Social Policy for the Developing Countries [1 ed.] 9786022291442

Citation preview

R

I

A

N

T

N

U

G

R

O

H

SOCIAL POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES An Introduction

O

R

I

A

N

T

N

U

G

R

O

H

SOCIAL POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES An Introduction

O

Pustaka Pelajar – Institute for Policy Reform

Public Policy for the Developing Countries published by Institute for Policy Reform copyright (c) Riant Nugroho, 2012 All rights reserved printed in Indonesia distributed in Indonesia

ISBN 9786022291442 Pustaka Pelajar & Institute for Policy Reform Yogyakarta, Jakarta (c) 2011, Riant Nugroho (c) 2024 transferred to digital part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, with the prior permission of the copyright owner

CONTENT Chapter Introduction One Chapter Intention, Function, and Two Areas Chapter Three Chapter Four Chapter Five Chapter Six

4 35

The Politics of Social Policy

46

Social Policy as Social Development Social Policy as Social Justice

92

The Contemporary Issue of Social Policy: Family, Elderly, and Global Social Policy Chapter Conclusion Seven Appendix Harmony in Multiculturalism: Malaysia Next Policy Agenda Bibliography

137 185

212 244 253

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Social Policy and Sociology Social policies derives from values as well as social facts and theories, therefore the basic argument of social policy is mostly sociology (see Reiss, 1876: 35), as the basic social science which studies social reality more as an entity –compared to psychology which tends to see society as the sum of individuals. The focus of classical sociology is to understand society. It was further developed into recent sociology, especially in facing the changing of society and the new task of sociology to shape society; more than just “understanding it” but to ensure that understanding of a social reality led to the creation of a better society. Therefore, the recent ideal of sociology is in regard to social welfare. It is about how society interacts and finds its institutional balance, in achieving the ideal of society. This sociological approach was developed since society has been facing more and more unanswered questions and unsolved problems. When sociology turns its attention toward achieving social welfare, then social policy comes into being. Indeed, it as a discipline started when Richard Titmuss introduced “social administration” and then "social policy” in the UK in the 1960s. However, social policy has an older presence in sociological understanding. Therefore, it was beneficial to understand sociology as a fundamental platform for social policy. Historically, sociology was introduced as a science by Auguste Comte at the age of 17. He was more than a codified Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Kaldun, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, JJ Rousseau, to St Simon knowledge, but enriched the fundamental discipline of knowledge of his predecessors. Sociology is about

“socius” which means “society” and “logos” means “speaking”. It was “speaking about society”. Compte was a French philosopher, a founder of the discipline of sociology and of the doctrine of positivism. He introduced static sociology, which focused on laws and rules which founded the society, and dynamic sociology, which focused on change and development. He also introduced three phases of knowledge: theology, when society interprets the social symptoms by religion values; metaphysical, when people interpret as their rationality, and then positivity, when people interpret through scientific verification. Post Comte, sociology has entered the richness of social l sciences “savannah”, as it developed into –at least—six schools of thought: Geography and environment, Organic and evolution, Formal , Psychology, Economy, and Law. The geography and environment’s school of thought was developed by Edward Buckle (1821-1862) and Le Play (1806-1888) who found that society’s welfare was depended upon climate and soil; which strengthen by E. Huntington in his Civilization and Climate (1915) to state that human mentality depend upon the climate they were living. The Organic and evolution’s school of thought was developed by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), W.G. Summer (1840-1910), Emile Durkheim (1855-1917), Ferdinand Tonnies (1855-1936). Spencer noted that any organism was getting perfect if there were increasing complexity and differentiation among its parts. The core concept was: complexity-differentiation-integration. Process of change will not produce anything without the mechanism of “CDI” –complexity, differentiation, and integration. It was then known as “the principles of sociology”. Durkheim introduced the concept of Division of Labor which promoted the idea that the principal element of society is solidarity. If solidarity deteriorates, there would be anomie, a condition where

society has lost its direction to measure all activities to existing values and norms. Society has created a division of labor to make every part of society have different functions so that they may complement each other, and therefore a strong and natural solidarity might be found. Tonnies found that relationships among citizens determined the form of their social living. There are two kinds of social relationship: gemeinschaft, which means relationship based on feeling, sympathy, personal, and common-interest; and gesellschaft, which means rational-interest, impermanent, and impersonal. The formal’s school of thought was developed by Immanuel Kant, Georg Simmel (1858-1918), Leopold von Wiese (1876-1961), Alfred Vierkandt (1867-1953). Kant stated the importance of judicial regulation to manage relationship among citizens. Simmel found that all institutions in society were being formed in category of superiority, subordination, and conflict. All social relations were presence in one of those three forms or combination of those three. In this relationship, a man was becoming the member of society by performing two processes at once: individualization and socialization. The psychology’s school of thought was developed by Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904), Albion Small (1854-1926), Richard H. Cooley (1864-1924), L.T. Hobhouse (1864-1929). Tarde explained the social symptoms in the mental framework inside every individual: imitation, opposition, adaptation, and innovation. Cooley developed a concept of Primary Group; it was a first group of humans which marked by the close personal relationship, where feeling and emotion was developed freely. The economics’ school of thought was developed by Karl Marx (18181883) and Max Weber (1864-1920). Marx in Das Kapital stated that as long as society is being structured in classes, so the ruling class would be gathered power and wealth for good to make their power and wealth bigger and bigger, and therefore exploitation by them, the ruling class, toward the ruled class, will be for good. The ruling class

named as the capitalist and the ruled class named as the proletariat. Weber found that the economic development, therefore wealth of any society depended upon their values. In the Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism he found that capitalism emerged in Christian community in Europe because they have the “Protestant values” that work hard was kind of thankful for God of live that has been given. Therefore, capitalism was growing well since two key values of working and saving, which means invest and accumulating capital, the two important engines of capitalism, were there. The law’s school of thought was developed by Emile Durkheim (18551917) and Max Weber (1864-1920). Durkheim also promoted the law’s school of thought since in his Division of Labor he put a premise that law and rule with its penalties must be arranged due to two judgments: the nature of infraction and beliefs of society toward the good and bad of any deed. Weber also contributes toward this school by finding that the element of rational law has supported the development of capitalism.

Geography and environment

Edward Buckle (1821-1862), Le Play (1806-1888), E. Huntington (1915, Civilization and Climate)

Organic and evolution

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), W.G. Summer (1840-1910), Emile Durkheim (1855-1917), Ferdinand Tonnies (1855-1936)

Formal

Immanuel Kant, Georg Simmel (1858-1918), Leopold von Wiese (1876-1961), Alfred Vierkandt (1867-1953)

Psychology

Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904), Albion Small (1854-1926), Richard H. Cooley (1864-1924), L.T. Hobhouse (1864-1929)

Economy

Karl Marx (1818-1883), Max Weber (1864-1920)

Law

Emile Durkheim, Max Weber

SOSIOLOGY

There are many more schools of thought in contemporary sociology, but the two mainstreams were structural-functional and socialconflict (see Macionis, 2007). The structural-functional school is a school which has a framework for building theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. Two of their proponent figures were Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton. This theory was about seeing sociology as a tool to understand, and its focus more toward creating and making establishment. Social conflict is a framework for building theory that sees society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and change. Frankfurt Group, Gender-Conflict, and Race-Conflict theorists were on this side. This school promoted the idea that sociology is a prescription; therefore, the objective is more about to change society. There was micro-sociology, such as developed by Herbert Blumer on symbolic interaction which sees society as the product of everyday interaction of individuals. But, Blumer was not alone. Micro contemporary sociology was enriched by many schools of thoughts, such as Dramaturgy of Erving Goffman which sees society as a drama in which everybody has their own masks due to their function in the society; to make social relationships happen; everybody are the actors and actresses. There is ethno-methodology as developed by Harold Garfinkel who sees society as a reality that accepts all realities as it is to make life go on. Peter Berger developed Social Reality, which found that social reality is actually a product of power. 1.2. The Meaning of Social Policy in the First Course There are two understanding of social policy in today’s world: developed and developing countries. In developed countries, social policy was a subject developed from social administration which was devoted to preparing people for work in social services practice (see Spicker, 2008: 1). The idea was noted from David Donnison who in Social Policy and Administration (1965) mentioned that the first idea of social administration was

Britain before WWI as a field of training and education for those who wish to prepare themselves to engage in the many forms of social and charitable effort (quoted by Spicker, 2008: 1). Therefore, social services are the areas where social policy began (Spicker, 2008: 1).

In sum, in the developed countries, as it was introduced in the UK and then Europe and the US and Northern America, social policy means solving the problem; to be exact: solving the existing problem. The study might be rooted long before the moment Donnison mentioned, as we knew that in the 16-17 century there was a gigantic revolt in Britain that changed human civilization: the industrial revolution. By the Industrial Revolution, textile industries emerged in London and became big business. The new “baron” emerged, later named by Karl Marx, the founder of socialism and communism, as “Capitalist”. The Industrial Revolution devoured the new world led by technology of machinery in the factory and the management-capitalism in the business. Like a huge magnet, many people, mostly workers in agriculture –not the land-owners—moved to the city of London, and they became workers of the first-generation textile industries.

Prosperity and welfare exist for the industry’s owner, but there were many miseries of the workers. The first capitalism had a very clear mode: the capital owner exploited those who did not have capital –the worker. The by-product of the first generation of capitalism was the massive poverty in London1. Therefore, The Poor Law was introduced in UK between the 16-17 century (Hill, 1993: 13); since the Industrial Revolution created massive poverty in London and became severe problems for the better-off communities. Indeed, before industrial revolution there were poverty, too, but they had hided in the rural areas and far away from wealth communities in the capital city of British. The Poor Law may come off from the Government in two perspectives: to save the poor, and/or to keep the wealth society, the capitalists, kept safe in their new social position, as the transferred the compensation of the new-generation capitalism’s waste to the government burden2.

1

The story of the first generation of capitalism that created a vast disparity between the rich and the poor, and therefore the massive poverty were exist from Britain to US might be seen from the extreme book of Marx in Das Kapital to the fiction –that I believe comes from the reality—Charlie Chaplin movie of Modern Times (1936). 2Until today, there are many practices where the industries transfer their “industrial waste” to the government. They have been saved by the judgment by saying that they already pay the tax. There must be suspiciousness toward the value of trade off from the “problem creator” to the “cost of transferred burden” because at last the cost belongs to all of society, and not to the “problem creator”.

The different approach was also in Germany, when the Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck founded the first social-universal health insurance for the public, especially for the less income population, in the 18 centuries. The policy was adopted by the UK and the US in the 19th century (Hill: 1993: 17-19). This social policy was different to the Poor Law in Britain, because the idea was to preserve the health quality of the citizens. After World War II, the idea of social policy fortified in the re-emerged idea of a “welfare-state” and therefore the idea of social welfare among European countries, especially UK and Germany. It mostly emerged as a “pay-check” by the European countries for their citizens because they had brought their citizens toward a severe living during World War II (1942-1945). Richard Morris Titmuss (1907 – 1973)3 was the most prominent figure in the development of the study of social policy. Spicker admitted that his watershed in the development of social policy was an essay by Titmuss written in 1955 on “Social Division of Welfare” which argued that it was impossible to understand the effects of welfare policies in isolation from the rest of society, and there are many other channels through which "welfare" was delivered (Spicker, 2008: 2). 3He

was a pioneering British social researcher and teacher. He founded the academic discipline of Social Administration (now largely known in universities as Social Policy) and held the founding chair in the subject at the London School of Economics. His books and articles of the 1950s helped to define the characteristics of Britain's post WWII welfare state and of a universal welfare society, in ways that parallel the contributions of Gunnar Myrdal in Sweden. He was honored in the Richard Titmuss Chair in Social Policy at the LSE, which is currently held by Julian le Grand (Wikipedia).

Studies of social policy have been a spring in the western academia and practice. Meanwhile, the core idea of social policy studies focuses on "solving social problems". This is what differentiates research in developing countries (see Soedjatmoko, 1988). Is the developing country not meant to solve the problem? Yes, but it is not solely that alone. In developing countries, social policy is to solve the problem –named as problem because it already existed— and to perform social development. Here we are entering the understanding of development, the particular word to the new emerging countries post World War two. Development is an “acceleration of social change”. Development is a “forced social change”. Therefore, development is always planned, engineered, and controlled, since the development objective is to do a “frog-leap” to the advancement, to leave from backwardness. Therefore, development is “a developing country’s word”, because they just had their independence in 1940s and after, whilst the other countries in Europe, which was their prior colonizer, and surely two countries in Northern America, Canada and US, have become the developed ones. Even though Europe has suffered from World War II, they still have their advancement in knowledge, technology, and freedom, therefore an opportunity to rebuild their advancement.

However, development is not merely about economical and “DEVELOPMENT” technological issues. That was what most of the developing countries did in their earlier development phase. Therefore development created “frog-leap” backwardness new problems: economic inequality and societal instability. Why? Like a human development, there is “maturity” in every progress. There is a human with a height of 2 meters and weighs 100 kilograms. But he is just 12 years old. Physically, he is an adult man, but in actuality he is just a child that cannot think even for himself; to let him go out and find living alone is a wrong decision. It is also a development. Social maturity is something any country can’t achieve. What is social maturity? Is it about education? Yes, but not all. Social maturity is the capability of society to solve any conflicts peacefully. Therefore, when we discuss development, it is all about backwardness. In the classical approach, it is always economical backwardness, therefore it needs economic development. But there is another backwardness: social backwardness. Social backwardness is our issue and it needs

social development. Both of the two are absolute backwardness, by meaning that the differences among the developing countries – including less developed ones— to the developed countries is a real gap. There are two other backwardness, but a relative ones, they are political backwardness and cultural backwardness. Political backwardness is a relative one since the indicator for that backwardness is the democratic level of the political system. It means, the more democratic the political system, the more the political system is developed. In this context, the most developed democracy is the liberal democracy. In some cases, indeed, some of the less democratic countries have severe political living and therefore economic and social living. Most of the African countries are in this category. Some Asian countries, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar have the same condition. But, China is no democratic country, and now it has become the economic giant in today's world. Malaysia and Singapore were somehow criticized as less democratic countries, but the economic development as well as social development is far better compared to other more democratic countries in the regions. Singapore is named as one of the “First World Country”, not as “third world”–as another “nickname” for the developing and less developed country—one. Cultural backwardness is also a relative concept and fact. It refers to countries who have traditional values rather than modern values. Indeed, most of the African countries and some of the southern Asian countries are being pointed as being the member of this “cluster”. It means that cultural backwardness aggravates the people living. Less technology makes women in the Sahara to Bangladesh have vast difficulties to find water for their family. Many of them have to walk for kilometers just to take a jug of water –sometimes not clean water. But, what about the Japanese; this country is rich by traditional values, inherited from time to time, from the way to have tea-drink,

to the spirit of Bushido. Japan is one of the biggest economic powers in the world. Social backwardness as well as economic backwardness is infallible, therefore it becomes the main interest of policy makers in developing countries. That is why students in the developing countries shall have a different point of view compared to the study of social policy in the developed countries, because social policy in the developing countries is about social development. Social development is about development, but a specific one. Social development is a development toward human development, toward social justice, and therefore toward social welfare. Human development is a new concept of development, since from the time being when we talk about development it is always economic development. The success of any development portrayed in the level of GDP, Per Capita Income, and the like. Economic development has transformed many developing countries to become wealthy countries only in economic terms. The problem is, there was the other side of development that was left behind so much, which is the human side of development. The criticism of tooeconomical development was not voiced until the economic Nobel laureate Prof. Amartya Sen promoted a model for human development indicators that has been adopted by the United Nations as the Human Development Index (HDI) since the 1990s. There were three HDI indicators: economic, education, and health. Since 1996, gender development has been added into the HDI. HDI was becoming a global indicator to measure how much development is being achieved. But, social development is more than “human development”, more than a transformation from traditional to modern society. Primitive

Traditional

Modern

Way of living Technology Living mode

Hunting and gathering No to low Nomad

Agriculture

Marriage type

Homogenou s

Judgment

Magic

Homogenous to heterogeneous Religious

Focus of life Orientation

Ethnicity None

Harmony Past orientation

Philosophy

Life is survival Instinct

“Life is as a wheel” Habit

Way of life

Low to middle Nature inbound

Industry and information High Overcome the nature Mostly heterogeneous Rational and scientific Change Future orientation "Life is as an arrow” Management

The basic understanding about social policy was about social welfare. It is about public education. It is about health care. It is about housing. It is about social security. But the social development in the developing countries is more than those basic understanding. There will always be development in any developing country; it is those who did not have access to the development process and therefore those that have been left behind in the development process. Development resides as a social problem, both economic development and social development. As a social problem, it needs social policy to solve them. This is the other side of the difference between “social problems” in developed countries and developing countries.

Thus, social problems in developing countries are in regard to social justice. It is about inequality in gender. It is about unemployment. It is about the poor. It is about the disabled. It is about drugs and the addicted. It is about a single parent family. It is about discrimination. It is about conflict. It is about trafficking. It is about criminals and their victims. It is about those who got left behind –isolated communities to baby dumping. Actually, what we will learn on social policy is a coverage of three issues: social development, social justice, and therefore social welfare. The question is: why do we always “think about social welfare” rather than any other issues? It was a western mindset, because they have no such backwardness as the developing countries. What should be taught in the developed country’s social policy is to solve the social problem. The western view of social policy study mostly adopted the idea that it started by “social administration” it was started in. It was then taught to the eastern scholars by the developing countries scholars, and it was taught by our scholars to our leaders. It was a western-framed-thinking, even though we knew somehow that the social development in the western countries post WWII was not “start from zero”, as it happens in the developing countries, therefore what they have is “social problem” not “social backwardness”.

The question is: why do scholars of the developed countries always “think about social welfare” and social policy as “to solve social problems” rather than the wider and relevant issue of social development? There are two reasons. First, it was resided in the thought that the “social development” is part of the “social welfare” and it is part of the “social problem to be solved”. The second reason, which was associated with the first reason, is called “cultural hegemony” (see Hoogvelt, 1986). Some students went to a developed country, such as the British, and for years they have been taught by professors who believed that social policy is about social welfare, and social welfare is about social problems alone. Theory regarding its society. Social policy in the UK, for instance, was a response to the social problem of the UK community post industrial revolution (Hill, 1993), post World War I (Donisson, 1965), and post World War II (Spicker, 2008). It does not mean that is by intention. It is by nature. Some scholars of the developing countries who went to the developed world, especially those who were encouraged by xenophiles, went back to their homeland and kept to see the world as exactly as their teachers saw the world. Some western scholars ensured their students from developing countries, to develop their own theory that is appropriate to their society. Some western scholars also develop the model of development in the context of developing countries, such as the model of communication network for diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 1986) to public administration in the model of prismatic society (Henry, 1992). The tailored-made approach leads the developing country’s scholars to understand social policy relevant to its society (see i.e. Abubakar, 2003: Nugroho, 2009).

Thus, for the developing countries, again, social policy is about social development, and social development is about developing social welfare, but it was broader than those issues alone. Social development is about transforming the society toward the new society with the new social civilization they never existed in their today’s presence –but in the developed country it has presence. It is not about poverty, but how to develop the quality of the lesseducated society to the educated one. It is not about poverty that exists as the “waste” of the first generation of capitalism, but as the by-product of development, as they are unable to access the development process. It is not about social problems that exist as a result of the societal process, as in the western, but social problems that exist alongside the hundred-years of colonization period. If in Europe it was said about a “pay-check” of the European countries’ leaders for their citizens because they have led their citizens toward a severe living under World War II, in the developing countries it was a “pay-check” of the developing countries leaders to the of under-development for hundred-years –because of colonization. In the developing countries, social policy is a “business” that starts from “zero”; unlike in the developed country which they mostly have is “social problem” not “social backwardness” as in the developing countries. This agenda is relevant, too, to the social policy context. Therefore, in studying social policy in developing countries, what we need to do is improve our understanding that social policy is not just social welfare, but also includes social welfare, social development and social justice. Still, there was the same belief about social policy in the western and eastern society; the developed and the developing countries. Culturally, the idea of “welfare-state” was not developed in the midage century, but it was rooted from the hidden every society’s yearn

of “heaven on earth”; about rebuilding Eden in the human daily life. It was not merely alongside human civilization after Adam and Eve had been “sent-out” from Eden. It was stated in every belief of western society, from the God of the Sun in Egypt to Inca, from Hellenic religion to the Christianity and Islamic beliefs. It was told from generation to generation; from society to society; from King to the next King; and from parents to children. The benevolent and wise leaders of Kings, Queens, Sultans, Emperors, to Presidents and Prime Ministers are those who in the call of duty to fulfill the society’s longing about: the heaven on earth, the social welfare. It is not about wealth alone; it is about living in a compassionate, harmony, mutuality, community, and all the “social dreams” of society which need to be fulfilled. So, what then about social policy in the developing countries? Every government in the developing countries is being elected by their people to bring the society’s agenda, named as “public agenda” in their ideology and politics. The agenda is about society’s interest which are brought by cultural norms and values of the society. Government has to be deliberate with public agenda since it is the only “trade-off” of their vote in the general election. To stay in power, political leader has to “buy” the citizens’ need and therefore their interest. It was then formulated as “government’s vision”, a fact that there is a forward looking of any government to have their society as the better society. It was the “hope of the society”. It was what government vision being materialized. It is a premise to be delivered to their voters in the general election. The key task is “how to deliver that hope?” It is by decision. Policy, therefore, is government decision. Social policy is government decision toward social living to achieve society’s hope of the future betterment.

“you have to “buy” them, to get vote, to make you stay in power”

Government’s vision

Promise to be delivered

Public’s “agendas”

Government’s ideology & politics

Government decision toward social living

The cultural, norms, and value of the society

Hope of society

Just to refresh, if we were a student of a well-developed country (i.e., British, Germany, or Switzerland), we learn about social welfare only as social welfare an sich. If we were a student of a developing country, therefore we might learn three issues at once: social development, social justice, because development and social problem create its “by product”, and social welfare, because it is any society’s dream, western and eastern. For our subject, the objective of social policy will still be social welfare, whilst social welfare in developing countries encompasses social development and social justice. The question is now about: what comes first? Social policy or social welfare? Problem of social welfare emerged and then followed by social policy, or is it on the contrary? In my discussion with Siti Hajar Abubakar, professor of Social Administration and Justice, University of Malaya, the conclusion is that in a developing country’s context, social policy often comes first, and then followed by social welfare. Why? Because,

as we have discussed before, the agenda of social policy in developing country is not merely to respond to social problem, but to create the next society and its all social context. Social development

Social Policy

Social Welfare Social justice

Social policy, therefore, is not a passive one, but rather an active one. It creates; it generates. 3. Social Policy and Public Policy What is social policy? It was not that easy to define it, as Kenneth E. Boulding admit that social policy is a vague term since the boundaries are ill-defined while the content is rich. “In its widest sense it would include all policies directed toward making some change in the structure of society, and since no policy could be excluded from this, social policy would simply be another name for government policy” (Boulding, 1976: 11) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Sociology defines it as a vague concept as it is “a more or less clearly articulated set of ideas about what should be done in a particular sphere, which is often set down in writing, and usually formally adopted by the relevant decision-making body” (1994: 492). The definition sees that social policy is a widerange of concept. Collins Internet-Linked Dictionary of Social Work defines it as a government policy in the area of welfare and the academic study of its development, implementation, and impact (2006:350). The

definition sees that social policy is part of government policy and also an academicals discipline. For Macbeath (1957), social policy is concerned with the right ordering of the network of relationships between men and women who live together in societies, or with the principles which should govern the activities of individuals and groups so far as they affect the lives and interests of other people (quoted in Titmuss , 1974: 11). Meanwhile, Lafitte mentioned that social policy more concerned to communal environment (quoted in Titmuss, 1974: 15) T.H. Marshall (1965) defines social policy as policy of governments with regards to action having a direct impact on the welfare of the citizens, by providing them with services or income. The central core consists of social insurance, public assistance, and the health and welfare services, housing policy. David Gill (1973) defines social policy as the study of a range of social needs and the functioning –in the conditions of scarcity-- of human organization –traditionally called social services or social welfare system-- to meet those need” (quoted in Titmuss , 1974: 11) Richard Titmuss, the intellectual which denoted his idea toward social policy as a discipline in UK, defines social policy as a concern toward allocation of limited range of resources to meet a range of social needs (Titmuss, 1974: 14). Titmuss sees that social policy is rather an economic matter as there is a presence of the law of scarcity. Titmuss (1977) refers that social policy might be understood as: Social administration, Social services, Social welfare, Social security, and Welfare states. He mentioned that policy is the principle that governs action toward given ends as he noted that the concept of policy is only meaningful if we believe we can change in some form of another.

Therefore, Titmuss noted that, we do not have policies on weather, because we can not change weather, since policy is an action oriented term. Titmuss (1974) then explained that social policy is simply part of the self-regulation mechanism built into a natural social system. Social policy can be seen as a positive instrument of change; or as an unpredictable, incalculable part of the whole political process. Social policy word is not automatically reacts in investing it with halo of altruism. The value implication if social policy does not imply allegiance to any political party or ideology. Titmuss suggested three basic understanding of social policy definition: 1. They aim to be beneficent –policy is directed to provide welfare to the citizens. 2. They include economic as well as non-economic objectives 3. They involve some measure of Social policy progressive redistribution on is ALWAYS A Social policy command-over-resource from TRANSFER is ALWAYS rich to poor. (Titmuss, 1977: 29)4 FROM RICH FOR THE TO POOR.

POOR.

Titmuss (1977) tentatively, developed three models of social policy: 1. Residual Welfare Model of Social Policy, which Social Policy formulation is based on the premise that there are two ‘natural’ (or socially given) channels: private market and family. Titmuss stated that only when these break down should social welfare institutions come into play and then only temporarily. The approach was based on theory of organic-mechanistic-biological construct of society (Herbert 4

We will see that this was the weakness of the social policy understanding in the earlier age: social policy is merely for the worse-off people or community. In the contemporary understanding, social policy is the social right, it means for every person and community, regardless of whether it is worse-off or better-off.

Spencer, Radcliff-Brown, Milton Friedman, Fredrick Hayek) (Tirmuss, 1977: 30) 2. Industrial Achievement-Performance Model of Social Policy, where social welfare was understood as adjuncts of economy. Social needs should be met on the basis of merit, work performance, and productivity. This model was named by Titmuss as “Handmaiden model”, as the approach was based on the theory of economics and psychology concerned with incentives, efforts and reward, and formation of class and group loyalties. (Titmuss, 1977: 31) 3. Institutional Redistributive Model of Social Policy; in which Social welfare was understood as a major integrated institution in society, providing universalist services outside the market on the principle need. Titmuss means this model as a model of incorporating systems of redistribution in command-over-resources-through-time, as the approach was based on theory of multiple effect of social change and economic system on one side, and the theory of social equality (Titmuss, 1977: 31) Titmuss's classification is reflecting the idea in the western or capitalist society. This division of social policy models is also reflected in Esping-Andersen work. Instead to categorize as social policy model, Andersen noted as “three worlds of regime welfare capitalism”: 1. Neo-liberal, with three characters: low of decommodification, high of stratification, and whereas governments do state intervention and regulate the marketbased social services. The country that practices the model is the United States. 2. Social democrat, with three characters: high of decommodification, low of stratification, state intervention and direct provision or finance. The country that practices the model is Scandinavian countries.

3. Corporatist, with three characters: high of decommodification, high of stratification, state intervention and regulation of markets of finance. The country that practices the model is Germany. (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Nick Manning, 1999: 55). Alcock noted that the term of social policy is not only used to refer to an academic discipline and its study, but it is also used to refer to social action in the real world. He added that social policy is the term used to describe actions aimed at promoting well-being and also to denote the academic study of such action (Alcock, 1997: 1). Alcock defines social policy as theory and practices and puts the different phrase of the objective from social welfare to well being –an issue that we will discuss in the later chapter. Fiona William (1989) explained social policy as a field of studying the relationship between welfare and society, and different views of best means of maximizing welfare in society (quote in Spicker, 2008: 3). Brenda DuBois & Karla Krogsrud define social policy as a principle and courses of action that influence the overall quality of life as well as the circumstances of individuals in groups and their intra-social relationship (DuBois & Krogsrud, 2010: 249). Social policy is identified with government and or public policy that redress the inequality in social institutions, improve quality of life of people who are disadvantaged, and provide assistance to people in need (DuBois & Krogsrud, 2010: 249). John J. Macionis defines social policy in regard of how does society respond to social problems which bring us to the topic of social policy, a formal strategies that affect how society operates (John J. Macionis, 2010: 17) Malaysian scholar, Marican, defines social policy as a decision in form of choices to solve the problem, an objective, a set of programs which involve law and regulation (Marican, 1997).

Malaysian social policy expert, Siti Hajar, defines social policy as social interventions which follow the social structure’s guideline in the context of society, time, condition, and space. So, what is social policy? I would like to base the understanding on the ideas of two scholars: Spicker and de Haan. Social policy is part of public policy. “Social policy is about policy”, noted Spicker (2008: 4). “Social policies are a subset of public policies”, noted de Haan (2007: 14). Therefore, social policy must be about public policy. What is public policy? We have indebted to many politics and public policy scholars in finding the proper and relevant understanding about public policy. Laswell and Kaplan (1970) define public policy as a projected program of goals, values, and practices. Easton (1965) defines the impact of government activity. Anderson (2000) defines it as a relatively stable, purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern. Lester and Steward (2000) define a process or a series or pattern of governmental activities or decisions that are designed to remedy some public problem, either real or imagined. Peterson (2003) defines it as the government action to address some problem. Peters (1993) defines as the sum of government activities, whiter acting directly or through agents, as it has an influence on the lives of citizens. Jenkins (1978) defines as a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within specified situations where those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve. He noted that public policy is a goal oriented behavior on the part of the government, and public policies are decisions taken by the government which define a goal and set out means to achieve it. Howlett and Ramesh (1995) define that public policy is a complex phenomenon consisting of numerous decisions made by numerous

individuals and organizations. It is often shaped by earlier policies and is frequently linked closely with other seemingly unrelated decisions. Understanding about social reality is always like five blind peoples who define the elephant. The one who took the head told others that an elephant is like a snake. The one who took the leg said it was like a pillar. The one who touched the body stated that the animal was just like a wall. And the one who took the tail said that the elephant was just like a brush. Birkland (2001) noted that there is a lack of a consensus on the definition of public policy. I have a preference toward a strategicpragmatic approach on understanding public policy; therefore, Dye (1995) has provided a more beneficial definition. He suggested the understanding that public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not do. He added that public policy is what government do, why they do it, and what difference it makes (see Di Nitto & Dye, 1993; Dye, 1995) By mathematical-etymological model: Public Policy = Public + Policy

Policy is an authoritative decision. Decision made by those who hold the authority, formal or informal. The public is a group of people who are connected to a specific issue. The public is a sphere where people become citizen, a space where citizens interact, where state and society exist.

Therefore, public policy is any of State or Government --as the holder of the authority-- decision to manage public life to reach the mission of the nation --nation always consist of two institutions: state and society; mission of the nation always stated firmly in the Constitution. In my last ten years of has been teaching, researching, and learning in the public policy, it may stated that the excellence of any nations will more and more depend upon how competent the nations to develop excellence policies (Nugroho, 2009: 1). In order to understand public policy concepts both in theory and practice, it is beneficial to have the simple model of policy setting. An independent political system –state, nation, or country—has always at least four key elements of policy: political, social, economy, and infrastructure. Political (public) policy regarding legal, justice, security, public administration, democracy, governance, and the like. Social (public) policy regarding social development and social justice. Economic (public) policy regarding fiscal, monetary, employment, export-import, industrialization, tax, and the like. Infrastructure (public) policy regarding public utilities, public infrastructure, environment conservation, water, sanitation, transport, and the like.

Political policy

Social policy

Public policy Infrastructure policy

Economics policy

Was it all likely as social policy? Indeed. The difference is social policy is more keen to the people in the context of society. It is not about the hospital, but about the quality of health; it is not about creating employment but to tackle the problem of poverty. So, what to do with social policy? Regarding public policy and its setting, social policy must be not about economic and business development; It is not about physical or infrastructure development; It is not about political development. Social policy must be about social development which at once overcomes social injustice in order to achieve social welfare. Social policy is about decisions. It is not about programs, projects, or interventions. Programs, projects, and interventions are components of social policy. It is about the decision to do or not to do and what the result is. Thus, social policy is any government decision toward social development, social justice, and therefore social welfare. In some instances, social policy is an intervention, but not all the social policy is intervention. As a comparison, Miller provided a guideline to comprehend the model and methods of social policy as an intervention.

Basic modes of intervention Cash benefits

Service in kind

Varian methods

Universal-non contributory Universal contributory Selective Universal Selective

Subsidies

Vouchers General subsidies

Regulation Contractingout Advice Gatekeeping

Examples

Child benefit Retirement pensions Income support Hospital services, schooling Free prescription medicines, higher education grants Nursery vouchers, bus passes ‘social’ public transport routes Equal opportunities laws Catering services in school Housing Aid Centers Some community care

Source: Miller, 1999: 12

1.4. Summary Social policy is a discipline and practice. As a discipline, social policy is constructed by a wide range of disciplines, from sociology, psychology, economy, education, demography, health, to law and criminology. As a multi discipline of discipline, social policy focused on the study of social development, social justice, and therefore social welfare.

As a practice, social policy is a government decision toward social development, social justice, and therefore social welfare; its formulation, implementation, control, and then performance. Social policy as a discipline and practice are partners “hand-inhand” as the study aim is to enhance the quality of the practice, and the practice’s aim is to develop the richness of social policy studies. They perform a cross fertilizing process.

The study of social policy

The practice of social policy

Chapter Two Intention, Function, and Areas

2.1. The Intention of Social Policy: Change We have been discussing that social policy at first is neither about intervention, nor about law. It is about government decisions and what difference it makes. Thus, social policy is about what government decisions to do and not to do –as Shakespeare of Hamlet’s difficult choice. If any scholar understood, “intervention” includes “decision”, so every government action is always intervention. In today's public governance, the government does not always intervene. As learned in Reinventing Government of David Osborne and Ted Gaebler (1992), in the modern governance system, government is more rowing than steering; it is more direct and guided than doing alone or intervening. In the educated society, too much government intervention is unacceptable since it is undermining the citizen’s competence to take a part in the governance process, and also undermines the success of the government in the development of education. The concept of social change in today’s world shall be recognized as the mutual effort among state and society; between government and people. Therefore, policy to my understanding is about the decision to make a change for policy must create a difference (see Dye). Without making any difference, policy is not a policy; it is just words and order. Why must policy perform a change? It is because of the basic intention of public policy. It is because by policy the government can make changes. It is because the government can change through policy. Therefore, policy intention is to change, directly through intervention in the program and project, and indirectly, by people’s behavior and decision. Because the government can change, therefore the

government creates policy. It means, the government shall not develop any policy that cannot change the thing. That is why, as Titmuss noted, that because the government can’t change the weather, there could never be a “policy on weather”. That is why policy is about government decisions and what difference it makes (see Di Nitto & Dye, 1987: 2; Nugroho 2009: 25). The meaning of “difference” is how far and beneficial is the change that is created by the policy. 2.1. The Function of Social Policy Policy exists because of its intended function, and the existence of the policy depends upon how well it serves the functions it was carried out. Siti Hajar (2006) cited there are five functions of social policy: 1. as a change mechanism 2. legitimating of status quo 3. medium to legitimate punishment of law and social order 4. to solve social need and social problem 5. instrument to shape society and redistribution of state economic and social resources It means that social policy has multiple functions which range from “social” to “non-social”. The understanding of social policy functions was highlighted as a social welfare as Di Nitto and Dye (1987) took social policy as social welfare policy and social welfare policy is anything the government choose to do, or not to do, that affects the quality of life of its people (Di Nitto & Dye, 1987: 2). Spicker underlines the functions of social welfare as the ultimate objective of social policy (see Spicker, 2008: 90) therefore he made the functions of social policy based on the function of social welfare.

