campaigns against free market in education

8/8/2019 Campaigns Against Free Market in Education

1/36

March 8, 2010

Abstract

This study examines the dynamics of collective actions undertaken by different groups

against the new education Law No. 9/2009, entailing transformation of the educational

institutions into independent legal entities. How did state and social movements engage each

other in the process of educational policy making? What arguments are introduced by the

state and its challengers in the process of engagement? What factors have been playing roles

in boosting social movement actions, and how these actions have shaped the current

formation of the law? Issues, arguments, media coverage and challenges faced by the

opposition groups are examined, using theories of political and cultural processes partially

embedded in the global perspective. Content analysis on sixty three online newspaper articles

is undertaken. Strength and weakness of the opposition, in addition, is investigated to identify

some causes of its success or failure. The study demonstrates that the interaction among

opponents and exponents of this law involves complex political and cultural processes.

Neoliberal ideas promoting market-oriented system of education are contested through public

spaces generated by media and social interactions. The aim of the opponents to overturn this

new law, that is assumed to be neoliberal, and market-oriented in nature, is constrained

externally on the global level and internally on the national level. These social movement

opponents, however, partially succeeded in shaping its final formulation.

Keywords : education, Indonesia, social movement, globalization, neoliberalism

1


2/36

March 8, 2010

Campaigns against Free Market in Education: A Case of Law No. 9 Year 2009Pertaining to Education Legal Entity in Indonesia

Before 1998, education in Indonesia had been highly subsidized by the central

government in Jakarta. Following the eruption of instability in 1998, the power of the

government has been weakening for several years until it recently succeeded to recover again.

During this transitional term, there has been an emerging structure of power relations in

education between government and people. Due to the economic crisis, government wanted

to hand education out to the market. By doing so, it was believed that education market

would become more competitive and quality can be improved. This, according to them,

cannot be realized without leaving the invisible hands of the market to play out. In order to

legitimize this free market-oriented system, the government proposed a law drafted in 2003

and passed by the Central House of Representative on December 17, 2008. There had been

campaigns against this law since it was proposed in February 2003 (DPR 2003 ) . These

campaigns involved students, educators, and education activists. They accused this law draft

of being a neoliberal project that would threaten the interests of most people. In addition, they

argued that it did not accommodate spirit and culture of the established educational system

traditionally run by local and non-government groups. As a result, this law draft had been

revised several times.

This paper explores the dynamics of these collective actions undertaken by different

groups against the new Law No. 9/2009 that entails transformation of the educational

institutions into autonomous legal entities. How have state and social movements engaged

each other in the process of educational policy making? What arguments were introduced by

the state and its challengers in the process of encounter? What factors have been playing roles

in boosting social movement actions, and how these actions have shaped the latest formation

of the law? It is very important for the social movement actors and civil agents to understand2


3/36

March 8, 2010

these dynamics in order to be able to generate effective changes serving the interests of the

Indonesian people. On the other hand, it is useful for the student of social movements and

globalization scholarship to reveal how global and local actors in a particular state-nation

within the domain of educational service engage each other to contribute to the literature.

It is assumed that collective actions against market-oriented spirit embedded in the

law bill have partially succeeded to shape the final version of this law. This success is mainly

mediated by the political and cultural opportunities available, supported by relative

availability of the organizational resources and cognitive liberation. This assumption is held

based on the fact that the social movement undertaken by the civil society was not without

any impact on the final version of the law under study. However, this social movement was

not able to eliminate the main issue, i.e., education liberalization, embedded in this new law

bill. Educational institutions, especially higher education, have to compete in the market to

survive. Otherwise, they risk bankruptcy.

Taking a discursive approach within the global context, a political and cultural

perspective of the social movement theories is applied to make sense on the dynamics of the

actions and their outcomes.

Theoretical Perspectives

Global Insight

What globalization means for educational change (Carnoy and Rhoten 2002) is an

important question in the current globalized world because what happens at global level

actively interacts with events at local level. Spring (2009) argues that globalization of the

educational institutions and their practices are consequences of the flows of ideas and goods,

and of the organizational networks. How intense the effect that globalization brings about is

determined by the local actors interpretations or rejection. This process, according to Drori,

Meyer, and Hwang (2006), is easier to understand if the modern globalization is seen as a

3


4/36

March 8, 2010

cultural and political process as Appadurai (1996) and Giddenss (2000) theories of

globalization suggest. Thus, institutional arrangement cannot only be understood based on a

cultural or an economic factor only. It is as a complex process, in which different forces and

bases involved corresponding to the agentic actorhood and rationality held by people to

generate legitimacy for their decisions and livelihood. It has been argued by Marx (1994)

supported by Bourdieu (1992) in his habitus and Giddens (1987; 1984) in his structuration

notion that human beings make their own history, but they do not make it under

circumstances chosen by themselves (p. 188). Global neoliberalism has created a different

structure of power relations at the global and local level where market plays a crucial role.

State and Market

Global neoliberalism has a particular perspective around the relationship between

state and market.

Harvey (2007) explains,

Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individualentrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized bystrong private property rights, free markets, and free trade. The role of the state is tocreate and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices. (p. 2)

This definition is embedded in the historical development of capitalism in developed

capitalist countries. It is a historical stage of society that has its own material basis. It is also

not a return, as Howard and King (2008) argued, to the 19 th century classical liberalism, but

is compatible with. (p. 193). Thus, it is questionable to resemble neoliberalism in these

advanced capitalist countries with neoliberalism in the non-advanced countries, like

Indonesia because, according to Howard and King (2008), neoliberalism is not as a singular

entity having similar causes and consequences the world over, irrespective of the levels of

economic development and type of political system. (p. 194) However, it is argued here that

with technological advancement and global institutions, such as WTO, the World Bank, IMF

4


5/36

March 8, 2010

and Unesco operating around the world, there is a strong global force to align other countries,

regardless of their economic level, with the same system. This is what has been happening in

Indonesia. Yet, the final outcomes of this process are not necessarily similar to what

happened in the advanced capitalist countries as many local variations may be involved.

Hill and Kumar (2009), in line with Harveys definition of neoliberalism and Hayeks

definition of classical liberalism, asserts that neoliberalism requires some conditions both at

international and national level. State must be strong to generate these conditions. At the

international level, it requires that barriers to international trade and capitalist enterprise are

removed, a field for multinational companies within all sectors of national economies must be

provided, and rules and regulations must support a free trade system. At the national level, it

needs markets for goods and services, supports for private-sector to participate in providing

public services such as education, and states abandoning subsidies and financial supports to

lower public expenditure.

