Why WFH Won't Save the State Budget from Soaring Oil Prices

By Leonyta Nugroho

26 Mar 2026 03:55 WIB 26 March 2026 03:55 WIB 4 minutes reading time: 4 minutes 2 read

Why does WFH fail to resolve the energy crisis? This article reviews the shift in responsibility to individuals that fails to address the root of the energy problem.

Kerja dari rumah digadang jadi solusi, mampukah redam dampak lonjakan harga minyak pada APBN? (Source: AI Gemini, Redaksi Literasi Hukum Indonesia)

Opinion Note

This opinion article was written by a contributor/columnist. The views expressed are entirely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.

CONTRIBUTOR PROGRAM

You can become a columnist at Legal Literacy.

Submit your legal opinion/analysis writing. If it is published, you have the opportunity to obtain a payout/honorarium in accordance with the provisions.

Submit Article Read Guidelines

Table of Contents

Work From Home: A Marginal Solution
The Pitfalls of Reactive Policy
Individualization of Responsibility and Shifting of Burden

Baca tanpa iklan.

Gabung Membership

Section 2/2: The Pitfalls of Reactive Policy

The Pitfalls of Reactive Policy

From a public policy perspective, there is a tendency in which energy regulations in Indonesia are more often reactive to short-term symptoms rather than carrying out structural improvements. Normatively, Law Number 30 of 2007 concerning Energy has actually mandated fair and sustainable energy management. However, at the implementation level, this policy is only used as a crisis management tool to defuse fiscal turmoil.

This is evident in the energy subsidy mechanism regulated through various Presidential Regulations. Although the subsidy policy is aimed at underprivileged communities, in reality, there are still loopholes that allow for distribution leaks, namely when upper-middle-class economic groups become the main beneficiaries.

When world oil prices soar, the state tends to issue "emergency" policies such as WFH or mobility restrictions, instead of carrying out bold legal reforms to permanently break dependence on fossil energy. This kind of policy reflects a failure of law in facilitating a substantive energy transition, namely preferring to maintain short-term budget stability rather than long-term energy sovereignty.

Individualization of Responsibility and Shifting of Burden

Conceptually, this phenomenon can be called "individualization of responsibility." The state, in the face of systemic failures or external pressures, tends to shift this burden to the public through narratives of behavioral change. By legitimizing WFH as an energy solution, the state implicitly shifts the responsibility for saving from the upstream sector to the downstream sector (individuals).

These solutions ultimately become symbolic. On paper, this policy seems proactive, but in practice, it obscures the need for more fundamental policy reforms such as energy audits in large industrial sectors or the acceleration of renewable energy infrastructure. As long as energy policy is still trapped in a behavioral response pattern, we will continue to be trapped in the same cycle of crisis every time world oil prices fluctuate.

True reform requires the courage to dissect the more fundamental economic structure and legal policies, not just moving the workspace from the office to home.