Table 2.1.Functions of welfare Individuals Society Maintaining status Protection Social integration; quo reproduction Improving Meeting needs; Economic circumstances enabling development Remedying Compensation; cure Equality; social disadvantage justice Changing behavior Rewards; incentives; Social control treatment Developing Developing Social capital; potential individual capacities solidarity; integration Reducing the Punishment Social division welfare of some Source: Spicker, 2008: 90 The function of social policy is toward social development, social justice, and therefore social welfare. In developing countries, social policy has a specific function of social development: a Additional direct function, besides indirect function in economic income of 10% development and political development. When we discuss “function”, it always means contribution. Indeed to the social policy function. The core contribution of social policy is to leverage society’s welfare significantly. This function is sometimes unseen. Household income Let's have an example: suppose you are a Mayor. You today want to increase people's income 10%, but there is no such economic drive that will keep economic growth at 0%. What can you do? There is a specific contribution of social policy. To answer, there is a subject that must be clear: additional people or household income is important to the total economic development, since there must be any additional disposable income that can be spent to create demand

and therefore creates supply, that means driving economic activities and investment. Government’s economic common-sense approach to increase household income is to increase economic activities. But, again, the paradox is: what does an economy do if there is no room for economic development, such as new potential international and national market. New

Additional

disposable income of We need to have the logical economic income 10% picture as a social policy picture. First, there are always two components in every household living: “income” and “expense”. The social policy logic is: if we cannot increase income, we reduce the Household income expense. Therefore, social policy aims to reduce social expenses that make the revenue sum of the prior social expense will be expense Household transferred into the additional income. expense The social expense is health, education, to the economic-related expense, such as transportation. Today’s important Social policy expense that needs to be accepted as the social expense that needs to be significantly reduced is environmental problems. The worst policy on water and sanitation is easily creating a cholera outbreak and creates a new additional expense on health. Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Taipei, Hong Kong, Seoul, and surely many cities in Japan, are having a covering ratio for clean and safe water and sanitation more than 90%. Therefore, those cities generate the productivity of their people – since less people get ill—and economic –since there are more and more household’s disposable income from reduced social expenses.

2.2. The Objective of Social Policy The objective of social policy is surely social welfare. But the question is what kind of social welfare? Every society has its own criteria on welfare. Therefore, the question of the kind of welfare returns to the

mission of the nation which is written clearly in the Constitution. Their key objective of social policy then is providing the key for nation’s justice and social prosperity. Therefore, the social policy objective is stated as to keep creating integration and harmony within the nation (Hill, 1993: 5) as the basic ingredient for political stability and development, and ultimately to assure economic progress and growth. It was the reason why social policy is linked-closely to every other policy, especially politics and economy. Social policy is an indispensable policy. The practice of policy development in Every performing country in Asia, such as Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan implement public policy in line with social policy. Some other run-to-perform developing countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia are running to integrate public policy and social policy. Those countries even put social policy in the heart of public policy. The agenda is now, if the objective is still the same, about social development and justice, and therefore social welfare, how about the performance of these social policies? There are two issues related to this topic: that social policy is related to ideology, and social policy is about government’s expenditure therefore it has to compete with other government expenditure on the other policies (see Hill, 1993: 45). Since social policy is a government decision, therefore social policy must be politics (Hill, 1993), and politics is about ideology. Here we tie social policy to ideology. Here we exercise about ideology, relationship of ideology and politics, relationship of political ideology and public policy, and then the relationship of political ideology and social policy.

1

Ideology

2

Ideology and politics

3

the relationship of political ideology and public policy

4

relationship of political ideology and social policy

Now, the first question is: what is ideology? Ideology is belief in goodness. The socialist ideology originated from the beliefs that community interest above individual interest is goodness. The individualist ideology beliefs on the goodness of the individual interest must be best served before common interest. Capitalist belief on the capital individual and liberal capital accumulation in the scheme of free market is goodness. Communist, on the other hand, believe that individual liberty will destroy community, therefore the government has to shape society as wholeness under the single command of the ruler or government. Thus, ideology is the belief in goodness. Every society has their own belief in goodness. The next question is: What is the relationship of ideology and politics? Ideology is always political ideology. It is not just ideology. It is always about who is in power and determines what is good and not good. Goodness is always determined by power and authority. Power and authority are political institutions in any political system. Today all societies are entitled toward a specific political system. It is a formal and sovereign boundary of any social system today. Then, what is the relationship between political ideology and public policy? Political ideology determines how public policy understood and therefore developed and exercised as political accountability and responsibility of the authoritative power holder

Lastly, what is the relationship between political ideology and social policy? Political ideology determines how social policy is understood and therefore developed and exercised as political accountability and responsibility of the authoritative power holder. Ideology

Social policy

In sum, ideology determines social policy, especially in terms of “determining the objective of social policy”. Therefore, in some countries, the objective of social policy changes when the country’s ideology is changing; from the Russian Federation and ex-socialist countries in Eastern Europe to the changing nation from less democratic to the democratic governance countries, such as Indonesia. Is that all? Herewith we come to Michael Hill's wise understanding on the objective of social policy by saying from the contribution side: “the contribution of social policy to integration and harmony within the nation” (Hill, 1997, 4-5). Social policy is about making a society as a unity. It is not by force, but the natural process of values and actions interplay the relationship between individuals and groups in the society. 2.3. The Areas of Social Policy There are two approaches to understand the areas of public policy. First: sector’s approach. It is an approach that leads us to the division of “social development” as the strategy to catch up with backwardness, and “social justice” which leads to solving the social problem. The social development consisted of four most important social development areas –to mention that there is another social development but not accommodated here as it was not the most

critical ones—they are education, health, social security, and housing. Social justice consists of four areas: conflict, low competence, the left behind, and tragedy. The second approach is the target or beneficiary of the social policy. They are women who also may bond into gender issues, children, youth, and elderly. The two new emerging targets are man and transsexual people. This segregation is more “apple to apple” rather than to mix-up the first to the second, such as putting “women” or “gender” as a sector, rather than “target”. By having this map, we would find that the first approach put in the second approach: sector toward target. It means that there is a sector's social issue, such as equality in education for the girls and boys; as well as the issue of conflict in gender, and other issue like poverty among women, especially among family of single mother.

Sector

Housing

Social security

Health

Women (gender)

Education

Children

Conflict

Youth

Low competence

Elderly

Target or Beneficiaries

Left behind

(Man)

Tragedy

(Transsexual)

We may develop the binary understanding of social policy –sector and target—into a matrix of sector versus target to have a more advanced understanding.

Sector Wom an Development

Justice

Childr en

Target/beneficiary Yout Elder Man h ly

Transse xual

Education Health Social Security Housing Conflict Low competence Left behind Tragedy

In the “development” issue, it means social development which aim to prevent, protect, and enhance, consist of: 1. Education, i.e., education for all, training for workers, children 2. Health, i.e., service, insurance 3. Social security, i.e., pension, worker, etc. 4. Housing, i.e., low income, public services, special program In the “justice” or “social justice’’, it means toward the disadvantage of the development” aim to cure and solve, consist of: 1. Conflict, i.e., race, gender, trafficking, child abuse 2. Low competence, i.e., the poor, un-employment and the disabled 3. Left behind, i.e., the marginal groups, remote ethnics 4. Tragedy, i.e., the disaster and accident victims

SOCIAL POLICY

“development” (social development) Housing (low income, public services, special program)

Social security (pension, worker, etc)

“The disadvantages of development” (social justice) Education (education for all, training for workers, children)

Health (service, insurance)

Conflict (race, gender, trafficking, child abuse)

To prevent, protect, and enhance

Low competence (Poor, unemployment and the disable)

Left behind (Marginal groups, remote ethnics)

Tragedy (disaster, accident)

To cure and solve

The question then, who has the social policy accountability toward the issue of sector and target? Goddin’s suggestion is relevant here: there are four pillar of social policy success: government, family, market, and the community (see Goodin, 2001). Family

Government

3rd Sector

Market

Social Welfare (Social Development and Social Justice)

Housing

Social security (pension, worker, etc)

“development”

Health (service, insurance)

Education (education for all, training for workers, children)

To prevent, protect, and enhance

Conflict (race, gender, trafficking, child abuse)

Low competence (Poor, unemployment, disable)

To cure and solve

Left behind (Marginal groups, remote ethnics)

Tragedy (disaster, accident)

“The disadvantages of development”

After the introduction of the “Third Way” idea of Anthony Gidden (1996), the community sector often named as the third sector, our preferred term.

2.4. Summary Why is social policy important? Because social policy’s products are social goods; as well as public goods, they are the “nosubstitute goods”. In a context of private goods, if the product is unavailable or available but unfit with the customer’s need, people can “exit”. But, in terms of social goods, which can not be subtituted, the only choice for failure is “voice”, which then creates problems for any regime. Therefore, the social policy shall be performed as it creates loyalty. Therefore, social policy must have its rightness and preciseness in three issues: Intention, Function, and Areas.

“Voice”

“Exit “

Public good

Private good

Loyalty

Chapter Three The Politics of Social Policy

3.1. Policy is Decision We have found that social policy is a government decision. Who is the government so it may make decisions? The modern-basic-democratic political system, named as “modern democratic state”, comprehends at least three political institutions: legislative, the policy maker, executive, the policy implementer, and judicial, the judgment toward policy implementation. The idea was introduced by French’s philosopher Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689-1755) which is still relevant in today democratic system. Yet there are several modifications that needs to be made: the policy making does not merely belong to the legislative since executive heavily influence policy making process, and legislative in most parts is only to agree or disagree toward policy proposals of the executive. Executive is the government. In the commonwealth countries, from the UK to Malaysia, the government is led by the Prime Minister. In the other country, like the USA, Philippine, and Indonesia, a President is the lead government. They are the real “ruling” group in the modern state. The word “ruling” is not really “ruling”, since in the democratic countries, the process is becoming an interplay between the ruler and the ruled.

In regard to our discourse, the government is the executive branch. It has the national and local level, it has the political appointees and professional one as we named it “bureaucracy”. In the new and modern state, policy belongs to the judicative legislative government rather than legislative, since the executive branch has the most infrastructure to manage the policy, from agenda-setting, to implementation, and controlling by executive monitoring, evaluating, and rewarding. Therefore, policy in actuality is a government business. Government, as the mandated institution of the state, exercises public policy and so the social policy. Social policy is a decision to do or not to do. Policy then is about choice. Yet, it is not about intervention, since after deciding to do so, the government may drive another actor to implement that means intervention. Say, the Government decided to manage housing. The property business players build medium to high income housing by using bank loan mechanisms. There is no –at least, a very modest one—government intervention. But, in terms of medium and low income, where it needs specific funding, and the private sector could not afford the financial scheme, then the government should intervene. Meanwhile, the government has ordered the private sector to build medium and lowincome housing in the scheme of cross-subsidy –as happens in Indonesia housing policy—there is a certain kind of government intervention if the private sector is unwilling to comply with the government's order by withdrawing the license of permit. This understanding stated that social policy is a government decision, no matter if the government will do it herself, or make other players do what the government decided, by the social and/or economic incentives. When the government did it herself, it might be

categorized as “direct policy”, meanwhile the government did not do it herself, it categorized as “indirect policy”. State

Government

indirect Family

direct

indirect

Government

indirect 3rd Sector

Market

Social Welfare (Social Development and Social Justice)

Housing

Social security (pension, worker, etc)

“development”

Health (service, insurance)

Education (education for all, training for workers, children)

To prevent, protect, and enhance

Conflict (race, gender, trafficking, child abuse)

Low competence (Poor, unemployment, disable)

To cure and solve

Left behind (Marginal groups, remote ethnics)

Tragedy (disaster, accident)

“The disadvantages of development”

Most of the policy has a direct model when it is trickled down to the government institutions than to the other actors: family, market, and the third sector, where the social policy rests on (see Goodin, 2001). In sum, social policy is any government decision toward social development, social justice, and therefore social welfare. To be remembered, that policy is about decision, and it is not about intervention alone. Intervention means “a direct involvement and intervention on somebody else's home-affair”, that makes government social policy means intervention or no-intervention.

3.2. Government decision as Ideology Hill developed three arguments on social policies. “First, social policy expenditure has to compete with other public expenditure dedicated to defense of the realm. The case against heavy defense expenditure cannot rest simply on arguments that some of that money would be better spent on social policy; it is necessary to prove that some of that expenditure is inappropriate or irrelevant, or to face the argument that without it social policy would be secure. Secondly, the form of this defense expenditure has a wide range of social effects. Thirdly, the contribution of social policy to integration and harmony within the nation” (Hill, 1997, 4-5)

We see the note on “compete”. Policy is about resources allocation. It means AP2 B-2 about priority. Some Another policy governments prioritize allocation AP1 social policy, some B-1 other prioritizes defense policy, and the other puts economic SP1 SP2 policy as the top Social policy allocation priority. The resource allocation in any nation is not about economic issue, but political issue. The liberal-capitalist regime chooses to allocate their resources toward economic growth, but the social-democrats prefer resource allocation toward social policy. Therefore, when we discuss “competition” among policies, it is about what ideology is behind the ruling regime? What is the main ideology of the present government?

Therefore, social policy is also about ideology. Ideology constructs values and norms in any political system where the government works to serve the country. Malaysia, for example, has a set of ideology of an Islamic country, which is reflected in the Islamic way of life in the government daily works; a Monarchy, which is reflected in the Monarchy way of life in the government as the government loyalty to the King; a Constitutional country, which is reflected in the constitutionality way of life of the government system; and a Democratic country, as reflected in the institutionalized election cycle to reflect the democratic way of life. In sum, the Malaysia government’s ideology rest, at least, for the four pillars: 1. There must be belief in God and a commitment to a harmonious…anything that disregard to God and challenge to harmony assumed as “socially and then formally illegal” 2. There must be the highest honor to the King –Yang Dipertuan Agong of Malaysia, who is now Yang Dipertuan Agong Mizan Zainal Abidin, the Sultan of Terrengganu(and The Royal Family) …anything dishonor to the King assumed as “unsocially and then formally illegal” 3. Constitution and law is the guiding action and judgment. It is not personal or group….therefore any legally-binding decision that attained to personal and group judgment is against the principles of constitutionality 4. Therefore we have a democratic institutions…a triangle of executive, legislative, and judiciary branches….a government that is accountable to the people through representative model of democracy ….that is why we have a regular election So, that is the importance of the social policy regards to ideology, as we have discussed before and conclude that:

“Ideology is the belief in goodness, and every society has their own belief in goodness. Ideology is always political ideology. It is not just ideology. It is always about who is in power and determines what is good and not good. Goodness is always determined by power and authority. Political ideology determines how public policy is understood and therefore developed and exercised as political accountability and responsibility of the authoritative power holder. Political ideology determines how social policy is understood and therefore developed and exercised as political accountability and responsibility of the authoritative power holder. In sum, ideology determines social policy, especially in terms of determining the objective of social policy. We examine the term “ideology determines the objective of social policy”. It means about priority. Priority means that a certain percentage of resources –economic and political—must go to a certain policy. The importance to understand social policy as ideology proposed by Titmuss which noted that the danger of social policy which neglect ideology by saying: “Where ideology to drop out of social welfare equation, the social policy maker would be left with techniques but not values…policy, any policy, to be effective must choose an objective and must face dilemma of choice…he is bound to feel confused without an ideological map capable of focusing his attention…social policy models, with all their apparent remoteness from the reality, can serve a purpose in providing us with an ideological framework which may stimulates us to ask the significant questions and to expose the significant choices” (Titmuss, 1977: 15) Here we found that certain ideology determines certain social policy as our next discussion. Ideology is then a political choice. Therefore,

the discussion toward ideology and social policy descends into the politics of social policy. There are two macro approaches toward ideology of social policy: (1) the approach that is divided into “right” versus “left”, and (2) the “liberal” versus “conservative”. The concept of “right” and “left” developed from the French political transition from monarchy to democracy. The French parliament, French National Assembly, was divided into two “groups”: they who defendant to the King’s authority, as “the Right”, and they who pro to the Revolution and wanting to lessen the King and the monarchy power, they who wanting democracy, which named as the “Left”. At that time, the terms left and right were not used to refer to political ideology but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic-socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliations. Robert McIver in his The Web of Government (1947) mentioned that the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes. The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth

or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defense and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes. Spicker (1996) found that political views on welfare are indeed divided into 'left' and 'right' wing views. The left wing for welfare public provision collectivist institutional welfare

The right wing against welfare against public provision individualist residual welfare

The understanding of “right” and LEFT “left” then becomes more LIBERAL complicated when we refer to US DEMOCRATIC PARTY democratic system which is also divided as “right” as the conservative and “left” as liberal. Democratic Party consists of New Deal Liberals, Rawlsian Liberals, Social Demo-crats, and Civil Libertarians. The Republican Party consists of Social Conservatives, Christian Conserva-tives, Free Market Liberal, and Contemporary Right

RIGHT

CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN PARTY

The problem is: both of the “right” and “left” are not supporting the idea of government roles toward social welfare. In the “right” era of Republics, under the Presidency of George Bush and George W. Bush, the general policy was unlikely to support social policy toward social welfare. Obama was raising the issue of social welfare by signing the social security act in 2010. Cato Institute, one of the liberal’s policy

research center based on Washington DC, is then firing the government’s policy toward social welfare (see www.cato.org) On the contrary, by fact, seeing the budget configuration we might see that the US is not a neo-liberal or a “left” or “right” ones, since the country, whether led by the “right” of the “left”, the national budget toward social welfare has increased from time to time. In 1956, about 60% of the national budget was for defense, but in 2006, about 60% of national budget was allocated for social security and other payment to individuals, which was the percentage only 22% in 1956. The understanding about “right” and “left” was even confusing when we came from the origin of the understanding toward social welfare. The right, which was also named as “conservative” was the side who believed that social welfare belonged to family and religious institutions. It meant, if there was any social problem, the family should help, not the government. The “left” found that social welfare was the accountability of government, since government is not God’s representatives, but people’s representatives through an election system. But, instead of making government as the core mandated institution, the “left”, who was named as “liberal”, believe that the market is the solution for social welfare. Instead of the market failing, the government has to come and take care of social welfare problems. It was about “residual”. Therefore, under western-

capitalist’s social science understanding, there is no real government obligation toward social welfare and therefore social policy. The classification of “right” and “left” still continues as Klaus von Beyme developed the positions on ownership of the means of production and positions on social issues in the “left” and “right”. The most left was Communist, followed by socialist, and going to the right was Green, and then Liberal. The right politics is Christian Democratic, conservative, and the extreme right was right wing extremist. Whilst we see the classification, we would find that “liberal” is actually the “center” politics.

Communist

Socialist

Green

LEFT

Liberal

Christian democratic

“CENTER” OF IDEOLOGY

Conservative

Right-wing extremist

RIGHT

The understanding about “right” and “left” also has another confound in the developing countries, which “right” assumed as the “religious stream” and “left” assumed as “communist stream”. In Indonesia and Malaysia, for example, the label of “left” identifies the communist, at least communist-affiliate movement or idea. Therefore, we found that it is more beneficial if we seek the contemporary understanding of politics of social policy, since, as Lavalette and Pratt (2001), noted that as an academic discipline, social policy is concerned with the critical analysis of social provision in the public, private, occupational, voluntary, and informal sectors. The problem is: social policy as an academic discipline may still lack the variety of theoretical refinements that distinguish cognate subjects such as economics, politics, and sociology. Therefore, the analysis of social policy shall encompass three ground-works: Comparative, Historical, and Theoretical. The effective way to do it is to analyze

social policy in the political groundwork, by looking at the sequence, history, and theoretical framework. Lavalette and Pratt (2001) develop four political paradigms5 that influence the understanding of social policy. The models are: 1. Social democracy 2. Neo-liberalism 3. Third Way 4. Marxism We added one other relevant politics of social policy: 5. Developing country 3.3. Social-Democracy The idea of social democracy might be traced back toward the idea of socialism which was started by the French Social Revolution in 1789–1799) as radical social and political upheaval in French and Europe to end absolute monarchy. The revolt was marked by the Bastille Prison shattered on 14 July 1789, as a symbol of the falling of Louis XIV, the King of France who identified himself as the state on his famous statement: “L’etat c’est moi” (“the State is Me” –personalization of state). The social revolution slogans were: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. Pierre Leroux in 1834 promoted the concept of socialism as "the

5 As comparison, Manning (1999: 50-51) developed another classification: (1) pluralist,

elites, corporatist, and Marxist. Pratt is preferable since it goes to the basic division of political ideology.

doctrine which would not give up any of the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". The revolution went to the UK, where Robert Owen (1771 – 1858) developed the new model for an economic entity named “cooperative”, an innovative idea that he acknowledged as “the father of Cooperative Movements”. As the impact, in 1833 The UK Government released “Factory Act” attempted to reduce the hour adults and children worked in the textile industry --children of nine to thirteen years could be worked no more than 9 hours, and those of a younger age were prohibited—and the changing of working day --a fifteen hour working day was to start at 5.30 a.m. and cease at 8.30 p.m. Social democratic political model for social policy may be cited as the first modern model of social policy. The idea was an aligning between socialism, as a revolt toward monarchy, and primitive democracy which developed into the modern democracy in the mid century in France. Socialism has developed into some ideologies: liberalism, capitalism –which is influenced also by liberalism—and the extreme socialism known as Marxism, which then transforms into its more extreme model of communism. Social democrats model was an alignment between democracy and some of socialism's derivatives: liberalism, capitalism, and Marxism. The idea of social-democrats' politics of social policy also being co-influenced by the idea of welfare state which was coming from the ancient belief of heaven on earth, which inherited from the religious beliefs, especially Christianity beliefs.

Religion

Welfare State Democracy “Democracy” Liberalism

Capitalism Social Democrats

Monarchy

Socialism

Marxism

Communism

The social-democrats political view on social policy based on some principles: 1. Belief in the welfare state 2. It is assumed a mixed economy : capitalism (individual ownership) and socialism (public and government ownership) 3. There must be a set of subsidized social services for citizens (education, universal health care, child care, housing) 4. There is an extensive social security system (unemployment, retirement, elder citizens) 5. The presence of progressive taxation to funding government social welfare services 6. The basic values are: democracy, human rights, social justice, civil rights and liberties 7. It is a center-left ideology

Most of the west Europe countries has belong to this model until end of the “Cold War”, in 1986, marked by the end of communism in Poland, the fall of Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In regard to the theoretical framework in sociology, this approach might be categorized as the structural functional approach which sees society and its building block as a framework for building theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability (Macionis, 2007). Social democrat belief on social policy stems from the belief that welfare is an expression of altruism. This perspective assumes that the creation of a more equal and cohesive society will foster a sense of mutual obligation and help to realize the moral potentialities of its citizens. The task of welfare is to redistribute resources and opportunities, and thereby provide a framework for the encouragement and expression of altruism

Pratt (2001) mentioned that old or traditional visions of social democracy were rooted in the belief that significant degrees of autonomy and political power rested with national governments. The idea was politics mattered and could be used to achieve a variety of economic and social ends. This approach was seen in the Keynesian approach on economics about the role of the government when the market was unable to perform in serving society and people perfectly. Social democrat model was being challenged barely. Self (200o) criticized that social democrat politics was obsolete since the world has been changed drastically. He noted that the real world now is a very different place from that in which traditional social democracy achieved its greatest triumph: compromise between capitalism and socialism which was hammered out in Europe this century and which produced the actual product of the mixed economy and the welfare state (Self, 2000). In the mid 1980s, the world changed the fundamental idea from the “state” to “private” (or market). The dynamic of privatization sparked by British PM Margareth Thatcher has spread along the world, and also in the politics of social policy. There were some weaknesses and therefore accumulation of criticism toward social democrats in social policy. First, the 1980s was the end of socialist-communism world, and it created “a one game in town” world: “capitalism”. In capitalism, the market mechanism is the only left choice. IMF, WB, WTO as strong supporters of the development and further expansion of the global economic system. Corporations control most of the world’s investment decisions, while the national government is left behind. Existing capitalism is producing a growing prosperity for all with – basic beliefs– an increase of individual opportunity. Public policy must be a public choice. Public choice theory is a microcosm of neo-liberal political economy, resting in a way on the same-behavioral assumptions which was the basic assumptions is micro economics of

actors (egoism, self-interest) and context (perfect market) (see, Pratt, 2001). Second, Government spending was too excessive, and the government was being challenged to reduce its expense and therefore to reduce the government budget for social policy. There was a criticism that big government turned out to be ineffective. The more it tried, the more it failed, the more it lost authority. The more authority lost, the more it failed (Marquand, 1987). Third, the critics that tax, as the core income to funding social policy programs, have reduced economic competitiveness. The rejection toward social democrat policy was the emerging fact that any country which now contemplates raising taxes to expand welfare risks an economic backlash. As capitalist economic activity naturally migrates to the places with the fewest regulations and the lowest social charges, national governments are now competing with each other for economic activity (Thurow, 1996). The global-capitalism has a single frame of thinking: if a country is a high tax, high-spending society, businesses will simply move to low-tax, low spending societies. The ability of nations to pursue national goals is now widely seen as outdated. Therefore, Globalization has put great pressure on governments to reduce their social expenditure in order to satisfy the demands of international financial markets. It dictated how the government should exercise social policy (Thurow, 1996). About taxation needed for government (public) expenditure to provide social welfare that increases exponentially. If personal and company taxation is too high at the margin, incentives will be damaged. Why should employees work harder and take on more responsibility if they know that the net advantage to them of the marginal money they earn will be significantly reduced by the government’s depredations? (Pratt, 2001). Social-democrats discouraging entrepreneurship. In regard to Joseph Schumpeter,

entrepreneurship is the engine of economic growth and therefore economic welfare. Fourth, social democrats' politics, which was heavily influenced by the welfare state approach, sprung-up by Keynesian approach, has a basic idea of intense government intervention. On the contrary, the emerging belief was ne0-liberalism which was based on classical economic view (micro-economy) which saw that government intervention must be meant “big” government, and “big government” synonymous to “bad government”, since it was slow, lazy, and red-tape. The political social democratic was not a sincere policy since Political parties develop policy objectives to win elections rather than to consummate some vision of the public good, since they became reactive rather than proactive (Downs, 1957). The image toward the government also changed dramatically. The arising criticism is that bureaucrats cannot be expected to lay restraining hand on the excesses of democratic politics –see as “Theory “X”-- bureaucrats are just like other common people: greedy, vain, ambitious, and keen to follow their own interest –see as theory of Pathology of Bureaucracy— and, in fact, they are actors of the overall of “political drama” of the political actors (parties and interest groups) In this approach, social policy did not mention the role of the market –as we would see of the social welfare service privatization in the mid 1980s. There was also a failure to recognize that social policies can be instruments of social control. Policies in housing, health, education are also the “extension of social control” of government and social system as well. This was the reason for the emerging of the succeeding political approach: neo-liberal.

3.4. Neo Liberal Political Model of Social Policy What is “neo-liberal”, why do we not use the term “liberal” instead of “neo-liberal”? Neo liberal is liberalism in the age of globalization. We had never heard the word of “neo-liberal” before mid of 1980s, when “globalization” and “trans-nationalization” came appear as the world new foundation6. The idea of neo-liberalism has definitely been as accurate as Thurow (1996) noted that with their geographical spread, TNCs are able to design a product in one country, manufacture it in another, and sell it in a third. This allows ample scope to minimize tax bills through transfer pricing, by which companies move their taxable profits to low tax countries –that is why many companies are moving to Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore. He then refers that today’s global corporate leviathans decide which regions and countries in the world will receive new flows of investment for job creation and where the production facilities will be built (Thurow, 1996). The more social democrats regime growth, the more investment away, and the more economic growth decreased, and then the government revenue to fund social policy elapsed.

6

The understanding came from a discussion with Prof. Dr. Sri Edi Swasono on September 2010. Prof. Swasono is one of the Indonesia most prominent economist and social policy thinker.

Need of social policy financing

Need of social policy financing

Corporate tax

Corporate tax

Investment attractiveness

Investment attractiveness

Need of social policy financing

Economic growth

Corporate tax

Corporate tax

social policy financing

Investment attractiveness

Previous social policy financing

Therefore, in today's election, if a candidate promises that he or she will increase social subsidy for education, health, and pension, and on the other side also promises to reduce tax, then he or she must be lying. Since both of them are separate matters. Back to the neo-liberals, the key concept is that social welfare means how the market mechanism gives jobs to the people. Government social policy shall pursue a condition of equilibrium; it is a condition of full employment (means no unemployment). On the other hand, social policy aims toward economic development. Social policy is any

social policy that develops economic growth; any policy that incentives business investment. In Titmuss's understanding, the neo-liberal similar to the industrial achievement-performance model of social policy, where social welfare was understood as adjuncts of economy. But, since the government is assumed to take any part that the market is unable to provide, neo-liberal also reflects the residual model of social policy. The first basic assumption of neo-liberal social policy is individualism; it assumes society is a sum of individuals, an approach that –related to behaviorist approach). All phenomena are reducible to individual behavior; organic entities such as “society” or the “state” are comprehensively only in terms of the activities of their constitutive individuals (D.S. King, 1987). “There is no such thing as society. Free individuals go about their business within the general framework of the ‘rule of law’, knowing wherein their best interest lies, pursuing pleasures rather than pain. Embodied in contractual exchange these individuals pursue a set of collective outcomes which by themselves are neither good nor bad,” Margaret Thatcher. (Pratt, 2001). The second assumption is a rationality base; people are rational. The individual pursuit of self-interest only makes sense if individuals act rationally (Pratt, 2001). The idea of rationality was challenged by Herbert Simon, the Nobel laureate in his Administrative Behavior (1976) which mentioned that the real presence was not “rationality” but “bounded rationality” which means that there are boundaries of rationality, and that what we think as rational actually irrational. The idea of market rationalism is also challenged by the finding that the economy and therefore market are actually irrational, since the market follows the “psychology of market” rather than “rationality of the market”. People make economic decisions irrationally. The stock market trading is based on the “look rational but irrational” decision, as well as in the financial market, and commodity market, since the markets have shifted into “casinos”. In this universe,

rationality is understood as the pursuit of perfectly informed self interest. In economy, player of the market always look for –and create– information inequality –not equality—since from it they took profit and therefore business growth sustainably) The third assumption is supremacy of the free market (Pratt, 2001). The perfect arena in which rational, self interest, perfectly informed individuals should meet is the market. Market as an institution is good; perfect markets are perfect. Market is about exchange, and exchange relationship is the supreme, far out-weighting the claims of other kinds of relationship such as social transaction. In sum, the basic belief of neo-liberal social policy was based on an economic view of thinking. Therefore social policy itself might be said to be reduced to become part of economic policy. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and their followers have beliefs that “market is the best institution yet created by human agency for the conduct of economic activity”. In the market, freedom of choice is guaranteed and respected; not to respect it would result in loss of profit and potential bankruptcy. Therefore, for neo liberal: the question is not so much what goods can be allocated through the market, but what goods can state, and the state alone, provide. Therefore, in the neo-liberal social policy we found privatization policy toward social service, which the basic principle of privatization is dismantling government power and authority on every-goods that are assumed as non-public goods. Neo-liberal has redefined the definition of public goods. Seldon (1977) define public goods as supplied collectively rather than separately to individuals or small groups; provided by general agreement to pay jointly, ‘that is, they require voluntary collective arrangements to coerce one another and also individuals who do not want the services at all but who cannot help benefiting from them; non-rival in sense that until full capacity is reached they can be used by more and more people at no additional cost; and the essential

characteristic of public good is that they cannot be refused to people whose refuse to pay, and who would otherwise have a “free” ride if they were not required to pay. Public goods, to be provided at all, cannot therefore be produced in response to individual specification in the market: they must be financed collectively by the method known as taxation. In the neo-liberal social policy, public goods such as clean water, sewer system, and public transport, transformed to the private sector through public-private-partnership scheme. For neo-liberal, labor is a commodity like any other and therefore susceptible to market operations. They are also determined by the law of supply and demand (Pratt, 2001). On liberty, the neo-liberal reject the idea of positive liberty. The only valid is negative liberty: it means the absence of coercion and market outcomes are unforeseen (Pratt, 2001). In regard to social justice, neo-liberal beliefs that in a free society, there can be no general agreement about which criterion should be used as the operational basis of resource allocation. Therefore, because of the absence of agreed criteria, allocation through non-market methods will be arbitrary and discretionary. This will mean that at the very heart of the public of a welfare state will lie the arbitrary and discretionary power of welfare bureaucrats and experts charged with the impossible task of distributing resources according to intrinsically unspecific criteria. Because of the absence of known and agreed criteria, there will be selfish and destructive competition by interest groups for resources. It is the relative power of interest groups that will be significant in the allocation of scarce resources. The powerful will inevitably win (Pratt, 2001). Different from the prior belief about social welfare as social rights, neo-liberal totally reject the idea of social or welfare rights (Pratt, 2001). The poor are poor, because of their own mistakes. Therefore, in regard to poverty, neo-liberal adopt the absolute concept of poverty, not relative poverty, meaning the poor people need the opportunity to work their way out of poverty and to break free from

the culture of dependency which disfigures their humanity (Pratt, 2001). Poverty is not caused by a dysfunctional social system. It is culturally determined through the values, mores, attitudes and lack of aspiration transmitted across generations (Pratt, 2001), a concept that was previously developed by Oscar Lewis as the culture of poverty (1986). The period of neo-liberal started in 1985 when British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher introduced privatization for UK state owned enterprises, and the idea has driven toward privatization of water services, which have become world’s trend, and public transport. The agenda of privatizing social policy was coming from the fact that government capacity to fund social services and welfare was lessening, and on the other side, as criticism of the social democratic regime, the public was in distrust to the bureaucracy and politicians as their social policy program was toward their own personal and political interest. The severe problem is, as Thurow (1996) mentioned, today’s global corporate leviathans decide which regions and countries in the world will receive new flows of investment for job creation and where the production facilities will be built. Then, the market was becoming the solution for social policy problems. Market managed by the “hidden hand”. When market players determine politics and therefore public policy, then the beauty of “hidden hand of the market” has gone. Full employment will be determined by profit, not by urgency of creating social welfare as idealized by capitalist and laissez-faire ideology. Capitalism postulates only one goal: an individual interest in

maximizing personal consumption. But individual greed simply isn’t a goal that can hold any society together in the long run (Thurow, 1996). Neo-liberal could not provide social welfare as promised; the market had their own weakness: social welfare belongs to those who can buy that welfare. Ironical toward the basic function of social welfare to be side with. The facts of neo-liberal policy bias was revealed by Susan George (2002) who found that in 1980s the lowest structure in the society was losing their welfare, meanwhile 10% of the highest had increased their revenue 16%, whilst 5% of the highest structure increase 23%, and the 1% of the highest was increasing 50%

50%

1% 23%

5%

16%

10%

“loss”

In 1977, about 1% of the highest population earned revenue about 65 times of the average revenue of the 10% lowest population. In 1987, 1% of the highest population earned revenue about 115 times of the average revenue of the 10% lowest population (Susan George, 2002).

Neo liberal policy has created a wide discrepancy even in its own “homeland” of liberalism. In 2008, the US was hit by severe economic crises which derived from the subprime mortgage crisis as an “innovation” of market liberalism in the US. The Federal Reserve predicted that the US would have economic contraction 0.5-1.3% in 2009. Government even had to take over two US giant businesses, GM and AIG, to keep the economy afloat. The US bailout stimulus reached a total of $ 11.6 trillion, the biggest ever in US and world history. The world economy has shrunk as the biggest economic player did too, from Citigroup, whose market value in January 2009 was $ 255 billion to $ 19 billion, HSBC from $ 215 billion to $ 97, and RBS from $ 120 billion to S 4.6 billion.

