Download - Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
1/31
How to cite this article
Nugroho, Yanuar (2008), Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs
and globalisation discourse in Indonesia, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research
Working Paper No. 13, Manchester: The University of Manchester
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
2/31
Spreadingtheword,broadeningperspectives:
Internet,NGOsandglobalisationdiscourseinIndonesia
YanuarNugroho
ManchesterInstituteofInnovationResearch,
TheUniversity
of
Manchester,
United
Kingdom
Abstract
Globalisationisambivalent.Ontheonehand,itbringsprosperity,comfortandconveniencein
the form of economic growth, technological advancement, more open and democratic
governance, and soforth.On the other hand, there are vast amounts of casualtiesfrom its
progress, which only benefits some groups or countries. NonGovernment Organisations
(NGOs) inIndonesiahaveestablishedthemselves inpivotalpositions inthesocial,economic
andpolitical
landscape
across
the
country,
and
their
growth
has
often
been
linked
with
globalisation.But therehasbeen little study tounderstandhowNGOs in Indonesia engage
with the issueofglobalisation itself.Globalisationhasactuallyjuststarted tobecomewidely
discussedamongcivil societyactivists in the late1990s.Anempiricalstudywasconducted
recently to seehow some IndonesianNGOs, in their endeavour to respond toglobalisation
issues and phenomena, and broadening the discourse on globalisation, utilise Internet
technology. The study draws on several case studies to build a detailed story about how
different organisations with different concerns deploy strategies to deal with the issue. In
addition,thestudyalsotriedtoportraythebigpictureofthedynamicsofIndonesianNGOsin
engaging with Internet technology through an exploratory survey involving some 268
organisations. It was confirmed that although currently there are a number of Indonesian
NGOs embracingparticular issuesand concerns inglobalisation, this trend is quite recent.Despite thefact that theglobalisation issue is relatively difficult to comprehend at large,
Indonesian NGOs seem to be able to incorporate the issues andput it into a wider, more
contextualandpossiblymorerelevantperspective.Itisarguedhowever,thatthissituation
cannot bejust takenforgrantedfor it is infact another consequence of the organisations
adoptinginformationtechnologies.
Keywords:
Indonesia;nongovernmentalorganisations(NGOs);globalisation;politics;Internetadoption
Acknowledgement
Idaman Andarmosoko assisted the qualitative data collection in Indonesia; Dr. Gindo Tampubolon provided
methodologicaladvice;Prof.IanMilesandDr.LawrenceGreensupervisedtheresearch;AdamMcGovernand
KathrynMorrisonproofread thedraft;andProf.StanMetcalfeofferedreviewandcomments.Thisresearch is
supportedby a number of organisations including the University of Manchesters OSS award, MIoIRs study
grant, FES grant,John Paul IIs 100 scholarship award, and BNV. This paper was presented in the ICAS 5th
ConferenceinKualaLumpursponsoredbyHIVOSgrant,ContractNo.QK035I01.
1
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
3/31
Spreadingtheword,broadeningperspectives:
Internet,NGOsandglobalisationdiscourseinIndonesia
YanuarNugroho
ManchesterInstituteofInnovationResearch,
TheUniversityofManchester,UnitedKingdom
WecanusetheInternettohelporganisingandmakingouradvocacy
worksmoreeffective,especiallytodealwithglobalisationissuewhichgives
birthtoenormousinjustices.Theorientationofourorganisationisto
exposeinjustices,andyouknow,itneedsalotofsystematicworks.The
technologyoffersthesequalitiestohelp.Whydontweuseit?
(SriPalupi,ExecutiveDirector,InstituteofEcosocRights,
interview,29/10/2005)
1 INTRODUCTION
Among academics, globalisation seems tobe a distinguishing trend of the present moment and is
certainlyone of themostdebated topics in theworld today,but it doesnot seemso formanyother
people. While scholars are arguing whether globalisation is currently organising the world by
strengthening the dominance of a world capitalist economic system, declining the primacy of the
nationstate, and eroding local cultures and traditions through a global culture (Falk, 1999; Giddens,
1999;2000;Hertz,2001),or,whetheritisaninevitabletrajectoryofhumanitythroughpursuitofwealth
andprogress(Friedman,1999;Fukuyama,1992),formostpeopleintheworld,thisdiscourseremains
vague. Likewise, while social activists arebuilding a global network of movements to protest and
challenge the current manifestation of corporateled and G8led globalisation through various world
socialforainthepastfiveyearsorso(FischerandPonniah,2003;Senetal.,2004),manypeopleatthe
grassrootslevelsimplydonotknowwhattodolocally.Thisisamongtheconcernsthatmanyfactions
within civil society, particularly nongovernmental organisation (NGO), are giving serious
consideration to at the moment, for their roles havebeen perceived as sites of opposition to the
globalisationdiscourse(Higgott,2000;Lynch,1998).
Despite complexities and difficulties in putting it into practice, widening participation of civic
communities in response to the issues of globalisation in the local context has certainlybecome a
priorityforNGOs,includingthoseinIndonesia.JustlikeinothercountriesintheSouth,inIndonesia
theface
of
globalisation
is
at
large
recognised
from
neoliberal
policies
like
trade
liberalisation,
financial
deregulationandnationalassetprivatisation.Thesepolicies,whichhaveactuallybeenaroundsincethe
2
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
4/31
1970s, became popular again since their reintroduction into the World Banks and International
MonetaryFundsstructuraladjustmentprogramme(SAP)respondingtotheeconomiccrisesin1997
1998(Khor,2000;2001;Shiva,1999).Suchpolicieshavebeenproblematicinthecountryandhavedone
very little, if anything, to contribute to tackling acute societal problems like poverty, unemployment
and environmental degradation. Even worse, in the context of the transition to democracy, such
policiesonlybecomepoliticisedandpoliticallycommodified(Bresnan,2005).
Understandably,forIndonesianNGOs,thissituationisalarming.Variousactivitieshavethereforebeen
carried outby these organisations from training to community empowerment, from disseminating
researchtoorganisingpopulargatheringsinordertoraisepublicawarenessandtoencouragethem
totaketheirstancetowardsglobalisationissues,despiteproblemsanddifficulties.Intheirendeavours,
IndonesianNGOsmobilisewhateverresourcestheyhaveaccessto,includingtheiradoptionanduseof
the Internet a technology that perhaps is the most important driver of globalisation (Castells, 1996;
1997; 1999). There are challenges, as well as opportunities, for NGOs in Indonesia in using the
technologytoengagewiththeissueofglobalisation.Notonlydo theycertainlyexpecttobenefitfrom
their technological use in order to achieve their purpose of shaping societys stance towards
globalisation,buttheseNGOsactuallyalsotaketheriskofbeingshapedbytheglobalisationidea.
Thisiswhatthispaperisallabout.ItaspirestotellastoryabouttheventureofIndonesianNGOsin
adopting and appropriating the Internet in a strategic way to respond to globalisation issues and
phenomena, and tobroaden the discourse on globalisation in their civic engagement. It also aims to
answerquestionssuchas:WhatareIndonesianNGOsviewsontheglobalisationissue?Howdothey
engagewithglobalisationdiscourseandtowhatextentdotheyshapethepublicopinion?Howdothey
use the Internet as part of their strategies in their endeavours? What are the challenges and
opportunities ahead for such strategies? As Sey and Castells (2004: 364) suggested, the answer to
questionsofthiskindhastobeestablishedbyobservation,notproclaimedasfate.Thisinjunctionresonates
withWainwrightwhostatesthattostudyaboutcivilsocietyanditsactivitiesisnottodefendabstracts
oruniversaltheories,butrather toanalyse itthroughseveralexamplessomepositive,somenegative
the condition under which, and the ways in which, thispotential is realised. (Wainwright, 2005: 9495,
emphasisadded).
This paper, in trying to answer these questions, hasbriefly examined the focus of the study in the
introduction.ItcontinueswithabriefexpositionabouthowIndonesianNGOsperceiveglobalisationin
thelocal
context
and
looks
at
the
trend
of
social
movement
as
areaction
to
globalisation
in
section
two.
Then,usingempiricaldata,insectionthree itrevealshow theorganisationsadopt theInternetas the
3
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
5/31
technologyofglobalisationandtheimplicationsofInternetuseinthedynamicsofNGOsandsocial
movements in the country. To accompany some quantitative data, stories from three NGOs are
outlined, telling of their endeavours in taking globalisation issues onboard in their activism. Then it
discussesthefindingsinmoredepthandofferssomecriticalreflectioninsectionfour.Finally,section
fivedetailstheconclusionofthisstudy.
2 GRASPINGGLOBALISATION
2.1. Indonesiainaglobalworld:Figuringoutthecomplexnatureoftheissue
Indonesias development over the last four decades is an interesting instance of the linkagebetween
globalisationandsocialdevelopment.Transformingfromaleastdevelopingcountry,inthemid1960s
Indonesiabegantoadoptmoreliberal,thenneoliberal,economicpoliciesunderNewOrderregime.For
thenextthreedecades,untiltheeconomiccrisisthathitinmid1997,theindustrialsectorgrewatmore
than10percentannuallyinmostyears.Duringthisperiod,themostimportantfragmentofeconomic
development was the period of rapid economic liberalisationbetween the mid1980s to mid1990s
(Bresnan, 2005). Arguably, this is part of a greater process of globalisation, which we can probably
neverbesurewasanaturalprocessinthecountrysdevelopmenttrajectoryorotherwise,asreflected
below.
[T]hepressurestoglobaliseintheIndonesiancaseactuallycamefrombothexternalandinternal
sources. From the external side, Indonesias participation in the WTO (World Trade
Organisation),APEC(AsiaPacificEconomicCooperation),andAFTA(ASEANFreetradeArea)
contributed to economic liberalisation, especially in the area of trade and investment. On the
internalside,decliningoilrevenueandproblemsassociatedwithahighcostdomesticeconomy
created some impetus for economic deregulation and privatisation. Taken together, the forces
resulted in the rapid economic liberalisation and substantial resource reallocation which
occurredinIndonesiafromthelate1980stothemid1990s.(Feridhanusetyawan,2000:1)
Indeed,theperiodfromthe1980sto1990switnessedIndonesiasrapidintegrationintoglobalmarkets
bothintherealandfinancialsectors,whichwascontributedtobymanychangesineconomicpolicies:
from import substitution to an export oriented approach, from governmentled growth to greater
privatesectorparticipation,andfromarelativelyclosedtoamoreopeneconomy(Bird,1999;Bresnan,
2005).Afterahaltinthisintegrationcausedbythemassiveeconomiccrisisin1997, itresumedagain
withadifferentface.TheSAPunderIMF/WB,whichactuallyaimedtorescuecountriesfromthecrisis,
hadbecome the tollroad torapidlyprivatisemanysectors inIndonesia.Just to takeoneexample, in
exchangeforaUS$46billionbailoutpackage,theIndonesiangovernmentwasrequiredtorestorethe
balanceofpaymentsandtoimplementcriticalpolicyreformswhichincludedthemostcrucialaspects,
4
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
6/31
i.e.,publicsectorexpenditureincludingcutsinsubsidies,privatisationofstateownedenterprisesand
expansionofprivatesectorparticipation.Tosupport this, theWBandAsianDevelopmentBankhad
providedbudget support loans that were attached to a number of mandated reforms through an
integratedpackageofadjustments(MotoyamaandWidagdo,1999).
