 did this sector obtain a positive EE number due to a contraction of minus 2.93% followed by a decrease in the number of working people by 8.93%. Compared to the agricultural sector, the manufacturing sector is more stable where each growth increases employment opportunities. However, when there is a contraction, it will automatically reduce the number of people working in this sector. Seeing the relatively high trend of source of growth, there is a big opportunity that this sector in the future will grow positively again and absorb new workers. From a social dimension, this means that the manufacturing sector has great potential for sustainability.

Even more interesting is the Wholesale and Retail Trade sector; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles. The EE figure for this sector is inelastic, in which every one percent growth adds employment opportunities below one percent. However, for 2020, in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic, when this sector contracted by minus 3.72%, employment opportunities actually increased by 2.24%. It seems that additional workers occurred in the informal retail trade sector. Thus, this sector can be relied on to increase job opportunities.

The Accommodation and Food Service Activities sector had a stable and elastic EE rate before the COVID-19 pandemic. This sector was still doing well when it experienced a contraction of minus 10.22% in the midst of pandemic with the number of working people down by 0.23%, which is very inelastic. This indicates that from a social dimension, this sector has great potential for sustainability. Meanwhile, other sectors tend to be inelastic. There are fantastic figures for the Public Administration and Defense sector; Compulsory Social Security in 2020, which had a relatively low contraction of minus 0.03%, but experiences a decrease in job opportunities by 7.68%. Based on this EE condition, there are three cluster categories: tend to be elastic with a score of three, tend to be inelastic with a score of two, and tend to decline with a score of one.

For the environmental dimension, the indicators used are environmental output as a by-product resulting from sectoral economic activity with data obtained from research by other parties. Mansur’s research results, using the Input Output Table, found that the agricultural sector has the highest intensity in producing environmental commodity waste/output. Regardless of the type of pollution, the agricultural sector produces pollution of 8.2 kg per one million rupiah of output [39]. Although the results of Mansur’s research are quite old, they can still be used in this study to describe the impact of the sectoral economy on the environment, since what is seen is a hierarchy of environmental degradation.

The total accumulated environmental output of the entire manufacturing industry reaches 9.4307 kg per one million rupiah of output. Meanwhile, the service sector that spreads out into 10 types of tertiary sectors, on average, reaches 0.02538 kg per one million rupiah of output. For environmental output, it seems that to simply apply an indicator of pollution intensity to the mining sector is not sufficient, since this sector can cause deforestation and reduce land cover.

Mansur’s research data can be strengthened by the connection between economic structure with the Environmental Quality Index, which includes the Water Quality Index, the Air Quality Index, and the Land Cover Quality Index. The structure of Indonesian economy, which is dominated by the manufacturing industry and the agricultural sector, has a lower water quality index compared to the air quality index. The fact is that the dominant economic activities of the two sectors still cause environmental degradation, especially water pollution.

Based on this information, it can be stated that the agricultural sector and the manufacturing sector are very sensitive to environmental degradation, so that for the purpose of calculating by using the MFEP (Multi Factor Evaluation Process) tool, it is given a score of one. Meanwhile, for the construction sector, which does not yet have enough environmental output, the Land Cover Quality Index is used. This is based on data where a number of provinces in Indonesia that have relatively high construction activities have lower land cover. In the Environmental Quality Index, the Land Cover Quality Index is still better than the Water Quality Index so that it can be categorized as sensitive and given a score of two. Likewise, for the mining sector, although pollution intensity is relatively low, the land cover quality index is low. Another sector that has no environmental output load is the Water supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and Remediation Activities sector. This sector is directly related to waste management, so it is assumed to be less sensitive to pollution, and thus given a score of three, the same as for the other service sectors.

All service sectors generate the lowest environmental output compared to the primary and secondary sectors, and are thus given a score of three, which means they are less sensitive to environmental degradation.

Based on the three SEG dimensions, a measure of the sustainability of the economic sectors in Indonesia can be presented as shown in the Table 3 below.

By using the MFEP tool, the results show that the sectors with the highest scores are the Information and Communication sector and the Business Activities sector. The Information and Communication sector consists of several industries, namely, Publishing, moving images, Video, Sound Recording and Music Publishing, Broadcasting and Programming (Radio and Television), Telecommunications, Programming, Consulting Computer, and Information Technology. Meanwhile, the sector of Business Activities covers professional activities, science, and engineering, which require high levels of training and generate knowledge and skills available to users.

These two sectors have the greatest potential for sustainability. Even though the Information and Communication sector has an inelastic tendency to absorb labor, it is a relatively high potential source of growth and a relatively low impact on the physical environment. The inelasticity of employment opportunities is very reasonable since this sector is capital intensive and full of knowledge, creativity, and innovation. The scope of its activities is largely part of the creative economy. Entering the industrial revolution 4.0, there are digitization and the massive use of Internet, especially in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic; thus, it is very natural for this sector to grow high and can be a reliable source of growth. Meanwhile, the business activity sector, which shows the activities of professional workers, tends to be elastic in absorbing labor, has a relatively low physical impact on the environment, but has not yet become a source of growth as large as the Information and Communication sector.