The new law bill under study is loaded with these global and national level

requirements that attracted people to react to its introduction. Nevertheless, Indonesia is

relatively a weak state to function as an effective mediator among different groups in a

participatory democratic fashion by which public interests are warranted. As a result, vested

global interests can undermine the common interests of the Indonesian people. In other

words, globalization and the advent of democratic system in Indonesia have created political

and cultural opportunities that can enable or constrain for people to participate in social

arrangements and changes.

Locating Political and Cultural Process Theory

Political opportunities are considered to be very important in developing collective

actions by certain weak groups that are excluded from the main stream. These opportunities

may, to note, create both enabling and constraining environment to affect the actual

5


6/36

March 8, 2010

developments on the ground . This environment is, to some extent, effective to prevent or to

give rise to collective actions. But, it, for different reasons, keeps changing. Then, moments

of change can turn out to become a turning point for the challengers, if their indigenous

resources are sufficient, to introduce oppositions to the challenged to negotiate and achieve

their interests. It means that relying only on the structural and external factors for changes, as

understood by classical and resource mobilization school (McCarthy and Zald 1977), without

taking internal factors into consideration cannot provide us better explanation on social

actions. Social movements are ongoing product of the favorable interplay of both external

and internal factors to the movement (McAdam 1999: 40).

Political opportunities, then, do not directly produce serious challenges to the existing

obstacles of achieving their interests. It is the resources of the challenger that can help create

successful actions. In the absence of those resources, such as members, incentive

structures, communication network and leaders, the challengers are more likely to lose the

capacity to act even when political opportunities are available (McAdam 1999: 40-49).

However, these opportunities and resources are insufficient to generate effective movements

when members do not have liberated vision so called cognitive liberation.

One of the central problematic of insurgency, then, is whether favorable shifts in political opportunities will be defined as such by a large enough group of people tofacilitate collective protest (McAdam 1999:48).

This cognitive liberation can, according to McAdam (1999), be invoked by a shifting

political environment. When an old system loses legitimacy, people start demanding change,

and developing political efficacy.

Thus, successful collective actions are more like to occur when there is an actively

inclusive interplay between political opportunities, movement resources, and cognitive

liberation among the proponents. This, nevertheless, is a complex process, involving framing

and contestation, which is not easy to be grasped.

6


7/36

March 8, 2010

Snow, Rochford, Worden, and Benford (1986) define framing as a linkage of

individual and SMO interpretative orientations, such that some set of individual values and

beliefs and SMO activities, goals, and ideology are congruent and complementary (p. 464).

Thus, it is important for a social movement to have activities and ideologies that are

symmetrical with their members values or vice versa. They argue that frame alignment in the

forms of bridging, amplification, extension and transformation is a necessary condition for

movement participation, whatever its nature or intensity.

Benford and Snow (2000) criticize political process school that devalues the existence

of what so-called cultural opportunities as opposed to political opportunities. Accordingly,

this school downplays the role of culture in the process of framing as political opportunities

do. For them, the extant stock of meanings, beliefs, ideologies, practices, values, myths,

narratives, and the like are relevant to movement framing processes (p. 629). On the other

hand, Fine (1995) argues that culture also becomes resource through the public share of talk

and behavior to promote identification using rituals and available resources, both material

and symbolic. This process occurs within a group as a space for members to interact and

share meanings.

How then is a protest or a campaign enacted by the challenger? Injustice frame,

according to Klandermans (1992), is an important aspect of the social construction of the

protest, (p. 85) where information through mass media plays an important role in framing

the themes and counter-themes of public discourse. However, the actual formation and

transformation of collective beliefs take place in exchange within the groups and categories

with which individuals identify and within social networks (p. 89, 94).

It is understood that for the issue of campaigns against neoliberalism in Indonesias

education system, a global insight is inevitable in order to read how local actors and state

7


8/36

March 8, 2010

have interacted under certain conditions in which enabling or constraining structure has been

created.

Conceptual Framework

Drawn on the initial perspectives on globalization, state and market in neoliberalism,

and theories of political and cultural opportunities in social movement literature, a conceptual

map is generated as follows,

Global forces/neoliberal market

State

PoliticalCultural opportu

en

co

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

In Figure 1, it is conceptualized that global forces, especially neoliberal marketsystem, has generated a certain form of power relations between state and civil society. On

the other hand, state and civil society at the national level has been engaging in a complex

fashion that led to the formation of political and cultural opportunities. Civil society

engagement manifested in social movements is, to some extent, characterized by social and

political discontents. In their efforts to create changes, there are several both expected and

unexpected conditions that enable or constrain them from achieving goals.

This framework is applied to examine the dynamics of social actions against the

introduction of the neoliberal model of education arrangement through a legal product in

Indonesia.

8


9/36

March 8, 2010

Context of Change

Indonesias particular context can provide some insight into the historical root and the

social location of the campaign against free market in education.

Structural Opportunities

Following the collapse of Suhartos regime in May 1998, there was a rapid change in

the structure of the national institution. The most important mode of change was a shift from

a centralized system to a decentralized system. It was argued that shifting power from the

central government to the provinces, districts, and sub-districts would provide opportunities

for the people to participate in the process of national development. In other words, this will

motivate people to become involved in the national development by giving them trust to do

so. In order to legalize this new political direction, the foundational constitution of the

country has experienced four amendments. Along with this constitutional amendment,

different legal products were released. In 1999, the government released the Law of Sub-

national Governance and the Law of Financial Balance between Central Government and

Sub-National Government.

Negotiating Power Relations in Education

In education, in order to implement a decentralized system of education, the Law of

National Education System No. 20 Year 2003 was released to replace the former Law of

National Education System Year 1989 that was considered incompatible with the latest

development in the structure of the national institutions. Following the release of this new

law, several legal products in education were introduced.

First, in 2005, the Law of Teacher and Lecturer was released to professionalize

teaching jobs based on certification, educational qualification, and credentiality. Second, in

the same year, a government regulation on the National Education Standard was released to

set benchmark for the minimum quality of education required from school and higher

9


10/36

March 8, 2010

education institutions. This becomes the main parameter to determine whether an education

institution has done its tasks or not. In other words, power relations between educational

institutions and their customers are regulated and mediated by the government through legal

documents or texts. There was an independent institution established involving education

experts, mostly experts in educational management, so-called National Education Standard

Board to monitor the implementation of this standard. Third, in 2003 the government

introduced to the public a legal bill called the Law of Education Legal Entity that becomes

the main subject of this study.