However, thisreformandadjustmentwasseenassomethinggravebymanyelements in Indonesian
civil society (Hadiwinata, 2003). Particularly,because it was suspected that the loan was provided
underaspecialconditionthatmeant(i)theproportionofthegovernmentsroleasapublicagencyto
providepublicgoodsandserviceshad tobe lessenedand(ii)bydoingso, itwould transformmany
public sectors into mere commodities controlledby the private sector. Even worse, the process of
takingovertheroleofgovernmentwascarriedoutwiththefullconsentofgovernmentandlegislature
through drafting tendentious laws (Nugroho, 2006). For most of Indonesian NGOs, it is all afait
accomplitoforcedprivatisationforthedecisiontodosowasnotsubjecttopublicconsultation.Even
elected representatives were often unaware of the detailed plans to reduce or eliminate the role of
government1.Uptothispoint,manyIndonesianNGOsmighthaveviewedacontestedarena:whether
mostsectorsofpublicinterestwillbetakenoverbyprivatecompanies,leftingovernmenthands,ora
combination of the two,despite fewof themrealising thecomplexitiesof thissituation2.As awhole
Indonesian NGOs agree that the matter of privatisation as a gesture in favour of integration to the
global economy, as well as the increasing Indonesian participation in the World Trade Organisation
(WTO)s agenda, is a political choice, not a technical imperative and precisely this is the arena of
struggle(GanieRochman,2000;Hadiwinata,2003;Lounela,1999).
However, to many NGOs in Indonesia, it is indeed not easy to get a comprehensive perspective on
globalisation,particularlyatthemomentwhenthenationisgrapplingwithsomanycomplicationsin
itstransitionfromacentralised,authoritarianregimetoademocraticanddecentralisedadministration.
AsNGOsarefixatedbythedailyturmoilofevents,demonstrations,andemotionalpoliticaldebatesin
thepostreformperiod,themajorityofpeopleinthecountrycontinuetosufferfrompovertyandother
societal problems, and increasing degradation of environmental conditions. For example, at least 40
percent of Indonesian forest hasbeen deforested since 1950 and half of that remaining hasbeen
converted into roads, plantations (palm oil, wood processing, etc.), or factories. It is estimated that
every minute 5 hectares of forest disappears which means that a forest area equal to the size of a
1 InterviewwithLutfiyahHanim,27/10/2005.
2 InterviewwithDavidSutasurya,16/11/2005.He reflectshowdifficultitisforIndonesiancivilsociety
organisations(CSOs),includingNGOs,toreallycomprehendcomplexissueslikeglobalisation.Itistherefore
understandable,althoughnotalwaysacceptable,toseehowthecomplexnatureoftheissueoftenbecomesvery
simplifiedinmanyCSOsunderstanding.
5
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
7/31
football field vanishes every 12 seconds, whilst 4050 million Indonesian peoples lives are heavily
dependentontheforests.Theimpactonhabitatsisalsosevereasoverthepast10yearsthenumberof
orangutanshasdecreasedbyupto50percent(WorldBank,2001).InIndonesia,bytheendof2002,13
percentoftheIndonesianpopulationlivedinabsolutepoverty(thosewholiveonlessthan$2aday);
13 percent of population above 15 years old was illiterate; infant mortality touched 41 per 1,000 live
births;childmalnutritionmadeup24percentoftotalchildrenunder5years;andonly74percentofthe
populationhadaccesstoimprovedwatersources(WorldBank,2003).
This situation is regarded as not only counterproductive in building peoples awareness of
globalisationanditsimpactsandencouragingthemtotakeastance,butisalsoinimpedingtheeffort
tobuildNGOsowncomprehensiononthecomplexnatureofglobalisationissuesanddiscourses.Until
the end of the 1990s, there was very few, if any NGOs which worked on the particular issue of
globalisation3. Globalisation was comprehendedby a lot of Indonesian NGOs in terms of IMF/WB
forcedstateseconomicpolicieslikeprivatisation,deregulation,andliberalisation,andevenoverly
simplified as a new form of capitalism4. However, as the network of Indonesian civil society
organisationsexpanded,partlythankstotheadventoftheInternet(NugrohoandTampubolon,2006),
NGOs started to link their efforts, notjust to pursue the democratisation agenda which hadbecome
predominantsince the1998reformsbutalso toengagein theissuesofglobalisation.Sincetheendof
the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, more Indonesian NGOs have become aware of the
complexitiesoftheissue5;somenewlyformedNGOswereevenestablishedwiththemainobjectiveof
takingacriticalviewtowardsglobalisation6andmorepublicengagementsareorientedinthedirection
ofcriticisingthelocalpracticesofglobalisationdiscourse7.
3 InterviewwithLutfiyahHanim,27/10/2005;BonnieSetiawan,22/02/2006.Therearecurrentlyanumberof
IndonesianNGOsworkingparticularlyonglobalisationissue,butthisisnotbefore2001,whenthefirst
IndonesianNGOfocusingonglobalisation,theInstituteforGlobalJustice(IGJ),wasestablished.AsIGJs
ProgramCoordinatorrevealed,theorganisationwassetupbecauseatthattimetherewasnotevenone[NGO]
whosaidthattheywereworkingontheglobalisationissue(Hanim,interview,27/10/2005).
4 InterviewwithSriPalupi,29/10/2005;WahyuSusilo,1/12/2005.
5 InterviewwithLutfiyahHanim,27/10/2005;BonnieSetiawan,22/2/2006;WahyuSusilo,1/12/2005.Itisrevealed
thatsincethebeginningof2000,moreNGOsopenparticulardeskandactivitiesthatdealswiththeissueof
globalisation.
6 Forexample,theInstituteforGlobalJustice(established2001),IndonesianForumonGlobalisation(established
2001),theBusinessWatchIndonesia(established2002),amongfewothers.
7 Itisnotedthatvarioustrainingsonglobalisationissuesstartedblossomingbyearly2000s.In2001,UniSosial
DemokratstartedincorporatingglobalisationintothecurriculaofitsCourseonPolitics(KursusPolitik,Kurpol)
(seehttp://www.unisosdem.org/tentangpress.php?aid=438&coid=5,viewed15June2007);theInstituteforGlobal
Justicebegan
organising
trainings
on
globalisation
since
2001
and
have
regularly
been
publishing
Global
Justice
Updatebulletinsince2003(http://www.globaljust.org/gju_list.php,viewed15June2007);manyother
organisationsstartedtakingglobalisationissuesonboardtheiractivitiesin2003(interviewwithAntonius
Waspotrianto,28/10/2005;AndyYuwono,16/12/2005;YuliaI.Sari,19/12/2005;SuryaTjandra,3/3/2006)
6
http://www.unisosdem.org/tentang-press.php?aid=438&coid=5http://www.unisosdem.org/tentang-press.php?aid=438&coid=5http://www.unisosdem.org/tentang-press.php?aid=438&coid=5http://www.globaljust.org/gju_list.phphttp://www.globaljust.org/gju_list.phphttp://www.unisosdem.org/tentang-press.php?aid=438&coid=5 -
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
8/31
Thistrendisbynomeansexclusive.SincethebattleofSeattleinNovember19998,largescaleprotests
against the WTO, the IMF, and the WB have mushroomed across the globe and are hailed as
globalisationfrombelow(Kaldor,2000).ButwhatdoesthismeaninthecontextofIndonesianNGOs?
How would Indonesian NGOs perceive the idea of social movement in the course of their taking
onboardtheissueofglobalisation?
2.2. Globalisationfrombelow?RealmofIndonesianNGOsactivism
Intheirresponsetoglobalisationandtheglobalisationrelatedissues,therearetwogeneralapproaches
thatIndonesianNGOstake.Oneisbasedonthesocallednegativelogic,i.e.bycriticisingandbeing
againstthenegativeaspectsofglobalisationpractices.Theotherisbasedonthepositivelogic,i.e.by
promoting the alternative practices of globalisation. In their first approach, NGOs in Indonesia are
oftenmisunderstoodasantibusinessfortheyconsistentlyadvocateconsumersrights,supportlabour
and trade union activities and protect environment frombusiness wrongdoings through research,
lobbiesandadvocacyendeavours9.Theyalsofacerisksofbeingblamedasantidevelopmentbecause
oftheircriticalstandstowardsstatusquopolicies,ifnotnastilyaccusedoftradingthestatesinterest
for their watchdog activities, carrying out campaigns abroad, organising testimonial sessionsbefore
international bodies like Amnesty International or Human Rights Commission at the UN, and
mobilisingprotestsagainstIndonesiangovernmentspoliciesondevelopmentinmultilateralmeetings
likeWTOorCGI(GanieRochman,2002;Hadiwinata,2003;Lounela,1999).
