Suchergebnisse

Anchored on the global welfare regime literature, this article discusses three key themes: welfare regime change, the drivers of change and the implication of the regime change toward insecurity in Southeast Asia. This article focuses on welfare regimes in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand mainly because these countries experienced high economic growth and were correspondingly affected by the 1997-Asian financial crisis. However, their response to the crisis differed due to their distinctive historical-colonial legacies. The article argues that the regimes shifted from productivist to a more inclusive regime partly as public health programmes reached citizens previously uncovered. However, the timing, pace and direction of welfare reform met social unrest, and fundamentally brought into the fore questions of 'ontological security'. The article concludes that the three regimes cannot substantiate a shift towards 'secure' welfare regimes as they continue to rely heavily on family and community for welfare provision to overcome social risk.

AbstractThis article discusses welfare regime change using two theoretical frameworks, i.e. welfare regimes in developing countries and institutional change. Using these theories as a loop to look at the Indonesian case, it suggests that the Indonesian welfare regime has experienced 'flourishing' development and changes. The regime has changed three times, stimulated by economic growth, global market pressures and social policy 'universalization'. The last two changes have been loaded with thorny layering, to which the government introduced numerous government‐formal social programmes on top of community‐based informal welfare arrangements. This causes complicated consequences, including the problem of informal and formal welfare institutions harming each other. The discussion of the Indonesian case leads to a better understanding of the characteristics and changes of welfare regimes in developing countries, for which there is currently a research gap.

Makalah ini membabas konflik pengelolaan sumber daya alam dan gagasan membangun mekanisme kontrol untuk menciptakan sistem pengelolaan yang berkelanjutan. Kajian difokuskan pada kontroversi peranan negara yang proporsional dalam menciptakan sistem tersebut. Pengelolaan sumber daya alam di Indonesia telah memicu konflik yang cukup kompleks antara masyarakat sipil, sektorprivat, dan negara serta mengancam keberlanjutan pembangunan. Untuk itu, perlu dibangun sistem kontrol melalui pengembangan kesadaran kolektif terhadap isu tersebut. Pengalaman di beberapa negara menunjukkan salah satu pendekatan yang kontekstual untuk membangun kesadaran tersebut adalah melalui pendidikan lingkungan bagi masyarakat.

Untuk keperluan lebih lanjut gunakan fasilitas Advance Search About Katalog Buku Laporan Penelitian Jurnal Home Berita Buku Tamu Forum Registrasi Inherent UGM Basic Search | Daftar Jurnal | Statistik Detail Hasil Pencarian Judul : Kebijakan Tata Niaga Obat Di Indonesia : Kontroversi Sistem Distribusi Dan Konsekuensi Kelembagaannya. Pengarang : Mulyadi Sumarto Jurnal : Jurnal Kebijakan dan Administrasi Publik 2004, VIII(1) Tahun : 2004 Summary / Kata Kunci : ABSTRACT Drug distribution is a multifaceted phenomenon. On one side it is a pure health phenomenon but on the other side it is loaded with political-economic drives.The mechanism distributing drug determines the eminence of health services. An appropriate rystem convinces people to get wide access consuming drug smarty. Interestingly, it involve huge amount of capital invested by private sector. The profit comes to corporations is shaped by the rystem. Thisfail urges corporations to work closer with the entities which able to support them politically. Rent seeking refers to the efforts of private sector obtaining political resource from polly maker. What have been done by the corporations has not only changed the polig makingprocess but also the decision taken byit).triciarzr pointing out drugs for their patients. The medical doctors choose drug is based on economic consideration rather than medical reasons. It deteriorates health services. Since the rystem of drugdistribution is rootingfor market, it puts people on a position in which unable empower them. The gstem causes the health services less accessibleforpeople.

Paradigm of social poticy is shifted from welfare state to welfare pluralism. The state, as the primary agency responsible in providing social welfare to the people has to allow the market to function in doing so, as neo-liberalism swift the world govemance. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is meant to be practical showcase of welfare pluralism, aims to demonstrate that reliability of the state to deliver the sosical service. Four cases of community development programs within the banner of CSR show that was not the case. There are at least three predicaments. First, the company's engagement community development due to political pressure, as oppose to expressing their social responsibility. Second, the motive in carrying out the program is to get public trust, as some form of investment. Third, the program cannot empower local people. Welfare pluraliem lead us to a paradox. On the one hand pivate sector transform itself to be an agency for delivering social welfare, but on the other hand, their engagement essentially to secure their own wealth.