This legal bill was blamed for supporting the privatization of education system from

the primary level to the higher education level. The government argued that by giving

autonomy to schools, colleges and universities to manage themselves, it would stimulate

productive competition among players in the market. As a result, according to the

government, the quality of education will be improved. The government will only provide

financial supports for the education institutions on a merit basis through grants. Similarly to

the poor students, they will be given financial supports if they can demonstrate high

achievement.

In higher education, as a consequence of the paradigm change and institutional

development in the country, the state launched a new government regulation in 1999 as a

legal basis to transform state public universities to become autonomous universities labeled

state legal entity university. Some called this process a privatization action that will lead to

the exclusion of the underprivileged citizens from getting access to higher education.

But, most of the pro government people argued that this was the only way to get rid of any

problems associated with the underdeveloped condition of Indonesias higher education

compared to other neighboring countries higher education.

10


11/36

March 8, 2010

The state was proactive to realize this project by asking the four most established

universities (i.e., University of Indonesia, University of Gadjah Mada, Technology Institute

of Bandung, and Agriculture Institute of Bogor) in the country to submit proposals to change

their status.

Indeed, these four universities had changed to be state owned legal entity universities in

2000. As a consequence, their bureaucracy was separated from the state and their

management has become more market-oriented.

Following this small scale project, the Law of Education Legal Entity No. 9 2009

mandated all schools and universities to become autonomous and self-run within two years

for universities that had held state owned legal entity university status and within six years

for other educational institutions that had not.

Power Relation at the Global Level

It seems that education during Suhartos regime had a special place in order to support

modernization and industrialization program under the rhetoric of social justice and

prosperity for all. Nevertheless, policy dynamics during his administration had not been

played out significantly. This static condition is much to do with his authoritarian direction

using national stability and security as a pretext. But, at the end of his political regime, he

could not escape from the global world system. Emerging global economic crisis in 80s to

90s had shaken his industrialization project. At the same time, it had allowed civil society

movements to challenge his power legitimacy. Interestingly, his regime leniency to listen to

the peoples voices who wanted changes in education system to include the excluded groups

had only started to increase during the time of emerging economic crisis. Most of these

groups had been excluded from the main stream for political and ideological reasons. As a

result, significant change in higher education in 1994 was achieved; four years before the end

of Suhartos regime and the beginning of democracy in Indonesia.

11


12/36

March 8, 2010

This change in higher education policy orientation demanded the central government

to change management system in higher education to be autonomous in developing relevant

knowledge and culture to the development of the global world. They argued that mass and

centralized governance of higher education would not improve the competitiveness of higher

education in Indonesia. On the other hand, there was strong demand to unify higher education

system under the same national standard to ease management complexity. This

institutionalizing effort was legitimized through the release of the government regulation on

higher education regarding community participation in developing higher education in 1990.

As a result, a new board called National Accreditation Board (BAN) was established

in 1994 under a ministerial decision letter, and then renewed in 1998. Under this new policy,

it was stressed that both public and private higher education institutions would be treated in

the same way based on the same principle of quality assurance (Brojonegoro 2001). This

implies the partial shift of the higher education control from the government to the civil

society. On the other hand, it implicitly indicates the direct impact of emerging economic

crisis forcing the central government to deregulate its relationship to the society.

At the global level, there are some important events that have direct impacts on the

way education is run in Indonesia as a result of the Indonesias dependency on the

international financial institutions, such as IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization.

In 1994, Indonesia joined the World Trade Organization and consequently ratified the

Uruguay Round Agreement through the Law of Agreement Establishing the World Trade

Organization No. 7 Year 1994. On February 7-25, 2005, in WTO meeting in Geneva,

Indonesia held meetings with Taiwan, Japan, USA, and EU to discuss lists of services that

would be included in WTOs General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (Nandika

2007). Education service was then included in the list. Consequently, Indonesia had to open

its gates for the foreign institutions that want to run business in education in the country.

12


13/36

March 8, 2010

This binding agreement was then formulated nationally in the Law of Capital Investment No.

25 Year 2007 and Presidential Regulation No. 77 Year 2007 listing open and closed business

fields. Education in this regulation is one of the service types in which foreign investment can

be used with the maximum of 49 percent from the total investment made in an education

legal entity institution.

In summary, external and internal environments have allowed for different parties to

negotiate power relations, where democracy becomes a political force that enables and at the

same time constrains those parties involved in the field. At the global level, political change

in the country has opened opportunities for the global economy players to engage in many

types of investment that were previously controlled by the state. On other hand, civil society

has become more actively involved in the political arena where government acting on behalf

of the state and people has to take a position as a mediator between global and civil force. In

its effort to mediate, regulations and laws are used to set clear agreements.

Method

Data

Data used in this study are online newspaper reports, mainly from Kompas,

Republika, Media Indonesia, Suara Pembaharuan, Tempo and Jasindo Online. There are sixty

three articles pulled out from these online resources, dated from November 15, 2002 to

September 19, 2009 to become the main source for this study.

In order to capture the dynamics of the public discourse in relation to the issue of

educational privatization embedded in the spirit of the Law of Education Legal Entity No. 9

Year 2009, those articles are coded using a coding scheme created intuitively, focusing on

four aspects: issues, groups and level of media coverage; number of references for each main

issue raised by groups; main arguments made by different groups; and finally distance

mapping among cities where movement actions took place or were covered by media.

13


14/36

March 8, 2010

On the other hand, it is important to show the interaction between the pro (i.e.,

government and its allies) and cont groups (i.e., social movements) in relation to the impact

of change it brought about in the final version of this law. This will show qualitatively how

much impact the social movements have on their opposition to eliminate neoliberal elements

in the final version of this law. Therefore, three different legal documents of drafts, namely

October 15, 2005; December 5, 2007; and December 17, 2008, the final version of law draft

that was signed by the government on January 17, 2009, are selected to become the second

data.

I do not pretend that these online resources can cover the whole issues raised in

relation to the dynamics of these social actions. Our discussion and argument will be

confined within the bandwidth of these resources. But, we do believe that these data can help

us capture some interesting processes in which different groups have articulated their

messages to shape the final version of the law bill under question.

Analysis

Procedure

Data were analyzed to uncover patterns and themes they have using coding procedure

(Rubin and Rabbie 2005; Davidson and McAllister 2002; and Miles and Huberman 1994).

At the beginning, the online resources were entered into NVivo resource storage,

software for qualitative data management. During the process of data entry, analysis has

started by making codes for each piece of information in each article based on relevant issues

raised by different groups within each sentence. The 63 articles are units of the analysis and

sentences are bases of the coding reference. It is worth noting that when the same issue was

raised by the same group in one article, coding was not repeated. By the end of this process, a

free structure of coding system was generated to become the starting point to create a new

analytical structure of the coding system based on the characteristics of themes emerging

14


15/36

March 8, 2010

from the data. In other words, the unstructured codes in the form of free coding system were

abstracted to form conceptual themes, representing issues discussed and contested.

