Dual development policy

Dual development policy

State Minister of National Development Planning/Chairman of
the National Development Planning Board Ginandjar Kartasasmita
has of late been promoting the main components of what he sees as
the ideal development paradigm for Indonesia. The ideas he
expounded in various public speeches have made front-page news,
but not because of their novelty or originality.

Many of the development programs the government has
implemented over the past two decades have by and large actually
been based on two different strategies suggested by Ginandjar.

What is intriguing about his observations is that many see his
addresses as deliberations about the government and endorsement
of the points of views so often expressed by government
detractors.

Even though his addresses have not always reflected the
government's views, the ideas he set out are still refreshing,
especially when they contradict the practices of the present
government. For a member of the cabinet to venture such
postulations at a time when the government's tolerance of
different opinions remains very low is by itself a newsworthy
event.

Last April, Ginandjar listed the main requirements for a good
and effective governance in a speech after he received an
honorary doctorate degree in public administration from the
Gadjah University, Yogyakarta. Many of the traits he mentioned
cannot yet be found in the present governance.

Again late last month, when he was installed as a
professor of public administration at the state Brawidjaya
University in Malang, East Java, he talked of the need for
different, yet inter-related and complementary strategies for the
modern and traditional sectors.

The space of this column does not allow for elaboration on the
definitions of modern and traditional sectors. It may suffice,
for the sake of discussion, to define the traditional sector as
the subsistence farming community in the rural areas and the
modern one as the society who depends mainly on manufacturing,
agro-industry and services.

Ginandjar suggested that the government minimize direct
intervention in the modern sector and instead focus its attention
on helping the modern sector stimulate, not suppress, the
development of the traditional sector. The government has
increasingly retreated from the modern sector through a series of
deregulation measures. But the unleashing of the market forces on
to the economy has not been supported by the establishment of
game rules to guarantee fair, open competition and to prevent the
abuse of market power.

The consequence, therefore, is that many sectors of the
economy have become far more liberal than those in industrialized
countries. Even more damaging is the prevalence of various forms
of oligopolistic practices in many business areas with their
stultifying effect on small and medium-scale businesses.

While the economy has increasingly been subject to market
forces, several elements of statehood remain "strongly guided" by
a paternalistic governance to maintain national stability and
unity.

Ginandjar called for the empowering of the people in the
traditional sector through a special strategy designed to protect
them from being trampled by the modern sector, and to increase
their ability to benefit from the opportunities provided by the
government. But empowering, he said, does not mean making the
people more dependent on government assistance.

In the past the government has implemented numerous programs
targeted especially at poor people in both rural and urban areas,
including the latest program launched last year to alleviate
poverty in particular areas. But the way the programs were
carried out tended to strengthen the feelings of submission and
obedience among the people, rather than feelings of independence
and self reliance. In fact, the dominant message in official
information campaigns so far has been "no one can succeed without
government assistance."

We might look too optimistic if we read too much into all the
ideals postulated by Ginandjar, including on what he thinks would
be the most effective governance in supporting the dual
development strategies. We hope nevertheless that Ginandjar, as
the chief development planner, will do his best to initiate the
implementation of all those good things in his jurisdiction.