If these two sectors continue to be encouraged to grow, they can shift the structure of the Indonesian economy from being based on extractive sectors to become a knowledge-based economy. This is the foundation for Indonesia’s Vision 2045 ‘Sovereign, Advanced, Fair, and Prosperous’, which relies heavily on knowledge-based development and innovation. According to Lave, L. B. (1998), balance between the three dimensions is a crucial requirement to secure good quality of life for future generations. Hence, these sectors have these balances, which result in their having the greatest potential for sustainability

The Mining and Quarrying sector and the Water supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and Remediation Activities sector are sectors that lack the potential for sustainability. From the assessment of the three dimensions of sustainability, the score obtained is very low.

Other sectors including the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery sectors, and the Manufacturing sector as the dominant sector in Indonesia’s GDP, are categorized as having sufficient potential for sustainability. Judging from the economic and social dimensions, in fact, the two sectors have great potential, and from the environmental dimension, they are very sensitive to cause environmental degradation. The Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery sector is an extractive sector, and the Manufacturing sector causes a lot of waste and pollution, especially water and air pollution. This was consistent, as mentioned by Omerede, C. (2014), Hanson, C. (2015), Olao, V. (2018), and Ngene S. et al. (2016), where the primary sectors, namely, the agriculture and mining sectors, which are mainly based on exploitation of natural resources are very sensitive to environmental degradation. Although these sectors have sufficient potential to achieve sustainability, in order to achieve a greater chance of sustainability, it is crucial to heavily enforce the regulations to control the environmental impact from these sectors to lessen the negative impact.

4.2. SEG in NBD

The activities of each economic sector are reflected in the share of total GDP and its growth as presented in Table 4. The Brunei Darussalam’s economy is still dominated by the mining and quarrying sector, which mainly consist of oil and gas production. This sector contributed 45% of GDP in 2015, but gradually decreased by 5% until it reached 40.6% in 2020. This reduction was due to the decrease in global petroleum price and its production in Brunei over the past 5 years, as is reflected in Table 2. The growth rate of this sector was at −1.17% in year 2015, down to −6.04% in year 2020 (average growth rate was −2.18%).

Another two sectors that contributed more than 10% in 2020 were manufacturing (20%) and public administration and defense (11%). The manufacturing sector increased, especially, in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic. Local productions increased due to difficulties to bring in imported products into Brunei Darussalam. In fact, the Manufacturing sector grew at 22.5% in year 2020, which was the highest growth rate among other sectors.

While, public administration and defense, the third largest sector, was gradually declining over the last five years (2015–2020) due to a deficit in the government budget as an effect of the global price decline on oil and gas.

The Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery sector contributed only around 1% to GDP; however, this sector is seen as potential for economic diversification as its growth rate was one of the top three. Although the growth rate since 2015 was negative, a sudden increase become positive 10.4% in year 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic phenomenon in year 2020 has proven that the primary resource sectors in this country have the capability to grow in the future. Current government policies encourage production for food security and foreign direct investment in the primary resources sectors. This is in line with Brunei Darussalam’s Vision 2035 to achieve economic sustainability. Government also emphasizes the importance of waste and pollution management, especially water and air pollution in every sector.

Information and Communication’s contribution to GDP was 1.51% in 2015 and it increased to 1.74% in 2020. This small contribution grew at 14.5% in year 2020. It dramatically increased during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the use of the Internet for online education, business, work, and even social contact. On the other hand, Accommodation and Food Service activities experienced a contrasting direction of growth. It declined to −7.62% during the pandemic in year 2020.

Water supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and Remediation activities contribution to GDP, showing an increasing figure, but the growth rates were unstable. As many restaurants and catering services slowed down during COVID-19 in year 2020, the growth rate also reduced. The effect on pollution may also have reduced. Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles sector has shown a steady increase. The encouragement given to spend within the country gave a positive impact to this sector.

The social dimension’s indicator; Employment Elasticity (EE), has shown different sectoral patterns. A positive EE, which means positive growth followed by an increase in the working population or a contraction followed by a decrease in the working population. Meanwhile, a negative EE value indicates that the sector is growing positively, but the population working in this sector is decreasing and, on the other hand, when the sector’s growth is decreasing, the population working in this sector increases.

The EE for the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery sector has a positive EE, which reflects positive growth followed by an increase in the number of people working in this primary resource sector except for one year in 2017. A negative EE in 2017 indicates that the agricultural sector is growing positively but the population working is decreasing. Perhaps it was due to capital intensive measures that were applied that year. However, the year 2018 shows an interesting change in that the EE changed from inelastic to become very elastic. This fact strengthens the economic dimension that this sector has great potential for sustainability.

While the EE of the manufacturing sector during the 2016–2019 period was very elastic except for the year 2017. The working population in the sector tended to increase from year to year; however, there was a drop in GDP growth in year 2016 and 2018 by minus 0.61% and minus 0.59%, respectively, resulting in negative EE with contraction of minus 8.49 and minus 6.48 in the respective years. This sector also has great potential to sustain from social dimension, that is, through an increase in the working population.

Even more interesting are the Wholesale and Retail Trade sector; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles. The EE figure for this sector is inelastic, except for year 2017 and 2018. This sector also has a possibility to sustain due to pandemic situation in which there was potentially an increase in domestic consumption within the nation due to closed international borders; hence, GDP growth tended to sustain.

The Accommodation and Food Service Activities sector had a positive EE throughout the years where it started with an elastic EE that tended to become inelastic. In 2016, both employment opportunities and GDP growth were negative figures of minus 2.2% and minus 1.63%, respectively, hence resulting in positive EE of 1.35. In addition, from 2017 to 2019, both job opportunities and GDP growth were concurrently increasing. However, there is a presumption that this sector did not perform well due to the pandemic situation where the GDP growth plummeted due to a sharp drop in numbers of international tourists to Brunei.