Market value- January 20th 2009, $Bn Market value- per Q2 2007, $Bn RBS 120

Morgan Stanley

Deutsche Credit Bank Agricole 76

49 4.6

16

10.3

67

17

Societe Generale 80

26

Barclays

BNP Paribas 108

91

7.4

32.5

Citigroup 255

UBS Unicredit 116 93

26

35

HSBC JP Morgan

215

165 Credit Suisse

Goldman Sachs 100

Santander 116

75

27

35

64

19

85

97

The US, which is “protected” by 40 Nobels economic laureates to run liberalism and capitalism excessively, shocked by serious crises that hits their economy until today, and it seems that the believedideology about free market and its neo-liberal’s approach does not work as prior, since what the market promise about “invisible hand” is to become “invisible fist”, and The only thing left is market failure and the next and more severe market failure. Overall, the US has been rethinking neo-liberalism, as President Obama has just released a policy about universal-health-scheme. When the market of the neo-liberal does not guarantee social welfare, meanwhile social democrats have elapsed, what to do? This is about the next approach: the 3rd Way.

3.5. The Third Way Political Model of Social Policy

The third way was a revision toward social democracy. It is a new social democracy which included neo-liberal (Pratt, 2001). It was developed in the UK in the 1990s by Anthony Giddens, the political thinker who closed the PM Tony Blair. In his Third Way, Giddens (1998) stated that Keynesian is too complicated, market-fundamentalism has no promise on social welfare socially –but individually, therefore there was a needy approach toward the world compass. It stated that in the world that its economic, technology, and culture transform into the “new shape”, the 3rd Way (try hard) to provide the new political compass. The third way approach was shaped by two major intellectual thinking, Giddens, and the prior one, Stuart Hill and Martin Jacques whom in the journal “Marxism Today” in 1980 wrote that “Thatcherite Neo-Lib is a hegemonic project than an expressed ideal of the idea” (Pratt, 2001). The need is a new Wording of the New Social Democrat political approach, and looking for a word of An Intelligent Welfare State. The ideas of the third way was a competitive, innovative and high productivity capitalist economy was an essential pre-requisite for increasing levels of personal disposable income and the creation of a comprehensive, generous institutional model of welfare which the greater volume of resources generated by a competitive and successful private sector economy, the greater would be the pool of resources the state could call on for its social agenda (Pratt, 2001). But, it was not easy to practice the third way. In fact, it was applied precisely in several sectors, and there was an education policy. Therefore, the leading social policy in the third way is education. As Pratt (2001) noted that education and training had a very prominent place given their potential contribution as forms of economic and

social investment, whilst Tony Blair, the UK PM, has a magical: “Education, education, and education” (Pratt, 2001). Direction of the social policy program was that an intelligent welfare state should respond to new needs and risks in an active and preventive way: it should be about social investment and not just the provision on compensatory social spending, i.e. labor market policy tailored to individual needs and situations, balance incentives, opportunities as well as obligations. There were some special programs toward lack of skills and single parenthood, recognition of new social needs such as reconciliation of work, family life, balancing family and workplace as “entire life cycle (Pratt, 2001). The new kind of state of the third way has some characters. The third way as the new social democracy is a belief in the need to reconstruct the relationship between the state and civil society. The traditional top-down approach of British social democracy (where the state decided what was good to people then delivered it) resulted in failure to meet the real needs and preferences of individuals and families (as the micro system of society) –see who defines needs. The importance of the third way emerged as neo-liberalism attempts to break up public monopolies led to a range of unacceptable consequences as service standards declined and inequalities spread. The “New State” of social democrat has to avoid the failing of old social democrat and neo liberal, but reflect the growth of individualism and diversity (Pratt, 2001). Therefore, the third way is an effort to unite social democrat and neo liberal. The acceptance of the third-way as an alignment of social democrat and neo liberal derived from the fact that whether we like or not the world has changed and social democrats are confronted with the realities of globalization, new technology, diversity, and

individualism. Therefore, the third way theory offers little in terms of normative political principles and is too accepting of the market demands: it makes too many concessions to be regarded as properly social democratic, but other ideas still point into social democracy in the new vision. The vision is sensitive to the realities of the modern world combined with a recognizably social democratic value (Pratt, 2001). Third way, however, is about the new relationship between State and Society. It is about redefinition of relationship between state and society. Is the third way come that simple? Giddens noted that third way led to framework and policy making that seeks to adapt social democracy to a world which has changed fundamentally over the past two or three decades, since it was an attempt to transcend both old-style social democracy and neo-liberalism” (Gidden, 1998: 26) The core issue of the third way emerged was that people felt that both “Left” and “Right” did not touch the serious social problems in the society, such as divorce, single parent, abortion, teenager’s vandalism, homosexuality, AIDS, illegal aliens, and environmental pollution. Therefore, they need to have a “different way” that is able to respond toward the prior social issue that is unable to be resolved by democrat and its successor neo-liberal, and the new unanswered social problems. Socialismdemocratics Socialism

The Third Way Center Left

New Left

They did not believe that the idea of better society will be achieve by enlarging government’s role in the social policy

Neo liberalism Capitalism

New Right

They did not fully behold the ide that liberalism and market alone able to provide social welfare

Anthony Giddens actually was a pessimist to the right approach (social democrats) and left (neo liberal), they both make some big and severe mistakes. Giddens has been using the word of “Juggernaut” – a big truck who runs fast and after-all uncontrolled and unstoppable; it was when market fundamentalism of neo-liberal has led toward human disaster. What has happened in was a “manufactured uncertainty” from nature-made to human made in the “radicalized modernity”. The basic idea of the 3rd way is that the government –in social democrat—has failed to perform social welfare, then comes the market to take over, but then the market has failed, too, so come a third way with the third sector as the answer.

Third way has a serious problem, as Siti Hajar mentions that it has a hollowness between the rhetoric and reality, a blur relation among theory, ideology, and praxis (Hajar, 2007: 165). This criticism emerged from the third way of basic assumptions that need to be questioned. First, it was the assumption that if the government and market are unable to provide social welfare, it stills the third sector, society and family. It seems like utopia, since under the neo-liberal the society and family ability has been “destroyed”, so their competence has

lessened. Indeed, they still exist, but not as effectively as before. The third way was unaccountably leaving the social welfare problem to those existing-but-not-effective institutions. The third way is a dream to revitalize the past which perhaps might be revitalized, but only become a marginally sector rather than a mainstream one. The second assumption is that community is the resource of moral culture. It was a contradiction since the policy promoted individuals’ rights as the core driver. It was an implant neo-liberal in communitarian thinking. It might be done, but not effective. Indeed, in the UK it has been implemented as a new approach of business responsibility where the market must support social policy, an approach recognized as corporate social responsibility. The third assumption was that the core institutions responsible toward social policy are the community and its third sector. Indeed, there are community policing programs, such as revitalization of community centers, mutual-helps programs as people help people, and self-help programs for people empowerment programs. Still, the assumption was stated that the government and market have nothing to do with their own failure toward social welfare. But still, this political idea of third way presence was strong in the 1990s since the two world leaders, Tony Blair PM of UK and Bill Clinton President of US, became the promoters of the idea. Today, the idea is still present but not as mainstream as a strong alternative as in the 1990s.

3.6. Marxism Political Social Policy Marxism is an idea developed by Karl Marx which come by premises that human history is about history about exploitation and therefore inequality and justice; the history has always on a dialectical: thesis, antithesis, synthesis; society was about class conflict between capitalist (bourgeoisie) and worker (proletariat) and synthesis therefore it has advocacy toward proletarian revolution as social revolution. Thus, an approach still present in today's thesis Anti thesis social thinking is a social-conflict approach as a framework for building theory that sees society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and change (Macionis, 2008). Marxist as an institutionalized system exists in communism which was practiced in Soviet Unions and its satellite countries in Eastern Europe. The idea was practiced as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924) & Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (1878-1953) led the Bolshevik Revolution 19171921 as “war communism” to overthrow Tsar Nicholas II, and create the Dictatorship of Proletariat as existed in the Political Bureau, the new “oligarchy” instrument.

In a totalitarian regime such as the Soviet Union, everything must be done by the state, therefore social policy and welfare provision. Therefore, the basic argument was that the state fulfilled all the needs of social welfare. Today, Marxism-Communism was an obsolete idea as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had transformed into capitalist countries, and China was still in communism but the economic model is capitalism. Besides North Korea and Cuba, there was no longer real communism as an institutionalized system. But, in fact, Marxism existed as an agenda and adopted as an idea more than political ideology. In Germany and South America, the idea of neo-Marxist was emerged in the 1980s and is still present until today, from the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory to the Cultural Studies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Box: Critical theory (Frankfurt School of thought, Max Horkheimer: Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society, as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Horkheimer wanted to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxian theory, theory, critiquing both the model of science put forward by logical positivism, and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and authoritarianism of orthodox Marxism and Communism) Cultural studies (Gramsci: modified classical Marxism: in seeing culture as a key instrument of political and social control. In this view, capitalists use not only brute force (police, prisons, repression, military) to maintain control, but also penetrate the everyday culture of working people. Thus, the key rubric for Gramsci and for cultural studies is that of cultural hegemony. Cultural studies draw from the fields of anthropology, sociology, gender studies, feminism, literary criticism, history and psychoanalysis) (Source: Wikipedia) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As issues and agenda, Marxism idea still influence the in social policy ideas today, as we see some critics concern about social policy which tend to maintain the status quo of the power holder, enrich the rich, supporting Capitalism, keeping the gap open and wider, softening the exploitation by the upper class, gender insensitive, a pro race social policy in an affirmative action, issue on injustice structural social policy, to the critics of commodification (to become commodity, a trade goods) of social policy. In consequence, some Marxist approach on today’s social policy is presence in a policy on conflict resolution whilst using the approach as class, caste, race, religions, ethnics, to understand the root of the conflict in finding solution, critical studies, on media criticism on advertising and popular culture, gender equality, structural adjustment for social problem, as such economic scheme for selected groups, to the new world economic order, the progressive tax, and the policy on cross subsidy. The Marxist influence toward today's social policy actually is not about Marx’s idea alone, since the root of Marxist was socialism, in which the social policy is not merely to help the disadvantaged in the social system, but to change the inequality to gain common social welfare. 3.7. Developing Nations Political Model of Social Policy The word “development” was promoted to the world by US President Harry S. Truman when in his inauguration speech on 20th January 1949, he stated the US new responsibility toward the underdeveloped areas that need development. He was using the word firstly to mention South America, but then toward Asia, Africa, and all the ex-colony countries. It became a US political agenda in gaining the superpower coverage to compete with Soviet Union expansion as the “Left” in the world political map.

The United Nations has promoted many definitions of development, one of the well-accepted definitions which was released in 1975 stated that development is not a static concept; it is continuously changing. Soedjatmoko, an Indonesian thinker, the Rector of UN University, has developed the UN idea of development as a learning process from a certain level of living to the next better one. Learning it means society develops their competencies individually and collectively, to adjust and adapt but also to create toward the intended future (Soedjatmoko, 1997: 50). Development is an acceleration of social change of every less developed country to catch up the backwardness as compared to the developed countries. Development therefore is a planned and engineered change. It was different toward change in the developed countries that followed a laissez-faire mode. The concept of development came from the western scholars in the 1960s. It was started by the US effort to save the world after World War II. Post WWII, the US launched a program named “Marshall Plan” to help Europe recover. The program to rebuild Europe by transferring financial support had been accomplished. The program then replicates for many less developed countries in Asia and some regions in South America and Africa. But it failed. The transfer of financial support –grant and loan—did not achieve the intended objective.

Success story

Europe smashed by WW II

Post WW II

Rebuild Europe : The New Europe

Marshall Plan Program : massive capital injection to Europe (esp. western)

US is the only player in town”

Marshall Plan II: capital injection to less developed countries

Helping newborn countries

Development for developing countries

Failed !

The finding was that those new emerging countries have specific weaknesses that make them unable to become developed countries such they have a “development’s problem”. The idea was to develop the new emerging countries rather than to infuse them with capital and financial support. “Development” was becoming the wellaccepted word. The politics of development, as reflected in the theories of development, is not single. There are at least five politics of development which influenced social policy. The first is: the politics of development as modernization. There are two approaches: development as imitating the modern country experience, especially the US, and development as a specific way of developing countries to be like the developed one. There is a theory of the stages of development which was introduced by W.W. Rostow (1916-2003) Special Assistant to US President Lyndon B. Johnson, which stated that development toward modernization was going through five steps: 1. Traditional society

2. 3. 4. 5.

Pre-condition for take off Take off Drive to maturity Age of high mass consumption

This approach was so influential that most of the developing countries put these stages into their development plan, and therefore their social policy. In this approach, social policy was merely part of the success of each stage. The contribution of social policy was less accounted for. The other approach was the politics of cultural development. The belief of this approach is that the society of the developing country has a special experience which was not favorable to the development; it was about mentality, of psychological experience, and therefore culture. To develop the society in the developing country means to change the mentality, behavior, and therefore culture to make it appropriate toward the modern one. In this approach was David McClelland who in his Achieving Society (1952) promoted the idea of injecting the “virus” of “Need for Achievement”, as the people in the developing countries need to have an internal drive to make them prosper. This approach is about changing values and behaviors. The social policy approach was to provide education, training, and programs to change the society’s values and behavior toward the “Need for Achievement”. The other important scholar was Daniel Lerner who in his The Passing of the Traditional Society (1958) found that the mass media has an important role to change the society after performing research in Turkey. The idea was that to make a prosperous society, it needs to have the social mobility, from low social living toward higher social living. He found that people in the remote village who had horizontal or physical mobility, which means they went to the city, were having psychological mobility, which means there were some new needs and new demands that make them work harder. Because they had worked harder, it means there was an achievement motive, they earn

more, and therefore they had a social mobility in terms of vertical mobility since they socially became better-off. Physical mobility, from villages to cities, needs infrastructure investment: roads, buses, trains, etc. To have a shortcut, mass media was able to replace the role of transport investment, as media could bring the “news” from “other horizontal places” to them. There was a rural paper and magazine that brought the new ideas and innovations to the villagers; there was radio which promoted the understanding of becoming a better society. Therefore, the approach was focused on role mass media as an agent of development. This approach was then recognized as a communication-development approach.

Vertically mobility

Achievement motive

Villagers

Physically mobility

Psychologically mobility

Horizontally mobility

New needs (and demands)

Mass media (radio, news paper)

The next political development approach was economic development. The first scholar to be named is Ragnar Nurske (19071959) who recognizes that development has to be economic development society of the developing countries experience the

poverty trap: “the poor countries are poor because they are poor”7. The economic explanation was comprehensive, but the logic was simple but strong: because of the poor, they did not have savings, since there was no saving, there would be no-investment, and no investment means no-employment, and therefore there was no income. No income means poor. The country needs economic development to make the people employed so they have income. In this model, social policy has to provide any effort to economic development. Education to create professional or “ready to employ” people is one of the examples. The political development approach in this model has been developing to the many diverse and advanced model, from the economic growth model, which recognize economic development as a pursue toward economic growth; the big push, which recognize economic development as an effort to make all the economic sector growth altogether in the same time; the balanced development, which recognize economic development as balancing process of economic sector in the balance; the basic need, which recognize economic development as primary to provide people basic need; to the sustainable development, which recognize economic development has to be able to sustain, which was embracing the environmental sustainability.

7The

ideal was to make an endogenous economic development until then came the next economist that introduced the importance of foreign loan to replace the problem of domestic savings. The developing countries then have been moving from “poverty trap” to the “debt trap”. The author thanks Prof. Sri Edi Swasono of University of Indonesia and Prof. Sadono Sukirno of University of Malaya for the comprehension.

In the 1980s, Amartya Sen, then a Nobel laureate, promoted the concept of development as human and people development by introducing the seminal concept of “Development as freedom”. Development was not about economics alone, but also social aspects and indicators, and they were not incremental or peripheral, but the core ones, since development means to free men from their incapability, incompetence. The concept was then accepted and developed by the United Nations, and now recognized as the “Human Development Index” started in 1990. Sen's idea, then becomes a world-wide accepted idea, is that development shall be as empowerment; development shall be as freedom; development shall be as social development. He stated: “Development can be seen, it is argued here, as a process of expanding the real freedom that people enjoy. Focusing on human freedoms contrast with narrower views of development, such as identifying development with growth of gross national product, or with the rise in personal incomes, or with industrialization, or with technological advance, or with social modernization…Viewing development in term of expanding substantive freedoms directs attention to the ends that make development important, rather than merely to some means, that, inter alia, play a prominent part in the process.” (Sen, 2000: 1). Indeed, Sen was not the first initiator of HDI, since the reports were devised and launched by Mahbub Ul Haq, a Pakistani Economist, in 1990 as Human Development Reports (HDR) in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Ul Haq was working with Paul Streeten, Frances Steward, Gustav Ranis, Keith Griffin, Sudhir Anand,

and Meghnad Desai. However, Sen was then provided the stronger conceptual framework8. Human Development Index in ASEAN countries plus some developing countries in South America and Africa countries in 20092010 as a comparison Country 2009 rank 2010 rank Status HDI Singapore 23 27 Very high (1-42) Brunei 30 37 Malaysia 66 57 High (43-85) Brazil 75 73 Thailand 87 92 Medium (86-127) China 92 89 Philippines 105 97 Indonesia 111 108 Vietnam 116 113 Laos 133 122 India 134 119 Cambodia 137 124 Low (128-169) Myanmar 138 132 Nigeria 158 142 Source: UNDP 2009, 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BOX: HDI Measurement The formula which used by the UNDP up until its 2009 report in general, to transform a raw variable, say x, into a unit-free index 8 Haq was sure that a simple composite measure of human development was needed

in order to convince the public, academics, and policy-makers that they can and should evaluate development not only by economic advances but also improvements in human well-being. Sen initially opposed this idea, but he went on to help Haq develop the Human Development Index (HDI). Sen was worried that it was difficult to capture the full complexity of human capabilities in a single index but Haq persuaded him that only a single number would shift the attention of policy-makers from concentration on economic to human well-being (Wikipedia)

between 0 and 1 (which allows different indices to be added together), the following formula is used:

where and are the lowest and highest values the variable x can attain, respectively. The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the uniformly weighted sum with ⅓ contributed by each of the following factor indices: 1.

Life Expectancy Index (LEI) =

2. Education Index (EI) = a) Adult Literacy Index (ALI) =

b) Gross Enrolment Index (GEI) =

3. GDP =

In 2010, UNDP is using a new method of calculating the HDI. The following three indices are used: 4. Life Expectancy Index (LEI)

5. Education Index (EI)

a) Mean Years of Schooling Index (MYSI)

b) Expected Years of Schooling Index (EYSI)

6. Income Index (II)

Finally, the HDI is the geometric mean of the previous three normalized indices: LE = life expectancy at birth MYS: Mean years of schooling (Years that a 25-year-old person or older has spent in schools) EYS= Expected years of schooling (Years that a 5-year-old child will spend with his education in his whole life) GNIpc= Gross National Income at Purchasing Power Parity per capita Source: Wikipedia, UNDP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Social policy in developing countries varies from one to another. The similar patterns are multi-approaches: 1. Combining economic interest, social interest, and political interest 2. Towards social development and social problem --as its “side effect” of the development 3. Influence by the global and developed country’s led changing paradigm of political approach toward social policy –social democrats, neo-liberal, and third way. The multi-approaches are inevitable since the development process in the developing countries is becoming more and more complex and

complicated, too. Therefore, social policy in developing countries sometimes faces severe crises from the ideology to the praxis. Therefore, for developing countries, social policy is more as an art of policy practice than politics and ideology. Siti Hajar (2006), for example, found that social policy in the developing countries seeks to balance the basic model of social welfare in order to fine-tune the policy. They would like to mix-andbalance the institutional welfare, residual welfare, industrial achievement-performance, redistributive welfare, and social investment welfare. Thus, social policy for developing countries is a journey; a neverending journey toward finding the better way in making social welfare presence sustainably. 3.8. Summary Is the ideology of social policy relevant with today’s globalization era? The core issue of every social policy is to create welfare. It is about wealth in terms of social and economic. Jeffrey Sach has promoted the advanced understanding by changing the concept of “wealth” to become “commonwealth” –without referring to the UK “congregations” from India, Malaysia, to Australia. It is wealth that shall be shared commonly. As we see, the core “conflict” of political social welfare is about cost or financing the social policy. The social democrats say that the government has to finance, and neo-liberal say tax because social welfare financing has reduced economic competitiveness and therefore growth. The “in between” approaches, as the Third Way and the Developing Country’s Model, also fall into the issues. The issue of “tax hindering” is mostly coming from the “capitalisteconomic-animal”, since the real issue is not about tax alone, as criticized by Sachs.

“Free-market critics of the welfare state have long believed that high social spending, paid by high rates of taxation, would be harmful to economic prosperity by reducing incentives to hire workers and the incentives to save and invest. Yet these arguments are not supported by the evidence. The surprising fact is that social-welfare states have an even higher employment rate (number of workers as a share of the working age population) than the free market countries. The free market countries in turn have a higher employment rate than the mixed economy.” (Sach, 2008: 2612) In fact, the most liberal state has the highest poverty rate, share of disposable income to the lowest quintile, and also to the Gini index. Countries

Poverty rate (%) 12.6 17.1 9

Share of disposable income to the lowest quintile (%) 7.3 6.2 8.4

Gini coefficient (0,0) 32 35.7 28

Free market United States Mixed economies Social welfare

5.6

9.7

24.7

Source: Foster and Mira d’Ecole (2005) quoted in Sachs (2008: 261)

Taxation for social policy is in regard to the assurance of contributing social welfare, since, at the end, the social welfare relies on trust, so about taxation. As noted by Sachs: “It seems people are more willing to withstand high rates of taxation if they know that their taxes are paying for programs that help people like them….Democracy (alone –author) has not brought home the benefits for the bulk of the population, but instead has favored the super-rich. Yet perhaps none of this is surprising, since the heightened inequality of income

has been accompanied by an even more ruthless penetration of big money into national politics.” (Sach, 2008: 263, 266). The politics of social policy shall undergo the next level of political playing field: good governance. It means that social policy politics shall not be politics alone, but good governance, where there lay accountability, responsiveness, transparency, fairness, and participation.

Chapter Four Social Policy as Social Development

There are two major issues in social policy in the context of developing countries: social development and social justice. In the division of social development, there are education, health, social security, and housing policy. In the social justice division, there are conflicts, low competence, left behind, and tragic social policies. The policy is made by government, but the social service providers are various: it can be government, market, third sector, or family and individual alone. Family

Government

3rd Sector

Market

Social Welfare (Social Development & Social Justice)

Housing

Social security (pension, worker, etc)

Health (service, insurance)

To develop and enhance “development” (social development)

Education (education for all, training for workers, children)

Conflict (race, gender, trafficking, child abuse)

Low competence (Poor, unemployment, disable)

Left behind (Marginal groups, remote ethnics)

Tragedy (disaster, accident)

To cure and solve –protect and prevent “The disadvantages of development” (social justice)

We come to the agenda of social policy as social development, and therefore we have four discussions about: education, health, social security, and housing. The discussion comes from the question about where and when the policy is present. First, it is about government decisions (to do or not to do). Secondly, it is about changing the existing condition toward a better future (because the government has the “power” to change) (because the government can’t change the weather, therefore there

could never be a “policy on weather”). Thirdly, it is performing directly by government –then means intervention-- or indirectly (even it always on purpose), as we recognize that social policy rest on four pillars: the state, the market, the family, and the community9. 4.1. Education Policy Education is an everlasting human agenda, since it promotes every man and woman toward their future as individuals and members of society. Education has its own distinctive contribution as a human effort. John Dewey stated that education is a “conservative” and “progressive” effort to formation, recapitulation, retrospection, and reconstruction. “1. Education as formation….All education forms character, mental, and moral, but formation consists in the selection and coordination of native activities so that they may utilize the subject matter of social environment. Moreover, the formation is not only a formation of native activities, but it takes place through them. It is a process of reconstruction, reorganization….2. Education as Recapitulation and Retrospection….The individual develops, but his proper development consists in repeating orderly stages of the past evolution of animal life and human history. The former recapitulations occur physiologically; the latter should be made to occur by means of education”….3. Education as reconstruction….It is that reconstruction or reorganization of experience which adds to the meaning of experience, and which increases ability to direct the course of subsequent experience…” (Dewey, 1964: 69-77). Hills stated that education is a process of learning aimed at equipping people with knowledge and skills. There is to be enough to

9

Developing the idea Goodin (2001)

equip people sufficiently well so as to enable them to live satisfactorily, continue to learn and pursue career (Hill, 1982: 137). In industrial society, education always contributes to individual as employee, and therefore society, and industry as employer. The benefits accruing the different aspect of education (and training) profoundly describe by Vickerstaff here.

Aspect of Education and Training Foundation and core skills

Provider

Public Good

Individual benefit

Compulsory education in schools

Social and cultural benefits; flexible workforce

Vocational preparation

Schools, further education colleges and employees

School to work transition facilitated

Access to further and higher education; foundation for life; career opportunities Access and entry to workforce improved

Intermediate vocational skills

Employees/ further education colleges

Skill base for the economy; economic competitiveness

Higher education

University and further education colleges

Cultural and creative life; research and development

High market value of transferable skills; earning/career prospects Career prospects; individual development

Employer benefit

Core skills of workforce; trainability of employees

Work-role socialization; prerecruitment screening Vocational skills provision; impact on productivity, innovation, and quality Preparation of future managerial and professional

Job specific skills

Employer

Source: Vickerstaff, 1999: 289.

Healthy economy

Career progress within the company

staff; research and development Return on training investment in terms of employee retention; quality; productivity and innovation

What is education really about? Education is the passport for the future, since we have to embark into the future and leave today. Tomorrow is always a terra incognita, unidentified terrain. As Charles Handy (1989) noted that continuous change is comfortable change as the past then guides to the future. But today, it was a luxury, since change is not what it used to be. “Thirty years ago, that company saw the future as largely predictable, to be planned for and managed. Today they are less certain. Thirty years ago, most people thought that change would mean more of the same, only better. That was an incremental change and to be welcomed. Today we know that in many areas of life we cannot guarantee more of the same” (Handy, 1989: 5-6). In the 1970s developing countries, the indicator for rich families meant households with telephone lines in their home. Since 1990 the fixed-telephone business was slashed-out by cellular telephone or hand-phone, and it was not an indicator toward rich people as happened in the 1980s, since people from the richest to the smalltrader in the traditional market has used hand-phones for their personal and business matters. In the early 2000s, Nokia was named as one the best places to work. In 2010, Nokia business was being slashed out by Blackberry and Apple which prompted them to lay-off thousands of their workers as their business has shrunken and stock prices reduced to 1/3 in 2010 compared to 2007.

In the 1980s the most-profitable selling book was the Encyclopedia Britannica. In the 1990s the business was instantly closed as there was the digital encyclopedia named Encarta. In the 1980s many full-color magazines in Europe disappeared and many others got smaller as the color television emerged. Many leading things in the past had not survived in the future. Since the future is not the future as our grandfather and grandmother had as a continuous future, to our era the future is a discontinuous one. The journey into the future is like moving into another nation that needs a “passport”. Therefore, we may recognize that education is the passport to the future. The importance of education is extremely critical as the future is not far in front of us; as the future is now and here. Our mantra therefore is “EDUCATION IS THE PASSPORT FOR THE FUTURE. AND THE FUTURE IS NOW!” Education is an institution, not an organization as a school. Education is the social institution through which society provides its members

with important knowledge, including basic facts, job, skills, and cultural norms and value; meanwhile schooling is formal instruction under the direction of specially trained teachers (Machinist, 2009: 410); school is a formal agency for socialization (Morison & McIntyre, 1975). Education and schooling in modern society become two issues that align each other that in a certain consideration it is similar to schooling. Society as an economic institution –since people have to work to live— admits education as the life-guarantee as it relates to the income of every household. In US, the professional-degreeeducated person earn 4.47 to 4.98 times of 0-8 years of schooleducated person. Education Professional degree Doctorate Master’s Bachelor ‘s 1-3 years of college 4 years of high school 9-11 years of school 0-8 years of school

Men $ 100.000 85.864 75.025 60.020 42.418 36.302 27.189 22.330

Women $ 80.458 66.852 51.412 42.172 31.399 26.289 20.125 16.142

Person aged 25 and over, working full time, year of 2005. Source: US Census Bureau (2006) (Machionist, 2009) The same fact was found in Malaysia as Government in the ETP (Economic Transformation Plan) promotion program in September 2010 announced that the professional graduate individual earns about 3.36 times higher compared to high school employee.

3.36

1.73

1.00

1.17

0.74

< High School

High School

College

Bachelor

Professional graduate

Education means welfare since it prepares people to be ready to have their future living; as schooling arouses them with knowledge, skill, and therefore competency. Historically, school was not about preparing young people to be prepared for the future. School was introduced in ancient Greek as leisure toward the rich-men who had plenty of time; school was a “killing the time” activity. It was also in ancient China. Therefore, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and Confucius were the intellectuals who “massage” the rich-men, the aristocrats by their teaching the aristocrats, upper-class men who had plenty of spare time. School as a change agent “agency” has their own tremendous change: it was transformed from elite-privilege to the mass and common people. The transformation is best told by developing countries' experience as Malaysia, Indonesia, and India. Under colonization, education was the privilege toward the local elites, such as the Sultan and King’s family and relatives, and not for the common people. Even so, there was a severe gender inequality. Until 1921 in Indonesia under Dutch

colonization, education was only for royal family boys, and not for girls. Therefore, at that time Kartini, the daughter of a royal family in central Java, made a “womanly-reform” in a soft-request to the royal family about education for girls. It was the first time the emancipation movement has started in Indonesia. The social policy of the colony was then changing ….even in some years after! In 19th century, education has become the core mission of government, and even in the age of 20th education has becoming big, bureaucratic, even industry-like institutions. The criticism started in the 1970s when the SuperGroup music Pink Floyd released their album “The Wall”, to the 1990s critics of McDonaldization of education. The critique of McDonaldization was promoted by George M. Ritzer (1993), He noted that McDonaldization is the process by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant –McDonald-- are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world (Ritzer, 1993:1). There were four principles of McDonald business noted by Ritzer. First, Efficiency: the optimal method for accomplishing a task; The optimum method of completing a task. The rational determination of the best mode of production. Individuality is not allowed. In this context, Ritzer has a very specific meaning of "efficiency". Here, the optimal method equates to the fastest method to get from point A to point B. In the example of McDonald's customers, it is the fastest way to get from being hungry to being full. Efficiency in McDonaldization means that

every aspect of the organization is geared toward the minimization of time (Ritzer, 1993). Second, calculability: 1 objective should be EFFICIENCY quantifiable (e.g., sales) rather than subjective (e.g., taste). Assessment of 4 2 outcomes based on PREDICTABILITY CALCULABILITY quantifiable rather than subjective criteria. In other words, quantity over quality. They sell the Big 3 Mac, not the Good Mac. CONTROL McDonaldization developed the notion that quantity equals quality, and that a large amount of product delivered to the customer in a short amount of time is the same as a high-quality product. This allows people to quantify how much they're getting versus how much they’re paying. Organizations want consumers to believe that they are getting a large amount of product for not a lot of money. Workers in these organizations are judged by how fast they are instead of the quality of work they do (Ritzer, 1993). Third, control: or standardized and uniform services; the substitution of more predictable non-human labor for human labor, either through automation or the deskilling of the workforce (Ritzer, 1993). Fourth, predictability, the production process is organized to guarantee uniformity of product and standardized outcomes. All shopping malls begin to look the same and all highway exits have the same assortment of businesses. Productivity means that no matter where a person goes, they will receive the same service and receive the same product every time when interacting with the McDonaldized organization. This also applies to the workers in those

organizations. Their tasks are highly repetitive, highly routine, and predictable. Fourth, predictability: With these four processes, a strategy which is rational within a narrow scope can lead to outcomes that are harmful or irrational (Ritzer, 1993). In sum, the process of McDonaldization can be summarized as the way in which "the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of US society as well as of the rest of the world” (Ritzer, 1993). Additional fact of McDonaldization in schooling is irrationality - A side effect of over-rationalized systems. Ritzer himself hints that this is the fifth dimension of McDonaldization. An example of this could be workers on an assembly line that are hired and trained to perform a single highly rationalized task. Although this may be a very efficient method of operating a business, an irrationality that is spawned can be worker burnout. The other impact is deskilling - A workforce with the minimum abilities possible to complete simple focused tasks. This means that they can be quickly and cheaply trained and are easily replaceable. Lastly, consumers become workers - One of the sneakiest things about McDonaldization is how consumers get tricked into becoming unpaid employees. They do the work that was traditionally performed by the company. The prime example of this is diners who bus their own tables at the fast-food restaurant. They dutifully carry their trash to friendly receptacles marked "thank you." (The extreme rationalization of this is the drive-thru; consumers take their trash with them!) Other examples are many and include: ATM's, salad bars, automated telephone menus, and pumping gas. In sum, the critics toward McDonaldization of education lay in the three values: Efficiency and calculability, which education change into industry which is then working as machine and therefore the main product is skilled worker than intellectual worker; standardization or control which in fact underline competition and therefore legalize discrimination which consequently producing the standardized and

same product, a single model people – uniformed people; and mass production, or predictability, which sees education as commodity.

