Business Relations in Democratizing Indonesia
Ignatius Ismanto
1
1
University of Pelita Harapan, Karawaci-Tangerang
Keywords: Government, Business Relations and Inequality
Abstract:
The economic crisis in 1997 is regarded as a blessing in disguise. The Liberal economists believe
that the crisis is a momentum in promoting market-oriented economic policy, as a necessary
basis for the economic recovery. The economic crisis, therefore, has revamped dirigisme
economy that had been grown quite strong in a long period of time. A series of economic
liberalization (trade and investment) has been adopted, and caused a deepening economic
integration of Indonesia into the wider economic system (regional and global). One thing that is
important to note that the economic crisis has also brought a widespread impact on political
changes. Since 1998 Indonesia has undergone a dramatic political changes. However, the
political change has been increasingly characterized by the tendency of the rise of oligarchy
(Robison & Vedi R. Hadiz, 2004). Access to political power beomes an important issue in
business relations. Ironically, the political changes are not supported by improving transparency
in economic policy. Rent-seeking activities have increasingly institutionalized amidst the
changing Indonesia's economy. In fact, rent-seeking activities has become increasingly
vulnerable to abuse of power practices. Widespread corruption will increasingly worsen the
problems of economic inequality in the midst of economic and political changes in Indonesia.
1 INTRODUCTION
Before the economic crisis in 1997, Indonesia
experienced a relatively high and continuous
economic growth that lasted for quite a while. This
growth followed by a significant capital
accumulation and the increasing strength of national
capital within a short period of time. Despite of this
rosy picture, substantial economic growth was not
the panacea to overcome the challenges of poverty
and economic disparity. The birth of big national
businessmen was made possible by the role and
support provided by the government economic
intervention. Economic dirigisme opened the
opportunity for the rent-seeking activities.
Relationships between businesses and the state
power holders, or authorities who distribute ‘rent’,
became an important factor for capital development.
Dramatic economic progress that followed
Indonesian capitalism resurgence was made possible
by political stability and lasting authoritarian regime.
1997 economic crisis brought wide impact to the
economic and political landscape. The crisis pushed
economic liberalization and deepen economic
integration of Indonesia into the global economic
system. The economic changes further demanded
transparency in economic management, including
the curbing of rent seeking activities. Furthermore,
political changes in 1998 ended the New Order
authoritarian regime and galvanized democratization
process. Nonetheless, the dramatic political changes
did not trigger significant departure toward
economic transparency. Rent seeking activities
spreads out of control. In the new Indonesian
economic system, the rent seeking activities create
opportunities for authorities who abuse power. This
article analyses: (i) why rent seeking activities that
become the signature of business relations has
remained in the midst of political changes since
1998, (ii) the challenges for economic development
from rent seeking activities, especially in fighting
social-economic inequality.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Busiess and goverment relation has been
special topic in Indonesian politics following the
Ismanto, I.
Business Relations in Democratizing Indonesia.
DOI: 10.5220/0009930614891495
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 1489-1495
ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9
Copyright
c
2020 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
1489
country’s changing economy. Many scholars
examine on the development of capital by
emphasizing different questions, such as: why and
how is the role of the government in facilitating the
process of accumulation, how is the characteristics
of busiess and politics relations, how economic and
political change affects the relation of business and
government, why the development of capital is so
vulnarable to corruption for the country in
promoting democracy. They also develop differnt
approaches in analyzing the changing of polics and
economy in Indonesia. There are two different
approaches: the modernization-functional approach
and structural-Marxism approach. Modernization-
functional approach assumes that development of
economy is a pivotal instrument in promoting
democracy. Conversely, structural-Marxism
approach is pessimistic that integration of
Indonesia’s economy into the global economy
(development of economy) would bring to
democracy.
