In search of a solution to economic disparity

In search of a solution to economic disparity

President Soeharto touched on the nation's economic disparity
in his annual budget speech Monday. Ignas Kleden suggests a
solution.

JAKARTA (JP): The notion of "national stability" is a basic
characteristic of the New Order government's political thinking.
Initially, it was in perfect counterpoise to the political
instability resulting from the Old Order -- the context of its
genesis determined its content.

Practically speaking, national stability refers to the
stability of both state and government. This is understandable,
since political instability during the Old Order meant the high
frequency in which cabinets came and went.

However, to understand national stability only in terms of
black-and-white comparison to the Old Order is not always helpful
sociopolitically, and not always correct sociologically, at least
at this point in the nation's history. A nation is composed of
both state and society -- government institutions are formed in
accord with the constitution and social organizations emerge from
the spontaneous initiatives of social groups.

National stability should, accordingly, be understood not
merely as the stability of state and government but also the
stability of society; it means not only the security of
government institutions but also that of social organizations.
This is something more important than we tend to believe, as
whatever happens to the society will, in one way or another,
impinge upon the stability of the state and government.

To a certain extent, it is not only the state and government
who control a society's security; the stability of social
organizations contribute much to the security of the state and
government. An analogy for this might be that it is not only the
strong hand of the father which gives stability to the family but
also the security of the mother and the spontaneous growth of the
children.

This is not to say that society can be seen and treated as a
monolithic unit. It is not, which becomes all the more apparent
if we look at the economic power of various groups. There is a
solid line separating various social groups with regard to their
respective economic position.

In Indonesia, socioeconomic disparity has several different --
albeit related -- aspects we need to understand. In the first
place, it has to do with the redistribution of income. In the
second place, it relates to the opportunity to earn a living. The
first question refers to the distribution of the benefits of
development, the second with distributing the costs of
development.

In his budget speech on Jan. 6 the President called upon the
press, social commentators and analysts not only to keep bringing
this issue to the nation's attention but also to focus on a
solution to the problem.

One viable proposal may be that we better differentiate the
question of poverty from the question of social sustainability,
both currently embroiled in the debate.

This differentiation is not only necessary but helpful, as
poverty means a lack of access to a share of the national
product, whereas social sustainability relates to various social
groups' ability to maintain their current living standards.

The question of increased opportunities in the first and
deprived opportunity in the second have a considerably different
nature.

In reality this would mean various social groups should have
the feeling that, given they have not yet had a share in the
division of this country's development, their opportunity to earn
lucratively has not been eliminated.

It is a telling experience to visit Japan. There, in the most
expensive part of a metropolitan city, such as Roppongi, Tokyo,
you might see a small noodle restaurant that stays afloat while
proudly telling its clients about the age-old experience of their
small business.

Both the big cities and small towns of Germany could tell a
similar tale. One might come across a small bakery there with a
billboard reading "founded in 1798". The small business has been
sustainable not only in the face of modern development but also
two world wars which annihilated many achievements in economics
and civilization. Social sustainability has been proved possible
in developed countries. But how?

One developmental issue which will escape all effort of
quantification is the security of the citizens to earn a living,
and their right to expect certain human rights. Of course there
are always reasons to deprive weak social groups of their last
economic resort on behalf of development. But the moral of any
change to the system in which we all co-exist should be: the
working of an entire chain depends upon its weakest parts.

In the 1970s political discussion in Indonesia was divided
between a drive towards prosperity and a drive for national
security. Perhaps the issue of security should once again be
brought to the fore, by saying it is better to have a law-based
security than a power-based security. The new formula might be:
national stability equals social stability.

The writer is a sociologist based in Jakarta.