The Information and Communication sector has an elastic EE that tended to increase, except in year 2016 where its EE was inelastic. In 2017, this sector had a negative EE due to a decrease in job opportunities by minus 6.51%; although, its GDP grew by 0.9%. In 2018, the EE was very elastic at 14.53 and further become bigger at 21.71. This sector will experience sustained growth as the nation diverted to and adopted technological usage in daily life especially during the COVID-19 pandemic in year 2020. Further, there is a tendency where the government will heavily invest in this sector as moving towards IR 4.0.

For the environmental dimension in Brunei Darussalam, there are no data available to show the environmental output as a by-product resulting from sectoral activity. However, the main concern in Brunei does involves Green House Gasses (GHG) emissions. As of 2018, agriculture and other land-use sectors have emitted 1.4%, industrial processes 3.8%, manufacturing and construction 4.1%, power generation 55.9%, and fugitive emissions 18.1%, land transport 13.6%, Wholesale and Retail Trade 2.2%, and residential 0.9% [40].

There is no specific legislation to control air emissions from industries in Brunei Darussalam at the moment. Enforcement activities mostly rely on the administrative orders and code of practice as well as the goodwill of the management. Consistent with Government policies, Brunei Shell has formulated its own Environmental Management Plan. The plan cover practices, procedures, and standards pertaining to management of environmental quality including air quality.

In spite of its abundant forests, Brunei has the 15th highest per capita emission of carbon dioxide in the world. In terms of its carbon dioxide emissions by source; out of this, 55% is from gaseous fuel, 28% from liquid fuel, and 13% from gas flaring.

The Brunei Times has reported that supermarkets in Brunei Darussalam sent their rotten foods and vegetables to landfill. The most commonly used one is Sungai Paku Landfill, which is expected to be full by 2025 if there are no proper recycling mechanisms conducted. Supermarkets in Brunei generated up to BND 1000 worth of rotten food, including fruits, in a month, including imports from other countries. Hua Ho, one of the biggest supermarkets in Brunei throws away 2 to 3 kg of rotten fruits and vegetables every 2 days, which is 45 kg of waste per months.

It can be concluded that Brunei Darussalam’s main environmental concern is climate change resulting from the GHG emissions. The GHG emissions by sectors, mainly from the Energy sector, manufacturing sector, construction sector, oil and gas sector, transport and storage sector, wholesale and retail trade sector, real estate and ownership of dwellings sector, as well as agricultural sector, in total has emitted 91.2 percent of Carbon Dioxide, 8.4 percent of Methane Gas, and 0.4 percent of Nitrous Oxide of the total GHG. Although Brunei has maintained 72 percent forest cover, which contributed to carbon sinks of 11.4 Mt CO₂e.

Due to this, Brunei has taken measures in order to minimize the impacts of climate changes by reducing GHG to progress towards a sustainable Brunei Darussalam in 2035. According to Brunei Darussalam National Climate Change Policy (BNCCP2020), there are ten key strategies that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions to more than 50 percent compared to Business-As-Usual (BAU) Scenario; in addition, about 80 percent of the 2035 GHG emissions can be absorbed through a natural sink by Brunei’s forest, assuming Brunei forest covers is maintained at 72 percent [41].

Based on the earlier discussion of this article, it was stated that the agricultural and manufacturing sectors are very sensitive to environmental degradation, so that for the purposes of calculating by using the MFEP (Multi Factor Evaluation Process) tool, it is given a score of one. Meanwhile, the construction sectors can be categorized as sensitive and given a score of two. Likewise, for the mining sector, although pollution intensity is relatively low, the land cover quality index is low. Another sector that has no environmental output load is the Water supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and Remediation Activities sector. This sector is directly related to waste management, so it is assumed to be less sensitive to pollution, and thus given a score of three, the same as for all the other services sectors.

The SEG Dimensions of Brunei Darussalam are shown in the Table 5, based on the above findings. The scoring for EE is shown using three cluster categories; tend to be elastic with a score of three, tend to be inelastic with a score of two, and tend to decline with a score of one.

The SEG Dimension Table 6 was developed by using the MFEP tool. The results showed there are three sectors with the highest score with an average score of 2.33 (out of 3.00), namely, Information and Communication, Business Activities and Human Health and Social Work Activities. These three sectors have the highest potential for sustainability. Although all three sectors have the score of one for its trend source of growth, all three sectors also have an elastic tendency to absorb labor as well as having a relatively low physical impact on the environment. One of the main reasons for its low trend source of growth is because of the Mining and Quarrying and Manufacturing sectors, which are the dominant sectors in Brunei Darussalam’s GDP.

In addition, all three sectors’ activities are growing in Brunei Darussalam. For Information and Communication, it has elastic tendency in absorbing the labor force, while the effect to environment is small. Consistent with the results of Shmelev’s (2012), who mentioned that the tertiary sectors, including these three sectors, are the sectors that have a small impact on the environment. During pandemic COVID-19, almost all other sectors were dependent on this Information and communication sector. It is predicted that this sector will continue to be an important sector contributing to sustainability. This is consistent according to Razniak, P. (2019), where, during the economic downturn due to COVID-19 pandemic, it improved smaller firms such as businesses that support information and communication and which became one of the main focus areas to help the economy. This includes the Human Health and Social Work Activities Sectors, which is necessary during these difficult times. Furthermore, in year 2020, the Ministry of Finance issued the Economic Blueprint for Brunei Darussalam Toward a Dynamic and Sustainable Economy and announced the government policy on the Fourth Industrial Revolution as one of enablers.