• Education = machine • Skilled worker than intellectual worker

Efficiency (and calculability) • Speed • Accuracy • Cost efficient

• Competition and legal discrimination • Single model people - uniform

• education as commodity

Standardization (or control)

Mass production (predictability)

• Strategy • Service quality • Delivered values

• Number matter • Profit margin • Market share

In this era the knowledge-based society, the survival, and therefore competitiveness, and its sustainability, of any organization depends upon the quality of its human resources (Drucker, 1994: Pfeffer, 1995) the government of any nation places education as the core of nationbuilding. As school becomes the core identity of education, in today's social policy, schooling policy becomes the core of the education policy, and it faces a different structure compared to 20 years ago. As regard to Macionis (2008), school has five supports for society: 1. Socialization. Technologically simple societies rely on families to pass on a way of life from one generation to the next. As societies acquire complex technologies, they turn to trained teachers to impart the specialized knowledge that adults need in their jobs. 2. Cultural innovation. Faculty at colleges and universities invent culture as well as passing it along to students. Especially in centers of higher education, scholars conduct research that leads to discoveries and changes in our way of life. 3. Social integration. Schools shape diverse populations into one society that shares norms and values. One of the reasons why states enacted mandatory education laws a century ago was

when immigration was very high. Given the ethnic diversity of many urban areas today, the school continues to meet that goal. 4. Social placement. Schools identify talent and match instruction to ability. Schooling increases meritocracy by rewarding talent and hard work regardless of social background and provides a path to upward social mobility. 5. Latent functions. Schooling serves several less widely recognized functions. It provides child care for the growing number of parents who work outside the home. In addition, the sector employs thousands of young people in their twenties who are otherwise competing for limited opportunities in the job market. High schools, colleges, and universities also bring together people of marriageable age. Finally, school networks can be a valuable career resource throughout life (Macionis, 2008: 412-413). The first function means that school is transforming values from generation to generation (Morison & McIntyre, 1975). The second function means that schooling generates the new wealth of society since innovation is the never-ending-engine of generating productivity. The third function is the “citizening”, a function that transforms children to become citizens. Morrison and McIntryre research have found this political function of school. “The political attitudes of adults are in large measure the products of socialization and developmental processes extending back into childhood and adolescence. Basic feelings about nationality, other peoples and countries, and political authority, appear first, usually well before children manifest any political knowledge” (Morison & McIntyre, 1975: 173). The fourth function is matching functions. As society grows into a modern system, with its structural differentiation and functional specialization, schools develop every society member into any match social function to make society functioning and producing values. The fifth function is a complementary function, to which

school is becoming an institution where society may rest their novel problem into. School is becoming a place to put down their children while they pursue their career. The five functions above --socialization, cultural innovation, social integration, social placement, and latent functions-- are proposed by a functional structural approach. Meanwhile, the social conflict analysis found that instead of developing people, schooling has the functions perpetuates social inequality, as it noted that the functions of school are: 1. Social control. Referring Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis finding (1976), Macionis stated noted a critic that the demand for public education in the late 19th century was based on capitalists’ need for an obedient and discipline workforce. Once in school, immigrants learned not only the English language, but also the importance of following order. 2. Standardized testing. Critics claim that the assessment testing widely used by schools reflect our society’s advantage. Referring Crouse and Tursheim finding (1990), Macionis noted a critic of schooling which by defining majority students are smarter, standardized tests transform privilege into personal merit. 3. Tracking. Referring Jonathan Kozol (1992), Bowles and Gintis (1976), Oakes (1982), Kilgore (1991), and Gamoran (1992), Macionis noted critic that education system uses for tracking by assigning students to different types of educational programs, which is most of the students with privileged background get into higher tracks, where they receive the best the school can offer, meanwhile, students from disadvantage backgrounds end up in the lower track, where teachers stress memorization and put little focus on creativity (Macionis, 2008: 414-415). Those functions, both from the structural-functionalist and socialconflict analysis, are present at the same time. There is no need to confront them; the important thing is to find the key issues of

education policy. In today’s context, education policy in regard of schooling has been set in five key issues: 1. The quality of education 2. The curriculum 3. Financing 4. Managing 5. And technical assistance Quality of education was the most important of any government. In the ETP, Malaysia Government has put the quality of education in the center as it has two contributions: to the exceeding of human resources and its national economic contributions, which stated that the education sector has contributed 4% of national GDP10. In Indonesia, the government controls education quality in the elementary and secondary by policy of national final examination system, and to control high education by policy of national selection of university’s enrollment. To control the education quality, the Indonesian government has introduced a law on teacher and lecturer to standardize the quality of all the teachers and lecturers. The other policy to control education is by developing policy on curriculum and its content, as we discuss further. Government has three interests toward curriculum so they manage to design and control it. First, the government has to comply with national mission as the reason for independence, for instance, the Republic of Indonesia has placed human development in the center of the national development strategy. The National Constitution 1945 stated that the mission of the independence was to create the intellectual life of the society. The nation’s mission has to be accomplished as the government is the most mandated institution in carrying out. Secondly, the government, as the leading agency in global competition among nations, needs to assure that the national education strategy fits to the global trend and rivalry. Therefore, in some developing countries, such as Malaysia, the Government 10

Malaysia government has exposed the number on ETP’s education booth 26th September 2010, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur.

promotes higher education by providing students with a bachelor degree and many scholarships for master and doctorate degrees. Speeding up education level is assumed as investment, not expense. Thirdly, the government, as the political power holder, is having the immense interest to maintain the status quo. Therefore, the government tends to develop curriculum inline to their interests. It reflects mostly in the social course curriculums, such as history, social science, political science, and economic science. The commanding regime in the developing countries tends to write history as fit as his presence, and sometimes hide the unfavorable political facts. Education is a national investment; therefore, it needs money. Government endows the education policy with a national budget. In Indonesia, the national constitution firmly states that a minimum of 20% of the national budget shall be allocated for education. The policy has been implemented since 2005 until today, and it is mandatory both in the national and local budget. The budget is drawn on mostly in managing public schools at all levels. In many countries, the public school at elementary and secondary, or high school, are being funded by the government, so students shall not pay any school-fee, except for the special activities, such as music, arts, sports, or other activities which are agreed by the student's parent association. In Malaysia, the public school is gratis, and for the last 5 years, the national final examination is gratis, too. In some countries, some of the public schools are free, but some are still paid, since the government is unable to fulfill all the needed expenses. But, still, the government needs to control the education system by providing an education budget as “control always means cost and expense”. Therefore, besides funding public schools, the government also prepared specific funding for non-public schools. The issue of school management belongs to the government. Public school is a school organization in which the government manages the schools directly through public servants: teachers and lecturers. To increase the quality of school management, some countries introduced the model of school-based management which means that

management at the school has autonomy to manage their schooling process. The management issue of schooling also goes beyond this micro aspect, as the government exercises management control toward all the schools, including private schools, by its policy of school permit and license, monitoring, evaluation, and rewardpunishment mechanism toward public and private schools. In order to assure the quality of schooling in terms of the organization and its educational process, the government develops a system of technical assistance. The system is developed through the offices of the educational department or ministries. The bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education somehow reaches all the schooling institutions in the countries by technical assistance mechanism, especially the school which has problems with the learning-teaching process. The five key issues of education policy are implemented in the four clusters of schooling in today society. They are: 1. Public school, the school which founded by government and as extension of government function, service, and interest. 2. Private school, the school which founded by private business, as corporations, or other non-for-profit institutions which transform their school into intense-profit-making institution. Well-managed and profit-motive school is in the area. 3. Society school, the school which founded by social groups to provide special services to their community, which profit is not be the priority. Traditional Islamic schools and Missionary Christian schools are some of the examples. 4. Family school, it is now popular as “home schooling”, where parent teaches their own children with their own content and method. Sometimes, they invite special teachers as additional or complementary.

Government’s funded school Private school (profit oriented)

Individual school (home schooling)

Private

Public

Family

Society Societal group school (non profit, specific purpose)

The question is: how effective is government education policy to each cluster? The exercised found that it is most effective on public school, but less effective –even questionable— to the family schooling –or “home schooling”.

Public Private Society Family

Quality

Curriculum

Funding

Management

Technical assistance

?

?

?

?

?

[ = ok] [? = don’t know] [ = no]

There are some challenges for the education policy in the next society. First, as Coleman, Hoffer and Kilgore finding (1981) and Coleman and Hoffer finding (1987), by holding social background constant, students in private schools do outperform those in public schools, as the advantages of private schools include smaller classes, more demanding coursework, and greater discipline (Macionis, 2008: 415). Nowadays, many business sectors, from telecommunication to fast food, has created their own school, as corporate universities, it creates a new challenge toward education policy, since they had developed their own education policy independently, and their competitive position get stronger to the public school as they have direct connection to the employment’s market. The second challenge is the raising of societal schools, which are driven by interest of a special group, especially religious groups, and some of them are the radicals and disbelieve toward government policy. Some developing countries in South Asia, especially in the southern area, i.e., Indonesia, have the situation today. The situation also emerges in any developed country which has a very plural community, i.e., the US. The third challenge is the raising of homeschooling, or family school, will emerge as the choices for the critical families --not community-especially the well-educated ones. In the US, about 1.1 million children (more than 2% of all school-aged children) have their formal schooling at home, and the number is increasing rapidly. They are the parents who disbelieve that formal school –public and private— are doing better for their children (see Macionis, 2008: 425). The other group who chooses home-schooling is the children who are in the middle of their career: the young singer, actress, and actor. In Indonesia, some of the music stars, such as Agnes Monica, prefers to have her homeschooling at her convenience schedule, rather than following the formal school. Family school will be perhaps the next solution for the education budget since it is carried out by individuals or family rather

than government or other institutions that somehow need government support. Government task is more to secure the quality of education by controlling the examination test for those family school’s students. Those challenges are emerging hand in hand with the other presence agenda that education policy is situated in the crossroad. The policy in education shall ask the question whether education policy has to be complied with the political interest of the existing regime, or toward industry as the market of the graduates of any schools and universities, or can it lead toward developing the values of humanity?

• Indoctrination • Ideology control

Political interest

• Link and match • Market base curricula

Industry

• Education as human development and freedom

Humanity

This is no singular crossroad. There are other crossroads for education policy, since education is not the most influential institution to shape individuals. The other institutions whose influence was rising, even more compared to education, the religious institutions and mass media.

• Secular values = rationalism

• Belief = the unseen

Education

Religion

• Free choices = out from believe and rationalism

Mass media

Students

The growth of the religious movement in some countries is aiming to regain the identity and human dignity after being lost in the battle of intense human competition. The series of bombing in Indonesia 20012008 by the young militants is presumed as the rising of the “different” religious movement. The media is bringing pseudo-reality into the daily life of any individual that so powerfully changes the mind of the individuals in the childhood ages. The media advertisement which promoted teenagers in sexual outfit and performance –see film of Thirteen-- has encouraged a “hurried childhood” values (see Macionis, 2008: 83). The new education challenges above profoundly drive today's education policy as obsolete one, as Pfeffer recognized in the 1990s that 40-60% of what students have learned in High School and Universities are not relevant when they entered the working-place (Pfeffer, 1996) . Therefore, seeing this future trend, the government is advised to rethink their next social policy on education. 4. 2. Health (social) policy

There is one national productivity key which is rarely appealed, especially in the less developed countries: people’s health. It was discussed intensely, especially when there was an outbreak, but seldom put into the core of social policy development. The health ministry or department is present as a symbol that formally there was a health policy in the country. Will a corporation be productive, and therefore competitive if every day about half of their workers are ill? Nation’s competitiveness, which is generated by a Nation’s competitiveness nation's productivity as the aggregate of organizations’ Nation’s productivity productivity, is supported by Organization’s productivity people’s health. What is health? Health is a People’s health state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being (Macionis, 2008: 427). Let’s see ourselves now. Do we feel healthy today? What do you think about people who live in the garbage areas, are they healthy, as they think that they are healthy? How about the homeless? If you live in tropical countries, and you bathe once a day, will you consider yourself healthy enough? Health it is not health an sich, since it was contextual as society define health differently, at least by four major ways: 1. Cultural patterns define health. Standard of health varies from culture to culture. What people see as healthful reflects what the society thinks is morally good, in which matter members of the society think a competitive way of life is “healthy” because it fits with the cultural mores. 2. Cultural standards of health change over time. Fifty years ago, male film stars always put cigarettes in their mouths when they were talking to make them more “macho”. Today, smoking is generally accepted as a dangerous and deadly

habit. According to Gallup, In the US year of 2000, people are bathing every day; and it was three times compared to fifty years before. 3. A society’s technology affects people’s health. Malnutrition and infection disease seldom became a concern of the society in poor countries. It still happens in some countries in MiddleAfrica. It happened in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore about 5o years ago, but not now, when development and industrialization has embraced the nations. It is not about wealth alone, but because there is health’s technology that makes people understand that such a condition is defined as “unhealthy”. 4. Social inequality affects people’s health. All societies distribute resources unequally, therefore it was a global fact that the rich have far better physical, mental, and emotional health than the poor (Macionis, 2008: 427-428). In the western community, as mentioned by Butler and Calnan (1999), social policy in health was facing six major challenges: 1. Controlling cost. It was stated that the rising cost of healthcare is a challenge to the government largely because of the impact it has on other sectors or the national economy. This is true for countries which finance most of the healthcare through the private sector –as US—and through the public sector –more than 80% of UK healthcare through the public sector. Even the spectacular growth of medical technology has also fueled the growth in health expenditure (Butler and Calnan, 1999: 326-7) 2. Balancing supply and demand. It was stated that if people’s needs for healthcare are running ahead of the system’s capacity to satisfy them, it necessarily follows that some of those needs will not be dealt with adequately, or even not at all. This approach is being described explicitly as ‘rationing’ (Butler and Calnan, 1999: 328-9) 3. Strengthening the scientific base healthcare. It is about improving the scientific basis of healthcare to ensure that the

treatments patients receive are clinically effective and appropriate to their needs. The solution known commonly as ‘evidence-based medicine’, the quest for stronger scientific basis which consequently involved a number distinct element, in which the most important is effectiveness. Therefore, the issue here is named as ‘effectiveness issue’. The other issue is ‘cost benefit’ and ‘cost effectiveness’ of the treatments. (Butler and Calnan, 1999: 330) 4. Health promotion and disease prevention. Doubt about the effectiveness and benefits of scientific medical treatments and concerns about their cost coupled with the increasing evidence of the importance of behavioral and environmental factors in the causation of disease. Government is then changing the policy to protect rather than to cure (Butler and Calnan, 1999: 331-3) 5. The need to tackle inequalities. Critical analysis of health promotion policy found that health policy programs, especially health promotion, has overlooked the issue of inequalities in healthcare services. 6. Developing appropriate organizational structures. The quest for the most efficient and effective healthcare providing system is lay in the two contrast arguments: the conventional wisdom who see the involvement of government in the dayto-day services, and the market approach that the services shall be provided by private as government has become ‘overload’ (Butler and Calnan, 1999: 337-8). Those six healthcare issues are also relevant to the developing countries, as health is becoming a critical global social policy as the poor countries are unable to manage their own country's health development. Poverty has trapped people in the midst of severe health problems, as seen in many parts of Africa where people have

life expectancy barely fifty, and in the poorest countries, most children die before reaching their teens (Macionis, 2008: 428). Poor and wealthy countries have their own specific health’s issues. In poor countries, health problems are about famine, malaria, cholera/diaries, to skin disease and infection. Those health problems mostly come from the bad environment which is the issue of water and sanitation. In rich countries, especially in the US, health problems are about heart attack, stroke, eating disorder, and obesity. Those are related to the life disorder. But still, there are some common health problems for both areas: sexual transmitted disease, from gonorrhea to HIV/AIDS, cigarette effect’ illness, from lung-cancer to stroke, cancers, and new global disease which some are unanswered, as Ebola, bird flu, to swine flu.

Sexual transmitted disease Famine

Cigarette effect ilness

Malaria Diaries/Cholera

Skin disease

Obesity Eating disorder

Poor countries

Wealthy countries

Cancer New global disease

Stroke

Heart attack

There are two approaches in health social policy: the prevention and the cure. The prevention of health social policy can sometimes be called as social well-being policy, as the objective is to increase people's health Government Business Society Individuals condition to the advanced one. The other understanding of this area is social to cure to prevent work (Johnson and Schwartz, 1994: 205), but since social work The sick The healthy has a broader meaning than health alone, we advise to use another name. The cure social policy on health is commonly understood as the social health care system, as noted by Johnson and Schwartz as a system generally responsible for the area of sickness and disability (Johnson and Schwartz, 1994: 205). The health prevention social policy exercise by four basic strategies: 1. Health care insurance 2. Public health support 3. Outbreak prevention Health insurance model is provided in two structures: universal health care insurance as a Private health compulsory action for insurance people and the government. Otto von Bismarck of Germany was the first who introduced universal health insurance for all the Compulsory health insurance/ Public health insurance citizens. In the US, there

are two universal health care systems which are funded by the government: Medicaid, a support for free medical treatment for the poor and Medicare for the old people. In Indonesia, the government released a social policy for universal health insurance as compulsory health insurance, financed by the government as the public health insurance named National Health Social Insurance System, and above the system were private health insurance as additional health insurance for the better-off communities. Public health support is activities promoted by the government and implemented with the community. In the 1980s, child mortality in Indonesia was high. Government introduced Integrated Service Post, a weekly activity based in every sub-village around the nations with two objectives: to assure the health of post-maternal mothers and children. The Doctors were provided by the Government, but the place and other support were provided by the local community jointly, from the table, chair, baby-scales, to milk and healthy food. The project is still ongoing until today and accepted worldly as one of the community-based health programs. Outbreak prevention program is the activity which promotes public prevention toward any suspected or potentially outbreak. In Kuala Lumpur city, to prevent the dengue fever outbreak, almost every day, the city authority executes mass spraying activities around public houses. In 2004, in order to prevent bird flu outbreaks, Jakarta Health offices performed mass inspections of all the chicken farming and traditional markets and disinfected the suspected areas. The second strategy is delivering health care. In developed countries, Health care is provided by public and private hospitals. Therefore, health care means “hospital”. In the developing countries, health care is also provided by society by the natural –sometimes named as “traditional”—health care, such as massage to the native healing. In the Philippines, it is common for the local people to seek the last medical alternative to the native healing. Sometimes, people choose to have this health service rather than hospital or modern medical

treatment in regard to financing the traditional beliefs. In Jakarta, Indonesia, there is some famous bone-massager that even tried to cure people who had bone-crack, after the medic is hands-up. The study of health care in the social policy of western paradigm seldom recognizes these practices, even in the local case, they are more effective than the modern medical system. In modern health care –it means modern and hospital care—the issue is regard to the universal approach and selectivity approach. Johnson and Schwartz argued that in countries with universal provision for health care, all people have access to all care, since health care is seen as a right. The idea is being challenged as there are two arguments used against such a provision: excessive cost and inferior quality of services (Johnson and Schwartz, 1994: 209). The criticism toward universal provision of health care generates the idea of a selective approach. However, it still creates new problems, since the number of eligible people tends to increase, such as poor people and old people. The health care issue collides with the demographic issue. The solutions of the health care program return to health insurance. As to Rashi Fein, a medical economist at Harvard Medical School, identified three approaches on health care medical insurance: 1. Private market approach, which promotes the idea which calls for people to obtain their health care insurance from their employers through self-purchase. The government would provide vouchers or tax credits for low-income people. Other tax credits may also be available. The present insurance system would remain in place. This system is often seen as one of the causes of excessive health care costs. It is also continuing a two-tier system and does not cover long-term care. 2. Employer based approach, or often known as “play or pay”, health insurance is made available to everyone either through

their employer or through the government. Employers must provide health care insurance “play or pay” a tax that goes to coverage by the governmental plan. Medicare remains in place for those who are now covered by that plan. Some proposals include long-term care and preventive care. 3. Government base approach. This plan has been known as single payer or national health insurance. The government is the sole payer; everyone receives guaranteed basic hospital and doctor coverage; usually preventive Company/ care is included; sometimes organization long-term care is also included. Various funding mechanisms are suggested. A major criticism of this approach is that it increases MHC Medical taxes considerably (quoted organization services by Johnson and Schwartz, 1994: 210).

For the developing countries, the preferred health insurance, as prior discussion, is in two-tiers: universal and commercial. The most adaptive to the financial issue is the Managed Health Care (MHC) Model, as developed by Kaiser Permanente, US, which is the insurance is neither in terms of reimburse-able nor paid to the hospital, but managed by an MHC that managed health prevention program, toward their groups of doctors and a cluster of people (usually employee) as client. In Indonesia, the model exercised through National Health Company, a government linked company, which managed health care prevention for civil servants and some labor-intensive industries in Indonesia. The closing question is: why should the government develop health policy, create a mechanism for health care, and manage health prevention? We have the first answer that a healthy society is an assurance for national productivity, and therefore competitiveness. The second answer is: it generates additional disposable income –as we have prior discussion.

New disposable income

Additional income of 10%

Household income

revenue expense Household

expense Since there is no single “best way” to develop health policy, there are many rooms and spaces to develop creative Social policy health policy. One of the examples is Malaysia health policy which is earmarked health policy with tax: health expenditure –for medical treatment—is tax deductible.

4.3. Housing Policy There are three basic needs that make humans become people –the civilized one. They are: food, clothes, and shelter; all in the proper

standard. Those needs shall be fulfilled in complete; it means that one is not replacing the other. Housing is a shelter in the proper way. It was culturally defined. In primitive society –and therefore its culture—housing may be just a hiding place: a cave, trees, or a very primitive “house”. In the first idea, a house is just a place where people have their security from outside threats, such as cold or hot weather, wild animals, to the unpleasant neighborhood’s intrusion. The idea of “safe” has been expanded into “future safe”, as Pickavane mention, British society had become “building society” as there was a vastmass of urban households were private tenants, and their landlords were middle-class business people and professionals who invested in housing as a safe way of saving (Pickavane, 1999: 400). In the second idea, it shall be a comfortable place where families raise their inheritance and all its richness –financial, arts, to knowledge. In the third idea, a house is a symbol of status. Therefore, we found rich people with a luxury house, and still buy Safe another expensive and luxury house. In the Comfort fourth idea, as Oxford Status Habitation dictionary mentions, housing is structures in which people are housed; an act of putting or receiving under shelter; the state of dwelling in a habitation (Oxford). House is about society. House is about culture. Therefore, housing policy is a government decision to develop a society habitation. As Nevit noted, unlike the social services of health and education, housing is not a social service which is universally available to all who are defined as being in need (Nevit, 1978: 213). However, housing is not an economical issue alone, as it is not an ‘industry’ which can be analyzed simply from an economic point. If housing is restricted in this way, it degenerates into a study of a commodity like ‘hotel room’

which can be considered in terms of short-run equilibrium prices (Nevit, 1978: 183). Housing as a subject area reflects all the strengths and weaknesses of society. If it be sensible to refer to housing problem it is because a shortage of dwelling space appears to be so inevitably associated with both economic growth and progress towards a more socially just society (Nevit, 1978: 183) Housing policy divided into three categories: 1. Housing for the high income, which is the government’s role to manage permit and license, therefore the private property industries can develop housing structures that fit into city plan as well as social mapping of the society. 2. Housing for middle of medium income, which is provided by market, society, and family. Houses in the villages represent this issue. 3. Housing for the low income. It is the accountability for government to develop the policy to manage socially and economically the low-income community as to prevent from abandoned homeless in the city.

GOVERNMENT

SOCIETY

Low income and specific target

FAMILY

medium income

High income

MARKET

In fact, most government's social policy agenda for housing is public and social housing. Public housing is a form of housing tenure in which the property is owned by a government authority, which may be central or local. Social housing is an umbrella term referring to rental

housing which may be owned and managed by the state, by nonprofit organizations, or by a combination of the two, usually with the aim of providing affordable housing (Macionis, 2008). In my understanding, public housing is identical to social housing, as a housing program intended to the selected group of people or household. The first selected target is the low-income people. Government social policy for the low-income people has four policy choices: 1. Government does the investment, it means that the government funds the housing project, and the housing is provided for free. This project usually provided to the community who had severe social problem, as such of natural tragedy –as such earthquake, flood, and tsunami— social tragedy –from massive poverty to community in exile, and government special policy of city planning –for instance, to clean the river government needs to relocate all the communities who live alongside the riverbank. 2. Government does the investment, it means that government funds the housing project, but the target-household shall pay (or buy) a subsidized price, either in the price a sich, or the subsidized interest rate. 3. Government creates a “special purpose vehicle” –can be a kind of state-owned enterprises or government linked company—who manage the housing policy target, and manage the payment and loan-agreement. 4. Government provides special facilities, such as land, special financing, to the “trade-off business policy, to the private sector who manage the public housing for the social housing policy target. The private sector is effectively replacing the role of government as a social housing provider. In developing countries, the concept of “a certain social class” is taking public servants’ housing, as they have a limited income compared to the businessmen. The low-income employees of the

business sector, such as labor or blue-collar worker, usually provided by the business entities in a different arrangement. Government do investment

For free

Government do investment

Pay in the low interest rate

Government create SPV

SPV manage the housing

Government subsidy the interest rate of property loan

Private developer

Government

Low income people

The question now is: why does the government, especially in the developing countries, take the housing policy as an important matter? There are five strategic reasons: 1. Housing policy is directly related to the city, and therefore state, space planning. It determines how tomorrow's area arrangement and engineering will become. It is about function --efficient, effective, and integrated—and esthetics -beauty. A nation with efficient, effective, and beautiful housing arrangements will have the most support to become an excellent nation, as their citizens move efficiently, effectively, and see lovely movement from place to place. 2. Housing policy is in regard to nation civilization. Housing as habituation is creating the way of community life; it creates habits, custom, and therefore culture; it creates social integration. In Singapore, the Government regulates the composition of ethnicity in a high-rise housing for middle and low income similar to the national ethnicity composition – China, Malay, Indian-- so the social integration starts from home. 3. Health and security. House is about health and security. A secure society tends to become a positive mind society. Its coverage physical and psychological security; its coverage

individual and family security. In the context of health, the proper housing system and arrangement creates a healthy society: physical and psychological security; individual and family. 4. Nation economic development. Property and construction are the most profound sectors in developing economic growth. It is labor intensive and also capital and technology intensive. It has the highest economic multiplier effect compared to the other sectors: from financial/banking, cement, transport, to catering. After the housing is finished and people live there, the economic activities are intensive, from electricity, gas, water, to daily household consumption. Therefore, housing development growth has significantly supported economic growth. Housing system also determines the city's productivity and environment. The ecofriendly housing –such as a low electric consumption because make use of sunshine effectively-- will reduce the pollution in the city. 5. Voter’s behavior. Citizens with well managed housing policy – so they are able to access the housing system, either by ownership or rent—will tend to support the existing regime. Therefore, the successful housing policy, especially for the middle and low social class turned out to vote in the election. In sum, the success of the housing social policy has multi-benefit to society. Indeed, to the government, as it creates social and political support to preserve the political status quo.

• Function: efficient, effective, integrated • Esthetics: beauty

City & state planning

• Citizen + houses • Citizens + rent houses • Citizens – houses

• Way of life: habit, custom, culture • Social integration

Nation’s civilization

Voter’s behavior

Social & political support • Property and construction , banking industries, etc. • Electricity, water, gas • Pollution

• • • •

Nation economic development

Health and security

Physical Psychological Individual Group/family

How about housing policy in developed countries? A special case was happening in the US in 2008. The laissez faire housing policy creates a huge room for business creativity. In the year of 2000, bankers and financial investors in Wall Street develop the new financial commodity of a kind of bond which was contained prime mortgage loan –a housing loan to the eligible lender. It was successfully, and the market wants more and more. Since the prime mortgage lender was limited, the banking and housing industries developed the same product but which contained sub-prime mortgage loan -- a housing loan to the less-eligible lender-with the high-risk bond’s criteria. The sub-prime loan was becoming bad debt and made the housing market in the US lifeless. All was turning into bad debt; actually a “global bad debt”. It creates global economic crisis since 2008 and still does not solve at the end of 2010. The laissez faire housing policy has interconnected to global monkey business.

bank investor

investor

prime mortgage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

prime mortgage

investor

bank

investor

investor

investor investor

Sub-prime mortgage

4.4. Social Security Policy

The core concept of social security is social insurance, which was Beveridge Report (1942) stated as an insurance to secure in income 131

to take the place of earnings when they are interrupted by unemployment, sickness or accident, to provide retirement through age, to provide loss of support by the death of another person, and to meet exceptional expenditures, such as those connected with birth, death and marriage, which primarily social security means security of income up to a minimum, but the provision of an income should be associated with treatment designed to bring the interruption of earnings to an end as soon as possible (see Miller, 1999a). There are two basic social security and its policy consequences: economic or income security and health social security. We will have focused the discussion to economic/income security than health social security, as it has been discussed previously. The economic social security is a social security to preserve people from getting poor because of employment-interruption. There are five kinds of economic social security: 1. Pension fund insurance, a system where the worker insures their future income when he/she is retired from the employment system. In this system, a worker has to pay a certain amount and the employer also supports by paying a certain amount. 2. Working insurance, a system where the worker insures their well-being in the working period. In this system, as also the pension fund, workers have to pay a certain amount and the employer also supports by paying a certain amount. The working insurance comprises accident, healthcare, and other compulsorily promoted by Government policy. 3. Family social scheme, a scheme where a household has –or buys—the family social insurance. Most of the schemes provide healthcare, accidents, and loss of life.

132

4. Crisis social scheme, a scheme where the government provides support for people or communities who experience tragedy, natural, social, political, and economical. 5. Poverty eradication social scheme, a scheme to help poor people to move out from their absolute poverty, and to make them able to help themselves. The program consists of vouchers and in-kinds. The Pension fund insurance, working insurance, and family social scheme, are provided by the market, as a self-financing economic social security. The other economic social security, crisis social scheme and poverty eradication social scheme, are provided by the government, as a non-self-financing economic social security.

Pension fund

Self financing social security • Individuals • Organizations/ companies

Poverty eradication social scheme

Working insurance

Economic security (income security) Government Crises social scheme

Family social scheme

133

There are two economic social security policy contributions: social and political stability and government spending. It contributes to social and political stability as the system is able to work as a buffer for social and political instability. Social and political unrest endanger the social life and governing process. It sources from the lessening individual and group income that creates psychological and then social insecurity, and when it is fueled with the political sparkle, it easily turns into political unrest and therefore instability. The riots and demonstrations are mostly the unemployed or those who economically suffered. It contributes to Government spending in terms of preserving it. Social insurance is a system where the subsidized is subsidizing themselves, as the basic logic of insurance. The self-financing scheme effectively supports government budget efficiency for social policy programs, especially in the pension fund, working insurance, and family insurance. The crisis social scheme and poverty eradication, especially in the developing countries, remains under government budget. Health security objective is to keep people from getting ill to support economic and social productivity, and then increase Government and individual saving. The “saving” –of government and individual—can be transferred into the “disposable income” that creates the new consumption, and therefore expanding the market, and in turn generating the industry. At the end, it was economic growth and therefore wealth and prosperity. In sum, social security has some social and economic impact. Those will subsequently be beneficial from the individual to the nation level. Therefore, social security has become the best preference in the social policy choices.

134

Economic impact Long term social and economic safety disposable income: spending and saving Organizational productivity Social safety net The alternative of economic resilience

Level of impact Individual

Social impact Individual’s dignity

Family

Stability and continuity

Organizatio n Society Nation

Employment relationship Social order Preserve government budget

In some countries, social policy even supports national resilience. In 1998, the East and Southeast Asian countries were hit by a severe financial crisis. In Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia, the financial crises turned into economic crisis, social crisis, political crisis, and then named as “total crises” which end into a political turmoil. Indonesia was the most suffered country, as Indonesia requested International Monetary Fund for financial assistance, since there was no national financial reserve. The international institution had given the loan with the price that collapsed the national economy (Nugroho, 2001; Nugroho, 2003). Malaysia has the non-budgetary financial reserve in the huge amount in their social security industries –all are GLCs—which effectively utilize the national financial reserve. Malaysia was saved from crises because of its strong social security institutions (see Brawley, 2005: 397-408).

4.5. Summary Social policy has two major dimensions: development and justice. It is a more “developing country” model rather than a universal model, since it adopts most of the facts and problems in the 135

developing countries. The development side has four dimensions: education, health, housing, and social security.

R

In fact, those dimensions have been overlapping and supporting each other. Education policy has much to do with health, housing, and social security; and also, the others develop social policy. Therefore, social policy decisions shall take account of each dimension in relation to another dimension. The objective is more than to create “earmarked policy”, but the seamless social policy.

136

Chapter Five: Social Policy as Social Justice

Development has its by-product. It was inequality and therefore injustice. In every changing, they who gain are they who have the access toward the changing. It is also a development. Government of the developing country strives hard to involve all the members of the society to the development process, as development becomes a citizen’s right, as mandated by their founding fathers. The problem is: there are always some people left behind, unintended or intended. It makes them stay backward, meanwhile the other peoples have moved forward. The failure of development is stated as a “social problem” (Soedarsono, 2002). It was the next agenda for social policy. The social problems in the development process are those in conflict, the low competence, the left behind, and tragedy’s victims. Family

Government

3rd Sector

Market

Social Welfare (Social Development & Social Justice)

Housing

Social security (pension, worker, etc)

Health (service, insurance)

Education (education for all, training for workers, children)

Conflict (race, gender, trafficking, child abuse)

Low competence (Poor, unemployment, disable)

Left behind (Marginal groups, remote ethnics)

Tragedy (disaster, accident)

To cure and solve –protect and prevent

To develop and enhance “development” (social development)

“The disadvantages of development” (social justice)

137

5.1. Conflict What is social conflict? It is a condition of intense and long-term social disagreement which leads toward social abuse, social justice inequality, and human violence. There are four main issues in social conflict: race, gender, trafficking, and child abuse. Race conflict. From many types of conflict, race conflict is one of the most important social policy core studies –compared to individual, economic, or political and military conflict. Race conflict is alongside human beings, as human civilization divides into hundredsthousands of ethnic, and when any single society changes from homogenous society into heterogeneous society. As a terrain inhabited by two or more ethnics. There was no conflict, until the social and economic resources became scarce, and one of the ethnicities was dominating the resources. Conflict is self-solved by dialogue, negotiation, and agreement. In other sense, race conflict ended-up by war and genocide and holocaust. Social economic resource scarcity is the first reason for race conflict. In Malaysia, race conflict erupted in 13 May 1969, when Malay felt that Chinese community, the minority, acquired more social and economic resources than the majority, Malay11. In Indonesia of 1976, there was 11 The detail of the history presented by Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman in “Lesson

of May 13, 1969”, in Malay Mail, 21 December 2010 (p. 6). It was explained that two days after the outbreak of violence Yang di Pertuan Agong proclaimed the state of emergency under article 150, and the King promulgated a Second Ordinance delegating the executive authority of Federation to Tun Abdul Razak as Director of Operations, then became Deputy Prime Minister. In 1970 it was proclaimed National Ideology of Rukun Negara –Belief in God, Loyalty to King and Country, Uphold the 138

a race ethnic conflict when the indigenous people felt that the Chinese community, as the non-indigenous, had shared the biggest economic wealth and left the majority as economic and development laggard. The same conflict also happened in Singapore in 1977, it was between the Malay and Chinese community. Post conflict, the Malaysian, Indonesian, and Singapore government developed a social policy to harmonize the society due to reducing race conflict as “deep as it can be”. In Malaysia, the policy was mostly economic based as the approach was economic affirmative action, and then range into social affirmative action. Indonesia introduced naturalization policy, that request all the Chinese ethnic community to change their name into Indonesian name, use Indonesia language –and banned Chinese language, all the school had to used Indonesia language and no-ethnical school allowed, as much as it can, the word of “China'' not being used, and the substitute is “Tionghoa”, and promoted cooperation between ethnicities based on social commonality, such as religion –therefore it was founded PITI (Persatuan Islam Tionghoa Indonesia) that cooperate closely with the Muslim organizations. The mix-marriage between indigenous and Chinese people is common and creates a new generation which cannot be identified as China or not China anymore. In Singapore, Government creates a strong pressure Constitution, Rule of Law, and Good Behavior and Morality—followed by the formulation of the New Economic Policy (NEP). 139

toward any race conflict, and on the other side, develops social-life which makes them integrate, such as the housing system has to reflect the composition of the race. In Indonesia and Singapore, race ethnic between indigenous and Chinese communities no longer exist, as they have successfully blended into one nation spirit. In Malaysia, the problem still exists, as the affirmative action was the written one, and it is still ongoing. The Government of Malaysia, therefore, introduces a concept of “1Malaysia” which seems like a success. Race conflict is the most dangerous in African countries. The Hutu and Tutsi conflict in Rwanda was the bloodiest race ethnic that shall not happen again in the world. Race ethnic is also happening in some countries in the Central of America, such as Haiti. The second model of race conflict is belief’s conflict. It was commonly undertaken as “religion conflict”. In my understanding, there is never conflict among religions; it was among their believers. The conflict usually started by the different understanding about meaningful social values, such as goodness, highness, to the rightness. The Muslim beliefs about some “haram” or (strictly unaccepted) foods which are not assumed as “halal” for other beliefs. Some Muslim society believes that the word of “Allah” belongs to Islam, hence no other religious believers shall be accepted if they spoke of Thou as “Allah”. In the matter of belief’s conflict, the government acts as the mediator, as in Indonesia, but sometimes as being part of the group of believers, as in Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and sometimes

140

also in Indonesia. The degree of conflict will determine how the government develops social policy. The rampant belief’s conflict had happened in Ambon islands, and in Poso, in Island of Sulawesi, both of them were in the eastern area of Indonesia. It was a conflict between Muslim and Christian, which started by the burning of Mosques and churches. In 2003-2004 I was there as a peace-building team post conflict. I was sensing that the conflict was somehow created by a group who likes to see Indonesia to be in conflict. The discussion with the Muslim community as well as Christian community alongside the assignment, reveal that they did not really know why they had to kill each other; they did not very much know who were the first to burn the praying places, as they said it was not each of them. The conflict was solved by “bottomup” policy making, or known as “deliberative policy making”, which was led by Jusuf Kalla, Coordinating Ministry for Social Welfare – then became Vice President. Conflicts among Muslim-Christian and Muslim Hindu were common in developing countries in Asia, as it occurred from Syria, to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, to Malaysia, Singapore, Philippine, and Indonesia. The interesting thing was, there was no such conflict – especially between Muslim and Christian believers—in Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia and all the Arabian peninsula countries, Iraq, and Iran. This conflict also “codified” by Samuel Huntington as the world and everlasting conflict in his The Clash of Civilization, in which justified by the tragedy of “911”, when a terrorist, identified by Muslim, struck the commercial airplanes full of passenger and fuel, to the 141

twin-tower of World Trade Center in New York. The conflict then erupted again when a Pastor in America had an idea to burn a Quran on the day “911” happened. The beliefs conflict has become part of life in many societies in Africa, as the conflict was racebased and “crossfertilized” by beliefs –it is not necessarily religion—that justified the fierce conflict. Conflict between believers is the most difficult to solve because beliefs are something that hold-up tightly, to the point of defending it to death. This conflict is typical of developing countries, especially the less developed, where people are living under poverty, lesseducated, less knowledgeable, and therefore easy to be mobilized as a “religious troop” which was directed to fight toward the other believers to whom they claimed as “the sinners”.