Based on positivelogic, it is also through the works of the NGOs that Indonesian smallmedium
enterprises (SMEs)benefit from various skills training and havebetter access to marketplaces; that
farmers learnmoreaboutorganicandsustainable farmingprocesses; thatwomen inruralareasnow
haveaccess tomicrocreditschemesandhavebecomeempowereddomestically;andthatconsumers
interest in getting more healthy products and produces through fairer trade havebeen more widely
promoted(Hadiwinata,2003)10.Itisalsothroughtheeffortsofvariousnongovernmentalgroupsthat
inIndonesiatheimportanceandurgencyofthefulfilmentofworkersrightsarebroughttothewider
8 AttheendofNovember1999,amassiveprotestinvolving40,000peoplefrom700organisations,tradeunions,
NGOs,religiousgroupsandotherrepresentationsbroughtthethirdministerialmeetingoftheWTOtoahalt.The
meetingwasproposinganewmultilateralroundoftradenegotiations.Themassiveandangrydemonstration
wasaclearsignalofcollectiveanger:attherelocationofindustriestotheThirdWorld,atthedangerousand
viciousworkconditionsinthefactoriesandsweatshopsfoundthere,atthewidespreadexploitationofworking
people,andatenvironmentaldegradation.AlthoughlargescaleprotestsagainsttheWTO,theIMFandtheWB
werenotatallnew,whatwasnewwasboththescaleofmobilisationandtheintensityoftheprotest(Chandhoke,
2001;Kaldor,2000)
9 InterviewwithLutfiyahHanim,27/10/2005;WahyuSusilo,1/12/2005.
10 AlsobasedontheinterviewwithAntoniusWaspotrianto,28/10/2005;IndroSuronoandAgungPrawoto,
3/12/2005;YuliaI.Sari,19/12/2005.
7
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
9/31
public11;andthatinadditiontothecontinuousawarenessofcivil,politicalrightsandhumanrights,the
discourseofeconomic,socialandcultural(ecosoc)rightshasalsobecomemorepublic(Demos,2005)12.
Itis in theirendeavourtodealwith theseproblems that theuseoftheInternet inNGOshasbecome
increasinglyinstrumental.Theuseofthetechnologyhasenabledtheorganisationsnotonlytospread
their concern about globalisation across the country on a speed and scale that has neverbeen seen
before,but also to help them network with other organisations at various levels to exchange ideas,
experiences and support. Yet, it can be argued that engagement with globalisation issues, too, is
somewhattheresultoftheengagementofIndonesianCSOswiththeirinternationalcounterparts,and
is also very much a consequence (intended or unintended) of the use of information and
communicationtechnologies(ICTs),particularlytheInternet,intheorganisations.Because,obviously,
theInternetnotonlyfacilitatescommunicationandcollaborationoforganisationswithinandbetween
countries(Castells,1996;Dutton,1999;2004;Warkentin,2001),italsocontributestothespreadofissues
and concerns (Dutton, 2004; McConnell, 2000; Surman and Reilly, 2003) and thus plays role in the
changeofdiscourse.
How,then,canweunderstand theuseof theInternetthevery technologyofglobalisation(Castells,
1999)inIndonesianNGOs?How,and towhatextent,does theInternetuse inorganisations impact
uponthedynamicsofNGOsinthecountrywiththeirbeneficiarygroupsandcounterpartselsewhere?
3 ADOPTINGTHETECHNOLOGYOFGLOBALISATION
SinceitwasintroducedinIndonesia,nongovernmentalandcivilsocietyhavebeenactiveusersofthe
Internet(HillandSen,2005;Lim,2003;Purbo,1996).However,notmuchisknownabouthowandto
what extent NGOs in Indonesia use the technology, let alone the implications of it. Triangulating
methods(Danermarketal.,2002;Gilbert,1992),thisstudyaimstoexplorethefeaturesoftheuseand
impacts of the Internet in these organisations13, especially in relation to dealing with globalisation
issues.
11 InterviewwithLiestPranowo,28/11/2005,IndroWicaksono,30/11/2005;IgnatiusSuparno,10/3/2006.
12 InterviewwithSriPalupi,29/10/2005;AriUjianto,24/11/2005.
13 Thequantitativedata,gatheredfromanexploratorysurvey,servedasinputforsomestatisticalobservation
includingexploratorylatentclassusingLatentGold(MacCutcheon,1987;VermuntandMagidson,2002).The
qualitativedatawascollectedthroughinterviews,workshops,andfocusgroupdiscussionstobuildcasestudies
(Eisenhardt,1989;Stake,1995).TheoveralldatacollectionwascarriedoutOct2005April2006.
8
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
10/31
3.1. InternetadoptioninNGOsanditsimpactDonttakeitforgranted
From a survey of 268 Indonesian NGOs where 94.03% use PCs in the organisation and 86.94% have
access to the Internet,onlya verysmall grouphas used the Internet formore than10years (5.97%).
Most of them have used itbetween 510 years (28.73%) and 35 years (26.87%). Quite a proportion
(19.03%)just started using it within the last 3 years. This study finds that leaders in the Internet
adoptionamongIndonesianNGOsareusuallythosewho(i)arelongerestablished,(ii)havemorestaff,
and(iii)managemoremoney14.Figure1belowshowsthatingeneralNGOsworkingondevelopment
ordevelopmentrelatedissuesandconcerns(salientissuesarecodedgreen)areestimatedtobemore
likely tobe early adopters of the Internet, than those working on advocacyrelated issues (coded
blue)15.
Laggards (13.54% )
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
and late maj ority
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
(19.73% )
0.8
disable
professional worker0.6
pluralism
urban
indigenous rights
1.0
0.4 conflict resolution
0.2
0.0
environment
globalisationrural
developmenthuman rights
justice & peace
democratisation
youth
povertyeducation
labourfarmer
ecosoc rightsgovernance
civil society
>10 yr
3-5 yr
5-10 yr
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
11/31
LatentClassAnalysis.BIC(LL)=5407.792;NPar=94;L2=4214.830;
What drives the adoption of the Internet in Indonesian NGOs? Internally, it is the need to obtain
information and to improve organisational effectiveness and efficiency; externally, it is the need to
bring about mutual relationship and collaboration among organisations instead of competition.
Adopting the technology which serves such internal and external purposes empowers Indonesian
NGOsinorganisingtheirmovement,widenstheirperspectives,expands theirnetwork,and,tosome
extent, therefore increases theirbargaining position when dealing with other actors in Indonesian
politics
df=127;p
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
12/31
significantly, INFID hasbeen able tobuild its own capacity in integrating the technology into the
organisations core missions and goals. After deciding to adopt and use the Internet as part of the
organisation strategy in early1990s, INFIDquickly familiarised itself with the technology and at the
sametimebothexploredandexploitedit.Besidesservingtheorganisationsdailyinternalmanagement
(likestaffcoordination,regularcommunication,financialconsolidationandreporting,andoccasionally
online meeting), the Internet is integrated and used mainly for external purposes, especially
networking, campaign coordination, advocacy strategies and online publication. With such strategy,
INFIDdoesnotonlybuilditscapabilityinmanagingthetechnologytohelpitsworkandintegratingit
intotheorganisationsstrategy,butalsoitscapacityasanadvocacynetworkNGO.
the capacity to
improvethelivelihoodofthepoorandtheoppressedinIndonesia(INFID,1997;2000).
circulates such information to its
networksandcoalitions,andbydoingsoitfuelsthemovement.
To INFID, the concern about globalisation issues in Indonesia is clear: the pressure to globalise
Indonesia comes through foreign loans and their conditionalities. Therefore as strategic orientation,
INFID has chosen to provide inputs on the development issues to the donor countries of Indonesia.
This is doneby acting as watchdog on the use ofbilateral and multilateral loans and the pledging
sessions for new loans (Hadiwinata, 2003). It is through this loan mechanism architectedby the IFIs
(international financial institutions) that Indonesia is politically and economically being steered,
controlled, and forced to integrate its economy into the global oneby means of creating national
policiesineconomyanddevelopmentwhichmayevenputnationalsovereigntyatriskandmakethe
poor poorer. That is why for INFID advocacy is a strategic approach and orientation. For INFID, to
critiqueglobalisationpractice is toadvocatepeoplesrights; toprove thatglobalisationworksfor the
poor is to eradicate structural poverty; to make another world possible is tobuild
ItisinthisdirectionthattheuseoftheInternethasbeenfoundhelpfulinINFIDswork.Ascoordinator
ofmanyadvocacyprogrammes,whichmustbeupdatedwithrelevantinformation,INFIDutilisethe
Internettoprovidemoreinformationinamuchquickerfashionthanusingotherconventionalmeans,
and with much higher accuracy. For example, the latest and most updated data, like reports of the
WorldBank,otherinternationalfinancialinstitutions,orvariousdevelopmentagencies,canalwaysbe
downloaded to strengthen and to increase the quality of INFIDs advocacy works, including for its
lobbies and campaigns. But it does not stop there. INFID also
11
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
13/31
Box 1. INFID and NusaNet
International NGO Forum onIndonesian Development (INFID)was initially formed in June 1985,under the name of INGI (Inter-NGOConference on IGGI Matters), byseveral Indonesian NGOs (YLBHI,WALHI and Sekretariat Bina Desa)in co-operation with a number ofDutch NGOs (NOVIB, CEBEMO,HIVOS and ICCO). INGI was (andINFID is) an open and pluralisticnetwork of 60 NGOs based inIndonesia and 40 NGOs based inother countries mostly belong toIGGI (Inter Governmental Group forIndonesia, previously now CGI,Consultative Group for Indonesiaa
consortium of donor countries).INGI transformed into INFID in1992, following the dismissal ofIGGI by the Indonesian governmentand the formation of the CGI(Hadiwinata, 2003:98-100).
Since its establishment INFID has been providing inputs and recommendation on the developmentissues to the donor countries of Indonesia by monitoring the use of bilateral and multilateral loans aswell as the pledging sessions for new loans. INFID aims to facilitate the communication betweenIndonesian NGOs and their international partners to promote the policy to eradicate structural povertyand to build the capacity to improve the livelihood of the poor and the oppressed in Indonesia. In theIndonesian social movement INFID is seen as one of the most respected advocacy network NGOs.
With its Indonesian secretariat employing 25 fulltime staff and 5 part-time staff and managing severalbillions IDR (or hundred thousands USD) annually* to maintain the network of 100 organisations bothnational and international, INFID is no doubt seen by others as a big advocacy NGOs in Indonesia.
INFID might be the first NGO that adopted the Internet in Indonesia since the early 1990s. When mostIndonesian NGOs and arguably also business firms and states agencieshad possibly never heardabout the technology, INFID had already considered an idea to be an Internet Service Provider (ISP)for NGOs and other civic communities. INFID introduced NusaNet in early 1994 an idea which atlarge was driven by the governments repressive conduct and surveillance towards civil society andthe need for safer communication and more effective networking among NGOs. Backed up by itsinternational donors, INFID decided to invest quite a large amount of money to build the infrastructurein order to provide Internet connection to Indonesian CSOs. Although the service that NusaNetprovided was very simple dial-up access at 9.6Kbps and encrypted email exchange through genericaddresses @nusa.or.idit had helped many organisations, groups and activists to learn about the
technology. By the end of 1996 and early 1997, a considerable number of Indonesian advocacy NGOsand many pro-democracy activists had been connected to the Internet via INFIDs NusaNet, which wasalso considered safer than commercial ISPs that could be easily interfered by the governments
military intelligence. NusaNet had certainly played an important part in the episode of preparing andconditioning NGOs for the Indonesian reform movement in 1998, that some scholars even claimed thereform would be impossible had the Internet been absent in the movement (Hill and Sen, 2000; Lim,2002; 2003; 2004).
