STRUCTURALIST APPROACH

STRUCTURALIST APPROACH

The essence of this fifth perspective thinking is that the stability of the country's

legitimacy depends on the achievements of capital accumulation created by local and global

political economic structures. In terms of capital accumulation, people, especially the business

class, have the opportunity to petrify the government in creating capital accumulation, even

though the state has autonomy in determining which business class gets the opportunity.

Because the business class helps the government a lot in realizing development programs, it is

natural that public policies according to this perspective, the formulation of policies more

reflects the business groups creating the accumulation of capital. Richard Robison, the first

dependency is still relevant, because it appears that there is a power of foreign capital outside

the country that affects public policy. (see Robison 1985 and 1990). Moreover, Robison (1985)

analyzes the emergence of the domestic bourgeoisie, as a group of domestic-capitalists and

bureaucratic capitalists who have a dependence on the state in their business. In his study, he

saw that there was an initial collusion between the government and bureaucrats before

bureaucrats took office, in the sense that bureaucrats before taking office, they had been ordered

to carry out rent seeking through corruption, for the sake of developing business investment with

business people outside the government bureaucracy.

Nevertheless, the bourgeoisie, which is often occupied by the middle class, has little

access to influence the political formation carried out by the government, because according to

connections and corporatist associations as principles, a number of interests of elite groups can

eventually be transformed into public policy.

After understanding the five perspectives of political economy above with all their

variations to approach a number of interests, they can be briefly classified into two groups of

perspectives. First, the perspective that fights for the interests of the elite, only the variation of

the interests of the elite that is fought for depends on the dominance of the political arena. For

example, The state-qua-state, and bureaucratic-authoritarianism that champions the interests

of the state and the interests of the core alliance (elite); the bureaucratic-polity and

patrimanialist cluster fought for the interests of the bureaucratic elite and the state; Bureaucratic

pluralism champions the interests of the dominant elite group. Second, structuralism fights for

state perspective, namely the interests of the state alone. While the elite model of the time, the

struggle of interests is the same as the first group that the researcher classified, especially the

bureaucratic-political model. Where the state in this case only carries out the interests of the

ruling elite, so that the state is a kind of small committee that carries out the interests of the elite

according to the Marxist view.

The group model, developed by Dye, is allegedly based on Truman's (1951) view. Truman

defines an interest group as a shared attitude group that makes certain claims upon other groups

in the society (Dye, 1978: 26). However, the demands of this group will mean that if they are

directed at the government, it will even be an important consideration if the demands are fought

for in the public policy process. Thus, the solidity of members, the closeness of the group to the

materials in the policy process to be determined.

The amount of demands, support and resources in the input will determine the format of

the public policy output. Unfortunately, these models cannot explain the conversion process

that runs in the political system. The five political economy perspectives above, namely: the

state-quo-state, the bureaucratic politics and patrimonial cluster, bureaucratic pluralism,

bureaucratic authoritarianism, a structuralist approach are used by researchers to understand

the journey of SOEs to the privatization of SOEs. In detail, it can be argued that the state-quo-

state perspective is used to understand the government's authority in dominating and

monopolizing SOEs engaged in strategic sectors after independence until the 1980s or precisely

before the global economic crisis. Meanwhile, other perspectives are used to understand the

who benefits in the political alliance based on the 10 models of privatization policies that have

been established.

Analysis of the Political Economy Structure of Development in Indonesia To understand

the development of Indonesia's political economic structure, in accordance with the context of

this book comprehensively, it can be reviewed at least from two periods of political travel in

Indonesia, namely during the Old Order and New Order periods. Through the study of political

economy in the two periods, it will clarify a number of government policies and commitments to

carry out several reforms in various sectors of the political economy, especially changes in the

public sector which is the responsibility of the government in providing public services (utilities)

in the form of public goods to the public. The New Order government's commitment to make

economic actors, which are usually monopolized by state companies or state-owned

enterprises, has recently experienced a drastic decline in their accountability and responsibility

in providing public services, so that such a condition requires serious intervention by the

government to make a number of improvements. The failure of the Old Order to organize

