Richard Robison wrote an article about the late Dr. Sadli's legacy as one of the architects of Indonesia's Suharto economic development. Many people see that although Suharto was a cruel dictator, he somehow was 'successful' in building Indonesian economy to achieve high growth. It is exactly the point of view that Emil Salim and many others have.
Nonetheless, Suharto's economic 'achievements', as Robison points out, were not entirely aimed at the nation's benefit. The technocrats failed to contain their economic policies from being used to benefit Suharto, his family and his cronies.
...[b]ut the defining aspect of the technocrats was increasingly their relationship with the system of cronyism that pervaded the Suharto regime. It is true that Suharto was willing to back the technocrats where the macro-economy collided with vested interests... the technocrats were never able to contain the vast system of monopolies and privileges, selective tariff protection and the massive flows of foreign and state bank credit into private hands for projects of doubtful commercial viability...
Lastly, in addition to what Robison has said, they also failed to see that their economic policies that were narrowly focused on high economic growth would underestimate the need to achieve social justice#.
#. Manurung (2007)
political economy
Posts
1 comment(s):
I think the Berkeley Mafia failed to create social justice as they have, at some level, been influenced by Todaro and Friedman instead of Samuelson and Stiglitz.
Post a Comment
Don't hesitate to speak up! Comments moderation is only to guard this site against spams. So, you are most welcome to write down your comments in English or Bahasa Indonesia.