These themes were then displayed in frequency tables to become references for the

interpretation performed.

With respect to the drafts of the law bill, texts of the three draft versions were

tabulated according to the issues raised by the opponent and the supporter to examine the

interaction between voices and impact they brought about in the form of substantial revisions.

Themes

Eight main themes or issues were generated from the analysis. Seven were

categorized as opposition voices and one as in favor voices. The opposition voices are

timing, comprehensiveness, teacher at risk, state intervention, foreign intervention,

market-oriented, and ideologically unconstitutional.

Timing is defined as voices that disagree with the new law, arguing that Indonesia is a

nation that has not ready yet to adopt a modern system of educational organization. In other

words, such a system, according to these voices, should not be introduced until Indonesia

becomes an advanced nation. For instance, they said, The new law was not applicable due to

the managerial and financial problems schools had.

Comprehensiveness is defined as voices that disagree with the new law, arguing that

this law does not accommodate the interests (e.g., culture and financial condition) of all

education institutions in the country. For example, they argued, This law did not

accommodate the regional and level characteristics of the school.

Teacher at risk is defined as voices that disagree with the new law, arguing that this

law will put teachers in the weak position as opposed to their employers. They argued, for

example, This law weakened teacher position and resembled it with the labor worker

position

15


16/36


17/36

March 8, 2010

Findings

Discussion on the dynamics of the contestation among different groups on

neoliberalism and education introduced in the law bill under study will be pursued after

presenting findings.

Contested Issues in the Law Bill

It can be seen from Table 1 that there are eight issues raised by different groups in

their campaigns against or supporting this law bill. While the opposition occupies 87.6

percent of the media coverage, the proponent occupies only 12.4 percent of the coverage.

Issues addressed by the proponent are less covered. In other words, their arguments (i.e.,

efficiency, accountability, competitiveness, autonomy, professionalism, justice, and state

ability to prevent undesired global effects) are not well covered and elaborated by media. On

the other hand, issues raised by the opponent are highly presented (87.6%) in media.

Table 1: Number of References for Each Main Issue

No. IssueLevel of Coverage

Reference^ Article Number/Percentage

1 Timing 10 (9.3%)

O p p o s

i t i o n2 Comprehensiveness 13 (13%)

3 Teacher at risk 6 (7.2%)4 State intervention 3 (3.1%)5 Foreign intervention 3 (3.1%)6 Market-oriented 39 (40%)7 Ideologically unconstitutional 11 (10%) Block Total 85 (87.6%) 53 (84 %)

8 Rational-functional 12 In favor

Block Total 12.4% 10 (16 %)

Grand Total 97 (100%) 63 (100 %)

(^) represents number and percentage of references corresponding to each issue where sentence made as the basis of reference incoding.

It is also important to note that market-oriented issue in education has become the

most important domain of contestation in the bill. It occupies 40 percent of the grand total

references. Other ideological or cultural issues are ideologically unconstitutional (10 %),

teacher at risk (7.2%), state and foreign intervention (3.1% each). The rest is technical issues,

namely comprehensiveness (13%) and timing (9.3%).

17


18/36

March 8, 2010

Who Says What

Parties involved in this campaign vary in terms of their background and interest. This

variation is reflected in their arguments with respect to the legal bill (see Table 2). References

to the opposition group occupy 87.6 percent of the total, and the rest 12.4 percent is to the in

favor group.

Market-oriented issue turns out to become the most contested issue by the opposition,

where students were shown to become the most outspoken groups (27.8% of the total) in

campaigning against the introduction and the implementation of this new law bill. Five of the

nine contesting groups engage most their arguments with the market-oriented issue, i.e.,

student (66.7%), Taman Siswa Foundation (50%), NGOs activist (40.4%), expert (53%), and

teacher (50%). Rector Forum and MP members that are suspected to be strongly allied with

the proponent interests choose to engage with timing and comprehensiveness issue. Private

university organizer group is exceptional because they engage with timing,

comprehensiveness, and state intervention, but they do not touch the rational and functional

issue as the MP member and government group do.

Student arguments, 27.8 percent of the total references in the data, consist of timing

(7.4%), comprehensiveness (11.1%), foreign intervention (3.7%), market-oriented (66.7%),

and ideologically unconstitutional (11.1%) issue. On the other hand, issues raised by the

Taman Siswa Foundation occupy 9.3 percent of the total references. This comprises of three

issues, namely comprehensiveness (20%), market-oriented (50%), and ideologically

unconstitutional (30%). Furthermore, NGOs activists raise issues, 9.3% of the total, of

18


19/36

March 8, 2010

Table 2: Group ArgumentsOpposition In Favor Total

N o .

G r o u p s

T i m i n g

C o m p r e

h e n s

i v e n e s s

T e a c

h e r a

t r i s

k

S t a t e i n t e r v e n

t i o n

F o r e

i g n

I n t e r v e n

t i o n

M a r k e

t - o r i e n

t e d

I d e o

l o g

i c a

l l y

U n c o n s

t i t u t i o n a

l

R a

t i o n a

l - f u n c

t i o n a

l

O p p o s

i t i o n

I n F a v o r

1 Student 2 (7.4%)* 3 (11.1%) - - 1 (3.7%) 18 (66.7%) 3 (11.1%) - 27 (27.84%)^ -

2 TamanSiswaFoundation

- 2 (20%) - - - 5 (50%) 3 (30%) - 10 (10.31%) -

3 NGO'sActivist

- - 1 (11.1%) - 1 (11.1%) 4 (44.4%) 3 (33.3%) - 9 (9.28%) -

4 PrivateUniversityOrganizer

3 (27.3%) 5 (45.5%) - 3 (27.3%) - - - - 11 (11.34%) -

5 Expert 2 (11.8%) 1 (5.8%) 2 (11.8%) - 1 (5.8%) 9 (53%) 2(11.8%) 2 (100%) 17 (17.53%) 2 (2.06%)

6 Teacher - - 3 (50%) - - 3 (50%) - - 6 (6.19%) -7 Rector

Forum(StateUniversity)

3 (60%) 2 (40%) - - - - - - 5 (5.15%) -

8 MP Member (Legislative)

- - - - - - - 5 (5.2%)-

5 (5.15%)

9 Government(Executive)

- - - - - - - 5 (5.2%)-

5 (5.15%)

Total 85 (87.6%) 12 (12.4%)97

(*) represents percentage out of the total of 'Opposition' or 'In Favor'(^) represents the percentage out of the total of 'Opposition' and 'In Favor'

19


20/36

March 8, 2010

teacher at risk (11.1%), foreign intervention (11.1%), market-oriented (44.4%), and

ideologically unconstitutional (33.3%).