This report discusses Indonesia's social policy response to Covid-19 as well as the public's response to this policy response. It finds that the Indonesian social policy response to the pandemic was mainly through reallocations within the government budget to finance targeted social safety net programs covering social assistance, family support, and labor market benefits. These budget reallocations, however, have been insufficient to cover all the poor, thus the government sought financial support from the World Bank, global bonds, and local governments. The government's social policies stimulated public responses, including both support and opposition from politicians and community members. The most salient support stemmed from the community in the form of collectively working to informally provide assistance to the poor. Community support for the poor and the participation of global agencies in welfare provision underline the limitations of state social policy during times of socio-economic adversity, particularly due to budget constraints. During the crisis, the state, which should be able to protect its citizens, was less capable of providing social protection, prompting it to seek support from both global and local welfare providers. ; 28

This paper discusses the development of Indonesia's health insurance programme as a lens through which to understand Indonesian social policy development. The Indonesian health insurance programme has experienced considerable development despite fluctuating economic growth and political upheaval. Indonesia initiated its health insurance programme during the Soekarno period (1945-1966) by providing health insurance to formal workers. However, this period of economic austerity saw the programme poorly implemented. As the economy improved under Soeharto (1966-1998), the health insurance programme steadily improved until 1997, when the Asian financial crisis hit Indonesia. The crisis forced the Indonesian government to take a loan from the World Bank, which required the establishment a social safety net for the poor. The safety net programme led to massive development of social protection programmes, which encouraged the government to implement a universal health coverage programme. This paper describes the characteristics of Indonesia's social policy development, analyses its relationship with economic policy, highlights its key drivers and identifies the interests and alliances that shaped Indonesia's social policy.

This paper explores the transnational dimension of social policy by examining the case of Indonesia, where social policy systems have shifted from community-based schemes for social protection and targeting of the poor to more centralized but broadly national coverage. Focusing on the health care system in particular, it draws on in-depth elite interviews and relevant policy documents to demonstrate how global policy diffusion pushed Indonesia towards universal health care provision. It argues that global actors, such as AusAid, WHO and various UN agencies, played an important role in this transformation, and they have done so in different ways. It further argues that this was made possible by qualitative changes in the relationship between the Indonesian government and global actors, especially AusAid, that broke away from earlier models of foreign intervention.

In the last decade, social protection has risen in prominence as a strategy to address poverty and vulnerability in developing countries (Barrientos 2011). International organizations such as the United Nations and development banks have adopted strategies and policies on social protection.1 To this end, the International Labour Organization's (ILO) role in promoting social protection floors has been particularly prominent (Deacon 2013). Less is known about the role that Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) plays in the reform of social protection. ODA typically supports the social sector in recipient countries in various ways: general budget support, funding for particular projects with social objectives or investment in infrastructure, such as schools or hospitals. However, it is in filling the gaps in the social programmes of emerging economies that ODA can be most effective. [.] By observing the PRSF we observe the actioning of many of the principles of aid effectiveness as outlined in the Paris Declaration. In its engagement with the Government of Indonesia (GoI), Australia acted as a "constructive partner" rather than a "demanding donor", which contributed to the recipient government retaining ownership over its activities. Two other principles of aid effectiveness - harmonization and alignment - were also observed. The PRSF was embedded within the Indonesian governance structures and operated in a manner that was sensitive to the political culture of the Indonesian bureaucracy. Finally, this paper suggests that two-way transformation can occur as a result of effective ODA investment in social protection reform. ; Prepared for the UNRISD project New Directions in Social Policy: Alternatives from and for the Global South

This report discusses Indonesia's social policy response to Covid-19 as well as the public's response to this policy response. It finds that the Indonesian social policy response to the pandemic was mainly through reallocations within the government budget to finance targeted social safety net programs covering social assistance, family support, and labor market benefits. These budget reallocations, however, have been insufficient to cover all the poor, thus the government sought financial support from the World Bank, global bonds, and local governments. The government's social policies stimulated public responses, including both support and opposition from politicians and community members. The most salient support stemmed from the community in the form of collectively working to informally provide assistance to the poor. Community support for the poor and the participation of global agencies in welfare provision underline the limitations of state social policy during times of socio-economic adversity, particularly due to budget constraints. During the crisis, the state, which should be able to protect its citizens, was less capable of providing social protection, prompting it to seek support from both global and local welfare providers.