Most important issue of those studies examine
the important role of the government (state) in the
development of capital. The state played significant
role to the emerge of big companies in Indonesia
(Robinson, 2008; MacIntyre, 1994). Another
interesting issue of these studies also highligt that
rent-seeking activities is important aspect to the
development of capital. Rent seeking is not only the
characteristics of the development of capital in
Indonesia. Rent seeking is also important aspect of
the development capital in most industrializing
economy of East Asia. Rent seeking is adopted to
promoting and protecting infant industries. Rent
seeking, therefore, should be temporary along with
the advanced of the economy. Jomo and Sundaram
(2000) explained that rent seeking can be legal and
illegal prectices.
Why state played dominant role in the
development of economy and capital? According to
modernization-functional approach, developing
countries are ‘under-develop society’ in social,
economy and politics. The under-development of
developing countries roots as internal problems.
States in most developing countries should play as
an “agent of social change” or as an “agent of
development”. States in developing countries are
also responsible to devepment of nation-building.
The development of economy is a necessary
condition or prerequisite to development of
democracy. Conversely, structural-Marxism
approach has different asumption in understanding
the under-development of developing countries or
theThird World countres. Under-development roots
as external problems. What does it mean with
external problem? The external problem in this case
relates to globlal system that is conflictual and
exploitative. The under-development of developing
countries was caused by their historiacal experience,
colonialism. Colonialsm was responsible to the
under-development of developing countries. The
development of economy that promoting integration
of deveping economy in global would only bring the
Third World into “under-development”. Why state
plays dominant role in development of economy
according to structural-Marxism has different
argument with Modernization-functional one.
According to Structural-Marxism, state played a
significant role in the development of economy
because state is the only dominant social forces in
the society. Hamzah Alawi promotes the concept of
‘autonomous state’ in describing states of
developing countries in post colonialism. Robinson,
the proponent of Structural-Marxism, explaines the
dominant state of Indonesia by examining the
origine the New Order state. According to Robinson
(1985, p: 300-3006), state was the only dominant
social forces in the society because of (i) weakness
of social classes, most imprtantly the absent of a
powerfull national bourgeoisie, (ii) the failure of the
state in promoting import substitution
industrialization, and the failure of social revolusion.
All of those factors left the state the only social
dominant in Indonesian society. The role of state
become so important in the economy following the
increasing financail capacity, especially in 1970s
and 1980s.. But, the economic crisis, both in mid of
1980 and 1997, weakened the role of the state in the
economy.
The development of economy sponsored by state
has encourgaed the accumulation of capital and the
emerge of big businesss. As Robinson (in Robinson,
1985, p: 323) stated that “those business groups
which have florished in Indonesia have so far
benefited greatly from access to licenses, import
monopolies, construction and supply contracts,
credit, distributionships, and forestry concessions
allocated by power center within the state
apparaturs. In this case, the state plays important
role in distributing ‘rent’, by providing licenses,
monopolies and concessions. Rent seeking, thefore,
was strong characteristics in the development of
capital. Anoter important aspect on the development
of capital is how to get access of power to state
apparatus. In this case, political link is important
element in the relation of business and politics.
Therefore, patrimonialism is strong characteristics of
the development of capital in Indonesia.
How patrimonialism works in the development
of capital? Robinson (1985, p: 123) argued that “the
relationship between state and capital is, to a
signifiacnt degree, a relationship between specific
power groups and specifics companies where in the
success or failure of individual companies is heavily
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
1490
dependent upon access to political patronage”. How
patrimonislism will survive along with the
Indonesia’s liberalizing its economyin imprtant issue
of demcracy. Modernization functionalist argues that
patrimonialism can be a serious challange of
Indonesia in promoting its liberalizing economy.
The country’s changing in the economy needs
substantial changes in politics. How to promote
transparacy of the economy is pivotal agenda of
democratization (MacIntyre, 1994a). Conversely,
the structural-Marxism approach is pessimistic on
the idea of economic liberalization. The basic idea is
that globalization is process development of
capitalism. The global economy that was
characterized by global capitalism, eccording to
structuralis-Marxsm, is exploitative. Therefore,
economic liberalization that encouraged Indonesian
economy into global economy would be perrish.