While private university organizers raise issues, 11.3 percent of the total, of timing

(27.3%), comprehensiveness (45.5%), and state intervention (27.3%), Rector Forum only

raise two issues, 5.2 percent of the total, i.e., timing (60%), and comprehensiveness (40%).

Expert group on the other hand address all issues (17.5 of the total) that are raised by other

groups, except state intervention. Market-oriented (53%) is found to become their main

arguments, yet timing (11.8%), comprehensiveness (5.8%), teacher at risk (11.8%), foreign

intervention (5.8%), and rational-functional are also touched.

Finally, even though parliament members are supposed to observe the action of the

government for the interest of the people they represent, it is clear that both groups (i.e., the

government and MP) argue only in favor of this law bill (5.2% each of the total) based on

rational-functional reasoning.

Locally Centralized, Poorly Interconnected

Table 3 shows that geographically students and other proponents do not have spatial

proximity in order to enable them to build networks effectively. The center of the discourse

and movement that enjoy 44

percent of media coverage is

located in Jakarta, the capital

of the country. Other

movement centers are located

in other cities; some are

located in the same island, Java

(i.e., Bandung, Semarang, Yogyakarta where Taman Siswa Foundation is located, and

20

Table 3: Distance among CitiesID Distance City Event1 0 Jakarta 29 (44%)2 180 Bandung 8 (1.52%)3 434 Palembang 1 (1.52%)4 544 Semarang 1 (1.52)5 603 Yogyakarta 18 (27%)6 700 Pontianak 2 (3.03%)7 849 Surabaya 1 (1.52%)8 1243 Samarinda 1 (1.52%)9 1413 Makassar 3 (4.55%)10

2115 Aceh 2 (3.03%)

Total 66 (100%)


21/36

March 8, 2010

Surabaya) and some cities (i.e., Palembang, Pontianak, Samarinda, Makassar and Aceh) are

far away from Jakarta, isolated by seas.

Interaction between the Government and the Movement Actors in the Law Drafts

On December 5, 2007, a new version of the law bill has been released to replace the

former October 5, 2005 version. This version was then followed by another version of draft,

then eventually passed by the House of Representative on December 17, 2008, and signed by

the government on January 17, 2009. Within these different periods of time, there were many

responses from the public addressing issues around the legitimacy of the draft proposed by

the government anchored in ideology (i.e., market-orientation, teacher at risk, state

intervention, foreign intervention, and unconstitutionality) and technicality (i.e., timing and

comprehensiveness).

Table 4 shows the density of change occurs as a result of the engagement between the

opponent and the proponent. It can be seen that in order to legitimate the law, the proponent

Table 4: Substantial Revision in the Law DraftView Issue Pattern of Change

5-Oct-2005* 5-Dec-07 5-Dec-08

I n f a v o r

Rational-functional ! x xx

O p p o s i

t i o n

(1) Timing ! x -(2) Comprehensiveness ! x xx(3) Teacher at risk ^ ! x(4) State intervention ! x xx(5) Foreign intervention ^ ^ x(6) Market-oriented ! x -(7) Ideologically unconstitutional ! - --

(*) represents date in which draft introduced to the public.

(^) represents untouched issue at a certain period of time in the law draft.

(!) represents issues identified in a certain period of time in the law draft.

(x) represents the occurrence of substantial revisions made in the draft within different time periods corresponding to the issueraised.(-) represents the absence of substantial revisions made in the draft within a certain time period corresponding to the issue raised.

has identified the presence of challenges from the public on their rational-functional base

argument. As a result, they have tried to make some modification in the law draft in 2007 and

2008 in order to respond to the challenging voices.

21


22/36

March 8, 2010

In addition, while rational-functional rationale, timing, comprehensiveness, state

intervention, market-oriented, and unconstitutionality had been identified before October 5,

2005, teacher at risk and foreign intervention issues had not been identified until October 5,

2005 and December 5, 2007 respectively. Furthermore, unconstitutionality in a sense that the

state abandons its public responsibility to prevent educational institutions from failure or

bankruptcy by incorporating them is the only issue that has been identified, but not been

touched in the draft. Finally, it can be seen that the most dynamic engagement between the

opponent and the proponent of the law draft is in 2006 and 2007 in which the draft has

experienced substantial revisions in responding to the main issues raised by the social

movement actors.

Discussions

Engaging public in the process of law and decision making is relatively a new

phenomenon in Indonesia. Before 1998, citizens would have not imagined that they would be

able to participate in shaping and influencing public policy without being killed or

imprisoned.

Global, national and local situation has offered political opportunities that both

enabling and constraining for the civil society (McAdam 1999). This complexity was

reflected clearly in the draft of the law bill of the education legal entity that becomes the

concern of the current study. The first draft showed strong inclination to the free market in

education where state responsibility for education was not stated clearly. This had invoked

strong reaction from the civil society to struggle against this market-oriented product of law.

Benford and Snow (2000) argued it was not wise to underestimate the existence of

what so-called cultural opportunities in understanding social movement dynamics. It seems

that government as the challenged and civil society as the challenger shares the same culture

in terms of democracy, justice and social order. Given the fact that the government as the

22


23/36

March 8, 2010

challenged has not become a significant threat anymore for the public to act collectively,

potency of master frame to capitalize the utilization of these available political opportunities

becomes crucial (Snow and Benford 1992). In other words, previous political events that

forced the authoritarian system to be changed has allowed the emergence of cultural and

political contestation in the field, in relation to the campaign against free market values and

practices in education. However, the global system has conditioned the nation to operate in a

certain global model. It is eventually not easy for such cultural opportunities to generate a

win-win solution between state, civil society and global forces.

Figure 2 illustrates how these political and cultural opportunities have conditioned

collective actions against neoliberal and market-oriented forces in the law. Enabling social

PoliticalCultural opportunities

Enabling

- Democraticcondition- Past successfulexperiences

- Informationtechnology

- Contradiction inframing andintersection of forces

Figure 2: Dynamics of Actions to Create Change in the Law

condition for collective social actions to make changes has created a constraining condition

as well.

Democratic condition, experience of success in making social and political changes,

and availability of the internet did not necessarily lead social actors to a successful action to

invalidate the educational law that supported neoliberal system. Contradiction in framing,

intersection of forces, differences in political and cultural interests, geographical condition,

23


24/36

March 8, 2010

and state strategy had prevented them to utilize available opportunities to realize their

ultimate goal to invalidate the new law. These constraining elements will characterize the

following discussions.