Social policy in this conflict has been too cautious since any decision potentially leads toward another distraction. In my experience in the believer’s conflict area, the more effective solution is to make the conflict irrelevant. This model was now known as the “Blue Ocean Strategy” (Maubourgee, 2004). The strategy shall: 142

1. Recognize the different beliefs. 2. Developing policy to make the beliefs become individual issue, not as social issue. 3. Developing policy to make the different believers able to work together through economic activities which profitable respectively. It means, there shall be economic policy to create economic opportunity for all the parties. 4. Develop an open and continuous dialog among the group of believers, especially their leaders, and make the forum as the policy advisory forum. 5. Controlling that no intruder of free-rider who willing to take advantage of the policy or toward the potential conflict. 6. Promptly increase education program and development to augment people intellectuality and knowledge. Gender conflict. What is gender? We would like to have some historical journey. The emergence of new technologies in the 19th century not only improved human performance, but also developed new opportunities for human beings to improve their living standards. After the Industrial Revolution, the living condition is more discrete and discriminative between men and women (see, Ivan Illich, 1982). The new revolt is banishing the old paradigm in "production" from "subsistence" toward "mass-based", "profit oriented", and "always going forward". In the subsistence economy, production is held at family level -we called today home industry. Under such a situation that men and women are relatively equal because work is held in the family where men and women intensively participate in the production and consumption process. The Industrial Revolution put a new standard of workers. The new machine -railroads, telegraph road, steam machine-- need strong 143

muscles that can only be operated efficiently by men. Urbanization in the 1700s in Europe and America drove the society from agriculturally based into industrial based. Men went to the city, and most women stayed in the village. The new urbanization sent families to the city where the men worked in the factory and women worked as a support system for the "men working system". The industrial society -firstly introduced by Emile Durkheim- created structural differentiation and functional specialization. This is one of the trade-mark of modern societies. Division of labor developed by Durkheim unfortunately divided not only structure or function, but goes far beyond: between men and women. Men went toward public area -or professional area, where they can exchange their participation/work with money- and women are going toward domestic area -household work, where they received no money for their work. The fact of the new world is: money is meaningful, because the ultimate exchange tool is money. The bargaining power is shifting in bipolar: they who have money and they who do not. In the general terms, it means a separation between the rich and the poor. This agenda belongs to every development issue and strategy around the world, so intensive until people have been forgetting that the discrepancies are not (basically) the rich and the poor, but between those who earn money by their work and those who do not earn money from their work. It means a discrepancy between men and women.

144

This fact leads to the issue of bargaining positions among men and women where men are in favor because they earn money from their work and women (wives) are not favored because they do not earn money from their work. Inequalities were also created by social and political systems that were dominated by men instead of women. The inequality is inherited from generation to generation. It creates a new value that men and women are different and unequal. This is becoming a universal value. Colette Dowling shows the fact that women are in the "Cinderella complex", where women at last feel more comfortable (and confident) if they are playing the independent role (Dowling, 1981). The human agenda is to create a more humane living. It means that inequality is inhuman or a reverse to humanity. The first agenda of the world after World War II was to establish a Global Organization that can reaffirm human commitment to build a humane living. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was declared by the United Nations in the year of 1946 and codified in 1966 in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The declaration is "neutral" because it gave men and women the same rights because it did not mention a separate right for men and women. The second step was developing instruments and indicators to measure equality of development for men and women. In 1947, the Women Commission under ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council, UN), UN Session on November 7, 1967 accepted the concept of eliminating discrimination against women. The concept of the convention itself was developed in 1974. In the same year, USAID opened the Women in Development Bureau. In 1976, the concept of 145

women’s rights was accepted by the UN Session, and The International Decade of Women that started from 1976-1985 was announced. The first World UN Conferences on Women was held in Mexico in 1975 as a starting point of placing women equality as an issue, following the second conferences in Copenhagen (1980), Nairobi (1985), and Beijing (1995). In Beijing, the conference went well in terms of eliminating discrimination against women by introducing CEDAW (Convention on Eliminating Discrimination against Women). The parallel effort in increasing equality between women and men is the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio (1992), the Population and Development Conference in Cairo (1994), the Social Summit in Copenhagen (1995), Habitat in Ankara (1996). The international donors work together, especially with developing countries, to develop equality between men and women. In developing equality between men and women, there are two paradigms. First paradigm is called "Women in Development" (WID). The concept is to place women participation in the development. The basic principles come from ideas that women fell behind because they did not take part in the development process. The concept is to close the gap between men and women. As we know, the first development concept that developed by the development's theories -mostly in developed countries-in early 1960s was that development is modernization: transferring the modern "value" (including assets, opportunity) to the traditional society. Since most of the people in the developing countries were 146

not ready to accept those values and some limitations of development resources, "development" distributed for limited persons and organizations by assumption the wealth that created by development will trickle down to the other people who were not given the opportunity in the first time. The "selected" persons also mean "men" rather than "women" since men is assumed as income generating in the family (and society). The “trickle-down effect” did not work. In terms of men-women social-economic relations, there was wide inequality. The paradigm faces high criticism. And one of the criticisms is on women's position toward development. The criticism said the paradigm tends to degrade women's position in society. The WID terms come out as a criticism toward the paradigm from a Washington-based network of women development professionals, in the 1970s, which began to challenge 'trickle down effect' theories of development, arguing that modernization was affecting differently on men and women. Instead of improving women's rights and status, the development process was at best passing them and at worst contributing to deterioration in women's position in the developing countries (Ruth Pearson, 2000). The group put the new approach to close the gap effectively by lobbying for the 1973 Percy Amendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act, which required development aid from the USA to help integrate women into the national economies of foreign countries. It thus improves their status and assists the development effort. (Pearson, 2000). The issue was women's lack of access toward "development value", especially in economic terms. As noted by Razavi and Miller, the 147

approach, although motivated by an analysis which acknowledged women's subordination, tended to concentrate on 'women's lack of access to resources' as the key to their subordination without raising question about the role of gender relation in restricting (that) access in the first place' (quoted by Pearson, 2000). The concept walked together with the concept to improve the development paradigm at that time where equality came up to balance growth. The paradigm facing the criticism led by South feminism and the international network Development Alternatives for Women in a New Era (DAWN), with the notion that WID was the exclusion of women from the development process rather than the process as the problem. The criticism comes from the structural approach that the inequality will never overcome by that paradigm. The first criticisms come from the notion that the problem needs structural adjustment -or reform- rather than increasing women's participation in development. The equality could not be overcome because the different position between men and women was set structurally. The second criticism is related to the first criticism, as the core problem is not sexual differentiation but rather sociocultural. The concept of equalizing men and women transforms from "nature" theory to "nurture" theory". And then comes the term "gender". Gender and Development (GAD) was the new -and secondparadigm in building equality between men and women. The paradigms in many areas were replacing the first paradigm, but in another area, countries are still using the WID, or using WID side by side with GAD. The gender which terms simply mean distinctions of sex (Oxford-a, 1973, 1933) come from Latin word genus (not gene) 148

that mean a group of animals -in biology, science man can presume as animal with intellectuality-- or plants within a family. Genus is often divided into several species. (Oxford-a, 1973, 1933; Oxford-b, 1995, 1948). Like Oryza-sativa, or rice, genus is Oryza and species is sativa. Gender is a social and cultural setting for men and women; gender itself is more an anthropologist word. The dictionary of anthropology (1958, 1956) note that gender is: A syntactical classification of words is most often evident in the Indo-European and Semitic languages. Nearly all of these languages show the difference between a masculine and a feminine gender, some have neuter gender as well, and some have an animate and an inanimate gender. Gender simply refers to the differentiating patterns of men and women by socio-cultural construct; gender is that man and women being differentiated by social-cultural value. They are born differently: men and women with the equal right but in the ongoing process women were left behind. The World Bank also had concerns on gender. The World Bank Document noted that biological differences between men and women do not change. However, the social roles that they are required to play vary from one society to another and at different periods in history. "Gender" is the term used to describe this social differentiation. (World Bank, 1993.) We have plenty of definitions of gender, but fortunately Indonesia has clarity on gender. Gender is a concept referring to the roles and responsibilities of men and women that occurs as a result of and may be changed by social and cultural conditions of the community. Gender mainstreaming is a strategy developed to integrate gender into one integral dimension of planning, organizing, implementing, 149

monitoring, and evaluating national development programs and policies. Goal of gender mainstreaming is to reach gender equality. Gender equality is an equal condition for men and women to obtain opportunities and rights as human beings, so that they are able to fulfill their roles and to participate in political, economic, sociocultural, national-defense and security activities, and equality in receiving benefits that result from national development. The Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), based in Washington DC, is providing a useful table in understanding gender by comparing it with WID (CEDPA, 1996).

150

The Approach The Focus The Problem

The Goal

The Strategies

WID & GAD WID GAD Seeks to integrate women Seeks to empower and transform into development process unequal relations between women and men Women Relations between men and women The exclusion of women Unequal relations of power that from the development prevent equitable development and process women’s full participation More efficient, effective Equitable, sustainable development development Women and men sharing decisionmaking and power Implement women’s Identify and address short-term needs projects, women’s determined by women and men to components, integrated improve their condition projects Identify and address women’s and Increase women’s men’s longer –term interest productivity and income Improve women’s ability to manage their household

There are five models of gender mainstreaming that can be identified in promoting gender mainstreaming in the development. The first model is "Women's Empowerment" model. The model is focused on increasing women's competence in order to decrease the competence gap between men and women. The model is even criticized by the genderist but its actuality in some countries still exists for the core problem is women-with-lack-of-competence, especially in social and economic issues. The models are used in almost all the less developed countries in Asia and Africa. The second model is the "Policy" model. The model focuses on creating public policies that support gender equality processes. Some countries in Europe use this model. The third model is the "pragmatism" model. The model is referring to the "freedom for women" to choose any equality mechanism. The model is applied in the most developed countries where women competencies are equal to men. America is one of the best examples where women's choice is more to the business sector and non-for-profit sector rather than the politics sector. Fortune 500 always reports the "Top 50 Women Leader in America" and all the criteria go to the business sector. There are also some women in the leading position as Madeleine Albright that achieve important posts as US Foreign Minister. The "forth" model is the "conflict" model. The model is focused on the conflict between men and women in order to reach a higher position for women to get more power toward men. This approach is not specified to the countries but applied by some NGO in promoting gender. The fifth model is the "representative" model. The model is the simple way to show success indicators. The basic practical mechanism is assessing and sometimes insisting on the social structure (also in terms of political and economic structure) to give quotas for women representative in the most strategic institution, where the most

institutions they often refer to are the institutions where key decisions are being made. India is using this model in their local parliaments -below districts. For women in the third world there also five model of different policy approaches as seen below:

153

Issues Origins

Models of "Gender Mainstreaming" Policy (2) Equity (3) Anti(4) Efficiency Poverty Earliest Second WID Third and now approach: approach: predominant residual Toned down WID approach: model of equity because Deterioration in social welfare of criticism the world under Linked to economy colonial redistribution Policies of administratio with growth economic n and basic stabilization and modernizatio needs adjustment rely n/ accelerated on women’s growth economic economic contribution to development development model (1) Welfare

154

(5) Empowerment Most recent approach: Arose out of failure of equity approach Third world women’s feminist writing and grassroots organization

Period most popular

1950-70: but still widely used

Purpose

To bring women into development as better mothers: this is seen as their most important role in development

1975-85: attempts to adopt it during the Women’s Decade To gain equity for women in the development process: women seen as active participants in development

Needs of women

To meet practical gender need

To meet strategic gender need

1970s onward: still limited popularity

Post-1980s: now most popular approach

1975 onward: accelerated during 1980s, still limited popularity

To ensure poor women increase their productivity: women’s poverty seen as a problem of under development, not of subordination To meet PGN in productivity role, to earn

To ensure development is more efficient and more effective: women’s economic participation seen as associated with equity To meet PGN in context of declining social

To empower women through greater selfreliance: women’s subordination seen not only as problem of men but also of colonial and neocolonial oppression

155

To reach SGN in terms of triple role – indirectly through

met and roles recogniz ed

(PGN) in reproductive role, relating particularly to food aid, malnutrition and family planning

Comme nt

Women seen as passive beneficiaries of development with focus on

(SGN) in terms of triple role – directly through state top-down intervention, giving political and economic autonomy by reducing inequality with men In identifying subordinate position of women in terms of relationship

an income, particularly in small-scale incomegenerating projects

services by relying on all three roles of women and elasticity of women’s time

bottom-up mobilization around PGN as a means to confront oppression

Poor women isolated as separate category with tendency only to recognize

Women seen entirely in terms of delivery capacity and ability to extend working day;

Potentially challenging with emphasis on Third World and women’s self-reliance; largely unsupported by

156

their reproductive role; nonchallenging therefore widely popular especially with government and traditional NGOs

to men, challenging, criticized as Western feminism, considered threatening and not popular with government

productive role; reluctance of government to give limited aid to women means popularity still at small-scale NGO level

157

most popular approach both with governments and multilateral agencies

governments and agencies; avoidance of Western feminism criticism means slow, significant growth of underfinanced voluntary organizations

In sum, gender refers to personal traits and social positions that members of a society attach to being male or female (Macionis, 2007). Gender conflict arise when men or women are only valued biologically, socially and culturally; in relation to the equality of women and men in roles, power, image, expectations and other social and cultural meanings. The issue of gender conflict will continue to be an issue as gender gaps persist in the world, especially in many developing countries. The question is: how to overcome gender conflict, or named as gender inequality. Naila Kabeer (1994) develops the policy model started from the fact of “gender blind policies”. The response is to rethinking the assumptions and practices in regard to those policies, and followed by developing “gender sensitive policies” which comprises of: 1. Gender neutral policies 2. Gender specific policies 3. Gender redistributive policies

158

Gender blind policies (often implicitly male biased)

Rethinking assumptions Rethinking practices

Gender sensitive policies

Gender-specific (interventions intended to meet targeted needs of one of other gender within existing distribution of resources and responsibilities)

Gender-neutral (interventions intended to distributions of resources and responsibilities intact)

Gender-redistributive policies (interventions intended to transform existing distributions in a more egalitarian direction)

Human trafficking. Today, the most scary phenomenon is human trafficking. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children are being traded across borders. Human trafficking is the illegal trade in human beings for the purposes of However, the terrifying truth is beyond that slavery: many of them are being sold from becoming slaves, prostitutes, but some of them are to be sold their body organs –kidney, eyes, heart, etc. United Nation Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN GIFT) in 2008 has revealed the fearsome facts on human trafficking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Box: Human Trafficking Report The headline facts. An estimated 2.5 million people are in forced labor (including sexual exploitation) at any given time as a result of trafficking12 . Of these 1.4 million – 56% - are in Asia and the Pacific; 12

International Labour Organization, Forced Labour Statistics Factsheet (2007) 159

250,000 – 10% - are in Latin America and the Caribbean ; 230,000 – 9.2% - are in the Middle East and Northern Africa; 130,000 – 5.2% - are in subSaharan countries; 270,000 – 10.8% - are in industrialized countries; 200,000 – 8% - are in countries in transition13; 161 countries are reported to be affected by human trafficking by being a source, transit or destination count14; People are reported to be trafficked from 127 countries to be exploited in 137 countries, affecting every continent and every type of economy15 The Victims. The majority of trafficking victims are between 18 and 24 years of age16. An estimated 1.2 million children are trafficked each year17. 95% of victims experienced physical or sexual violence during trafficking (based on data from selected European countries)18. 43% of victims are used for forced commercial sexual exploitation, of whom 98 per cent are women and girls19 . 32% of victims are used for forced economic exploitation, of whom 56 per cent are women and girls20. Many trafficking victims have at least middle-level education21

13

International Labour Organization, Forced Labour Statistics Factsheet (2007) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns (Vienna, 2006) 15 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns (Vienna, 2006) 16 International Organization for Migration, Counter-Trafficking Database, 78 Countries, 1999-2006 (1999) 17 UNICEF, UK Child Trafficking Information Sheet (January 2003) 18 The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Stolen smiles: a summary report on the physical and psychological health consequences of women and adolescents trafficked in Europe (London, 2006) 19 International Labour Organization, Forced Labour Statistics Factsheet (2007) 20 International Labour Organization, Forced Labour Statistics Factsheet (2007) 21 International Organization for Migration, Counter-Trafficking Database, 78 Countries, 1999-2006 (1999) 14

160

The Traffickers. 52% of those recruiting victims are men, 42% are women and 6% are both men and women22. In 54% of cases the recruiter was a stranger to the victim, 46% of cases the recruiter was known to victim23. The majority of suspects involved in the trafficking process are nationals of the country where the trafficking process is occurring24 The Profits. Estimated global annual profits made from the exploitation of all trafficked forced labor are US$ 31.6 billion25. Of this US$ 15.5 billion – 49% - is generated in industrialized economies; US$ 9.7 billion – 30.6% is generated in Asia and the Pacific; US$ 1.3 billion – 4.1% is generated in Latin America and the Caribbean; US$ 1.6 billion – 5% is generated in sub-Saharan Africa; US$ 1.5 billion – 4.7% is generated in the Middle East and North Africa26 Prosecutions. In 2006 there were only 5,808 prosecutions and 3,160 convictions throughout the world27. This means that for every 800 people trafficked, only one person was convicted in 200628 Source: UNGIFT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22

International Organization for Migration, Counter-Trafficking Database, 78 Countries, 1999-2006 (1999) 23 International Organization for Migration, Counter-Trafficking Database, 78 Countries, 1999-2006 (1999) 24 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns (Vienna, 2006) 25 Patrick Besler, Forced Labour and Human Trafficking: Estimating the Profits, working paper (Geneva, International Labour Office, 2005) 26 Patrick Besler, Forced Labour and Human Trafficking: Estimating the Profits, working paper (Geneva, International Labour Office, 2005) 27 US State Department, Trafficking in Persons Report (2007) p.36 28 US State Department, Trafficking in Persons Report (2007) p.36 161

Child Abuse. According to Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a child is defined by the as every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable under the child majority is attained earlier. Article 19 of the convention specifically addresses child abuse and recommends a broad outline for its identification, reporting, investigation, treatment, follow-up and prevention. Other articles in the convention emphasize the important role of the healthcare community in monitoring and reporting child abuse, as a channel of advocacy and direct technical support in other countries. The convention in discussing multiple rights and responsibilities, emphasizes that rights refer to the child’s “…social, spiritual and moral well being and physical and mental health and to achievement of fullest possible physical development in all areas”29 According to World Health Organization30, the general definition of child abuse31 constitutes all forms of physical and/or emotional illtreatment, sexual abuse, neglect or negligent treatment or commercial or other exploitation, resulting in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility, trust or power. Physical abuse of a child is that which results in actual or potential physical harm from an interaction or lack of an interaction, which is reasonably within the control of a parent or person in a position of responsibility, power or trust. There may be a single or repeated incident.

29

http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm. The material about child abuse are taken from the Report on the Consultation on Child Abuse Prevention Geneva, March 29-31, 1999 and www.unicef.org/crc 31 or maltreatment 30

162

Emotional abuse of a child includes the failure to provide a developmentally appropriate, supportive environment, including the availability of a primary attachment figure, so that the child can develop a stable and full range of emotional and social competencies commensurate with her or his personal potentials and in the context of the society in which the child dwells. There may also be acts towards the child that cause or have a high probability of causing harm to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. These acts must be reasonably within the control of the parent or person in a relationship of responsibility, trust or power. Acts include restriction of movement, patterns of belittling, denigrating, scapegoating, threatening, scaring, discriminating, ridiculing or other non-physical forms of hostile or rejecting treatment. Neglect of a child is the failure to provide for the development of the child in all spheres: health, education, emotional development, nutrition, shelter, and safe living conditions, in the context of resources reasonably available to the family or caretakers and causes or has a high probability of causing harm to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. This includes the failure to properly supervise and protect children from harm as much as is feasible. Child sexual abuse is the involvement of a child in sexual activity that he or she does not fully comprehend, is unable to give informed consent to, or for which the child is not developmentally prepared and cannot give consent, or that violate the laws or social taboos of society. Child sexual abuse is evidenced by this activity between a child and an adult or another child who by age or development is in a relationship of responsibility, trust or power, the activity being 163

intended to gratify or satisfy the needs of the other person. This may include but is not limited to: • The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity. • The exploitative use of child in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices. • The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials. Commercial or other exploitation of a child refers to use of the child in work or other activities for the benefit of others. This includes, but is not limited to, child labor and child prostitution. These activities are to the detriment of the child’s physical or mental health, education, or spiritual, moral or social-emotional development. The focus of the consultation as initially child abuse in the family context, yet the pronounced overlap between child abuse in the family and the broader society necessitates a broadening of the field of view. It also recognized that one definition of child abuse cannot serve all purposes; for example, a definition that would serve to increase awareness differs from that of service provision, and the definition for legal purposes differs from that for research. For that reason, a diagnosis must be adaptable and include descriptions of different types or classifications which can be adapted and/or expanded on as is appropriate for the setting.

Low Competence. The low competence of social policy is regarded as poverty, unemployment and the disabled. They need social justice as they could not help themselves to be socially equal to another normal social group. 164

Poverty and Unemployment. Poverty and Unemployment are the two-twin brothers: poverty makes a person unable to be employed since he/she has no sufficient competency, and the unemployed is a non-earning person, therefore he/she has no income and hence he/she gets poor. Poverty

Unemployment

Poverty is the core issue of social injustice; it was the first issue which raised the social policy discipline, as it started when poverty was spreading alongside London after the industrial revolution in the age 0f 17th(Hill, 1987). Hence, social welfare policy involves a series of political issues about what should be done about the poor, the near-poor, and the non-poor (Di Nitto and Dye, 1987). Poverty is deprivation. An insufficiency in food, housing, clothing, medical care, and other items required to maintain a decent standard of living (DiNito and Dye, 1987: 50). There are four key concepts in regards to poverty: poverty line, absolute poverty, relative poverty, and Gini index. Poverty line or poverty threshold is the minimum level of income necessary to achieve an adequate standard of living in a country. Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is the same in all countries and which does not change over time. An incomerelated example would be living on less than $X per day. Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US $1.25 (purchasing power parity) per day, and moderate poverty as less than $2 a day. Relative poverty refers to a standard which is defined in terms of the society in which an individual lives and which therefore differs between countries and over time. An 165

income-related example would be living on less than X% of average UK income.

Gini index of Gini coefficients index is an index which tells us how widely the wealth "altitude" varies in a given country. The Gini coefficient, invented by the Italian statistician Corado Gini, is a number between zero and one that measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of income in a given society. The coefficient would register zero (0.0 = minimum inequality) for a society in which each member received exactly the same income and it would register a coefficient of one (1.0 = maximum inequality) if one member got all the income and the rest got nothing. 166

Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Box: Gini coefficients index The inequality of wealth or income in a particular country is traditionally measured by the Gini coefficient . This coefficient is the result of a comparison of the percentage of the population and the percentage of the total income of the population. E.g., 80% of the population earns 50% of the total income, and the remaining 20% earns the other half. You can see this on the graph, the diagonal 45° line represents the fictional state of equal income: 5% of the population earns 5% of the 167

income, 10 earns 10, 20 earns 20 etc. In reality, income distribution is of course unequal and is somewhere along the curved line, the Lorenz curve, with the majority of the population earning the minority share of the national income, and a minority earning the majority. The inequality of wealth or income in a particular country is traditionally measured by the Gini coefficient. This coefficient is the result of a comparison of the percentage of the population and the percentage of the total income of the population. E.g., 80% of the population earns 50% of the total income, and the remaining 20% earns the other half. You can see this on the graph above. The diagonal 45° line represents the fictional state of equal income: 5% of the population earns 5% of the income, 10 earns 10, 20 earns 20 etc. In reality, income distribution is of course unequal and is somewhere along the curved line, the Lorenz curve, with the majority of the population earning the minority share of the national income, and a minority earning the majority. The more curved this line, the more unequal the income. The Gini coefficient is the surface between the diagonal and the curved line, divided by the whole surface under the diagonal. This is then expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (following a complicated mathematical formula which I will not inflict on you). 0 corresponds to perfect equality: everyone having exactly the same income, = diagonal. And 1 corresponds to perfect inequality where one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income. There will be no curve in this case as the curve comprises the horizontal axis and the right-hand vertical axis. Both extremes obviously being impossible. In real life, the lowest is 0.249 in Japan; the highest is 0.707 in Namibia. Source: filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/human-rights-facts4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------168

Poverty is a problem of the world as the worldwide exposed data revealed that almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day; at least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day; more than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening; the poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income; according to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty, and they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death”; around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in Southern Asia and subSaharan Africa. Based on enrollment data, about 72 million children of primary school age in the developing world were not in school in 2005; 57% of them were girls. And these are regarded as optimistic numbers; nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names; less than one percent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen; infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world; an estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004; every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial 169

deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide. Eradication of global poverty is not a difficult one, as we comprehend that 20% of the richest of the world consume 76.6%, 60% of world’s middle consume 21.9%, and 20% of world’s poorest consume 1.5% (World Bank, 2008). The sharing of wealth is much possible. But, since the wealth is about individual, the poverty was going up upheaval, until United Nations proclaim that the world has to go toward a common goal: Millennium Development Goals (MDG); a goal that agreed and shared of all 192 UN member states and at least 23 international organizations. They have agreed to achieve by the year 2015 of: 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 2. Achieve universal primary education 3. Promote gender equality and empower women 4. Reduce child mortality rate 5. Improve maternal health 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other disease 7. Ensure environmental sustainability 8. Develop a global partnership for development 170

There are two approaches in understanding poverty: cultural and structural. The cultural approach stated that the poor are poor because they do not have mentality, culture, and/or ability to get out from their poverty. The strategy is to change the values and beliefs, give knowledge, skill, and ability. In the cultural approach, the policy includes: 1. Education 2. Training 3. Counseling The core idea is to make poor people able to help themselves. The structural approach sees that the poor is poor because the social structure makes them unable to get out from their poverty. The structural approach disbelieves that education, training, capacity building, even cultural change and mentality alone is useless if the structure blocked the upward mobility of the poor. Hence, it needs to change the social structure. The structural approach has two divergence branches: the functionalist that believes to the policy of giving the poor job and regulate the wages, and Marxist that believes that the important policy is to give a chance to structural reform and cross-subsidy policy. In the structural approach, the social policy includes: 1. Social subsidy 2. Income maintenance 3. Health subsidy 4. Social services 5. Providing employment

171

Providing employment is Job creation’s + entrepeneurship approaches the most popular and well accepted policy, especially by the neo-liberals approach, since it reduces government expense. However, it is now rather Job creation’s approach obsolete. The recent approach toward poverty eradication is by “entrepreneurship approach”. This approach aims to transform the poor into the entrepreneur, as job creation approach is unable to increase employment opportunity to compare to the unemployment growth, as the new industry is getting more capital and technology intensive rather than labor intensive. The entrepreneurial approach has successfully implemented by Dr. Mohammad Yunus in Bangladesh, by Grameen Bank, a Noble laureate. The world’s famous word is now: “socialpreneurship”, a social sector entrepreneurship. The Disabled. The critical issue of the disabled is how to empower them. The recently profound social policy is to do social mobilization in the context of community-based rehabilitation (CBR). CBR is a strategy within general community development for the rehabilitation, equalization of opportunities and social inclusion of all people with disabilities (ILO-UNESCO-WHO, 2004). Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) core strategy promotes collaboration among community leaders, people with disabilities, their families, and other concerned citizens to provide equal opportunities for all people with disabilities in the community (ILO-UNESCO-WHO, 2004). The most accepted definition of social mobilization is a process of bringing together all feasible and practical inter-sectoral allies to raise 172

awareness of and demand for a particular program, to assist in the delivery of resources and services and to strengthen community participation for sustainability and self-reliance. Allies include decision and policy makers, opinion leaders, NGOs such as professional and religious groups, the media, the private sector, communities and individuals. Social mobilization generates dialogue, negotiation and consensus, engaging a range of players in interrelated and complementary efforts, taking into account the needs of people. Social mobilization, integrated with other communication approaches, has been a key feature in numerous communication efforts worldwide. Social mobilization recognizes that sustainable social and behavioral change requires many levels of involvement (ILO-UNESCO-WHO, 2004). Olson (965) comprehends that what social mobilization really is about is to get people together and pool resources; social mobilization is about collective action toward collective good. Fireman and Gamson (1979) advised that the succeed of social mobilization depend upon six factors: 1. The success to find resourceful actor 2. Solidarity 3. Group interest 4. Personal interest in the collective goods 5. The urgency of collective action 6. Loyalty and responsibility Fireman and Gamson (1979) recognize three risks of social mobilization: 1. GROUP = when the collective good is worth more to some elite group member than to all group member, organization member will demobilize the process 173

2. FREE RIDER = they who take the biggest advantage of the mobilization process than they who being mobilized 3. ITS BY PRODUCT = the negative side of the impact bigger than the positive impact Social mobilization has, at least, nine actors: the politicians, government, non-government organizations (NGO), corporations, society, family, individuals, and mass media. The politicians, as such parliament members to political parties, are characterized by their interest in power and the most promoted strategic political decision, so all the action is about how a political decision –policy, law, decree— is being made. As we accepted that public policy as a political decision, the alignment score to the successful social mobilization is medium to high. The problem is: since the interest is politics, and therefore about power, often social mobilization becomes a political agenda rather than actually helping the disabled. Government, however, is the strongest actor toward social mobilization success, toward the disabled, since the objective-bymission of government is providing public services, especially toward the powerless –it means the disabled being one of the priorities. The strategy of government’s social mobility is reachable services. Therefore, the access for the disabled is far reaching, from the access to transportation, medical, education, to work. In Malaysia, the government inquire private sector to employ 1% of their workforce for the disabled. NGO –it means institutionalized—was the actor with the more genuine interest to carry out social mobilization as their primary interest is to empower the people –the disabled—through social gain 174

strategy. NGO want their target to become self-help and to become independent, so they can be a complete human. Therefore, NGO is the actors who have a very high score for a successful social mobilization. Corporations are the other strong actor as they have extra capital to do social mobilization. The recent strategy is known as corporate social responsibility (CSR) in which corporations provided some money and their other resources to provide social mobilization, especially in providing in-kind services, such as giving wheel-chair to the computers with braille-worded-keyboards. The problem is the objective of corporations is slightly the same as politicians: the good name to keep their business in a good branding. Hence, corporations with their CSRs program are scored medium. Society is the next actor which is questioning their effectiveness toward social mobilization as their decision is being molded by existing social values. In the society where the “disabled” are labeled as “a curse of a family”, there will be social mobilization absentia. The social safety interest and voluntary strategy was the fundamental argument why the society is often incapable of responding to social mobilization. Indeed, it is becoming the one, but rather as a follower (and sometimes the laggard) than the pioneer or leader. Family is the best place for the disabled, and therefore for their social mobilization. The motivated family will drive the disabled to be independent. Therefore, the interest of every disabled family is to make the disabled gain their independence, at least to reduce it, as it means easing the family’s burden. From many cases of disabled family success in social mobilization, the most effective strategy is giving help to a certain extent and time, and thrust them to become selfreliant. The score for the family is high. 175

Individual is the key to the success of disabled social mobilization, as he/she has the biggest control to survive. It is about existence as a human being. It drives people to be a self-help one. Therefore, the score is very high. The successful disabled are mostly a person with strong will, self-motivated, and has an undisputable discipline. Actors of social mobilization Actor

Interest

Strategy

Politicians

Power

Governme nt NGO Corporate

Services

Political decision Reachable services Social gain Good name

Society Family Individuals Mass media

Empowerment Social responsibility Social safety

Voluntary

Reduce dependency Existence Exposure

Alignment score Medium to high High to very high Very high Medium

Give help

Low to medium High

Self help Popularity

Very high Low

Mass media sometimes called for social mobilization as its “power” to become “the extension of man” (McLuhan, 1964). Mass media has a ubiquitous presence; their existence is irresistible. The media most interest is exposure: the more people like what they have been exposed to, the more they get credit and therefore profit. The strategy is about popularity. Media exposed disabled people with special talent and hence his/her success. 176

Underlining the alignment score among actors, the most effective is to make all of the parties align. The question is: is it possible? There are many impossible things in the world, but sometimes it is about the idea that it was impossible. The China Disabled Art Troupe is a distinguished example, how politicians, government, NGO, corporation, society, family, individual, and mass media join in alignment to create the most beautiful creature on earth from a group of the disabled: blind, deaf, armless, to mental retard. Successful alignment creates synergy; and synergy means 1 + 1 = more than just two! As to my understanding, social “critical mass” mobilization is an intended effort to transform nonparticipant social reality to the participative one, to reach a certain stage where the social reality has an internal drive, called “critical mass”, to create their own future.