Chalmers (1994, 1996) provided interesting
analysis. The adoption of liberalizing economic
policy as a response to economic crisis hit in 1980s
and 1990s has encouraged internalization of capital.
What is political implication of internalization of
capital?. Internationalization of capital has provided
an opportunity for national companies to build
international link with international capital. National
companies that are able to built a global networking
with international capital are more concern on the
important of transparancy in the economy. They
support liberalizing economy as important agende in
promoting democracy. Conversely, national
companies that failed to have international link with
global company seek protectionism. They refused to
the idea of economic liberalization. The
globalization of economy is serious threat to their
economic interest. They promote economic
protectionism as a response to the economic
globalization.
Issue of democratization in Indonesia following
the country’s changing economy gives concern on
pro and cons of econmic liberalization. Crisis of
economy in 1997 has brought a widespread
implication for the democratization. Indonesia has
experienced a dramatic change in politics. But, such
a dramatic change in politics has not brought a
substantial democracy. Political parties and
parliament have played pivotal role in politics. The
institutions are the locus of power struggle. Whose
intersts are they representing -people or capital is a
debatable issue. Mitzner (2013) states that most of
political parties have substantial problem in
financing their own, internal activities. Lack of
party’s financial capability, fierce of political
competition for power and high cost of power
struggle have encouraged capitalists entering to
politics. Political reform has provided ‘the old
capalist’ to influence the process of consolidated
democracy. Who are the old capitalist, and why they
are interesting entering into politcs? The old
capitalists are the rich people who were born during
authoritarian regime. They benefited from
protectionism provided by state apparatus. They are
interesting in politics to secure its economic
interests. The dramatic political change has
generated oligarchy in Indonesia’s politics (Robison
and Hadiz, 2004). Oligarchy does not only
undermine the problem of social equity, but also
weaken democratization.
3 AUTHORITARIANISM,
CAPITALISM AND
DEMOCRACY
Richard Robinson adopts the concept of “state
capitalism” in depicting economic revival in
Indonesia. Often used to provide economic situation
in some Eastern Asian countries along with their
economic changes. What is the meaning of state
capitalism? In general, state capitalism means
economic orchestrated by the states’ huge role and
intervention. The idea to build state capitalism has
flourished since the beginning of independence.
Nationalization of foreign businesses in 1950’s, for
instance, strengthened the state capitalism idea.
Even so, during Soekarno’s regime, state capitalism
went through difficulties (read: bankruptcy),
especially caused by the limitation of state finances.
The change of regime from Soekarno to Soeharto
did not eliminates the state capitalism idea. The very
revival of it during Soeharto New Order regime was
caused possibly by the stronger state financial
capacity, especially obtained through oil and gas
production since 1970’s to the mid 80’s.
State capitalism revival, thus, was distinct from
the revival of capitalism in the Western Europe in
the mid centuries. European capitalism developed
along with the pressure to limit government role and
intervention in economic activities. On the contrary,
state capitalism revival in Indonesia, was allowed in
line with the increase of government role and
intervention in the economic development. (Hiareij,
2006) explained the government role and
intervention in capitalism building not only in (i)
investment financing, especially toward sectors or
industries considered as strategic by the state, but
also in (ii) pushing the growth of national capital
strength. In the third world, countries tend to play an
important role in developing their economy. State as
the agent of development. Industries that are
considered strategic received economic support by
the state. Furthermore, state also plays a dominant
Business Relations in Democratizing Indonesia
1491
role in pushing for social changes. State dominant
role is often linked with the feature of post-colonial
third world states. Long colonial history in Indonesia
did not produce strong capital ownership such as
land owners or big traders. Colonialism only left
small farmers and traders. Big companies that
become the source of economic strength are
controlled by foreign power. Post-colonial sate, thus,
became the only dominant social power.