Contradiction in Framing and Intersection of Forces

Snow and Benford (1992) argue that framing issues and processes can play an

important role in affecting political opportunities, changes in the larger political environment,

and the availability of resources (p. 152). They (1988) theorize that there are four factors

that can affect the mobilizing potency of movement framing efforts, i.e., the degree to which

core framing tasks (i.e., diagnostic, prognostic, motivational) are richly developed and

interconnected; the internal constraints of belief systems with which a movement attempts to

affect alignment; the relevance of proffered framings to the phenomenological life world of

potential participants; and the cycle of protests in which movement are embedded (p. 213).

When social movements manage to realize these elements, they do not only link individuals

and groups ideologically but they proffer, buttress, and embellish identities that range from

collaborative to conflictual (Hunt, Benford, and Snow 1994:185).

Bearing this in mind along with the global environment (Spring 2009; Drori at. al

2006; and Carnoy and Rhoten 2002), issues raised by the proponent and the opponent of the

law bill (i.e., Law of the Education Legal Entity) under question will be examined.

Table 1 to some extent implies the presence of the political (McAdam, McCarthy, and

Zald 1996) and cultural (Benford and Snow 2000) opportunities that allows both parties,

government and civil society, to promote their beliefs and ideas in mass media.

The level of media coverage (87.6%) on the issues raised by the opponent compared

to that of the challenged side, i.e., government and its allies (only 12.4%), does not only

reflect varied opponents in terms of education liberalization agenda. It also indicates that

24


25/36

March 8, 2010

media has participated actively in creating political and cultural space for the civil society

(Fine 1995; and Klandermans 1992).

Compared to the insurgency struggle to force Suhartos regime to step down, issues

raised in this campaign are not unified in a concrete problem, e.g., economic failure and

corruption. Even though most of the issues are ideological or cultural (63.4%) in this

campaign, they are not expressed in a uniform term or language. Consequently, they have

less potency to attract public attentions in order to obtain new constituents or adherents. It is

distractive for people to understand massages that are expressed using different arguments

that are not cohesively interconnected. For example, timing, comprehensiveness and state

intervention are three arguments that are not strongly interlinked to the issue of liberalization,

especially state intervention.

It would be different in result, arguably, if they focus on well-connected issues, such

as market-oriented and ideologically unconstitutional, in fighting against free market

ideology. While market-oriented will be related to the issue of increasing price of education

that can disadvantage the poor and allow at the same time foreign intervention,

unconstitutionality issue will operate against the fundamental philosophy of the nation.

Threat to the have not and to the constitution is more likely to align wider range of

supporters. This is because ideologically Indonesias foundational constitution is anti free

market and it has also been accepted by the people as an ideology for centuries, before

Indonesia as a state existed. Indeed, this foundational constitution embodying cultures of the

nation has made the nation endurable to go through a series of social and political waves

across time.

How then did these social actions against the free market spirit in education occur?

According to Tarrow (1989) quoted in Koopmans (1989), social movements emerge when

new opportunities are at hand such as a less repressive climate, splits within the elite, or the

25


26/36

March 8, 2010

presence of influential allies or supporters (p. 642). Less repressive climate as an

opportunity in the middle of the increasing education price had been a factor that made

people willing to campaign against the law bill. However, this opportunity contradicted with

the interest of the state and the global economic force that entailed the creation of free market

in education in Indonesia; a country inhabited by about 2.5 million people with a high

demand for better education. It can be, no doubt, become a lucrative market for the global

capital.

Contradiction in framing and layer of forces combined with differences in political

and cultural interests of the social movement actors add to the complexity of the

encountering.

Different Political and Cultural Interests

According to Whittier (1997), collective identities are not static, but changing in line

with the changing external context and internal conditions of the movement. Even though

this idea occurs in the context of political generation of social movement, it is helpful to

understand the variation associated with this movement.

While student, Taman Siswa Foundation, teacher, NGOs activist, and expert group

seem to form one pool as opposed to Rector Forum (state university), member of parliament,

and government group, private university organizer group stands alone showing their relative

ambiguity. This implies that groups participating in this social movement do not carry the

same beliefs and identities and they more or less act based on their own political and cultural

interests.

Student, Taman Siswa Foundation, teacher, NGOs activist, and expert group strongly

argue that this new legal bill will give rise to the commercialization of education by letting

the state to abandon their constitutional responsibility to provide education for the people and

give it to the market forces. At the same time, they argue, it will allow the foreign forces to

26


27/36

March 8, 2010

intervene in Indonesias educational system. In addition, this legal bill does not accommodate

the factual conditions of the existing educational system comprehensively where inequality in

facilities and capacities is wide among schools across the country. Therefore, it is not realistic

to impose such a very sophisticated law in the present time.

Interestingly, all opponent groups, except teacher group, who build their arguments

upon the market-oriented rationale, also base their arguments on the unconstitutionality issue.

These are groups that traditionally often confront the government on any issues that are not in

line with the interest of the people in general on the real political level. In addition, they are

groups that do not have so much interest to lose in showing criticism to the dominant power.

On the other hand, teachers, Rector Forum and members of parliament are groups that

typically have shared interests with the government. Similar to most teachers at schools and

lecturers at state universities, Rector Forum is actually a forum dominated by rectors who are

civil servants. Therefore, critique to the government when it comes from teachers and

lecturers is most likely to stem from temporary teachers or lecturers only.

It is worth noting that even though Taman Siswa Foundation is a private university, it

has a historical role in the process of fighting against the past Western imperialism in the

country through cultural empowerment. It was the place where the unity of the Indonesian

youth was declared in 1928 to show resistance over the imperialism. That might become the

reason why it takes quite distinct arguments as opposed to the private university organizer.

While Taman Siswa argues along side with student, NGOs activist, expert, and teacher

group using market-oriented rationale, the private university organizer avoids using this

argument. This is because private university has been operating so far independently from the

government intervention and to some extent they are the prototype of the privatized

educational institution.

27


28/36

March 8, 2010

Importantly, expert group might have some affiliation with other groups. Thus, it is

not surprising to find them addressing all issues, including their inclination to accept rational-

functional rationale and excluding state intervention issue. Furthermore, they might be

associated with different professional intellectual groups that are often ambiguous and

ambivalent in responding to any controversial issues in the society.

It has been argued that addressing less varied issues might be more efficient to make a

collective action succeed. It is also arguable that failure to share expertise among different

groups in protesting against this law bill has decreased the probability of making more

significant impact on this legal product. Furthermore, even though social elements that

participate in this campaign have some historical experiences or at least inspiration from the

previous movement that succeeded to remove the authoritarian system, they have become

more heterogeneous as well as accepted new political generations.

