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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/31

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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/


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/


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/


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


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


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


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


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.(*)


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


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


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


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

Documents

Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in Indonesia