One of an interesting aspect from the capitalist
system that has not yet developed is the
characteristically relative autonomy of state. The
meaning of autonomic state here is a country with
ability to formulate and materialize its national
interest without facing meaningful challenges from
developing social forces in the society. State’s
dominant role and intervention in economic
development is strongly influenced by the social
context. Even so, state autonomy is not a static
concept. State autonomy seems like an authoritarian
state. Capitalistic economic development in some
East Asian countries is characterized by the
existence of authoritarian regime. Why the
authoritarian regime tends to follow state capitalistic
development? First is to ensure foreign investment
that is needed for country to finance strategic sectors
and industries. Second, the authoritarian regime
existence is necessary to prevent social revolutions,
a potential caused by the difficult choice between
growth and economic disparity. Yet, the
authoritarian regime only last temporarily. The
transition from the authoritarian regime towards
democracy is believed to occur along with the
economic advancement where growth has been
followed by the lessening of economic disparity.
4 RENT SEEKING ACTIVITIES
During the Soeharto New Order regime,
Indonesia experienced impressive economic shift. It
marked by relative high growth, average on 6 – 7%
per year, maintained for a long period of time. The
World Bank (1993) positioned Indonesia as one of a
country in the East Asia region to experience
economic miracle. The understanding of the
economic miracle is the phenomenon where
economic growth is followed by the improvement of
socio-economic inequality. Yet, why is the
miraculous economic development was not
immediately followed by political change toward
democratization? The wave of democratization did
occur in the mid of 1980’s in the form of pressure to
push for economic management transparency along
with the economic difficulty faced by Indonesia. But
it was a wave easily shut. The economic growth and
advancement served as the source of legitimacy for
the continual of the authoritarian regime. The idea
that the present of an authoritarian regime that was
thought to last temporarily, only persist to remain for
a long period of time. Economic crisis in 1997 was a
determining factor to end the New Order Soeharto
regime. The crisis weakened the legitimacy for the
very regime to push the rising of social powers to
end it. It raises the question why economic
advancement in Indonesia was unable to promote
democratization process?
Relative high economic development sustained
for a relative long period has been followed by a
substantial capital accumulation process. In a short
period of time, the economic development has
enabled the birth of national capital power. Big
national businesses (similar to Keiretzu in Japan or
Choebol in South Korea) was most likely caused by
government intervention. And the birth of big capital
power in the 1970 – 1980s reminds the phenomenal
birth of businesses during the Benteng Program in
the 1950s. Pushing for the growth of national capital
power has been a growing obsession since
Indonesian independence. The idea to end foreign
power dominion in national economy through
building strong national capital is the feature of
economic nationalistic sentiment. It is only possible
that the anti-foreign domination in national economy
and political interest to protect national economy
remains vulnerable for exploitation in the midst of
globalization era today. Supported by state’s
financial ability, especially motivated by the
overabundance of oil in the 1970 – 80s, New Order
government has the ability to allocate big funding to
finance projects or industries considered has
strategic importance. The development of state
financial ability also re-strengthen the state
economic role and intervention. The national capital
power came from a series of economic policy that
meant to protect new sectors and industries.
Capital growth in Indonesia is often linked to the
strengthening of rent seeking activities. What is rent
seeking activities? How does rent seeking encourage
the capital accumulation process? “Rent” in this
understanding can be seen as income gained by
someone, in which the income is considered beyond
appropriateness. In relation to that, “rent” is a
tempting income and thus everyone desire to gain or
keep it. The effort to fight for or maintain the rent is
called rent seeking activities. (Khan & Kwame,
2000) identifies rent sources: (i) new innovation, (ii)
economic protection policy to protect newly
developing industries, (iii) illegal practices such as:
drug transactions, money laundering, to human
trafficking. With this understanding, rent seeking
activities can both be legal or illegal. New
innovation, for instance, is a legal rent source. An
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
1492
interesting part of the rent sources in this article is
related to protection policy given by the government
to protect new industries. Import license issued by
the government can also be a lucrative income
source for the license holder. Yet, the awarding of
license always requires transparent economic
management support. Economic protection can only
be correct if the purpose is to protect newly
developed industries. Economic protection for
developed sectors or industries only will
discriminate other economic practitioners, promotes
moral hazard that costly to the general public. With
that, providing protection requires the consideration
of the level of maturity in the industry. From the
political dimension, the issuance of licenses can
promote moral hazard. Many regulations, including
giving licenses without support of political
transparency involves a high risk of abuse of power.