Levitsky (2007) argues that variation in organizational specialization does not only

reflect differences in beliefs and self-definitions, but it is also a strategic resource to form a

structural basis to the movement. What happened to the previous social movement actors that

succeeded to bring democracy to the country was that they differentiated their identities for

the purpose of winning resources, not adherents. Then, movements became increasingly

institutionalized and diversified.

For example, student movements had enjoyed a strong network across the country

prior to the collapse of the old political system regardless of their ethnic, religious and

geographical differences. Following their success, student organizations were re-diversified,

and to some extent institutionalized based on their political affiliations. While some very

critical students in the past were facilitated by the state to take part in the state developmental

project, some others who were not accommodated by the state became leaders in different

domestic and foreign NGOs.

28


29/36

March 8, 2010

Physical Barrier in the Era of Internet

In addition to the framing effort and ideological resonance insufficiency, the social

movement supporters were facing geographical challenge that kept them spatially isolated

each other. Consequently, their interaction level that was highly needed to build linked efforts

of framing was less meaningful and effective (see Fine 1995).

Taylor (1989) argues that although centralization contributes to a decline in direct-

action tactics, it has the advantage of producing the organizational stability, coordination, and

technical expertise necessary for movement survival (p. 768). She also argues that

preexisting links and organizational ties among individuals for the rise of collective action are

very important.

With regard to the social movement actors interactions, it costs them to have face to

face interactions that are very important for them to generate influential counter-discourse

around neoliberalism and market-oriented system. Consequently, their movements are

sporadic and then it is difficult for them to create strong and inspiring leadership that has an

ability to develop counter-ideology, i.e., anti-neoliberalism, against the main stream.

It can be argued that this reasoning is weak in the epoch of globalization and

information where internet has succeeded to make the world as a small village or shrunk.

Indeed, there are some cases (e.g., unjust trial toward a woman and conspiracy by the elite

against people who have high commitment to eradicate corruption in the country) where

Indonesian people have successfully challenged the power of the dominant by building public

opinion through internet, especially Facebook. This can only, however, operate effectively if

the issue raised easily understood as an action against injustice performed nakedly in front of

the public.

Neoliberalism in educational institutionalization is a complex process involving

complicated issues that are difficult to infuse with the basic needs of the public in order to

29


30/36

March 8, 2010

attract their supports, especially for the lower class people. Only higher class groups of

society have privilege to communicate utilizing information technology. Unfortunately, they

are not the main groups who directly and severely will be affected by the neoliberal system in

education.

States Legalistic Management

Interestingly, the government did not argue against opposition from the challenger on

the ideological level. They kept saying that the government would not abandon its

responsibility and would not privatize the education system. But, at the same time, they

formulated a law of education entity that took after a corporate model in its management. The

government also had not admitted openly that they worked to develop a regulation that fitted

the international agreement that had been signed at the global level. This fashion of actions

might be done strategically on purpose to avoid an expected wide resistance from civil

society.

This fashion implies that the state uses a legalistic frame to avoid confrontation with

the challenger. Karstedt-Henke quoted in Koopmans (1989) conceptualizes that the

challenged might use two types of strategies to deal with the opposition, i.e., repression for

the radical and facilitation for the moderate. Furthermore, Koopmans (1989) argues that it is

not the theme addressed that causes persistent waves of protests, but it is the use of repression

and facilitation. On the other hand, Tarrow (1989) argues in order to generate a regular wave

of protests, there must be an organized logic through competition and tactical innovation

within the social movement sector (quoted in Koopmans 1989:653).

With respect to the movement against free market spirit in the legal bill under study,

both repression and competition among groups were not present. Instead, the government

utilized facilitation strategy through legalistic approach to channel civil society opposition.

30


31/36

March 8, 2010

Similarly, the challengers did not compete in developing innovative methods of campaigns

and protests.

Consequently, the challengers that were focusing on the issue of liberalization and

marketization of education did not find a good space to generate their opposition openly.

Therefore, it is not surprising to find that often different parties bring different ideas to the

debate. Sometimes, these ideas are not consistent with their group identities. For example,

students did not voice the issues cohesively. They did not only problematize the issues of

unconstitutionality and market-orientation that were clearly against the foundational

constitution of the country, they also addressed the issues of timing and comprehensiveness at

the same time. The last two issues are not solidly relevant to the first two issues that pertain

to the goal of turning down this law bill. As a result, the challenged parties (i.e., the

government and its allies) found this inconsistency as fuzzy issues that could be countered

easily.

Change Efforts

In general, the prolonged campaign, even if it did not succeed to entirely cancel the

passage of the law, has created a huge impact on the last version of it, especially on the issue

of comprehensiveness. However, it does not change the spirit of neoliberalism as the concept

of bankruptcy stays unchallenged in the law. In terms of comprehensiveness, for example, in

the October 5, 2005 draft, its consideration section, article b says,

In order to provide the best service for students, the Law of the National EducationSystem requires that education system has to apply autonomy principle for higher education and school/madrasah-based management for school.

Responding to the public voices in relation the issue of privatization, this article was

modified in 2007, 2008, and its final version to become,

The Education Legal Entity is to provide just and quality education for students,applying non-profit principle with an ability to manage its own financial matters.

It is stated in October 5, 2005 (in chapter VI, article 22) draft that,

31


32/36

March 8, 2010

Asset of an Education Legal Entity may come from organizer capital, loan and aidfrom other parties (Sec. 2). Central and local government only give aid (Sec. 3).

This section has been reviewed and changed to become,

Funding provision for a formal education managed by an Education Legal Entity is ashared responsibility between the central government, sub-national government, andcommunity bylaw (Sec. 2). Government, both central and sub-national, is responsibleto provide funding bylaw (Sec 3) (i.e., 20% of the annual budget). (December 5,2007 Draft: chapter V, article 33)

With respect to the funding schemes that led to the accusation of neoliberal practices

in education, in October 5, 2005 draft, chapter VI, article 22, section 2 on asset and capital, it

is stated that,

Asset of an Educational Legal Entity may come from organizer capital, loan and aidfrom other parties.

In section 3,

Central and local government only provides financial aid

This statement has brought about outrage from the public because aid is only a

voluntarily form of support by which government can decide unilaterally. As a result, in its

final version in chapter VI, article 40, section 2, it states,

Funding provision for a formal education managed by an Education Legal Entity is ashared responsibility between the central, sub-national government, and community

bylaw.