For INFID, the main motives for adopting the Internet were certainly not only to use it as a safer andquicker communication tool but also as a means for advocacy and for bringing about wider democracy,by linking pro-democracy actors in the [Inter]net to discuss potential actions, to prepare and to makeit happen in the field (Susilo, interview, 1/12/2005). The motives remain unchanged until now.Although in the post-reform period NusaNet project ceased to exist due to the shift of financial priority(which simply made the provider unable to keep up with the technological development) and the fact
that commercial ISPs were widely available, INFID keeps using the Internet in a strategic way for itsstrategic purposes. (*)
* exact figure was not disclosed during interview
12
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
14/31
As Indonesian NGOs usually need more comprehensive information about what happens in the
international context tohelp theiradvocacy work, INFIDconvenientlyusesemailand mailing list to
distributesuchinformationtorelevantnationaladvocacygroups.Likewise,foritsnetworkabroadwho
typically need information about what is going in the country, INFID puts such information on the
website,oronitspartnerswebsites.Thiscombinationofworkresultsinaneffectivecampaigntackled
from both inside and outside Indonesia. We often update the information related to poverty
eradication campaigns andjoint actions to our network. The successfulJuly [2005] meeting for anti
poverty campaign, for example, was coordinated a lot over the Internet (Susilo, interview,
1/12/2005)19.
are willing to use the technology of
globalisationtheInterneteffectively.Yet,INFIDalsoreflects,
the solidarity among
NGOs.(Susilo,interview,1/12/2005,emphasesindicateoriginalwordings)
and
accurate,isnotenoughtomovepeopletorespondtocallsforaction(Susilo,interview,1/12/2005).
WithsuchexperienceandintensityinusingtheInternet(andotherICTs),itcomesasnosurprisethat
INFID concludes and strongly suggests that advocacy will become a strategic area in tackling
globalisation issues only if NGOs working in this area can and
[In the context of social change] the Internet use [in Indonesian NGOs] certainly has an
important historical aspect. During the [authoritarian] New Order it provided the social
movementwithalternativeinformation,whichwasveryimportanttobuildtheprodemocracy
coalition.Butaftertheregimehadfallen,IsawadecreaseinhowNGOsuseit.Now,everyone
hasnolongerbeenabletoreplythecallforurgentactioninnearlyallissues.Urgentactionsused
tobe deemed important during the New Order regime or during the reform period and we
always responded to them. Now, [in responding to globalisation] NGOs have becomespecialised. Positively it has made them knowledgeable to various global issues like
international debt, etc.,but negatively it contributes to the decrease in
Certainly,INFIDsreflectionbringsupaclearchallenge:whiletheuseoftheInternethashelpedNGOs
become updated with relevant information for action, it does not and should not stop there. In
advocacy work the challenge is clear: NGOs need to integrate the use of the technology into the
organisationsstrategytobuildtheircapacityinordertodealwiththecomplexnatureofglobalisation
issuesand toadvocate therightsof themostvulnerable.Otherwise,NGOswillriskofbeingcarried
awayby the technicalitiesof their technological useand lose thesubstance which the technological
adoption in civil society serves: strengthening civic actions and consolidating social movement.
Because, as Wahyu Susilo, the MDG National Programme Officer of INFID, clearly addresses when
concludingtheinterview,[t]odayinthisglobalisedworld,informationalone,althoughupdated
19 ThisreferstoMakePovertyHistoryworldwidecampaign.ThroughitsMDG(MillenniumDevelopmentGoals)
desk,INFIDactivelyinvolvesinthecampaignandantipovertynetworkatnationallevel.
13
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
15/31
3.3. SpreadingawarenessAstoryofIGJ20
BeingbasedinJakartaandprobablythefirstNGOworkingparticularlyontheissueofglobalisation,
the Institute for GlobalJustice (IGJ) runs four main programmes. First, research and publications,
whichfocusonidentifyingimpactsandmitigatingthenegativeimpactsofglobalisationinthecountry.
Second,publiceducation,whichseekstoinformpolicymakersandthegeneralpubliconglobalisation
issues,includingtheroleofglobalinstitutionsparticularlytheWTO(WorldTradeOrganisation)and
theirconnectionwithnationalandregionalpolicies,bymeansoftrainingworkshops,publicdialogue,
discussions, and hearings with parliament and line ministries. Third, advocacy campaigns tobring
aboutcriticalawarenessofglobalisationrelatedissues,particularlyabouttheongoingnegotiationsat
the WTO and the preparation for its periodical Ministerial Meetings. Last, networking is established
withothergroupsorCSOs thatworkonandare interested inglobalisation issues, includingexperts
andstudents.
In IGJ, the use of the Internet hasbeen integrated into the organisations daily works. It is not only
research and publicationand advocacy campaign programmes thatbenefit from the technology use,
butalsopubliceducationprogrammes,liketrainingonglobalisation,enjoyalotofhelpfromInternet
technology.Forresearchpurpose,theInternethasbeenavaluableresourcefordataandinformation,
includingjournalarticlesandpublications,whichwouldhavebeenverydifficult,ifnotimpossible,to
access.TheInternethasalsoextendedtheIGJsresearchersnetworkwiththeircolleaguesfromother
partsoftheworldandencouragedmoreresearchcollaborationbetweenthem.AsIGJcloselymonitors
the issues related to institutions like the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Internet helps IGJ to
keep updated with the latest relevant news and information21, which is often needed for various
research. Then, when the research hasbeen concluded, the Internet is again used to channel the
publication of the results to various groups including policy makers, NGOs and the general public,
whichisusefulbothforpubliceducationandlobbying.
20 Thisaccountisbasedonthesurvey,directobservationwithIGJ,andinterviewswithLutfiyahHanim,IGJs
ProgrammeCoordinator(2728/10/2005and23/05/2006)andBonnieSetiawan,IGJsExecutiveDirector
(22/02/2006)
21 Usually,whenresourcesareavailable,IGJwouldsendstaffordelegate(s)tobepresentattherelevantmeetings
(e.g.WTOMinisterialMeeting)asobserverorasparticipantinparallelsessionscommonlyorganisedby
InternationalNGOs.Thestaffthenuseemailtosendthelivereportfromthevenuedirectlytorelevantmailing
lists,ortoIGJsofficewhichwillthenconvertitintomoredigestibleversion(e.g.translateitfromEnglishto
Indonesian)anddistributeittoitsnetwork.Consideringallworksinvolved,itwasquiteimpressivethat,for
exampleinthelastWTOMinisterialMeeting,IGJmanagedtoupdatethenetworkindailybasis,andevenin
importantoccasionsorissues,in6hourlybasis.However,whenresourcesarenotavailableforIGJtosenda
participantorobserverinanimportantmeeting,theywillcloselyfollowthepressroomsectionandforwardall
importantnewstoitsnetwork.Withthis,IndonesianNGOswithinIGJsnetworkarekeptupdatedwiththelast
minuteprogressofthemeetings(Hanim,interview,28/10/2005).
14
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
16/31
Box 2. IGJ and Globa l Jus t ice Updat e
The Institute for Global Justice (IGJ) isa research-based advocacy NGOestablished in 2001, facilitated by INFIDand some individual members of theIndonesian NGOs Monitoring Coalitionon World Trade Organisation (KoalisiOrnop Pemantau WTO, or KOP-WTO).Rooted in Indonesian social movementwith the aim of being part of global civilsociety network, IGJ envisions a globaljustice order through social movementsand aims to deconstruct globalisationand facilitate social transformation inorder to be critical towards globalisationthrough research, advocacy, educationand networking activities. There arethree objectives that IGJ aspires toachieve, i.e. the development of critical
awareness of the public aboutglobalisation; the existence of local,national and global policy to protect andto appreciate life values and livelihoodand a new world order based onpluralism, diversity, sustainability and
justice (IGJ, 2001).
IGJ works with some 6 full-timers and a similar number of part-timers and manages annual turnoverbetween IDR1-2 billion (approx USD111-222K). Being established in the era when the Internet has
been widely available in the centre of the metropolitan city Jakarta, IGJ has adopted the technologysince it was established. Using the 24/7 broadband connection, although with fluctuating access speedas can always be expected in Indonesia, IGJ seems to be able to reap the benefit of the Internet tohelp achieve its objectives. And as IGJ works closely with its network, the benefit is also enjoyed by its
partners.
The publication ofGlobal Justice Update (GJU), IGJs periodical, for example, is spread not only toclose partners in Java, but also to numerous civil society organisations in the four corners of thearchipelago. Currently distributed to around 500 readers once every two weeks, mostly through directemails and a few mailing-lists, GJU is the most successful of IGJs public communication channel sofar. Unlike other NGOs publications which only target other NGOs or similar organisations, GJU also
reaches out to a broader audience: students, policy makers and press. And since the topics broughtout in this periodical were found to be quite informative and interesting (or simply provocative) by thegeneral readers, it is not surprising to find the electronic version of GJU being re-distributed to wideraudience or in various mailing lists which IGJ did not initially target. Originally dedicated to presentingthe latest update about what is going on in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to its network whichworks particularly on the globalisation issues, GJU has now evolved into a public education tool tobuild knowledge on globalisation. To IGJ, Internet has been playing an important role in supporting
the continuity of GJU for it reduces dramatically the printing and distribution cost which hampers mostof other Indonesian NGOs publication programmes. With the approximate printing and distributioncost at no less than IDR1.5 million (approx USD167) per GJUs edition, the amount will beastronomical to keep GJU in regular publication for a quite long period. Thus, distributing GJUelectronically as a compressed PDF-file email attachment or as a downloadable link in IGJs websitehas meant IGJ has been able to save a significant amount of money.
