Advertisement

Intellectuals and the Politics of Good Governance: Theoretical Considerations

  • Airlangga Pribadi Kusman
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explains the theoretical debates related to the role of intellectuals as the initiators and disseminators of the good governance knowledge in the socio-political context within which they are in, as well as the power linkage and interests that contribute to the social implications resulted from their social role. This chapter will deal with three inter-related theoretical area. First is the relation between intellectual roles with the social struggles that helped to shape up their social position. Second is the theoretical area for understanding good governance practices and the social role of intellectuals as the carrier of ideas in a social context. And the last one is the theoretical understanding which is related to the comparison of inter-regional politics including the role of intellectuals in the social struggle.

Bibliography

  1. Abrahamsen, R. (2000). Disciplining democracy: Development discourse and good governance in Africa. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Talal, B. B. (2004). Rethinking and NGO: Development, donors and civil society in Jordan. London: I. B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. R’OG. (2010). Public Intellectuals. In K. B. Teik & T. Tanami (Eds.), Asia-identity, vision and position. Asia Public Intellectual Fellowship Program. Nippon Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Baud, M., & Rutten, R. (Eds.). (2004). Popular intellectuals and social movements: Framing protest in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baud, M., & Rutten, R. (2005). Popular intellectuals and social movements: Framing protest in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bebbington, A., Guggeinheim, S., Olson, E., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Exploring social capital debates at the World Bank. The Journal of Development Studies, 40(5), 33–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernhard, M. (1993). Civil society and democratic transition in East Central Europe. Political Science Quarterly, 108(2), 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bevir, M. (2009). Key Concept in Governance. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Boykin, S. A. (2010). Hayek on spontaneous order and constitutional design. The Independent Review, 15(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Burchell, G., & Gordon, C. (1991). The Foucault effect studies in governmentality. Chicago, USA: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Carroll, T. (2010). Delusions of development: The World Bank and the Post-Washington Consensus in Southeast Asia. US and UK: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Callinicos, A. (2001). Against the third way. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. CGI. (2003). Concluding statement of Mr. Jemal-ud-din Kassum Chairman, Consultative group on Indonesia and Vice President, East Asia and Pacific Region, The World Bank, January 22, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, J. (2000). Civil society, NGOs and development in Ethiopia: A snapshot view. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  18. Coser, L. (1997 (1965)). Men of ideas: A sociologist’s view. USA: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cox, R. (1987). Production, power, and world order: Social forces in the making of history. USA: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Carrol, W. K., & Carson C. (2006). Neo-liberalism, capitalist class formation and global network of corporations and policy networks. In D. Plehwe, B. Walpen, & G. Neunhoffer (Eds.), Neo-liberal hegemony: A global critique (pp. 51–69). USA and Canada: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Craib, I. (1977). Lukács and the Marxist criticism of sociology. Radical Philosophy, 17(Summer), 25–66.Google Scholar
  22. Craig, D., & Porter, D. (2006). Development beyond neo-liberalism? Governance, poverty reduction and political economy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Desai, P. (1994). Aftershock in Russia’s economy. Current History, 93(585), 320–323.Google Scholar
  24. Demmers, J., Jilberto, A. E. F., & Hogenboom, B. (Eds.). (2005). Good governance in the era of global neoliberalism conflict and depolitization in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. USA and Canada: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Diamond, L. J. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  26. Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Eyerman, R. (1994). Between culture and politics: Intellectuals in modern society. UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  28. Ferguson, J. (1990). The anti-politics machine: “Development,” depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Eesotho. UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Fine, B. (2001). Social capital versus social theory: Political economy and social science at the turn of the millennium, contemporary political economy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy & expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. London and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Foucault, M. (2010). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979 (Lectures at the College de France). USA: Picador.Google Scholar