177

The left behind. There are two major cases about the left behind: the marginal and the remote community. They both left behind: the first because of the value gap, the second because of the time-space gap. The marginalized. Modern society is embracing all the societies around the world, including the developing countries. Modernization has its own by-product, named deviance. They become different because of their choices. The deviance creates the new sub-group of the marginal: they who are marginalized by society. This “group” –it is better name than “cluster” or “division”—includes: 1. Transsexual 2. Prostitute 3. Criminals 4. Drugs 5. Alcoholics 6. Anti-social groups –“gang” Emile Durkheim in the 1870s had feared that modern societies might become so diverse that they would collapse into anomie, a condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals. Living with weak moral norms, modern people can become egocentric, placing their own needs above those of others and finding little purpose in life (Macionis, 2007: 493). The transsexual is not merely a hereditary product, but socially. As people search for their identity to make them exist in the intense competition: the man turns into gay and sometimes they change their identity, and they become transsexual socially or/and biologically. Prostitution is a product of a short-life of marriage. The woman looks for life, and the easiest way to get the money –with less knowledge and skill—is to become a prostitute. The phenomenon is also toward man –the gigolo. The campaign for “safe sex” actually reflects the 178

helplessness of the government in tackling the issue of sexualitycommercialization, especially among prostitutes and their consumers. Legalizing prostitution is prohibited in most religions, especially in Islam. Therefore, some Islamic developing countries have difficulties to cope with the prostitution’s issue. It is also on the criminal issue. The prisoner’s management is one of the dilemmas of government expense. To provide them food and daily living means to reduce other social expenses, on the other side, absence of prisoner daily living is across humanity. The criminal issue is becoming a dilemma, as the ex-prisoner is being totally marginalized by the society, so the only choice to have the earning is ….to become a criminal again! The issue of criminals is closely related to drugs, narcotics, alcoholics, and anti-social groups –or “Gang”. As a social problem, it seems unsolved and unanswered until the last day of man. The “curse” of “anomie” has been smeared. The solution is to preserve family members to be exposed to or embraced by the marginalized group, and on the other hand to develop a diverse model of rehabilitation toward the marginalized. The remote communities. One day in Jakarta, 1992, I attended a seminar of the most prominent futurologist at that time: Alvin Toffler. He was coming with the idea that society has been undergoing a major shift, from the first wave, the agricultural society, to the second wave, the industrial society, and now –at that time—the third wave, the information society. It was a question raised: “How about Indonesia?” It was a simple, but perhaps the most difficult question to be answered. The answer, as far as I remembered, was that Indonesia has the most unique civilization: it has the first wave civilization –agriculture; the second wave civilization –industry; and 179

also, the third wave civilization –information; plus, one civilization: primitive. Majority of communities on West Irian have now become Papua, the eastern islands of Indonesia, are the primitive ones. They live naked, using primitive technology, as civilization of the Neolithic age. To bring them as modern as their brothers in Java, Sumatera, Bali, is the hardest thing to do. The gap is not merely technology, knowledge, and well-being, but the value. Indonesia has been incorporating the remote communities since the 1960s, after Netherland giving back the land to Indonesia, until today, and there are still some works that still reside. The social policies introduced to the community are: 1. Public school 2. Public housing 3. Exposing to modernity 4. Bringing some of the agent of change to Java to have higher education –universities 5. Involving the local people into local development The step is now leaping into a political one: to provide wider decentralization to make the local development perform as the local people's aspirations and needs. The question is: is it succeeding? Not yet, but at least it is better than keeping them left behind farther, and to a certain extent, they know that they have to catch up and move faster from their backwardness. Some regions in Papua, such as Merauke Regency, are beginning to become the center of development in the east of Indonesia. The problem of remote communities is also happening in Malaysia, Philippine, Myanmar, Thailand, and China. In this agenda, social policy approach shall be in front, and then followed by economic and political social policy. The Indonesia experience, to make economic and political policy in front, had just created unnecessary conflict 180

among the developed with the less developed; and also, among those the less developed communities. Tragedy Social injustice is happening among the disaster and victim’s accident. The Tsunami in Banda Aceh and southern Thailand, earthquakes in Padang and Yogyakarta, followed by an eruption in Yogyakarta, floods in China, Malaysia, and Bangladesh are some of the natural disasters we had in recent days. The victims have no shelter to stay, there is no food, drink, clothes, and clean water. Global warming has had its own impact. The longer dry seasons in Africa, plus ethnic conflict, generated a severe famine society; it was spread along the center to southern Africa. Social policy at the national level is the key, rather than multinational social help. Banda Aceh, December 2004: before and the after tsunami

Garis Pantai Hilang

There is a set of special social policies toward the natural disaster: national special force, special national budget, special national early warning system, and national policy for natural disaster emergency status. The system has to be able to reach the wider participation of all national institutions –from government agencies, corporations, medical, universities, church, to NGOs—to the society's voluntary actions. The system has to be able to respond promptly to 181

international support as well as domestic and local support. As the earth is moving naturally and “fabricated” –by unstoppable highpolluted industries in US, China, and India, as they refuse to join the Kyoto Protocol-- to the immense global warming, plus the moving of the earth platform, every policy maker, especially in the developing countries has to prepare their social policy toward natural disaster, as to prepare for the worst case that perhaps happens to their citizens. The second tragedy is toward the victims of the accident. It is about victimology, a discipline that is “marginalized” by criminology. Sgarzi and McDevitt identified the meaning of the word victim, which refer to victims of hate crime, victims of violence , include in the workplace to the domestic –household—to the many differences in the ways individuals become victimized in the society (Sgarzi and McDevitt, 2003: 1). Victimology is about crime victims and their roles, as victimization recognize as the scientific study of victimization, including the relationship between the victims and the offenders, the interaction between victims and the criminal justice system –that is, the police and courts, and corrections officials– and the connection between victims and other societal groups and institutions, such as the media, business, and social movements. Whereas the victims are individuals who have suffered injury and harm by forces beyond their control and not related to their personal responsibility (Karmen, 1990: 3). There are three major targets of victimization in society. First, it is vulnerable. They are the children --child abuse, trafficking; women -182

sexual abuse, rape, trafficking; and the exclusion --prostitute, homeless. Second, it is the disabled, either they who have physical disability or psychological disability. Third, it is the victims of tragedy, i.e., natural disaster tragedy such as flood, earthquake, fire, tsunami, and political disaster, such as terrorism and asylum. As pointed out by Sgarzi and McDevitt (2003) that victimization is due to many differences in the ways individuals become victimized in society, there is a new unseen victimization: it is victimization by the media as society becomes the victim of the media. What kind of sorts? How many times have we been exposed to crime in our media, and how many times has it influenced society’s behavior? A series of murder’s news exposure creates panic and distress in society. A series of hatred exposure creates a hatred society. Media is not now reflecting the culture, but creating the new culture that shapes the new-mass-mediated-society with all of its pathologic values and facts. The unanswered question is: what will we do in the new reality of media as the victimizer to society?

183

Summary Social policy is about social development and social justice. The second phrase is being endorsed here as in the developing countries, they often become “part” of the failure of the development process. The conflict, low competence, left behind, and tragedy, are parts of the social justice that shall become policy maker’s agenda. It is not about social welfare alone, but it is about humanity, a value that corresponds to the social policy respectively.

R

The critical problem of social policy in the framework of social justice is about the ambiguity and haziness of the problem, context, and also solution. Most of the solution is “jump into conclusion” of “social works. That the solution to social injustice is to practice social work over there. It is an overshoot solution. Social injustice shall be taken as a strategic issue that needs to find what is the reason behind rather than a technical issue that might be easily stated that it will be solved by sending a social mission. It is effective, but in the short run. It is more to soften the problem, but not really solved.

184

Chapter Six: The Contemporary Issue of Social Policy: Family, Elderly, and Global Social Policy

Family The largest institution in a country is a nation. Below the nation there is a province or state. Country/ Village/ Family Nation Kampong Province and State divide (Federal) into cities and regencies. In developing countries, cities City/Municipality and regency comprise of villages or kampongs. The State smallest unit in the country, after villages/sub villages or kampongs/sub kampongs, is a family. The understanding comes from the traditional beliefs about the first pillar of society is family; it is not individual per se. Therefore, any policy to prepare a happy family is mostly welcome, especially in the eastern communities. Why do we discuss about family? We shall recognize that the changing of a nation-state begins with the changing of family. As noted by Mark J. Penn, President Clinton advisor, that the micro-trends, the small forces, that behind the future are big changes, and not the macrotrends (Penn, 2009). Clinton was winning the election because he saw the housewife as the most potential voter. Obama was winning because he saw Facebook and twitter, the social network that was neglected by his competitor, and utilized it effectively. The global bond issuer now is seeing the behavior of housewives in Japan, as they are the prime mover of Japan household investment. 185

Social policy will be more effective if it is based on the changing pattern of the family. The problem is, families are changing faster than any other social institutions (Bianchi & Spain, 1996), but many social policy students, learners, and practitioners put attention on it. Indeed, they did it, but insufficiently. The family is a social institution found in all societies that unites people in cooperative groups to care for one another, including any children (Macionis, 2009; Laswell and Laswell, 1987). It was a relationship based on marriage, as a legal relationship, usually involving economic cooperation as well as sexual activity and childbearing (Macionis, 2009; Laswell and Laswell, 1987). By means of family, people have their kinship, as a family ties, a social bond based on common ancestry, marriage, or adoption (Macionis, 2009; Laswell and Laswell, 1987). In the developing countries, where traditional values are present, the majority form of family value is extended family; it is a family which is composed of parents and children as well as other kin. In the cities, the most –as it usually known as-- “developed” is nuclear family; a family composed of one or two parents and their children (Macionis, 2009; Laswell and Laswell, 1987)

186

In sum, family is about marriage. After a person (man) is marrying another person (women); then it is a family. The marriage pattern is comprehended as endogamy, a marriage between people of the same social category, or sometimes named as homo-gamy, and exogamy, a marriage between people of different social category (Macionis, 2007; Laswell and Laswell, 1987). The endogamy marriage is the most common marriage: the Malay marriage to Malay; Indian to Indian; Chinese to Chinese, Arab to Arab; Persia to Persia. It was between a high social status man marrying a high social status woman. Inter-race marriage was uncommon about 30 years ago. It was not also strange for US history, as before 1967 Supreme Court Decision, interracial marriage was illegal in sixteen states in US. It was about 50 years ago. Today, marriage among races is common among developed countries. In 1980s Indonesia, Javanese families were hesitant to let their son or daughter marry to the Chinese, or other non-Java ethnic, especially Batak ethnic. Nowadays, marriage is more common among ethnicities compared to the same ethnic. In Malaysia today, inter-ethnic marriage is not very common, especially between Malay and Chinese. Hence, the social integration in Indonesian society is somehow stronger than Malaysian social integration –a seminal perception based on observation and selected discussion that, surely, needs to be validated by academic research. In some developing countries, marriage connotes monogamy; it means marriage that unites a person with a person. In some other developing countries, there is polygamy marriage, which is mean marriage that unites a person with two or many spouses. There are two types of polygamy: polygyny, a form of marriage that unites one man and two or more women, and polyandry which means a form of marriage that unites one woman and two or more men. 187

In some Islamic-based countries, marriage can be monogamy or polygamy in terms of polygyny. In Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, a Muslim man is permitted to marry up to four women. In Indonesia, despite Islam being the majority, the Government had released the social policy of forbidding civil servants to have polygamy. In Himalayan area, such as Nepal, there was a phenomenon of polyandry –some women were allowed to marry more than one man. Family is expected to be strong, as noted that a strong nation is the aggregation of strong families. A study in US in 1978 performed by Stinnett had found out the factors that determine what makes strong, cohesive, functional support system for their members: 1. Most important was the member’ appreciation for one another. 2. Because family members enjoyed each other, they arranged their personal schedules so that they had time together as family. 3. Strong families are characterized by positive communication patterns which involves openness, genuineness, active listening, respect, and the airing differences. 4. The well-functioning families provided evidence of strong family feeling and high family commitment. 5. Members of strong families felt a sense of power and a purpose greater than themselves –a spiritual orientation. 6. The strong families were able to face their problems and to deal positively with crises. They were striking in their adaptive abilities and in the nourishment and care they provided for family members during times of trouble (Laswell and Laswell, 1987: 8)

188

What is happening today? It is still relevant; as every marriage-couple has the same wish for an everlasting marriage; as they had wished in the Mosque, Church, or Temple. It was a dream of any man and woman who promised to become one; to found a sacred institution named family. It is now and forever wishing. In the developing world, especially those who had lived in the small town that made them have all the “time luxuries” to be together almost all the time. Togetherness is the key to a strong relationship. It grows days by days; months by months; years by years. In the busiest and crowded cities such as Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Singapore, and Kuala Lumpur, time is such a luxury for most cosmopolitan couples. My friend, she is a businesswoman that has their business in Jakarta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, and London. She and his husband have to share their time to manage their world-class business. She is not alone. Thousands of women and men walk through day and night, traveling the world, grow their business. It was possible with the modern and most advanced technology of transportation and telecommunication. In Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Bangkok, and New Delhi in total, there are millions of people moving from their places around the city, going to work every early morning, and then going home after dark. They are the commuters; they are who move the national economy and make it grow faster and faster. They are not only husbands, but husbands and wives. Family cohesion is being challenged immensely, as the time of togetherness is being taken away by work and promotion. In the US, it is common to find couples who live in separate cities, as they have found themselves in a different career path. The family function as mentioned by Macionis (2007), as (1) socialization –as value system transfer; (2) regulation of sexual activity --maintaining kinship; (3) 189

social placement --human identity; and (4) material and emotional security --family as haven in heartless world; has been challenged by the new facts that family is not about togetherness as the core of the sacred habitation. The critics that family function merely as property and inheritance -to hand down to the children, about the wealth of the family; as patriarchy --breadwinner and housework and therefore exploitation to women, race and ethnicity --endogamy marriage is maintaining racial and ethnicity hierarchy (Macionis, 2007); hidden exploitation -and legalized slavery –for women and children (unpaid worker); sexual abuse –as sexual harassment toward women, wife, and marital rape; is irrelevant, as the daily facts that challenging family is not about power, wealth, and unfaithful issue, but it is about irresistible choice of life. How the policy maker responds to this issue is an interesting point. It takes more than theory, experience, and wisdom. It takes inspiration and a looking effort beyond horizon. Divorce is a result of a failed family. Macionis (2007) has mentioned that there are some key issues of divorce: 1. The greatest risks of divorce are young couples, especially those who marry after a brief courtship, lack of money and emotional maturity. 2. People whose parents divorced also have higher rate themselves. “Role modeling effect” 3. People who are not religious are more likely to divorce than those who have strong religious beliefs. Belief on goodness of God’s Word

190

4. Couples with higher independence are more likely to divorce than those who have dependency. It is about the values of partners 5. Society who has their social elites exposed to divorce are more likely to have divorce rate higher than society who their social elites less to divorce. It is about patronage of social effects In some developing countries, divorce is becoming a solemn issue. In Malaysia, for instance, the smallest accepted institution is family. The Malaysian Government has introduced a Pre-Marriage Course (“Kursus Pra-Perkahwinan”) to prepare the married couple to understand about marriage and its accountability under Islamic values. It is a compulsory national program. Before getting married, every couple has to have a marriage certificate to assure that the marriage is on the basis of love under religiosity to achieve happiness for the family. There are many proxies of happiness in the family. But the basic and most objective of happiness's proxy is marriage sustainability. The challenge today is the increase of the number of divorces in Malaysia among those marriage couples. In 2005, the number of marriages was 113.132, and the divorce number was 17.749, or 15.7%. In 2006, the number of marriages was 115.513, and the divorce number was 19.475, or 16.9%. In 2007, the number of marriages was 132.511, and the divorce number was 21.051, or 15.9%. In 2008, the number of marriages was 130.314, and the divorce number was 22.289, or 17.1%. Due to the number and percentage, one of the possibilities is: there are changing values of happiness in marriage and as a challenge for Malaysia’s social policy. In today’s world that heading into what some sociologist calls a “post marriage society” (Coontz, 2003: 201), the issue of divorce is grow to be a critical micro-issue that shall be taken as policy issue for 191

government as divorce tends to create some new social problem: poor single-parents, especially mother, that need social welfare support, from the training for women-ex-wife to social support for the school and healthcare. This issue will coexist with the gender equality issue as women shall have the same social rights as men; as in many developing countries, the widows are not inheriting any economic resources from the widower, as the result of the manly-values of society and hence the social policy. In European countries, such as France, a husband who divorced his wife by intent shall support his wife’s life as long as she lives, and also to finance the children’s needs of education and health, and other basic needs. It was then confiscated when she married someone else. It will be a challenge to the social policy decision makers in the developing countries as they mostly agreed on manly-hood of societal values and family law. This is the first microtrend about family. The second trend is cohabitation. It is a sharing of a household by an unmarried couple. It is a hidden agenda behind every big city in the developing countries. The trend started in developed countries. Macionis (2007) acknowledged the number of cohabiting couples in the US was 500.000 in 1970, becoming 5.6 million in 2005. The odd thing was that 0.7 million is homosexual couples! 192

Cohabiting will be the next social policy challenge toward developing countries policy makers as it tends to appeal more to independentminded people and those who favor gender equality (Brines and Joyner, 1999); and it is the trend of today's developing countries. Even though the world has tried hard to admit this fact, as the new Prime Minister of Australia is a lady who is living in cohabitation with her spouse. It is a fact that quietly embracing and intruding on all the social policy about family in the developing countries. Cohabitating somehow derives from the changing of the value of sexuality: from the institutionalized and accountability change into complete pleasure. Cohabitation is seeking for sexual pleasures without justification or consequences (see Bronsky, 2003: 392). This changing value of sexuality is intensely inducing the increasing of --the next issue-- homosexuality: gays and lesbians. As to Bronsky (2003), “…homosexuality offers a vision of sexual pleasure completely divorced from the burden of reproduction: sex for its own shake, a distillation of the pleasure principle” The phenomenon of homosexuality is difficult to respond to. In regard to the Islamic and Christian/Catholic values, homosexuality is forbidden. As it was being told that Lot, a religious person, the nephew of Abraham, was taken by the Angels from the city of Sodom, as the city was crowded by homosexuality –it is hence named “sodomy”. The city of Sodom and its neighbor, Gomorrah, then burned by fire of sulfur from the sky.

193

In reality, the entertainment and fashion industry is the apt medium for the professionals who are noted as “gay” or “homosexual”, as they are able to perform in the “two worlds”: world of man and world of woman. The belief about curses toward homosexual has been defined by the human right issue. The “silent” outbreak of AIDS/HIV has not repealed the surfacing of this population above social reality. In some countries in Europe, marriage between the same sexes has been legalized, in 2005 US had 0.7 million of homosexual cohabiting couples, and in 2010 Obama administration has just released the law to discard policy that disallows gay to enter the military. The homosexuality –gay and lesbian—will creep up on the social policy makers in developing countries –as it becomes an unanswered question and problem in the recent world. This micro-trend will conflict with the problem of religious belief as well as social belief, as it changes tremendously the meaning and definition of family, as the “family” is not consisting of “man and woman”, but “man and man” and “woman and woman”. The difficulty of the homosexuality issue is also derived from the changing value of sexuality as we mentioned above. As heterosexual have the same meaning of sexuality –as family planning devices that prevent women from getting pregnant— of more for recreation or pleasure rather than reproduction or pro-creation, they need other values to judge the homosexuality (see Bronsky, 2003: 393). The next micro-trend towards families is single life. The definition of family has changed radically, because the family does not consist of "two people", but "one person". In large and modern cities in Asian countries, such as Tokyo, Seoul, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Jakarta, many women choose not to marry because marriage has prevented them from accelerating their career path. Indeed, there are several other reasons, because some women are still single in 194

middle age as a result of women's reduced awareness of the shortcomings of men, especially "successful women". Several of my friends, middle-aged women, some with PhDs, senior managers and even professional directors, have decided to get married and both of them answered in the same way. This is the next social issue that has reached the edge because it has been divided in developing countries and modern life, women's emancipation and gender equality will encourage new choices for women to continue their careers and put aside marriage as a life priority. In the US in 1960, 28% of women aged 30-34 were single. In 2003 the number was 74%!

Elderly

1 billion

Peter Drucker, management guru, has reminded governments in the developed 313 million world that the next critical issue to be managed is the rapid increase of elderly in the structure of society. The innovation of 2010 2040 medical technology, vitamins, diets, sports, and healthy living make people stay alive longer. And it is not about the US, UK, Germany, and Sweden. Japan has the oldest people in the world. The living expectancy of the successful developing countries has been significantly augmenting. In 2010, the number of elderly – those above the age of 60—was estimated at about 313 million people. In 2040, the number estimated will reach about 1 billion people! In Japan, the number of the elderly in 2030 is estimated to be about 40% of all population. And, it is the number of people above 80 years old! How about a successful developing country like Malaysia?

195

Malaysia government has stated that Malaysia has to be recognizes as one of the country that has becomes the “elderly country”. It was recognized that the success of health, infrastructure, and housing, has supported the increase of the “golden citizen” –the elderly. In Malaysia 2009, the number of the elderly was 1.8 million of people, about 7% of total population; in 2010 was becoming 2.2 million, about 7.8% of total population; in 2020 is being estimated to become 3.4 million, about 10% of total population; and in 2035 is being estimated will become 5.1 million, about 15% of total population. It means the government has to rethink the social policy allocation in the society. Why is this important? In the pyramid structure of "young" society (1, 2, 3), young people are large in number and old people are small in number. This is the structure of the majority of developing countries. This is not a big problem, because the number of income providers – therefore taxpayers– exceeds the number of those receiving benefits. Next, the structure will change to "mature", namely the number of "young" and "old" people who are quite balanced (4), namely the number of people who are not paid and the number of people who receive government subsidies. pretty much the same. This then began to cause problems: government budgets were always limited, and government social support for the elderly was reduced. The real problem occurs in the "old" pyramid structure (5), namely that the number of old people is greater than the young population.

196

5

4

3

2

1

The developed countries have developed their own way to solve the problem. But, not all of them are successful. The French government responded by increasing the pension’s age from 60 to 62. It was a riot over the country, as the elderly workers, from the business sector, public sector, to social sector, gathered to scream out their voice: “We are too tired to work! It is inhumane to let us keep working in the condition that we are unable to perform such a job and all of the assignments”. President Sarkozy even has had to bet on his popularity to manage the elderly issue. The micro-trend has changed the overall social policy paradigm.

The issue of elderly and pensioners are critical as they countenance four overt facts, and two other covert facts. The first four is a new social policy regarding health services; from vitamins to Viagra, housing system, from the physical structure to the interior; income maintenance, from subsidy to re-employing; and public services, from transportation to entertainment. The two covert –therefore unspoken—are the poverty among the elderly –as they are too weak 197

to take the common job—and pension system are sometimes unable to response the increase of the daily expense, furthermore when they have problem with health which need a special treatment, as such of haemo-dialyses to the surgical procedure; and loosing of dignity as they get more and more forgotten by society as they unable to make a significant contribution to the society, instead of their dependency to the society.

Public services

income

housing

health

Poverty Dignity

The first idea is that the government shall develop a new social policy of the social pension scheme. It aims to prevent the elderly to become the poor and hence helpless, it is reasonable that government give a next support as a “return” to those who has being part of the national success in the past32.

32

Armando Barrientos, a professor of Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Persidangan Penuaan Rantau Asia Tenggara 2010: Memperbaiki Kesejahteraan Hidup Di Hari Tua di Kuala Lumpur anjuran Institut Gerontologi, Universiti Putra Malaysia 198

The problem is: who will finance the new additional social expense as the social pension is sensible if the number of the tax-payer higher than the pension earner. There are two social policy strategies –which are more based on market approach. First, the elderly shall be channeled into job opportunities that are relevant for them so that they may contribute and earn income. Second, the government shall provide social policies that assure that when the worker gets retired in elderly, they are still able to maintain their life, at least at the civilized basic needs level, until they pass away. Both of the answers are still not answering the question about how to cope with the social policy in the elderly societies. It became the living agenda for the government in the developing country as the future of social policy will depend much more on social policy to the elder society. Social policy makers MUST RETHINK THEIR BASIC ASSUMPTIONS to respond to the future! it takes a creative and innovative social policy that is not based on today’s social policy. Global Social Policy National social policy of the developing countries has been influenced by global context ever-since their birth. As we discussed before, the theory and ideas of social policy, however, had been influenced by the teachers and education in the developed world whom the developing countries teachers and decision makers have had their knowledge. But the immense influence is not as strong as today, especially post 1990, after the world has been transformed into a globalized one. The social policies of the developed and developing countries are being confluent.

199

The developed country has been lessening many of their public subsidies, especially that not-directly social subsidy; an economic commodity subsidy. This global idea, confluent with the national problem of financial “scarcity”, leads the developing countries to reduce some of their subsidies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Box: Malaysia Plan to Reduce Subsidy Malaysia’s Government has started to introduce a new approach of social policy toward people’s social welfare. The “kick off” was conducted by the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) Dr. Datuk Seri Idris Jala in the first week of June 2010. According to Datuk Idris, the Government of Malaysia will go bust by 2019 if it continues to accumulate debt at the current rate of 12 per cent a year, a minister said. To avoid the "Greek incident", said the subsidies given to various sectors must be rationalized. “Our debt currently amounts to RM362 billion. We don't want to end up bankrupt like Greece with a debt of E 300 billion (RM1.2 trillion). "If we continue to borrow money at the current rate, we will go bankrupt in 2019 with a debt of RM1, 158 billion," said Idris, who is also the chief executive officer of the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu). The government has made recommendations to increase prices of subsidized big ticket items such as fuel, gas, food and toll. "The time for subsidy rationalization is now. Otherwise, we have a time bomb on our hands," Idris remarked.

200

Government Debt 1997-2020 1300 1158 918 727

577 457 362 90

112

146

189

229

267

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2020

Source: The Star 3 June 2010, Interview with Datuk Seri Idris Jala Based on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data, Malaysia's subsidy spending as a percentage of gross domestic products (GDP) was a staggering 11 per cent between 2006 and last year. This was almost three times more than non-OECD countries like the Philippines, higher than Indonesia at 28 per cent, getting closer to the Philippines at 62 per cent, and 55 times more than Switzerland, an OECD country. Datuk Idris stated that the subsidy bill is not sustainable, especially in light of the rising budget deficit and government debt (as a percentage of GDP). Studies by Bank Negara Malaysia showed that inflation should rise to four per cent from 2011 to 2013, before slowing at three per cent post-2013 under "a less subsidized". Datuk Idris noted that 97 per cent of the subsidies are dispensed on a "blanket" basis. Means, it was given to everyone regardless of income level, for example, subsidized primary, secondary and tertiary education, medical services, petrol, sugar and cooking oil, as well as welfare aid and sustenance allowance.

201

Nowadays Malaysia has spent The RM74 billion subsidy bills consisting of four components. They are social, which includes healthcare and education (RM42.8 billion), fuel (RM23.5 billion), infrastructure (RM4.6 billion) and food (RM3.1 billion). The reforms recommended will be done by gradually cutting subsidies for fuel, electricity and toll, as well as other staples like sugar, cooking oil and flour. There will be cash rebates in certain sectors as the government gives back some of the savings to the public. Subsidies on education, healthcare, agriculture and fisheries would remain but would be done more efficiently to curb wastage and abuse. The proposal will be stressed on the price of petrol and diesel will initially be raised by 15 cent per liter and 10 cent per liter respectively. Subsequently, petrol and diesel will cost another 10 cent more every six months. The cost of continuously subsidizing fuel would be astronomical, about RM200 billion in the next 20 years. The price of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) would initially be increased 10 per cent before rising by 20 per cent every six months. The government stands to save RM44.9 billion over five years from the move. The public burden from the increase in fuel prices will be partially offset by a cash rebate for car and motorcycle owners. Owners of motorcycles below 250cc will get a RM54 rebate per person, while those with cars less than 1,000cc will get RM126. Price of sugar and flour will each increase 20 cents per kg for a start. Subsequently, sugar will cost 20 cent more every six months until 2012, while flour will add another 25 cent next year. Cooking oil will increase by 15 per cent initially, before rising another 15 per cent in 2011 and five per cent in subsequent years until January 2014. The government will save RM3.7 billion in five years from the move. Gas price for power and nonpower sectors and electricity tariff will also be increased on a staggered basis. Electricity tariff will initially be raised by 2.4 cent per kWh (per kilowatt hour), before increasing by 1.6 per kWh cent every six months. Gas price for the power sector will cost RM4.65 per MMBTU more than the current subsidized price of RM10.70 per 202

MMBTU, before rising by RM3 every six months. Gas price for the nonpower sector will raise RM2.52 per MMBTU before a hike of RM3 per MMBTU every six months. The electricity tariff hike will not impact 56 per cent of consumers, who use less than 200 kWh every month or RM20 a month. The government, in turn, will save RM35.9 billion over five years from the reduction in gas and electricity subsidy. Toll rates will be increased as per the concession agreement, but the government will provide cash rebates in return. It will be in the form of a 20 per cent discount on the next reload for Touch ‘n Go users with at least 80 transactions a month. Government social policy direction is about subsidies that may soon be reduced across the board over five years. Even though it might be described as “the most unpopular decision that the government has had to make since independence”, the decision will save up to RM103 billion during the period to partially repay the nation’s huge debt and address the fiscal deficit. The government now spends RM74 billion a year to subsidize various economic and social sectors. It currently owes various parties a total of RM362 billion while the fiscal deficit stands at RM47 billion. Therefore, the Government is now planning to develop a five-year subsidy rationalization roadmap at the Subsidy Rationalization. In order to implement the good governance process, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the Government would wait for the response and feedback from the people before making any decision on the subsidy rationalization roadmap. The PM has spoke after chairing the UMNO supreme council meeting at the Putra World Trade Centre, while the government leaves it to the people to decide whether the subsidies should be maintained or abolished, they should bear in mind and fully understand the consequences of their decision. Source: The Star, 3 June 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

203

Social policy of the developing countries is becoming a global led social policy. The comparison among countries' competitiveness drives the individual in a country to challenge domestic social welfare. A letter in The Star daily (Kuala Lumpur, December 27th, 2010), the anonymous citizen of Malaysia (stated himself as “Concerned investor”) noted that “the Philippines had just reduced the public holidays from 21 days to 16 days in 2011, Singapore now 11, Taiwan 12. Meanwhile, Malaysia has 18-19 days, and is now asking for another 90 days of paid maternity leave. Government will do everything to please the workers, not the investors”. However, the novel phenomenon is the emerging of the global social policy as a consequence of globalization. Different to internationalization, as to George C. Lodge: “Globalization is the process whereby the world’s people are becoming increasingly interconnected in all facets of their lives –cultural, economic, political, technological, and environmental.” (Lodge, 1995: 1) In response to the global turn in social science, social policy has begun to examine the ways in which policy processes and outcome are shaped by transnational and globalization processes (Yeates, 2006: 8). Orenstein (2005: 177) defines global social policies as those that are developed, diffused, and implemented with the direct involvement of global policy actors and coalitions at or across the international, national or local levels of governance. Thus, social policies enacted nationally and sub-nationally may be considered ‘global’ to the extent that they are codetermined by global policy actors and are transnational in scope. Deacon (1997: 195) defined global social policy as a practice of supranational actors which embodies global social redistribution, global social regulation, and global social provision and/or empowerment, and the ways in which 204

supranational organizations shape national social policy. He argued that the political forces involved in global social policy formation and the arenas through which it was being played out there were wider than those being focused on at the time. Yeates (2006) then argued that the scope of global policy analysis needed to be broadened to include the range of social dialogues taking place outside the boardrooms and bureau of international governmental organizations (IGOs). “This wider definition included the activities of non-elites in global social politics and policy making, notably social movement and non-governmental organizations operating in the numerous shadow congresses and social for fora that accompany international governmental meetings….(it is about) global social governance (which) was not only multitiered, as in the institutionalist approach to global social policy, but also multi-sphered in the sense that in encompassed the wider social regulation of economic and political globalization processes themselves… (Yeates, 2008: 13)” Global social policy creates the global social welfare respectively, as it is a development of the human being welfare scope. As in the national context, in the global context, welfare is also in mix, where state, market, non-for-profit organization, community and family are working together in their specific contributions (Yeates, 2008).

205

The extended welfare mixes Domestic Global State National government, International regional government, governmental local authorities, organizations, regional town/city councils formations; national donors Market Domestic markets; Global markets; local/ national firms transnational corporations Intermedi National service NGOs, International nonate consultancy companies governmental organizations (charitable and philanthropic bodies); international consultancy companies Communit Local social movements, Global social movements, y neighborhood diasporic communities associations Househol Household strategies Transnational household d survival strategies, international migration Source: Yeates, 2006: 16. Yeates then argued that in the globalized context, social policy analysis has responded to the challenge of ‘the global’ in the following three ways: 1. Extending studies of national social policy to a wider range of countries worldwide than those traditionally the object of analysis. 2. Analyzing social policy formulation in cross-border and multilateral spheres of governance. 3. Focusing on cross-border flows of people, goods, services, ideas, finance as they relate to the provision, finance and 206

regulation of social welfare, social policy making and governance processes and the impacts of social policies on human welfare (Yeates, 2008: 10) There are five dominant actors in the global social policy. The first is the international organization, as United Nations, The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, to the World Trade Organization, who works in their specific approaches.

207

International organization approaches to national social policy International organization WB (IBRD and IDA) WB (IFC) IMF WTO ILO UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO OECD UNDESA UNDP Source: Yeates, 2006: 34

Dominant approach to social policy Residual – becoming more universal Residual – strongly favors private (commercial) health and education Residual – becoming supportive of increased social spending Residual – favors international markets in private welfare Bismarckian – become universal Universal public services Mixed views – with DELSA emphasizing the value of public services Comprehensive universal social policy Not clearly explicated

Global social policies consist of three aspects: global redistribution, global regulation, and global rights. Global redistribution such as Overseas development assistance, global funds, airline ticket tax, differential drug pricing. Global regulation such as core labor standards, UN Global Compact, ENESCO guidelines for private higher education. Global rights such as UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Yeates, 2006: 35) The increasing and immense global social welfare, requires a call for global social governance reform. Yeates noted five agenda: (1) to 208

strengthen UN role33, (2) international organization dialogue and synergy34, (3) more policy space for the south35. Global networks and global public-private partnership, (4) increasing the accountability of the World Bank, and (5) developing World-Regional social policy (Yeates, 2008: 37-43). The second actor is the regional inter-state organization, such as ASEAN, ANZUS, EU, to OECD. This actor encompasses the mission of social welfare and economic one, as the fact that the economy needs social welfare and vice versa. Social global policy often takes place in the form of special cooperation between two countries or more in the same regions to undertake the same social global problem such as social welfare in the borders, human trafficking, to global refugee. In Southeast Asia, the cooperation is common among Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Singapore. Sometimes, these countries establish an ad hoc committee to deal with the temporary of ad hoc social regional cases, such as bird flu, swine flu, to a certain social work cooperation. The third is the nations. The United States is the most active nation to provide global social welfare as its mission is to give a hand to people around the world. Germany, Australia, and Japan are the other

33

which was started in 2002, which the moves to strengthen UNs role in economic and social policy were formalized in the Report of the Secretary General to the 57 th Session of the UN in 2002, in which recognized the growing role of UN in helping to forge consensus on globally important social and economic issues and called for the corresponding strengthening of the principal organ concerned with those issues, namely the ECOSOC. Others proposed to create under UNESCO, others proposed UNDP, other proposed UNDESA. 34 ILO in 2004 appealed international organizations should launch Policy Coherence Initiatives in which they work together on t he design of more balanced and complementary policies for achieving a fair and inclusive globalization. 35 In the 1980s and the 1990s World Bank through its policy conditions attached to loans, shaped social policy thinking in the Global South. 209

countries which profoundly generate global social welfare in their home country which they practice in many countries. US Aid of the US, BMZ of Germany, AusAID, and the Japan Foundation are organizations that work as an extension of the national government’s global social policy. The fourth is transnational corporations. Most of the transnational corporations bear the obligation to contribute social values to the society in which they operate their business. From mining companies as Shell, Freeport to the consumer product manufacturer as Unilever. The fifth actor is the global philanthropic individuals; from Bob Geldof who generated Aid for Africa in the 1980s, Bill and Melina Gates with their Gates Foundation, Alfred Nobel with Nobel foundation, George Soros with the Quantum Fund, to the late Madame Theresa. There are two types of global actors: those who inspire the world to promote global social welfare, such as Al Gore, and those who inspire and work with their funds and institutions, as the names we have previously mentioned. Summary The future of social policy will face more complicated social issues and problems. There are two major trends that shape the future social policy. First the micro trend, it is the family and elderly. This micro trend is often neglected, in truth it changes everything, since it is the basic value generator of the society. When family meaning, value, and then existence is changing, the world will change utterly. The elderly issue represents the fact how we will tribute our senior generation as the ancestor. The ability of human beings to respect their fathers and mothers will save their lives, as it stated in a wise word of King Solomon: “Honor your father and mother, so God will give you a long 210

life in the land that is preserved for you”. Human being with his dignity is about choosing: whether he/she chooses the sacred values of life, or the pragmatic values of time pressure. The second is globalization. As noted by Lodge (1995) noted that the new reality of globalization is that a nation’s standard of living as well as its independence depended upon its capacity to compete successfully in the world economy. The problem noted by Brecher and Costello (2003) as the most direct symptom of globalization is the “race to the bottom” itself –the reduction of labor, social, and environmental conditions that result directly from global competition for jobs and investment. The complicated one is: “Sometimes the immediate vehicle is a corporation that itself threatens to close or more unless workers and/or governments accept the conditions it demands. Sometimes the race to the bottom is promoted by a government –as when the government of Spain tried to reduce job security regulations in 1994 in order to make its workforce “more competitive”. Sometimes it is imposed by international financial institutions –as when countries are denied loans by the IMF and World Bank unless they agree to reduce minimum wages and raise food cost as part of a “structural adjustment program…” (Brecher and Costello, 2003: 455) Those micro and macro trends make the future of social policy will be as entering terra incognita, an unknown terrain. The challenge shall be responded not by waiting and anticipating, but creating the future, as the future of social policy and therefore social welfare will be …whatever social policy we make today.