This approach is deemed to be strategic, because IGJ would need a critical mass when it comes toorganising movements: to run advocacy campaigns, to preparing advocacy works, or to mobilise thewider public to take certain actions. Having public and various groups knowledgeable about the issuesthat IGJ and its networks are advocating have proven important for the success of such campaigns. Itis also for the sake of maintaining the network and to keep the continuity of the publication that IGJrecently changed the electronic format of GJU from portable document (PDF) into rich text (RTF)format following suggestion from many other NGOs which can only access the Internet via slow, low
bandwidth connection. Clearly, for IGJ, the use of the Internet has facilitated the evolution of GJUfrom a mere publication into an effective organisational tool for public education, networking,campaign and advocacy. This all is central in contributing to the work of IGJ as a NGO taking a criticalposition about globalisation issues in the Indonesian context. (*)
15
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
17/31
NotonlyistheInternetusedtopromotebooks,documentaryfilmsorothertypesofIGJspublication,it
hasbeenusedasthemediumforpublicationitself,whichimpactsonthesuccessofotherprogrammes.
GlobalJusticeUpdate (GJU), IGJsbulletin, is oneexample how IGJ turns the Internet into a convivial
mediumforitswork(SeeBox2).However,workingontheglobalisationissuealsoimpactsIGJsuseof
theInternet.IGJmightbeamongthefirstIndonesianNGOstoformallytaketheissueofopensource
application on board as a direct consequence of their use of the Internet and engagement with
globalisation issues. For IGJ, which closely follows WTO issues including property rights, it is
important to take a clear position towards this issue as a representative of civil society. As its
ProgrammeCoordinatorstates,
Wewereinitiallyunawareofthisissue.Wedidnotevenknowwhatopensourcemeant.Butthen
welearnedaboutit.Thankstooursourceslike[Mr.]Idamanwhoforcedustolearnaboutthe
issue,
we
then
become
aware
that
using
Microsoft
products
has
actually
many
serious
implications for us, civil society group, when we scrutinise the IPR issue. It is notjust a use.
Thereisdeeperideologicalissuethere.Theideaofopensourcematchesourorganisationsvalues
notonlybecause it ischeaper.Opensourceismoredemocratic,moreopen,andoverall,weare
convinced that it willbe muchbetter for civil society movement in the future. And, to our
surprise,itisactuallyintheheartoftheIPRdebatethatwehavebeenengagedsofar(Hanim,
interview,28/10/2005,emphasesindicateoriginalwordings)
With such understanding, taking the risk, IGJ makes its move to migrate to open source platform,
which is not easy, for most staff are already familiar with proprietary software22. And although IGJ
understandsthattheprocessisnoteasyduetothefactthatmoststaffaremereusers,itbelievesthat
this is the right course of actionbecause as a NGO who is critical to globalisation [W]e have tobe
consistent.Wehavetowalkwhatwetalk(Setiawan,interview,22/02/2006).
SuchdeterminationisindeedimportantforIGJ,especiallywhenrealisingitspositionintheIndonesian
NGOs network on globalisation issues. Because, being known as probably the most advanced
IndonesianNGOinglobalisationissue,IGJhasoftenbeenreferredbyitsnetworks,bothnationaland
international,
not
only
as
source
of
information
but
also
as
active
animator
in
the
Indonesian
social
movement.Indeed,asapartofaninternationalnetworkOWINS(OurWorldIsNotforSale),IGJhas
taken the initiative and been involved in facilitating the birth of the FSI (Forum Sosial Indonesia,
IndonesianSocialForum)networkandkeepsitselfactiveintheKOPWTOnetwork,aswellasinother
networks. For this purpose, mailing liss are the most effective tools that IGJ uses to maintain the
networks and spread awareness of globalisation. IGJ is also known as a resource for Indonesian
decision makers,especially ministries and statebodies which work in the area of international trade
22 Toeasetheprocess,WindowsbasedOpenOfficeisintroducedacrosstheorganisationsothatstaffcanstart
familiarisethemselveswiththenewsoftware.Whentheinterviewwasconductedintheendof2005andearly
2006,IGJtargetedtohavecompletelymigratedtoopensourceplatformbytheendof2007orbeginningof2008.
16
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
18/31
and economics. ThroughForumWTO, whose members are mainly from the government and private
sector,IGJactivelyrepresentsIndonesiancivilsocietyindiscussingimportantissues.TheForumWTO,
alsorunovermailinglistsandisamediumforIGJslobbyworks.Althoughthe reallobbyingoften
happens outside the cyberworld, IGJbenefits from the use of the Internet in theForumWTO as the
organisationisabletoconveycrucialmessagesandinformation,whichthenbecameusefulforthereal
lobbying.
Working with this relatively new issue (for most Indonesians) of globalisation, IGJ hasbeen able,
through using the Internet, to strategically bring the issue to the attention of more elements in
Indonesiancivilsociety.Asresult,notonlydomoreIndonesianNGOsandthegeneralpublicbecome
more familiar with various globalisation issues, but they are also encouraged and stimulated to
strengthenthenetworktorespondtotheissue.Inotherwords,byusingtheInternetstrategically,IGJ
hasbeenabletohelpthechangingtheroleofNGOsfrommerelyconsumersofissue,intomoreactive
participantsthatshapetheissue.ThisispossiblebecauseIGJhasintegratedtheInternetinawaythat
notonly transforms theorganisationsworks,butalso transforms theorganisation itselfand, in turn,
changesthewaythatthetechnologyisunderstoodisused.
3.4. BroadeningperspectivesAnexperienceofYDA23
YayasanDutaAwam(YDA)isalocalfarmeradvocacyNGObasedinCentralJavaprovincebutworks
inotherregions,namelyRiau,WestKalimantan,BengkuluandSouthKalimantanprovinces, inclose
networking with tens of other local NGOs working in similar issues. In addition to its international
networkingwithinternationalorganisationslikeCatholicReliefServiceandFordFoundation,YDAisalso
an active member of SatuDunia, a national Indonesian civil society network, part ofOneWorld.Net24.
Togetherwithitsnetworks,YDAisnowchampioningthemonitoringoftheimplementationofCERD
(CommunityEmpowermentforRuralDevelopment),anationwideprojectfundedbyADBsloan.For
YDA,theabstractglobalisationissuehasinfactaveryrealfaceinruraldevelopment,andthefaceis
oftenfrighteningandintimidatingforordinaryfarmersinIndonesia.Thereareatleastthreefactsthat
concern YDA. One, globalisation has transformed the countrys rural sector into a sector of misery
which is being sacrificed for urban development and industrialisation through land ownership
23 ThissectionisbasedonthesurveyandinterviewwithYDAsExecutiveDirector,MuhammadRiza(30/11/2005)
24 SatuDuniaisanewlyestablishedIndonesiannodeoftheglobalnetworkOneWorld.net(www.oneworld.net),
whichwasestablishedsince1995andcurrentlyhasmorethan1,600partnersinternationally.SatuDuniaisan
initiativeofHIVOS,YayasanJaringandOneWorldUKandwasofficiallysetupon16December2006.See
http://satudunia.oneworld.net/article/view/144597/(viewed20June2007).
17
http://www.oneworld.net/http://satudunia.oneworld.net/article/view/144597/http://satudunia.oneworld.net/article/view/144597/http://www.oneworld.net/ -
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
19/31
conversionintoindustrialpurpose,andthroughthelossofhumanresourcesintheruralsector25.Two,
mainstream farming and agricultural policiesbased on the greenrevolution have destroyed a lot of
ruralareaacrossthearchipelagothatbecomeverydifficult,ifnotimpossible,torestoretotheirnatural
fertility.Third,morefarmersarelosingtheirownlandsandbecomemereworkers(petanipenggarap)
andearnsolittleinreturnfortheirhardwork.Theseallmakefarmersandruralinhabitantssufferfrom
structuralpovertyandtheyhaveverylittlespacetodecidethingsabouttheirownlife.
The face of globalisation and its implication in the rural sector is abitter picture for farmers the
beneficiaries that YDA works for and with. Unfortunately, apart from realising that they are poor,
manyofthesefarmersdonotunderstandthebiggerpictureandthustheylosehopeintheirlife.YDA
aspirestogivethishopebacktothefarmers.Atthepolicylevel,thisisdonebyadvocatingtheirrights;
atthepracticallevel,itiscarriedoutbywideningfarmersperspectivesaboutthecomplexitiesofthe
situationnottogetthemlostinthecomplexitiesbuttoletthemdecidewhatisbestfortheirownlife.
ToYDA,farmersshouldbethemainactorsdeterminingtheirownlives.Theyshouldnotandmustnot
beneglectedintheruraldevelopmentpoliciesandpractices.
ItisthisspiritthatshedslightonallYDAsactivities,includingtheuseoftechnologiesliketheInternet.
YDA throwsaway theperception that theInternet is the technologyonlyfor peopleof thecity, the
haves,oreventhetechyliterateInternetisalsothetechnologyforfarmers,forpeopleofthevillages.
YDA set up two web communities and a mailing list that farmers can join and participate in26.
Although these online communities, very possibly the first farmers online ones in Indonesia, are
formally set up to help YDA to promote important agriculturalrelated issues to its NGO networks,
YDA also encourages farmers tobe active users of the Internet, tobe aware of the global issues in
agricultureandruraldevelopment,andtoengagewithinternationalfarmersnetworksastheInternet
hasbecomemoreavailable insomevillages throughwarnet/telecentres27.The resultof this effort, for
YDA,issometimesbeyondexpectation(seeTukiminsexperienceinBox3).
25 Amplestudiesontheliteratureonpovertydemonstratethatlandtenureorlandownershipisacriticalfactor
implicatedinpovertyincidence.Thereisalsoeffectofoutmigrationofproductivelabourfromvillagestourban
andsuburbanareasinsearchofwork,mainlyinindustrialsector(Aidit,unknown;Raynolds,2002;
Tjondronegoro,1984).
26 Theyarehttp://agrodev.multiply.comandhttp://indosl.multiply.com,Themailinglistis
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agrodev/
27 Telecentre,orwarnet(inIndonesian),literallymeansinternetkiosk.Itisapublicinternetaccesspointsoften
availableinareawhereinternetinfrastructureisnotwelldeveloped(James,2006).Limarguesthattounderstand
IndonesianInternetistounderstandwarnet(Lim,2002;2004;2006).