  32. Gill, K. B., & Rocamora, J. (1992). Low intensity democracy: Political power in the new world order. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gouldner, A. (1982 (1979)). The future of intellectuals and the rise of the new class. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q., & Nowell-Smith, G. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. USA: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Grindle, M. (2009). Going local: Decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grugel, J., & Riggirozzi, P. (2009). Governance after neoliberalism in Latin America. New York: Palgrave International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hadiz, V. R. (2004). Decentralization and democracy in Indonesia: A critique of neo-institutionalist perspectives. Development and Change, 35(4), 697–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hadiz, V. R. (2006). Corruption and neo-Liberal reform: Markets and predatory power in Indonesia and Southeast Asia. In R. Robison (Ed.), The neo-liberal revolution forging the market state (pp. 79–97). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Hadiz, V. R. (2010). Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asia perspective. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hadiz, V. R., & Dhakidae, D. (2005). Social science and power in Indonesia. Jakarta and Singapore: Equinox-ISEAS.Google Scholar
  41. Harriss, J. (2002). Depoliticizing development: The World Bank and social capital. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  42. Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hayek, F. (2006, 1960). The constitution of liberty. London: Routledge Classic.Google Scholar
  45. Hedman, L. (2006). In the name of civil society. From free election movements to people power in the Philippines. London and Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  46. Hewison, K., & Rodan, G. (2012). Southeast Asia: The left and the rise of bourgeois opposition. In R. Robison (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Southeast Asian Politics (pp. 25–39). Abingdon and New York.Google Scholar
  47. Hout, W. (2009). Development and governance: An uneasy relationship. In W. Hout & R. Robison (Eds.), Governance and depoliticisation of development (pp. 29–44). USA and Canada: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jayasuriya, K., & Rosser, A. (2001). Economic orthodoxy and the East Asian crisis. Third World Quarterly, 22(3), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jayasuriya, K. (2005). Reconstituting the global liberal order: Legitimacy and regulation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Joseph, J. (2012). The social in the global: Social theory, governmentality and global politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kiely, R. (1998). Industrialization and development: A comparative analysis. Bristol UK and Pennsylvania USA: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  52. Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine the rise of disaster. UK: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  53. Lasch, C. (1997 (1965)). The new radicalism in America 1889–1963: The intellectual as a social type. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  54. Larrain, J. (1979). The concept of ideology. UK: HutchinsonGoogle Scholar
  55. Levine, P. (2010). Civic knowledge. In M. Edwards (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of civil society (pp. 362–374). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Li, T. M. (2007). The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. USA: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mannheim, K. (1952). Essays on the sociology of knowledge the problem of generations. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  58. Mannheim, Karl. (1960). Ideology and utopia: An Introduction to the sociology of knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London.Google Scholar
  59. Mannheim, K. (1992). The problem of the intelligentsia: An enquiry into its past and present role. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of culture, 91–170. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Mendel, I. (2006). Mannheim’s free-floating intelligentsia: The role of closeness and distance in the analysis of society. Studies and Social and Political Thought, 12. 30–52.Google Scholar
  61. Moertopo, A. (1972). Dasar-Dasar Pemikiran tentang Akselerasi Modernisasi 25 tahun, CSIS Jakarta (translation: Basic thoughts Regarding the Acceleration of Modernization in 25 years).Google Scholar
  62. Overbeek, H., & Pijl, V. D. (1993). Restructuring Capital and Restructuring Hegemony: Neo-liberalism and the Unmaking of Post-War Order. In H. Overbeek (Ed.), Restructuring hegemony in the global political economy: The rise of transnational neo-liberalism in the 1980s (pp. 1–28). UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Overbeek, H. (2000). Transnational historical materialism: Theories of transnational class formation and world order. In R. Palan (Ed.), Global political economy. Contemporary theories (pp. 168–183). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Panizza, F. (2005). The social democratisation of the Latin American left. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 79(October), 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Panizza, F. (2009). Contemporary Latin America: Development and democracy beyond the Washington consensus. London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  66. Petras, J., & Veltmeyer, H. (2000). Globalization unmasked: Imperialism in the 21th century. USA: Fernwood Publishing and Zed Books.Google Scholar
  67. Petras, J., & Veltmeyer, H. (2001). Globalization unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st century. UK: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  68. Plehwe, D., Walpen, B., & Neunhoffer, G. (Eds.). (2006). Neoliberal hegemony: A global critique. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Peet, R. (2007). Geography of power: Making global economic policy. UK: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  70. Peschek, J. G. (1987). Policy-planning organizations: Elite agendas and America’s rightward turn. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Peter, J., & Henry, V. (2000). Globalization unmasked: Imperialism in the 21th century. USA: Fernwood Publishing and Zed Books.Google Scholar