Meanwhile, the Business Activities sector is also growing, as many business opportunities are rising during the pandemic in Brunei Darussalam, which also contributed to the increasing demand for local products; this resulted in reducing imported goods as well as helping to diversify the economy. This is aligned with the Goal number 3 of Brunei 2035 Vision. As for the Human Health and Social Work Activities sector, this sector will continue to grow as it is always needed, and this is reasonable especially in the current pandemic situation.

Being the dominant sector, the Manufacturing sector has a score of 2.00 (out of 3.00), which shows a sufficient potential for sustainability. However, although it has a high score for the trend source of growth, it also has the tendency to be inelastic to absorb labor, and very sensitive to the environment as it contributed to the 4.1% of GHG emissions.

Another dominant sector, the oil and gas sector in the Mining category, includes the manufacturing of oil and gas-based industry; therefore having a part in contributing to the GHG emissions of 4.1%. Their potential for sustainability is low due to the EE tending to decrease. This category is followed by these sectors, namely, Construction; Transportation and Storage; Public Administration and Defense; and Compulsory Social Security, which all lack the potential for sustainability, having the lowest average score of 1.33 (out of 3.00) from the assessment of the three dimensions of sustainability.

On the other hand, the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery sector, has high potential for sustainability; although, it has a low score for the trend of source of growth. The high potential is based on the employment elasticity score, which was stable and tended to be elastic; and the environment score, which was less sensitive compared to the Manufacturing Sector. This was also the same case for the Real Estate Activities sector. Although the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery sector had a less sensitive score to the environmental degradation than the Manufacturing sector, it can be argued about its dominance in Brunei’s economy where it only contributed to 1% of the total GDP. However, this sector is one of the main focuses of Brunei Vision 2035; thus, it will continue to grow, subsequently the environmental degradation will also grow. To avoid this, there is a need to focus on how to control the negative impact at an early stage in order to maintain its high potential to achieve sustainability.

Other sectors, such as the Financial and Insurance Activities; Education and Other Services Activities also shares the same score as the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery sector. However, unlike the Agriculture sector, these sectors’ employment elasticities tend to be inelastic in absorbing labor. Therefore, it can be said that they have a low potential for sustainability.

5. Conclusions

There are two sectors that have the same great potential for achieving sustainability in both countries, i.e., Information and Communication Sector and Business Activities Sector. Information and Communication sector consists of several industries, namely, Publishing, moving image, Video, Sound Recording and Music Publishing, Broadcasting and Programming (Radio and Television), Telecommunications, Programming, Consulting Computer, and Information Technology. Meanwhile, the sector of Business Activities covers professional activities, science, and engineering that require high levels of training and generate knowledge and skills available to users.

The growth in these two sectors tend to increase; the addition of labor is greater than the increase in output, and they have a relatively limited environmental impact. However, this sector is a support for higher productivity in the real sectors. The tradable sectors, which are the main drivers of the economy in producing various products of basic human needs, are the agricultural sector and the processing industries. The results of calculations using the MFEP method of these two sectors have the second highest score, because both of them have a tendency to be a source of economic growth, and tend to be elastic in absorbing labor; however, the environmental impact it causes is relatively high.

The agricultural sector is synonymous with natural exploitation, and manufacturing produces the largest amount of waste, especially in the food processing and textile industries. The choice is to switch to a processing industry that has high value and does not produce pollution. The most appropriate choice is regulatory enforcement so that producers can implement sustainable production practices. To achieve sustainability, these two sectors must apply agricultural and processing practices that pay attention to the environment.

These research findings show the potential of sectors for SEG in the long term. There were plentiful findings by looking into the three dimensions specifically for Brunei and Indonesia; however, due to the limited time and difficulties in communications during the COVID-19 pandemic, this research was unable to conduct Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with the experts within both countries.

Further studies can be conducted in the future with the same approach to find the potential sectors for SEG in other countries, individually, as well as comparison between countries that have the same or different characteristics. Differences between different regions can also be studied. In addition, future studies should include FGDs as one of its main methods to cover various stakeholders including the policy makers as well as the regulators.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R.D. and R.A.; Data curation, A.R.H. and F.M.; Formal analysis, A.R.D. and A.R.H.; Funding acquisition, A.R.D. and R.A.; Investigation, A.R.H. and F.M.; Methodology, A.R.D. and A.R.H.; Project administration, A.R.D. and R.A.; Software, A.R.H.; Supervision, A.R.D. and R.A.; Validation, A.R.D.; Visualization, R.A. and F.M.; Writing—original draft, A.R.H.; Writing—review & editing, R.A. and F.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from internal research institute and community service Universitas Islam Bandung and Universiti Islam Sultan Sharif Ali.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Tables

Table 1

GDP Distribution and Economic Sectors Growth in Indonesia for 2015–2020.

