The Developmentalism Trap
- Izzan Fathurrahman
- Jun 4, 2020
- 4 min read
This article can be read in my Medium account as well: https://medium.com/@izzan.fth/the-developmentalism-trap-2572b7843765 on April 06, 2019.
The prolonged developmentalism discourse is still popular in this country. At least that was the point that I have got after watching the first three series of presidential debates. Both candidates still focused to form the developmental state by highlighting the high economic growth. I write this analysis after carefully watching the debates and reflecting on some conceptual frameworks.
Conceptually, the developmental state is mainly referred to the economic miracle of some East Asian countries during the late 1960s to the early 1990s. By combining the strong role of the state and the capital of private sectors, the developmental state aims to achieve high economic growth. Consequently, every aspect of society and the structure of the state must be adjusted to pursue this economic goal.
However, this definition only refers to the context of 20thcentury developmental state and sadly, this old-fashioned idea is still loudly sold by both presidential candidates, at least on their debates. Some important complex issues with their own particular parameters, such as human rights issues and environmental issues, are simply rendered into a narrow view of economic development.
In the context of 21stdemocratic country, the form of developmental state must be emphasized on three strands of development theory, such as the new-growth theory, institutionalism approach and capability approach. It is surely important to acknowledge the economic growth, however that should be only seen as a way to expand the capability of a person instead of as particular ends of the development.
The new-growth theory emphasizes on the investment of human resources instead of the capitals. Reflecting on the presidential debates, both candidates agreed on spending more budget on research. However, particular ends of these research and education aspects are still to serve the market and to enhance economic growth. Instead of creating an education system that focuses on expanding human capability, human resources are prepared to be the fresh labor forces for the industry.
Sandiaga Uno has slightly explained about the abolishment of the national examination of high school and focused on the development of students’ interests and talents. Nevertheless, he did not elaborate more on this topic and was still more interested in explaining the link and match mechanism between the industry and the educational institutions.
Another important aspect of the new growth theory is the shift of the manufacturing industry to the service industry. During the second debate, both presidential candidates have agreed in supporting the unicorns and start-up companies to ensure that Indonesia will be the part of the world’s five biggest economic countries by 2045. However, their frameworks were still on economic growth. Both candidates failed to see the human capability aspects of this service sector. For instance, what is the plan in preparing legal frameworks of current growing start-up companies and how to address the precariat issues of new labor forces in this sector?
The fatal logical fallacy is when some complex crucial issues, such as environment and culture, were only seen as an income gatherer in the frame of the service sector. Joko Widodo in answering the mine pitfalls problems simply said that some of them have been economically utilized into a new recreation beach and even as a big fish pond. While Sandiaga Uno proposed the economic opportunity as an answer to the lack of cultural development.
The institutionalism approach explains the importance of the state’s structure in enabling the deliberative process of civil society and to expand people’s new ideas and skills as well as how the state maximizes these potentials. There were different opinions between both candidates. Joko Widodo emphasized on the merit recruitment process and the high competency bureaucracy while Prabowo sadly still played with the old and non-substantial rhetoric of increasing the salary of public servants.
Even though both of them had different opinions, but neither Joko Widodo and Prabowo explained about the operationalization of the state’s structure in enabling the deliberative environment of the society. We should be more aware in this matter since there is a hampered process of deregulation and de-bureaucratization aspects during the last five years of Joko Widodo administration.
Lastly but the most important one, the capability approach. Capability approach is the basic idea of two previous strands, the new growth theory and the institutional approach. The form of the 21stcentury democratic development state must prioritize the enhancement of human capability. The developmental state itself is not merely a goal, rather the mean to increase human capability.
Reflecting on the three series of debates, this particular strand was the one that was lack of both candidates. For instance, in viewing the disability issues. Joko Widodo defined the equality between the non-disability and disabled people as simple as when the Paralympics athletes got the same amount of bonus with non-disabled athletes in Asian Games.
While on the other side, Sandiaga Uno confidently generalized that the problem of disabled people is only the lack of access for a better economic condition and job opportunities. None of them mentioned about the lack of friendly infrastructures, which is more important in the everyday life’s accessibility of disabled people.
The similar problem on gender issues. The fulfilment of women rights and gender equality issues were narrowly framed in the formal representation of women in the state structures, such as women ministers, and the women representation in political parties’ executive boards. While just in the last month we had an ironic comment of a religious leader about the position of women in the family regarding the Elimination of Sexual Violence Bill (RUU PKS). However, both candidates seemed like did not put much attention into this matter. The more substantial problems of gender issues and women rights were not mentioned at all.
Finally, the developmentalism trap is when complex issues in the society are narrowly rendered into the term of economic growth and moreover, do not solve the problems and even endanger the human capability aspects. Series of issues were seen to fall into this trap during three series of presidential debates, such as human rights, de-bureaucratization, gender, disability people, environment, education and so on.
It is clear and even has been analyzed by some scientist that the nation-building of this state is in danger. Lots of persecution to the minority groups, the rise of identity issues and unsolved problems of human rights are the clear warning for the state and both presidential candidates to rethink about their developmental state approach. Fail in acknowledging this trap will affect the direction of this state, including its societal aspects.
コメント