Indonesia's economic structure is alleged that the government is predominantly protectionist in

also experienced significant obstacles due to the protection system and nationalistic economy

used, in addition to unstable political conditions. Some momentum

emphasis is placed on the accumulation of large amounts of capital, with the percentage of

capital progressiveness must exceed the development of the population and the increase in the

number of labor force, in order to realize an ideal growth rate. The way to accumulate capital on

a large scale is through programs to increase public savings, investment from the domestic

government and private sector as well as foreign capital for certain industries, and to reduce the

rate of population growth as much as possible. Some of the economic policies that were

implemented by the Old Order government at that time included the Economic Urgency Plan

(RUP) which was formed in the Natsir Cabinet and refined into the Benteng Policy in the

Barhanuddin Harahap Cabinet. In addition, there are three economic momentum when politics

Indonesian economy, including; (1) guiding various government activities in the industrial and

agricultural sectors, and supervising the formation of several new companies; (2) establishing

to consolidate the industrialization program between large industries and small industries,

especially those operating in rural areas. The long-term goal of this program according to

Glassburner's observation (1971) is to create an industry that is truly national, so that the

success of this program will later be used to reduce dependence on imported industrial goods.

Especially for newly established vital industries, such as industry; Basic chemicals, cement,

transportation, electric power, according to the RUP, will be dominated by the government by

providing funds of at least 50%, even special shares (golden shares) will be controlled by 75%.

With this kind of control, the government is more dominant in controlling the forum in every board

in rural areas, such as; ceramics, soda, fertilizer, aluminum and other industries.

Vital in meeting the needs of the community. Although there is an openness to foreign

investment in a number of industries in Indonesia, the protection for the development of

dominant role than, foreign investors, so that Indonesian business people must have the largest

shares; The company's articles of association must contain provisions on the gradual transfer of

shares from the hands of foreign investors to indigenous business actors; and expatriate are

required to train Indonesian workers. The idealism of the above plan, in the next cabinet will be

continued with a five-year plan, although during Natsir's cabinet, Sjafruddin (Minister of Finance)

continuation of the RUP, is committed to encouraging national importers, so that in their

business they are able to compete with a number of foreign entrepreneurs in Indonesia. Various

efforts made by the government to realize the program, according to a study by Nan Grindle

Amstutz (1958) in his dissertation, include; protect certain imported goods; give credit to national

entrepreneurs, because in general these entrepreneurs have minimal assets and it is difficult to

get credit from international private business people (Amstutz, quoted by Muhaimin

The reason why the government at that time chose the import sector to be protected, and

used as a policy choice, was because this sector did not require too much capital in its

exploitation operations, while consumption of a number of goods in this sector needed a lot. In

terms of political economy, this sector is seen as the most strategic to dominate a number of

to Rp. 250,000.00, (3) the working capital prepared, at least 70% came from native/indigenous

entrepreneurs, and (4) had sufficient working space and experienced labor. The requirement for

even Siauw Jaok Tjhan (a representative of socialist groups and Chinese groups) questioned this

issue and Tan Po Goan (a member of parliament representing PSI) accused the government of

being very racist. Despite the incessant challenges raised from various circles, the government

still stipulates that only indigenous entrepreneurs can have 70% capital, while original Chinese

and their descendants can only have 30% capital. The course of the above regulations turned out

to be unsustainable for a long time, because corruption was symptomatic everywhere and

inflation soared, finally the steps taken by the government represented by prime minister

Burhanuddin HarahapDeclaration of the Economy and Liberalization of the Economic Order An

1963, and government regulation on the Liberalization of the Economic Order, dated May 26,

1963. The purpose of the Economic Declaration is to organize Indonesia's economic conditions

by dividing Indonesia's economic growth into two stages. First, an economic arrangement that is

national and democratic in nature, clean from the remnants of imperialism and feudalism.

Second, the economic development of Indonesian socialism (Muhaimin, 1990: 46). The

the state sector, cooperatives, and

political events. One of the important events at that time was the seizure of the West Irian region.

The funds used by the government to complete this momentum, and the funds to increase

military strength were quite large, so that inflation at that time could not be controlled. Thus, a

number of Old Order government policies in the economic field, such as; The RUP, the fortress

policy, the Five-Year Plan, and the Dekon none have good implications, while economic

conditions are drastically deteriorating. Under such conditions, finally the government initiated

by Prime Minister Ir. Djuanda, took steps to organize the economy with a liberal system, which

was subsequently confirmed by a Government Regulation dated May 26, 1963. Through the

regulation, the benefits that can be taken include; the price of basic commodities is

running until the end of the