Economic Sectors	GDP Distribution in Indonesia(%)/Year						Economic Sectors Growth Indonesia(%)/Year
	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery	13.49	13.48	13.15	12.81	12.71	13.70	3.37	3.87	3.91	3.08	1.75
Mining and Quarrying	7.65	7.18	7.58	8.08	7.26	6.44	0.95	0.66	2.16	1.94	−1.95
Manufacturing	20.99	20.5	20.16	19.86	19.71	19.88	4.26	4.29	4.27	4.15	−2.93
Electricity and Gas	1.13	1.15	1.19	1.19	1.17	1.16	5.39	1.54	5.47	3.75	−2.34
Water supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and Remediation Activities	0.07	0.07	0.07	0.07	0.07	0.07	−2.7	15.54	0.94	2.58	4.94
Construction	10.21	10.4	10.38	10.53	10.75	10.71	5.22	6.8	6.09	5.65	−3.26
Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles	13.3	13.2	13.02	13.02	13.01	12.93	4.03	4.46	4.97	4.75	−3.72
Transportation and Storage	5.02	5.2	5.41	5.38	5.57	4.47	7.45	8.49	7.01	6.63	−15
Accommodation and Food Service Activities	2.96	2.93	2.85	2.78	2.78	2.55	5.17	5.39	5.66	5.36	−10.2
Information and Communication	3.52	3.62	3.78	3.77	3.96	4.51	8.88	9.63	7.04	9.15	10.58
Financial and Insurance Activities	4.03	4.19	4.2	4.15	4.24	4.51	8.93	5.47	4.17	6.15	3.25
Real Estate Activities	2.84	2.83	2.81	2.73	2.78	2.94	4.69	3.66	3.58	5.99	2.32
Business Activities	1.65	1.71	1.75	1.8	1.92	1.91	7.36	8.44	8.64	10.22	−5.44
Public Administration and Defense; Compulsory Social Security	3.9	3.84	3.67	3.65	3.61	3.76	3.2	2.06	7.02	1.86	−0.03
Education	3.36	3.37	3.28	3.25	3.3	3.56	3.84	3.7	5.36	7.83	2.63
Human Health and Social Work Activities	1.07	1.07	1.06	1.06	1.1	1.3	5.16	6.84	7.13	9.19	11.6
Other Services Activities	1.65	1.7	1.76	1.81	1.95	1.96	8.01	8.73	8.99	10.72	−4.1

Source: Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics.

Table 2

Employment Elasticity in Indonesia for 2015–2020.

Economic Sectors	Employment Elasticity
	2017	2018	2019	2020
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery	−1.27	0.47	−0.86	4.48
Mining and Quarrying	−8.30	3.02	−2.23	2.87
Manufacturing	2.47	1.32	0.94	3.06
Electricity and Gas	12.99	2.44	1.46	7.12
Water supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and Remediation Activities	4.56	3.07	0.61	−0.40
Construction	0.30	0.67	0.45	2.16
Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles	0.96	0.89	0.65	−0.60
Transportation and Storage	0.21	1.21	0.48	0.08
Accommodation and Food Service Activities	1.93	2.22	1.76	0.02
Information and Communication	1.99	1.58	0.24	0.10
Financial and Insurance Activities	−0.11	1.39	−0.33	−3.80
Real Estate Activities	−3.90	8.62	0.45	−1.08
Business Activities	1.91	0.14	1.51	1.33
Public Administration and Defense; Compulsory Social Security	−3.90	0.60	0.81	255.89
Education	−0.49	0.63	0.64	−2.31
Human Health and Social Work Activities	0.25	0.79	0.61	0.13
Other Services Activities	2.27	0.19	0.43	−0.15

Source: Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics.

Table 3

Sustainability of the Economic Sectors in Indonesia.

Economic Sector	Trend of Source of Growth	Score	Employment Elasticity	Score	Environmental Impact	Score
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery	0.33	3	Fluctuates and tend to be elastic	3	8.3946	1
Mining and Quarrying	0.08	2	Fluctuates and tend to decrease	1	To be proxied by the index of land cover quality	2
Manufacturing	0.24	3	Stable and tend to be elastic	3	9.4307	1
Electricity and Gas	0.02	1	Stable and elastic	3	0.0628	3
Water supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and Remediation Activities	0.00	1	Stable and tend to decrease	1	It is assumed to be similar with service sector	3
Construction	0.26	3	Inelastic	2	To be proxied by the index of land cover quality	2
Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles	0.23	2	Inelastic but tend to increase	2	0.02538	3
Transportation and Storage	−0.06	1	Inelastic	2	0.0809	3
Accommodation and Food Service Activities	−0.01	1	Stable and elastic	3	0.02538	3
Information and Communication	0.39	3	Tend to be inelastic	2	0.02538	3
Financial and Insurance Activities	0.13	2	Fluctuates and tend to decrease	1	0.02538	3
Real Estate Activities	0.12	2	Fluctuates and tend to decrease	1	0.02538	3
Business Activities	0.10	2	Fluctuates and tend to be elastic	3	0.02538	3
Public Administration and Defense; Compulsory Social Security	0.08	2	Fluctuates and tend to be inelastic	2	0.02538	3
Education	0.23	2	Fluctuates and tend to be inelastic	2	0.02538	3
Human Health and Social Work Activities	0.13	2	Inelastic	2	0.02538	3
Other Services Activities	0.11	2	Inelastic	2	0.02538	3

Source: Processed data.

Table 4

GDP Distribution and Economic Sectors Growth in Brunei Darussalam for 2015–2020.