Rent seeking activities will be able to stay in a
long period of time, especially in protectionist
economic situation. The irony is, the rent seeking
activities tend to institutionalized in the midst of
Indonesian economic changes that is becoming more
open. In a more liberalized economy, many
regulations and protections given by the government
– that allows for space for rent seeking activities is
opening opportunities for corruption. Even since
political reformation n 1998, rent seeking activities
is still rampant. Many corruption cases related to
rent seeking activities has been a part of Indonesian
political development. To the rent seekers (read:
businessmen) having political connection with state
bureaucrats is an important aspect. State (through its
bureaucrats) has the power to distribute ‘rent.’
Government officers has the authority to set
regulations, to allocate subsidies and provides
monopoly facilities, such as: export license, import
license to business people. Relations between
businessmen and authorities often is seen as patron-
client relations. In this pattern of patron-client,
patron is seen as the representative of government
officers who has the power to create regulations.
While client represents the business world. The
patron-client relations is benefiting each other
(mutualistis-simbiosis), where patron has the interest
to provide protection to client by setting the
regulation. While client is interested in giving
support and loyalty as a form of reward to the patron
from the protection given.
5 OLIGARCHY CAPITALISM
Yoshihara Kunio (1990) uses erzard capitalism to
give a picture of capitalism development in
Southeast Asia. The fake capitalism is seen to
produce non-independent capitalists, that heavily
rely on the government protection to survive. Non-
independent capitalists also identic with business
people who cannot compete in the global economy.
Furthermore, non-independent capitalists cannot be
expected to be an agent of social change, to promote
democracy to end the authoritarian system. Fake
capitalism is contrary to a thesis by Moore that says
“no bourgeoisie, no democracy”. The thesis shows
how important is the role of capital owner in pushing
for change. Capitalism revival in Europe has an
important role to push for change, that is to end the
monarchic system. On the contrary, fake capitalism
only produces what Richard Robinson calls as “the
New Richmen” who are afraid of change.
Neo-Marxist approach pays a significant
attention, especially in seeing capital-state relations
to the third-world economic development. In the
development of state capitalism, state usually has
relatively strong autonomy, including in facing big
domestic capitals, as well as taming the international
capital powers. Yet, state and capital relations
featured by state role domination is dynamic, along
with the domestic capital power revival.
Furthermore, it is not impossible that country can be
an instrument for capital powers to compete.
Economic crisis in Indonesia in the mid -1980s and
1997 is an interesting phenomenon in understanding
state-capital relations. Both of the crises has
weakened the role of state in the economy.
Economic liberalization to overcome the economic
crisis has been followed by the process of capital
internationalization, that enabled domestic capital
powers to build network with international capital
powers. Domestic capital power who are able to
build this important network obviously will have
different interest than those who failed to do so.
Domestic capital powers who built network with
international capital powers adopt the “economic
liberalization” agenda to support their economic
interest. They tend to demand transparency in
economic management. Thus, they are less likely to
rely on old ways in capital development, such as
political connection and patron client in their
business relations. While the businesses that failed
to build the network with international capital
powers will be strongly against economic
liberalization. They rely on their old ways, that is
protectionist economic policies to protect their
economic interest. The competing interest of these
economic powers has influence political changes in
Indonesia since 1998. The state has become the
arena for competing capital powers’ interests.
Political reformation developing since 1998 has
pushed for dramatic political change. This change
ended hegemonic party system and promotes the
Business Relations in Democratizing Indonesia
1493
progress of very competitive multi-party system.