18
http://agrodev.multiply.com/http://indosl.multiply.com/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agrodev/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agrodev/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agrodev/http://indosl.multiply.com/http://agrodev.multiply.com/ -
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
20/31
Box 3. YDA and Advokas i
Yayasan Duta Awam (YDA), set up in Solo,Central Java in 1996, is a NGO working on theissue of farmers advocacy and civil societyempowerment. Working with 16 full-timers,YDA aims particularly to empower the farmersso that they can advocate themselvesindependently in the future, when agriculturaland rural development issues are projected toescalate politically in Indonesia. This goal is tobe achieved through three main strategicactivities: participatory research andmonitoring, stakeholder dialogue forums andgrassroots media. As a Farmers Institute forAdvocacy YDA has clearly formulated itsstrategy to empower and increase farmerscapacity through educations, trainings andmobilisation; advocacy; development of publicdiscourse; database; and capacity building for
institutions and organisations
To help run the organisation, YDA has been using the internet since 1998, when Internet was firstlyintroduced to public in Solo and was probably the first NGO in the area which adopted the Internet.For YDA, the main reason for using the Internet was very clear: the increasing need for up-to-dateinformation, both for the organisation and mainly for its beneficiaries, namely farmers and rural
communities. As a part of the organisations strategy, the Internet is introduced to YDAs staff,networks, and their beneficiaries: local farmers. Not only is the farmers bulletin Advokas i madeavailable online, but despite difficulties, YDA has also endeavoured to pioneer online communities forfarmers and its NGO networks. The result of YDAs engagement with the Internet sometimes goesbeyond what can be imagined. It would certainly be simplifying to claim that farmers broadenedunderstanding about global political-economy issues surrounding agricultural development and policyis the result from YDAs (and its networks) use of the Internet. But clearly it is very difficult, if not
impossible, for YDA and its networks to keep updated with the latest development in agricultural
development policy, including the global issues surrounding it, if they do not adopt the Internet.
To give an example, Tukimin, an ordinary farmer from Kiram Village, Banjar, and a regular reader of
Advokasi, confidently argued with an Asian Development Bank (ADB)s project executor when he sawthe mismatch between the planning and the actual project undertaking during CERD project. Heinsisted that there should be participatory approach in the project instead of top-downimplementation, because This project is being financed by the governments debt to ADB, and it is us,the people, who will have to pay it back, replying against the statement of an ADBs engineer that theproject was possible merely because of ADBs fund (Advokasi, 2007:12). Using the Internet fordissemination of awareness and broadening perspectives, YDA helps farmers like Tukimin to
understand the direct impact of globalisation in their local context. (*)
After queuing for oil, now, queuing for national poverty; Public participatory advocacy in Riau: Advocacy was successful and notanarchic; Tip for planting coffee and rice; Participatory development in Talang Bunut; Is state still there for the poor?
Source: Farmers bulletin Advokas i , Edition 21, downloaded from http://www.dutaawam.org/ (15 May 2007)
19
http://www.dutaawam.org/http://www.dutaawam.org/ -
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
21/31
YDAitselfhasreapedthebenefitoftheInternetuse.Itsstaffhavebecomefamiliarinusingemailnot
only for regular communication with their colleagues and networks,but also for reporting activities
andinformationsearchingthroughtheWWWhasbecomecommonpracticetohelpwithparticipatory
researchandadvocacyworks.YDAhasalsochangeditswebsitefromashowwindowtypeofwebinto
blogstyledwebsitethatreflectstheorganisationsvisionofasharedcommunity.Internally,tohelpstaff
use the Internet better, YDA created social learning, or pendampingan (which literally means
companionship). Staff who use the Internet less intensively are accompaniedby others who use it
moreintensively.Thisapproach,apparently,doesnotstopattheorganisationlevel.
Pendampingan[(companionship)]isthebestway[toworkwithourbeneficiaries].Unfortunately,
ourNGOscolleagues,toourobservation,arestillminimalinsharingfarmersissues.Onlyfew
do it properly. Whereas we know that there are abundant issues related to farmer and rural
development out there, in national and global scale like genetics engineering or [chemical]
pesticide. Thats why I think we should help these [NGOs] to use the Internet morestrategically in longterm perspective, and not just for [organisations] visibility and social
status. Because, in many cases, although they can access email and Internet [WWW] they still
come tous,YDA, toaskquestions towhich theanswerscanactuallybe found in the Internet
veryeasily.Iwonderwhythishappens(Riza,interview,30/11/2005)
Apparently,bycreatingaspaceforsociallearning,bothattheorganisationandnetworklevel,notonly
doesfamiliarisationwiththeInternetbecomemucheasierfortheorganisationsandthenetworks,but
thebenefitofsuchtechnologicalimplementationcanalsobeenjoyedrelativelymorequickly,especially
bythebeneficiariestheyworkwith:thefarmers.
4 SOMEREFLECTIONS
Scholarshavearguedthatsocialmovementsarebestconceptualisedassustainedinteractionsbetween
specificauthoritiesandthosewhochallengetheirauthority,ratherthanascoherentgroupsofpeople
(Crossley,2002;DellaPortaandDiani,2006;Diani,2003;Tilly,1984).Becausethisinteractioniscritical
tocontestation,changes in the locusofpoweralter thenatureofhowprotest isorganised, itsforms,
and the collective identities of the protestors (Johnston and Laxer, 2003). In the 18th century, when
power accumulated in national politics and embodied in state administration, shifting from local
communities, social movement emerged at national level as contentions against the states power
structure(Deakin,2001;Edwards,2004;Kaldor,2003;Keane,1998).Today,thedominantdiscourseon
globalisationhypothesises thatpowerhasalsoshifted,but twofold: (i) fromnational to transnational
levels,and(ii)fromstatetobusinessormarket.Thus,resistancewasalsotwofold:(i)atatransnational
levelmanifestedby theemergenceofglobalcivilsocietyandglobalsocialmovemenstand (ii) in the
widenedcontestedareafromstatetoincludemarketsandbusinesses.
20
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
22/31
This account resonates with the stories told in this paper. The terrain of Indonesian civil society,
particularlyNGOs,hasconsiderablychangedin thepastdecade:fromafairlyfocusedconcernabout
statecentristissues,toamuchbroaderinterestmovingbeyondstatecentrist,givingmoreattentionto
the role of nonstate actors likebusiness and private sectors. It is intriguing to see that the focus of
issuesandconcernsof IndonesianNGOs todayarenotonlyaboutbuildingsocialawareness against
thestatesrepressivepowerandpromotingthedemocracyandhumanrightsthatwerepresentinthe
past(asobservedbyBird,1999;Eldridge,1995;Fakih,1996;Sinaga,1994;Uhlin,1997)butalsoabout
enlighteningsocietywithcontextualissuesandsocietalconcernswhichstemfromglobalisation.This
canbeseenintheinclusionofglobalisationissues(whichstartedinthelate1990s)andtheemergence
ofnewNGOsworkingparticularlyinglobalisationandglobalisationrelatedissuesandconcerns(since
thebeginningof2000s).
This study argues that this change, while not easy to deal with for many NGOs, is very much a
consequenceoftheuseofnewinformationandcommunicationtechnologies,particularlytheInternet,
inmanyorganisationswithincivilsociety.EvidenceshowsthatnotonlydoesInternetuseimpactupon
NGOs performance in terms of internal management, but more importantly, that such use has
contributed to thewideningoforganisationalperspectives, theexpansionof organisationalnetworks
and has thus increased organisational influences in society. In fact, this technological use, to some
extent,canalsobeseentobepartofthestrategyofIndonesianNGOstobuildcriticalviewstowards
thepracticesofglobalisationthroughtheirengagementwithvariouscivicgroups.
The three cases presented here suggest that NGOs have potential and can indeed realise such
potentialto use the Internet strategically and politically in dealing with globalisation issues. In
INFIDscase, thestrategicuserevolvesaround the ideaofnetworkingmovement.Whilenetworking
withglobalcivilsocietyisundoubtedlyimportanttoday,inordertackleglobalissues,networkingwith
local and national organisations has neverbeen this substantial. Why? Social movement is all about
networking:ofideas,ofawareness,oforganisations,andofactivisms(Diani,2003;McAdam,2003).Itis
thus important, in the civil society perspective, to channel global issues into local concerns and to
widen direct involvement of organisations and theirbeneficiaries. In this sense, INFID has tried to
appropriate the Internet not only to help expand and animate networks of Indonesian NGOs for
advocacyworks,butalso tofacilitate theprocessoftheirunderstandingabout thecomplexnatureof
globalisation issues in their local development context. It is very clear that for NGOs, Internet use
affects the dynamicsbetween global vs. local political activism. Ithas the potential to globalise local
sociopolitical dynamics (like resistance to authoritarian practices and the movement towards
democratisation) and to localise global issues (such as liberalisation, privatisation, fair trade and
21
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
23/31
intellectualproperty,etc).ThecaseofINFIDshowsthatfuelledbytheuseoftechnologicalartefactslike
theInternet,networksofsocialmovementinancountrylikeIndonesiaisnolongerjustaninstrument
forcivilsocietytomobiliseresourcesandaction:ithasbecomealocusofpowerinsociety;apowerful
fabric of social change. The Internet itself, working as a driver of these networks, as a direct
consequence,shouldbeviewedasmorethanjustacommunicationtool.
IGJs case, which shows that the Internet is no longer seen as a foreign element but is already
integrated into organisations properties and routines, reflects how the technology isbeing used to
spreadawarenessaboutglobalisationtoawiderandgeneralpublic.AstheInternetisappropriatedto
bringglobalisationissuesintothewiderpublicarena,thebenefitoftechnologicaluseisenjoyedboth
byorganisationsandbytheirbeneficiaries.NotonlydoIGJsstaffandresearchersbenefitfromtheuse
of the Internet for their quest, research and advocacy works on various global issues,but through
onlinedistributionofGlobalJusticeUpdate,morepeoplecanbecomeawareofwhat isgoingoninthe
WTOandwhatdirectconsequencesglobalissuesmayhaveontheirownlives.Foritsadvocacywork,
the Internet has strategicallybeen usedby IGJ for smart advocacy, i.e. an informed advocacywork
basedonfactual,accuratedataandinformationratherthanmerepropaganda.Suchusecouldcertainly
helpcountercriticism that, in theirwork,NGOsmostlyuseemptyjargonandrhetoric(Tvedt,1998).
Furthermore, the IGJ case shows that such strategic use of the Internet could have further
organisational consequence: NGOs canbe transformed from information and issue consumers into
informationandissueproducers.
