你不能进入名单:印度尼西亚的铭文实践和应得政治

H. Prahara
{"title":"你不能进入名单:印度尼西亚的铭文实践和应得政治","authors":"H. Prahara","doi":"10.7454/ai.v39i1.9752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Indonesia first state-led community-driven development (CDD) began in the 1990s with influential support by the World Bank. This paradigm sees community not merely as an object but rather as an active subject of development. To ensure the shifting in the paradigmatic level, a social engineering process known as community empowerment project was built using monitoring instrument to guarantee inclusive development planning, prevent elite capture, and promote internal audit capacities. In this process, extensive use of bureaucratic instruments, e.g., paperwork, assessment forms, official stamps, program proposals/reports, and financial report facilitate the formation of community participation. How the use of documents shaped the intended inclusive development projects under CDD paradigm? This paper discusses the ironic trends of how participatory framework in CDD, in fact, intensified social exclusions. The discussion is based on my experience observing the implementation of ‘public consultation approach’ in PBDT 2015 ( Pemutakhiran Basis Data Terpadu/ Unified Database Updating). In such program, the local stakeholders, together with community trustee at kelurahan (village) level held a meeting to verify the enlisted poor households. The verification was crucial to create a unified database that can be used for future reference of the beneficiaries for several social assistance programs in Indonesia. I argue that tensions and negotiations toward deciding which names deserve to be on the list perpetuated forms of exclusion that embrace the exercise of prejudice, ethnic, and moral references in producing the hierarchy of deservingness at the community level.","PeriodicalId":8156,"journal":{"name":"Antropologi Indonesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"You shall not enter the list: Inscriptional Practices and Politics of Deservingness in Indonesia\",\"authors\":\"H. Prahara\",\"doi\":\"10.7454/ai.v39i1.9752\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Indonesia first state-led community-driven development (CDD) began in the 1990s with influential support by the World Bank. This paradigm sees community not merely as an object but rather as an active subject of development. To ensure the shifting in the paradigmatic level, a social engineering process known as community empowerment project was built using monitoring instrument to guarantee inclusive development planning, prevent elite capture, and promote internal audit capacities. In this process, extensive use of bureaucratic instruments, e.g., paperwork, assessment forms, official stamps, program proposals/reports, and financial report facilitate the formation of community participation. How the use of documents shaped the intended inclusive development projects under CDD paradigm? This paper discusses the ironic trends of how participatory framework in CDD, in fact, intensified social exclusions. The discussion is based on my experience observing the implementation of ‘public consultation approach’ in PBDT 2015 ( Pemutakhiran Basis Data Terpadu/ Unified Database Updating). In such program, the local stakeholders, together with community trustee at kelurahan (village) level held a meeting to verify the enlisted poor households. The verification was crucial to create a unified database that can be used for future reference of the beneficiaries for several social assistance programs in Indonesia. I argue that tensions and negotiations toward deciding which names deserve to be on the list perpetuated forms of exclusion that embrace the exercise of prejudice, ethnic, and moral references in producing the hierarchy of deservingness at the community level.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8156,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antropologi Indonesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antropologi Indonesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7454/ai.v39i1.9752\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antropologi Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7454/ai.v39i1.9752","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

印度尼西亚首个由国家主导的社区驱动发展(CDD)始于上世纪90年代,得到了世界银行的有力支持。这种模式认为社区不仅仅是一个对象,而是一个积极的发展主体。为了确保范式层面的转变,利用监测工具建立了一个被称为社区赋权项目的社会工程过程,以确保包容性发展规划,防止精英捕获,并提高内部审计能力。在这一过程中,大量使用文书、评估表格、官方印章、项目提案/报告、财务报告等官僚文书,促进了社区参与的形成。文件的使用如何塑造了CDD范式下预期的包容性发展项目?本文讨论了参与性社区发展框架中具有讽刺意味的趋势,即实际上如何加剧了社会排斥。讨论是基于我在PBDT 2015 (Pemutakhiran Basis Data Terpadu/统一数据库更新)中观察“公众咨询方法”实施的经验。在该项目中,当地利益相关者与村一级的社区受托人一起召开会议,核实被征召的贫困户。核查对于建立一个统一的数据库至关重要,该数据库可用于印度尼西亚若干社会援助方案的受益人的未来参考。我认为,在决定哪些名字应该被列入名单的过程中,双方的紧张关系和谈判延续了各种形式的排斥,这些排斥包括偏见、种族和道德因素的运用,在社区层面上产生了应得的等级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
You shall not enter the list: Inscriptional Practices and Politics of Deservingness in Indonesia
Indonesia first state-led community-driven development (CDD) began in the 1990s with influential support by the World Bank. This paradigm sees community not merely as an object but rather as an active subject of development. To ensure the shifting in the paradigmatic level, a social engineering process known as community empowerment project was built using monitoring instrument to guarantee inclusive development planning, prevent elite capture, and promote internal audit capacities. In this process, extensive use of bureaucratic instruments, e.g., paperwork, assessment forms, official stamps, program proposals/reports, and financial report facilitate the formation of community participation. How the use of documents shaped the intended inclusive development projects under CDD paradigm? This paper discusses the ironic trends of how participatory framework in CDD, in fact, intensified social exclusions. The discussion is based on my experience observing the implementation of ‘public consultation approach’ in PBDT 2015 ( Pemutakhiran Basis Data Terpadu/ Unified Database Updating). In such program, the local stakeholders, together with community trustee at kelurahan (village) level held a meeting to verify the enlisted poor households. The verification was crucial to create a unified database that can be used for future reference of the beneficiaries for several social assistance programs in Indonesia. I argue that tensions and negotiations toward deciding which names deserve to be on the list perpetuated forms of exclusion that embrace the exercise of prejudice, ethnic, and moral references in producing the hierarchy of deservingness at the community level.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sando Pea: Between Tradition and Health Challenge among Kaluppini Indigenous People Pengetahuan Tradisional tentang Kesehatan dan Pemenuhan Hak Kesehatan Reproduksi Perempuan Bawean The Dynamics of Abortion Treatment as an Effort of Harmonization between the Modern and the Traditional Medical System Papua Under The State of Exception Rethinking the Politics of Difference in Indonesia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1