This final version, then, in chapter VI, article 40-46, gives details on how much

financial support must be provided by the government for education at basic school level,

middle level and university level. On other hand, it states clearly the maximum limit of

financial support can be collected by an educational unit from the community (i.e., one third)

for middle and higher education. For 9 year compulsory education, it is entirely funded by

the government. While it states that government must commit to allocate at minimum 20% of

the annual budget, it also states that only 10% of the Education Legal Entity annual income

volume can be used for investment.

Finally, the final version covers more items by which the October 5, 2005 draft that32


33/36

March 8, 2010

consists of only 13 chapters and 35 articles has been expanded to have 14 chapters and 69

articles in its final shape. The core value of the market-oriented system nevertheless remains

untouched by accepting the bankruptcy principle in this new law.

Conclusions

The aim of the social movement actors to invalidate the new Law of the Education

Legal Entity No. 9 Year 2009, that is assumed to be liberal and market-oriented, is

constrained externally and internally, but they partially succeeded to shape the formulation of

the law through a long and complex process of political and cultural contestation where local

and global factors are involved. This, to some extent, has influenced the future of the

institutional arrangement of education in Indonesia, in that market-oriented forces partly have

been institutionalized, leading to the deregulation of the public expenditure for education. On

the other hand, this study shows how state and civil society have been involved in power

negotiation under the global and local condition of Indonesia.

The challengers (i.e., students, some experts, teachers, and NGOs activists) have good

organizational and cultural resources, and enjoy political opportunities to express their

opposition freely in the public space. However, they are externally restrained by the global

political environment that has convinced the government, the challenged, to join competition

in the global market dominated by the world capital. Low repression from the state and the

availability of a legal path to channel opposition as a result of the increasing rationalization of

bureaucracy, on the other hand, reduce the ideological meanings of the issues raised by the

social movement exponents. Furthermore, this social movement that consists of groups with

different backgrounds and interests is isolated by geographical distance. This condition

significantly prevents them from having an effective social network and a central leader with

clear vision. This physical barrier could have been downplayed if the massages delivered by

the social movement actors were clearly articulated and convincingly told as something to

33


34/36

March 8, 2010

necessary for the basic needs and interests of the public. Both physical and ideological

barriers bring about difficulty to develop an incentive structure within different organizations.

Finally, they are differentiated horizontally and have different cultural capitals that are not

easy to bridge without solid shared interests, such as student and expert, student and teacher,

and state university staff and private university staff. As a result, they fail to mobilize them

effectively so that each component can support each other by maximizing their specialized

repertoires.

References

Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. "Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization."Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Benford, Robert D. and David A. Snow. 2000. "Framing Process and Social Movements: AnOverview and Assessment." Ann. Rev. Sociol. 26:611-39.

Benveniste, Luis. 2002. "The Political Structuration of Assessment: Negotiating State Power and Legitimacy." Comparative Education Review 46:89-118.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Loc J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology .Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brojonegoro, S. M. 2001. "Implementasi Paradigma Baru di Perguruan Tinggi [Implementing

a New Paradigmn in Higher Education]." Pp. 361-412 in Reformasi Pendidikandalam Konteks Otonomi Daerah , edited by F. Jalal and D. Supriadi. Yogyakarta:Adicita Karya Nusa.

Carnoy, Martin and Diana Rhoten. 2002. "What Does Globalization Mean for EducationalChange? A Comparative Approach." Comparative Education Review 46.

Davidson, B. and L. McAllister. 2002. "An Introduction to Qualitative Research Approach." ACQuiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing 4:28-31.

DPR. 2003. "Proses Pembahasan Rancangan Undang-Undang tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional [Consultation Process of the Law Draft about the National System of Education]." Jakarta: General Secretary of DPR.

Drori, Gili S., John W. Meyer, and Hokyu Hwang. 2006. "Globalization and Organization:World Society and Organizational Change ". Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. "Public Narration and Group Culture: Discerning Discourse in SocialMovements." in Social Movement and Culture , edited by H. Johnston and B.Klandermans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 1987. Social Theory and Modern Sociology . Cambridge: Polity &Blackwell.

. 2000. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives . London: Brunner Routledge.

. 1984. The Constitution of Society . Berkeley: University of California Press.

34


35/36

March 8, 2010

Harvey, David. 2007. "A Brief History of Neoliberalism." Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hill, Dave and Ravi Kumar. 2009. "Global Neoliberalism and Education and itsConsequences." New York: Routledge.

Howard, Michael C. and John E. King. 2008. "The Rise of Neoliberalism in AdvancedCapitalist Economies: A Materialist Analysis." New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hunt, Scott A., Robert D. Benford, and David A. Snow. 1994. "Identity Fields: FramingProcesses and the Social Construction of Movement Identities." in New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity , edited by E. Larana, H. Johnston, and J. R.Gusfield. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Klandermans, Bert. 1992. "The Social Construction of Protest and MultiorganizationalFields." in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory , edited by A. D. Morris and C. M.Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Koopmans, Ruud. 1989. "The Dynamics of Protest Waves: West Germany, 1965 to 1989." American Sociological Review 58:637-658.

Levitsky, Sandra R. 2007. "Niche Activism: Constructing A Unified Movement Identity in AHeterogeneous Organization Field." Mobilization: An International Quarterly Review12:271-286.

Marx, Karl. 1994. "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (exerpts)." Pp. 187-213 in Karl Marx: Selected Writings , edited by L. H. Simon. Indianapolis: Hackett PublishinCompany.

McAdam, Doug. 1999. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. 1996. Comparative Perspectives on

Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. "Resource Mobilization and Social Movement:A Partial Theory." The American Journal of Sociology 82:1212-1241.

Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman. 1995. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis . London: SAGE Publications.

Nandika, Dodi. 2007. Pendidikan Indonesia di Tengah Gelombang Perubahan [Indonesia's Education in the Middle of Change Wave] . Jakarta: LP3ES.

Rubin, A. and E. Rabbie. 2005. Research Methods for Social Work . Australia: Thomson

Learning, Inc.Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1988. "Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant

Mobilization." International Social Movement Research 1:197-217.

. 1992. "Master Frames and Cycles of Protest." Pp. 133-155 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory , edited by A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Snow, David A., JR. E. Burke Rochford, Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986."Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation."

American Sociological Review 51:464-481.

Spring, Joel. 2009. Globalization of Education: An Introduction . New York: Routledge.

35


36/36

March 8, 2010

Taylor, Verta. 1989. "Social Movement Continuity: The Women's Movement in Abeyance." American Sociological Review 54:761-775.

Whittier, Nancy. 1997. "Political Generations, Micro-Cohorts, and the Transformation of Social Movements." American Sociological Review 62:760-778.

campaigns against free market in education

Documents