The case of YDA shows that through Internet use, NGOs can really empower theirbeneficiariesby
broadeningtheirperspectivestowardsvariousglobalissuesthatresonateswiththeirlocalcontext.Just
likemost IndonesianNGOswhichapparentlyhaveno luxury toaffordan ITspecialist tohelp them
usingthetechnology,YDAchosesociallearningasstrategyforInternetimplementationbecauseitsuits
wellthewaythatNGOswork.Thecasefurthersuggeststhatorganisationscouldactuallyexploitand
explore the technology more effectively to improve operational management and provide strategic
management information to achieve their missions and goals. But more importantly, the use of
technologiesliketheInternetcanbeusedbyNGOstohelptheirbeneficiarieswidentheirperspectives
aboutglobalissues.Thisisofparamountimportantbecausealotofproblematicglobalissuesneedto
bedisentangled,andonewaytodosoistoarticulatetheissuesinlocalcircumstancetounderstand
theimplicationinactualcontext(Khor,2000;2001).
Basedon
these
three
cases,
this
study
argues
that
in
the
universe
of
Indonesian
NGOs,
although
the
adventofInternettechnologyisconsideredtoberevolutionary,in thatitfundamentallyempowersthe
22
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
24/31
role of civil society in social movements as observedby some scholars (e.g. Hill,2003; Hill and Sen,
2005;Lim,2003),theadoptioninNGOs,especiallytorespondtoglobalisationissues,seemstofollow
anevolutionarypath.This isbecause the Internetand itsuse in IndonesianNGOscannotbeseenas
homogenous.Whilelargepartsofthepopulationneitherhaveequalaccessnorsimilarcapabilities to
usetheInternet,NGOsstillneedtotranslateandinterprettheunadaptedcontentoftheNet.Not
onlythatitistruefortechnicalitieslikelanguage,butsubstantially,alotofthecontentthattheInternet
brings,especiallytheglobalissues,needstoberearticulatedandunderstoodwithinthelocalcontexts.
Onlyifsuchproblemscanbeproperlytackled,cantheuseoftheInternetcansignificantlyimpactupon
Indonesian NGOs relationship with their national and international partners and contribute to the
integrationofIndonesianNGOsintoglobalcivilsociety.Whilethisallshowssomepotentialrolesthat
theInternetcanplayintheglobalisationprocessesofsocialmovement(Bennett,2003;SeyandCastells,
2004)andthefactthatinsocialmovementcyberactivismisinstrumental(astheorisedbyMcCaughey
andAyers,2003),undoubtedly,therealsocialchangecanonlytakeplaceintheofflinerealm,inthe
same way that the rearticulation of globalisation issues canbe understood and reacted upon in the
samerealm.
5 CONCLUDINGNOTES
Globalisation hasbeen claimedelsewhere to havebeenbringing groups andcommunitiesacross the
globetogetherintoaglobalvillagewhereideasandknowledgefromthefarthestcornersoftheworld
canconvergeintoaglobalidea(Castells,1997).However,whathappensatamorelocallevelmaybe
different.ThisiswhathasprobablybeenobservedbycivilsocietyandNGOs.Indeed,thecriticalviews
onneoliberalglobalisationthathavedevelopedoverthelastdecadecanbeidentifiedasoriginatingin
thecivilsocietysector(FischerandPonniah,2003;Kaldor,2000;Khor,2000;Lynch,1998).Thisisalso
trueinIndonesia.Thecivilsocietysector,withNGOsasthemainactors,hasalwaysbeencriticaltothe
practice of globalisation, reflected in its strong reactions to the implementation of economic policies.
This account is important when examining how NGOs use the Internet the technology of
globalisationto help them to take globalisation discourse onboard in their activism,becauseboth
their adoption of technology and their response towards globalisation issues cannotbe taken for
granted.
This study offers some concluding remarks. Firstly, working at large in local contexts, while
maintaining
global
network,
has
enabled
Indonesian
NGOs,
to
some
extent,
to
spot
increasing
disillusionmentaboutglobalisation,asalsoreflectedat theglobal levelwith thefailureof theSeattle
23
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
25/31
24
WTOs ministerial meeting in 1999 (Kaldor, 2000; Khor, 2000). Butbeing critical andbeing able to
addressadequatecriticismtowardsglobalisationissueisnotalwayseasyformanyIndonesianNGOs.
This iswhybothnationaland internationalnetworkingamong IndonesianNGOsremains important
afterthefallofSoeharto:understandingandrearticulatingglobalissues inlocalcontextswillbevery
difficult,ifnotimpossible,tobecarriedoutbyindividualNGOswithoutresourcefulnetworking.
Secondly, there are a lot of difficulties facedby NGOs in their endeavour to respond to issues and
broadentheirperspectives.Thisisdeemedanimportantpurposeinreapingthebenefitofutilisingnew
informationandcommunicationtechnology,especiallytheInternet(otherpurposesbeing,forexample,
democratisation or widening public participation in national politics, amongst others). Driven by
criticismtowardsglobalisationissues,NGOsstartdeployingdifferentstrategiesinusingtechnologyto
deal with the issues. Among many possible strategies, three are mapped in this study through case
observations:networkingofadvocacy(asshownbyINFID),spreadingawarenessaboutglobalisation
issues(asdemonstratedbyIGJ),andbroadeningbeneficiariesperspectiveaboutthelocalimplications
ofglobalpolicies(asillustratedbyYDA).
Lastly,however,thesethreestrategiesarenotgeneric.Theyservemoreasexamples,orasinstancesof
goodpracticeonhowtheInternetcanbeusedstrategicallyandpoliticallytorespondtoglobalisation
issues,ratherthantogeneralisetheapproachorstrategyofIndonesianNGOsasawhole.Inanattempt
to portray thebig picture, however, it is confirmed that although currently there are a number of
IndonesianNGOsembracingparticularissuesandconcernsinglobalisation,thistrendisquiterecent.
Yet,despitefactthatglobalisationissueisrelativelydifficulttocomprehendatlarge,IndonesianNGOs
seemtobeabletoincorporatetheissuesandputthemintowider,morecontextualandpossiblymore
relevantperspectivesintheirorganisations.
UnlesstheadoptionoftheInternetinNGOscanbeproperlyunderstood,itisimpossibletoexplainits
effect
in
the
dynamics
of
NGOs
engagement
with
globalisation
issues,
as
envisaged
by
Sri
Palupi
in
the
quotationatthebeginningofthispaper.(*)
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
26/31
REFERENCES
Advokasi(2007)FaktaCERDP(ThefactsofCERDP).Advokasi,IssueNo.21
Aidit,D.N.(unknown)Kaumtanimengganjangsetansetandesa:Laporansingkathasilrisetmengenai
keadaankaumtanidangerakantaniDjawaBarat(Indonesian).Report.Jakarta:Yayasan
Pembaruan.
Bennett,
W.L.
(2003)
New
Media
Power:
the
Internet
and
Global
Activism.
In
N.
Couldry
&
J.
Curran
(Eds.)
ContestingMediaPower.London:RowmanandLittlefield.
Bird,J.(1999)Indonesiain1998.ThePotBoilsover ASurveyofAsiain1998.AsianSurvey,39(1),2737.
Bresnan,J.(2005)Economicrecoveryandreform.InJ.Bresnan(Ed.)Indonesia:Thegreattransition.189237.
NewYork:Rowmann&Littlefield.
Castells,M.(1996)TheRiseofNetworkSociety.TheInformationAgeEconomy,Society,andCultureVolumeI,
Oxford:Blackwell.
________(1997)ThePowerofIdentity.TheInformationAgeEconomy,Society,andCultureVolumeII,Oxford:
Blackwell.
________(1999)Informationtechnology,globalizationandsocialdevelopment.Report.UNRISDDiscussion
PaperNo.114.UNRISD.
Chandhoke,N.(2001)Thelimitsofglobalcivilsociety.InH.K.Anheier,M.Glasius&M.Kaldor(Eds.)Global
CivilSocietyYearbook2001.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Coombs,R.&R.Hull(1996)ThePoliticsofITStrategyandDevelopmentinOrganizations.InW.H.Dutton
(Ed.)InformationandCommunicationTechnologies:VisionsandRealities.159176.NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Crossley,N.(2002)MakingSenseofSocialMovement,BuckinghamPhiladelphia:OpenUniversityPress.
Danermark,B.,M.Ekstrom,L.Jakobsen&J.C.Karlsson(2002)ExplainingSociety.CriticalRealismintheSocial
Sciences,London:Routledge.
Deakin,N.(2001)Insearchofcivilsociety,NewYork:Palgrave.
DellaPorta,D.&M.Diani(2006)SocialMovements:AnIntroduction,Oxford:Blackwell,2ndEdition.
Demos(2005)IndonesiaspostSoehartodemocracymovement,Jakarta:Demos TheIndonesianCentrefor
DemocracyandHumanRightsStudies.
Diani,M.(2003)SocialMovements,ContentiousActionsandSocialNetworks.FromMethaportoSubstance?
InM.Diani&D.McAdam(Eds.)SocialMovementsandNetworks:RelationalApproachestoCollective
Action.120.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Dutton,W.H.(1999)SocietyontheLine:InformationPoliticsintheDigitalAge,NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
________(2004)SocialtransformationinanInformationSociety:Rethinkingaccesstoyouandtheworld.
Report.UNECOPublicationsfortheWorldSummitontheInformationSociety.Paris:UNESCO.
Edwards,M.(2004)CivilSociety,Cambridge:PolityPress.
Eisenhardt,K.M.(1989)Buildingtheoriesfromcasestudyresearch.AcademyofManagementReview,14,532
550.
Eldridge,P.J.(1995)NonGovernmentOrganizationsanddemocraticparticipationinIndonesiaKualaLumpur:
OUPSouthEastAsia.
Fakih,M.(1996)Masyarakatsipiluntuktransformasisosial: PergolakanideologiLSMIndonesia(Civilsocietyfor
socialtransformation.IdeologicaldisputeamongIndonesianNGOs),Yogyakarta:PustakaPelajar.
Falk,R.(1999)Predatoryglobalization:Acritique,Oxford:BlackwellPublishers.
Feridhanusetyawan,T.(2000)Globalization,povertyandequityinIndonesia.Report.Countrybackground
paperfortheOECDconferenceonPovertyandIncomeInequalityinDevelopingCountries:APolicy
DialogueontheEffectsofGlobalization,Paris,30November 1December2000..Paris:OECD.
Fischer,W.&T.Ponniah(Eds.)(2003)AnotherWorldIsPossible:PopularAlternativestoGlobalizationatthe
WorldSocialForum,London:ZedBooks.