  72. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of public policy. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  73. Poulantzas, N. (2014). State, Power, Socialism. UK: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  74. Posner, P. W. (2008). State, Market and Democracy in Chile: The Constraint of popular-participation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  76. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster, USA.Google Scholar
  78. Putnam, R. D., & Alone, B. (2001). The collapse and revival of American community. Touchstone Books by Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  79. Putnam, R. D. with Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic tradition in modern Italy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Robinson, W. I. (2003). Transnational conflicts: Central America, social change and globalization. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  81. Robinson, W. I. (2008). Latin America and global capitalism: A critical globalization perspective (Johns Hopkins studies in globalization). USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Robinson, W. I. (2006). Promoting polyarchy in Latin America: The oxymoron of “market democracy.” In E. Hershberg & F. Rosen (Eds.), Latin America after neoliberalism (pp. 101–17). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  83. Robison, R. (1986). Indonesia: The rise of capital. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  84. Robison, R. (1996). Pathways to Asia: The politics of engagement. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  85. Robison, R., & Hadiz, V. (2004). Reorganising power in Indonesia: The politics of oligarchy in an age of markets. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  86. Robison, R., & Hadiz, V. (2005). Neoliberal reforms and Illiberal consolidation: The case of Indonesia. Journal of Development Studies, 41(2), 220–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Robison, R. (Eds.). (2006). The neo-liberal revolution: Forging the market state. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  88. Robison, R. (2010). The elephant in the room: Politics and the development problem. Policy Monograph. Australia: Asia Research Center. Murdoch University.Google Scholar
  89. Rodan, G. (1996). Political oppositions in industrializing Asia. USA and Canada: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Rodan, G., & Jayasuriya, K. (2007). Beyond hybrid regimes, special issue. Democratization, 14(5), 773–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rueschemeyer, D. (2009). Usable theory: Analytic tools for social and political research. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Said, E. (1994). Representations of the intellectual. The 1993 Reith lectures. UK: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  93. Sangmpam, S. N. (2007). Politics rules: The false primacy of institutions in developing countries. Political Studies, Issue Political Studies, 55(Issue 1), 201–24.Google Scholar
  94. Sidel, John T. (2004). Southeast Asian Capital, Coercion and Crime: Bossism in the Philippines. California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Silva, E. (2009). Challenging neoliberalism in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Steinmo, Sven. (2001). The New Institutionalism in Barry Clark and Joe Foweraker (edited by) Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought. Routledge London. 570–574.Google Scholar
  98. Steinmo, S. (2008). Historical institutionalism. In D. della Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective (pp. 118–138). UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Stiglitz, J. (1998). Towards a new paradigm for development: 9th Raul Prebisch lecture united nations on trade and development. Geneva. UNCTADGoogle Scholar
  100. Steinfels, P. (1979). Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America’s politics. USA: A Touchstone Book.Google Scholar
  101. Swartz, D. L. (2013). Symbolic power, politics, and intellectuals: The political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Taiclet, A. F. (2006). Governance, expertise and competitive politics. The case of territorial development policies in France. In Y. Papadopoulos & A. Ben (Eds.), Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences (pp. 63–80). USA and Canada: Routledge.Google Scholar
  103. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2000). Transition to a prospering and democratic indonesia. Available online at: http://www.usaid.gov/id/docs-csp2k04.html
  104. Weller, C. E., & Singleton, L. (2006). Peddling reform: The role of think tanks in shaping the neoliberal policy agenda for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. In D. Plehwe, B. Walpen, & G. Neunhof-fer (Eds.), Neoliberal hegemony: A global critique (pp. 70–86). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  105. Wilson, J. (2014). Jeffrey Sachs: The strange case of Dr. Shock and Mr. Aid. UK: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  106. World Bank. (1989). From crisis to sustainable growth – sub Saharan Africa: A long-term perspective study. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  107. Worth, O. (2009). The world social forum: Postmodern prince or court jester? Third World Quarterly, 30(4), 649–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zanotti, L. (2005). Governmentalizing the post-cold war international regime: The UN debate on democratization and good governance. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 30(4), 461–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Airlangga Pribadi Kusman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PoliticsAirlangga UniversitySurabayaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations