Abstract
This article analyses the contestation of 'welfare' discourses in Indonesia since the fall of the New Order, employing the discourse theory offered by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe in their Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (2001 [1985]). Its main argument is that welfare is an “empty signifier”, the meaning of which may shift or change as a consequence of the unfinished discursive contestations of various subject positions. This article identifies four central discourses, or master signifiers, between 1998 and 2015 that serve as “nodal points” in the hegemonisation of welfare: "Social Safety Net", "Creative Innovation" versus "Electoral Strategy", "Sustainable Development", and "Right of the People and Constitutional Obligation of the State". The dominant and hegemonic meaning of welfare, understood here as a “nodal point”, is only temporary; it is partially fixed, while at the same time experiencing ongoing discursive contestation. It is, is being, and will be subjected to unending dislocation.
Highlights
Welfare, as seen through the analytical lens of Laclau and Mouffe (2001 [1985]), is an empty signifier that continuously experiences transformation and dislocation
Since the country's independence, a welfare discourse has been embedded in Indonesia's economic system
Constitution, which understood the ideal economy as one built on a foundation of cooperatives, complemented by stateowned enterprises and private corporations, with welfare stemming from an inherent social solidarity
Summary
As seen through the analytical lens of Laclau and Mouffe (2001 [1985]), is an empty signifier that continuously experiences transformation and dislocation. DEN asserted the importance of providing Indonesians with economic empowerment, as realised through rural development and poverty eradication programmes It argued that small-and-medium enterprises, as well as cooperatives, should be supported through partnerships with state-owned enterprises, the integration of alternative financial institutions into the banking system, and to improve the quality of Indonesia's human resources; only could small-andmedium enterprises become the main actors in the national economy.. Leaders (regents/mayors) who had successfully implemented innovative programmes, and in doing so underscored that decentralisation had had some benefits It was not, as pessimists often argued, a means of facilitating corruption, easing transactional politics, and creating local "kings" who controlled natural resources; it allowed for the rise of creative and innovative leaders who dedicated themselves towards improving public welfare and developing local communities. Both the MDGs and the SDGs were built around three pillars: human development, environmentally conscious development, and sustainability
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