Economic Sectors	GDP Distribution(%)/Year						Economic Sectors Growth(%)/Year
	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery	0.85	0.84	0.82	0.81	0.77	0.85	−3.59	−1.57	−1.6	−1.42	11.76
Mining and Quarrying	45.41	44.88	43.65	43.24	43.23	40.62	−3.6	−1.44	−0.9	3.86	−4.91
Manufacturing	14.7	14.55	16.12	16.01	16.32	19.99	−0.61	9.05	−0.59	5.88	23.95
Electricity and Gas	0.82	0.88	0.9	1.01	1.01	0.97	4.72	3.57	11.92	4.11	−2.18
Water supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and Remediation Activities
Construction	2.44	2.34	2.53	2.68	2.56	2.61	−6.64	9.33	6.03	−0.51	3.18
Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles	4.97	4.92	4.89	5	5.17	5.25	−3.48	0.68	2.26	7.32	2.8
Transportation and Storage	6.94	6.76	6.78	6.88	7.09	6.74	−5.07	1.75	1.53	7.01	−21.6
Accommodation and Food Service Activities	0.96	0.96	0.98	1.02	1.05	0.97	−1.63	3.37	3.81	7.14	−6.56
Information and Communication	1.51	1.6	1.6	1.58	1.52	1.74	3.48	0.9	−1.12	0.14	15.92
Financial and Insurance Activities	4.89	5.48	5.48	5.12	5.28	5.07	9.25	1.46	−6.66	7.16	−2.79
Real Estate Activities	3.76	3.93	3.98	4.07	4.02	4.07	1.89	2.7	2.37	2.58	2.47
Business Activities	2.38	2.13	2.15	2.18	2.01	2.09	−4.4	0.31	2.31	1.45	5.02
Public Administration and Defence; Compulsory Social Security	11.48	11.45	11.48	11.86	11.56	10.97	−2.73	1.56	3.37	1.23	−3.91
Education	3.35	3.27	3.04	3.04	3.03	2.76	−4.75	−5.99	−0.02	3.58	−7.9
Human Health and Social Work Activities	1.42	1.42	1.42	1.46	1.51	1.53	−2.46	1.4	2.41	7.39	2.85
Other Services Activities	0.56	0.53	0.53	0.51	0.5	0.46	−7.78	2.19	−4.56	1.5	−5.47

Source: Gross Domestic Product 2015–2020. Department of Economic Planning and Statistics, and Ministry of Finance and Economy, Brunei Darussalam.

Table 5

Employment Elasticity in Brunei for 2016–2019.

Economic Sector	Employment Elasticity in Brunei
	2016	2017	2018	2019
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery	0.59	−0.47	7.6	1.91
Mining and Quarrying	−0.96	0.94	5.13	0.27
Manufacturing	−8.49	0.64	−6.58	1.87
Electricity and Gas	−4.75	1.54	3.68	9.14
Water supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and Remediation Activities
Construction	1.3	−0.72	−2.79	−10.73
Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles	0.09	2.19	−1.55	0.16
Transportation and Storage	−0.13	−2.35	6.49	−0.2
Accommodation and Food Service Activities	1.35	0.87	0.2	0.74
Information and Communication	0.01	−7.23	14.53	21.71
Financial and Insurance Activities	0.21	0.66	0.74	0.3
Real Estate Activities	−1.7	−0.54	4.97	1.79
* Professional, Technical, Administrative and Support Service Sectors	−0.17	2.52	−1.48	3.63
** Public Administration and Defense; Compulsory Social Security	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Education	1.13	−0.05	−811.5	0.43
Human Health and Social Work Activities	−1.2	−2.67	16.22	1.09
Other Services Activities	−2.38	2.05	−0.12	0.33

Source: Annual Census of Enterprises (ACE) 2017 and 2019. Department of Economic Planning and Statistics, and Ministry of Finance and Economy, Brunei Darussalam [40,42,43,]. Note: (1) * Data on Business Activities are not available (N/A) and change to Professional, Technical, Administrative, and Support Service Sectors instead. (2) ** ACE only reported data on entrepreneurs and employees working in private sectors. Information on Public Administration Activities is therefore excluded and not available.

Table 6

Sustainability of the Economic Sectors in Brunei.

Economic Sector	Trend of Source of Growth	Score	Employment Elasticity	Score	* Environmental impact	Score	Avg.
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery	0.04	1	Stable and tend to be elastic	3	Contributed to GHG emission of 1.4%	2	2.00
Mining and Quarrying	1.08	2	Stable and tend to decrease	1	This sector directly involved in the manufacturing of oil and gas in Brunei. Therefore, it also has a part in contributing to the GHG emission of 4.1%	1	1.33
Manufacturing	2.57	3	Fluctuates and tend to be inelastic	2	This sector (manufacturing and construction) has emitted 4.1% of GHG	1	2.00
Electricity and Gas and Water supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and Remediation Activities	0.04	1	Increasing and tend to be elastic	3	This sector (power generation) has emitted 55.9% of GHG and (fugitive emissions) 18.1% of GHG	1	1.67
Construction	0.14	1	Inelastic	1	This sector (manufacturing and construction) has emitted 4.1% of GHG	2	1.33
Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles	0.46	1	Fluctuates and tend to be inelastic	2	This sector (waste) has emitted 2.2% of GHG	2	1.67
Transportation and Storage	−0.02	1	Fluctuates and tend to be inelastic	2	This sector (land transport) has emitted 13.6% of GHG	1	1.33
Accommodation and Food Service Activities	0.05	1	Stable and tend to be inelastic	2	This sector (waste) has emitted 2.2% of GHG	2	1.67
Information and Communication	0.08	1	Fluctuates and tend to be elastic	3	This sector is less sensitive to the environment	3	2.33
Financial and Insurance Activities	−0.12	1	Stable and tend to be inelastic	2	This sector is less sensitive to the environment	3	2.00
Real Estate Activities	0.11	1	Fluctuates and tend to be elastic	3	This sector (waste) and (residential sector) have emitted 2.2% and 0.9% respectively of GHG	2	2.00
Business Activities	0.12	1	Fluctuates and tend to be elastic	3	This sector is less sensitive to the environment	3	2.33
Public Administration and Defense; Compulsory Social Security	0.21	1	** N/A	0	This sector is less sensitive to the environment	3	1.33
Education	0.07	1	Fluctuate s and tend to inelastic	2	This sector is less sensitive to the environment	3	2.00
Human Health and Social Work Activities	0.13	1	Fluctuates and tend to be elastic	3	This sector is less sensitive to the environment	3	2.33
Other Services Activities	0.01	1	Fluctuates and tend to be inelastic	2	This sector is less sensitive to the environment	3	2.00

