Dekonstruksi Epistemik Investasi Sosial dalam Bayang-Bayang Neoliberalisme : Kritik terhadap Rasionalitas Tekno-Birokratis Kebijakan Kesejahteraan di Kabupaten Bima

Authors

  • Wawan Mulyawan Universitas Mbojo Bima
  • Muhamad Lutfi Universitas Mbojo Bima

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55606/jurripen.v4i1.6220

Keywords:

Neoliberal-Co-optation, Technocratic-Rationality, Social-Investment-Policy, Critical-Discourse-Analysis

Abstract

This study aims to deconstruct the technocratic rationality underpinning social investment policies implemented in Bima Regency by critically illuminating the ideological co-optation of neoliberalism, which manifests through the language of modernity, productivity, and pseudo-empowerment. Within a structurally asymmetrical and historically marginalized context, the global paradigm of social investment has been adopted in an ahistorical and depoliticized manner, resulting in policy architectures that are both irrelevant and exclusionary. Employing a critical-qualitative approach with a deconstructive design rooted in post-structuralist epistemology, this research conceptualizes public policy as an ideological text that demands reinterpretation and recontextualization. Data were obtained through rigorous analysis of institutional and academic literature and interpreted using the framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The findings reveal that social investment policies in Bima function not as instruments of structural transformation but rather as symbolic mechanisms of ideological co-optation, which conceal systemic inequality under the guise of bureaucratic performance metrics. The local state apparatus has lost its articulative capacity, subordinated to a global epistemology that is profoundly indifferent to local particularities. Terminologies such as “empowerment” and “human capacity” are reduced to administrative slogans devoid of redistributive justice. Consequently, the social investment paradigm has shifted the state's role from an agent of justice to a managerial entity of poverty normalizing exclusion and reinforcing the subordination of the subaltern populace.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Benería, L., Berik, G., & Floro, M. (2016). Gender, development and globalization: Economics as if all people mattered. Routledge.

Bonoli, G. (2010). The political economy of active labour-market policy. Politics & Society, 38(4), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329210381235

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance: Against the new myths of our time. Polity Press.

Cerny, P. G. (1997). Paradoxes of the competition state. Government and Opposition, 32(2), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1997.tb00161.x

Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2014). The new way of the world: On neoliberal society. Verso Books.

Esping-Andersen, G. (2002). Why we need a new welfare state. Oxford University Press.

Ferguson, J. (1990). The anti-politics machine: Development, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. University of Minnesota Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. Pantheon Books.

Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a 'post-socialist' age. New Left Review, 212, 68–93.

Garritzmann, J. L., Häusermann, S., & Palier, B. (2022). The world politics of social investment. Oxford University Press.

Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Polity Press.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Hemerijck, A. (2013). Changing welfare states. Oxford University Press.

Hickey, S., & du Toit, A. (2007). Adverse incorporation, social exclusion and chronic poverty. CPRC Working Paper No. 81. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1753796

Illich, I. (1977). Disabling professions. Marion Boyars.

Jenson, J. (2010). Diffusing ideas for after neoliberalism: The social investment perspective in Europe and Latin America. Global Social Policy, 10(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468018109354813

Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Polity Press.

Jessop, B. (2015). The state: Past, present, future. Polity Press.

Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender equality and women's empowerment: A critical analysis of the third Millennium Development Goal. Gender & Development, 13(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070512331332273

Morel, N., Palier, B., & Palme, J. (2012). Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, policies and challenges. Policy Press.

Navarro, V. (2007). Neoliberalism as a class ideology. International Journal of Health Services, 37(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.2190/7901-367G-7UCU-4PUD

OECD. (2011). Divided we stand: Why inequality keeps rising. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264119536-en

Peck, J. (2001). Workfare states. Guilford Press.

Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford University Press.

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.

Therborn, G. (2013). The killing fields of inequality. Polity Press.

World Bank. (2013). World development report: Jobs. World Bank Publications. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9575-2

Downloads

Published

2025-04-30

How to Cite

Wawan Mulyawan, & Muhamad Lutfi. (2025). Dekonstruksi Epistemik Investasi Sosial dalam Bayang-Bayang Neoliberalisme : Kritik terhadap Rasionalitas Tekno-Birokratis Kebijakan Kesejahteraan di Kabupaten Bima. JURNAL RISET RUMPUN ILMU PENDIDIKAN, 4(1), 787–797. https://doi.org/10.55606/jurripen.v4i1.6220

Similar Articles

<< < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.