Political party developed into important political
institution to gain power. Political party is not only
play an important role in the parliamentary
membership recruitment process, but also in direct
presidential election. Parliament developed to
become the competition for power. Political powers
in the parliament resulted from election process
followed by many parties truly reflects the highly
fragmented politics post the New Order regime.
Political changes has pushed for political
competition to become more potent and
consequently has driven the cost high (Saputra,
2018). Several interesting political phenomena to
observe. First, the increasingly cut-throat political
party competition caused difficulties in financing
political activities. Financial strain in parties drove
them to seek funding through illegal measures
(Mietzner, 2013). Second, political change follows
by high political cost has pushed capitalistic interest
in Indonesian politics.
The idea to strengthen presidential democracy
followed by multi-party system has brought along
several challenges. Direct presidential election
followed by many party system has resulted in
minority government. The minority government in
this context is president who reached the absolute
vote in presidential election, yet the elected
president does not have strong political support in
the parliament. Since 2004, government led by
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to Joko Widodo are
minority government. This type of government
opens space for the development of political
coalition. The shaping of cabinet is often pursued by
calculating political powers in the parliament.
Political coalition in the midst of high political
fragmentation tend to become political compromise
vulnerable to transactional politics. Political
reformation since the fall of the New Order regime
has become a fertile ground for capital power to
influence political changes. (Robison & Vedi R.
Hadiz, 2004) named political development in
Indonesia after the New Order as oligarchic
capitalism.
6 SOCIAL DISPARITY AND
CIVIL SOCIETY
Economic crisis occurred in the mid 1980’s has
indeed opened opportunity for political change.
Democratization demand in the mid 1980’s has
flourished alongside the economic changes followed
by the weakening role of government in the
economy. Demand for democratization is mostly
focused on the pressure toward the importance of
transparency in economic management. From the
theme, political demand has reflected more of the
economic interest of the capital power, especially
those who created network with international capital
power. They are able to detect the importance of the
state to control rent seeking activities alongside
Indonesian economic changes. Democratization
demand is more elitist since it only becomes the
attention of intellectuals (higher education) and less
interest in the general public. The demand for
democratization is viewed over premature and thus
easily controlled by the New Order authoritarian
regime. On the other hand, the demand for
democratization pushed the New Order authoritarian
regime to consolidate the powers growing in the
community.
Mochtar Mas’oed (1987) explains the concept of
state corporatism and societal corporatism in
understanding the mechanism of organizing
developing interests in the general public. State
corporatism is a model to organize public interests
that grew in authoritarian political system. In this
system, the existence and continuation of
organization or public powers are very much
determined by the state. In pursuing interest, they
are being demanded to obey the rules made by the
government. While societal corporation is the
existence of organization or public powers that has
more relative autonomy. Bargaining is an important
aspect for the continuation of the public powers.
They are not easily intervened by the government. In
the authoritarian political system, repressive and co-
optative ways became common mechanism to
organize public powers. Thus, the role of civil
organization or public powers in authoritarian
political system are hardly be expected to serve as an
effective platform to fight for members’ interests.
On the contrary, civil organizations has become a
tool for state to control the society. (MacIntyre,
1994) argues that ‘corporation has been a central
feature of political life throughout the New Order
period serving as a guiding principle for government
efforts to organize and control political
representation.” Organization of public powers can
be inclusionary or exclusionary. It can be a strategy
to divide and rule. A long standing state corporatism
is one reason to influence weak and fragmented
society.
The end of the New Order authoritarian regime
has weakened state corporatism, and thus it opened a
wide space for the rise of growing public powers
known as the civil society. Civil society is an
element that receives less attention in the
democratization process in Indonesia. The political
change in the New Order since 1998 is seen with
significant improvement, especially in promoting
democracy institutionalization. Some important
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
1494
political changes that has been achieved so far, such
as: military reform, that emphasized more on the
civil supremacy over military, multi-party system,
decentralized government system, direct presidential
election, bicameral system institutionalization in the
legislative body, to press freedom. Viewed from the
electoral democracy institutionalization, the political
change since 1998 has brought Indonesia to become
a big democratic country in the world. But, the
dramatic political change has not been able to
answer the challenge that deliver social justice.
Corruption practices remains everywhere with the
implementation of decentralization. Poverty issues
continues to be worsen by economic crisis of 1997
and remains as a serious challenge in the midst of
economic recovery in Indonesia. Even the growing
political reformation to end the New Order
authoritarian regime has been stabbed by the old
powers (Robison & Vedi R. Hadiz, 2004). The
revival of oligarchy capitalism is a serious challenge
for the strengthening of civil society, as a necessary
element to build substantial democracy in Indonesia.
The entry of capital power in Indonesian politics
alongside with the strengthening of electoral
democracy institutionalization is an interesting
phenomenon. Winters (2011) offers a different
perspective in understanding the strengthening of
political oligarchy post the New Order. This
approach based on the assumption that unequal
distribution of wealth is a determining factor for
inequality of power distribution. The wider the gap
of material wealth distribution, the bigger the power
and influence of the wealthy in their political
motives and purposes. The involvement of capital
power in Indonesian political changes post the New
Order can be seen as a strategy to secure business
and affluent survival. While in the New Order
regime, business and political pattern in capital
development is more characterized by patron-client
relations. The fall of Soeharto New Order regime,
thus, has ended the patrimonialistic business
relations. The involvement of capital power in the
political arena as seen in the business world
involving in the practical political activities such as:
becoming political party administrators, involved in
the candidacy of parliament members to district
election – viewed as a strategy to maintain wealth.
In the oligarchy political system, material source is
an important factor to achieve influence and power.
Ironically, capitalism built by oligarchy will not
bring meaningful influence in ending economic
disparity.
REFERENCES
Chalmers, Ian, 1994. “Domestic Capital in the Evaluation
of Nationalist AutoDevelopment Policy in Indonesia:
From Instrumental to Structural Power”. Working
Paper No. 30, Asia Research Center, Murdoch
University
Chalmers, Ian. 1996. Konglomerasi, Negara dan Modal
Dalam Industri Otomotif Indonesia 1950-1985.
Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Hiareij, E. 2006, Juli. Perkembangan Kapitalisme Negara
di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik,
10(1).
Khan, M. H., & Kwame, J. 2000. Rent-Rent Seeking
Activities and Economic Development. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kunio, Yoshihara. 1988. The Rise of Erzts
Capitalism in Southeast Asia. New York: Oxford
University Press.
MacIntyre, A. 1994(a). "Power, Prosperity and
Patrimonialism" in A. MacIntyre (ed). Business and
Government in Industrializing Asia. Ithaca, New
York: Cornell University Press.
MacIntyre, A. 1994(b). Organizing Interests:
Corporatism in Indonesian Politics. Working Paper, 43,
Asia Reseach Center, Murdoch University
Mas'oed, Mochtar. 1987. Ekonomi dan Struktur
Politik Orde Baru 1966-1977 (Economy and Political
Structure of Indojesia's New Order 1966-19770.
Jakarta: LP3ES
Mietzner, M. 2013, Desember. Political party financing in
Indonesia is a recipe for corruption. The Strategic
Review, The Indonesian Journal of Leadership, Policy
and World Affairs.
Robinson, R,. 1985. "Class, Capital and the State in
New Order Indonesa", in Richard Higgot and Richard
Robison (eds), Southeast Asia: Essayy in The Political
Economy of Structural Change, London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Robison, R., & Vedi R. H. 2004. Reorganizing Power in
Indonesia: Politics of Oligarchy in An Age of Markets.
New York: Routledge Curzon.
Robinson, R., 2008. Indonesia: The Rise of Capital.
Jakarta: Equinox Publishing.
Saputra, M. B. 2018, January 24. Politics in Indonesia: Its
Business As Usual. Retrieved from The Diplomat:
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/politics-in-indonesia-
its-business-as-usual/
Winter, Jeffrey A. 2011. Oligarchy. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Business Relations in Democratizing Indonesia
1495