Source: Processed data. Notes: (1) * All data for GHG emissions are as of the year 2018. (2) ** ACE data only reported data on entrepreneurs and employees working in private sectors. Information on Public Administration Activities is therefore excluded and not available.

References

1. The Countries with the Most Islands. Available online: https://www.statista.com/chart/15364/the-estimated-number-of-islands-by-country/ (accessed on 14 February 2022).

2. Department of Economic Planning and Statistics. Brunei Darussalam Statistical Yearbook 2020. 2020; Available online: https://deps.mofe.gov.bn/DEPD%20Documents%20Library/DOS/BDSYB/BDSYB_2020/BDSYB%202020%20Final.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2021).

3. Land Area (sq. km)–Brunei Darussalam. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2?locations=BN (accessed on 14 February 2022).

4. Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 18 Tahun 2020 Tentang Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional Tahun 2020-2024. Available online: http://jdih.bappenas.go.id/peraturan/detailperaturan/1037 (accessed on 18 February 2020).

5. Department of Economic Planning and Statistics. Brunei Darussalam 2020. Eleventh National Development Plan. 2018–2023 Brunei Darussalam. 2020; Available online: https://deps.mofe.gov.bn/DEPD%20Documents%20Library/NDP/NDP11_Eng.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2021).

6. Biro Pusat Statistik Indonesia. Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Indonesia Triwulan IV-2020 No. 13/02/Th. XXIV. Available online: https://www.bps.go.id/pressrelease/2021/02/05/1811/ekonomi-indonesia-2020-turun-sebesar-2-07-persen--c-to-c-.html (accessed on 5 February 2021).

7. Biro Pusat Statistik Indonesia. Keadaan Ketenagakerjaan Indonesia Februari 2021 No.37/05/Th. XXIV. Available online: https://www.bps.go.id/pressrelease/2021/05/05/1815/februari-2021--tingkat-pengangguran-terbuka--tpt--sebesar-6-26-persen.html (accessed on 5 May 2021).

8. Department of Economic Planning and Statistics. Brunei Darussalam Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2020. 2020; Available online: https://deps.mofe.gov.bn/DEPD%20Documents%20Library/DOS/GDP/2020/RPT_Q42020.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2021).

9. Department of Economic Planning and Statistics. Labour Force Survey 2020. 2020; Available online: https://deps.mofe.gov.bn/DEPD%20Documents%20Library/DOS/Labour%20force%20survey_KTK/2020/RPT_2020.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2021).

10. Alvarado, R.; Toledo, E. Environmental degradation and economic growth: Evidence for a developing country. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2017; 19, pp. 1205-1218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9790-y]

11. Gutti, B.; Aji, M.; Magaji, G. Environmental impact of natural resources exploitation in Nigeria and the way forward. J. Appl. Technol. Environ. Sanit.; 2012; 2, pp. 95-102.

12. Cherniwchan, J. Economic growth, industrialization, and the environment. Resour. Energy Econ.; 2012; 34, pp. 442-467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.04.004]

13. Djezou, W. Optimal Conversion of Forest Land to Agriculture: Evidence from Côte d’Ivoire. J. Agric. Stud.; 2013; 1, 13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jas.v1i2.3938]

14. Elisha, O.D. Resources Scarcity and Sustainable Economic Growth. Int. J. Sci. Res. Educ.; 2021; 14, pp. 43-44. Available online: https://cutt.ly/wcnpUxy (accessed on 4 April 2021).

15. Armeanu, D.S.; Georgeta, V.; Gherghina, S.C. Does Renewable Energy Drive Sustainable Economic Growth? Multivariate Panel Data Evidence for EU-28 Countries. Energies; 2017; 10, 381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en10030381]

16. Lave, L.B. Sustainable economic development. Stud. Environ. Sci.; 1998; 72, pp. 949-959. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-1116(98)80056-3]

17. Ferreira, J.J.M.; Fernandes, C.I.; Ferreira, F.A.F. Technology transfer, climate change mitigation, and environmental patent impact on sustainability and economic growth: A comparison of European countries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2020; 150, 119770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119770]

18. Grimsley, S. What is Sustainable Economic Growth? Definition & Overview. Available online: http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-issustainable-economic-growth-definition-lesson-quiz.html (accessed on 18 September 2018).