Friedman,T.(1999)TheLexusandtheOliveTree,NewYork:FarrarStrausGiroux.
Fukuyama,F.(1992)TheEndofHistoryandtheLastMan,NewYork:FreePress.
GanieRochman,M.(2000)NeedsassessmentofadvocacyNGOsinaNewIndonesia.Report.Reporttothe
GovernanceandCivilSocietyoftheFordFoundation.Jakarta:FordFoundation.
________(2002)Anuphillstruggle:AdvocacyNGOsunderSoehartosneworder,Jakarta:LabSosioFISIPUI.
25
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
27/31
Giddens,A.(1999)Globalisation:TheReithLectures.London:BBCNewsOnline,availableat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week1/week1.htm(viewedApril2003).
________(2000)RunawayWorld:HowGlobalizationisReshapingOurLives,NewYork:Routledge.
Gilbert,N.(1992)Researchingsociallife,London:SAGE.
Hadiwinata,B.S.(2003)ThePoliticsofNGOsinIndonesia.DevelopingDemocracyandManagingaMovement,
London,NewYork:RoutledgeCurzon.
Hertz,N.
(2001)
The
silent
takeover:
Global
capitalism
and
the
death
of
democracy,
London:
Heinemann.
Higgott,R.(2000)Contestedglobalization:Thechangingcontextandnormativechallenges.Reviewof
InternationalStudies,26,131153.
Hill,D.T.(2003)CommunicationforaNewDemocracy.IndonesiasFirstOnlineElections.ThePacificReview,
16(4),525548.
Hill,D.T.&K.Sen(2000)Media,CultureandPoliticsinIndonesia,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
________(2005)TheInternetinIndonesiasNewDemocracy,LondonandNewYork:Routledge.
IGJ(2001)WhyGlobalJustice?IGJsprofile.Jakarta:IGJ.Onlineprofileavailableat
http://www.globaljust.org/profil.php,visited20June2007.
INFID(1997)AdvocacyReview1997.Report.JakartaandTheHague:INFIDSecretariat.
________(2000)Perjuangandemokrasidanmasyarakatsipil:ReposisidanperanORNOP/LSMdiIndonesia.
Report.Jakarta:
INFID
Secretariat.
James,J.(2006)Informationtechnologyanddevelopment,London:Routledge.
Johnston,J.&G.Laxer(2003)Solidarityintheageofglobalization:LessonsfromtheantiMAIandZapatista
struggles.TheoryandSociety,32,3991.
Kaldor,M.(2000)Civilisingglobalization:TheimplicationsofthebattleofSeattle.Millennium:Ajournalof
internationalstudies,29(4),105114.
________(2003)GlobalCivilSociety,Cambridge:PolityPress.
Keane,J.(1998)Civilsociety:Oldimages,newvisions,Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
Khor,M.(2000)GlobalizationandtheSouth:Somecriticalissues.Report.DiscussionPapersNo.147.Geneva:
UNCTAD.
________(2001)RethinkingGlobalisation,LondonandNewYork:ZedBooks.
Lim,M.
(2002)
Cyber
civic
Space.
From
Panopticon
to
Pandemonium?
International
Development
and
Planning
Review,24(4),383400.
________(2003)TheInternet,SocialNetworksandReforminIndonesia.InN.Couldry&J.Curran(Eds.)
ContestingMediaPower.AlternativeMediainaNetworkedWorld273288.Oxford:Rowman&
Littlefield.
________(2004)InformationalTerrainsofIdentityandPoliticalPower:TheInternetinIndonesia.Indonesian
JournalofSocialandCulturalAnthropology,27(73),111.
________(2006)CyberUrbanActivismandthePoliticalChangeinIndonesia.EastBound,1(1),
http://www.eastbound.info/journal/20061/.
Lounela,A.(1999)DevelopmentinIndonesia.SomeregionalandnationalNGOsinIndonesian
democratizationprocess:NeedassessmentstudyonIndonesianNGOs.Report.KepasreportsNo.
31/1999.Helsinki:
KEPA
Service
Centre
for
Development
Cooperation.
Lynch,C.(1998)SocialMovementsandtheProblemofGlobalization.Alternatives,23(2),149173.
MacCutcheon,A.L.(1987)LatentClassAnalysis,London:Sage.
Magidson,J.&J.Vermunt(2002)Latentclassmodelsforclustering:AcomparisonwithKmeans.Canadian
JournalofMarketingResearch,20,3643.
Marcus,D.(1998)IndonesiarevoltwasNetdriven.BostonGlobe(23May),availableat
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/143/Indonesia_revolt_was_Net_driven.htmconsulted
3September2004.
McAdam,D.(2003)BeyondStructuralAnalysis.TowardaMoreDynamicUnderstandingofSocial
Movements.InM.Diani&D.McAdam(Eds.)SocialMovementsandNetworks.RelationalApproachesto
CollectiveAction.281298.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
McCaughey,M.
&
M.D.
Ayers
(Eds.)
(2003)
Cyberactivism,
New
York:
Routledge.
McConnell,S.(2000)Achampioninourmidst:LessonslearnedfromtheimpactsofNGOsuseofthe
Internet.ElectronicJournalonInformationSystemsinDevelopingCountries,2(5),115.
26
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week1/week1.htmhttp://www.globaljust.org/profil.phphttp://www.eastbound.info/journal/2006-1/http://www.eastbound.info/journal/2006-1/http://www.eastbound.info/journal/2006-1/http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/143/Indonesia_revolt_was_Net_driven.htmhttp://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/143/Indonesia_revolt_was_Net_driven.htmhttp://www.eastbound.info/journal/2006-1/http://www.globaljust.org/profil.phphttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week1/week1.htm -
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
28/31
Motoyama,H.&N.Widagdo(1999)PowerSectorRestructuringinIndonesiaApreliminarystudy.Report.
TokyoandWashington:FriendsofTheEarth,Japan&BankInformationCenter,USA.
Newell,S.,J.C.Huang,R.D.Galliers&S.L.Pan(2003)ImplementingEnterpriseResourcePlanningand
KnowledgeManagementSystemsintandem:Fosteringefficiencyandinnovationcomplementarity.
Information&Organization,13,2552.
Nugroho,Y.(2006)Globalisation:Neithernirvananorarmageddon.Solo:BusinessWatchIndonesia.
________(forthcoming)
Diffusion
and
impacts
of
the
Internet
in
Civil
Society
Organisations:
A
research
into
the
appropriationoftheInternetinIndonesianCSOsforsocialreformandsocialdevelopmentprogrammes.PhD
thesis.Manchester:TheUniversityofManchester(provisionaltitle).
Nugroho,Y.&G.Tampubolon(2006)Mappingthenetworksociety:Networkdynamicsinthetransitionto
democracyinIndonesia.CRESCWorkingPaperNo.15.Manchester:TheUniversityofManchester.
Purbo,O.W.(1996)InternetutilizationinIndonesia.Report.ComputerNetworkResearchGroup.Bandung:
InstituteofTechnologyBandung.
Raynolds,L.T.(2002)Consumer/ProducerLinksinFairTradeCoffeeNetworks.SociologiaRuralis,42(4),404
424.
Rogers,E.M.(2003)DiffusionofInnovations,NewYork,NY:FreePress.FifthEdition.
Sen,J.,A.Anand,A.Escobar&P.Waterman(Eds.)(2004)TheWorldSocialForum:Challengingempires,New
Delhi:Viveka
Foundation.
Sey,A.&M.Castells(2004)FromMediaPoliticstoNetworkedPolitics:TheInternetandthePolitical
Process.InM.Castells(Ed.)TheNetworkSociety:AcrossCulturalPerspective363381.Cheltenham:
EdwardElgar.
Shiva,V.(1999)Ecologicalbalanceinaneraofglobalization.InN.Low(Ed.)GlobalEthicsandEnvironment.
4769.London:Routledge.
Sinaga,K.(1994)NGOsinIndonesia:AstudyoftheroleofNonGovernmentalOrganizationsinthedevelopment
processPhDthesis.Saarbrucken:BielefieldUniversity.
Stake,R.E.(1995)Theartofcasestudyresearc:Perspectivesonpractice,ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Surman,M.&K.Reilly(2003)AppropriatingtheInternetforSocialChange.TowardstheStrategicUseof
NetworkedTechnologiesbyTransnationalCivilSocietyOrganisations.Report.:SocialScience
ResearchCouncil.
Tilly,C.(1984)Socialmovementsandnationalpolitics.InC.Bright&S.Harding(Eds.)Statemakingandsocial
movements:Essaysinhistoryandtheory.297317.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.
Tjondronegoro,S.M.P.(1984)SocialorganisationandplanneddevelopmentinruralJava,Singapore:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Tvedt,T.(1998)AngelsofMercyorDevelopmentDiplomats.NGOs&ForeignAid,London:JamesCurrey.
Uhlin,A.(1997)IndonesiaandtheThirdWaveofDemocratisation.TheIndonesianProDemocracyMovementina
ChangingWorld,Surrey:Curzon.
Vermunt,J.&J.Magidson(2002)Latentclassclusteranalysis.InJ.Hagenaars&A.McCutcheon(Eds.)
Appliedlatentclassmodels.89106.CambridgeUniversityPress.
Wainwright,H.(2005)Civilsociety,DemocracyandPower.GlobalConnections.InH.Anheier,M.Glasius
&M.
Kaldor
(Eds.)
Global
Civil
Society
Yearbook
2004/5.
94
121.
London:
SAGE.
Warkentin,C.(2001)ReshapingWorldPolitics.NGOs,theInternet,andGlobalCivilSociety,Boston:Rowman&
Littlefield.
WorldBank(2001)AttackingPoverty.Report.WorldDevelopmentReport.Washington:WorldBank.
________(2003)SustainableDevelopmentinaDynamicWorld.Report.WorldDevelopmentReport.NewYork:
TheWorldBank.
27
-
8/14/2019 Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia
29/31
Appendix1.AnalysingadoptercategoryusingMIMICLCA
Themultipleindicatorsmultiplecauses(MIMIC)latentclassanalysis(LCA)modelisaclassificationmethod
when researchers cannot find a gold standard to classify participants. The MIMICLCA model includes
features of a typical LCA model and introduces a new relationbetween the latent class and covariates
(MacCutcheon,1987;MagidsonandVermunt,2002;VermuntandMagidson,2002).
In thi