211

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

Social policy is public policy. Hence, it is about decisions that will make the future different compared to today. The problem is that we tend to learn and practice public policy as it is a “goodness” that may exist in an “empty space”. In my Public Policy (2009), it was recognized that public policy never emerges in an empty space. There must be a context that provides the birth of any public policy. The context is a series of processes that put public policy at the critical steps. It was the belief in goodness that any society holds in their living. It is about everything they feel is good for their life as a society. The goodness formally is stated in any constitution of any given country. The United States believes that goodness is when individuals are having the same right in front of the law. Indonesia has beliefs that the nation’s birth is a God given; therefore, God is the ultimate of goodness. The key point is that goodness lies within the constitution. Therefore, the first argument is that every public policy must relate to their constitution, with no exception. The belief in goodness that is formally stated in the constitution is a belief that is embedded deep in the hearts and souls of the people of a nation. It is about values and norms that they believe as the guiding principle to hold society together and live as a brotherhood to achieve the common goal. Therefore, beliefs on goodness creates value and norms. This may be understood as culture, ethics, or another concept. The key point is that values and norms determine how the society will be managed.

212

Managing society as a nation state is about choice on political institutions which they shall have or provide to run the nation as a political entity. Society which believes in equality will hold the principles that everybody has the same rights and the same service in front of the law. The society will develop the values of dialog before deciding, and if there are any disputes, they try to solve them in the dialogue way. The culture of dialogue transforms into a shape of democratic political institutions. There are legislative, executive, and judicial branches which work to serve the people’s needs and aspirations. Political institutions are processing political input, to be managed as a throughput, and then output. It was David Easton’s concept about the political system, plus the environment factor. However, the key point is there are political processes among political institutions to determine how the nation will be carried out to achieve its mission as noted in the constitutions as the beliefs on goodness. The most important –perhaps the only important— output of the political process is public policy. Herewith I prefer not to state that public policy is the product of public administration, since some of the scholar preference on public administration understanding is about government and bureaucracy, therefore executive branch, in the other side, there is a new acknowledgement that public administration embrace political arena, since government and its bureaucracy also playing politics, and in my personal understanding, in the wider definition, public administration may be taken as state, therefore involve of the democratic institutions of the nation. I would like to convey this idea since public policy is, basically, a law or regulation, which is in the democratic political system, is the accountability of the legislative. 213

In regard to democratic institutionalization of Montesquieu of “trias Politica”, government is the law implementer. But, in the modern state, government, even bureaucracy creates its own law and regulation in order to implement the law. It is about detailing the law which was made by the legislative branch. In developing countries, there are two common facts in regard to government practices. First, since the development and administration expertise are in the government’s institutions, parliament as the legislative institution is so dependent on the executive while making law. Most of the laws which are made in many developing countries were drafted by executives. In some sense, it seems like that legislative merely follows the executive. There is also a sense of corruption inside the process. The negative side stated that “legislative dictate by executive”. The positive side states that “they work as a team”. The level of legislature expertise has been driving parliament to be tended to follow the executive. Therefore, executives need to understand well what is public policy for they will not bring the situation into a “contaminated disguised interest”, but toward that the executive led the legislative to become empowered. The situation is happening in Indonesia. Previously, parliament was criticized as “an executive’s stamp”, because most of their decisions on law derived from the executive. Today, parliament in the national as well as local has been empowered so they are able to manage the policy process as it shall be. However competence of the legislative, government (executive) still play a role as law maker since a lot of policy-making competences reside in government’s organization. The judicial institutions also play a role as policy makers since the institution has the mandate to provide last judgment of any law dispute or when executive practices are suspected against the law. Therefore, the judicial branch has to be empowered by public policy competence. 214

As interplay, political process among the main democratic institutions –legislative, executive, judicial—and inside each branch, especially in the executive branch where the interactions are among national and local governments, the output will be public policy. Therefore, in sum, we might reaffirm that the political process among democratic –or less democratic—institutions produces public policy. It means that public policy is more than a public administration’s product or output. But, still public administration, as the government in developing countries, has the biggest accountability on public policy since the expertise in development and policy administration is there. The idea also developed from Frederickson's proposal about the new public administration which meaning that the (New) Public Administration seeks not only to carry out legislative mandates as efficiency and economically possible, but to both influence and execute policies which more generally improve the quality of life for all (Frederickson, 1971, 314).

215

Public policy then, as we noted in the Belief on goodness introduction, is the Policy “rule of the game” performance / failure which is formalized Values and and legalized by norms law. The ideal is public policy Public policy reflecting the Political beliefs on institutions goodness that are Political reflected in values process and norms that proceed in the political process among political institutions. The challenge now is achieving policy performance. It is a critical one, because policy performance and failure determine whether the belief on goodness will keep in sustain or it will be changed. In developing countries, there must be a policy about corruption eradication, because corruption is the biggest enemy of any developing country, especially the less developed ones. Poverty and greediness tend to lead some political elites and bureaucracy to corrupt. The policy must be some of the people's beliefs that taking things that he or she does not deserve is a mistake –or even sin. If the policy is successful, then people's beliefs will be stronger, and they will protect their society from corruption as a practice or as a latent value. Hence, we recognize that public policy is part of a sequence of: 1. Belief on goodness 2. Values and norms 3. Political institutionalization 4. Political process 216

5. Public policy as the product of political process 6. Policy performance or its failure drive the new beliefs on goodness of preserve the presence beliefs on goodness. Social policy will become the core business of the government for good. The government mission is to conserve the most sacred things in human and society: the humanity of civilization –not just about civilization. The challenge is befittingly a difficult one, as they have to know that social policy in developing countries are specific. Indeed, some universal values of discipline and practices are there, but the uniqueness requires the developing countries’ social policy scholars and practitioners, from universities and government, to find their own way to create the future social welfare –or well-being, or good society, or any definition they seek and found for— by inspiring in generation to generation, by sharing the best practices in their own countries and others, in the spirit of –as Sachs (2008) buzzword, in searching the Common Wealth of the human being, in our home country as well as globally.

217

Appendix 1: Case Study on Policy Innovation How A Less Developed Area was Transforming into A Performing One, A Case Study of Jembrana Regency-Bali, 2001-2005

1. Introduction In 1998 some East Asian countries were hit by financial and economic crises. Named South Korea, Thailand, and the worst was Indonesia. Indonesia’s crisis was a complex one: financial, economic, social, and political. Started from a currency collapse from IRD 2.500 per US dollar to IDR 10.000 –and even reached IDR 15.000. The currency values decreased by almost 80%. GDP per capita was shrinking from USD 1.100 to become USD 350. The 32 years of the New Order regime under Soeharto tumbled. Political reformation has upheld the crises. In the crises, Jembrana Regency, one of the poor regions in Bali – the Goddess Island—has successfully transformed the region into the most successful of education development. The best practice has initiated the transformation of national educational development policy. The critical evidence is how a region with the status of “deprived” and “impoverished” made a successful education development leap. It was started from the emerging facts in the 1990s, that the only survival is an organization with excellent human resources. No matter, whether it was a corporation, government, or a Regency. In the era of the knowledge-based society, the survival, and therefore competitiveness, and sustainability, of any organization depends upon the quality of its human resources (Drucker, 1994: Pfeffner, 1995). The Republic of Indonesia, as a modern organization, has been facing the same challenge, therefore human development was placed at the center of the national development strategy. The National Constitution of 1945 stated that the mission of independence was to create the intellectual life of society. The mission of the nation is promulgated into the national 218

development plan in which education is taking place as the most important sector is provided a minimum of 20% of the total national budget. The policy was mandatory from the amended National Constitution36. The budget policy priority has been starting since 2008 after the new Law on Education was released in 200337. Before 2003, the budget for education was in vigorous competition with the other development’s sectors. Therefore, even the human development mandated by the constitution, in the implementation was unsound. However, the mandatory budget was achieved in 2008 after the debate among polities ended with the national agreement that the minimum threshold must be performed. The education development in Indonesia from 1999-2008 was mostly challenging since Indonesia was in a severe economic crisis, as one of the Asian countries that hit by economic crisis which followed by the social turbulence, and then political chaos38. In 1999, Indonesia implemented the politics of decentralization under the Law No. 22/1999, replacing the prior centralized political system. The new policy stipulated that educational development was becoming local government accountability. The two fundamental changes have created a new challenge toward education policy in Indonesia: the decentralized educational development policy on one side, and no sufficient budget support from the national government. The natural resource plentiful regions performed education development because of its local revenue. The critical condition was happening toward the less economic resources regions. The Regency of Jembrana39 is located in Western Bali, the 36The

four-phase amendment of Indonesia’s Constitution was taking place in 19992001 by the People Representative Assembly. 37 The Law No. 20/2003 on National Education reinstated the Law No. 2/1989 on National Education System. 38In 1998, the 32th years of ruling President’s Soeharto was resigned because of a national and massive people movement together with international pressures. See Schwartz (1999) and Backman (1999). The movement was named as “Reformasi” (Reformation). Indonesia was undergoing tremendous economic crisis since its GDP per capita has fallen from USD 1.200 (1996) to USD 400 (1999). 39Jembrana is one of nine municipalities in Bali Province. The area is about 84.180 km square, or 14.96% of Bali Island, consist of 4 sub districts (or Kecamatan), 42 villages 219

“Goddess Island”, Indonesia (see figure 1). Compared to the other regency in Bali, such as Kuta and Denpasar, Jembrana was behind. Those two other regions are international tourist areas which have high income from foreign travelers40. Jembrana has neither tourists nor oil and gas. Jembrana in 1999 was the poorest region in Bali Island since its local revenue less than 5% of the total local budget41. The development of education was the most difficult agenda for the local government. Figure 1. Map of Jembrana, Bali

In 2001, Jembrana was acknowledged as the first region in Indonesia to perform gratis education from elementary to high school –12 years of education, whilst other regions in Indonesia were struggling for free education for their people. In 2002, the Department of Home Affairs and National Science Institute conducted research to evaluate the implementation of the decentralization policy. The research found that Jembrana was one of the best regions, especially in terms of the development of education. Since 2003, Jembrana has become the best practice and benchmark and 9 Kampongs. In 2005, the population was 258.078 and the density of 307/km square. 40Bali is well known as one of the favorite tourist destinations in the world. 41The rest of 95% was supported by National Government. This region noted as the poor region since it was far away from the ability to perform self-finance development. 220

for regional development in Indonesia and even become an international success story42. Jembrana's public policy, specifically educational policy, becomes a unique case that needs to be examined. 2. Theoretical Framework: Education, Decentralization, and Policy Education is an everlasting human agenda since it promotes every man and woman toward their future as individuals and members of society. Education has its own distinctive contribution as a human effort. John Dewey stated that education is a “conservative” and “progressive” effort to formation, recapitulation, retrospection, and reconstruction (Dewey, 1964: 69-77). According to Hills, education is a process of learning aimed at equipping people with knowledge and skills. There are to be enough to equip people sufficiently well so as to enable them to live satisfactorily, continue to learn, and pursue careers (Hill, 1982: 137). The universal idea of education influence Indonesia policy on education, as seen from the Indonesia Law No. 20/2003 on National Education article 1 noted that education is the conscious effort to create the learning condition and learning process to make the education participants able to develop the potencies within to be able to contribute to the national development. Education development in the broader sense of Indonesia's national development is stated as developing the winner people, as promoted by James and Jongeward, as to create one who is able to respond authentically by being credible, trustworthy, responsive, and genuine, both as an individual and as member of society (see James and Jongeward, 1971: 1). 42Kompas daily,

Special Edition on Education, November 6, 2004. In 2004 the author engaged in the Australia Aid Program for Decentralization Support in Indonesia. The material developed by Australian experts has put Jembrana as the best practices of decentralization post crises. Jembrana has received many national award, such as award from the Vice Presiden of Indonesia, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Administrative Reform, and Partnership for Governance Reform. See also Putra and Kansas (2004); Winasa (2006). 221

The education idea which has transformed into national policy was being implemented in the context of the decentralized nation of Indonesia, as part of the globalization impact (see Naisbitt, 1992). Jun and Wright highlighted that globalization encouraged decentralization. It is when a country’s political, economic, and development activities become globalized, the national government may no longer be the dominant entity; the regional government will be (Jun & Wright, 1996: 3-4). The facts were derived from the growing interest in decentralized planning and administrations are attributable not only to the disillusionment with the result of central planning and the shift of emphasis to growth-with-equity policies but also to the realization that development is a complex and uncertain process that cannot be easily planned and controlled from the center (Rondinelli and Cheema, 1983: 18). According to McGinn and Welsh finding that there are three reasons for the emergence of educational decentralization: the decreasing of central government capacity, together with the declining of the supremacy of the centralized management model to response the challenge toward the problem of education quality, and the emergence of the communication and information technology which make possible of the nation to decentralize educational policy and therefore development but still under control of central government (McGinn and Welsh, 2003: 23-25). The question is how to unite the idea of development, education, and decentralization in a public policy. Dye promotes understanding public policy as whatever the government chooses to do or not to do and what contribution it makes. Public policy is whatever the government chooses to do or not to do. Government does many things. Note that we are focusing not only on government action but also on government action, that is, what the government chooses not to do. We contend that government action can have just as great an impact on society as government action. Public policy is what the government does, why they do it, and what difference it makes (Dye, 1992: 2-4). 222

Lester and Steward developed Theodore Lowi’s idea, classifying public policy into two categories: conservative, any policy which seeks for status quo, generally opposes the use of government to bring about social change, but may approve government action to preserve the status quo or to promote favored interest, and liberal, are those in which the government is used extensively to bring about social change (Lester and Steward, 2008: 8). Public policy in education shall be assumed as a liberal policy since its aim is to “make a difference” in society. In regard to Olsen, Codd, and O’Neil, education policy in the 21st century is the key to global security, sustainability, and survival, since education policies are central to such a global mission, whilst a deep and robust democracy at the national level requires strong civil society based on norms of trust and active response citizenship and that education is central to such a goal. Thus, the strong education state is necessary to sustain democracy at the national level so that strong democratic nation-states can buttress forms of international governance and ensure that globalization becomes a force for global sustainability and survival (Olsen, Codd, and O’Neil, 2000: 1-2). The Jembrana success story is about the educational policies that change and create differences between before and after. The question is what kind of education policy could makes Jembrana perform within its constraints, while other regions in Indonesia, which were in the better condition were unable to achieve a sound education performance. 3. Education Policy Reform In 1999, the education condition in Jembrana was severe. 1 in 5 elementary students were unable to continue their education because they were unable to pay the school fee. Of 200 elementary school buildings, half of them were damaged. Teachers’ welfare was worse. One classroom in elementary school was attended by only 21 students from 3o of capacity. Society was unwilling to participate in the educational process. Some leakages in government budgeting could be allocated to education services (Tifa, 2005: 9). 223

The problem of Jembrana was limited financial resources, as the local budget in 2000 was about IDR 66.9 billion (USD 6.6 million), whereas IDR 2,5 billion came from local revenue, meanwhile total population in 2000 was 215.594 million. The local government decided to focus on education development as the base toward economic development (Table 1).

Table 1. Jembrana Profile 2000-200543 Local Local Year revenue Budget44 Province 2000 2.55 66.91 215.594 2001 5.54 131.59 231.550 2002 11.55 171.70 234.208 2003 11.05 193.15 251.164 2004 9.78 205.0 252.065 2005 10.47 234.95 262.058 Source: Office of Planning Jembrana, 2006 The focus of the development on education development was carried out by formulating local vision development which is named Makepung, which means that the performance of Jembrana development and its sustainability is based on the quality of human resources. The vision exercised into the local policy: (1) Regent Decision No. 24/2003 on Freeing the School fee for Public Elementary, Junior High School, and Senior High School in Jembrana Regency; (2) Regent Decision No. 1615/2005 on Scholarship for Performing Students in science, art, and sport, in any Public and Private School Public Elementary, Junior High School, and Senior High School in Jembrana Regency; and (3) Local Regulation No. 10/2006 on Education Subsidy for Public Preschool, Elementary, Junior High School, and Senior High School in Jembrana Regency. 43 44

In Indonesia Dollar, billion. US $ 1 = IDR 10,000 There were amount of budgetary transfer from national government 224

Parallel to policy development, the Jembrana increased the bureaucracy efficiency by streamlining and rightsizing on Local Regulation No. 10/2003, by merging The Office of Education with the Office of Culture and Office of Tourism. In terms of budget, 90% belong to the education program, and 10% for culture and tourism (table 2). Table 2. Education, Youth, Culture, and Tourism budget in 2001-2006 Local EYCT Year Budget budget % 2001 131.59 49.00 37.23 2002 171.70 61.88 36.04 2003 193.15 53.48 27.69 2004 205.00 93.47 45.59 2005 234.95 90.73 38.62 2006 367.24 112.80 30.72 Source: Office of Finance Jembrana, 2007 The fourth policy –vision, law, bureaucracy— was improving public participation in the education process by developing a School Committee in every school and at the level of community, the local government promoted the Education Council. The fifth policy was improving the budget. Since 2001-2006, there has been a significant increase in the education budget. The sixth policy was to merge inefficient schools. There were 31 elementary schools that were merged in 2001-2004, and created the new financial efficiency to increase additional funding for education programs (table 3).

225

Table 3. Merger of public elementary school in Jembrana 2001-2004 Year Total 2001 7 2002 16 2003 6 2004 2 Total 31 Source: Office of Education, Culture, and Tourism Jembrana, 2006. The seventh policy was to implement good governance in the school management by putting a financial report in the announcement board outside of the Schoolmaster room, which was observed by teachers, students, and even the public. This program has created trust among the teachers and school management and among students and their parents to the school management, since all the revenue and expenses were announced openly to the board (see figure 2).

Figure 2. Transparency on School Finance Management

Schoolmaster of Mendoyo IV Junior High Public School in front of the board. Pictures were taken by the author. 226

Board announcement of financial report and accountability. Pictures were taken by the author. The eighth policy was to provide special incentives for teachers. In the year 2000, the local government provided IDR 2.000 (USD 0.20) per hour of teaching, and became IDR 5.000 (USD 0.50) per hour of teaching. In 2006, a teacher might earn about IDR 5.000.000 (USD 500) as a bonus at the end of the year45. The ninth policy was to improve teachers’ capacity in their specific subject and provide management courses for the Schoolmaster due increase the quality of the school management with the special branding of MASLEEIM: ”Manajer, Administrator, Supervisor, Leader, Educator, Entrepreneur, Innovator, dan Motivator” (Manager, Administrator, Supervisor, Leader, Educator, Entrepreneur, Innovator, and Motivator). Out of those policies, the local government also provided scholarships for teachers who want to take their undergraduate and postgraduate level of education46.

45

As a comparison, teacher’s salary range from IDR 1.000.000 to IDR 3.000.000, therefore the number of IDR 5.000.000 was amazing at the local standard. 46Most of the teachers were diploma, or beyond undergraduate level. Some of the Schoolmaster were having secondary degree. 227

4. Jembrana Education Performance Education development achievement of Jembrana is measured by the national measurement methods which consist of (1) Gross Enrolment Rates47, (2) Net Enrolment Rates48, (3) drop-out rate, (4) passing rate, and (5) Regional Human Development Index. Gross Enrolment Rates (GER). In 2003, Jembrana GPR was above Indonesia's (national) average and also the Province of Bali (Table 4). In 2001, the Jembrana GPR of ES was 82.45% increased to 112.25% in 2005, which means 7.45% of annual growth. In 2001, the Jembrana GPR of JHS was 63.96 % increased to 97.57 % in 2005, which means 8.4 % annual growth. In 2001, the Jembrana GPR of SHS was 48.73 % increase to become 70.08 % in 2005, which means of 5.33 % of annual growth (table 5)

47

In Indonesia is “Angka Partisipasi Kasar” or APK Gross enrolment rates (GER) are calculated by dividing the total number of students, including overage and underage students by the total population of school age. For example, at junior secondary school level GER = total number of junior secondary school students total number of populations aged 13 – 15 years See Weston, 2008. 48 In Indonesia is “Angka Partisipasi Murni” or APM. Net enrolment rates (NER) are calculated by dividing the number of students of school age (excluding overage and underage students) by the total population of school age. For example, at junior secondary school level NER = total number of junior secondary school students aged 13 – 15 years total number of populations aged 13 – 15 years The Indonesia term for GER is APK, which means, translated literally, ‘Gross Participation Rate’. However, in line with convention this report is using the English term ‘Gross Enrolment Rate’. The author feels that the term enrolment is, in fact, more accurate, as data reflects enrolment in schools rather than regular participation or attendance, which many observers agree is probably somewhat lower than enrolment. See Weston, 2008. 228

Table 4. GER Jembrana compare to Bali and National in 2003 Level of GER (%) No Edu. Jemb. Bali Nat. 1 ES 117,00 113,75 110,00 2 JHS 94,01 84,87 90,00 3 SHS 48,93 45,96 90,00 Source: Office of Education, Culture, and Tourism Jembrana, 2006. Table 5. GER Jembrana 2001-2005 (%) Year ES JHS SHS 2001 82,45 86,96 48,73 2002 104,50 93,49 46,15 2003 117,00 94,01 48,93 2004 114,63 96,10 73,93 2005 112,25 97,57 70.08 Source: Office of Education, Culture, and Tourism Jembrana, 20022006. Net Enrolment Rates (NER). According to National Statistic Survey in 2003, Jembrana NPR in ES was below average Bali NPR, but above the minimum standard of NER. In JHS, the NPR of JHS and SHS were above Bali and national standard (table 6). In 2001, the Jembrana NPR of ES was 78,08 % increase to become 100,11 % in 2005, which means 5.51 % of annual growth. In 2001, the Jembrana NPR of JHS was 68,40% increase to become 89,27 % in 2005, which means 4.14 % of annual growth. In 2001, the Jembrana NPR of SHS was 30.40 % increase to become 64,91% in 2005, which means of 8,63 % of annual growth (table 7).

229

Table 6. NER Jembrana, compared to Bali and National, 2003 GER (%) Level No of Edu. Jemb. Bali Nat 1 ES 93,35%, 97% 90% 2 JHS 89,11% 64,21% 80% 3 SHS 45,26% 44,31% 60% Source: Office of Education, Culture, and Tourism Jembrana, 2006. Table 7. Jembrana NER 2001-2005 Year ES JHS SHS 2001 78,08 68,40 30,40 2002 90,12 89,10 36,01 2003 95,35 89,11 45,29 2004 100,58 89,34 56,29 2005 100,11 89,27 64,91 Source: Office of Education, Culture, and Tourism Jembrana, 2006. Drop Out Rate (DOR)49. DOR is percentage of students who leaves school before finish in a certain education level. The ideal DOR is 0%. In Indonesia, the DOR is the most critical performance indicator in education since it was noted in the Ministry of Education Decision No. 129A/2004 on Minimum Standard of Service in Education which mentioned that DOR shall not above 1% in all educational level (ES, JHS, SHS). Jembrana DOR performance was above the standard service for ES since 2001, JHS since 2003, and SHS since 2001, even it decreased in 2005 become 1.24% (table 8).

49

In Indonesia is “Angka Putus Sekolah” (APS) or angka drop out 230

Table 8. Jembrana DOR 2001-2005 Year ES JHS SHS 2001 0,08 1,05 0,66 2002 0,07 2,15 2.67 2003 0,02 0,80 0,50 2004 0,05 0,07 0.50 2005 0,01 0,05 1,24 Source: Office of Education, Culture, and Tourism Jembrana, 2006. Passing rate50. The passing rate performance is measured by National Final Exam (NFE) score51. In the level of ES, Jembrana has been passing the NFE level since 2002 –when it was introduced first time—in the level of JHS achieved in 2003, and in the level of SHS achieved since 2002 (table 9). The second method for passing rate was measured from the average students who passed in each education year52. In this measurement, Jembrana has passed the national standard of performance: ES was 98.10% in the year of education 2004/2005 and 99.95% in 2005/2006; JHS was 100% in 2004/2005, above national standard of 87.03%, and 98.6% in 2005/2006, above national standard of 91.81%; and SHS was 100% in 2006, above national standard of 80.76%, and 97.3% in 2006/2005, above national standard of 92.50%. (Table 10).

50Tingkat

Kelulusan dan Tingkat Melanjutkan Final Exam or Ujian Akhir Nasional (UAN) then change to National Exam Ujian Nasional (UN) 52The measurement which implemented since education year of 2004/2005 51National

231

Table 9. Jembrana NFE 2002-2005 Year ES JHS SHS ScoreMin.ScoreMin.ScoreMin. (Nat) (Nat) (Nat) 2002 6,266,004,716.056,656,05 2003 6,32 6,74 6,62 2004 6,74 7,19 7,48 2005 6,36 7,20 7,38 Source: Office of Education, Culture, and Tourism Jembrana, 2006.

Table 10. Passing Rate of Jembrana in the year of education of 2004/2005 and 2005/2005 JHS SHS ES Year Jemb Nat Jemb Nat Jemb Nat 2004/ 98.10. 100 87.03 100 80.76 2005 2005/ 99.95 98.6 91.81 97.3 92.50 2006 Source: Office of Education, Culture, and Tourism Jembrana, 2006. Human Development Index (HDI). Research in Jembrana has shown that the improvement in education has been contributing to the improvement in the human development index performance. In 1999, before educational policy reform, HDI Jembrana was 65.5, below the Province of Bali of 65.7. In 2002, after education policy reform, the HDI of Jembrana became 68.9, above the province of Bali of 67.5 (Table 11). This means that education performance was contributing to other HDI’s other indicators of performance: health and economy.

232

Table 11. Jembrana HDI 1999-2002 Rank Region53 HDI National Province ‘99 ‘02 ‘99 ‘02 ‘99 ‘02 R Jembrana 65,5 68,9 106 86 6 4 R Tabanan 68,7 70,4 42 66 2 2 R Badung 68,2 70,1 53 67 3 3 R Gianyar 64,4 67,7 141 120 4 5 R Klungkung 62,9 64,6 189 221 8 7 R Bangli 64,4 66,7 142 151 4 6 R Kr. Asem 57,5 59,3 263 314 9 9 Buleleng/R 63,1 63,9 183 245 7 8 Denpasar/C 72,1 74,9 8 6 1 1 Bali/P 65,7 67,5 10 9 Source: UNDP-National Planning Agency 2005. The success of Jembrana educational development inspired the national government to promote the National Education Policy which was then released in 2003, as the implementation of the National Constitution54.

5. The Policy Innovation: Education Policy Case The education development of Jembrana Regency was performed in 2001-200555 with some uniqueness: (1) there is no additional income for the regency to improve its educational budget, but the total budget for education was raised by 20%, (2) the real budget for education alone was below 10% (table 12), (3) the office of education even merge into another office. The question is: “How to perform a reform in a low support condition”. 53

regency (R), city (C), and province (P) with some senior officers in the Ministry of Administration Reform and in the Ministry of Education. The discussion carried out between 2006-2008, as the author is also trainer for the Senior Government Officers in Indonesia, at the State Administration Institute. 55 The research focuses 54Discussion

233

Table 12. Budget for Education, Culture, and Tourism year of 2006 No Budget items Budget (IDR) 1 Salary and honorarium 94.166.272.600 2 Goods 2.748.820.000 3 Opr. & maintenance 40.000.000 4 Education sector 13.029.947.000 5 Youth and Sport sector 960.362.500 6 Cultural sector 543.455.500 7 Tourism sector 255.245.000 8 Secretariat 616.640.000 TOTAL 112.833.142.600 Local Budget 367.244.520.262 % Total Local Budget 30,72% Local Budget Before Salary 29.423.520.262 % Local Budget 8,01% Budget for education 13.029.947.000 % Local Budget 3,54% Source: Office of Education, Culture, and Tourism Jembrana, 2006. The research found three answers. The first was the leader factor. In 1999, I Gede Winasa was elected as the new Regent. Winasa has put the political willingness of the local government in human development, focused on education policy reform and health policy reform. Winasa is a dentist, has a PhD degree, a professor in the University of Singaraja, and has a small pharmacy store. Thus, he was a dentist, teacher, and entrepreneur, which just came into politics in 1998, after Indonesia embarked on a dramatic political reform. Winasa then decided to reform the vision of local development. In the 1990s Indonesia, the vision of regional development was more economic which focused on business development and economic growth by using local richness. The conventional wisdom was: economic development generates money (local budget), and money was for 234

educational development. Thus, the logic was economic first, then educational next. Winasa changed the conventional wisdom: education first, economic follow. The question is now: how to make gratis education without additional money and how to make an economy generated by inducing educational policy rather than economic policy. This question led to the second finding. In the universal acceptance public policy process which sequence: policy formulation, policy implementation, then performance56 (see figure 3) Figure 3. Formal policy process

Policy formulation

Policy implementation

Policy performance

Winasa faced the reality that forcing education policy in terms of free education for the public school will conflict with local policy (local parliament and local leaders) for the idea was not common and in reverse to the conventional wisdom of local policy development. Formulating policy first would be difficult since he did not have sufficient support in the local parliament. Therefore, he practiced “policy without policy” in the conventional wisdom. In an interview, Winasa explained: ” In 1999 I called all the schoolmasters and senior teachers of all the public schools in Jembrana for a meeting in my office, and I told them ’Start from next semester, I do not permit all the public schools to ask school-fee for any students!’. Surely, many of them are startled and complain, many others are mumbling. But I was formed to my decision, and I told them that their welfare will be 56

(see Anderson, Brady, Bullock, 1978; Edward, 1980; Quade, 1982; Mazmanian& Sabatier, 1983, Grindle and Thomas, 1991, Dye, 1992; Patton & Sawicky, 1993, Weimer & Vining, 1999; Merilee David Scott (2000); Anderson, 2000; Dunn, 2004; Hill, 2005) 235

my first concern”57. The paternalistic value of the Jembrana society, as well as other less developed regions in Indonesia, allowed the Regent to act authoritarian, whilst the theory of” a benevolent dictator” (see, Gilson & Milhaupt, 2011) has match to the phenomenon58. For sure, no-one dares to challenge the regent’s oral decision, even the local parliament since the decision was so popular that people would challenge any-body who refused the idea. Starting from the year of 2000, the education in the public school in Jembrana was gratis. The policy was popular for the public, but not for the teacher and school management entity, since in prior they were allowed to take school-fees from the students, therefore they have additional income for management and school organization. In an interview, Winasa stated: “The public servants had been paid by government, the school building was built by government, and the education process as well as school management is already financed by government, what other expense should be into the people and student’s burden” To be recognized before the Law on Education ratified in 2003, there was no obligation for national as well as local governments to free the school-fees in the public schools. It means that all public schools were allowed to take money from the student. The idea of gratis schooling in the public school was thought and accepted as impossible and odd. There-fore, the policy of gratis education was a breakthrough to the presence practices and agreed convention. Winasa as the new leader changed the unethical school management 57

To be recognized, before the Law on Education ratified in 2003, there was no obligation for national as well as local government to free the school-fees in the public schools. It means that all public schools were allowed to take money from the student. The idea of gratis schooling in public school was thought and accepted as impossible and odd. 58 Developing countries leaders might be mentioned were Mustapha Kemal Ataturk of Turkey and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore 236

which was allowed by prior policy and convention toward the new view of the ethical and good governance of school management. To make balance, Winasa introduced per-hour incentives for teachers, but still in the government control; which means not delegated to the school-management –thus there are no “school-based incentives”. The policy toward gratis education in the public school was also challenged by the agreed beliefs that it should be a “cross-subsidy” between the poor and the rich, which meant poor students shall be gratis, but the rich student shall pay the school-fee. But, Winasa preferred to gratis all the students in order to develop the friendship among students, to create a harmonious society for the future59. Hence, since 2001, Jembrana has had the policy of gratis in public school, and it was the first in Indonesia. The performance has acknowledged a year after the policy was implemented successfully, since the policy was not “inline” with the national policy and also the “agreed convention” among public school management60. After the “policy without policy” implemented and succeeded, Winasa released an executive decision in the form of Regent Decision No. 24/2003 on Freeing the School-fee for Public Elementary, Junior High School, and Senior High School in Jembrana Regency. The next agenda is to go to a private school. Winasa released a new decision to give merit-based scholarships in the Regent Decision No. 1615/2005 on Scholarship for Performing Students in science, art, and sport, in any Public and Private School Public Elementary, Junior High School, and Senior High School in Jembrana Regency. In 2006, five years from the first of education policy reform implemented, Winasa promoted the policy to the local formal policy which named as “Local Regulation61”. Therefore, Regency of Jembrana released Local Regulation No. 10/2006 on Education Subsidy for Public Pre-School, Elementary, Junior High School, and 59For

discussion about school and socialization, see Morison & McIntyre (1975). was explained by Winasa, that his senior officer had ever went to the national meeting and being reprimanded. But, Winasa said that he did not care as long as he defended the people interest. 61Local regulation is equal to Local Law, and it was the joint product of local legislative and executive. 60It

237

Senior High School in Jembrana Regency. This is a unique policy process. In Indonesia, all the policies related to the budget allocation and reallocation must go through the local parliament and be released as Local Regulation as the legislative decision –not executive decision. Any policy steps dissimilar to this process will lead to impeachment. But, Winasa had neither faced any rejection nor impeachment. The reason was his policy was toward people's interest and he did it in a governance manner: transparent and accountable, since there was no case of budget abuse in the administration. Winasa had successfully forced the local parliament as well as local policy to accept his reform in education. And, he was performing what I might say as “policy innovation” in two terms. First, the innovation was about challenging the conventional development wisdom in Indonesia that somehow stated: economic first, education follow. He chose education first, economic follow. This innovation was in accord with the novel development about competitiveness based on human resources (Pfeffner, 1996) and the emergence of knowledge-based society (Drucker, 1994). Amid the facts that their inducement of policy education has substantially contributed to economic development. Making education gratis –as social policy-has been creating the new disposable income of the household, since the prior expense on education transferred into the economic expenditure (see figure 4).

238

Figure 4. Education policy and economic growth New disposable income

Additional income of 10%

Household income

revenue expense Household expense

Social policy

The second answer is policy innovation. The policy process is innovative since it does not follow the theoretical framework that was promoted by public policy scholars. The innovative policy process in Jembrana was started by the leader’s vision on education development and therefore policy on education, followed by “policy implementation”, and then it became the policy agenda to formulate the real policy, to be formally implemented, and formally performed. It was clear that if there was any failure, the Regent will easily find “policy exit” to hinder the political impeachment (see figure 5), besides if starting from a formal process of policy implementation will take time and expense since local parliament in Indonesia at that time was contaminated with financial abuse. The policy process itself was an innovative one, as it started by “implementation”, not “formulation”. It is becoming a shortcut for policy gridlock in developing countries.

239

Figure 5. Innovation on policy process in Jembrana Administration Leader’s vision on education development

Policy implementation

Policy performance

Policy failure

Policy exit

Policy formulation

Policy implementation

Policy performance

Thus, the first and most important finding in successful education development in Jembrana is the “leader factor”. This finding is congruent with the finding in the research carried out by The World Bank about decentralization success in South America in 2003-2004. Campbell and Fuhr stated that: “Leadership is key…a champion or visionary is found behind virtually every innovation. The Latin American cases are no exception. A champion –whether an author, entrepreneur, or leader— is able to read what is possible at a given moment, understand what the public wants, and visualize a new way of doing things. Above all, the champion is able to convert his vision into reality…Leadership is crucial to innovation. It is hard to imagine the successful beginnings, let alone positive outcomes, of the innovations documented in this book without the driving force of leadership. (Campbell and Fuhr, 2004: 439)” This finding augmented the premise: “in the time of crises, the successful organizational change starts from the leaders”. The case was similar from the business case, as Chrysler transformation led by Lee Iacocca and General Electric led by Jack Welch, to the nation-state 240

organization of the developing countries, as Singapore led by Lee Kuan Yew, Malaysia by Mahathir Muhammad, Indonesia led by Soeharto, to the China which led by Deng Xiao Ping. The successful leader is the one who has vision, value, and courage (Snyder, 1994). The leader’s vision is about what the society will be; the value is about integrity and in Indonesia, as an eastern society, shall be added by humbleness and sincerity; and courage is the ability to make decisions in turbulent times firmly. The character needs to be strengthened by keen good governance practice which the core values are transparency, accountability, and responsibility. Therefore, the understanding of the Jembrana leader is not about traditional beliefs about “benevolent dictators”, but the professional transformational leader. The third finding, as supporting finding, is the condition of the society. Jembrana as other Balinese societies have norms of harmony and conformity rather than conflict. The majority of religious Hindu people lead the society toward those values. There is no meaning that the other society with the different religious beliefs will tend toward other values, but Bali Hinduism is unique and appropriate to the policy innovativeness of the local leader. The performing policy that promotes people's welfare has generated support for the leader and therefore trust toward local government. The government of management is about the management of trust62.

6. Conclusion

The research of the innovation on education policy in Jembrana, Bali, was performed in 2006-2007 to recognize how the poor regency in Bali became the best performer in education development in Indonesia post-reform. The research found that the education 62

The political impact was public support. In the election 2005, Winasa as the incumbent has won 80% and reelect as the Regent of Jembrana. 241

performance in a regional autonomous developing country with limited economic resources depends upon the promoted education policy in the region rather than at the national level. The research found that the performed policy is the innovative policy in terms of idea or content and the policy process. The idea or content of the policy is to put education as the core of the development priority, as it was found different from the national policy which formally put education as a priority but in fact, eliminated by other priorities. Promoting education as a development priority has promoted economic growth as well. Therefore, the idea of “economic growth first, then education” changed into “education first, then economic growth will follow subsequently”. The idea was similar to the well-known Japanese entrepreneur Konosuke Matsushita that stated: “First we make people, then we make products”. The policy process has not followed the process which was even introduced by public policy scholars. The policy process innovation derived from the fact that the local condition of low political support made the “normal” policy process unable to proceed. Pressure creates innovation. The policy process started from “implementation” then formulation, and henceforth followed the “normal” process. The policy innovation, which Joseph Schumpeter (1975) described as “creative destruction” is well-performed since the policy focus was based on the people's most critical need, and carried out in the good-governance manner. The most important finding is that the success of the education development which derived from innovative policy education was coming from the leader. This strengthens the World Bank finding that in the decentralization era, the success and performance of the local administration in the developing country depended upon the leader’s factor. The recent development of Jembrana has proven that the continuing policy and the leadership is creating sustainable performance as in 2008, Average of Mean year School (MYS) was 6.72, literate rate was 83.96%, education index was 70.92, life expectation was 69.43, and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) was 57.14. 242

In 2008, the Jembrana HDI was 67.37, which in Indonesian context means achieving middle to top category (Saleh, 2009). In the year of 2011, the education policy was performing, too, as the GER was 113.91, NER was 98.43, and drop-out rate as low as 0,02% (see table 13). Table 13. Education Policy Performance 2007 – 20011 Cont. to Drop Year GER NER Univ. out 2007 197.29 92.63 99.28 0.01% 2008 110.27 96.01 94.37 0.02% 2009 110.63 96.45 98.55 0.02% 2010 115.55 98.5 99.2 0.02% 2011 113.94 98.43 99.91 0.02% Source: (Jembrana Performance Report 2011) This subsequent finding is encouraging that the policy innovation in 1999-2001, in this case of education policy, has been institutionalized in the Jembrana Regency local administration and therefore governance. It is also a shared experience toward any poor regions of the developing countries, that education development can be successfully achieved through policy innovativeness, driven by committed leaders, using management approach to manage all the existing and possibly resources.

243

Appendix 2: A Case Study On Policy Experiment Harmony in Multiculturalism: Malaysia Next Policy Agenda,

1. Introduction The paper generated the question: why does Malaysia need a new perspective on harmony in multiculturalism? Is the existing perspective insufficient, less relevant, or is there another reason to bring up? Joan M. Nelson noted that Malaysia was one of the “fast growing nations in the globalization”. It was noted that the fast growth of Malaysia in her national development has contributed to the increase of living standard, prosperity, but also the emergence of the new facts, hope, and aspirations that transform the nation into, in my term, a new horizon of multiculturalism (Nelson, 2007). Multiculturalism is becoming part of Malaysia’s way of life. And, it becomes the core of today’s social policy. The agenda is how to create and develop harmony in multiculturalism. I will explore much from the “eastern” perspective. What is multiculturalism? The term was introduced by the Canadian Government in 2001 to embrace that the country needs to recognize that the multi-cultural society must be transformed as a nation's asset rather than liabilities. The Government of Canada in 2001 defines that “Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging’’ (Government of Canada, 2001)”. Multiculturalism, however, comes from the fact of cultural diversity in a society. It refers to the array of differences that exist among groups of people with definable and unique cultural backgrounds, whereas ethnic group is any distinguishable people whose members share a 244

common culture and see themselves as separate and different from the cultural majority (Diller, 2003). Multiculturalism is a social doctrine that distinguishes itself as a positive alternative for policies of assimilation, connoting a politics of recognition of the citizenship rights and cultural identities of ethnic minority groups and, more generally, an affirmation of the value of cultural diversity (Kymlycka, 1995; C. Taylor, 1992). Multiculturalism is based on the belief that varying cultural dynamics are the fourth force–along with the psychodynamic, behavioral, and humanistic forces–explaining human behavior (Banks, 1992). Multiculturalism a perspective recognizing the cultural diversity and promoting respect and equal standing for all cultural traditions (Macionis, 2007: 56) As a political practice, multiculturalism could be found as “E pluribus Unum”, “Out of many, One”, “Unity in diversity”, “Bhinneka Tunggal Ika”. But it is not merely about multiculturalism alone, but multiculturalism with harmony. It is as an eastern perspective toward a worldly fact. Harmony is an Eastern word. It is the core values of east society both to keep it going and to move toward the future. The concept of multiculturalism in universal terms is impelling by Western words: from social democrat, conservatism, to neo-liberalist. Their basic values were individualism, competition, and human rights (Spicker, 1995). The eastern values were harmony, respect, and community. Indeed, the theory of cultural-determinism is not solely right, when, ultimately, in the interaction of western and eastern, there is a process of shared learning and developing new ideas and values. New developed values are melting between western and eastern. They are individualists with respect and harmony. There is competition and 245

cooperation. There are human rights in the social context as well as individuals. And, there are rights alongside contributions.

Rethinking Multiculturalism Nelson (2007) regards Malaysia as one of the fastest growing nations in the region. There are successes and also challenges alongside. There is modernization, increasing revenues, rapid demographic transition, urbanization, and ballooning education enrolment. The performance to become a middle-income country has countered a new social problem. However competence is the legislative, government or executive still play a role as law maker. It was becoming clear that the platform of managing the new Malaysia is how to manage development in today's multiculturalism. The challenge as the policy has been developed in the last 40 years (19702010) has promoted the different direction. It is clear that multiculturalism has been part of Malaysia since its independence. Indeed, it was one of the government policy platforms today. Therefore, the agenda is not to put multiculturalism in the 246

Malaysia core policy, but to rethinking its basic assumptions about reality, ABOUT THE NEW MULTICULTURALISM in Malaysia society. In the past, multiculturalism was about ethnicity, race, and religions. It is a relevant agenda, as we see Malaysia consist of three dominant ethnic groups: the Bumiputra, about 58% of the population, Chinese 24%, Indian 8%, plus 10% of others ethics. Today, the assumption is beyond traditional segregations as ethnicity, race, and religions. The new assumptions of multiculturalism come from the relevant understanding of “culture” itself. The first approach on culture today is about organizational culture. For any modern nation, there are two key cultures, the inherited culture and the organizational culture. The first culture refers to the ethnic cultures and its richness: clothes, dances, music, food, traditions, to Kris. The second refers to the new emerging culture as a nation. It is a way of life that was started by the founding fathers and developed from time to time as the building-block of the life of the nation-state to face the challenge of its existence as a modern political system. Sometimes, the organization culture comes from the inherited one, but often it develops from the new idea of a new nation. The idea of organizational culture as a key drive for the success of any country derives from findings of Harvard University’s Academy for International and Area Studies’ research in 1999. The findings published as a book entitled Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress stated that organization culture determines the success (or failure) of every organization, no matter what organization it is (Harrison and Huntington, 2000). Organization’s culture is a set of values and beliefs that bind society as one and as guiding behavior principles of the people inside the society to achieve their common goals. 247

In regard to the significance of organization culture as the key driver and a concern of the Malaysia case leads to the question: What is today Malaysia’s organization culture? Malaysia has a developing organizational culture today: “Satu-Malaysia” (1Malaysia). We can find in the PM website about “1Malaysia”. The PM stated that: “1Malaysia is intended to provide a free and open forum to discuss the things that matter deeply to us as a Nation. It provides a chance to express and explore the many perspectives of our fellow citizens. What makes Malaysia unique is the diversity of our peoples. 1Malaysia’s goal is to preserve and enhance this unity in diversity which has always been our strength and remains our best hope for the future. We will initiate an open and vital dialogue exploring our Malaysian identity, purpose, and direction. I encourage each of you to join me in defining our Malaysia and the role we must play in its future. Each of us — despite our differences — shares a desire for a better tomorrow. Each of us wants opportunity, respect, friendship, and understanding.” Malaysia is transforming in its cultural identity by bringing the new culture of 1Nation. The new understanding is that Malaysia will, and always will, “One-Malaysia”. It is “A Unity in Diversity”. In the format of an eastern approach, it means “harmony in multiculturalism” as “the new multiculturalism”. The new Malaysia multiculturalism will be Malaysia in globalization. It is the second approach to culture today. The agenda is an understanding that in globalization only the multiculturalists survive. There are three reasons. First, globalization drives intensely global human interactions. Second, those who survive are those who have less cultural shock. Third, multiculturalists get used to living in a 248

different “cultural environment”, so they begin the “club of the less cultural shock”. The closest agenda for Malaysia as a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is ASEAN Community 2015. Malaysia has to become one of the leaders of the process. It is the future of Malaysia's strategic environment. The Pathway Malaysia’s agenda is to accomplish the vision of “1Malaysia” as a necessary condition to reach the bright side of Malaysia. Surely, it is a tough job. We may see from three critical points to be aware. First, Malays predominate in the rural areas –on average, less prosper economically. Chinese are concentrated in urban and mining areas, where they control much of the nation's wealth; enmity between the two communities has occasionally erupted into violence. Second, there are new “differences” that appear; from political aspirations, “East and West”, to the “New Malaysia” as “the World Melting Pot”. Third, it is regarding organizational culture performance. It is about the strength-or-weakness of the culture. Based on Fukuyama's premise (1996), I develop two models of culture: the strength and the weak. The indicators are the same: It is about the society which its way of life is in discipline and integrity, and alignment. The difference is, in the weak culture nation, it is coming from strict and binding regulation, therefore people are following the cultural values because of external drive, and practices on the basis of reward and punishment. The strong culture nation has people who practice the organizational culture’s values because they believe that the values are theirs, and it determines their success or failure as the nation of the future. As a belief system, the practice is an inner driven one. It is conducted not because of positive or negative approaches of reward and punishment, but as public willingness and discipline. 249

As an exercise, I would like to develop a preliminary and seminal review and analysis as below. Journey of cultural excellence: exercise on Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia Countries 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s Malaysia Weak Weak Weak – Med High – Med strong Singapore Weak Med Med – High Strong High Indonesia Weak Weak – Med Med – High – Med High strong The multicultural problems of Malaysia today are because the understanding of “One Malaysia” somehow needs to be firm and clear. The perception is that 1Malaysia must be more “about right” than contribution. It is about to change the basic assumptions as I noted before. We can imagine if every citizen asks for their rights firmly, so I would preserve a simple statement: “If everybody asks for their rights alone, then nobody has the right”. As noted by Management’s philosopher, Peter F. Drucker (1999), that people and organizations exist because of their contribution. I would like to note, no one has a right for her or his right except he or she contributes first. It is not about Kennedy’s words: “Don’t ask what your country does for you, but what you do for your country”. It is about a simple fact that every existence is born from one’s contribution. The challenge is how far government intervention can equalize among different cultural entities by introducing contribution rather than rights. Another agenda is the perception about “indigenous and notindigenous”. The challenge will be how long it will be kept as today. 250

At a certain time it won’t be relevant. Therefore, it takes a “step ahead” before it fades away. The additional ones are the perception about “harmony”, “multiculturalism”, and “harmony in multiculturalism”. It is a challenge to any scholars and universities to conduct research in regard to the theory of obsoleteness of those concepts in Malaysia’s society. Those agenda ask to be critical since Malaysia will be the melting pot of the world. As we see today, foreign investment, expatriates, tourists, and the “people exchange” grow intensely. Malaysia tomorrow will determine today. The basic theory of “multiculturalism” in Malaysia has to be changed from the “traditional” to the “contemporary-and relevant” assumption, as we try to describe as below.

Malaysia is a changing society in its robust development performance. If Malaysia is a society in change the choice is to anticipate the change or to be ahead of the change. The 251

recommendation is to be ahead of the change. Since the dignity will be determined by Malaysia –or, either wise, others (see Tichy, 1992). To do that, I would like to recommend two strategic steps. Firstly, it shall be an understanding of multicultural problems in Malaysia today and tomorrow. We have seen the government's effort in recent days. Even the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have come himself as a leader of the process of “finding” the right-andacceptance about the understanding of “1Malaysia”. In some of his speeches, Dr. Mahathir Mohammad has spoken about the same mission to bring about the vision of “1Malaysia”. The political will is there. Therefore, the second agenda is to develop policy on “Harmony in Multiculturalism” in Malaysia. What is public policy? Abraham Kaplan and Harold Laswell (1970) defined public policy as a projected program of goals, values, and practices. Thomas R. Dye (1995) defined it as whatever governments choose to do or not do. It is what governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes. In my teaching, I develop understanding of public policy etymologically. It comes from words of: public and policy. Public is a group of people who are connected to a specific issue. Public is also a sphere where people become citizens, a space where citizens interact, where state and society exist. Policy is an authoritative decision. Decisions made by the one who holds the authority, formal or informal. Therefore, public policy is any decision by the State or Government, as the holder of the authority, to manage public life, as to remember, nation is always consisted of two institutions: state and society, in order to reach the mission of the nation, which the mission of the nation always stated firmly in the Constitution. The question will be “Why public policy?” The excellence of the nation-state, no matter their political system, democracy or 252

discounted-democracy, will depend more and more upon how the nation-state is able to develop excellence public policies (Nugroho, 2009). Public policy is the guarantee of good governance. I would like to use Bhatta's understanding on governance. He stated that “governance is the relationship between governments and citizens that enable public policies and programs to be formulated, implemented, and evaluated” (Bhatta, 2006). If we believe that what we need is good government and also good governance, therefore, today’s CORE AGENDA of good governance is about PUBLIC POLICY. Social Policy: Harmony in Multiculturalism What will be the social policy on “creating harmony in multiculturalism”? The key step is to define the concept of “1 Malaysia”. It must be right, relevant, and manageable –”RRM” formula. It is suggested to be continued by the task of managing. It must be managed –not merely engineered. It means: planned, organized, led, and controlled, all with the “well-ness” quality. And the crucial aspect is leading. Leading means set examples. In the overall process, it needs a thinking of a “Game Model” for public policy on “creating harmony in multiculturalism”. The RRM formula starts from its rightness. Right means “1Malaysia’s goal is to preserve and enhance this unity in diversity which has always been our strength and remains our best hope for the future”. It is about contribution; it is not about rights alone! Relevant means “accommodate the new existing and strategic differences that contribute significantly toward Malaysia’s multiculturalism”. Manageable means there shall be a strategy of “how to prepare all the citizens (including corporate citizens) to become ready as ‘One Nation’ in the three key platforms: social, economic, and democracy”. “One-Malaysia” needs a strategic readiness. 253

The matter is now about managing policy. It is about detail. It takes “cultural competence”; an ability to effectively provide services cross-culturally Diller (2003). Cultural competence is a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency, or among professionals and enable that system, agency, or those professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations (Cross, 1989). Cultural competence whether in system, agency, or individual professionals, is an ideal goal toward which to strive. It does not occur as the result of a single day of training, a few consultations with experts, reading a book, or even taking a course. Rather, it is a developmental process that depends on the continual acquisition of knowledge, the development of new and more advanced skills, and an ongoing self-evaluation of progress (Cross, 1989). According to Cross, there are some values of cultural competence. They are: respects the unique, culturally defined needs; acknowledges culture as a predominant force in shaping behaviours, values, and institutions; views natural systems (family; community; church; healers, etc) as primary mechanisms of support for minority populations; starts with the “family” as defined by each culture, as the primary and preferred point of intervention; Acknowledges that minority people are served in varying degrees by natural system; Recognizes that the concept of “family”, “community”, etc. are different for various cultures and even for subgroups within cultures; Believes that diversity within cultures is as important as diversity between cultures; Functions with the awareness that the dignity of the person is not guaranteed unless the dignity of his/her people is preserved; Understand that minority clients are usually best served by persons who are part of or in tune with their culture; acknowledge and accepts that cultural differences exist and have an impact on 254

service delivery; treats peoples in the context of their minority status, which creates unique mental health issues for minority individuals, including issues related to self-esteem, identity information, isolation, and role assumption; advocates for effective services on the basis that the absence of cultural competence anywhere is a threat to competent services everywhere; respects the family as indispensable to understanding the individual, because family provides the context within which the person function and is the primary support network of its members; recognizes that the thought patterns of non-Western peoples, thought different, are equally valid and influence how clients view problems and solutions; respects cultural preferences which value process rather than product and harmony or balance within one’s life rather than achievement; acknowledges that when working with minority clients process is as important as product; recognizes that taking the best of both worlds enhances the capacity of all; recognizes that minority people have to be at least bicultural, which in turn creates its own set of mental health issues such as identity conflicts resulting from assimilation; functions with the knowledge that behaviors exist which are adjustments to being different; understands when values of minority groups are in conflict with dominant society values (Cross, et.al., 1989: 22-24). In terms of individual cultural competence skill, Diller (2003) noted some areas: awareness and acceptance of differences; self-awareness; dynamics of difference; knowledge of the other’s culture; and adaptation of Skills. Base on those findings and notes, I would like to suggest the detail of the policy in formula and implementation as coverage five areas: 1. Socialization of the value of friendship (Persahabatan, Persaudaraan, Silaturahim) through school institutions (school management and curriculum), social groups (social 255

2. 3.

4.

5.

activities, people help people), and corporations (CSR)–about social development Entrepreneurial education for all children from elementary school –about economic development Education for all until senior high school plus introducing the Malaysia’s democratic system for the high school and universities students –about democracy in the Malaysia Corridor Plus, Good Governance. It is about accountability (say NO to corruption), fairness (justice issue to gender issue), responsiveness (forward looking), and transparency (“sunshine is the best disinfectant”) Plus, three competences in thinking: “thinking forward, thinking again, and thinking across”

The last but not least: “Leader matter!” I would like to quote Bong Siong Neo & Geraldine Chen finding here: “The political leadership sets the policy direction, agenda, tone and environment of the public sector. If the political leadership is corrupt and ineffective, the potential of the public sector, no matter how competent, would be severely hampered!” ( Bong Siong Neo & Geraldine Chen, 2009)

256

Conclusion Multiculturalism now needs to become the mainstream policy of Malaysia development. It is advised as a value of public policy in social development as well as economic policy. There is a need to reform the basic assumptions beyond traditional segregations. It also needs to take the relevant values of “One Malaysia” from right alone to rights and contributions to reach equality. The conceptual framework is being portrayed as below:

God creates each of us differently

It is not “why different” but “why not”

It is a belief that recognition of diversity is good

It is a set of values to recognize that diversity is more than fact of life, but it is as their strength

It is a set of policies that stated “diversity must be taken as nation’s uniqueness and strength”

It is a governance to manage diversity in unity then to make it as the pivotal power to lift-up the nation “turning a problem to become solution”

The new and future Malaysia shall be better and brighter than today. It takes a social policy on developing harmony in multiculturalism. As an ending, I would like to underline Richard Titmuss (1977), a social policy scholar, who first introduced social policy as discipline, which noted that social policy is policy. It is called policy because we aim to change for the better. We change because we are able to do so.

257

Bibliography

Anderson, James E., David W. Brady, and Charles Bullock III, Public Policy and Politics in United States, Massachusetts: Duxbury, 1978. Anderson, James E, Public Policy Making, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000 Apter, David, Introduction to Political Analysis, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishing, 1974 Austin, Ian Patrick, Pragmatism and Public Policy in East Asia, Singapore: Fairmont, 2001. Backman, Michael, 1999, Th Asian Eclipse, Singapore: John Willey & Sons Bakar, Siti Hajar Abu, Pengantar Dasar Sosial Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya Press, 2002. Bakar, Siti Hajar Abu, Kebajikan Sosial: Aplikasi dan Perkhidmatan Manusia, Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya Press, 2006. Bakar, Siti Hajar Abu, & Ali, Syed Barkat Ali Bin Syed, “Dasar Sosial Nasional”, Malaysia Journal of Social Policy and Society, viol 2/2005, Institute Sosial Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 33-50, 2005 Barber, Michael P., Public Administration, London: ELBS & MacDonald & Evans, 1974 Boardman, Anthony E., David Greenberg, Aidan R. Vining, and David L. Weimer, 1996, Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concept and Practice, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Borg, Walter R., and Meredith D. Gall, Educational Research, London: Longman, 1996 Bowman, Cliff, The Essence of Strategic Management New York: Prentice Hall, 1990 Bresnick, David, Public Organizations and Policy: An Experimental Approach to Public Policy and Its Execution, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1982. 258

Bryson, John M., Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, rev. ed., San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1995 Boulding, Kenneth E., “The Boundaries of Social Policy”, in John E. Tropman, Milan Dluhy, Roger Lind, Wayne Vasey, Tom. A. Croxton, eds., Strategic Perspective on Social Policy, New York: Pergamon Press, 1976. Brawley, Mark R., Power, Money, & Trade: Decision that Shape Global Economic Relations, Toronto: Broadview Press, 2005. Bray, James H., & Stanton, Mark, 2009, Handbook of family Psychology, New York: John Willey and Sons Bronsky, Michael, “Homosexuality and American Citizenship”, 2003, in Joel M. Charon, Social Problems: Readings with Four Question, New York: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning, 2003. Butler, John, and Michael Calnan, “Health and Health Policy”, 1999, in John Baldock, Nick Manning, Steward Miller, and Sarah Vickerstaff, eds., Social Policy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Caiden, Gerald E., 1992, Administrative Reform Comes Age, Berlin: Walter de Gryter. Caldwell, Brian J., & Don K. Hayward, The Future of Schools: Lesson from the Reform of Public Education, London: The Falmer Press, 1998 Calista, “Policy Implementation”, dalam Stuart S. Nigels, ed., Encyclopedia of Policy Studies, New York: Marcel Dekker, 1994. Charon, Joel M., 2003, “An Introduction to the Study of Social Problems”, in Charon, 2003, Social Problems: Readings with Four Question, New York: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning. Cheema, G. Shabbir, Building Democratic Institutions, Bloomfield: Kumarian, 2005 Cizek, Gregory J., ed., Handbook of Educational Policy, San Diego: Academic Press, 1998 Coontz, Stephanie, 2003, “Divorce on Perspective”, in Joel M. Charon, 2003, Social Problems: Readings with Four Question, New York: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning. 259

Coontz, Stephanie. 2006. Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, London: Penguin. Darling-Hammond, Linda, The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating School that Works, New Jersey: Jossey Bass, 1997. Deacon, B., with Hulse, M., and Stubbs., P., Global Social Policy: International Organizations and the Future of Welfare, London: Sage, 1997. de Leon, Peter, & Linda de Leon de Leon and de Leon, “What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approach”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, J-PART 12 (2002) Dewey, John Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, New York: MacMillan, 1964 DiNitto, Diana M., and Thomas R. Dye, 1987, Social Welfare: Politics and Public Policy, New Jersey: Simon & Schuster. Djajal, Fasli, and Dedi Supriadi eds., Reformasi Pendidikan Dalam Konteks Otonomi Daerah, Jakarta: Adi Cita, 2001 Dolgoff, Ralph, and Donald Feldstein, Understanding Social Welfare, Boston: Ally & Bacon, 2000. Drucker, Peter F., 1994, The Post Capitalist Society, London: Butterworth & Heinemman, 1994 Dye, Thomas R., Understanding Public Policy, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992 Easton, David, The Political System, New York: Knopf, 1953 Easton, David, A System Analysis of Political Life, New York: Willey, 1965, Edward II, George C., Implementing Public Policy, Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1980 Elmore, Richard, “Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decision”, Political Science Quarterly 94, 1979 Fagerlind, Ingemar, and Lawrence J. Saha, Education and National Development, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1983 French, Wendell L., Cecil H. Bell, Jr, & Robert A. Zawacki, Organizational Development and Transformation, New York: MacGraw-Hill, 2000 260

Gilbert, Neil, Harry Specht, and Paul Terrel, 1993, Dimension of Social Welfare Policy, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Gilson, Ronald J. & Curtis J. Milhaupt, “Economically Benevolent Dictators: Lessons for Developing Democracies”, The American Journal of Comparative Law (Oxford University Press), Vol. 59, No. 1 (Winter 2011), pp. 227-288 Goggin, Malcolm L, Ann O’M Bowman, James P. Lester, & Lawrence J. O’Toole Jr., Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward A Third Generation, Glenview: Scott, Forestman/Little Brown Higher Education, 1990 Gordon, George J., Public Administration in America, New York: St. Martin Press, 1986 Grindle, Merilee S., ed, Politics and Policy Implementation in the Third World, New Jersey: Princetown University Press, 1980. Michael (ed), The Policy Process, A Reader, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993. Halsey, A. H., Jean Foud, & C. Arnold Anderson, eds., Education, Economy, and Society, New York: Free Press, 1961 Hanson, John W. and Cole S. Brembeck, eds. Education and the Development of Nations New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966 Harbison, Frederick, and Charles A. Myers, Education, Manpower, and Economic Growth, New York: McGraw Hill, 1964 Hill, Michael, Understanding Social Policy, Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. Hill, Michael, The Public Policy Process, 4th edition, London: PearsonLongman, 2005. Hill, Michael, & Peter Hupe, Implementing Public Policy, London: Sage, 2006. Hills, P.J., Dictionary of Education, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982 Hughes, Owen E., Public Management and Administration, London: St. Martin Press,1994 James, Muriel, & Dorothy Jongeward, Born to Win, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1971 Johnson, Louise C., and Charles L. Schwartz, Social Welfare: A Response to Human Need, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, 1994. 261

Jun, Jong S., & Deil S. Wright, eds., Globalization and Decentralization, Washington: Georgetown University, 1996 Laswell, Marcia, and Thomas Laswell, Marriage and the Family, Belmont: Wadsworth, 1987 Lavalette, Michael, and Allan Pratt, eds., Social Policy: A Conceptual and Theoretical Introduction, London: Sage, 2001. Lester, James P., & Joseph Stewart Jr., Public Policy: An Evolutionary Approach, Belmont: Wadsworth, 2000. Lodge, George C., Managing Globalization in the Age of Interdependence, Kuala Lumpur: Golden Books-Pfeiffer & Company-Warren Bennis Executive Briefing Series, 1995. Macarov, David, Social Welfare: structure and Practice, London: Sage, 1995. Macionis, John J., Society: The Basics, Singapore: Pearson Education, 2007 Manning, Nick, “The Politics of Welfare”, , 1999 in John Baldock, Nick Manning, Steward Miller, and Sarah Vickerstaff, eds., Social Policy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. March, James G, & Johan P. Olsen, Democratic Governance, New York: Free Press, 1995 Mark Olsen, John Codd, & Anne-Marie O’Neil, Education Policy: Globalization, Citizenship and Democracy, London: Sage, 2001 Mazmanian, Daniel H., & Paul A. Sabatier, Implementation and Public Policy, New York: HarperCollins, 1983. Meter, Donald Van, & Carl Van Horn, 1975, “The Policy Implementation Process: A Conceptual Framework”, dalam Administration and Society 6, London: Sage, 1975. Meltsner, Arnold J., Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Mohram, Susan Albert, et.al. (eds.), School-Based Management, San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1994 Morison, A., & D. McIntyre, School and Socialization, London: Penguin, 1975 (1971). Mosher, Frederick C., Democracy and the Public Service, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. 262

McShane, Steven, & Marry Ann von Glinow, Organizational Behaviour: Emerging Realities for the Workplace Revolution, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000 Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edition, London: Sage, 1994 Miller, Stewart, “Social Policy and Social Welfare Systems”, in John Baldock, Nick Manning, Steward Miller, and Sarah Vickerstaff, eds., 1999, Social Policy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Miller, Stewart, “The Development of Social Policy”, in John Baldock, Nick Manning, Steward Miller, and Sarah Vickerstaff, eds., 1999, Social Policy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999a. Mohammad, Lukman Z., ed., 2002, Keluarga, gender dan cabaran Sosial di Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Utusan. Nagel, Stuart S., ed., Encyclopaedia of Policy Studies, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc. 1994 Nakamura, R.T, & F. Smallwood, The Politics of Policy Implementation, New York: St. Martin Press,1980. Nevit, A. A., 1978, “Issue in Housing”, in Ross Davies and Peter Hall, 1978, Issues in Urban Society, Middlesex: Penguin. Nigro, Felix A., & Lloyd G. Nigro, Modern Public Administration, New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Omar, Roziah, & Hamzah, Azizah, 2003, Women in Malaysia: Breaking Boundaries, Kuala Lumpur: Utusan. Omar, Noralina, & Weattherley, “Measuring Marital Quality of Malaysian Muslims: A Cultural-Appropriate Marital Quality Assesment Instrument”, The Malaysian Journal of Social Administration, Volume 5/2008, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya, pp 95-112, 2008. Orenstein, Mitchel, 2005, The New Pension Reform as Global Policy, Global Social Policy, vol. 5, no. 2, 175-202. Orleans, Peter, ed., Social Structure and Social Process: An Introductory Reader, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1969.

263

Osborne, David, & Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, New York: Plume, 1993. Patton, Carl V., & David S. Sawicki, Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning, London: Prentice Hall, 1993. Perry, James L., ed, Handbook of Public Administration, New York: Jossey Bass, 1996. Peters, B.G., American Public Policy, 3rd Ed., New Jersey: Chatam House, 1993 Pfeffer, Jeffrey, Competitive Advantage through People, Boston: Harvard Busines School, 1995. Pfeffer, John, and Robert V. Pesthus, Public Administration, New York: The Ronald Press, 1950 Pickvane, Chris, “Housing and Housing Policy”, in John Baldock, Nick Manning, Steward Miller, and Sarah Vickerstaff, eds., 1999, Social Policy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pollit, Christopher, Johnson Birchall, and Keith Putman, Decentralising Public Service Management, London: MacMillan,1998 Putra, D.S., & Nanoq da Kansas, Menerjemahkan Otonomi Daerah Tanpa Basa-Basi: Pokok-Pokok Pikiran Dr. Drg. I Gede Winasa, Bali: Komunitas Kertas Budaya, 2004 Quade, E.S, Analysis for Public Decission, New York: Elsevier Science Publishing., 1982. Razid, Mohd Ayop Abd, 2010, Gagasan 1 Malaysia: Kesinambungan Bina Negara-Bangsa, Kuala Lumpur: Gempita Maju. Reiss, Albert J. Jr., “Putting Sociology into Policy”, in John E. Tropman, Milan Dluhy, Roger Lind, Wayne Vasey, Tom. A. Croxton, eds., Strategic Perspective on Social Policy, New York: Pergamon Press, 1976. Rondinelli, Dennis A., & Shabbir Cheema, “Implementing Decentralization Policies: An Introduction”, in Cheema & Rondinelli eds., Decentralization and Development: Policy Implementations in Developing Countries, London: Sage, 1983 Sachs, Jeffrey D., Common Wealth: Economic for a Crowded Planet, New York: Penguin Press, 2008. 264

Saleh, Heman, Performance Pelayanan Publik Kabupaten Jembrana Dalam Mensejahterakan Masyakarat, Lampung: Universitas Lampung, 2009 Schaffer, Robert H., & Harvey A. Thompson, “Successful Change Programs Begin with Results”, dalam The President and Fellows of Harvard College, Harvard Business Review on Change, HBS Press, 1998 Schwartz, Adam, Nation in Waiting: Indonesia Search for Stability, NSW: Allen &Unwin, 1999. Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1975 (1941), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York: Harper Sen, Amartya, Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Book/Random House, 2000 Smith, Douglas K., Taking Charge of Change, Massachusetts: AddisonWesley, 1996 Snyder, Neil, at.al., VVC: Leadership for Quality Management, New York: Free Press, 1994. Spicker, Paul, 2008, Social Policy: Themes and Approaches, London: Simon & Shcuster. Stuart, McRae, and Douglas Pitt, Public Administration: An Introduction, London: ELBS, 1985 (1980) Thompson, Neil, & Sue Thompson, 2008: London: Palgrave-McMillan. TIFA, Semua Bisa Seperti Jembrana: Kisah Sukses sebuah Kabupaten Meningkatkan Kesejahteraan Rakyatnya, Jakarta: Yayasan Tifa, 2005 Tichy, Noel M., and Mary Anne Devanna, The Transformational Leader, New York: John Willey & Sons, 1990 (1986) Tilaar, H.A.R., 50 Tahun Pendidikan Indonesia Jakarta: Grasindo/Gramedia, 1995 ----------------, Manajemen Sumber daya Manusia dalam Era Globalisasi, Jakarta: Grasindo, 1996. ----------------, Manajemen Pendidikan Nasional Bandung: Rosda, 2004 ----------------, Multikulturalisme: Tantangan-Tantangan Global Masa Depan dalam Transformasi Pendidikan Nasional Jakarta: Grasindo/Gramedia, 2004 265

Todaro, Michael P., Economic Development, 6th edition, London & New York: Longman, 1997 Turner, Mark, & David Hulme, Governance, Administration, and Development, London: MacMillan Press, 1997 United Nations, “Development Administration: Current Approaches and trends in public administration for national development” New York: UN, 1975. Vickerstaff, Sarah, 1999, “Education and Training”, in John Baldock, Nick Manning, Steward Miller, and Sarah Vickerstaff, eds., 1999, Social Policy, New York: Oxford University Press. Waldo, Dwight, “The Study of Public Administration”, dalam Waldo ed, Ideas and Issues in Public Administration, New York: McGraw Hill, 1953. Weimer, David L., & Aidan R. Vining, Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999. Weston, Stuart, A Study of Junior Secondary Education in Indonesia: A Review of the Implementation of Nine Years Universal Basic Education, Decentralized Basic Education 3 (DBE3) Project, Jakarta: USAID, 2008 Williams, Walter, Social Policy Research and Analysis: The Experience in the Federal Social Agencies, New York: American Elsevier Publishing, 1971. Winasa, Kalau Mau Semua Bisa, Negara: Komunitas Kertas Budaya, 2006. Yeates, Nicola, 2008, “The Idea of Global Social Policy”, in Nicola Yeates, ed., Understanding Global Social Policy, Bristol: The Policy Press, 2008.

266

Dr. Riant Nugroho (45) is a Visiting Senior Lecturer University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. He was visiting lecturer for University of Indonesia (Jakarta), Jakarta State University (Jakarta), University of Defense (Jakarta), University of Paramadina (Jakarta), University of Gadjah Mada (Yogyakarta), University of Airlangga (Surabaya) University of Sebelas Maret (Solo), to the Senior Diplomatic Training Course-Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic Indonesia (Jakarta) and National SeniorOfficer Training of the National Administration Institute (Jakarta). He leads Institute for Policy Reform (Jakarta), serves as Managing Director of Indonesia Society for Public Policy; works as a consultant for United Nations Development Programme Indonesia, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS, Germany), Deutsche Gessellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ, Germany); consultant for Ministry of the Sate Owned Enterprises; Ministry of Administrative Reform; Ministry of Education; National Planning Agency; Ministry of Seas and Fisheries; Indonesia National Parliament; and Partnership for Governance Reform Indonesia. He wrote some books on public policy (“kebijakan publik”) in Bahasa Indonesia: Kebijakan Publik (2003), Kebijakan Publik untuk Negara Berkembang (2005), Analisis Kebijakan (2007), and Public Policy (2009). He wrote about President Abdurrahman Wahid, Can He Managed: Understanding & Criticizing Abdurrahman Wahid (2000), and about policy on state owned enterprises/governmentlinked companies, Indonesia State Owned Enterprises: Professionalism to Go Global (1998).

267