19. Bogoviz, A.V.; Lobova, S.V.; Ragulina, J.V.; Alekseev, A.N.; An, Y.A. Sustainable Socio-economic Systems. Confl.-Free. Socio-Econ. Syst.; 2019; 206, pp. 209-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78769-993-920191024]

20. Sandberg, M.; Klockars, K.; Wilén, K. Green growth or degrowth? Assessing the normative justifications for environmental sustainability and economic growth through critical social theory. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 206, pp. 133-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.175]

21. Nana-Sinkam, S.C. Issues and Options for Sustainable Economic Development. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/X5318E/x5318e00.htm#Contents (accessed on 28 October 2018).

22. Islam, S.M. Optimal Intertemporal Environmental Economics: Formulation of Optimal Sustainable Growth Programs. Optimal Growth Economics: An Investigation of The Contemporary Issues and the Prospect for Sustainable Growth; S.M.N. Islam,. Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2001; Volume 252, pp. 151-197.

23. Stern, D.I.; Common, M.S.; Barbier, E.B. Economic growth and environmental degradation: The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev.; 1996; 24, pp. 1151-1160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00032-0]

24. Turner, R.K. Environmental Economics; The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1993.

25. Omorede, C. Assessment of the Impact of Oil and Gas Resource Exploration on the Environment of Selected Communities in Delta State, Nigeria. SSRN Electron. J.; 2014; 3, pp. 79-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2458836]

26. Parris, K. Impact of agriculture on water pollution in OECD countries: Recent trends and future prospects. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev.; 2011; 27, pp. 33-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2010.531898]

27. Hanson, C. Food Security, Inclusive Growth, Sustainability, and the Post-2015 Development Agenda. World Resources Institut. World Resources Institut. Available online: https://www.post2020hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/Hanson_Food-Security-Inclusive-Growth-Sustainability-and-the-Post-2015-Development-Agenda.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2015).

28. Deng, G.; Yufeng, D.; Suling, R. The study on the air pollutants embodied in goods for consumption and trade in China–Accounting and structural decomposition analysis. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 135, pp. 332-341. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.114]

29. Lei, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Nielsen, C.; He, K. An inventory of primary air pollutants and CO2 emissions from cement production in China, 1990–2020. Atmos. Environ.; 2011; 45, pp. 147-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.09.034]

30. Chan, C.K.; Yao, X. Air pollution in mega cities in China. Atmos. Environ.; 2008; 42, pp. 1-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.09.003]

31. Wei, Y.; Gu, J.; Wang, H.; Yao, T.; Wu, Z. Uncovering the culprits of air pollution: Evidence from China’s economic sectors and regional heterogeneities. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 171, pp. 1481-1493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.246]

32. Alam, J.; Ahmed, A.; Munna, G. Environmental impact assessment of oil and gas sector: A case study of Magurchara gas field. Afr. J. Soil Sci.; 2019; 7, pp. 1-6.

33. Cordes, E.E.; Jones, D.O.B.; Schlacher, T.A.; Amon, D.J.; Bernardino, A.F.; Brooke, S.; Witte, U. Environmental Impacts of the Deep-Water Oil and Gas Industry: A Review to Guide Management Strategies. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2016; 4, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00058]

34. Olao, V. Environmental Impact of Oil & Gas Exploitations and Transportation in Kenya in Relation to Article 42 of the Constitution. Available online: https://cutt.ly/Rv9M9Ft (accessed on 20 April 2021).

35. Ngene, S.; Tota-Maharaj, K.; Eke, P.; Hills, C. Environmental and Economic Impacts of Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Developing Countries. Int. J. Econ. Energy Environ.; 2016; 1, pp. 68-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20160103.13]

36. Shmelev, S.E. Economic Models and the Environment: Input-Output Analysis. Ecological Economics; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1972-9_6]

37. Raźniak, P.; Dorocki, S.; Winiarczyk-Raźniak, A. Permanence of Economic Potential of Cities Based on Sector Development. Chin. Geogr. Sci.; 2017; 27, pp. 123-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11769-017-0850-5]

38. Raźniak, P.; Dorocki, S.; Winiarczyk-Raźniak, A. Spatial Changes in the Command and Control Function of Cities based on the Corporate Centre of Gravity Model. Misc. Geogr. Reg. Stud. Dev.; 2020; 24, pp. 35-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2020-0002]

39. Mansoer, F.W. Pengaruh Aktivitas Sektor-sektor Perekenomian Terhadap Kualitas Lingkungan Kita: Penerapan Analisis Input-Output Hibrid dan Metode Indorani. J. Ekon. Dan Bisnis Indones.; 2000; 15, pp. 25-44.

40. The Brunei Darussalam National Council on Climate Change 2020 (BNCCP2020) & Departments of Environment, Parks and Recreations, Ministry of Development. Available online: http://mod.gov.bn/Shared%20Documents/BCCS/Brunei%20National%20Climate%20Change%20Policy.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2021).

41. Brunei Climate Change Secretariat. Brunei National Climate Change Policy. Clim. Chang. Draft. Comm.; 2020; 16–17, pp. 8-9.

42. Annual Census of Enterprises (ACE). Department of Economic Planning and Statistics, Ministry of Finance and Economy, Brunei Darussalam. 2017; Available online: https://deps.mofe.gov.bn/DEPD%20Documents%20Library/DOS/Annual%20Census%20Entprise_ACE/ACE_2017.pdf#search=ACE (accessed on 8 August 2021).

43. Annual Census of Enterprises (ACE). Department of Economic Planning and Statistics, Ministry of Finance and Economy, Brunei Darussalam. 2019; Available online: https://deps.mofe.gov.bn/DEPD%20Documents%20Library/DOS/Annual%20Census%20Entprise_ACE/ACE2019.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2021).